In “Hope for the Tea Party”, columnist Gil Smart states: “Earlier this month The Hill newspaper noted how some Tea Party groups say defense cuts should be on the table as the ‘supercommittee’ appointed as part of the debt deal begins its work. ‘Tea Party activists say defense programs should come under the same knife as any other taxpayer-funded programs, and that massive national security budgets were not exempt from their definition of “big government,'”‘ The Hill reported.
“Maybe the Tea Party gets it.
“It’s ludicrous to speak of big government profligacy and not speak of defense spending. Shrinking government may necessitate shrinking our global military footprint, ending our wars, requiring other countries to carry a bigger share of the burden.”
WATCHDOG: Let’s hope that we all “get it.” President George H. W. Bush demonstrated through Operation Desert Storm in 1990 that an alliance could be formed among allies to share the casualties and the expenses of a necessary police action. Financially the USA actually made money on the Person Gulf War.
President Barack Obama has carried this successful approach a step further through his short term air force intervention in Libya and then turning the entire military operation over to NATO and the rebel fighters. (Let’s hope that the “rebel fighters” and their successors are an improvement over Muammar Gaddafi’s regime.)
Two wags of the tail for Smart and, for the need for curtailing the vast and unnecessary military spending, to the Tea Party if that is indeed its position.
And the love affair between The Watchdog and Gil Not-so-Smart continues unabated. Sad