This video is being copied about today -- Powerline, etc -- and it strikes me as, somehow, strange on a couple of points.
First, it seems odd to me that this video would be made at all unless it was some sort of "draft" for a campaign spot that didn't or hasn't run.
It also seems odd that it would be so specific when much of Obama's recent campaign has been powered by being general. There is, as Powerline notes, no source given for this fairly damning clip and that too seems odd. The YouTube subscriber ("JCJCD") who put it up seems to be pretty deeply into the Hillary Clinton camp with 520 videos uploaded.
To me the Obama clip also looks odd -- especially around the mouth -- but this may be an artifact of the poor resolution we've come to accept from YouTube. Since I don't have a television I haven't been watching Obama's speeches and other statements of late, only listening to them. As a result, I don't have a real image of his speaking style.
For those of you who have been observing him, is this clip something that is in character? I'm a bit puzzled by it since it seems to offer up a point-by-point program for the disarmament of the United States. This is not to say that doing something like that isn't in the plan, but it seems to me to be not very circumspect to say so in such blunt terms.
Posted by Vanderleun at February 26, 2008 11:33 PM | TrackBackDamn funny that a man who won't wear a flag lapel pin to show his patriotism for and membership in America will wrap himself in Old Glory for votes. Hypocrite or Chicago con artist? Either way, he's a tool.
Posted by: twolaneflash at February 27, 2008 8:46 AMLooks like a draft.
Sounds like SDS.
Nine months. OMG.
Posted by: TmjUtah at February 27, 2008 10:11 AMThis is, in fact, what he HOPES (there's that word again) to do. In his mind, these policies make sense. He has the typical lefty mindset - that enemies can be reasoned with or bought off.
Not surprisingly, his issues website does not deal with defense, the primary responsibility of the President. But it does detail his plans for getting out of Iraq, post haste.
For a taste of what he HOPES to do visit http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
After reviewing just a few of his plans, all of which he asserts can be accomplished quite easily, I gave up trying to figure out how much new spending was involved. It's a lot and he certainly will need to increase taxes to carry out his plans.
Hopefully, there are enough voters in this country who can recognize his naivette on defense issues that is exhibited on this video.
Posted by: Jimmy J. at February 27, 2008 11:16 AMI think every program he mentioned is being built by The Boeing Corporation--Missile Defense, Future Combat System....
What does he have against The Boeing Corporation? Their headquarters is in Chicago! They pay the vig to diversity and the not-very-special interests.
I work on missile defense.
He just said that if he is elected, I'm out of a job. I have a wife and a couple of kids--I assure you, there will be no wailing and rending of national garments when I am laid off, just a kick in the ass and 'good riddance'.
I was laid off 4 times in the 90's when defense systems were cancelled by Clinton. We lost an entire professional generation of engineers--I'm 40 and I'm the youngest engineer on my program; the youngest engineer in my company!
First in the Army, and then working for the DoD, I've given my youth to defending this country: nothing but training, math, short-hair, drug-testing, exercise and software--since I was 17!
I might just have to give up working in defense. Maybe all of us will....
Posted by: Gray at February 27, 2008 7:34 PMGray,
Maybe all of us will have to get involved in defense. When the military is gutted what do we have left, but the gun owners who are willing to defend the country?
By the way, thanks for what you have chosen to do. It matters.
Posted by: Jimmy J. at February 27, 2008 9:19 PMYeah, "peace through strength" is so last century. We need "change"!
Posted by: Milwaukee Mike at February 28, 2008 8:46 AMMissile defense is an absurd, colossal folly. It is completely incapable of protecting any of our massive coastal cities from nuclear attack because it's incapable of preventing any non-ICBM attack. It can't even be tested without the cooperation of the presumed attackers. Finally, assuming in our wildest fantasies that if could shoot down a single missile, it can't distinguish between dummy warheads or dummy delivery systems. It would only serve to escalate international tensions. The mere fact that the system is being developed has made us less safe.
It's a welfare system for military contractors, and personally I'm glad to hear that someone is talking sanely about it. It's wildly irresponsible to waste money on this pie-in-the-sky project when the budget can't even be balanced.
Posted by: mullingitover at February 28, 2008 5:29 PMFinally, assuming in our wildest fantasies that if could shoot down a single missile, it can't distinguish between dummy warheads or dummy delivery systems.
It shot down that spy satellite and was able to distiguish the fuel tank from the rest of it.
It works, and it works well.
It would only serve to escalate international tensions. The mere fact that the system is being developed has made us less safe.
How does a purely, purely defensive system escalate international tensions?
Especially if everyone knows it doesn't work?
Gray -
I left defense in the 90's when Billy BJ Clintton had gutted the R & D budget. I went to semiconductor which is now moving offshore due to price points. We are giving away our technical edge. Engineering, the maths and science are very, very low on the list of the current crop of college students. I feel for you. I am currently watching my 2nd career choice go to the dogs.
mulling........
Bet you do not know what fueled the computer revolution do you? The missile defense may never be the end-all system but lots and lots of other good things can come out of it.
The future looks bleak for defense, aviation and other hard industires we do have left. The current crop of lefty socialist peace-niks will be the end of this country and we WILL get the government we deserve.
Bet you didn't think we deserved THAT though, did you?
"How does a purely, purely defensive system escalate international tensions?"
Because it allows the US to strike first, and then gives the possibility of preventing retaliation. It's an end run around mutually assured destruction, and as such it can only serve to destabilize international relations. It already has, see Russia's resumption of long-range bombing missions and new aggressive posture.
The outpouring of grief over the defunding of this project begs the question that there is nothing else for engineers to do. Of course there is. We have historic engineering challenges that have nothing to do with guns and bombs. Our entire way of life is at stake if we can't discover new sources of energy and use our existing natural resources more efficiently. These types of problems are exactly what we should be attacking with the full force of our engineering prowess. If we can succeed in this space, our international hegemony will be assured. However, if we fail then all the missile defense in the world won't feed our famine-stricken masses.
Posted by: mullingitover at February 29, 2008 10:31 AMBecause it allows the US to strike first, and then gives the possibility of preventing retaliation. It's an end run around mutually assured destruction, and as such it can only serve to destabilize international relations.
Hate to tell you: Iran and North Korea don't give a shit about Mutually Assured Destruction: they just don't have missiles that can hit us yet.
Japan wants to buy into our missile defense system--for obvious reasons....
So the same people who were telling us in the 80's that the Russians Truly Love Their Children Too think they are a threat now?
Our entire way of life is at stake if we can't discover new sources of energy and use our existing natural resources more efficiently.
We are using our natural resources as efficiently as possible--as the implacable free market dictates.
Do you think Walmart wastes fuel getting stuff to their stores? Hell no! Gas is expensive!
If you use engineering discipline and techniques on the problem of transporting people and goods, you will never find anything as cheap, safe and plentiful as fossil fuels.
These types of problems are exactly what we should be attacking with the full force of our engineering prowess.
"These types of problems"? What 'types' of problems?
The full force of our engineering prowess can only be used to solve a problem that can be stated.
Example: "People have missiles that can reach the US and we can't invade everyone with missiles" Solution: "Shoot the missiles down."
You can't say: "We are using up too many resources." 'Cuz I will ask engineering questions: "Like what? How can you tell? How much is left?"
So, can you state the problem specifically?
The Prime Rule of engineering is that if you cannot specify and bound the problem, you cannot solve it--there might not be any problem to solve....
Posted by: Gray at February 29, 2008 12:03 PM"Hate to tell you: Iran and North Korea don't give a shit about Mutually Assured Destruction: they just don't have missiles that can hit us yet."
Rumsfeld said it himself: it's fairly trivial to launch a short-range nuke-tipped missile from a ship near the coast. Not only would we not know which state was responsible, we wouldn't be able to prevent it. We can't board and search every ship in the ocean. NK, Iran, or non-state actors using 'lost' Soviet nukes could do this tomorrow. Star Wars could not save us. Perhaps there's a reason that all the engineers I know think that Star Wars is hilariously unworkable? Sure, if we have advance notice of when and where a ballistic weapon will be, we have a chance of taking it out. I'm sure an attacker would be kind enough to give us notice and will cooperate by using weapons that are compatible with our shiny new defense system.
"If you use engineering discipline and techniques on the problem of transporting people and goods, you will never find anything as cheap, safe and plentiful as fossil fuels."
The truth of this statement depends on the supply of fossil fuels. There is a finite supply, ever-growing demand, and eventually at some point the lines are going to cross. We have the choice right now to prepare for that day, or to plug our ears and close our eyes, pretending that the party will last forever.
It's hard to convince someone that something is true when their livelihood depends on their failure to understand it, I suppose.
Posted by: mullingitover at February 29, 2008 2:59 PMThe truth of this statement depends on the supply of fossil fuels. There is a finite supply, ever-growing demand, and eventually at some point the lines are going to cross.
Then we'll fix it, like we always have. Do you think cars were invented 'cuz the goobermint outlawed horses?
We have the choice right now to prepare for that day, or to plug our ears and close our eyes, pretending that the party will last forever.
"Prepare for that day...." Now that's nebulous. Hard to apply an engineering solution to that problem set.
But it's not really 'a party', is it? It's the free market doing what it does so well:
allocating resources based on need. Why does that seem like a wanton 'party' to you? It's all very calculated down to the 10th of a cent.
Do you think airlines waste any fossil fuels? At all? No way! They are operating using as little resources as possible. The Boeing 787 is the most fuel efficient airliner ever built--'cuz gas is expensive and airlines want to make money; not 'cuz some caring lefty forced them to build it at flowerpoint.
It's hard to convince someone that something is true when their livelihood depends on their failure to understand it, I suppose.
Yeah--like the lefties in the "green economy"..... Irony overload *ghhhhh* Hurting. The. Head.
Posted by: Gray at February 29, 2008 6:58 PMRumsfeld said it himself: it's fairly trivial to launch a short-range nuke-tipped missile from a ship near the coast. Not only would we not know which state was responsible, we wouldn't be able to prevent it.
"Fairly trivial...." *Snort* Not counting us, can you name all both countries that have the capability of launching a nuclear missile from a ship off our coast?
We had that same problem with Soviet and Chinese submarines. Don't you think we already solved the problem of tracking them? Futhermore, any country with ships that can produce nukes and ships that can launch nukes have something to lose and MAD works on them. You can't really sneak around the ocean on a ship capable of launching a nuclear missile! Shit, finding them is 70's technology!
We can't board and search every ship in the ocean. NK, Iran, or non-state actors using 'lost' Soviet nukes could do this tomorrow.
Actually they couldn't do this for years; and the lost Soviet Nukes are a myth. Nukes have a surprisingly short shelf life if not maintained.
Non-state actors? Like Greenpeace? I guess the war on terror is working if the Al Qaeda Navy hasn't snuck across the ocean with a mythical 'lost Soviet nuke' and killed us!
Star Wars could not save us.
Aegis, Airborne Laser, THAAD and Patriot were designed for this threat. Patriot successfully defended Kuwait and Tel Aviv from short range chemical SCUD attacks.
Perhaps there's a reason that all the engineers I know think that Star Wars is hilariously unworkable?
'Cuz they are lefties and don't really understand it? Perhaps there's a reason the engineers I work with building it know that it works.
Do you think we all just sit around and chuckle:
"Hahaha! This'll never work! Won't it be funny to see Americans die when this thing fails?!"
Do you think I got a BSEE, a shit-load of professional 'scare initials', served in the military and worked in this field for 12 years to build something that doesn't work?
Do you think that only 'climatologists' understand science? and the rest of us devote our lives to things we know won't work?
Sure, if we have advance notice of when and where a ballistic weapon will be, we have a chance of taking it out.
Hahahahah! No, you're not an engineer. Sorry about that Liberal Arts degree--by using the term 'ballistic', you have already specified where, and when it will be after launch!
For our current systems, the IR plume of launch is warning enough....
I'm sure an attacker would be kind enough to give us notice and will cooperate by using weapons that are compatible with our shiny new defense system.
How did the out-to-lunch satellite give us notice where it will be and when it will get there, Hmmmm?
Try mulling that over.
Posted by: Gray at February 29, 2008 7:27 PM"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper N.B.: Comments are moderated to combat spam and may not appear immediately. Comments that exceed the obscenity or stupidity limits will be either edited or expunged.