Hear What You Want To Hear -- Cliff

First of all Cliff, can I get a head shot of you to replace the picture of Eric on the blog banner, because apparently Eric has either thrown in the towel or he's secretly on Obama's campaign and doing security for Biden.

This is a comment from Cliffton (not Clifford, unfortunately) and I thought it deserved a place on the front page. This is in response to my post HERE.

-----------------------------Cliff's Comment---------------------------------

Tony, I definitely have to disagree with you on this. I’ve watched the video five times just to make sure I’m clear on what I’m hearing and to really see if Senator Obama states your emphasized points. If he did then I would be in agreement with you. But my conclusion is that you are hearing what you want to hear and then drawing your conclusions. I’ll take you point by point and just give my take.

Your point
* I will end the war in Iraq

My take
I don’t understand how this is a negative. This is the goal of both candidates and both candidates have stated this in various ways. This clip has Senator Obama saying he will end the war. I’ve heard Senator McCain say numerous times that he will achieve victory in Iraq. To me they both have made it a point to let the public know that they will end the war. I think we can all agree that no matter who wins this is a goal we are all on board with. There are definitely different views on what winning means and how this will be achieved but we all want the war ended. And to be clear Senator Obama did not expound on this in the clip. He simply said he would end the war.

Your point
*I will cut defense spending

My take
I believe there is a clear and definite distinction between a general statement like “I will cut defense spending” and a goal oriented statement such as “I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful defense spending”. How is cutting wasteful spending a negative? To be clear what I keyed in on was the fact that he said wasteful. I think we all know that all levels of gov’t local, state, and federal waste a lot of money. There have been countless exposés on this from various media outlets. So when Senator Obama says he wants to cut wasteful spending I’m all for it. If elected I would hope that John McCain would do the same. Again taking the statement as is I think we all would agree that this would be a positive step for the gov’t to take.

Your point
*I will put an end to our nuclear program and negotiate with Russia

My take
Currently there are enough nuclear weapons in the US alone to DESTROY the planet. Now let’s add in Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel. What does this mean? To me this means that in a nuclear war there is no winner. There is no one cleaning up after the destruction and rebuilding when we cease to exist. If we launch our nuclear missiles as a first strike maneuver or in retaliation the world is over. Nuclear war is the ultimate end game. How much more incentive do we need to end the production of nuclear weaponry? So, in the clip, when Senator Obama says that he will set a goal of a world with no nuclear weapons I can only applaud this stance. He then follows that statement by saying he would not develop any new nuclear weapons, well when you already have enough to destroy your own planet do you really need more? He says he would also seek a global ban on the production of fissile material, which is basically saying he wants to ban the processing of materials that can sustain a chain reaction, and that he would negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert. When you as the largest stockpiler of nuclear weapons in the world speak of negotiating with the country that is the second or third largest stockpiler of nuclear weapons in the world about adding more safety measures to your stockpiles this can only be a positive step if achieved. So to me these are not only negotiations that should be encouraged but that are necessary. I trained as part of a (NBC) Nuclear Biological Chemical response team in the military and believe me if we launch our missiles against another nuclear capable country and they launch against us there are no precision strikes and areas of containment. The detonation of nuclear warheads against multiple targets abroad and here in the US would end life as we know it. If Senator Obama is weak because he wants a world with no nukes then I’ll be first in line to vote a punk into the White House. Be clear nuclear war is not about protecting America. Anyone who believes that doesn’t understand the destructive power we wield and sees nuclear war in the same vein as conventional war and I’s not even close. In a conventional war there are winners and losers. Survivors on either side, winners or losers, continue to live and make the best of what life they have left. In a nuclear war, with the amount of nuclear weapons in the world today, there are no winners or losers because there is no more life.

Your point
*I will not put defense missiles in space

My take
Senator Obama didn’t say he was against missile defense he said he was against weaponizing space and that he would cut investments on unproven missile defense systems. We currently have a ballistic missile defense system (BMD) it just doesn’t sit in space. And we are developing new ways to deploy this system. As recently as August 20th, 2008 we entered into an agreement with Poland to place a strategic missile defense system within their borders to protect against the threat of ballistic missile attacks against Poland and our NATO allies. Not wanting to weaponize space is consistent with his stance on nuclear weapons. If he has a goal of getting rid of nuclear weapons why would you invest in ways to make nuclear weaponry more effective? That doesn’t make sense.

Now if you want to split hairs on this one I guess you can make an argument but that’s only if you believe that surface based missile defense isn’t good enough and that we absolutely have to have missile defense based in space. If that is the case I hope someone can offer proof that surface based defense isn’t good enough and could show the need for space based missile defense. Especially since the space based aspect of the Strategic Defense Initiative, which was the program that the current BMD program was born from, was scrapped and all of its applicable technology was applied to our current surfaced based technology.

And lastly…

Your point
*I would stop defense R&D

My take
Not once in the clip does he state that he would stop defense R&D. I’m sorry, but this is a perfect example of hearing what you want to hear. What he does say is that he would slow the development of future combat systems, which is definitely not the same as stopping R&D. He goes on to say that he would setup an independent defense priorities board to ensure there is no unnecessary spending. To me this is Senator Obama again showing consistency. If his goal is to cut wasteful spending then you have to be more judicious in what gets funded and what doesn’t. So he proposes to slow down development and implement a review process that can help prioritize funding. He’s talking about making the whole R&D process more efficient and more focused the exact opposite stopping it.

So from this clip I think we can all agree on the following, we all want to end the war in Iraq, cutting the amount of wasteful spending of tax payers’ dollars in the defense sector would be a positive step by the gov’t, our world would be better without nuclear weapons and any responsible negotiations towards that end are needed, we do not need to develop weapons systems that are maintained in space, Senator Obama does not propose stopping defense R&D.