What's More Important?

Click pic for link.
Major General Paul Selva tells Congress and the President that if we don't increase our defense budget for the Air Force now, our fleet of fighters will fall apart and we'll lose our dominance in the world of air power. Steve Kosiak at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments says that the Air Force has expensive tastes. Kosiak says we’re spending more on F-22 and F-35 replacements than we spent on the F-15’s being replaced. Well Steve, considering that we bought the majority of our F-15’s over twenty years ago, things cost a little more now. Not to mention, new technology should be more expensive. Should we put the same technology we had in 1985 in our F-22’s? That makes sense. We just had an F-15 completely disintegrate in mid-air back in November because it was too old and the frame couldn’t handle the G-Forces any longer. Luckily, that pilot made it out alive. Maybe we should ask that pilot if we should try to fix all our F-15’s with 8,000 plus hours (when they’re only supposed to have 4,000 to be retired) or pay less money for a new F-22 than it would cost to fix our incredibly aged F-15’s.
Kosiak also commented that the Air Force wanted more money than all three other services combined. He says it like something is wrong with that. Considering that one M1A1 Abrams Tank costs 4.3 million to replace and one F-22 Raptor costs on average about 160 million dollars. The Air Force’s toys cost more. Maybe that’s why they require more. Then comes along Gordon Adams who says, “Until someone constrains these budget requests, the hunger for more will charge ahead unchecked”. So, the Air Force wants more money because of our hunger for more? Maybe we’re hungry because for too long we’ve starved, starved for the tools and equipment to remain the dominant Air Force in the War on Terror and throughout the world. Maybe we should cut back on government spending and stop paying these two way too much for way too little. Just a thought.

Can't Please Everyone...

McCain Slips, Confusing Real Position on Abortion
Here’s the situation. Let’s say, you oppose abortion. You hear a presidential candidate named John McCain say, “But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade (case making most abortions legal), which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations." You decide that you won’t vote for that candidate. Then you hear, a year ago he voted “yes” in a National Right to Life Committee questionnaire to a complete reversal of Roe v. Wade. What it is, yes or no? Is he just trying to please everyone? Or is he that stupid that he forgot where he stood on the issue only a year ago. At one point, he votes to override a veto on a ban of partial birth abortions. He also supported a ban on Medicaid funding for abortions. And now, while talking to the newspaper in a very liberal city, he sounds a little timid on his stance. Timid may be the wrong word. Backsliding may be more appropriate. You can’t please everyone and get away with it John.