Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Al-Qaida WMD threat calls for more defense spending

Greenwald, towards  the end of an otherwise pedantic blog post about budgetary matters,  describes how America ought to respond to the breaking MSNBC* report pictured at right. Greenwald:
But we should all try to remain a little calm, at least.  I'm sure if we just buy some more fighter jets, create some better underground bombs, invade a few more Muslim countries, keep more Muslims Islamic terrorists [sic] imprisoned forever with no charges, give the Pentagon, the CIA and their private contractors a lot more unaccounted-for cash and stay out of their way, expand our domestic spying networks even further through private sector telecom contracts, pour tens of billions of dollars more into the coffers of our Middle East client states, and kill a few more civilians terrorists [sic] with drones, this problem will be handled.  It's just a matter of making sure we bulk up our military budget -- and Look Forward, not Backward to what was done in the past -- and we'll be able to Stay Safe from this Terrorist-WMD menace.
[USDOF legal council have edited some lines due to concerns about political correctness - ed]

Greenwald, who typically blogs about superfluous pre-war constitutional matters, actually makes some valid points here.  As Greenwald explains, various military and security initiatives can go along way towards keeping American corporations secure in our dangerous world.  These measures require spending significantly more on defense.   Elsewhere in the post, Greenwald notes that less than half the federal budget goes towards defense.  Well, where is all the rest of the money going?  What could be more important than national security?  

Greenwald anticipates that increasing defense spending would have a calming effect on the population.  USDOF understands this risk, and -- cognizant of the need to counter it -- is planning new campaigns.

*Regrettably, USDOF media analysts missed the MSNBC story as our televisions are usually tuned to FOX News, but we are committed to partnering with MSNBC parent company GE.

Friday, January 22, 2010

Best news article of 2009

USDOF took a vote. Hands down, the Department staff think the best news article of 2009 was "A Dangerous World" published by the Heritage Foundation.   Our favorite quotes:
"The world remains dangerous."

"Congress should keep these vast and varied threats in mind as it debates the Pentagon's budget. . . ."

USDOF welcomes Surpeme Court decision on campaign finance

Corporations -- particularly defense contractors -- have a role to play in keeping the public informed about policies critical to our security.

Thanks to yesterday's US Supreme Court decision, corporations will be better positioned to help voters become fully informed about our dangerous world before they cast their votes.   Debacles like the Congressional elections of 2006 and 2008 -- when fear took a backseat to naive hope --  are never likely to happen again.

As DoF Director Stag told Fox News this morning, "This decision represents a major positive step. A revolution, really."

Vice President Dick Cheney to Obama: "We are at War"

On Christmas Day, Obama received a serious wake up call from the terrorists.    POLITICO transcribed the Vice-President's remarks as follows:
As I’ve watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low-key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of Sept. 11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won’t be at war.

He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core Al Qaeda-trained terrorists still there, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, ‘war on terror,’ we won’t be at war. But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe. Why doesn’t he want to admit we’re at war? It doesn’t fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn’t fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency — social transformation — the restructuring of American society. President Obama’s first object and his highest responsibility must be to defend us against an enemy that knows we are at war.