VP Cheney Seems Flippant Re Possibility of Spending $$$ on Things Other Than Offensive Military Actions
VP Cheney (http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/) has gone on the warpath in recent days, attempting to stir up support for the continued US presence in Iraq and the "war on terror in general", trying to get America ready to strike in Iran if need be. Cheney seems to have a better speechwriter than Bush, but still something is missing.
Cheney flatly declared that this "war on terror" cannot be fought on the defensive; but he did not attempt to produce any argument or evidence to show that it cannot be fought on the defensive. When NBC's Russert while interviewing Cheney, continuing the line of thought I had established in an earlier blog post,repeatedly asked Cheney if the 300 billion spent on Iraq could have been better spent elsewhere, Cheney responded by talking about what a great job the country had been doing, talking about how the fact the USA has not been attacked since 911 proves that the money has been well spent.
Thus Cheney continued the recent US govt tradition of declamatory pronouncements unsubstantiated by evidence or argument, ie, 'the only way to fight terror is on the offensive! This is a war that cannot be fought on the defensive! The best way to use the money is to invade and occupy middleastern nations!'
Cheney seems to think that the fact that we have not been attacked since 911, proves that the money that has been spent on the "War on Terror" has been spent on the best spending alternatives available.
Actually, IMHO, the fact that there have been no attacks on the USA since 911, does not prove that the hundreds of billions spent since 911 have been spent on the wisest of possible alternatives.
The mere fact that a nation is attacked, does not indicate that the money that nation spent on security, was spent unwisely; and the mere fact that a nation is not attacked, does mean that it has been spending the money it devotes to its national security wisely.
During the years the USA was not attacked, there were weird things happening like the military paying contractors $10,000 for a toilet seat. Sometimes the weakness of a short-sighted policy does not produce its negative effects for several years.
Cheney stated that two trillion dollars were spent on national security in the ten years prior to 911, but, said Cheney, even then 911 was not prevented. He did not mention that for seven of those ten years the US House and Senate were controlled by Republicans like him.
Cheney himself states that their two trillion dollars of military spending could not even prevent an attack on 911 by Islamic militants using mere boxcutter implements as tools of their terrorists trade. If so, Mr. VP, then how one be so flippant when it comes to attempting to prove the case that the money that has been and is being spent is being spent on the best of all possible spending alternatives?
The lion's share of the two trillion in pre-911 defense spending that Cheney points out could not stop mere boxcutter-wielders, was spent on offensive weaponry, as opposed to defensive systems, and as opposed to interventions designed to strengthen the national economy while simultaneously depriving would-be terrorists of the financial wherewithal to accomplish their aims.
How then Cheney be so blythely gung-ho, about continuing the policy of spending on offensive weapons, ignoring defenses, and not even considering the possibility of putting a few hundred billion into crusades such as peacefully establishing energy independence, peacefully establishing
domestic sources of production outside the energy area also so as to balance trade and insure long term health for the national economy?
Cheney says on the one hand that the war on terror cannot be fought using defensive measures. On the other hand he takes pride in listing all the defensive measures the USA has established, measures which in his opinion have been significant effective factors in the prevention of a 911 re-occurrence. How the "war on terror" be fought only on the offensive, while at the same time the "war on terror"'s big heroes are defensive actions?
Obviously someone in Washington is not doing enough thinking in terms of weighing the cost-benefit of one possible use of money to enhance national security, vs the cost-benefit of other possible uses of money to enhance national security.
Cheney on the one hand says that the fact there has not been another 911 proves the money spent on the "war on terror" has been spent wisely compared to possible alternatives. He also says that the string of 911-like attacks all over the world since 911 shows the enemy is still on his feet fighting. He also says that the "War on Terror" should be fought through offensive military actions. The question is, since the absence of another 911 in the USA combined with the occurrence of 911 type stuff outside the USA points to defensive measures as being more effective than offensive ones, how Cheney so flippantly dismiss the possibility that the War on Terror funds have been spent on the wrong things now and in the past?
Cheney says that the terrorist enemy that he opposes has gotten fighters into the USA itself. He says we have to figure out what is going on in the minds of these terrorists. What about preventing such terrorists from entering the nation in the first place through the common sense, basic fundamental statecraft called "border security"? Learning how to read the minds of terrorists is supposed to excel border security as a security measure?
Somebody in Washington is blythely and flippantly failing to weigh the cost benefits of various policy options against each other. The fact we are troubled because we suspect that Cheney for example does not even know or care how much it would cost to erect an effective fence or wall around the USA, on the nation's borders, means something is wrong.
National security obviously requires money. The USA economy has lost its ability to produce this money, since it has become a hollow impermanent shell of an economy, running on money borrowed from foreigners by the private and public sectors, and on money on hand through the sale of assets to foreigners, money which then circulates in the US economy from hand to hand, with one borrowed dollar producing twenty dollars in anual GNP for the economy. Such is a castle made of sand.
We should not be left with the nagging feeling that our leaders have not even bothered working out, for example, how much money would have to be used to balance the trade deficit or to produce energy independence, and how the cost benefit of such a use of money compares with the cost benefit of military crusades invading the Muslim homelands.
Money spent by the government does not have to be an either or proposition. It is not as if the choice is, the money is spent on Cheney's Halliburton and if not on something else instead. Taxes could be raised enabling the government to do what it is doing and then some more also. The danger to the state, lies in the hyper-enthusiasm special interest representatives display for spending that benefits their own special interest, to the point where they show something like a salesman's contempt for things that could be bought by the government instead of what they themselves are selling, or in addition to what they are selling.
Cheney flatly declared that this "war on terror" cannot be fought on the defensive; but he did not attempt to produce any argument or evidence to show that it cannot be fought on the defensive. When NBC's Russert while interviewing Cheney, continuing the line of thought I had established in an earlier blog post,repeatedly asked Cheney if the 300 billion spent on Iraq could have been better spent elsewhere, Cheney responded by talking about what a great job the country had been doing, talking about how the fact the USA has not been attacked since 911 proves that the money has been well spent.
Thus Cheney continued the recent US govt tradition of declamatory pronouncements unsubstantiated by evidence or argument, ie, 'the only way to fight terror is on the offensive! This is a war that cannot be fought on the defensive! The best way to use the money is to invade and occupy middleastern nations!'
Cheney seems to think that the fact that we have not been attacked since 911, proves that the money that has been spent on the "War on Terror" has been spent on the best spending alternatives available.
Actually, IMHO, the fact that there have been no attacks on the USA since 911, does not prove that the hundreds of billions spent since 911 have been spent on the wisest of possible alternatives.
The mere fact that a nation is attacked, does not indicate that the money that nation spent on security, was spent unwisely; and the mere fact that a nation is not attacked, does mean that it has been spending the money it devotes to its national security wisely.
During the years the USA was not attacked, there were weird things happening like the military paying contractors $10,000 for a toilet seat. Sometimes the weakness of a short-sighted policy does not produce its negative effects for several years.
Cheney stated that two trillion dollars were spent on national security in the ten years prior to 911, but, said Cheney, even then 911 was not prevented. He did not mention that for seven of those ten years the US House and Senate were controlled by Republicans like him.
Cheney himself states that their two trillion dollars of military spending could not even prevent an attack on 911 by Islamic militants using mere boxcutter implements as tools of their terrorists trade. If so, Mr. VP, then how one be so flippant when it comes to attempting to prove the case that the money that has been and is being spent is being spent on the best of all possible spending alternatives?
The lion's share of the two trillion in pre-911 defense spending that Cheney points out could not stop mere boxcutter-wielders, was spent on offensive weaponry, as opposed to defensive systems, and as opposed to interventions designed to strengthen the national economy while simultaneously depriving would-be terrorists of the financial wherewithal to accomplish their aims.
How then Cheney be so blythely gung-ho, about continuing the policy of spending on offensive weapons, ignoring defenses, and not even considering the possibility of putting a few hundred billion into crusades such as peacefully establishing energy independence, peacefully establishing
domestic sources of production outside the energy area also so as to balance trade and insure long term health for the national economy?
Cheney says on the one hand that the war on terror cannot be fought using defensive measures. On the other hand he takes pride in listing all the defensive measures the USA has established, measures which in his opinion have been significant effective factors in the prevention of a 911 re-occurrence. How the "war on terror" be fought only on the offensive, while at the same time the "war on terror"'s big heroes are defensive actions?
Obviously someone in Washington is not doing enough thinking in terms of weighing the cost-benefit of one possible use of money to enhance national security, vs the cost-benefit of other possible uses of money to enhance national security.
Cheney on the one hand says that the fact there has not been another 911 proves the money spent on the "war on terror" has been spent wisely compared to possible alternatives. He also says that the string of 911-like attacks all over the world since 911 shows the enemy is still on his feet fighting. He also says that the "War on Terror" should be fought through offensive military actions. The question is, since the absence of another 911 in the USA combined with the occurrence of 911 type stuff outside the USA points to defensive measures as being more effective than offensive ones, how Cheney so flippantly dismiss the possibility that the War on Terror funds have been spent on the wrong things now and in the past?
Cheney says that the terrorist enemy that he opposes has gotten fighters into the USA itself. He says we have to figure out what is going on in the minds of these terrorists. What about preventing such terrorists from entering the nation in the first place through the common sense, basic fundamental statecraft called "border security"? Learning how to read the minds of terrorists is supposed to excel border security as a security measure?
Somebody in Washington is blythely and flippantly failing to weigh the cost benefits of various policy options against each other. The fact we are troubled because we suspect that Cheney for example does not even know or care how much it would cost to erect an effective fence or wall around the USA, on the nation's borders, means something is wrong.
National security obviously requires money. The USA economy has lost its ability to produce this money, since it has become a hollow impermanent shell of an economy, running on money borrowed from foreigners by the private and public sectors, and on money on hand through the sale of assets to foreigners, money which then circulates in the US economy from hand to hand, with one borrowed dollar producing twenty dollars in anual GNP for the economy. Such is a castle made of sand.
We should not be left with the nagging feeling that our leaders have not even bothered working out, for example, how much money would have to be used to balance the trade deficit or to produce energy independence, and how the cost benefit of such a use of money compares with the cost benefit of military crusades invading the Muslim homelands.
Money spent by the government does not have to be an either or proposition. It is not as if the choice is, the money is spent on Cheney's Halliburton and if not on something else instead. Taxes could be raised enabling the government to do what it is doing and then some more also. The danger to the state, lies in the hyper-enthusiasm special interest representatives display for spending that benefits their own special interest, to the point where they show something like a salesman's contempt for things that could be bought by the government instead of what they themselves are selling, or in addition to what they are selling.
***
Too much spent on some things, too little spent on other things, money spent on useless or worse than useless goods and services, excessive government budget deficits, insufficient tax revenue, deceitful or foolish boasting about how tax cuts spurred the economy on when actually the increase in money borrowed from foreigners that occurred as a result of the tax cuts (temporarily) spurred the economy on: such is What you get when you have several special interests, each of which: denigrates spending that produces sales for interests other than itself; and pushes for tax cuts in order to render itself popular.
@2006 David Virgil Hobbs
posted by David Virgil at 4:18 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home