Obama promised, according to a McCain statement on Sept 8th, to "slow our development of Future Combat Systems."
Future Combat Systems is a program that is seen as the core of the program to modernize our military in keeping with future requirements.
“This is not a time to slow our development of Future Combat Systems"said McCain -- the very same McCain who back in July of this year declared to the Washington Post about the Army's FCS program:
" that should be ended and the entire Pentagon budget should be scrubbed."
So what is this -- a flip flop or a fib? To answer the question, the article quotes the Lexington Institute, a Libertarian think tank, as calling McCain "deceitful."
“McCain’s interpretation of Obama’s position is typical of the way in which the Republicans have twisted Democratic views in order to undercut their opponents and at the same time obscure the past positions of the Republicans,”
Considering the source, this is amazing material. Could it be that the troops have figured out who really supports them? Could it be that John who has never been on the web doesn't realize how easy it is for people to relate his words of today with his words of yesterday? Anyway, to see such no-nonsense criticism in a publication that seems unlikely to support a Democratic candidate against a military "hero" might be seen as a glimmer of hope. If McCain loses the military vote, he may lose the election. If so the question "is there a God" may still remain, but "is there a Democracy" will be answered.
2 comments:
Good post.
The Army Times ran an editorial about 3 or 4 years ago unequivocally voicing its support for ending DADT and for allowing openly gay service members to serve. A few weeks later, they posted a number of letters from people who were outraged (and predictably, most of those were from retirees as I recall). So, though not wont to go out on a limb often, this isn't unprecedented. I haven't received my copy yet today, but look forward to reading the article you cite.
Interestingly, I also belong to MOAA (formerly TROA - The Retired Officers Association). Their magazine has long championed Harry Reid (way before he became Senate Leader) as the most pro-military/pro-veteran member in the entire Congress, and I don't think they've endorsed anyone.
(Now, that said, I also receive the VFW and American Legion publications, cough, cough)
I think that when we know how the military (as a bloc) voted, generally, there will be a lot of surprises that contradict the prevailing wisdom. But you and I won't be surprised, I'm betting.
There are an awful lot of retired veterans living here and I know a number who are suffering from service related wounds and conditions and are getting thoroughly ignored and rebuffed by the government. They still seem to be solid Democrat haters and Republican voters. I don't understand.
Still I think it's impossible to characterize veterans, and I hope there will be some recognition that what they saw as support has been exploitation of the worst kind. I hope you can't screw all the people all the time and get away with it.
Post a Comment