Romney campaign slams Biden for 'we don't need more M1 tanks' remark
79 replies, posted
[media]http://soundcloud.com/teamromney/no-laughing-matter[/media]
[url]http://www.limaohio.com/news/elections/article_64e9e8b2-14af-11e2-891d-0019bb30f31a.html[/url]
[quote=LimaOhio.com]Republicans, including presidential candidate Mitt Romney and Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, jumped Thursday night and Friday on comments Vice President Joe Biden made about the Abrams tank program.
During his Thursday night debate with Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan, Biden spoke about automatic defense budget cuts looming.
[B]“And beyond that, they asked for another — look, the military says, we need a smaller, leaner Army. We need more special forces. We need — we don’t need more M1 tanks. What we need is more UAVs,” Biden said.[/B]
The White House has been opposed to keeping the tank program running at Lima’s Joint Systems Manufacturing Center. [B]The Pentagon, saying it has enough tanks, wants to shutter the program for several years to save money. A bipartisan group in Congress and a local task force claimed it would be more expensive and a national security threat to close the program and restart it.[/B]
When Ryan held a town hall in Lima, he and a slew of speakers, including Portman, R-Cincinnati, brought up the tank program, saying the Obama administration would weaken national security with the move. For the past two years, Congress has added money to the budget the Pentagon doesn’t want to keep the program running at a minimum.
The Romney campaign jumped on the issue locally, with automated phone messages that began even Thursday night shortly after the debate to voters and releasing a new radio ad Friday.
“This is a message from Romney for President. In last night’s vice presidential debate, Joe Biden confirmed he and Barack Obama will close the Lima tank plant,” the phone message said, then providing the Biden soundbite, “‘Look, the military says we need a smaller, leaner Army. We don’t need more M1 tanks.’”
The advertisement finishes, “Ohio can’t afford four more years like the last four years. We need a real recovery. This call is paid for by Romney for President Inc.”
[B]Recent news stories, including this week on CNN, have shown a connection between political donations from General Dynamics, the defense contractor that runs the JSMC, to members of Congress at votes to keep the money in the budget.[/B] Nearly the entire congressional delegation on both sides of the aisle in Ohio supports the effort. The national news stories have characterized the congressional moves as wasteful spending.
However, Portman and Ohio's other senator, Sherrod Brown, D-Avon, have fought hard to keep the program running at the government-owned, contractor-ran facility.
“Since World War II, there have been reoccurring predictions that the days of tanks and ground combat vehicles were behind us, but it never takes long for those predictions to be shattered,” Portman said. “In last night’s debate, Vice President Biden added himself to this list of naysayers. The past decade has once again demonstrated the critical role of tanks in fulfilling our national security. The Army knows it needs to upgrade its tanks in a few years, but if the White House has their short-sighted way, there may not be a ready U.S. industrial base to do it.”
Obama campaign spokeswoman Jessica Kershaw said the Romney campaign is playing politics with the issue and setting spending levels without regard to the priorities of military leaders.
"Our military leaders developed a defense strategy to prepare us for the challenges of the coming decades. The Obama administration recognizes the unique skill set required to build this tank and believes that demand from our allies will be enough to keep the Lima plant running, so we do not lose that expertise between now and when we begin production of the next generation tanks that will be equipped to keep us safe for decades to come," Kershaw said.
General Dynamics has contracts for combat vehicles in other countries, such as Israel.
The Senate Armed Services Committee Authorization bill adds $91 million for the advanced procurement of long-lead materials that will be needed to continue Abrams upgrades into 2015, Portman said. JSMC will be manufacturing upgraded Abrams tanks through mid-2014 under current Pentagon plans.[/quote]
Romney campaign and Obama campaign argue over how best to kill innocent people...gotta love American politics.
Repeal the healthcare bill so we can kill more people instead
....Look you colossal idiots. The very people operating these things are saying they don't need any more of them. There is no reason to produce more tanks when we've [i]already[/i] got a surplus of the fuckers.
takes a special kind of politician to think they know what the army needs
I'd like to see romneys ass bleeding in the afghan mountains and see if thinks we still need more Abrams from our currently unused 4000+
IIRC Ryan actually said in the debate that he would listen to the Generals instead of just making up military strategy
GJ
[QUOTE=yawmwen;38019451]Romney campaign and Obama campaign argue over how best to kill innocent people...gotta love American politics.[/QUOTE]
People rating this dumb need to grow a pair of balls, it's a joke. And quite a funny one
they should play War of tanks: RL edition with all those extra tanks...
[editline]13th October 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;38019451]Romney campaign and Obama campaign argue over how best to kill innocent people...gotta love American politics.[/QUOTE]
We need to call aliens and make them fight our wars
we all know aliens are best at mass genocide
This concerns me far more than what Romney says:
[quote]Recent news stories, including this week on CNN, have shown a connection between political donations from General Dynamics, the defense contractor that runs the JSMC, to members of Congress at votes to keep the money in the budget. Nearly the entire congressional delegation on both sides of the aisle in Ohio supports the effort. The national news stories have characterized the congressional moves as wasteful spending.
[/quote]
To be honest, I think that's the real story and Romney speaking about it is just eclipsing it unnecessarily because he's a presidential candidate.
[QUOTE=Canary;38019534][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PTfF6wmqcU[/media][/QUOTE]
I think that's about twelve regiments worth of Bradleys.
[QUOTE=Canary;38019534][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PTfF6wmqcU[/media][/QUOTE]
Here comes the freedom train :v:
Flat out lying to people in order to get votes should be criminal.
[QUOTE=SeamanStains;38020106]Flat out lying to people in order to get votes should be criminal.[/QUOTE]
"It was a misunderstanding"
"It was out of context"
"That's not what I meant, what I meant to say..."
[QUOTE=Canary;38019534][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PTfF6wmqcU[/media][/QUOTE]
Jesus that is enough to invade Poland with.
[QUOTE=Canary;38019534][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PTfF6wmqcU[/media][/QUOTE]
I find this a bit pathetic for some reason.
[QUOTE=Canary;38019534][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PTfF6wmqcU[/media][/QUOTE]
This train is carrying $254,900,000+ worth of vehicles
:eng101:
[QUOTE=yawmwen;38019451]Romney campaign and Obama campaign argue over how best to kill innocent people...gotta love American politics.[/QUOTE]
gotta love those "both sides suck" people
Rather than using that money for tanks, we could add a few more standoff munitions to our inventory. We need a lot more JASSMs, CALCMs, and JSOWs to make the skies safer for our pilots. Before boots even hit the ground our main concern would be protecting our pilots from the countries IADS and making sure our SOF forces land unharmed during the first few days (if shit hits the fan). IMO
This is just my experience talking here. Sorry if I offend anyones political views on this matter.
These are the people that decide the budget for the military. People that have no idea what we need, and let greed get in the way of our operations. Seriously, political meddling with the budget has created incredible wastes of money in the wrong places. Instead of more tanks, put more defense money in actually useful things like the new helicopters we were promised or perhaps equipment that works worth a damn.
[QUOTE=The Baconator;38020390]gotta love those "both sides suck" people[/QUOTE]
It's true, isn't it?
Oh wait Obama wants to make it so gay people can marry that automatically absolves him of all the murder he has committed and all the wealth he has stolen.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;38020554]These are the people that decide the budget for the military. People that have no idea what we need, and let greed get in the way of our operations. Seriously, political meddling with the budget has created incredible wastes of money in the wrong places. Instead of more tanks, put more defense money in actually useful things like the new helicopters we were promised or perhaps equipment that works worth a damn.[/QUOTE]
The people in charge of the military budget probably have never worn a uniform in their life. Since most of Congressmen are businessmen or lawyers, they'll always listen to suggestions from the arms factories for what the military needs more than what the military says it needs.
After all, they're the "military's boss" so to speak, where as the factories paying them are technically [I]their[/I] bosses.
You don't listen to employees on what to do, you listen to your boss.
[editline]13th October 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=l33tkill;38020543]Rather than using that money for tanks, we could add a few more standoff munitions to our inventory. We need a lot more JASSMs, CALCMs, and JSOWs to make the skies safer for our pilots. Before boots even hit the ground our main concern would be protecting our pilots from the countries IADS and making sure our SOF forces land unharmed against during the first few days (if shit hits the fan). IMO
This is just my experience talking here. Sorry if I offend anyones political views on this matter.[/QUOTE]
Isn't it modern warfare's general strategy to get air superiority first over a place, then assault it from land afterward? If so, then those things you listed are 10x more important than tanks.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38020604]
Isn't it modern warfare's general strategy to get air superiority first over a place, then assault it from land afterward? If so, then those things you listed are 10x more important than tanks.[/QUOTE]
Absolutely! Our shop has worked closely with pilots flying in Afghanistan, and they constantly ask us if we have any alternative solutions to certain AD sites that require stand off munitions. Then we have to put pilots at risk by having them drop standard GBUs, or perform CAS missions just to take something out that would hinder ground force operations. I couldn't stand knowing that my weaponeering package shot our own pilot out of the sky, and I want to prevent that entirely with our standoff capabilities.
[QUOTE=Canary;38019534][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PTfF6wmqcU[/media][/QUOTE]
Anyone else thinks this is sorta disturbing?
I mean holy shit
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38020604]The people in charge of the military budget probably have never worn a uniform in their life. Since most of Congressmen are businessmen or lawyers, they'll always listen to suggestions from the arms factories for what the military needs more than what the military says it needs.
After all, they're the "military's boss" so to speak, where as the factories paying them are technically [I]their[/I] bosses.
You don't listen to employees on what to do, you listen to your boss.
[editline]13th October 2012[/editline]
Isn't it modern warfare's general strategy to get air superiority first over a place, then assault it from land afterward? If so, then those things you listed are 10x more important than tanks.[/QUOTE]
Now, I am not taking away from the greatness that is the Air Force's arsenal, but equipping the Army with better stuff and newer, smaller, and faster equipment is more important (in my opinion) because we are the occupying force that moves in. Also, I don't think the general public realizes just how retardedly expensive stuff that the military buys is. Just the other day, I was handling a few bearings worth three thousand dollars apiece. You guys don't even want to know how much the internal equipment in my helicopter's Mast Mounted Sight is. If we weren't forced into contracts with certain civilian companies, things wouldn't cost so much.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
