Election 2016

Hugh Hewitt: "Any Republicans who vote against higher defense spending should be fired"

|

Radio host, Chapman University Law professor, and Republican-touting author (A Mormon in the White House?, Painting the Map Red, If It's Not Close, They Can't Cheat, etc.) Hugh Hewitt wants to make something perfectly clear:

Those GOP representatives who vote against upping Pentagon spending this week are at the top of a list that deserve to face off against an Iraq or Afghan war vet when votes are cast in primaries next spring or summer. Reckless endangerment of American national security via showboating votes against Pentagon funding should earn a GOP representative a quick ticket to enforced retirement.

Hewitt continues:

Small government grinds who point to stupid expenditures in the Pentagon in the tens of millions of dollars betray a fundamental, indeed disqualifying myopia about a budget of more than $600 billion yet still less than 3 percent of the nation's GDP. Without the military and its vast budget there is no America for long. It will be attacked. It will be humbled. Americans will die in great numbers.

The Pentagon isn't the most efficient agency in the world. It is, however, the best military in the world. I joke on the radio that when it comes to interviews, "I'm not perfect, I'm just the best." That's not a joke when it comes to the American armed services. The best security is worth the cost and worth as well the occasional inane program or maddening cost overrun.

Mercatus Center/Veronique de Rugy

I don't know how many voter divisions Hewitt has, but WTF, man? Have you been vacationing off-planet for the last dozen-plus years, as America waged more than two stupid and lost wars? There's a reason why Ron Paul, the namby-pambiest anti-interventionist would-be presidential candidate since George McGovern, pulled the most donations from active military types in 2012. It wasn't because he was pushing for more troops to be stationed overseas, either. (Side note: both McGovern and Paul served in the military, unlike many hawks.)

News flash: We were attacked despite (because?) outspending every nation on the planet on defense and, more important, we were "humbled" in Iraq and Afghanistan despite dropping tons of bombs and trillions of dollars in pursuit of ill-defined, incoherent attempts at nation-building. Yes, Americans did die in great numbers on 9/11 and that carnage needed to be avenged and prevented from happening again. But because of stupid, thoughtless policies pursued by a transpartisan crew of failures ranging from George W. Bush to Condeleezza Rice to Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton, we spilled a river of American blood in far-off lands that we leave no better and almost certainly worse off than we first blew up innocents attending weddings and shopping at markets. And let's not even talk about casualties that Iraqis and Afghanis suffered, right, because we were liberating those folks from despotic regimes, so, well, you know, they get what they deserve and you can't make an omelette without breaking a couple of hundred thousand yeggs, amirite?

Mercatus Center/Veronique de Rugy

I get that after the midterms, GOP loyalists are probably feeling pretty smug about themselves and totally upbeat about 2016. Yet if the Republican Party is interested in putting together the sort of broad-based coalition that will not only allow it to potentially win the White House but also govern effectively and not speed up the bankrupting of the nation, this sort of command to spend more money on "defense" is hugely off-putting.

And not just to pansy-assed libertarians like myself, who remain scandalized that Republicans will blather on and on about how the government can't be trusted to deliver the mail without screwing up or flushing hard-earned tax dollars down the crapper but YOU BETTER NOT EVER TALK ABOUT CUTTING DEFENSE SPENDING YOU HEAR ME RIGHT NOW, YOU GODDAMN CHICKEN BASTARD?!?!

No, it's not just libertarians who are calling attention to the sort of rally around the flag pole sript that Hewitt's touting. Sean Davis of The Federalist writes

I think it's more accurate to say that someone who mindlessly demands more cash betrays a "fundamental, indeed disqualifying myopia" about how the budget process actually works and how an effective national security policy should be designed. In a rather remarkable tell, Hewitt attempted to cast aside all criticism of Pentagon waste by characterizing it as "in the tens of millions of dollars." He also slurred those concerned with waste as "small government grinds." I hate to break it to Hewitt, but if he thinks waste within any federal agency is just a few million dollars, he simply hasn't been paying attention.

Davis illustrates his point by pointing to the F-35 fighter jet, an exercise in completely wasting $1.5 trillion for a plane that will be obsolete by the time it actually starts working the way it's supposed to.

And over at National Review, Kevin Williamson has made the case for sequestration on military spending:

Republicans are looking to lift the military half of the sequester in the hopes of shunting a few hundred billion dollars more into the gazillion-dollar stream of appropriations that flows through the war-fighting apparatus. The Democrats' alternative is lifting both sides of the sequester. Until somebody can explain why we're mothballing ships while minting admirals, the sequester should stay — every last farthing of it.

If you've got the time, take a few minutes to scroll through "Defense Spending and the Economy," a 2013 study by Harvard's Robert Barro and the Mercatus Center's Veronique de Rugy (also a Reason columnist). When confronted with the uselessness of defense spending to, you know, actually increase national security beyond a basic threshold level, proponents of ever-rising defense spending (here's looking at you, American Enterprise Institute and Heritage Foundation) often start yammering about the "stimulative" effects of buying more guns and building more tanks. OK, OK, they'll acknowledge, maybe we don't really need to be spending four times what the ChiCom are spending, but at least this spending grows the economy, right? World War II got us out of the Depression and all that jazz, says Professor Krugnuts.

Barro and de Rugy surveyed the literature and found the opposite is true. Defense spending financed by debt (and it mostly is) shrinks the economy like a cold swimming pool shrinks George Costanza:

The existing studies found that a dollar increase in federal defense spending results in a less-than-a-dollar increase in GDP when the spending increase is deficit financed. Combining this with a tax multiplier that is negative and greater than one, the authors estimate that over five years each $1 in federal defense-spending cuts will increase private spending by roughly $1.30. 

And when you think about it for a second, it makes an obvious kind of sense, doesn't it? Government spending tends to crowd out private investment and going into debt to finance current outlays raises the specter of increased taxes in the future, further depressing investment and spending.

Our conclusions are consistent with the historical pattern in which the US economy responded well to much larger defense cuts [than those imposed by sequestration]. Particularly compelling is the economy's strong performance after the massive post-WWII demobilization. But a similar pattern applies to more recent defense cutbacks. From 1987 to 2000, under the first Bush administration and the Clinton administration, the share of defense spending in GDP fell from 7.4 percent of GDP to 3.7 percent. The average growth rate of real GDP over this period was a respectable 3.3 percent per year, despite the 1991 recession.

Read the whole thing here.

And watch this 2012 video, "3 Reasons Conservatives Should Cut Defense Spending Now!," to understand that reducing the amount of dollars shoveled at the Pentagon need not compromise national security.

Advertisement

NEXT: Tom Cotton: I Said 'replacement with a pro-western regime,' not Pre-Emptive War!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I make up to usd90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to usd86h Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link……… Try it, you won’t regret it!… http://www.wixjob.com

  2. Yet if the Republican Party is interested in putting together the sort of broad-based coalition that will not only allow it to potentially win the White House but also govern effectively and not speed up the bankrupting of the nation, this sort of command to spend more money on “defense” is hugely off-putting.

    When was the last time the Republicans cared about not bankrupting the nation? Calvin Coolidge?

    1. Roughly speaking, yeah. Of course, even then there were plenty of Republicans who felt that massive government was the way to go.

    2. When was the last time the Republicans cared about not bankrupting the nation? Calvin Coolidge?

      Ronald Reagan, but the biggest spendng cuts ever submitted in US history were buried … in a Republican Senate. Today, Reagan brings a tear to their eyes, despite stabbing him in the back when it counted.

  3. Punchable face alert! Punchable face alert!

    1. Much as I agree with the idea that Hugh Hewitt needs punching, I do think it’s in rather poor taste to use an obviously photo-shopped picture of a halfwit to illustrate the article. Is that Phil Hartman doing an SNL spoof of Hewitt? Even worse taste.

      1. It’s Stephen King right after he got hit by that car.

      2. Or Phil Hartman auditioning to be the Joker.

    2. Beat me to it by a mile. That IS a punchable face.

    3. Punchable voice alert.

  4. So the conservative professor is in favor equipping submarines with a lady’s room.

  5. Without the military and its vast budget there is no America for long. It will be attacked. It will be humbled. Americans will die in great numbers.

    OH MY GOD WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE…or maybe not.

    The Pentagon isn’t the most efficient agency in the world. It is, however, the best military in the world.

    “Alright, Kif, let’s show these freaks what a bloated, runaway military budget can do.”

    1. “Don’t thank me, thank an unprecedented eight-year military buildup.”

      1. thank an unprecedented eight-year decade military buildup.

    2. Without the military and its vast budget there is no America for long. It will be attacked. It will be humbled. Americans will die in great numbers.

      Hilarious. “If we don’t spend more money than the entire rest of the planet, we will all die horribly.”

      1. Hilarious. “If we don’t spend more money than the entire rest of the planet, we will all die horribly.”

        Not only spend more money than the rest, but provide defense for most of them.
        Let Hewitt spring for the gas money the next time the French want to send those three guys with pop-guns somewhere and we provide the transport.

        1. I’m tired of the broken spend more then everyone combined argument because it deliberately ignores purchasing cost parity and the fact that we have an all volunteer force. Defending the rest of the world especially Europe is a valid criticism. Not my job or my wallet’s job.

          1. I’m tired of the broken spend more then everyone combined argument because it deliberately ignores purchasing cost parity and the fact that we have an all volunteer force.

            I believe most of Europe also has all volunteer forces and that their purchasing costs would be similar to ours.

            It seems like a pretty effective argument to say ‘we’re spending more than the rest of the planet’ when the rest of the planet includes a bunch of very, very rich countries.

            1. What I don’t think gets mentioned enough, in conjunction with this argument, is that a lot of those countries are our allies! Why should they even be in the equation? I want to know what the US spends on defense vis a vis all of our enemies combined.

              1. Here you go.

                http://pgpf.org/Chart-Archive/…..comparison

                We spend more than twice what China and Russia spend *combined*.

                I think our defense posture could survive a little budget trimming.

            2. Not when it includes China which is really the only other elephant in the room. Yes, Europe doesn’t spend anything on defense and we’re stupid enough to pick up their tab. But the reality is that in effective spending China is probably already at least half the level we are if not higher and their personnel costs are significantly lower. You can debate the quality of the force, but remember the truism that quantity has a quality all its own as the Germans learned in eastern Europe.

              1. China can have all the quantity they want, but it won’t help them cross the Pacific any time soon. The fact that there’s a gigantic ocean between the United States and any potentially hostile army has a quality all its own too.

                1. Add in the fact that China doesn’t practice amphibious warfare as a standard part of their doctrine and its a *huge* (second only to the carriers) part of ours and its the *Chinese* who should be worried about being invaded.

              2. “Yes, Europe doesn’t spend anything on defense and we’re stupid enough to pick up their tab.”

                Add Japan and when they start spending more than a rounding error of their budgets on defense, I’ll drop that argument.

            3. And most of those rich countries are our allies.

      2. I would remind Mr Hewitt that after spending trillions of dollars, our military did not prevent 9/11.

        1. Or several other attacks since: Fort Hood, Boston Marathon, a couple of potential terrorists who got on-board planes only to discover they fucked up their bomb, etc.

        2. The military prevented attacks that didn’t occur, kind of like Obama’s jobs “created or saved” stuff.

    3. And of course, you know, if we HAVE to spend this money, and we do, we have to use this stuff, or else it’s a real waste, right? So who do we attack next to try out our new toys?

      1. Okay, Ms Albright, you’ve been drinking. Time to go home.

        1. Oh, Madeline, we hardly new ye:

          It is the threat of the use of force [against Iraq] and our line-up there that is going to put force behind the diplomacy. But if we have to use force, it is because we are America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us.
          Stated on NBC’s Today Show (February 19, 1998)

          I think this is a very hard choice, but the price ? we think the price is worth it.
          Stated on CBS’s 60 Minutes (May 12, 1996) in reply to Lesley Stahl’s question “We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?” Albright was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations at the time.

          What’s the point of having this superb military that you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?

      2. Commander in Chief: ‘Look, what the hell? I was just hittin the green you know? I hardly got a few shots off when you guys called me … what is this about?

        Top Pentagon War Mongers: ‘Umm, well, you remember that bill you just signed, the one that gave us a few more hundred billion to spend?’ Well, we spent it and we got these great new toys and we have to use them for the children, you know?’

        Commander in Chief: ‘Well you know, I learn about this stuff in those newspapers like everyone else, but this new dog keeps eating them, so what is going on? I need to get back to my course’,

        Top Pentagon War Mongers: ‘You see, Mr. President, we’re sort of bored. We’ve been trying all our new toys out on these sand monkeys over there and well, we want to try something new’.

        Commander in Chief: ‘Uh, well, you see this wall of pictures I have over here, that’s all them dangerous terrorists and when I decide which is the next one I want to murderdrone, I just throw one of these darts over my shoulder and the one it hits, gets it. Ingenious don’t you think?’

        Top Pentagon War Mongers: ‘We like the cut of your jibe, sir.’

        Commander in Chief: Well, see that world map over there? Here’s some darts…’

        1. Top Pentagon War Mongers: ‘Yes, you’re a genius, here, let me try one… where is that I hit?’

          Commander in Chief: ‘It has to be one of the 57 states, I think that’s either Utah or Mesopotamia.’

          Top Pentagon War Mongers: ‘Umm, actually, sir, that’s Lithuania’

          Commander in Chief: ‘Well, they probably had it coming anyway, I don’t think I got any campaign money from that state. Now get out of here so I can get back to more important stuff’,

      3. Hey look, if you don’t try out those toys then how will you know they really work?

    4. Who does he think is going to invade? Canada? Mexico? And don’t say Mexico’s hordes of illegals – the military isn’t involved in stopping them anyway.

      Neither are ISIS or Al Qaeda gonna be rolling up on our shores ‘Red Dawn’ style. And, again, domestic terrorist attacks are not gonna be handled my the military either.

  6. OH MY GOD WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE…or maybe not.

    We could just furnish a portable prayer room with every military attachment and the problem is solved.

  7. As usual Gillespie whiffs past the real issue. But then anyone who says/writes “fighter jet” usually does. Acquistions up 25%. Personnel up 46%. But it’s always about the crony capitalism (ok, who doesn’t like to rag about that?) and never about the welfare personnel costs. You served in an actual combat zone (I would include submariners since they’re effectively fighting against a few gigatons of water every second they’re under)? OK, we got you covered. You sat at a desk your entire military career and gave good powerpoint? Yeah, not so much.

    Williamson gets it:

    Until somebody can explain why we’re mothballing ships while minting admirals, the sequester should stay ? every last farthing of it.

    1. OK, so what is the proper term for “fighter jet”? Staffed aerial combat sub-system?

      1. Unless we start arming a bunch of P-51’s or Super Mustangs, it would just be “fighter.”

      2. I see. Sorry. You are complaining about the unnecessary ‘jet’ qualifier as if dilithium crystal reactors were not yet within reach.

        1. Actually more like an effective marker for a certain mind set just like hyphenated last names, but if you want to be butt hurt be my guest.

          1. It is an indication of someone who’s not at all familiar with the stuff beyond the budget numbers.

            Similar to the people who keep freaking out (reasonably) about the ‘tanks’ the police are getting.

            You can make a credible argument that the police don’t need APC’s, but who the hell is going to listen when you call ’em tanks?

            Go to the gun banners – who don’t know the difference between an assault rifle and a machine gun.

        2. I’m not sure what to make of you, Skippy. I don’t think a submarine toilet room should have bench (or fainting couch). What’s your take on that?

          1. I’ve seen the insides of a sub – they don’t need fainting couches.

            You faint and the press of bodies will still keep you upright.

    2. Excellent point. When conservative friends say we need to cut the government but not the military I ask them, “do you really think every single one of the 26,000 people who work in the Pentagon is indispensable?”

      1. That’s the real crime, but Gillespie won’t touch it, because it’s a little too close to the welfare that he’s got a soft spot in his heart for.

        1. Really? It’s not like Gillespie’s articles on public sector unions and employees have been arguing against the notion cor utting any public sector jobs. Why would the military be an exception?

    3. Not to mention all of the “civilian” pentagon employees and contractors who get paid six figures to do a job that used to cost less than $30,000 a year.

    4. Personally I think we can do both. But I’m happy to start with eliminating half the brass.

  8. “The best security is worth the cost and worth as well the occasional inane program or maddening cost overrun.”

    Occasional? Occasional?!! OCCASIONAL????????

  9. “Without the military and its vast budget there is no America for long.”

    So, either we raise Pentagon spending or it’s the end of America?

    Wow.

    Then every congressman who’s against doubling quadrupling the Pentagon budget should be denounced as traitors. I guess they really just want America to be part of the Caliphate

    Fuck you, cut spending, you say?

    What, do you want every American woman to be forced to wear a burka?

    Well DO YOU?!

  10. Fucking eh Nick. Indignant suits you. I want to see more exasperated Nick. Let the word go out:
    Don’t fuck with The Jacket!

  11. someone who mindlessly demands more cash betrays a “fundamental, indeed disqualifying myopia” about how the budget process actually works and how an effective national security policy should be designed.

    “What?! *Nothing* is too good for our troops! Wait, that doesn’t sound quite right ….”

  12. I suspect that the Hugh Hewitt hosted portion of the debates is going to be the pound on Rand show.

    1. Hugh Hewitt Wants to Pound Paul’s Ass!

      Makes a pretty good headline

    2. Hewitt doesn’t totally dismiss Paul, but now that he’s in full campaign mode, he sure likes to not mention him much.

  13. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was just being frugal with taxpayer money when she didn’t send air support to Americans under siege in Benghazi. If only the budget were bigger.

    1. *facepalm – then laughing – then feeling guilty for laughing….*

    2. And since we had to arm the moderate terrorists as top priority, we couldn’t afford it anyway.

  14. Again –

    vote for me in 2016. I’m proposing 40% cut in military spending, starting with all the defense we’re providing overseas Fo FWEE! (they can pay us for it, or we’re OUTTA thre, and personnel (just WAY too many pencil jockeys). We’ll look at the programs, too. Do we REALLY need another aircraft carrier? REALLY?

    Almanian for President – 2016
    I probably won’t make it any worse.

    AND I’ll take on Hugh Hewitt in Thunderdome. You know how that one ends….

    1. His face gets punched?

  15. That photo of Hugh Hewitt looks like he’s “your wife’s lawyer after he wins the divorce case that leaves you penniless”

    Just saying. Its not a good look.

    1. To my eye he’s got the proverbial “shit eating grin”.

      1. I’ve always wondered – why would anyone grin if he’d just eaten shit?

        1. I’ve wondered if maybe it’s a kind of grin people project onto a dog?

          Hey Master, look what I just ate! Aren’t you proud of me?

          I saved some for you, too!

          I’m a good dog!

          *Big Grin*

          1. I laughed.

        2. I always took it to mean “I just ate shit and it doesn’t mean a thing because I’m WINNING so hard.”

          Or bat shit crazy smiling.

        3. while someone made a claim that there’s a roman basis for the term (Livy), OED says its American post-war idiom… probably reference to a “shameless, dogs smile”

          i.e. They’ll lick ass and smile like a kid eating ice cream

  16. OT: Check out the crazy lefties in Code Pink getting arrested in a sit-in at Boehner’s office!

    Wait, those are prolifers who want a vote on banning most abortions after 20 weeks.

    Whatever you think of this incident, it’s hard to square with the “lol, prolifers are just dupes who do what the Repubs tell them to do” narrative.

    http://www.worldmag.com/2015/0…..r_s_office

  17. Oh, and I’m a little disappointed that we haven’t had a thread about the firing of Jeremy Clarkson (from Top Gear if you don’t know).

    So he punched somebody in the face!

    Sometimes that’s necessary. It happens in hockey all the time. If the guy whose ass got kicked wants to take him to court, he should.

    People act like violence is the worst thing that can happen. If Top Gear’s audience doesn’t mind, then, …

    It’s not like he lied or stole something.

    Sheesh.

    1. I don’t watch or care about the show but from what I’ve heard about him from around here BBC was looking for an excuse to ditch him. That said, assaulting a coworker is typically grounds for immediate termination. I’m sure there are plenty of people out their licking their chops about signing him up for a new show.

      1. This is prolly my fave episode, where he’s testing the Ariel Atom:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6v4YNkurhLk

        If you want to skip to the awesomeness, it starts at about 3:00

        “I am an alien!”

      2. A lot of times when guys punch each other they get fired because management is worried about someone suing.

        In some professions, though, people going after each other every once in a while isn’t entirely uncommon.

        For instance, if you work in the back of a nice restaurant, the chefs have typically all gone after each other at least once.

        It’s not as bad as lying or stealing. Hell, technically, punching somebody isn’t even in the ten commandments. I’ve seen executives go after each other. It’s just something that happens sometimes. For a lot of guys in the UK, I think, a brew, a curry, and a fist fight are supposed to make for a perfect evening.

        It looks like political correctness run amok at the BBC to me.

        They’ll ruin a wildly popular and profitable show to assuage some politically correct…

        A for profit show wouldn’t endanger their profits over something like this.

        The Duck Dynasty guys are still on the air. No, he didn’t actually hit anybody, but what’s worse? Being a homophobe or sockin’ somebody in the mouth?

        1. It entirely depends on if it’s mutual combat.

      3. Ground for immediate termination – unless you’re 1/3 of a team that is bringing in something on the order of $250 mil a year from the top-rated show on your network.

        The ‘associate producer’ (read: the guy who exists so the talent can abuse him) gets an apology and bribe, uh, bonus to make it all go away.

        But that would be in a private business.

        In a quasi-government agency who can demand subscription fees at the point of a gun things are different.

    2. Would a 5 episode penalty box suffice? Being a casual viewer, I could live with that.

  18. Guys like Hewitt usually bitch and moan to high heaven about govt waste in the VA. Hypocrites.

  19. I listen to his radio show on the commute sometimes, and he’s been ridiculous on this topic, banging the drum over and over and over about spending more on the military, acting like we’re on the verge of becoming totally vulnerable and like the foreign threats are eleventy billion times worse than the domestic ones. I don’t know why he and others push this, but it’s a real problem. Outrageous levels of military spending serve no less to buy votes and get other kinds of support than social welfare programs do for the left. We have a major crisis looming because of the excess spending–it doesn’t really matter what the money we don’t have is spent on.

    Even accepting a U.S. interventionist policy, we don’t need to waste more hundreds of billions on things we don’t actually need. Hewitt is full of crap complaining that the “budget hawks” are focusing on tens of millions of waste and ignoring six hundred billion of purely necessary yet inadequate spending. That’s total bull, as anyone who has paid attention to whole multibillion dollar program failures has noted. . .over and over again. Eisenhower knew what the fuck he was talking about on this one. Just more crony capitalism.

    1. He’s a god damned fool, that’s why.

    2. Look, PL, if Murka don’t spend eighty hundred kabillion on the military every year, some dirt farmers from a third-world shithole are going to overrun us with home-made IEDs and vests stuffed with dynamite.

      Your pal,
      Huey

      1. If the entire Muslim world united in terroristic hate of the U.S., we could defeat them all in a few months with the conventional weapons we already have. And that’s not even close to the case. Nor do we have much of a conventional option against Russia or China, if it comes to that, because nukes. So how big does our military really need to be, even granting World Cop?

        What these hawks really have trouble understanding is how critical America’s economic success is to our power–economic, military, cultural, everything. And that’s seriously at risk.

  20. Look. I live in military central, SE VA. I deal with contractors who work on base every day. I see the continuous construction projects going on at every base. I personally attest to the the incredible waste and over spending in all the branches.

    For fuck’s sake, the TRADOC band just got a new practice facility with marble floors and granite wall tiles. Meanwhile, the ammo storage facilities at the weapons station date to WW2 and leak water like a sieve.

    1. Exactly. The “shortchanging the military” claims would have an iota of credibility were it not for the fact that so much money is *blatantly* wasted on absurd boondoggles which are routinely scrapped after hundreds of millions spent….while other things that would benefit from obvious “maintenance” expenses are ignored…usually because its just politically easier to ‘buy new shit’ all the time.

      As noted last year i think, when many in the media seemed so flummoxed as to how so much US hardware was in the hands of ISIS…. the US military basically dumped mountains of shit on the iraqis because we’d basically just buy new shit to keep the money flow going. Same in afghanistan. They LOVE to give shit away because its an endless ‘one for you, two for me’ game. Meanwhile they don’t even spend enough on the most basic bullshit and constantly moan about how broke-ass they are. Meanwhile, we have a trillion $ plane that can’t fucking turn.

  21. “Have you been vacationing off-planet for the last dozen-plus years…?”

    Visiting deep supra-waving oceans of a certain crystalline bluish red where all those grunting lost fetid schmucks who lay around naked on the musical shores with strange genitals and who beckon from deep space who’ve been mining way too many goddamn asteroid pearls for rich dumbasses on rare-vein shipwrecks wracked with old suns and dying dwarves I’ve come to realize that earth is a spot. A tiny rare spot where these skeletal forms with temporary thoughts scurry like viruses and die in the winds of radiation. And earth was one of those many places that have since come and gone in the tubes of seconds and no earth ever rose above the universe. Because earth is a human construct and those chains bind any planet where the human virus learns to prevail. Never think that earth is only one. Many have been and will be and all evolved life will never reach our human fantasy potential. Universes cannot learn from dead universes.

    1. Bowie:

      Sons of the silent age
      Stand on platforms
      blank looks and note books
      Sit in back rows
      of city limits
      Lay in bed coming
      and going on easy terms
      Sons of the silent age
      Pace their rooms
      like a cell’s dimensions
      Rise for a year or two
      then make war
      Search through their one inch thoughts
      Then decide it couldn’t be done

      1. Bowie is streams of penis hallelujah.

  22. Wait, wait, wait! Let me get my thoughts in order. According to Mr. Hewitt, holding the Pentagon to the same standard of fiscal responsibility as the other bloated branches of government that conservatives love to rail against is tantamount to treason and makes an elected representative culpable to an as of yet occured mass loss of American lives via congressional budget cuts? Wow!

    I know it’s easy to point out the furthest reaches of derp on both sides of the blue/red statist spectrum to exaggerate the absurdity of party lines as the accepted view points of the platform but, I have to admit this line of thinking is embarrassingly common. One of the things that has infuriated me over the years is the Republicans complete refusal to acknowledge the warnings of Eisenhower about the rise of power, money and influence of the MIC. The same holds true for Democrats on FDR’s warnings of the consequences of instilling public sector unions. Both are deeply entrenched leeches that do little to nothing to actually improve the safety or quality of life of the average American. Yet, we annually dump hundreds of billions of dollars into this tripe.

    What utter drivel.

    1. Yes, Americana politics has become the billionaire’s dumping ground. The only fucking nation on earth that doesn’t goddamn suck has to become a fucking wasteland for trashy bullion. Way to go human race. ya fucking get out of the goddamn trees of popes and bibles and then move into goddamn dollar chains on the humans claiming they can finger outer space from a rock. Fuck the nasty goddamn billions and their goddamn cocks jammed deep in the happy sphincters of authority.

      1. I’ve been lurking here for a bit and I must say, you confuse the hell out of me. I can’t differentiate when your mocking, agreeing, or operating on a higher level of psychedelic consciousness. I suspect the most latter.

        You leave me in a state of quivering uncertainty about what I believe are the concrete physics that govern the universe…Fuck it! I’m popping Dr. Strangelove into the Blu-Ray and calling it a night.

        1. TH:

          Agile Cyborg does not mock, does not agree, and operates on no plane of consciousness. He is a mouthpiece through which the Elder Gods spew their vitriol into an undeserving world and flaunt their wicked dominion.

          1. Kind of like the Photojournalist in Apocalypse Now.

          2. Absolutely. I think Cyborg can be understood by this:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHPsi4ugPho

            *stopped using alt text bc it pisses Ed off.*

    2. Proving that it is an almost universal American belief that where there is a problem, more money is the solution. The only difference between teams is what specific problems requires these endless streams of our money.

      1. Maybe what we need is a party supporting the creation of wealth rather than its destruction.

        1. Bombs, prisons, regulations and outright theft create lots of wealth.

  23. Almost as big an asshole as Phil Robertson!
    There’s still time for Limbaugh or Santorum to make this week a Trifecta in the GOP asylum.

  24. Hewitt’s argument is a complete mess. If you accept his argument, you have to believe that burning piles of $100 bills as a means of national defense is just a-okay, since it’s only the act of spending on the military that he considers relevant and any particular consequence of that spending.

  25. Hewitt is a classic Bushbot. This massive bootlick even endorsed the Harriet Miers nomination. (“Hey, remember the Aughts?”)

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.