Gates right to end F-22 production
As part of a much-needed overhaul of military procurement and contracting, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has decided to halt further purchases of the F-22 fighter assembled at the Lockheed plant in Marietta.
Despite the potential loss of jobs it might mean, that was the proper decision. As Gates pointed out in his speech announcing the change, “it is important to remember that every defense dollar spent to over-insure against a remote or diminishing risk – or, in effect, to ‘run up the score’ in a capability where the United States is already dominant – is a dollar not available to take care of our people, reset the force, win the wars we are in, and improve capabilities in areas where we are underinvested and potentially vulnerable. That is a risk I will not take.”
The F-22 fit that description all too well. It was designed for a Cold War struggle we will never fight, against next-generation Soviet fighters that will never be built. For example, the F-22s already in our fleet have flown no missions in either Iraq or Afghanistan, because there is nothing for them to do. When the planes already under construction come off the assembly line by 2011, we will have a fleet of 187 F-22s, more than enough to clear the skies of any potential challenger for air superiority for decades to come.
In his announcement, Gates noted that his proposed budget includes an increase of $11 billion to fund manpower growth in the Army and Marines. It increases spending on the unmanned Predator that has proved so valuable, and also invests in the ability to move troops and materiale by air and sea. It accelerates production of the F-35 fighter jet, which unlike the F-22 is capable of a mixture of missions and is considerably cheaper. He stressed that this is not a reform driven by some need to spend less, but by the need to spend it better.
The announcement was greeted enthusiastically by Sen. John McCain, who said he “strongly support(s) Secretary Gates’ decision to restructure a number of major defense programs. It has long been necessary to shift spending away from weapon systems plagued by scheduling and cost overruns to ones that strike the correct balance between the needs of our deployed forces and the requirements for meeting the emerging threats of tomorrow. Today’s announcement is a major step in the right direction.”
As Gates pointed out, we must stop spending billions “to buy more capability than the nation needs.” In designing our military, we should respond to “to the actual and prospective capabilities of known future adversaries – not by what might be technologically feasible for a potential adversary given unlimited time and resources.”
“The perennial procurement and contracting cycle – going back many decades – of adding layer upon layer of cost and complexity onto fewer and fewer platforms that take longer and longer to build must come to an end. There is broad agreement on the need for acquisition and contracting reform in the Department of Defense. There have been enough studies. Enough hand-wringing. Enough rhetoric. Now is the time for action.”
Gates and President Obama understand they’ll have to fight for their budget in Congress, where the defense industry has immense influence. But let’s raise the explicit question that Gates only hinted at in his speech: Are members of Congress going to fight for programs that provide jobs in their districts but weaken this country militarily? Are they going to insist on the inefficient and unneeded, programs “where the requirements were truly in the ‘exquisite’ category,” as Gates put it, over programs that could perform the function more efficiently?
In the case of the F-22, another 45 to 50 planes will still be coming off the assembly line in the next two years. And as that production ceases, much or even all of the job losses may be offset by the ramping up of production for the F-35, also built by Lockheed.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2011 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
154 comments Add your comment
I Report/ You Whine
April 7th, 2009
7:39 am
As Gates pointed out in his speech announcing the change, “it is important to remember that every defense dollar spent to over-insure against a remote or diminishing risk – or, in effect, to ‘run up the score’ in a capability where the United States is already dominant – is a dollar not available to take care of our people, reset the force, win the wars we are in, and improve capabilities in areas where we are underinvested and potentially vulnerable. That is a risk I will not take.”
Now, if only we weren’t cutting the defense budget as a whole.
Typical liberal, cut defense spending, already at a historical low, and claim a “savings.”
We sent troops into Iraq and Afghanistan, wars that we never THOUGHT we would fight, unprepared because of bill Klintoon’s budget defense measures, remember all the whining you did about vehicle and body armor?
Liberals play both sides of the issue with America and the lives of our soldiers taking second place to their wormy political motives.
Typical.
Jim Pritchard
April 7th, 2009
7:50 am
“by 2011, we will have a fleet of 187 F-22s, more than enough to clear the skies of any potential challenger for air superiority for decades to come.”
Wow, I should have skipped all those classes in aerospace engineering and all that experience in air to air combat operations. I could have just been a journalism major and then I’d know everything.
That’s maybe the stupidest statement I’ve ever read in this newspaper–and that’s saying something. The actual F-22 fleet is about 140 operational jets once you take out training and test aircraft. No fighter in history has ever been 100% available 100% of the time, so figure at best 120 jets would be on hand for combat–assuming you’re willing to put all of them in one place and leave the rest of the world undefended. That also assumes you never lose any in crashes between today and the day of the next war.
Bookman, stick to endorsing liberals for office. At least you know something about that. Leave military decision making to people who know what they’re talking about.
Oh, and the day the AJC goes belly-up and you lose your job–and that day is coming very soon–I’m going to be cheering. Put that in your bong and smoke it.
Mrs. Godzilla
April 7th, 2009
7:53 am
AH….defense spending….let the head exploding begin
Navy’s Big Weakness: Our Aircraft Carriers Are (Expensive) Defenseless Sitting Ducks
Read more here:
http://www.alternet.org/audits/134830/navy%27s_big_weakness%3A_our_aircraft_carriers_are_(expensive)_defenseless_sitting_ducks/
bdatlanta
April 7th, 2009
7:54 am
One guy on npr complaining about the loss of 90,000 jobs. I bet somebody was lamenting the loss of jobs when they shut down the buggywhip factories back when the automobile was invented.
They did build 187 of these planes already.
Andy the welcher
April 7th, 2009
7:55 am
So dumbass, how did W fix Bill Klintoon’s mess??? Oh’ that’s right he didn’t, he ignored the soldiers on active duty while they worked to jury rig armor on Humvees, and then cut funding and services for Vets back home… Awesome Chimp in Chief there bozo… Typical “conservative” BS, from a “conservative” that has probably never even been in the company of a serviceman, unless you want to count his kindred soul here as a serviceman, and thier constant trolling and bleating of Rush’s talking points as keeping company together…
ew and ew
Copyleft
April 7th, 2009
7:57 am
“Leave military decision making to people who know what they’re talking about.”
You mean, like the Secretary of Defense? Yeah, I’m okay with that.
The F-22 is not needed, according to the military experts who know the program best. It’s a jobs program, nothing more. You might as well whine about cutbacks in the dot-matrix printer industry–we don’t need to be wasting more billions on life support for dead technology.
Or, like Whiner, you could just make up lies about the defense budget being cut, when in fact it’s increasing, just like it does every year.
Notice how the desperate Bookman-haters are always first to jump in on every new post here? Gee, they sure have no use for the AJC that rules their lives and dominates their days….
Keep up the good work, Mr. Bookman.
Mrs. Godzilla
April 7th, 2009
7:59 am
More on that same topic:
“Evolving weaponry also could make aircraft carriers obsolete. With technology moving so quickly, carriers could become vulnerable to conventional weapons, not just tactical nuclear devices. As smart weapons gain power and accuracy, a well-placed missile or laser could turn the Reagan to toast.”
It Continues:
“Even conservative think tanks raise such a possibility. The Project for the New American Century in Washington, for instance, recently advised against building a new class of aircraft carrier until potential threats in 10 to 20 years are better known. Money would be better spent building other types of ships, such as smaller carriers.”
Read the whole thing here:
http://www.gatewayva.com/biz/virginiabusiness/magazine/yr2001/may01/ship.html
Redneck Convert
April 7th, 2009
7:59 am
Well, we might of knowed. The librul Democrats take over and defense spending goes down. Not that I feel sorry for the F-22 workers at Lockheed. If they was any good they would already be beer truck drivers.
Anyhow, I don’t see what need has to do with it. When us Republicans are in charge we always see to it that we get jobs put in for our voters. It’s jobs that are important, not the planes. You can bet that if we were in the White House we would order about 200 more F-22s. Cobb County is a godly Republican area and the voters there need plenty of job security. Now they are just getting punished for voting Republican.
So instead of more F-22s we’re going to get more army and marine troops. Well, that ain’t going to get us jobs because us Republicans don’t join the military anyway. Except for some of us that went in on account of us having a choice between joining and getting drafted way back years ago.
I’m just disgusted. Have a good day everybody.
Jay
April 7th, 2009
8:00 am
Mr. Pritchard is right about some things, wrong about others. He is certainly right that the entire fleet of F-22s would not be available at any one time. That’s one of the biggest problems with the plane. It has a peacetime readiness of barely 60 percent, meaning that at any one time almost 40 percent of the fleet can’t fight because of maintenance and repair issues. On a plane costing out at $140 per, that is unacceptable.
I will note that Mr. Pritchard does not offer a threat or potential threat to U.S. air dominance that might necessitate more F-22s. That is because no such threat exists. And much as he would like it to be, this argument is not between Jim Pritchard the aeronautics engineer and Jay Bookman the journalist; his argument is rejected by many of the top folks in the Pentagon and military planning, conservative as well as liberal.
fearless fosdick
April 7th, 2009
8:00 am
Whiner is doing a little revisionist history here with his it’s all Bill Clinton’s fault. Whiner if you would do your homework you would find that the manpower and procurement cuts of the 1990s were largely enacted by the George H. W. Bush administration.
Jim Pritchard
April 7th, 2009
8:01 am
Wow, another Leftist defense “expert.” You clowns have no idea what you’re talking about, you’re just parroting The Savior’s vapid rhetoric. I love the line about the Secretary of Defense being an unimpeachable source for decisions (especially the ones dictated to him by the White House). Didn’t hear much of that out of you idiots when Rumsfeld was in office, did we?
Welcome back, Carter.
bdatlanta
April 7th, 2009
8:03 am
Leave the rest of the world unprotected, Mr pritchard? Let then protect themselves.
Leave the defense decisions to the defense dept, Mr pritchard? Um, I believe that is what jay said here… Did I miss something?
DB, Gwinnettian
April 7th, 2009
8:04 am
Whiner if you would do your homework you would find that the manpower and procurement cuts of the 1990s were largely enacted by the George H. W. Bush administration.
Didn’t stop Zell Miller from lying about it during that infamous 2004 GOP convention speech, of course.
Joe Matarotz
April 7th, 2009
8:08 am
It doesn’t matter what Gates thinks. Congress will still let this metaphorical pig fly as part of their annual Pork Fest. The B2 bomber and V-22 Osprey were both pronounced dead by their respective SecDef but kept alive by Congress. Congress, where no job is to big, no expense is too high – to guarantee reelection.
Andy the welcher
April 7th, 2009
8:09 am
I guess Mr Pritchard has an office at the pentagon… as he seems to know more about about defense related decisions than the DefSec.
Or is he just another NeoCon chickenhawk with too much spare time on his hands???… hmmmm
Oh yeah, Rummy made some great decisions, he was such a good “decider” that he was forced out by W, probably because W didn’t want his “decider” skills to be eclipsed by Rummy’s…
ew
Mrs. Godzilla
April 7th, 2009
8:10 am
Jim – Are you a rightest defense expert?
ByteMe
April 7th, 2009
8:12 am
Pritchard finally showed his true colors. Bully for him!
DB, Gwinnettian
April 7th, 2009
8:15 am
Mr. Pritchard, seen here preparing for this morning’s online debate.
jt
April 7th, 2009
8:15 am
“leave defense decisions to the defense department”.
Don’t get your hopes up. Our military is full of products that they did not need nor request.
A slobbering senator oft times has more say in what our military needs than an actual soilder or sailor.
Isacson and Chambliss just have to do some “vote trading”.
I Report/ You Whine
April 7th, 2009
8:19 am
Or, like Whiner, you could just make up lies about the defense budget being cut, when in fact it’s increasing, just like it does every year.
The Obama administration has asked the military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff to cut the Pentagon’s budget request for the fiscal year 2010 by more than 10 percent — about $55 billion — a senior U.S. defense official tells FOX News.
~~~~~~
Does anybody else besides me know that the fix Duhzilla recommends for the aircraft carrier she is whining about is to get rid of the aircraft carrier, instead of developing an anti missile defense specific to the new threat?
Moron liberals need to hush when the subject of defense spending comes up, for them a defense budget would include just enough money to buy a white flag.
~~~~~~
That is because no such threat exists.
When bill Klintoon was sawing on the defense budgets of the 1990’s, cutting money that Reagan’s victory in the Cold War eliminated an immediate need for, there was no threat of IED attacks on our soldiers either.
So we did not prepare for any and all scenarios, and for that mistake, soldiers died unnecessarily, thanks to you surrender monkey libeals.
They whined then, they cut now.
Sickos
DB, Gwinnettian
April 7th, 2009
8:23 am
a senior U.S. defense official tells FOX News.
Oooh. Unimpeachable!
Mrs. Godzilla
April 7th, 2009
8:23 am
From Think Progress on the F22:
The F/A-22 Raptor is the most unnecessary weapon system being built by the Pentagon. In fact, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld tried to do away with it in the summer of 2002 but backed off when his Air Force secretary threatened to resign over the issue. It was originally designed to achieve air superiority over Soviet fighter jets, which will never be built.”
“the F-22 has become increasingly costly to operate even as the number of planes on order has decreased. The Pentagon recently announced that they would need $8 billion to upgrade 100 F-22’s which are already in use. The aircraft is “proving very expensive to operate … and it is complex to maintain,” the Pentagon explained. The aircraft’s readiness rate fell to 62 percent last year, which the Pentagon called “unsatisfactory.” Ending the production of the F-22 will free up scarce resources to fund programs more in line with our current security needs.”
More here:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/06/gates-ends-f22-production/
DB, Gwinnettian
April 7th, 2009
8:27 am
When [President Bill Clinton] was sawing on the defense budgets of the 1990’s
He was doing what the previous SecDef had recommended under GHWB?
Over Cheney’s four years as secretary of defense, encompassing budgets for fiscal years 1990-93, DoD’s total obligational authority in current dollars declined from $291.3 billion to $269.9 billion. Except for FY 1991, when the TOA budget increased by 1.7 percent, the Cheney budgets showed negative real growth: -2.9 percent in 1990, -9.8 percent in 1992, and -8.1 percent in 1993. During this same period total military personnel declined by 19.4 percent, from 2.202 million in FY 1989 to 1.776 million in FY 1993. The Army took the largest cut, from 770,000 to 572,000-25.8 percent of its strength. The Air Force declined by 22.3 percent, the Navy by 14 percent, and the Marines by 9.7 percent.
Corporal
April 7th, 2009
8:29 am
An absolutely PERFECT time to use one of my favorite quotes for most of you posters out there (including Jay) this “cold” morning:
“Dulce Bellum Inexpertis”
Andy the welcher
April 7th, 2009
8:32 am
Please Corporal, do regale us with some of your “defense” acumen, and be sure to throw some bible verses in there to bolster your point that all us liburals are going to hell, and you aren’t…
D. Silver
April 7th, 2009
8:33 am
The military, all of them, start fighting the next war using the more advanced types of weapons and methods that won the last war. This usually results in a good but-t kicking by the aggressor using innovative weapons and methods. We have put a lot of our military power into aircraft and aircraft carriers. China now has ballistic missiles with advanced satellite guidance systems and maneuvering capability and a speed in excess of mach 10 capable of targeting and destroying our expensive air craft carriers, and against which we have no defense. Today, no manned aircraft in the world can stand against the F-15, yet we are now spending hundreds of billions to build the F-22 and F-35, bigger and better versions for the F-15. They can and will be defeated by small, cheap, unmanned robotic aircraft capable of withstanding in excess of 30g’s, where a manned aircraft cannot do more than a few g’s without killing the pilot. Gates is correct, we should not build bigger and better versions of current weapons, we should innovate as China and others are doing in new types of cheap weapons, and seek peace, not more war. Otherwise, we are likely to be walking with a pronounced limp after the first major battle of the next global war.
jt
April 7th, 2009
8:35 am
We should trade the F-22s to Hugo Chavez for cheap oil, but not before installing smart cards.
fearless fosdick
April 7th, 2009
8:38 am
Coporal
“Dulce Bellum Inexpertis” That would be about 95% of the war mongering conservative crowd…now would’nt it?
Mrs. Godzilla
April 7th, 2009
8:39 am
Dulce Bellum Inexpertis
“War is sweet to those who have not experienced it.”
Horse puckey…war is sweet to those who love war.
But what can we expect from a secret agent who outed himself?
How’s that shoe phone holding up Agent 86?
ByteMe
April 7th, 2009
8:47 am
D. Silver is correct: a small drone with a bomb in it can out-maneuver a piloted plane… especially if the drone is connected to a Wii controller and a 16-year-old. Unmanned air conflict is going to be the wave of the future.
Corporal
April 7th, 2009
8:50 am
Andy the welcher:
You know I have never said “liberal” has anything to do with eternity. You truly believe or you do not. “Not everyone who calls me Lord, Lord shall enter the Kingdom ………. “. It’s just that simple.
fearless fosdick:
You know I always “call ‘em like I see ‘em”. It fits who it fits – liberal, conservative, Republican, Democrat ……
Here are a few more for your reading pleasure:
“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. A man who has nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance at being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.” – John Stuart Mill
“The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.” – G. K. Chesterton
“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” – George Orwell
Mrs. Godzilla
April 7th, 2009
8:59 am
Is it quote day?
“I spent thirty-three years and four months in active service in the country’s most agile military force, the Marines. I served in all ranks from second lieutenant to major general. And during that period I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
“I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all members of the military profession I never had an original thought until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of the higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.
“Thus I helped make Mexico, and especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. “I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenue in. I helped in the raping of half-a-dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers and Co. in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras ‘right’ for American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
“During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. I was rewarded with honors, medals, and promotion. Looking back on it, I feel that I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate a racket in three city districts. The Marines operated on three continents.”
—Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler (former Commandant, U.S. Marine Corps), Common Sense, November 1935
Bosch
April 7th, 2009
9:05 am
ByteMe,
You should see my boys (18 and 15) killing Nazi zombies on Wii and Xbox! Wow, I feel so protected at home these days from all the Nazi zombies.
Luckovich’s cartoon is mighty “Pirates of the Carribean” ish today.
Weird – Robert Gates who was appointed by Bush (Republican) and John McCain who was the GOP nominee for POTUS last year says that it’s a good thing to ditch the F-22, but somehow to some this is all the liberals fault. Hmmm. Yeah, um, sigh.
And this is my dumb question for the day – maybe not the only one, but can’t Lockheed come up with some other proposal of a weapon thing to build? Retrain the workers and build something else? They are engineers – they can probably build more than one thing.
Sowega
April 7th, 2009
9:06 am
I don’t care whether it’s a Dem or Rep admin doing this, it’s what’s best in the big picture. We DO need more and better CAS systems, as well as more actual SOLDIERS. Don’t worry Lockheed–there are systems you build that we DO need more of, and you’ll still get paid too much anyway.
Now if they could just buy a cheap, reliable rifle with looser tolerances, no direct gas operating mechanism, and firing a heavier bullet, we’ll be alright. Oh–make that rifle have fewer parts too.
c.b.r.d
April 7th, 2009
9:15 am
Jay writes,
“Gates and President Obama understand they’ll have to fight for their budget in Congress, where the defense industry has immense influence. But let’s raise the explicit question that Gates only hinted at in his speech: Are members of Congress going to fight for programs that provide jobs in their districts but weaken this country militarily? Are they going to insist on the inefficient and unneeded, programs “where the requirements were truly in the ‘exquisite’ category,” as Gates put it, over programs that could perform the function more efficiently?”
Bookman does that not sound eerily similar to many of the programs you said were either to be overlooked or could be needed in the Obama stimulus package.
Needless programs designed to stimulate jobs, unproven but hopeful.
So since you are in obvious agreement with Gates about this issue why did you not ask the same question about the stimulus bill lasted passed.
Something like Are congressman and our president going to fight for jobs in their district, but weaken the country finacially and socially?
Seems similar to me, could you explain the criteria for making your decisions, is it based on people involved, the party involved, actual policy or just writers block, because the inconsistancies are difficult to keep up with.
Appologies for grammer if needed.
Bosch
April 7th, 2009
9:17 am
I read a book Sunday where there was this stuff called Antimatter and the bad guys were gonna blow up the Vatican with it – maybe Lockheed can look into that stuff.
Seriously, I guess it’s just too hard for some to admit that to continue with this program would be horribly wasteful and that this is saving the tax payers billions that we can put into better weapon production and military recruitment, but that means they would have to admit something positive about Obama and that just might make their heads explode.
jt
April 7th, 2009
9:22 am
Its not antimatter. Its called chucktonium. We are the only country with it. don’t worry.
Bosch
April 7th, 2009
9:25 am
jt,
Not according to my book – apparently the Swiss invented it at some place called CERN.
Corporal
April 7th, 2009
9:26 am
“It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.” General Robert E. Lee, Statement at the Battle of Fredericksburg (13th December 1862)
Off to “reconnoiter” now. Will check back later this afternoon.
Davo
April 7th, 2009
9:28 am
Let’s see…the cold war is over, our empire stands on financial ruin, and the people we are at war with don’t even have a Cesna 182 to send at us. Either by choice or neccesity we will have to scale back on military spending, and hopefully get out of our ‘obligations’ to other countries. Why are we still in Europe, for instance? Who is going to invade them now, realistically?
Mrs. Godzilla
April 7th, 2009
9:29 am
Bosch
For you:
• Is it possible to build an antimatter weapon?
The military use of antimatter has the same limitations as spaceship propulsion: both would require a huge amount of antimatter, taking million of years to produce.
But if you define a weapon as something which shoots bullets, an accelerator could be considered an antiparticle gun! But we are talking about single particles, so the amount of energy you release when you shoot one of these “bullets” is so small you wouldn’t even tickle your enemy.
More here:http://livefromcern.web.cern.ch/livefromcern/antimatter/FAQ.html
Mrs. Godzilla
April 7th, 2009
9:30 am
Bosch
Sorry I blew the link
http://livefromcern.web.cern.ch/livefromcern/antimatter/FAQ.html
better?
ByteMe
April 7th, 2009
9:33 am
Davo: as it has been for hundreds of years, projection of power is all about protection of commerce and empire. We created our navy to combat pirates and protect shipping lanes. Europe’s problem now is protection of their access to energy resources, and Russia held them hostage earlier this year over that. Our problem will be the same in the future if we don’t stop importing so much raw energy materials.
Ray
April 7th, 2009
9:37 am
Now that our great leader has publicly stated in his whistle stop campaign to Europe that we have a lot of catching up to do before we are as great and as magnanimous as the European Union, maybe we won’t need F-22s any more. Perhaps, as Europe sits on it’s collective ass, we can abandon our European troop commitment and take away billions of dollars from Europe’s economy. Then maybe they will have to manufacture their own F-22s instead of counting on us for their safety. We have continually pandered to Europe, especially the French, during liberal administrations by telling them how great they were, how much we would like to be like them. And Bozo is no exception. It’s time for him to get off of the campaign trail and give his narcissistic personality a rest. Not everyone will like you, especially those fanatic Muslims that have pledged to put our head on a pole. Stuffing roses down their rocket launchers will not protect even Mrs. Godzilla.
ByteMe
April 7th, 2009
9:40 am
Climb down from the flagpole, Ray. You’ve been out in the cold a bit too long.
AmVet
April 7th, 2009
9:41 am
I Welch/I Whine,
You Andy, are a blogging neanderthal.
Not merely for the obvious, but because you believe Andy the Welcher and I are one.
Your powers of observation are as horrific as your overall blogging acumen.
He is a force to be sure, but I own you reich-wing conserva-trolls. And you know it.
And whoTF is this Jim Pritchard clown?
Is that an alias? It sounds like someone from Green Acres. And reads like something from James and the Giant Peach.
Let us hope this neo-con’s “engineering” “skills” are better than his vast never-served, never-will military “experiences”…
And our beloved Redneck hits a tape measure shot with this observation: “Well, that ain’t going to get us jobs because us Republicans don’t join the military anyway.”
No, but they sure are one fierce breed of blogging armchair warrior…
Corporal Punishment
April 7th, 2009
9:44 am
“Who would Jesus bomb?”
- Ashton Kutcher
Mrs. Godzilla
April 7th, 2009
9:45 am
ray,
stuffing roses into rocket launchers won’t protect me!!!!
well, @#^$@(#$(@(%%%, what a surprise!
Bosch
April 7th, 2009
9:46 am
Mrs. G.,
Okay, so I guess producing antimatter is out for now. Dang, it seemed so easy in the book I read.
Bosch
April 7th, 2009
9:47 am
And for God’s sake, Ray, don’t stick your tongue on the pole on your way down.