Head of Senate military panel says Romney clueless

Discussion in 'Politics' started by AK Forty Seven, Jan 31, 2012.

  1. http://news.yahoo.com/head-senate-military-panel-says-romney-clueless-203712745.html

    Head of Senate military panel says Romney clueless

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday said Republican candidate Mitt Romney doesn't know what he's talking about when he criticizes President Barack Obama's proposed cuts in defense spending and is putting himself at odds with the nation's military leaders.

    "He wants to attack the president as being weak on defense," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. "The problem with his position is it runs headlong into the uniformed leaders, uniformed military leaders of this country who say this is their budget."

    Defense Secretary Leon Panetta provided an early look at the broad outlines of the president's budget last Thursday. It slows the growth of military spending, cuts the size of the Army and Marine Corps, trims war costs and calls for another round of domestic base closings. The budget would total $525 billion for the Pentagon in 2013, $6 billion less than the current budget and a reflection of the deficit-cutting deal that Obama reached with congressional Republicans last August.

    Earlier this month, Obama unveiled the results of an eight-month strategy review on reshaping and shrinking the military as the wars wind down in Iraq and Afghanistan. He promised to maintain U.S. military superiority while focusing more on Asia and less on Europe.

    In his bid to be commander in chief, Romney has assailed Obama's policies, arguing that the Democrat has put the nation on a course toward a hollow force.

    In a speech last August, Romney said "this is the first time in my memory that massive defense cuts were proposed without any reference to the missions that would be foreclosed and the risks to which our country and its men and women in uniform would be exposed." The former Massachusetts governor has promised to reverse Obama's "massive defense cuts."

    Speaking to a small group of reporters about the defense budget, Levin said a "bunch of Republicans" are simply attacking Obama for political reasons.

    "And I hear Romney out there. I don't believe the man knows what he's talking about. It's just a totally political position that he thinks the president is weak," Levin said.

    The Armed Services chairman said that based on his conversations with the nation's military leaders, they have embraced the budget as the "right way to go" after the strategic review.

    "Romney is going to have to run headlong into the top uniformed officials of this country and say, I guess, he'll argue they're weak on defense," Levin said. "I don't think it's going to have much credibility when Romney says the top uniform leaders of the country are weak on defense."

    The Romney campaign had no immediate comment on Levin's remarks.
  2. 377OHMS


    The President is very weak on defense. He wants the defense money to be spent on bullshit social programs aka "spread the wealth around".

    I suspect Obama (and Holder) are racists like you.
  3. No major terrorist attacks while Bush allowed the biggest ever resulting in over 3000 American deaths

    Got Bin Ladin in less then 3 years and 23 of his top 30 Generals while Bush couldn't do it in seven

    Got Kadafi for less then a billion and no American lives lost while bushs cost to get Saddam will be over 4 trillion and 35000 American troops killed and wounded

    Has been slaughtering Somali pirates who fuck with Americans
  4. ********377 trolling trying to start E fights and ruin another thread********
  5. Tsing Tao

    Tsing Tao

    I know you're a card carrying "Blame Bush" member, but it's kind of hard to blame him for 9/11 when the man was barely in office (and certainly had no real time to affect foreign policy all that much). Also, to give Obama credit for Bin Laden is fine, but if you're going to use the excuse of "he inherited all that debt, which is why he's spending so much" (which you do all the time) then you have to acknowledge that the intelligence that allowed to capturing Bin Laden began way, way before he took office.

    Or you can continue to spout all that crap you claim to call "reality", I suppose.
  6. 377OHMS


    Those are small-time operations. The big money is being appropriated for welfare and HUD housing assistance.

    Stop denying that you are a filthy racist. It is common knowledge at this point.
  7. Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US

    Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US was the President's Daily Brief prepared by the Central Intelligence Agency and given to U.S. President George W. Bush on August 6, 2001. The brief warned of terrorism threats from Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda 36 days before the September 11, 2001 attacks.

    Some arguments have focused on clear warnings in this letter, specifically that:

    the title was Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US

    a large attack was planned

    the attack would be on United States soil

    target cities of attacks included New York City and Washington, D.C.

    the World Trade Center bombing was explicitly mentioned

    hijacked plane missions were anticipated

    people living in, or traveling to, the United States were involved

    recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York was witnessed."

  8. ********377 trolling trying to start E fights and ruin another thread********
  9. If that was the case bush should have gotten him between 2002 and 2009
  10. 377OHMS


    You've got me all wrong KKK-47.

    I don't want an E fight.

    I would prefer a *real* fight. :D

    You are, however, a no-kidding racist. Need a link?
    #10     Jan 31, 2012