Obama Vows to Disarm America

YouTube - Obama-Caucus4Priorities

Obama's YouTube Defense Talk 'Bizarre,' Analyst Says
By Evan Moore
CNSNews.com Correspondent
March 04, 2008

(CNSNews.com) - Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is facing renewed criticism regarding his national security policies as he continues his campaign for his party's presidential nomination.

In a YouTube video Obama made for a liberal pacifist organization last year, the senator called for major cuts in defense spending, slowing the development of future combat systems, and cutting investments in America's ballistic missile defense program.

Some conservatives have expressed surprise at the degree of Obama's proposals on the video, and this past weekend, Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-N.Y.) campaign released an ad criticizing Obama's alleged national security inexperience and trumpeting her as the person who could deftly manage emergency global crises.

In his video, Obama repeats his support for ending the Iraq War, saying, "I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat system. ...

"I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons," Obama says in the video. "To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons. I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material, and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals."

Obama also promises in the video to institute an independent defense priorities board to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) is not used as a vehicle to justify unnecessary spending.

The video is posted on the official "Obama '08" campaign's YouTube channel but not in the BarackObama.com Web site's video section. The "Obama '08" channel labels the video "Obama-Caucus4Priorities."

Defense cuts

Caucus4Priorities.org, also called Caucus for Priorities, was a campaign of Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities (BLSP), which is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization.

It describes its mission as follows: "To change US budget priorities to reflect a national commitment to education, healthcare, energy independence, job training and deficit reduction - at no additional taxpayer expense - by eliminating funding for unneeded Cold War era weapons systems."

And the specific campaign, Caucus for Priorities, describes its mission as follows: "To redirect 15% of the Pentagon's discretionary budget away from obsolete Cold War weapons towards education, healthcare, job training, alternative energy development, world hunger, deficit reduction."

The BLSP advocates reducing America's stockpile of nuclear weapons to less than 1,000 warheads; reducing the National Missile Defense program to a basic research program; cutting spending on platforms like the F-22 Raptor, the Virginia-class Submarine, the V-22 Osprey airplane/helicopter hybrid, the DDG-1000 destroyer, and the Army's Future Combat System.

Also, the group advocates reducing America's force structure by eliminating two Air Force fighter wings and one aircraft carrier battle-group.

The $60 billion that could conceivably be reused as a result of BLSP's proposed cuts would then be diverted into other initiatives, according to a proposal on the group's website, such as children's health programs, modernizing schools, alternative energy research, budget deficit reduction, veterans' health care, and to "alleviate the global challenges of poverty, illiteracy, unemployment, disease, and disaster."

Sensible Priorities reported before the Iowa Caucuses that Obama supports reinvesting $8 billion of current defense spending.

Sensible Priorities cites a report from a former assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration, Lawrence Korb, which says that such reductions "would make our military stronger, allowing our forces to focus on the weapons, training, and tactics they need to do their jobs and defend our nation."

Furthermore, the BLSP urges eliminating pork project earmarks in the Defense budget.

According to an analysis of the FY2008 budget by Taxpayers for Common Sense, Obama appropriated $2 million for "nano-medical technologies research" at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champlain in the Defense Appropriations Bill.

Obama publicly disclosed his earmark requests via press release, which can be accessed on his Senate Web site.

Obama's campaign press campaign office did not return repeated requests for comment on this story. However, his defense and foreign policy positions are available on his campaign Web site.

Conservative criticism

In an interview with Cybercast News Service, Baker Spring, a national security research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, described Obama as "somebody who's a mouthpiece for arms control advocacy groups that probably put this litany of commitments in front of him, and he more or less read them without thinking."

Spring said Obama's proposed cuts in missile defense spending would be "a profoundly destabilizing decision [which] basically says that any state - or, for that matter, non-state actor - that wants to attack the United States, he gets the free first shot, including with weapons of mass destruction."

Regarding Obama's promise to reform the QDR process, Spring said, "Obviously, necessary and unnecessary is, to some degree, in the eye of the beholder. I don't think that any administration would put out a Quadrennial Defense Review that would explicitly endorse unnecessary programs.

"In a sense, Sen. Obama is, in his comment, is so logically contradictory, that he is saying that he is going to take preemptive action to prevent his own administration, assuming he's elected, from issuing a report in terms of the future U.S. defense structure, that would include unnecessary and wasteful programs," said Spring. "It strikes me as a little bizarre, to put it mildly."


Obama's YouTube Defense Talk 'Bizarre,' Analyst Says -- 03/04/2008
 
Re: Obama Vows to Disarm America

U.S. military budget is almost as much as the rest of the world's defense spending combined <sup id="cite_ref-6" class="reference">[7]</sup> and is over eight times larger than the official military budget of China. (Note that this comparison is done in nominal value US dollars and thus is not adjusted for purchasing power parity.) The United States and its close allies are responsible for about two-thirds of the world's military spending (of which, in turn, the U.S. is responsible for the majority).
Military discretionary spending accounts for more than half of the U.S. federal discretionary spending, which is all of the U.S. federal government budget that is not appropriated for mandatory spending.<sup id="cite_ref-7" class="reference">[8]</sup>
In 2003, the United States spent about 47% of the world's total military spending of US$910.6 billion, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
The United States spends 3.7% of its GDP on its military, more than France's 2.6% and less than Saudi Arabia's 10%.<sup id="cite_ref-8" class="reference">[9]</sup> This is historically low for the United States since it peaked in 1944 at 37.8% of GDP (it reached the lowest point of 3.0% in 1999-2001). Even during the peak of the Vietnam War the percentage reached a high of 9.4% in 1968.<sup id="cite_ref-tp_9-0" class="reference">[10]</sup>
Because the U.S. GDP has risen over time, the military budget can rise in absolute terms while shrinking as a percentage of the GDP. For example, according to the Center for Defense Information, the US outlays for defense as a percentage of federal discretionary spending, has from Fiscal Year 2003 consumed more than half (50.5%) of all such funding and has risen steadily.<sup id="cite_ref-10" class="reference">[11]</sup> Discretionary spending accounts for approximately 1/3 of all federal outlays.<sup id="cite_ref-11" class="reference">[12]</sup> Therefore, comparing nominal dollar values of military spending over the course of decades fails to account for the impact of inflationary forces, for which military spending as a percentage of GDP does account.
The recent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are largely funded through supplementary spending bills outside the Federal Budget, so they are not included in the military budget figures listed above.<sup id="cite_ref-12" class="reference">[13]</sup> In addition, the United States has black budget military spending which is not listed as Federal spending and is not included in published military spending figures. Other military-related items, like maintenance of the nuclear arsenal and the money spent by the Veterans Affairs Department, are not included in the official budget. Thus, the total amount spent by the United States on military spending is higher.
 

HotShotHarvey

EOG Veteran
Re: Obama Vows to Disarm America

Hope you've had a vasectomy-and all of YOUR weapons have been taken away!!Tar-a-hole--you sick, sick sub-human mouth-breathing ,knuckle-dragging neanderthal!!!!
 
Top