« PETA: Use human milk, not cow milk! | Main | New McCain Ad: Promise »

Obama: I was against missile defense systems before I was for them.

Earlier this year, Obama said he'd slash funding for "unproved" missile defense systems. At last night's debate when he wanted to look hawkish, he said he was for them. When he's campaigning somewhere like Seattle, Berkeley, or New York, will he be against them again?

Here's the video comparison:

Flip-flopping you can believe in.

Hat Tip: Gateway Pundit


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/31901.

Comments (21)

This seems like something f... (Below threshold)
Clint:

This seems like something for Palin to start hammering him on, once she gets through the debate this week.

The line about saying one thing in Scranton and another thing in San Francisco has got to be a huge part of the attack on this guy. And you know (or hope?) they're compiling a list of these that will be played out one after another to make the case.

He talks like a moderate. He's not. If McCain and Palin let him get away with that, they deserve to lose.

Team McCain/Palin needs to ... (Below threshold)
ExSubNuke:

Team McCain/Palin needs to put out something like this for all to see his flip floppin ways. As I commented in another thread, now that we have him spouting off, on camera, at the debates, positions that he clearly doesn't hold (and that we have tape or audio of), his flippin' and floppin' will become FAR more apparent.

He's an empty suit that will say ANYTHING to get elected, and now that 3 year (!!!) campaign will come back to haunt him.

I was watching the debate a... (Below threshold)

I was watching the debate at the local Republican headquarters last night and that was the first thought we all had in our head. HUH?! Sen. Obama has ran totally against SDI especially the concept. Yes, Team McCain needs to hammer that point home again and again. That Sen. Obama says what he thinks people want to hear. Votes speak louder than platitudes and while he has not been a United States senator for long, his votes tell a different story.

The problem with the "Obama... (Below threshold)
Brian:

The problem with the "Obama is a flip-flopper" theme is that McCain has just as many. The most recent (though least significant) of which was "I was against debating without a finalized bailout plan before I was for it".

Yeah, that's pretty unsigni... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Yeah, that's pretty unsignificant compared to missile defense, isn't it?

One MUST have a sense of proportion, after all...

"I was against deb... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
"I was against debating without a finalized bailout plan before I was for it".

That's because he doesn't really want a bailout. He addressed the first question by saying he wanted a package that didn't include government intervention, and that's what he was working on. He couldn't go into details because it was still in the works, and Obama side-stepped the question completely.

Here's another area of big ... (Below threshold)

Here's another area of big taxpayer waste that McCain and many Republicans support. Since the Reagan years, the U.S. has spent more than $100 billion dollars on mostly failed experiments at antimissile protection systems. What do we currently have for all this money? Just 10 operational Missile Interceptors located in Alaska capable of possibly, but not definitely, downing just 5 solid rocket fueled nuclear missiles. That's right only 5 at best.

How many nuclear warheads do some states have? Russia could have as high as 8,800, although better estimates put the figure at about 5,518. China may have as many as 400, but closer to 160 may be correct. Even countries like India or Pakistan likely have 60 or more. Only North Korea may have less than 10 operational nuclear warheads.

The fact of the matter is that for a huge amount of defense spending taken from other worthwhile projects such as paying troops, providing them body armor, or other vital equipment for safety in real wars like Iraq or Afghanistan, the U.S. doesn't have the ability to defend against any nuclear attack by any nuclear on earth, no matter how unlikely such a war like that may actually really be.

Serious military scientists argue that it would take at least 16,000 Missile Interceptors hovering in space to defend the U.S. to any real degree from any widespread nuclear attack because any land based system can be easily knocked out by a plutonium umbrella that will stop all electronics including your wristwatch from working in the event of a real shooting war. The U.S. currently has zero space based Missile Interceptors and is years away from any such technology. Even getting the Space Shuttle to fly is a major effort for our space industry let alone building and deploying 16,000 space based Missile Interceptors.

This whole missile defense issue ranks way up there on the top ten of absurd and stupid issues. And at the top of money waste issues. The money isn't there. The technology isn't there. The security isn't there. It's like a black-hole where your tax dollars disappear and never return.

hooson, as is your "normal"... (Below threshold)
marc:

hooson, as is your "normal" (your normal being the operative phrase as opposed to normal "normal") your clueless.

SDI as proposed by Reagan and finally canceled has zero to do with today's much smaller PAC-3 area defense system being tested.

To compare the two is just idiotic, stupid and well, just hooson.

Not to mention another example of a Blue Refugee looking for exposure.

The whole flip-flopper conc... (Below threshold)
groucho:

The whole flip-flopper concept is so 2004. Time to move on. You would think the "we hate all Democrats" crackpot community could at least find some new meme instead of flogging this worn out nag around the track again and again, especially considering how easy it is to apply it to virtually every politician, regardless of party. The character assassins in 04 were successful in clouding the waters with non-issues and we got stuck with four more years of ruinous policies from the guy so many voted for because they thought he'd be fun to have a beer with. I guess they missed the whole alcoholism thing.

Marc, there has been more t... (Below threshold)

Marc, there has been more than 20 years of various failed efforts since the Reagan years to provide a missile defense for this nation. Certainly each program or project had it's own name. But that's not much of a point at all compared to the truth that only 10 operational Missile Interceptors actually exist after all of these efforts, that may at best be able to stop up to just five solid rocket fueled missiles out of thousands deployed around the world. For the $100 billion spent on all the projects since the Reagan years, that's a pretty poor use of money compared to looking out for our troops in Iraq or Afghanistan in real war situations.

Members of the Oregon National Guard were using sandbags and plywood to make makeshift armor for months during their deployment while billions were being spent in this country on more failed Missile Interceptor tests.

In highly controlled tests, where a Missile Interceptor and a missile are virtually put on a string to ram into each other, some success was finally reached. This nation has trouble with the Space Shuttle. NASA even bought some 1970's vintage computer and electronic parts off ads on Ebay to keep this troubled space vehicle running. This is how far this nation is from from a real viable space based defense like what's really needed to defend from any missile attack from any nation. Military experts claim that the U.S. will need 16,000 space based Missile Interceptors to defend the U.S. The U.S. currently has zero. And it takes two Missile Interceptors to successfully target a solid rocket fueled missile compared to one for liquid fueled missiles as well. That's why 16,000 space based platforms are needed if Russia has as many as 8,000 warheads. And still some missiles will get through and kill millions of Americans. That's how far fetched this whole missile defense fantasy is.

hooson - "Marc, there h... (Below threshold)
marc:

hooson - "Marc, there has been more than 20 years of various failed efforts since the Reagan years to provide a missile defense for this nation. Certainly each program or project had it's own name.

Yep they sure have had different names however, in part you tried top equate Reagans SDI with the system being placed in Poland. BS, they are two entirely different systems.

That said.... lets us just see what the follow-on SDI specific systems have done and you are so CLUELESS about.

* Total of 9 successful flight tests & intercepts
* 5 sea-based Aegis intercepts, 4 ground-based intercepts (THAAD & GMD)
* First simultaneous double intercept (2 targets, 2 interceptors)
* First non-US intercept (Japanese Aegis cruiser Kongo)
* Actual birds in the ground: 21 interceptors fielded at Ft. Greely, Alaska, 3 interceptors in the hole at Vandenberg, California. Another 21 SM-3 missiles deployed at sea.

Here nitwitless... Interceptor missiles from the Aegis cruiser USS Lake Erie met yet another successful milestone (Nov. 2007), destroying a salvo of multiple incoming ballistic missiles:

The event marked the 10th and 11th successful ballistic missile intercepts for Lockheed Martin Corp's sea-based Aegis system in 13 attempts, the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency, or MDA, said.

"We consider it a simultaneous engagement," said Richard Lehner, an agency spokesman, on Wednesday. "That means both targets were in flight at the same time even though they were not intercepted at precisely the same moment."
Now, go back to Lee Weird's Wiz-Blue Hole of nonsense and fetid stinkin' pile of bovine excrement.
P.S. hooson - "This nat... (Below threshold)
marc:

P.S. hooson - "This nation has trouble with the Space Shuttle. NASA even bought some 1970's vintage computer and electronic parts off ads on Ebay to keep this troubled space vehicle running.

In a rant about money "wasted" you cite the above. Go to the source asswipe:

A lot of things that go into the shuttle build up are specialty items. Electronics parts that nobody makes any more (1970's vintage stuff). Hey, if it works, why invest money in certifying new parts? Certifying new ones would be even more costly!

Bit of an aside... but now ... (Below threshold)
ExSubNuke:

Bit of an aside... but now that I think of it, the good BO has a bit of a critical thinking disconnect.

Going from his comments last night, he'd cut funding for unproven missile defense systems.

Here's the problem with that line of thought. We don't really have any at this time (proven systems, that is). How do you prove systems then? Why you fund their development.

It's his catch-22 way of saying he'd cut funding.

ExSubNuc - "Going from ... (Below threshold)
marc:

ExSubNuc - "Going from his comments last night, he'd cut funding for unproven missile defense systems."

I vaguely recall the obama O'Reilly interview where The One was caught in this trap.

I don't recall the exact wording but he was asked about missle systems and other defense issues. He answered, O'Reilly repeated the question, obama thought a second, then said he would cut "unproven missile systems."

As for hoonson, I'm shocked, shocked I tell-ya he hasn't returned with the "highly controlled tests" tripe about my last comment.

Which I'm sure you know, and I have intimate knowledge of via missle testing (New Threat Upgrade (NTU) system ) done on the U.S.S. England, and other mil testing in general is the only way to gather a valid data set to proceed with fully functional deployed systems.

Paul - U got my petticoat ... (Below threshold)
MF:

Paul - U got my petticoat in a knot. I had to go do something before I blew my cool.
You are just spewing words.
====================================

The Space Program is one of the most positive things the US has done and continues to be. I dont consider it a waste of money.
The number of positive health benefits, education, defense, the employment of very educated and innovative people on a very tight budget results in improvements in our day to day living which far outweigh our fraction of a penny tax money. I rather my money go to something worthwhile for the country and proven.

Even O took a second look and realized that he was wrong and should support the space program/shuttle. Of course it was after McCain voiced his support and wrote the letter to the President. And not long afterwards O wrote a letter too. Looks like O has little or no good ideas of his own.
---------------------------------
On US defense. yes we need to ensure that we are safe on US soil and ensure when something occurs we are ready. security is only so good.
I compare security of the nation like security on computers. Prevention is essential and it is ever evolving.
I would rather fight where the terrorists are then pretend nothing bad will ever happen.
eg like when Mr Clinton had opportunities to stop security problems during his admin but he 'turned his cheek'. eg didnt he let bin laden go?
folks need to wake up. not everyone in the world are nice and they dont play nice either. do I wish there were world peace and our soldiers not have to die. Of course but that's not realistic. there a thugs and they kill some for no reason.

I am the author of that You... (Below threshold)

I am the author of that YouTube above.

If you want to get up to date about our current ballistic missile defense system --- and not the ancient ramblings of Paul Hooson --- check out all of my BMD posts.

Most recently, I covered last week's NPR very informative series on missile defense.

Hey, marc. I just went to ... (Below threshold)
ExSubNuke:

Hey, marc. I just went to youtube and watched the O'Reilly & Obama interview. In segment 4, Obama says he'll keep the missile system only "after we make sure it works" (or words similar to that effect).

Just HOW does he expect you make sure it works if you don't fund the development?!?! Fairy magic?!?! Put it on your Christmas wishlist for Santa to deliver?!?!

What fricken disconnect is there in his brain that doesn't understand that you have to fund the development of a system to TEST IT. Then you deploy it. It sure sounds like he's only going to fund it after it's deployment ready.

How do you get it deployment ready without funding?!?! How?!?!

ExSubNuc - "How do you ... (Below threshold)
marc:

ExSubNuc - "How do you get it deployment ready without funding?!?! How?!?!

When it come to defense issues obama is as clueless as, dare I say it....l Hooson.

MF, I'm also a strong space... (Below threshold)

MF, I'm also a strong space program supporter and I'm dismayed that more more hasn't been spent to replace the shuttle with a newer or safer vehicle where tiles don't fall off in the rain or crews are sometimes killed in needless accidents. And 1970's electronics technology is not brought into the current modern computer age.

And Marc, we may disagree about the actual number of effective antimissile defenses actually deployed of all types, but the point still is that for $100 billion dollars the U.S. may have the ability at best to stop around 10 or fewer solid rocket fuel missiles out of thousands a military like the Russians currently have. What kind of an argument is it anyway that we stopped 10 missiles and only 5,000 got through anyway?

PaulIt's the fundin... (Below threshold)
MF:

Paul
It's the funding. when I worked there we used what money and equipment we had and made it work on a tight budget.

hooson - "MF, I'm also ... (Below threshold)
marc:

hooson - "MF, I'm also a strong space program supporter and I'm dismayed

You are? Could'a fooled me with statements claiming EBay buys are keeping the Shuttle running when in fact it was and still is the most cost effective way to by those particular parts.

hooson - we may disagree about the actual number of effective antimissile defenses actually deployed of all types, but the point still is that for $100 billion dollars the U.S. may have the ability at best to stop around 10 or fewer solid rocket fuel missiles out of thousands a military like the Russians currently have. What kind of an argument is it anyway that we stopped 10 missiles and only 5,000 got through anyway?

Horseshit hosoon. You have to fall back on some out-dated argument using the Russians as some omnipotent, aggressive military threat to the U.S.

They're not, and you are a misguided, scare mongering buffoon.

And BTW, that description also fits obama with his bs about taking our nuclear arsenal off "hair-trigger alert" as he claimed during the debate.

misguided, ill informed, boarderline delusional and just plain stupid fits both or you.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy