After advocating massive influxes of taxpayer money into blackholes like stimulus, bailouts for failed corporations, and universal health care, the New York Times editorial board is suddenly on a big fiscal responsibility kick:
Russia simulates nuclear attacks against a key NATO ally, China declares their intention to weaponize space, Iran holds massive rallies outside the US embassy threatening to annihilate the Great Satan, North Korea announces that they’ll be constructing more nuclear bombs, while the Taliban continue to make strong gains in rural Afghanistan. “More capability than the nation needs” indeed. The fact is, the Times editorial board has little idea of how much defensive capability we need, as they’ve never been a credible or knowledgeable exponent of national security matters. In one breath they argue that cutting the F-22 was justified because the plane hasn’t seen combat in Iraq or Afghanistan, in the next, they can barely contain their giddiness at the prospect of killing the V-22 Osprey, a valuable tilt-rotor aircraft that has been absolutely indispensable to quick-reaction Marine forces in both theaters of war. They say that military planners don’t want more C-17 cargo jets, a mere month after Air Force officials laid out a very clear and convincing case for additional military airlift resources to support landlocked Afghanistan. They even go so far as to bring out the big guns, plucking lines directly from Obama’s stump speeches in their support of killing “unproven” missile defense technologies. This isn’t a serious editorial. It’s a dogmatic reiteration of the President’s damaging proposals to drastically cut the military. Taking strategic cues from the New York Times would be like General Petraeus giving the Old Grey Lady journalistic advice . . . with the caveat that Petraeus is actually good at his craft.
