If he's really upset by troops being shortchanged in Afghanistan, why hasn't he 
spoken up before now?

The launching of the war in Iraq took a lot of military focus off of 
Afghanistan and that was largely due to the Bush admin!!

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Republican Senator Embarrasses Self, Senate

Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly at 12:41 PM on April 7, 2009.



In a fevered YouTube video, Sen. James Inhofe launches a series of patently 
false accusations at Gates' military spending plan. 

It's hardly surprising that members of Congress would be reluctant to accept 
Defense Secretary Robert Gates' efforts to restructure military spending. 
Gates' proposal is a rather dramatic effort at reform, and for lawmakers who've 
grown attached to Pentagon-related pork, the administration's proposal shakes 
up the status quo.


But while some resistance was inevitable, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), a 
constant embarrassment to himself and the Senate, is once again breaking new 
grounds of indecency.



  In a YouTube video that is getting linked around the conservative 
blogosphere, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) attacked Defense Secretary Robert Gates' 
2010 defense budget recommendations, though he aimed his criticism at President 
Obama instead of Gates. Speaking from Afghanistan, Inhofe declared that 
"President Obama is disarming America. Never before has a president so ravaged 
the military at a time of war."


  Specifically, Inhofe charges Obama with cutting funding for "our troops in 
the field during an ongoing war."



In the video, Inhofe adds, "Here in Afghanistan, while the war is intensifying 
and the number of U.S. forces increases at the direction of President Obama, he 
undercuts those he sends into harm's way. It is not just unbelievable ... it is 
unconscionable."


Of course, Inhofe is either lying or he's a fool. (It's so hard to tell.) 
Following the recommendations of its Republican defense secretary, the Obama 
administration is increasing military spending from $513 billion under Bush to 
$534 billion in 2010. Inhofe, who's never been accused of being the sharpest 
crayon in the box, is making a series of ridiculous war-related accusations 
that don't make any sense at all. "Disarming America"? "Ravaging the military 
at a time of war"? "Undercutting" the troops? Even by Inhofe standards, this is 
blisteringly stupid.


The point of Gates' review is to make the defense budget more effective for the 
21st century, divesting in projects and weapons systems that aren't needed, and 
directing those funds to better use. That's not "ravaging" the military; it's 
improving it. That's not cutting funding for "our troops in the field during an 
ongoing war"; it's actually more money for "troops and new technology to fight 
the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan."


If Inhofe wants to defend unnecessary spending projects, fine, he can make his 
case. But this kind of rhetoric is absurd. He either believes this nonsense, in 
which case he should learn what he's talking about and apologize, or he's 
deliberately deceiving people, in which case he should set the record straight 
and apologize.

Steve Benen is "blogger in chief" of the popular Washington Monthly online 
blog, Political Animal. His background includes publishing The Carpetbagger 
Report, and writing for a variety of publications, including Talking Points 
Memo, The American Prospect, the Huffington Post, and The Guardian. He has also 
appeared on NPR's "Talk of the Nation," MSNBC's "Rachel Maddow Show," Air 
America Radio's "Sam Seder Show," and XM Radio's "POTUS '08."

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/135528/republican_senator_embarrasses_self%2C_senate

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"WebTV Dawgs/Dittos" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/WebTV-Pals
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to