David Brooks Gets It Right

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

From the article we begin to see the coming reality of the Democrat plan for America:

Why Hagel Was Picked
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: January 7, 2013


"Chuck Hagel has been nominated to supervise the beginning of this generation-long process of defense cutbacks. If a Democratic president is going to slash defense, he probably wants a Republican at the Pentagon to give him political cover, and he probably wants a decorated war hero to boot.

All the charges about Hagel’s views on Israel or Iran are secondary. The real question is, how will he begin this long cutting process? How will he balance modernizing the military and paying current personnel? How will he recalibrate American defense strategy with, say, 455,000 fewer service members?

How, in short, will Hagel supervise the beginning of America’s military decline? If members of Congress don’t want America to decline militarily, well, they have no one to blame but the voters and themselves."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/08/opinion/brooks-why-hagel-was-picked.html?_r=0

You've always dismissed David Brook's opinion but now he's right? Which is it?

And of course there will be defense cutbacks, we're eating a trillion dollar deficit and military spending is huge reason for that. We can make some cuts and still be more than capable of meeting our objectives. And we no longer need a standing ground force large enough to occupy two countries.

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

I've never maintained that anyone, save you, are continuously wrong.

You have no clue what we require to defend the United States, or its interests. In fact, like most liberals, you think we are the problem, that our military is a threat to world peace. Defending the nation is a constitutional requirement of the government. Obama's 6 trillion vote buying scheme isn't. Those deficits are all Obama's.

I don't think that at all. You seem really confused today.

 

[islandman]

You have no clue what we require to defend the United States, or its interests.

And you do?

How many decades are you removed from the military?

 

[unregistered]

 

[KyleW]

And you do?

How many decades are you removed from the military?

Would it matter? Being a member of the military doesn't magically make someone aware of what it takes to defend our interests.

 

[mercury14]

You are the one who's confused. You have no clue. You are moronic.

Well if you're going to ascribe a bunch of thoughts to me that I've never had and that I disagree with then yeah I guess it does sound bad.

 

[Adre]

We spend more than all other countries combined on military and defense. Surely that is not reasonable...or smart.

 

[islandman]

wars, not was

Would it matter? Being a member of the military doesn't magically make someone aware of what it takes to defend our interests.

Recency matters.

Vette is several decades removed from the military. Someone just back from Iraq is more familiar with the technology aspect to how wars are fought today.

 

[Adre]

No shock that the NY Times will give Hagel a hard time. He down not kowtow to the Likud Party.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean]

I've never maintained that anyone, save you, are continuously wrong.

You have no clue what we require to defend the United States, or its interests. In fact, like most liberals, you think we are the problem, that our military is a threat to world peace. Defending the nation is a constitutional requirement of the government. Obama's 6 trillion vote buying scheme isn't. Those deficits are all Obama's.

Tell me, how was Bush 43's little jaunt to Iraq defending the nation?

 

[Adre]

All you idiots have to understand are the words and warnings of the present and former Secretary Of Defense, the JCS, and the multitudes of other studied individuals who have warned about the catastrophic effects of these cuts.

Would that include the warnings from five star general and President Dwight Eisenhower?

 

[Adre]

Oh, that's right, Ike was not a right wing neocon. Sorry.

 

[mercury14]

All you idiots have to understand are the words and warnings of the present and former Secretary Of Defense, the JCS, and the multitudes of other studied individuals who have warned about the catastrophic effects of these cuts.

What are you talking about? Last time I asked you this you got confused and started blabbering about the sequester, which is not the draw-down we're talking about.

 

[zipman]

All you idiots have to understand are the words and warnings of the present and former Secretary Of Defense, the JCS, and the multitudes of other studied individuals who have warned about the catastrophic effects of these cuts.

You mean, the exact same way departments in corporate america make the same claims when there are budget cuts?

 

[KingOrfeo]

All you idiots have to understand are the words and warnings of the present and former Secretary Of Defense, the JCS, and the multitudes of other studied individuals who have warned about the catastrophic effects of these cuts.

Summarize for us, then. What do those persons say about "the catastrophic effects" -- that some enemy will conquer us if the cuts are made? Or, merely, that it will throw a lot of people out of work?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Would it matter? Being a member of the military doesn't magically make someone aware of what it takes to defend our interests.

And the opinion regarding budget cuts is never to be trusted, of any one whose job is potentially threatened by those cuts.

 

[Lancecastor]

You have no clue what we require to defend the United States, or its interests.

But you do....because Mr. Google tells you what to believe.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Lancecastor]

Cover your cunt with that maple leaf and shut the fuck up.

Please stop fantasizing about me. It's not going to happen.

 

[mercury14]

Ahahahaha...what a bunch of crap. [David Books] is at best a tepid Neo-Con that metamorphosed from a whiny liberal. He's no doctrinaire conservative.

Now you think he's a good source of information.

 

[miles]

Cover your cunt with that maple leaf and shut the fuck up.

"Iced tea spew."

 

[unregistered]