Panetta on TV , lying his ass off..

[surfdog]

Claiming the mandatory cuts to the military will put the US at risk. And that they shouldn't take place.

Fuck you Leon.

[msanthrope]

1. He's right--the sequestering of 2013 is indiscriminate cutting across the board

that can affect veterans badly.

Better to have surgical, strategic cuts under the Obama budget.

Though I am sure the Pukes would rather have the former....

[surfdog]

2. I disagree.

with a budget over 600 billion a year ... there is enough money to defend the nation.

on edit: Implying "Obama's military cuts" would get through congress is a bit of a leap.... these cuts already passed , we shouldn't give em back.

[msanthrope]

5. I think you are missing the point--you can do indiscriminate cutting of sequestering

if no budget passes, or you can do discriminate cutting, under the FY 2013 defense budget, proposed, in part, today.

You can do cutting the military with the Republican axe, or the Democratic scalpel. Who will suffer the most under the former? Military families. Because sequestering doesn't allow you to cut projects (see, PORK) that have been protected.

Panetta was right---put EVERYTHNG on the table, including the pork, and cut.

Supporting the sequestering supports the protection of pork.

[surfdog]

8. It's not one or the other..

I would like to see both happen.

Panetta said the mandatory cuts shouldn't happen ... so "EVERYTHING" isn't on the table.

[msanthrope]

11. Mandatory cuts that screw our veterans should not happen. Precise cuts that target earmarks

and pork are a very good thing.

The former is the Republican plan, the latter, the Democrats. Everything on the table--all the programs, earmarks, and pork. I think the first priority to save should be medical benefits for our vets. What say you?

[jwirr]

6. I had not thought of it that way. Strategic cuts are always better than across the board.

[surfdog]

10. Look at it like this...

"across the board" cuts already passed congress.

Obama's "strategic cuts" would never pass congress.

[msanthrope]

12. Not quite. The 2013 cuts only go in if no budget happens. Why conceed that to the Pukes?

Why not fight to get a real budget passed, and make each and every single one of them justify maintaining their protected pork????

You do know that the 'mandatory cuts' contain thousands of protected projects, right???? Make each puke defend them.

Obama is setting this up to take the fight to Tea Party/Paulite/Libertarian Do Nothings. Help him. Make the Pukes fight for their pork.

[Fumesucker]

3. Damn lying ass Republicans..

[denbot]

7. If it walks like a duck..

Listen for the quack.

[Motown_Johnny]

9. I didn't hear him say that

I heard him say stuff like they are calculated risks and that security requires a strong economy.

[grantcart]

13. That's not what he said at all.

He said that any change in strategy involves different levels of risk assessment and that different allocation of resources would mean that there would be additional risks but that an intelligent approach to reviewing the strategy is evaluating the relative cost that is associated to a particular risk. For example moving from a two war strategy to a single war strategy would increase the risk of not meeting the resources needed in a second war if that happened. His point, which went over your head, was that the resources needed to sustain a two war strategy is not worth the cost and that those risks can be handled in other ways, and his more important point is that by changing the premises of a post WWII (and post Vietnam) strategy that we would be allocating resources that would be more likely to confront the actual risks of the future.