"Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms"

Ed Rasimus wrote:
Snip:
And, now he believes Hamas is willing to co-exist with Israel...

One can only say the Jimmy Carter meant well.

...but executed poorly.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com


I wish he would stick to building houses & Leave the politics to the pros.

"Tiger" wrote in message
...
Ed Rasimus wrote:
Snip:
And, now he believes Hamas is willing to co-exist with Israel...

One can only say the Jimmy Carter meant well.

...but executed poorly.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com


I wish he would stick to building houses & Leave the politics to the pros.


you mean like bush,cheney and rice?????????
some "pros"

and your hero reagan was king of the "cut and runners" unlike you present
days wingnut fools , the traitor reagan was not blinded by ideaology

On Apr 24, 3:27 pm, "Ray O'Hara" barked:
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y16...g_moonbat3.jpg

On Apr 22, 10:42*am, Jack Linthicum
wrote:
On Apr 22, 10:28 am, "La N" wrote:





"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message

...

On Apr 22, 9:48 am, Mike wrote:
Goodbye to your favorite weapon programs. The money will go to liberal
social welfare programs....

Analyst: Obama Would Be A Nightmare For Defense Programs, Firms

Defense Daily

If Sen. Barak Obama of Illinois wins the Democratic presidential
nomination and then goes on to be elected to the White House, the
defense industry better brace for tough times, according to Heidi
Wood, Morgan Stanley defense analyst.

While Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican
presidential nominee, might be better, with his military and prisoner-
of-war background, his past crusades against contractors also could
mean a McCain presidency might be bad news for Pentagon programs and
the companies involved in them, Wood predicted.

She spoke before a Missile Defense Agency-American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics conference in Washington, D.C., last
week.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, another contender for the
Democratic presidential nomination, might not be that bad for defense,
Wood said. Both Clinton and McCain sit on the Senate Armed Services
Committee, where McCain is the ranking Republican.

"Obama looks to be a growing concern for [Department of Defense]
spending," Wood said. "McCain and Clinton are probably better for
overall defense spending. Obama is an uncertainty."

However, Wood said, McCain "going after defense contractors worries
investors," while Clinton gives investors "less of a worry."

For example, McCain blasted an Air Force tanker plane leasing contract
for costing more than buying planes outright. He also helped to
unearth the fact that Darleen Druyun, an Air Force procurement
official, negotiated with Boeing [BA] to lease 100 new aerial
refueling tanker aircraft at the same time she negotiated with Boeing
to get a $250,000 a year job there.

Boeing helped to discover the deal; fired Druyun and Mike Sears, the
CFO who hired her; and cooperated with authorities who later put
Druyun and Sears behind bars. But Boeing lost the contract, and then
the Air Force gave it to a Northrop Grumman [NOC] and European
Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. team to supply Airbus tanker planes.

Clinton's home state, New York, includes some contractors, such as
Lockheed Martin [LMT], which is outfitting the US101 helicopters based
on an AgustaWestland Italian-U.K. design that are to become the future
Marine One helicopters transporting presidents from the White House
South Lawn.

Wood also said that defense contractor stocks have performed
brilliantly in the past year, with aerospace stocks and defense
company stocks jumping by 19 percent in price, versus a gain of only 4
percent for the Standard & Poor's 500 index.

Remember Jimmy Carter?

What about Jimmy Carter?

And, btw, if aerospace and defense stocks have performed brilliantly in the
past year, does that mean that war is good for business?

- nilita

War is very good for business. Did you see or hear Hillary's bit on
Olbermann last night? If Iran nukes Israel or acts like it wants to be
a nuke power we nuke them, just for drill.

Clinton warns Iran of U.S. nuclear response
Senator: ‘Massive retaliation’ for attack on Israel would likely
include NATO

Video
* Iran ‘risking massive retaliation’
April 21: Hillary Clinton talks with Countdown’s Keith Olbermann on
the eve of the crucial Pennsylvania primary.

Countdown

Video

* Clinton rallies in Pennsylvania
April 21: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks at a rally in Pittsburgh.

MSNBC
updated 9:07 p.m. ET, Mon., April. 21, 2008

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton confirmed Monday that as president she
would be willing to use nuclear weapons against Iran if it were to
launch a nuclear attack on Israel.

Clinton’s remarks, made in an interview on MSNBC’s “Countdown With
Keith Olbermann,” clarified a statement she made last week in a
Democratic presidential debate in Philadelphia. In that debate,
Clinton, D-N.Y., said an Iranian attack on Israel would bring “massive
retaliation,” without defining what the phrase meant.

In the interview Monday, Clinton affirmed that she would warn Iran’s
leaders that “their use of nuclear weapons against Israel would
provoke a nuclear response from the United States.”

She said U.S. allies in the Middle East were being “intimidated and
bullied into submission by Iran,” raising the prospect of an
“incredibly destabilizing” arms race in the region.

“I can imagine that they would be rushing to obtain nuclear weapons
themselves” if Iran were to develop a nuclear arsenal, she said.

Clinton said it was vital that the United States create a new
“security umbrella” to reassure Israel and its other allies in the
region that they would not be threatened by Iran. She said she would
tell them that “if you were the subject of an unprovoked nuclear
attack by Iran, the United States, and hopefully our NATO allies,
would respond to that.”

Clinton seeks tougher profile than Obama
Clinton’s hinting at a nuclear option last week set off a wave of
commentary in political circles that she was seeking to position
herself as a hawk as the primary campaign winds toward an end. Her
opponent for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois,
has said that he would not rule out any options if Iran were to become
a nuclear power, but he has not explicitly said he would be willing
use nuclear weapons.

Clinton’s remarks reflected the theme of her latest advertising in
Pennsylvania, where Democratic voters go to the polls Tuesday with
analysts in both camps saying she must win the state’s primary if she
is to remain a credible candidate.

Carter, the closest thing we have ever had to a real active duty
officer, not staff or command, wanted everything justified and cut if
unjustified.- Hide quoted text -

Well, an active duty submariner is not the same thing as an active
duty officer.
Which is where GPS, Internet, Microcomputers, Fiber Optics, Cell
Phones,
Cruise Mssiles, laser-guided bombs, PV Cells, and AUVs, AAVs,
Drones,
and Robots, came for Carter in his idiot energy budget.






- Show quoted text -

Jack Linthicum wrote:

Carter, the closest thing we have ever had to a real active duty
officer, not staff or command, wanted everything justified and cut if
unjustified.


"Ever" is a long time. Do you mean in your lifetime, or just since you
started reading USENET?

Eisenhower did not see combat prior to his Command, unless you count
rousting Bonus Marchers, but then neither did Carter prior to his
Presidency.

Truman served in WW1 combat as an artillery officer.

And I'm leaving out a bunch of others, including Kennedy and another
fellow you may have heard of named GEORGE WASHINGTON.


Jack

On Apr 24, 9:41 am, J a c k wrote:
Jack Linthicum wrote:
Carter, the closest thing we have ever had to a real active duty
officer, not staff or command, wanted everything justified and cut if
unjustified.

"Ever" is a long time. Do you mean in your lifetime, or just since you
started reading USENET?

Eisenhower did not see combat prior to his Command, unless you count
rousting Bonus Marchers, but then neither did Carter prior to his
Presidency.

Truman served in WW1 combat as an artillery officer.

And I'm leaving out a bunch of others, including Kennedy and another
fellow you may have heard of named GEORGE WASHINGTON.

Jack

Truman was an artillery officer, yes, he was not a micro-manager. G.
Washington, was, as I have heard, not a micro-manager, perhaps not
even a manager. He had Hamilton for that.

Hamilton Jordan said it best about the Carter presidency before it had
even started, "If Cyrus Vance is the Secretary of State, we have
lost." Cyrus Vance was the SecState. Carter wanted everything to be on
his desk and signed off on before it was implemented. There was a
reason for that:

"A few reform-minded Democrats and intellectuals were starting to
rethink the premises of big government liberalism, to wonder if there
might be less expensive and bureaucratic--and more effective--means to
traditional liberal ends. Carter was inclined to agree with them. But
such thinking was anathema to the party's liberal leaders and most
powerful interest groups, and they were positioned to stop it.

When Carter took over as president, the nation's most pressing--and
consuming--problems were economic. Growth and worker productivity were
low, unemployment and federal deficits were high and rising, and, by
midway through the president's term, inflation and interest rates were
compounding at more than 10 percent annually. Carter's plan was to
balance the budget, slashing spending enough to also provide for a $15
billion tax cut which would act as an economic spur. Congress rejected
the package, insisting instead on an economic stimulus package (which
Carter reluctantly signed) consisting of $15 billion for public works
projects, urban aid, and education, the kind of program that reeked of
1933. This pattern was repeated throughout Carter's term, as unions
fought the president's calls for voluntary wage controls to combat
inflation, and Congress resisted Carter's repeated attempts to balance
the federal budget. The president proposed a budget for 1980 designed
to restore fiscal austerity and cut spending to keep the deficit for
that year under $30 billion. Congress insisted on restoring the cuts,
and by the end of the process, the budget was more than $60 billion in
the red.

The second great challenge the Democrats faced was an OPEC-induced
surge in energy prices. Carter came in with some good and some bad
ideas about how to alleviate the energy crisis. Democrats in Congress
rebuffed the president's best plan--Carter's attempt to lift the price
controls Richard Nixon had imposed on domestic energy. But
congressional Democrats eagerly adopted his bad ideas, including the
creation of the Department of Energy, which would become perhaps the
most dysfunctional agency in Washington. House Speaker Tip O'Neill set
up a task force to speed along passage of the authorizing bill,
getting the agency running in a matter of months. Congress happily
signed on in 1980 when Carter asked it to set up the Synthetic Fuels
Corporation. The program ultimately spent $88 billion subsidizing
American oil and gas companies to try to extract petroleum out of oil
shale, an enterprise only slightly more cost-effective than trying to
wring water from a stone. The SynFuels concept dispensed a lot of
taxpayer money to a lot of Democratic interest groups but did nothing
to solve the energy crisis."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fea...ace-wells.html

"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message
...
On Apr 22, 10:28 am, "La N" wrote:
"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message

...

SNIP

SNIP
Carter, the closest thing we have ever had to a real active duty
officer, not staff or command, wanted everything justified and cut if
unjustified.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'real active duty officer'.

Carter never came under fire. G.H.W. Bush, JFK, Truman, Theodore Roosevelt,
Garfield, Hayes, Grant, Lincoln, Harrison, Jackson and Washington all did.

And I would suggest that since Eisenhower was able to survive in the US
Army through the 1920's and 30's, then he must have been pretty familiar
with how to justify what was necessary and what was not.

"Dave" wrote in message
...

"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message
...
On Apr 22, 10:28 am, "La N" wrote:
"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message

...

SNIP

SNIP
Carter, the closest thing we have ever had to a real active duty
officer, not staff or command, wanted everything justified and cut if
unjustified.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'real active duty officer'.

Carter never came under fire. G.H.W. Bush, JFK, Truman, Theodore
Roosevelt, Garfield, Hayes, Grant, Lincoln, Harrison, Jackson and
Washington all did.

And I would suggest that since Eisenhower was able to survive in the US
Army through the 1920's and 30's, then he must have been pretty familiar
with how to justify what was necessary and what was not.

Sorry, I forgot out Gerald Ford and the rest of the crew of the USS
Monterey.

"Dave" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote in message
...

"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message
...
On Apr 22, 10:28 am, "La N" wrote:
"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message

...

SNIP

SNIP
Carter, the closest thing we have ever had to a real active duty
officer, not staff or command, wanted everything justified and cut if
unjustified.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'real active duty officer'.

Carter never came under fire. G.H.W. Bush, JFK, Truman, Theodore
Roosevelt, Garfield, Hayes, Grant, Lincoln, Harrison, Jackson and
Washington all did.

And I would suggest that since Eisenhower was able to survive in the US
Army through the 1920's and 30's, then he must have been pretty familiar
with how to justify what was necessary and what was not.

Sorry, I forgot out Gerald Ford and the rest of the crew of the USS
Monterey.

I see that William McKinley was left off the list. He served in the Civil
War enlisting as a private, but by the end of the war he mustered out as a
captain. It should be noted that his regiment of volunteer infantry from
Ohio was commanded by Colonel Rutherford B. Hayes, who has been listed
above.

ALV

"Andrew Venor" wrote in message
. ..
"Dave" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote in message
...

"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message
...
On Apr 22, 10:28 am, "La N" wrote:
"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message

...

SNIP

SNIP
Carter, the closest thing we have ever had to a real active duty
officer, not staff or command, wanted everything justified and cut if
unjustified.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'real active duty officer'.

Carter never came under fire. G.H.W. Bush, JFK, Truman, Theodore
Roosevelt, Garfield, Hayes, Grant, Lincoln, Harrison, Jackson and
Washington all did.

And I would suggest that since Eisenhower was able to survive in the US
Army through the 1920's and 30's, then he must have been pretty
familiar with how to justify what was necessary and what was not.

Sorry, I forgot out Gerald Ford and the rest of the crew of the USS
Monterey.

I see that William McKinley was left off the list. He served in the Civil
War enlisting as a private, but by the end of the war he mustered out as a
captain. It should be noted that his regiment of volunteer infantry from
Ohio was commanded by Colonel Rutherford B. Hayes, who has been listed
above.

ALV

Thanks. I didn't know about McKinely's service.