Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

John Bolton: Defense Spending Should Be Off The Table When Cutting Budget

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
unhappycamper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-10 05:06 AM
Original message
John Bolton: Defense Spending Should Be Off The Table When Cutting Budget



John Bolton: Defense Spending Should Be Off The Table When Cutting Budget
The Huffington Post | Nick Wing Posted: 12-28-10 10:05 AM

John Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and potential 2012 GOP presidential candidate, expressed his belief this week that defense spending should be insulated from the likely wave of budget cuts spurred by a new era of GOP leadership next Congress.

"I think you've got to be just as much on the outlook for waste and fraud in defense spending as anywhere else, but the fact is we're entering a very uncertain period in the world. We've got a lot of threats out there that we're not ready for. Not just nuclear proliferation, but chemical and biological weapons," Bolton said on Fox Business, before explaining a variety of threats that he considered pertinent. "This is not the time to cut back. I understand there's a lot of pressure to get deficits down. I'm all in favor of it. But national security comes first, pure and simple, as far as I'm concerned."

While it is a commonly held belief amongst Republicans that "runaway spending" in Washington needs to be addressed, many have hesitated to call for this new focus to be extended toward the Pentagon. Last month, however, many conservatives announced that everything, including defense, should be on the table when it comes to seeking a smaller budget.

GOP senators such as Tom Coburn have also argued that the "sacred cow" of defense spending can no longer be seen as an untouchable budget area, much to the chagrin of his Senate colleague John McCain.

Senate newcomer Rand Paul has also said that the GOP must be willing to consider military spending cuts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-10 05:07 AM
Response to Original message
1. FUCK YOU, JOHN
FUCK YOU
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rfranklin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-10 05:21 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. I'll second that...
The ridiculous bloated war budget has got to be trimmed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-10 05:26 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. FUCKING REPUKES
FISCAL RESPONSIBLITY! DEFICIT! But don't touch the SENSELESS WARS or TAX CUTS FOR THE OBSCENELY RICH. FUCK THEM ALL!!!!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sherman A1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-10 06:03 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. Precisely
:banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
droidamus2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-10 05:29 AM
Response to Original message
4. My questions for John
Would there ever be a time you would think it was appropriate to cut back? Would there ever be a time you couldn't come with some perceived or made up 'threat' to use as an excuse not to cut? If you decide how much the warriors get based on what the warriors want you get the kind of bloated military spending we have had for years. The decision should be based on what the civilians think we can afford and are willing to pay. If the military is taking up a large chunk of the budget and the budget needs cutting then I think we need more than vague 'there's possible danger out there' type warnings to validate the necessity of spending more than everybody else in the world does on the military. Is there any chance the Mr. Bolton now works for a company that is involved in providing services or equipment to the military?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-10 05:32 AM
Response to Original message
5. He is running for president, I assume.... K&R .nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinboy3niner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-10 06:27 AM
Response to Reply #5
10. Bingo!
John Bolton eyes 2012 presidential run
By MOLLY BALL | 12/17/10 7:17 PM EST

No, it's not just an attention-getting stunt. John Bolton is seriously considering running for president.
<snip>

"I'm obviously aware that people are quite focused on the economy rather than foreign policy issues, but that is something that should and can be altered as people see the nature of the threats around the world that we face," Bolton said. "Nearly all the experts I've talked to have told me that candidates, in the early days, need a discriminator -- something that distinguishes them from the rest of the candidates. I'm just not Generic Governor A or Generic Governor B."

Bolton acknowledged the conventional wisdom that holds that foreign policy doesn't generally motivate voters. "But I think the American people look at national security policy as a surrogate for larger characteristics in their presidential candidates: leadership, judgment, vision."
<snip>

"I'm going through the process of talking to people who've been involved in national campaigns, fundraisers, tea party people, friends and people I've known over the years," he said, adding wryly that, "WikiLeaks notwithstanding," he remains at this point a private citizen under no obligation to disclose his contacts.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46543.html


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-10 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #5
24. run john boy, run
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-10 05:53 AM
Response to Original message
6. Jesus, I can't stand
that guy.

"We've got a lot of threats out there that we're not ready for" - true, but not the ones Bolton has in mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quaker bill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-10 06:08 AM
Response to Original message
8. Not just on the table, but in the center
One can always imagine "threats" we are not ready for. The supply has consistently proven inexhaustible. $5 Trillion dollars on two wars, and a good bit more on general preparedness. This is in fact something we "cannot afford". We have gutted social services and infrastructure spending and still run a substantial deficit to pay for it. Every empire of the last 3 centuries has failed through excess military spending, and my guess is that you could go back to Rome, and make the case there as well. Machiavelli pointed out in the early days of the Rennissance that this model is not sustainable, nothing has changed since.

Excess military power is the lazy intellect's answer to complex diplomatic problems. It is time we stop leaning on this crutch and grow up a bit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-10 06:21 AM
Response to Original message
9. And why would we listen to
such an obvious spokesman for the military industrial complex?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dembotoz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-10 06:28 AM
Response to Original message
11. he has become sort of a comic republican fucktoid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
somone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-10 06:41 AM
Response to Original message
12. End the wars and SLASH defense spending:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RegieRocker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-10 06:42 AM
Response to Original message
13. I agree with Bolton
but I'm sure he would disagree with me. Yes defense only no offense spending! Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-10 07:14 AM
Response to Original message
14. who cares what this reject thinks...oh fox news does
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-10 07:23 AM
Response to Original message
15. Fox still using the mustache. Why would anyone give a fuck about what a mustache thinks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-10 08:21 AM
Response to Original message
16. the HUGE pink faced Elephant in the room when it comes to fiscal responsibility
Elephants have their friends on Wallstreet and in the halls of the Pentagon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RickFromMN Donating Member (275 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-10 08:49 AM
Response to Original message
17. The Dutch East India Company and British East India Company could wage war.

Can one argue, successfully, a number of our "wars" are for the benefit of a number of our
major corporations, like the major oil companies?

Would it be reasonable to suggest the oil companies make their own treaties, have their own military,
and wage their own wars?

Would it be reasonable to suggest they can pay for their wars?
Sure, they will pass the cost of their wars to their consumers, but doesn't this happen anyway?
Aren't we paying, through taxes, for their wars?
Wouldn't it be fair to have the price of oil reflect the cost of wars that benefit oil?

If the cost of oil were accurately reflected in the price of oil, wouldn't this be a good thing?
Wouldn't we make saner decisions about alternative energy?

This may sound radical...but isn't this what happened, in the past, with the
Dutch East India Company and British East India Company?

We give more rights to corporations, all the time.
Corporations are treated, more and more, like individual citizens, with every new court decision and law.
Recently, corporations got the right to spend who knows how much money in the political process.

Corporations use the global economy to their advantage.
They higher foreign employees. They subcontract to foreign companies.
They pretend to be global, except when they need a financial bailout or need us to fight a war.

We can still have laws, at our borders, to make corporations follow our rules inside our country.
We can treat United States corporations the same way we treat Japanese or European corporations.

Is this a radical idea? Perhaps it is a little radical...I hope it's food for thought.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-10 09:01 AM
Response to Original message
18. The Don Juanito of Plato's Retreat must be in line for a piece of Carlyle Group.
Inside John Bolton's head: War. War. War. Money. Money. Money. Sex. Ahh.

What makes this even more sickening is that the "news media" foist this greasy turd on the American people as an "Honorable" man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinnie From Indy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-10 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. +1
Cheers!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theophilus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-10 09:08 AM
Response to Original message
19. John Bolton should be off the table and in the prison cell. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GeorgeGist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-10 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
21. FEAR, FEAR, FEAR ...
Home of the brave.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCKit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-10 11:06 AM
Response to Original message
22. Anything John Bolton is against is probably good for the country.
The Republicon Chickenhawks on the MSM snooze circuit aren't there to inform us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-10 11:33 AM
Response to Original message
23. But if it's "waste and fraud" then how is cutting it going to
hurt national security? In fact, cutting "waste and fraud" it seems to me would be BETTER for national security.

This guy is nuts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TBF Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-10 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
25. Why is this war criminal not in jail where he belongs? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
social_critic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-10 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
26. We should spare nothing to cut John Bolton in half
John Bolton is considered a sacred cow, but I think we should proceed to cut Bolton in half and offer the lower half to a suitable deity, so we can be blessed in future wars.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 23rd 2014, 08:38 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC