What if Kerry said this?

[MTAtech]

What would the Republicans say if Kerry said what Don Rumsfeld just said Tuesday?

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld certified to Congress on Tuesday that a new round of military base closures is needed in 2005 and could yield billions of dollars in savings by 2011."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html

[Pexster]

Harold: "Did you hear that Rumsfeld wants to close the base in Springfield?"

Louise: "Gee, Harold, do you really think that's a good idea right now? What about al-Qaeda? They're still after us. I'm worried."

Deep Voice: "George W. Bush -- He wants to weaken our national defense. Can we really trust our country to this man?"

[RADAR1797]

Actually the good Secretary is reducing the number of locations for us to train and stage, but not the numbers of people. He is working within Congressional caps on total numbers of troops and by consolidating bases we reduce the cost of operating the bases and we can turn many support AFSCc/MOSs/NECs into operator billets. This should free up money in the long run for more important systems. The down side of redcuing the number of bases (for the military anyhow), is there will be fewer Congressmen fighting to out of self interest to support the military.

-RADAR

[Pexster]

lol. Concur.

[Omardeth]

smells like spin to me

[Chuckiechan]

The world has changed and we don't need these bases any more. These bases are relics of a time when we had 20 million men under arms, 1 million tanks, and 1/2 million airplanes. Wars were fought over control of continents, rather than ideology like today.

It really hurts the local economy when they go because they are pumping money millions into the local economy and taking very little out.

But, it you are a person who feels that a balanced budget is a good thing this is a step in the right direction.

[pickel]

Amazes me that with the invasion of Iran and North Korea right around the corner, we'd want to reduce ANY bases ??????? Oh no, I shouldn't have leaked out the White House's next projects.

[Chuckiechan]

It's hard to reply to a thread crap, but I'll try.

We are working at de stabilizing Iran through various means. We are shipping counterfeit currency in, tit for tat since they are one of the world's most prolific counterfeiters of US currency. We are funding anti-government groups. The ideas are to create a bloodless as possible coup.

North Korea, is pretty well boxed in with China's help. We are letting them flood us with cheap imports in exchange for Taiwan and help with North Korea. We still can't prove they actually have nukes until they light one off. They, like Saddam could be bluffing. The North may cry "Uncle" soon enough. They keep having winter and starvation, and they are truly isolated. Plus the middle east isn't as good as customer for weapons as they were before.

In short, we don't need these 5000 acre parking lots any more.

[ArcticFox]

Actually I can see why pickel would say that, Bush is an airhead and there is no telling what country he would pick next for a war. He's ignored the US and focused what little energy he has on his Operation Make Iraq Like The US Because We Saw A Polaroid Of What Might Be Weapons Of Mass Destruction.

Excuse me, I have a date with Photoshop to promote Kerry.

[MTAtech]

My point of the thread is that if Kerry advocated closing bases, the Republicans in the White House and Congress would have a field day calling him 'weak on defense.' When Rummy does it, they shut their traps.

Objectively, (because I don't know how to be anything else) it's probably a good idea to close some bases. Many bases were built not out of defense needs but because powerful Members of Congress (MOC) wanted them in their districts.

I'm for closing some bases as long as it is done with defense in mind, not politics (e.g. only closing bases in 'blue' states.)