posted on May 26, 2007 01:30:25 PM new
Here we are in the middle of TWO wars....and problems with Iran, N. Korea....etc. and what do the liberals want to do to SHOW how they will DEFEND our Nation?????
They're going to cut military funding. tsk tsk tsk
Yep, elect them. We'll not only NOT defend ourselves.....we'll try and TALK our enemies out of attacking us again.....we won't BE ABLE TO even if we got enough support to do so.
Just like the clinton administration did....reduce military funding enough so that when we NEED to defend our nation....and take out another THREAT....we couldn't.
It's going to take us YEARS to rebuild our military back to what it was...before clinton.
And now...the LIBERAL controlled congress...is at it again.
Will they NEVER learn?
========================
Cuts pushed for planned missile program
By GEORGE GEDDA, Associated press Writer
Fri May 25, 8:47 PM ET
The Bush administration is facing the prospect of a sharp cut by the Democratic-contolled Congress in its request for $310 million to begin development of a missile defense program designed to defend against potential "rogue state" attacks on Europe and the United States.
The latest sign of discontent was a Senate Armed Service Committee decision on Thursday to cut $85 million from the administration request. This followed efforts by the House of Representatives last week to trim the request.
The U.S. proposal has raised tensions with Russia, which sees the initiative as a security threat. But other issues seem to be behind the congressional doubts about it.
Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), a Democrat who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, has a number of concerns about the proposal. He pointed out last week that the administration is asking for a large sum of money for the initiative even though it is just beginning negotiations with Poland and the Czech Republic, the designated hosts for the facilities.
He also noted that the program, while designed to counter a future threat from Iran, "does not address the existing and real threat of short- and medium-range missiles Iran has today, and which could target our forward-deployed forces, allies and friends."
In addition, he said, the interceptor proposed for deployment is a new missile that has not yet been developed.
A missile defense test was aborted Friday when a target rocket failed to fly high enough to trigger the interceptor missile, officials said. The administration insists that failure to move quickly on its plan could prove costly.
In a joint letter to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), and other leading House members, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates said action is needed now. They noted that the intelligence community estimates contend that Iran could develop long-range missiles capable of reaching Europe and the United States by 2015.
"Defenses must be in place before that occurs; for this to be possible, construction needs to begin as early as next year," Rice and Gates said in their May 21 letter.
=========================================
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on May 28, 2007 08:47:31 AM new
The terrorist can't wait for us to elect another Democrate for President. With no military they will be able to take over.
**********************************
Come to www.bestfreecellularphones for the best deals in cell phones from any carrier. Get your phone FREE or even cash back. Come check us out!
President George W. Bush’s fiscal year 2006 Pentagon budget request, released Feb. 7, calls for scaling back ballistic missile defense funding by almost a billion dollars after it surpassed $10 billion last year. Most of the cut is extracted from development of a new high-speed missile interceptor that is at least several years away from being fielded.
Missile defense spending is spread out among the Army, Air Force, Joint Staff, and the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), which commands the largest portion of anti-ballistic missile funding. MDA is seeking nearly $7.8 billion for fiscal year 2006 activities beginning October 1.
Total spending in the fiscal year 2006 Pentagon budget request equals $419 billion, but that excludes funds for ongoing military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, which the administration has supported and plans to continue funding through supplemental appropriation requests. Military operation costs in Afghanistan and Iraq are expected to push defense spending for fiscal year 2006 above half a trillion dollars.
Although the MDA budget is geared toward systems for the present and near term, the request also points to expansive plans for the future. For instance, a relatively small sum of $10 million is set aside to scout a location for a ground-based missile interceptor base in Europe. U.S. officials have been consulting their counterparts in Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and possibly other countries about housing such a base. (See ACT, July/August 2004.)
The Army is asking Congress for roughly $856 million for two programs to destroy short- and medium-range ballistic missiles. Two-thirds of that sum is to procure 108 Patriot Advanced Capabilty-3 missile interceptors and upgrade existing Patriot systems. The other third is to pursue development of the Medium Extended Air Defense System with Germany and Italy.
Air Force officials are requesting $757 million—an increase of $158 million above what lawmakers granted last year—to help put the Space-Based Infrared System-high program back on track. Intended to send an alert when a ballistic missile is launched anywhere in the world, the satellite system has been plagued by schedule and cost overruns. The Air Force currently does not have an estimate for when the system might become operational.
The smallest slice of the proposed missile defense funding, $81.5 million, is allocated for the Joint Theater Air and Missile Defense Organization of the Joint Staff. Among other responsibilities, this body is charged with evaluating how different systems might function together.
MDA Emphasizing Sooner Rather Than Later
More than half of MDA’s proposed budget is dedicated to three separate programs that are currently deployed or supposed to be fielded within the next few years: the ground-based midcourse defense, the sea-based Aegis system, and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD). All three systems are slated for ramped-up flight testing this year.
Nearly $2.3 billion is tabbed for testing and building on the ground-based midcourse defense. Last year, MDA deployed six long-range missile interceptors at Fort Greely, Alaska, and two more at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, as the initial elements of the system. Another 10 interceptors are to be embedded in Alaska this year. These interceptors are designed to destroy enemy missile warheads by colliding with them in space.
Bush and top Pentagon officials had earlier said the system would become operational in 2004, but no such determination has yet been made. Pentagon spokesperson Lawrence Di Rita told reporters Jan. 13, “I don’t know that such a declaration will ever be made.” Still, he added, “we have a nascent operational capability.”
Military commands charged with putting the system through a so-called shakedown to check for bugs that might impair its future operation and devise command and control guidelines for running it have yet to make recommendations on the system’s status. Initiated early last fall, this process was expected to be completed before the end of last year. (See ACT, December 2004.)
Although five successful intercept tests involving a slower substitute version of the system’s interceptor have occurred, the model currently deployed has not been tested against a target in flight. Two attempts have been made—the first on Dec. 15, 2004, and the second on Feb. 14—but in both cases, the interceptor never left the ground. MDA attributed the first failure to a communications problem involving the interceptor’s flight computer, while the second is suspected of stemming from ground support equipment and not the interceptor itself. Two additional flight tests of the interceptor could take place this year.
After a suspension of flight testing of more than a year, MDA has also resumed intercept testing of the Aegis ballistic missile defense system with a successful experiment on Feb. 24. This ship-based system, which has now recorded five hits in six intercept attempts, is designed to counter short- and medium-range ballistic missiles.
To advance this naval anti-missile system further, MDA is requesting $836 million. So far, five of the system’s Standard Missile-3 interceptors have been delivered to the Navy, and the goal is to transfer 21 more by the end of fiscal year 2006. By that time, MDA also aims to have finished outfitting 15 ships with upgraded radar capabilities for tracking ballistic missiles in flight. At least four vessels have been refurbished so far.
THAAD also is supposed to resume flight testing this year after a lull going back to August 1999. MDA is asking for slightly more than $1 billion to get the system prepared for intercept testing in 2006. Fired from a truck-based launcher, the THAAD interceptor is to strike short-, medium-, and possibly intermediate-range missiles in the final minutes of their descent.
The Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI) program emerged as the big loser among MDA’s programs. After predicting last year that it would seek more than $1 billion for this high-speed interceptor, MDA reduced its request to roughly $230 million, including about $14 million for the Near-Field Infrared Experiment (NFIRE).
NFIRE involves launching a satellite into space as soon as late 2006 to track ballistic missile launches for a year. Initial plans then called for shooting a missile toward the satellite and seeing if the satellite could release an onboard interceptor to destroy the missile, but MDA and Congress are still weighing this part of the experiment.
MDA spokesperson Rick Lehner explained in a Feb. 9 interview with Arms Control Today that the KEI cut reflected a decision to emphasize funding for programs closest to yielding working systems. He said the KEI schedule would be set back about a year, postponing the possible fielding of a ground-based version of the interceptor from 2012 to 2013. MDA envisions KEI as being fast enough to shoot down ballistic missiles in the first few minutes after their launch, a period referred to as the boost phase.
Until KEI becomes available, MDA is putting its near-term hopes for a boost-phase missile defense system in the Airborne Laser (ABL), which conceptually is a modified Boeing 747 armed with a powerful laser. In its recent budget request, MDA asked for $465 million for ABL.
Yet, it is unclear when an operational ABL aircraft will become available, according to a program spokesperson. The laser, which successfully produced a laser light for a fraction of a second for the first time using all six of its power sources last November, has yet to be mounted on the aircraft. In a real scenario, the laser would need to be focused on a target for a minimum of eight seconds to destroy it.
Originally scheduled for an initial intercept try in 2003, the system has been beset with so many problems that even strong missile defense supporters have questioned its viability. Rep. Terry Everett (R-Ala.), chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, said last July, “I’m deeply concerned that program costs may spiral to unanticipated levels which will place ABL in serious danger of survival.”
posted on May 28, 2007 09:54:53 AM new
Sounds to me like they just want accountability ....something sorely missing in the bushit administration....
US Congress Cuts Missile Defense, Space Weapons, Nuke Funding
The House Armed Services Committee cut $160 million from the $310 million originally requested by the Bush administration for deployment of ten interceptor facilities in Poland.
by Staff Writers
Moscow, Russia (RIA Novosti) May 11, 2007
A United State congressional panel has cut administration defense spending for next year by 9% of the total requested, blocking funds to build a missile base in Poland. In a resolution focused heavily on greater independent control over President Bush's missile defense projects, the House Armed Services Committee cut $764 million from the requested total of over $10 billion.
The cuts put under threat spending on a Polish interceptor site and other projects, such as space weaponization, the development of a new nuclear warhead for the Trident missile and the replacement of its nuclear warheads by conventional ones.
Cutting $160 million from $310 million originally requested by the Bush administration for deployment of ten interceptor facilities in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic, head of the Strategic Forces subcommittee Ellen Tauscher, a California Democrat, said that if the bill becomes law, the administration would be able to resubmit its request for the blocked funds, when and if, the Polish government approved the construction, and if a special independent comprehensive inquiry reassured Congress about the "political, technical, operational, command-and-control, and budgetary aspects" of the European missile defense concept.
She also said the subcommittee would like to hold another independent inquiry into the role and importance of the Missile Defense Agency which currently oversees crucial missile defense activities.
The Anti-Ballistic Laser (ABL) program was severely hit, along with other "less mature" initiatives, such as Space Tracking and Survelliance, Multiple Kill Vehicles, and Missile Defense Space Test Bed, primarily linked to the deployment of missile defenses in the outer space.
Tauscher said these programs could undermine efforts to prevent an extraterrestrial arms race.
The Union of Concerned Scientists, a U.S. NGO standing up against political interference in science, has accused the Bush administration of attempting to continue research into space weaponization under the cover of classified military budget spending.
The Committee fully upheld the U.S. Army request for the already operational PAC-3 Patriot surface-to-air systems.
The funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program, under which a new nuclear warhead is to be developed for the basic U.S. nuclear missile Trident instead of the W-76 commissioned in 1978, was cut by $20 million from the requested $88 million. Its future will also be subject to approval by a special independent expert commission on nuclear non-proliferation, similar to what former State Secretaries Henry Kissinger and George Schultz had called for in January.
The Armed Services Committee also cut the $135 million request for the Conventional Trident Modification Program, under which some of the Tridents based worldwide were to be equipped with non-nuclear warheads to employ them in the war on terror, leaving only as much money as is needed for further research and development. Tauscher highlighted concerns over potential Trident launches, saying such a launch might be misinterpreted by other states as a nuclear strike.
********The bill approved by the Armed Services Committee has yet to be approved by both houses and by President Bush to become law.*************
posted on May 28, 2007 10:09:19 AM new
The military was already being cut when Cheney was Secretary of Defense.
Over Cheney's four years as Secretary of Defense, encompassing budgets for Fiscal Years 1990-93, the Department of Defense's total obligational authority in current dollars declined from $291.3 billion to $269.9 billion. Except for FY 1991, when the TOA Budget increased by 1.7 percent, the Cheney budgets showed negative real growth: -2.9 percent in 1990, -9.8 percent in 1992, and -8.1 percent in 1993. During this same period total military personnel declined by 19.4 percent, from 2.202 million in FY 1989 to 1.776 million in FY 1993. The Army took the largest cut, from 770,000 to 572,000-25.8 percent of its strength. The Air Force declined by 22.3 percent, the Navy by 14 percent, and the Marines by 9.7 percent.
posted on May 28, 2007 01:30:29 PM new
Anyone reading the link kiara provided, I hope notices all the "[citation needed]" requests.
Citation needed means it has NOT been verified. LOL But that doesn't matter to kiara.
Also note the dates. Two of those three years were under the CLINTON administration....not this administration and CERTAINLY not when we were at war.
<shaking my head that some can be so unaware of what they post as their 'proof'>
===========================
As most acknowledge, after 9-11 we are in a MUCH different situation. Now we have N. Korea already FIRING off missiles....some that are getting closer and closer to the pacific ocean side of our Nation. Others that have gone OVER Japan, threatening them.
=======
This administration and the republican party have LONG felt missile defense is a MAJOR requirement if we are to be able to defend America. The dems have LONG fought it....as was mentioned during the 2004 elections and by those democrats who voted AGAINST missile defense and other military needs.
Here, we see they're doing it again....and watch the 'play' on words sybil's article uses.
REQUESTED = $310 million
House DEMOCRATS say NO to $160 million of that.
Then they twist the whole issue by saying this is ONLY a 9% reduction of what was requested.
$160 million from $310 million is NOT 9% by ANY stretch of anyone's imagination......unless one is using the left's NEW MATH.
===================================
Again, imo, not approving these funds so America is better prepared to DEFEND herself....falls right in line with the MO of the dem party most of the time = the military is just NOT their priority. Period.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on May 28, 2007 01:47:29 PM new
President George W. Bush’s fiscal year 2006 Pentagon budget request, released Feb. 7, calls for scaling back ballistic missile defense funding by almost a billion dollars after it surpassed $10 billion last year.
posted on May 28, 2007 02:15:40 PM new
I know it's extremely difficult for you to KEEP CURRENT, sybil, thus your oft posted years old articles..
They NOW working on FY Budget 2008.
And as the whole WORLD can see, EXCEPT YOU sybil, the Iran threat is becoming stronger and stronger.
Are you on IRAN'S side now too?
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on May 28, 2007 04:48:08 PM new
Linda_K, if you don't approve of my source or the info feel free to dispute it by proving it wrong instead of sitting there whining over it.
posted on May 28, 2007 05:02:57 PM new
Pointing out the 'proof' you used isn't credibable is NOT whining. It's pointing out TO OTHERS WHO CARE about actually having FACTS that it wasn't VERIFIED.
So....basically it's WORTHLESS.
And I'll make others aware of that each and everytime you use a site that HASN'T verified the facts.
posted on May 28, 2007 05:43:08 PM new
Over Cheney's four years as secretary of defense, encompassing budgets for fiscal years 1990-93, DoD's total obligational authority in current dollars declined from $291.3 billion to $269.9 billion. Except for FY 1991, when the TOA budget increased by 1.7 percent, the Cheney budgets showed negative real growth: -2.9 percent in 1990, -9.8 percent in 1992, and -8.1 percent in 1993. During this same period total military personnel declined by 19.4 percent, from 2.202 million in FY 1989 to 1.776 million in FY 1993. The Army took the largest cut, from 770,000 to 572,000-25.8 percent of its strength. The Air Force declined by 22.3 percent, the Navy by 14 percent, and the Marines by 9.7 percent.
The V-22 question caused friction between Cheney and Congress throughout his tenure. DoD spent some of the money Congress appropriated to develop the aircraft, but congressional sources accused Cheney, who continued to oppose the Osprey, of violating the law by not moving ahead as Congress had directed. Cheney argued that building and testing the prototype Osprey would cost more than the amount appropriated. In the spring of 1992 several congressional supporters of the V-22 threatened to take Cheney to court over the issue. A little later, in the face of suggestions from congressional Republicans that Cheney's opposition to the Osprey was hurting President Bush's reelection campaign, especially in Texas and Pennsylvania where the aircraft would be built, Cheney relented and suggested spending $1.5 billion in fiscal years 1992 and 1993 to develop it. He made clear that he personally still opposed the Osprey and favored a less costly alternative.
posted on May 29, 2007 05:18:24 AM new
Today: May 29, 2007 at 4:35:7 PDT
Russia Test-Launches New Missile
By JIM HEINTZ
Associated Press Writer
MOSCOW (AP) - Russia test-launched a new intercontinental ballistic missile Tuesday that is capable of carrying multiple independent warheads, the Russian Strategic Missile Forces said.
The missile, called the RS-24, was fired from a mobile launcher at the Plesetsk launch in northwestern Russia and its test warhead landed on target some 3,400 miles away on the Far Eastern Kamchatka Peninsula, a statement from the forces said.
The new missile is seen as eventually replacing the aging RS-18s and RS-20s that are the backbone of the country's missile forces, the statement said. Those missiles are known in the West as the SS-19 Stiletto and the SS-18 Satan.
The statement said the RS-24 conforms with terms laid down in the START-I treaty and the 2002 Moscow Treaty, which call for reducing each country's nuclear arsenal to 1,700 to 2,000 warheads.
The RS-24 "strengthens the capability of the attack groups of the Strategic Missile Forces by surmounting anti-missile defense systems, at the same time strengthening the potential for nuclear deterrence," the statement said.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on May 29, 2007 05:20 AM ]
