The McGraw-Hill Companies
Aviation Week
MEMBER CENTER
LOG IN | REGISTER | SUBSCRIBE
Blogs Forums Photos Videos My Aviationweek

Blog Search

Search all Aviation Week.com blog content

Bookmark and Share
Blog Image
A Defense Technology Blog
Sen. Inhofe Goes Full Guns

File this under things that don’t make much sense.

In a You Tube video today from Afghanistan, U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, went after president Obama and the budget proposal that Secretary Gates outlined this afternoon.

At heart is the fact that Inhofe’s pet project, the Future Combat Systems Non-Line of Sight cannon, is slated to be cut, along with the other FCS ground vehicles. And while Inhofe loves the cannon, don’t forget that he also loves that parts of it were set be built in his state, which would create about 100 local jobs.

In the video, he says that Obama “is disarming America. Never before has a president so ravaged the military at a time of war.” The senator also said that the president “guts our military….all this to support his welfare state.” But he was just getting warmed up. Inhofe discards key facts—especially the fact that Gates is calling for more money for wounded care and military family support. Let’s go to the tape, shall we? In his own words, Gates recommends:

-- completing the growth in the Army and Marines while halting reductions in the Air Force and the Navy. Accomplishing this will require a nearly $11 billion increase above the FY09 budget level.

-- Continue the steady growth in medical research and development by requesting $400 million more than last year.

-- Recognize the critical and permanent nature of wounded, ill and injured, traumatic brain injury, and psychological health programs. This means institutionalizing and properly funding these efforts in the base budget and increasing overall spending by $300 million. The department will spend over $47 billion on healthcare in FY10.


-- Increase funding by $200 million for improvements in child care, spousal support, lodging, and education… we have added money to each of these areas and all will be permanently and properly carried in the base defense budget.  Together they represent an increase in base budget funding of $13 billion from last year.

Inhofe calls the proposed budget, “not just unbelievable…it is unconscionable.”

Inhofe does inadvertently manage to get one thing right in his witless tirade. When he says that “the brunt of this decision will be felt by our men and women in uniform right here in Afghanistan,” he’s spot on. That $2 billion slated for more ISR assets and 50 more Predator-class UAVs, along with 2,800 more Special Forces troops and $500 million more to field and sustain more helicopters, surely will be felt by the troops in Afghanistan.

Tags: gatesinhofear99
Email this post
User Image
Loader2088 wrote:
Hardly a "witless tirade." It is likely that the US will one year have to fight somebody besides insurgents with IED's, as important as that fight is. Care of wounded, child care, spousal support, etc. are important but only supportive of warfighting. Being able to insure air dominance, sea control, shoot down WMD carrying ballistic missiles are of primary importance.

What truly horrible timing for this announcement in the days after NK's launch. It seems that an administration which considers government spending to the the ultimate "stimulus" has finally found something worthy of cutting.
4/6/2009 6:24 PM CDT
User Image
S-64 Skycrane wrote:
Sen. Inhofe's charges are quite incendiary. Sen. Inhofe's votes against body armor, up armored HMMWVs, increases in VA spending, and in GI benefits have long discredited him in the realm of having the best interests of the warfighter (another shot of Woodford for Bill). Iraq and Afganistan Veterans of America gave him a 'C' for his voting record in 2008. Good to see he has a change of heart when jobs in his state are at risk.

As far as the fielding of a non-line of site self-propelled cannon system (need an acronym for that one), to replace the M109 Paladin, is concerned I can certainly see where there is a need. The cancellation of Crusader in 2002 has always left a bad taste in my mouth. Perhaps there will be another push to buy PzH 2000 from Germany.
4/6/2009 7:06 PM CDT
User Image
Bobbymike wrote:
Mr McLeary - keep the personal attacks to yourself and report the news "witless tirade" , really? Are you a journalist? We are smart enough here at Ares to read what he said and decide for oursleves.

@Loader2088 - you are right on with your remarks. Pay, benefits and spousal support sctivities are very important but are secondary or tertiary to the role of fighting and winning wars. But this is the game the Democrats play. They cut weapons that provide war winning capabilities in favor of these programs because they KNOW it cannot be criticized as Skycrane wrote so eloquently. What Skycrane is really saying is that the good Senator is not allowed to criticize because of past votes on these issues. But I would like to ask a favor of Mr. Skycrane, could you provide the readers at Ares the Name and number of the Senate bills, the specific provisions in them theat Sen Inhofe voted against and any statements as to the rationale for the vote.

The Dems tried to do this to John McCain during the election. There was to be a new GI Bill that would have given full benefits for education after only three years of service. McCain opposed it believing it would cause a mass exodus of troops after too short of a time in uniform. THEY SAID JOHN MCCAIN did not support the troops. A hero, a wounded, tortured soldier. That's the game the left plays.
4/6/2009 8:12 PM CDT
User Image
McCain is 100% behind gates on this budget......that should count for something.
4/6/2009 9:20 PM CDT
User Image
Solomon wrote:
it is witless when a US Senator (who has presumably the same info as the SecDef) makes such inflammatory statements. i have never seen the amount of venom being spouted from a party as i have seen from the Republicans since Obama has taken office. EVERY branch of government has waste, the defense department being no different. EVERY general when asked how many he needs will get the actual number and then double if not triple it. for Inhofe to make the statement that Obama is ravaging the armed forces is at best dishonest at best a flagrant misrepresentation of the facts. its a political office, not the end of the world. someone seriously needs to tamp down the rhetoric.
4/6/2009 9:22 PM CDT
User Image
Bobbymike wrote:
Solomon - could you point me to all your posts about when the Dems (Murtha) were accusing Marines of killing innocent civilians in cold blood, Harry Reid saying the war was lost in Iraq. Another Democrat Senator said "Bush liked sending troops to Iraq to get their heads blown off for his amusement" Kerry saying our troops were terrorizing women and children in the middle of the night. How many times was Bush "Hitler"?

Saying Obama is gutting the military does not begin to rise to the level of the previous statements by "Senators" A little "selectively" outraged are we?
4/6/2009 9:43 PM CDT
User Image
Solomon wrote:
Bobbymike, if you knew me then you would know how outraged Murtha's statement was to me. same with Reid, same with Pelosi, same with Kerry. but that was a discussion about the men and women fighting in the field. this is a discussion about procurement policy and you can support the troops and not support a weapon system (or many of them). no selective outrage here, but its alarmist talk like that which is making it hard for me to buy ammo for recreational shooting. talk like that belongs in a bar with your buddies knocking back a couple of coors, not from a US Senator---whatever the party.
4/6/2009 10:00 PM CDT
User Image
Bobbymike wrote:
Which is my point exactly, it is MUCH worse to make such accusations of our fighting men and women than to make the claims Sen. Inhofe did. I would rather politicians took on other politicians regardless of the perceived exaggerations. Informed voters can assess these things and debate their worth. Inhofe is right, Inhofe is wrong, Obama is wrong. The statements against our troops could have or maybe did cause loss of life amongst those troops and made our situation in Iraq more difficult.

They gave reasons to hate our soldiers, wrongly, Inhofe's talk "might" have been incorerent bluster but I doubt it will have the same effect.
4/6/2009 11:40 PM CDT
User Image
S-64 Skycrane wrote:
Solomon,

I echo your words wholeheartedly. I could not express my sentiments more accurately than you did in both your posts.

Bobbymike,

You do not know me or my intentions regarding my posts. Please do not group me in any "they" category or offer an interpretation of my words.

Also, below are a very quick search of "nay" votes cast by Sen. Inhofe as requested.

Senate Adm. 520 to H.R. 1269 (April 21 2005): $213,000,000 for up armored HMMWVs

S.Amdt. 4763 to H.R. 980 (May 14, 2008): To improve educational assistance for members of the Armed Forces and veterans in order to enhance recruitment and retention for the Armed Forces.

S.Amdt. 344 to H.R. 1268 (April 12 2005): To provide $1,975,183,000 for medical care for veterans

S.Amdt. 149 to S.Con.Res. 18 (March16 2005): To increase veterans medical care by $2.8 billion in 2006

S.Amdt. 2745 to S.Con.Res. 95 (March 10 2005): To create a reserve fund to allow for an increase in Veterans' medical care by $1.8 billion by eliminating abusive tax loopholes.

S.Amdt. 16 to S. 256: (March 1, 2005): To protect service members and veterans from means testing in bankruptcy, to disallow certain claims by lenders charging usurious interest rates to service members, and to allow service members to exempt property based on the law of the State of their premilitary residence.

House Joint Resolution 20 Senate vote 48 (February 14 2007): Increase in Veterans health spending by $3.6 Billion

The IAVA report can be found at: http://www.veteranreportcard.org/reportcard.pdf
4/7/2009 12:39 AM CDT
User Image
Bobbymike wrote:
While we don't know Inhofe's reasoning for the nay vote thank you for taking the time to provide this information. Taken at face value I have to say I am surprised by these votes and readily admit my ignorance. I appluad your post Skycrane. While I will now look at Sen Inhofe with a more jaundiced eye, in my opinion, it is still dangerous to disqualify someone from being able to criticize/debate for an "unequal" voting record. I believe every Senator would be disqualified from most debates on these grounds.
4/7/2009 1:12 AM CDT
Most Recent Tags
Defense Industry News
Recent Photos
Industry Insight: Defense & Technology Insight by
Raytheon
Selected Videos