SIGN UP - IT'S FREE!
SEARCH FSM
| National Debt Clock |
A million seconds pass in 12 days.
A billion seconds pass in 31 years.
A trillion seconds pass in 31,688 years!
October 8, 2008
Why Obama Cannot Be Trusted with National Security
It was revealing what Sen. Barack Obama didn't say during the first presidential candidate debate with Sen. John McCain, when they finally got around to foreign policy.
Obama has said that he will "end misguided defense policies" - the same policies that have kept America at arm's length from attacks by Russia, North Korea and Iran, to name only a few countries that would welcome America's demise. These policies have also kept us from additional attacks on the homeland by transnational terrorist organizations. But to listen to Obama, he would change all that. This is precisely the "change" he says this country "needs."
Sen. Obama consistently said he would end the war in Iraq and that he planned to "immediately begin to remove combat troops not in six months or one year, but now." He has since modified that with a timetable for withdrawal depending on the situation on the ground. That's what he says now, but as Commander-in-Chief, he could revert to his original statement without regard to the consequences.
What is more disturbing is his statement that he would "cut investments in our wasteful missile defense systems." These systems are designed to deter and defeat missile launches from Russia, North Korea and soon from Iran, which despite world condemnation, seems hell-bent on developing nuclear weapons. A few months ago, in a muscle-flexing exercise, Iran test-fired mobile missiles capable of carrying nukes. Investing in missile defense systems could save us from a catastrophe.
Obama said he will not weaponize space and will slow development of future combat systems. Why? The Chinese launched a missile that destroyed one of its aging satellites as proof it has this capability. Russia just announced plans to upgrade its nuclear deterrence system by 2020, which include new nuclear submarines and a space-based defense system. So why would we abandon such combat systems?
Sen. Obama's naïveté is obvious. He wants to set a goal of "a world without nuclear weapons." Why would you abandon the very weapon that has deterred the old Soviet Union, present-day Russia and China from attacking us? Mutually assured destruction worked for over 40 years, and deterred rogue nations from using one of their nukes for fear of being destroyed by hundreds of ours. But Obama wants to eliminate this time-tested deterrent.
Like a handgun in a woman's purse, nuclear weapons are the great American equalizer. When faced with an overwhelming number of conventional forces on the battlefield, nuclear weapons can drastically reduce the enemy's numbers. Does Obama propose expanding the armed forces to make up for the lack of nuclear weapons? The simple answer is no.
He also does not want to develop new nuclear weapons, and seeks a global ban on fissile material. Would that include material necessary for the development of nuclear power plants? While the U.S. further reduces its number of nuclear weapons, the Russians are developing more powerful, multiple-warhead weapons. Nuclear weapons aren't something you build and put in a glass box to break in case of an emergency. They must be maintained, and research needs to continue to make them more effective.
Obama has also said he would "negotiate with Russia to take Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles off hair trigger alert and achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenal." He doesn't seem to understand that negotiating to reduce your own defenses not only is perceived by the Russians as foolhardy, but also portrays weakness. They already have over twice as many nuclear weapons as we do, so what's the justification to further reduce?
Obama showed his complete misunderstanding of America's threats when he called Iran, Cuba and Venezuela "tiny countries" that did not pose a threat like Russia. Even he realized what a knuckleheaded, naïve statement that was, and later clarified that he thought they did pose a significant threat to us after all.
If this had been the only misstatement Obama made concerning national defense, then you might give him a pass. But when you take his statements in totality, his vision of securing America becomes clear. He has chosen a path to weaken and not strengthen America's national security. That's definitely change we do not need.
The Clinton Administration cut intelligence and defense spending by 35%, and we are suffering for it now. How deep will a President Obama further cut America's ability to defend herself?
FamilySecurityMatters.orgContributing Editor Gregory D. Lee is a retired DEA Supervisory SpecialAgent. In 2001, as an army reserve officer, he served at the Pentagon's Army Operation's Center'sAnti-Terrorism Operations Intelligence Cell. He writes a weeklysyndicated columnforNorth Star Writers Groupand can be reached through his website:www.gregorydlee.com.
Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (2) | Sign Up for FSM Updates!
HERE YOU CAN READ ON RULING TO DESTROY WHAT IS BEING RULED.
HOW CAN YOU NAME THIS ACTION BUT TREASON?
posted by: AUGUS
Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 04:48 PM
Some time before, I did need to buy a house for my corporation but I didn't have enough cash and couldn't purchase something. Thank God my brother adviced to try to take the loans from trustworthy bank. So, I did so and was satisfied with my short term loan.
posted by: JosefinaMarks27
Monday, January 2, 2012 at 11:44 AM
