Carries out campaign promise made by Obama
I wrote here that Barry Obama wants to “destroy and tear down the greatest asset in our country — our vast superiority in defense and combat technologies.”
Essentially, the technologies that allow us to defend our nation, our homes, and our families from the wolves and Islamists who would rather destroy us.
In his campaign ad, Obama promised to:
- Cut investments in unproven missile defense systems
- Not weaponize space
- Slow our development of future combat systems
I’ll admit some bias here, as our company produces both missile defense systems and “combat systems” (though, as our systems have been fielded in combat by all four branches of the military for more than 15 years, I’d say that they are quite proven).
Today, the Democartic Congress is already making good on Barry’s promise.
During debate on amendments to HR 1218 (appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for military activities of the Department of Defense), *Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) introduced an amendment (numbered 3 printed in House Report 110-666) to increase funding for Future Combat Systems by $193 million.
The Dems quickly voted it down by a voice vote. Rep. Akin demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until “later in the legislative day.”
Immediately after that vote, Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) introduced another amendment to add $719 million to the Missile Defense Agency’s Budget.
And once again, the noes prevailed via a voice vote. At which point Rep. Franks also demanded a recorded vote. And once again the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until” later in the legislative day.”
Not content with just voting against increasing the funding of the Missile Defense Agency, Rep. John Tierney (D-MA) immediately introduced an amendment to reduce funding for the Missile Defense Agency by $966.2 million.
Backed by his anti-military Dem buddies, the ayes prevailed. Again by voice vote.
This time Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until later in the legislative day.
I guess with all of these anti-military votes coming just before the Congress breaks for a long (and undeserved) Memorial Day weekend, the Dems wanted to postpone going on record as having voted against the military as long as possible.
_____
* I’m really starting to like Rep. Akin.
Yesterday he introduced the Freedom to Serve Act of 2008 and then today he’s trying to get more money for future combat systems. Think it’s time to see when he’s up for re-election so I can set a reminder to contribute to his campaign fund.
Can you see that those weapons systems have little to do with assisting the street by street counter insurgency in Iraq and nothing to do with preventing a few guys with box cutters from destroying the WTC.
Yeah, Preston. That’s the ticket. We can slash the defense budget and just give our soldiers box-cutters, bottle-rockets, IEDs and suicide vests. No reason to have unchallengeable military superiority, eh?
It occurs to me that the folks at future combat systems are looking at ways to fight the sort of combat ops we’ll be fighting in, you know, the future. That means they’re anticipating more of the sort of fighting we’re doing now. And with Iran and North Korea working on nukes and missiles, do you really see missile systems as having little to do with fighting the kind of enemy we’ll be fighting?
Typical anti-war myopia.