Many scary questions remain about Obama. If you
Posted By: dont realize that, you have not researched.nm on 2008-11-05
In Reply to: Here's hoping you will find your way - out of that world of......
nm
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Lots of questions remain about Obama.
nm
I asked you some simple questions which remain unanswered.
Just trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you just might be interested in some intelligent dialog. Here's the deal. GOP party is in a shambles and is experiencing a leadership crisis right in the middle of the final hours of this current election. My mother, a life-long republican, lamented this schism in her party for at least 15 years before she passed away...in 1998. It boggles the mind to sit here and wonder just how much longer it is going to take before the GOP realizes that the fringe has destroyed this party. You think all those "undecided" out there are fence-sitting democrats. Think again. They are disaffected and disenfranchised pubs who simply cannot stomach the idea of a McCain/Failin ticket.
Scary? What is scary is Obama and friends.
nm
HA HA.. Obama needs to answer MANY questions
nm
What is worse, anyone who questions Obama's
nm
Obama scary
I plan to vote for McCain (even though he was not my first or second choice). The main reason I think Obama is scary is (and I know I'm gonna get a lot of crap about this one) universal health coverage. I've done a lot of research and seen a lot of shows about other countries that have this program and I'm convinced that it's a great idea to have everyone covered under some sort of health insurance, but what people don't realize is that just becasue you have the insurance does not mean you'll get the care you need. Do you really want to wait three weeks to get into a doctor for a sinus infection? Yes, the system we have now is flawed in MANY ways, but I don't think universal health care is the way to go and if you as anyone from Canada, they'll tell you the same thing. The other thing that scares me is his desire to sit down and talk to leaders of countries that want to see the US blown off the map. You can call McCain a warmonger all you want, but he knows that China doesn't want to have a three day picnic and talk about how we can all get along! And just for the record, I think that even though we only have McCain and Obama to choose from, it would be a HUGE mistake not to take part in the voting process. AL Gore didn't really win that election and there are many reasons why - he did win the popluar vote altogether, but he did not win the electorial vote, which is what is takes to be elected. If he had a few more votes in just a few states, that might have swung the electorial vote his way and he would have had a win (shudder). So your vote does count - please go out and make it!
Me too! I think Obama is the scary one (sm)
I'm no huge fan of McCain, but at least his choice of running mate is a real Republican and she seems to have a good head on her shoulders. If Obama wins I believe within a year we will be a third-world country. He wants tax payers to pay for welfare for the whole world. His goal seems to be to be President of the UN. He is ultra-left wing and his interests are not the interests of your average American IMO.
McCain is scary. Obama is the US's best hope for
Obama's scary Hoover-Style Tax Hikes
March 2nd, 2009 5:17 PM Eastern
Obama’s Scary Hoover-Style Tax Hikes
By Phil Kerpen
Director of Policy, Americans for Prosperity
The composition of the tax hikes in the 2010 budget is frighteningly similar to the Revenue Act of 1932, the much-maligned Hoover tax hikes that put the “Great” in Great Depression by putting an enormous tax burden on millions of Americans, largely through excise taxes. These taxes, raised even further by FDR, were justified by the promise that the funds would be returned in the form of relief programs, which is to say that some portion of the tax revenue, after administrative costs in Washington, would go back to the states with strings attached, often to further political rather than economic objectives.
As the table below shows, the Obama budget blueprint, like the 1932 act, is split mainly between broad excise taxes and income tax hikes on high income earners. Unfortunately, there were no 10-years projections back then, so I had to use one year numbers, but it’s still an interesting comparison.
link for table.
http://foxforum.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/kerpen_chart1.jpg
The 2010 budget assumes, probably correctly, that the only way to generate a big revenue increase in the face of severe economic weakness is to use a tax mechanism–the excise tax–that is collected in relatively small increments across millions of transactions made by Americans of all income levels. That is a direct lesson of 1932, when the income tax on the rich–then the only people who paid income taxes–was raised to capture as much revenue as possible before high-income earners fled the country or stopped working. Then, as now, that amount was about 0.3 percent of GDP.
Excise taxes did most of the revenue work in the 1932 act, including excises on everything from trucks, tires, jewelry, chewing gum, and soft drinks to gasoline and electricity. Those last two are especially interesting in light of the carbon cap-and-trade proposal in the 2010 budget, which is a DE facto excise tax on those items as well as every other energy technology that relies on the most affordable energy sources: natural gas, oil, and coal.
Despite President Obama’s promise that “If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increase a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime,” his new budget raises 45 percent of its revenue from energy taxes that will be paid by everyone who fills a gas tank, pays an electric bill, or buys anything that was grown, shipped, or manufactured.
While the overall tax hike is smaller than 1932 (0.9 percent of GDP versus 1.6 percent of GDP) and the excise/energy component is only half the size (0.4 percent of GDP versus 0.8 percent of GDP) there is every reason to believe that the bite of the cap-and-trade tax will increase considerably beyond the initial projections, making this plan even more resemble 1932.
The cap-and-trade provisions are designed to get much, much more expensive over time, making the total impact hard to quantify but likely to be as or more expensive than the 1932 Revenue Act. In fact, Obama’s version of cap-and-trade is much more expensive than last year’s already outrageous Lieberman-Warner bill, mandating emissions cuts of 83 percent versus 63 percent in last year’s version.
I didn’t include the death tax in the chart, because there was no revenue estimate for it in 1932, but that’s another eerie parallel. In 1932 the rate was hiked from 20 percent to 45 percent, and in 2010, under Obama’s proposal (which is hidden in a footnote in the budget) it will go from zero under current law to that same 45 percent rate.
If we continue down a path of repeating the policies of the 1930s we risk a repeat of the same results. Let’s hope Congress has the good sense to say no to these Hoover-style tax hikes.
Phil Kerpen is director of policy for Americans for Prosperity.
facts remain
his campaign manner was receiving $15,000 every month until last month from FMFM for doing nothing - because he dropped McCain's name. Fact remains Phil Gram is associated with Swiss Bank USB which has successfully included itself into the US bailout . . .
Because : It will remain a constant tit-for-tat
struggle until a 2-state, 1 for Israel and 1 for the Palestinians is implemented in the region of the Holy Land, and Israel gives back to Syria the Golan Heights that it occupied in 1967.
I can't, because they choose to remain nameless
x
If this country is to remain strong, we need to
NM
What it probably is....is the ongoing effort of those who shall remain nameless...
but have a lot to gain by Obama losing this election.
Nope. I will remain independent...but I will never vote for a Democrat again...
no way...no how.
Right, scary... Speaking of scary, O sure is.
nm
A CIA agent who needs to have her identity remain anonymous in order to possibly save her life. And
nm
More questions...
When and where did Democrat deny in the past being African-American? I don't recall seeing a post to that effect and can't even imagine the reasons or circumstances under which such a post would even be posted. If you want to be believed, produce the post. Otherwise, it's just another necon lie, designed to take the focus off the real problem, which is a racist who apparently is proud to be such a deplorable human being.
More importantly, why are you so aggressive in your defense of such a deplorable human being when your own president has condemned what he said? Sounds like you and Bennett were cut from the same cloth, which frankly isn't surprising.
Better be careful, though. The next inconvenient group of people he might be interested in exterminating could be poor, uneducated, clueless, hateful, bigoted, ignorant white neocons.
Questions....! And more
Yep, cover their ears and yell la la la the whole way, that's the MO of the staunch repubs. What I really want to know is, what all exactly of this Bush admin are they so proud of?? What exactly have they accomplished, or even planned, that would actually succeed?? Health care? Social Security? Prescription program? Job security? Immigration? Judges and other appointees? Mishandling and misbehaviors? The environment? A straight answer for continually dumping billions overseas? But I've noticed any kind of even polite queries on that board get blasted off as usual, like a year and 2 years ago when I frequented these discussions. No direct answer whatsoever, just some name calling of us, the dumb ones. Hmmmm. Like I always say, if you're not outraged, you're not thinking....
Few questions.
I'm curious about a few things.
What do you personally do to help in your community?
What do faith do you have?
Do you have a mortage and what is the status? Been able to make payments on time, behind, lost your home?
Do you have health insurance? If not, why?
Do you have young children?
Were you for the bailout?
Do you have money invested in stocks? Have you/are you going to cash it in?
Think we should bring our troops back?
Now, who do you think you will vote for?
That's what I got, 66.67%, or 22 out of 33 questions right, I think it said...sm
I had a brain freeze on several of them, where several answers seemed right on each one....
Answers to your questions.
Why would I not want you to post here anymore?
I'm happy now and was happy prior to this also. Why do you ask?
Those may be good questions.
But I probably won't take the time to research them. Politics and corruption seem to go hand in hand. Democrat or Republican.
Joe McCarthy actually started out as a Democrat.
Oh, I should mention that very big business and corruption also seem to go hand in hand -- often -- not always.
Let me answer your questions:
I'm going to repost your post and answer the questions in context:
I happen to agree with you, but does this also mean:
That all liberals aren't as bad as they are routinely portrayed on the conservative board? I'm sure there are some liberals that aren't as jaded as you and some others here. They routinely show up here only to be labeled a conservative when they don't go to the extremes that you do.
That all Muslims aren't death-seeking people? Maybe there are Muslims that are not death seeking. Where are they? Point them out to me? Why are they allowing their faith to over-run by extremists? Many of us keep waiting for the good Muslims to stand up against the radical Islamofascists, but they are strangely silent which leads me to believe that they are either scared of the extremists or they stand behind what the extremists are doing. I mean, there are a lot of people on many different forums and appearing on television to relay the fact that the *Jesus Camp* is an extreme fringe of Christianity and not true Christianity, but there is not a vocal majority coming out within the Muslim community to say the extremists are not representative of mainstream Islam.
That extremist fringes in any group are bad? I think I made that clear in my first post.
Muslims are routinely portrayed on this board and by the media and by Bush as lumped together in one violent clump. This is unfair, untrue and does nothing to promote peace and understanding.
Again, I don't see how it's unfair or untrue based on the evidence all around us, because the Muslim community is doing nothing to try and counter that they are anything but a religion of war (Jihad). They do not want peace. They do not want understanding They want annihilation of anyone who does not convert. If you can prove to me that the Muslim MAJORITY is peaceful then I will listen, but all the evidence I have studied up to and including some of the Koran proves otherwise.
All religions need to be respected and tolerated in America. Isn't that what America is supposed to stand for? Well sure...that is if the religion is not dead set on destroying America. America is to protect America and the Judeo-Christian beliefs it was founded upon. We tolerate any peaceful religion who wants to tolerate us in return, but if your sole purpose is to destroy America, well, common sense tells you that America has to defend herself and other weaker countries that are susceptable to bullying from the warmongering religion.
A couple of questions...
what proof do you have that the war has anything at all to do with oil...and what do you mean...you "bought" your patriotism? "Served it?" Curious as to what that means. And ya know...I have been kinda tired for YEARS as the terrorists picked off our people by the hundreds until they hit the big one on 9-11 and took out 3000 at one time. Just wondering if you think that was worth fighting over. Just wondering. If not...what? When they kill 8,000? 10,000? How many will it take? Just wondering. How much innocent blood will have to be spilled here to get you as angry at the terrorists as you are at conservatives? Just wondering.....
Few questions......don't sweat...
Who wants to abolish the Federal Reserve?
Who wants smaller government? No more taxes? No government interference in our lives?
Who is for abolishing the IRS?
Who believes that government should only be in place to run our military for OUR safety?
Who wants government out of our public schools?
Character questions
We all know that we can go back and forth on which candidate is the best for our country. We also know that when running for president candidates can promise a lot. Since it is not possible to know how each candidate's economic, tax or any other policy will turn out until they are actually in office, I will be basing my vote on how they feel about moral issues, i.e. marriage, abortion, etc. Each candidate has a platform/an agenda they will be pushing once elected. Their platform can be seen on the internet by googling 2008 Democratic Party Platform or 2008 Republican Party Platform. There is some very interesting stuff in there. Check it out.
Why are they the wrong questions?
Why has he never answered the questions truthfully?
He has answered the questions
by what authority do you determine he has not answered the questions truthfully?
So I'm bringing my questions right along behind you.
Never said you were lying. Simply asked for what you have provided and I was able to finally find on my own. So here is the post you would like to leave buried below while you celebrate your victory. Still need these answers.
So, it seems that McCain also has a refundable tax credit in his plan too...larger, in fact than Obama's. $2500 for individuals and $5000 for couples for health insurance. This begs my original question, which yet have to answer.
Whe Obama adjusts taxs rates within our historical progressive tax structure, it's socialism. When anybody else does it, it's not. So, I am wondering...if Obama has a smaller refundable tax credit in his plan than McCain, why is it welfare under Obama and not under McCain?
I agree with you, Lu! So many questions about O.
nm
Here's 3 links. Any questions?
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/EnvironmentFactSheet.pdf
Page 4 of this document. Includes a video.
http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2007/10/08/full-text-barack-obama-speech-real-leadership-for-a-clean-energy-future/
http://www.jacksonholestartrib.com/articles/2008/03/08/news/casper/doc47d2397a06235615103300.txt
This leads me to other questions.
Think epidemics and isolating towns and/or cities with military.
this is exactly why I asked the questions I did -
everybody else either has to make it on their own or fail - they obviously have been ripping the American public off for years - a quality product could have been made for a lot less money. Why should we have to bail them out now? The problem is they don't want to lose those big bonuses and big paychecks and actually have to get a job like the rest of us do!
No one seriously questions that the attack on
Actually, I'm embarassed that our notion of "torture" is so wimpy. "You can put a caterpillar in his cell, but you must inform him that it is not a stinging caterpillar". PUHLEEZE.
What is pathetic is you liberals calling any of this torture - which you are doing purely to make political points, pure and simple. How people like Jews who survived the Holocaust and who have really been tortured must laugh at your quaint ideas!
"Oooh - they gave a prisoner a nasty look! Oooh - they spoke loudly to a prisoner! Oooh - they piped bad music into their cells! Oooh - they burned the prisoner's toast! Oooh - they didn't fluff the prisoner's pillows! Oooh - they opened the prisoner's mail! Oooh - they didn't give the prisoner a second helping of Beef Wellington!"
You people make me sick, and it makes me sick to think that, thanks to Obama, what AL Qaida actually knows is that our notion of torture amounts to nothing more painful than making them watch old episodes of "I Love Lucy" (with a doctor in attendance, of course, in case the prisoner faints from boredom).
Hey, Bush..soldier wants to ask you a few questions
Hey Bush: Specialist Young Would Also Like to Speak With You...
U.S. Army Specialist Tomas Young has some questions for George W. Bush. He's never met with the Commander-in-Chief who sent him into Sadr City, Iraq in a canvass covered truck during a massive uprising in that city on April 4, 2004. The same city on the same day that Cindy Sheehan's son Casey was killed.
Tomas was lucky. He was only paralyzed from the chest down. Amongst other things he'd like to ask of Bush, is why he won't allow funding for stem cell research which might eventually restore the spine that he lost in Bush's War. A spine which apparently Bush has never had.
Tomas and his new wife Bree (also pictured), came to Crawford from Kansas City on their honeymoon to stand in support of Cindy Sheehan.
You have failed to answer any questions
You have been asked several times by different posters what you would propose to do to keep America safe. You avoid that question. All you seem to be able to do is criticize and insult others and essentially run people off this board who deviate from your extreme views. Sorry I invaded your hatefest.
I can square it because they are questions not statements.
Biblically, only those who accept Jesus as their savior will go to heaven. That is a CHRISTIAN view. Jews have their own Messiah and their own belief as to heaven. As for me, I would gladly welcome all to heaven. But I am not God.
He looks a few questions away from losing control...nm
Answers to rhetorical questions...
You keep saying you guys... again lumping a group of people together which you keep telling ME not to do...
My comment about Lurker was made because you invoke her to beat me over the head with. I did not say you were or were not her *equal.* I did not use that word. I said you were not in her league. What I meant by that is that Lurker, even when angry, makes a clear and concise post, devoid of things like you are delusional, you make me feel defecated upon, to name a few. She makes her point and moves on. She does not engage in derogatory diatribes and post things like they are disturbing in their being out of touch with reality and accusations and they waste my time. In other words, she is not hateful. In other words, you are not in her league, as I stated. Merely an OBSERVATION.
He already has answered tough questions and without a
teleprompter. Now it is about time they let Palin answer a few.
Right, Indy! Anyone who questions O is termed a
nm
Questions regarding mail in ballots
Here in OR we mail in our ballots. I filled mine out and signed the back of the envelope as it says its not valid unless signed. However, I signed my husbands envelope by mistake (din't realize they had our printed names off to the side). Do you think it will make any difference if I cross out my name and he signs or do you think the state would have a problem with this and just throw it out?
Just wondering.
My questions are not meant to attack.
So, what freedoms (aside from the ones we have already sacrificed on the altar of the Patriot Act) do you think you will lose? Your right to bear arms is protected by the constitution. Do you have any idea how hard it is to pass a constitutional amendment? Stricter gun control of assault weapons and enforcement of existing point-of-sale checks are hardly going to put a dent in that.
Government already has power over your money...or hadn't you noticed that...especially lately. Revising tax rates, giving tax cut and tax credits is the prerogative of any president. What was it that Bush did that wasn't about controlling your money, by taking it out of your hands and moving it on up the ladder so you could wait for it to trickle down again?
Making health care more affordable and accessible, providing better coverage and giving people a CHOICE to keep their existing policies or enroll in a really good national plan is hardly taking control. The national plan will not be CONTROLLED by the government....it will be offered by them. Otherwise, it works like the existing policy that currently covers Congress, the Senate and federal employees. And by the way, it is a GREAT plan...a whole lot better than anything you will find offered by the MTSOs.
I'm curious. How can we get any more vulnerable than we already are? Got a 401K? Did yours lose 40% in the last 2 months?
MSNBC will be the only station they will allow to ask questions...
they must be talking to Hugo Chavez about how to handle the press.
Please explain to me how my legitimate questions
I am simply trying to get somebody to help me make some sense out of Reagan's statement and what the devil it has to do with anything under heaven.
Wrong questions. Right candidate.
Get over it already.
He was answering the questions posed to him - nm
x
Reporters are supposed to ask those questions....
OUR government is supposed to be transparent....the citizens are supposed to run the government, not the other way around....but our society has gotten so far away from knowing what freedom actually feels like and GOd knows they aren't taught true patriotism through history in school, so most citizens don't realze they have every say in what their government does and says, and the reports have every right to ask those questions. If Obama thinks they are irritating, then he is in the wrong position to begin with; answering those questions is his job. He is supposed to be working for us, as so many have forgotten. Of course, Obama is a dictator and has already shown he doesn't want the press around, unless he hand picks them, he doesn't want talk radio around, unless they are Obama lovers, etc.
It would have been nice if they would have let him answer their questions
I have never seen the group on The View come down so hard on anybody like they did Glen. All because of a stupid comment he made in his radio program? Wait a minute.....he DID NOT say what they said he said. I listened to the tape and he did not do what they said.
I'm not a real big Glen Beck fan, I like him somewhat, but he does speak about things that concern us...like ACORN and the government. Did you know they have been investigating ACORN for the past week and finding out all sorts of problems with this group from the "horse's mouth" not from his mouth. Probably not because you don't believe ACORN wears a halo.
JMHO
Bush wants to nuke the planet first, ask questions later.
I hope the Congress isn't stupid enough to go along with this idiotic plan and once again trust Bush's lying claims about who has WMD and who doesn't. Bush isn't going to be happy until he blows up the entire planet. It's becoming clearer every day that he meant what he said when asked about his legacy, he responded with, Who cares? We'll all be dead. 
Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan
Strategy Includes Preemptive Use Against Banned Weapons
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 11, 2005; A01
The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use them to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.
The document, written by the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs staff but not yet finally approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, would update rules and procedures governing use of nuclear weapons to reflect a preemption strategy first announced by the Bush White House in December 2002. The strategy was outlined in more detail at the time in classified national security directives.
At a White House briefing that year, a spokesman said the United States would respond with overwhelming force to the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, its forces or allies, and said all options would be available to the president.
The draft, dated March 15, would provide authoritative guidance for commanders to request presidential approval for using nuclear weapons, and represents the Pentagon's first attempt to revise procedures to reflect the Bush preemption doctrine. A previous version, completed in 1995 during the Clinton administration, contains no mention of using nuclear weapons preemptively or specifically against threats from weapons of mass destruction.
Titled Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations and written under the direction of Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the draft document is unclassified and available on a Pentagon Web site. It is expected to be signed within a few weeks by Air Force Lt. Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, director of the Joint Staff, according to Navy Cmdr. Dawn Cutler, a public affairs officer in Myers's office. Meanwhile, the draft is going through final coordination with the military services, the combatant commanders, Pentagon legal authorities and Rumsfeld's office, Cutler said in a written statement.
A summary of changes included in the draft identifies differences from the 1995 doctrine, and says the new document revises the discussion of nuclear weapons use across the range of military operations.
The first example for potential nuclear weapon use listed in the draft is against an enemy that is using or intending to use WMD against U.S. or allied, multinational military forces or civilian populations.
Another scenario for a possible nuclear preemptive strike is in case of an imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy.
That and other provisions in the document appear to refer to nuclear initiatives proposed by the administration that Congress has thus far declined to fully support.
Last year, for example, Congress refused to fund research toward development of nuclear weapons that could destroy biological or chemical weapons materials without dispersing them into the atmosphere.
The draft document also envisions the use of atomic weapons for attacks on adversary installations including WMD, deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons.
But Congress last year halted funding of a study to determine the viability of the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator warhead (RNEP) -- commonly called the bunker buster -- that the Pentagon has said is needed to attack hardened, deeply buried weapons sites.
The Joint Staff draft doctrine explains that despite the end of the Cold War, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction raises the danger of nuclear weapons use. It says that there are about thirty nations with WMD programs along with nonstate actors [terrorists] either independently or as sponsored by an adversarial state.
To meet that situation, the document says that responsible security planning requires preparation for threats that are possible, though perhaps unlikely today.
To deter the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, the Pentagon paper says preparations must be made to use nuclear weapons and show determination to use them if necessary to prevent or retaliate against WMD use.
The draft says that to deter a potential adversary from using such weapons, that adversary's leadership must believe the United States has both the ability and will to pre-empt or retaliate promptly with responses that are credible and effective. The draft also notes that U.S. policy in the past has repeatedly rejected calls for adoption of 'no first use' policy of nuclear weapons since this policy could undermine deterrence.
Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee who has been a leading opponent of the bunker-buster program, said yesterday the draft was apparently a follow-through on their nuclear posture review and they seem to bypass the idea that Congress had doubts about the program. She added that members certainly don't want the administration to move forward with a [nuclear] preemption policy without hearings, closed door if necessary.
A spokesman for Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said yesterday the panel has not yet received a copy of the draft.
Hans M. Kristensen, a consultant to the Natural Resources Defense Council, who discovered the document on the Pentagon Web site, said yesterday that it emphasizes the need for a robust nuclear arsenal ready to strike on short notice including new missions.
Kristensen, who has specialized for more than a decade in nuclear weapons research, said a final version of the doctrine was due in August but has not yet appeared.
This doctrine does not deliver on the Bush administration pledge of a reduced role for nuclear weapons, Kristensen said. It provides justification for contentious concepts not proven and implies the need for RNEP.
One reason for the delay may be concern about raising publicly the possibility of preemptive use of nuclear weapons, or concern that it might interfere with attempts to persuade Congress to finance the bunker buster and other specialized nuclear weapons.
In April, Rumsfeld appeared before the Senate Armed Services panel and asked for the bunker buster study to be funded. He said the money was for research and not to begin production on any particular warhead. The only thing we have is very large, very dirty, big nuclear weapons, Rumsfeld said. It seems to me studying it [the RNEP] makes all the sense in the world.
|
