Interesting article from the Guardian:
McCain pro-military, but worries defense firms
Sen. John McCain, the presumed Republican presidential nominee, strongly supports the war in Iraq and those in uniform, but his investigations of major weapons deals have defense industry executives uneasy.
Privately, some defense company officials say they are backing Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, one of the two remaining contenders for the Democratic nomination, who they see as a better ally for the industry in the longer-term.
Do firms see Clinton as being able to keep the gravy-train running and turn an eye to dodgy-deals? Certainly if there is evidence it would prove useful to McCain in a show-down against his colleague from New York. At the least McCain can use his past investigations to buff his own defence credentials. Few would vote against someone because they cleaned up procurement, and veterans/servicemen and women would like the idea of money going to buy them more equipment rather than boost company profits.
On the other hand the fact Clinton clearly leads the field in donations from defence firms could raise voter suspicions, especially if this were to increase after the Democrat nomination closed.
Raj
1
By Janus
Dwight Eisenhower (the last US President with a serious military career to his name) himself went to tremendous lengths to avoid enormous military spending, and was quoted (don’t remember where) as fearing what would happen to the military budget when it is in the hands of a President who has no idea how the military works–and winds up spending more and getting less.
It comes as no surprise that the military-industrial complex would fear an actual soldier’s skepticism–and the strength of his authority in turning their White Elephant Cannon down. If I were Boeing & co., I’d be rooting for Hillary over McCain too.
Hillary would probably approve anything–given how much pressure she would be under to show she isn’t soft on defense.
And then Bill can go sell it to the Chinese again! Wretched Clintons…
February 16, 2008 @ 2:02 pm | Comment
2
By Raj
And then Bill can go sell it to the Chinese again!
I didn’t pay much attention to the Clinton years – what exactly did he sell them?
February 16, 2008 @ 6:04 pm | Comment
3
By Robert
Raj, you need to take a look at a documentary called “Iraq for Sale” — or “Why we Fight”….shit, I’ve forgotten which one. Actually, I’m pretty sure it’s Why We Fight (both are excellent documentaries). In it, McCain is interviewed several times expressing his disdain for the “Military-Industrial Complex,” a term which comes from Eisenhower, as Janus mentioned (the video of Eisenhower’s speech starts the documentary.
Take a look. Both of these documentaries are, or were recently, on Google Video in full. I highly recommend watching them.
February 17, 2008 @ 7:17 am | Comment
4
By Raj
Robert
Cheers, but there are a lot of videos with that name – you’ll need to post a URL. TINYURL please – no original links.
I’d still like Janus to substantiate his point about selling (I guess weapons) to the Chinese. Or I’ll have to assume he’s making stuff up because he doesn’t like Bill.
February 17, 2008 @ 7:35 pm | Comment
5
By Robert
Here’s “Why We Fight”:
http://tinyurl.com/33jp9w
Here’s “Iraq for Sale”:
http://tinyurl.com/2oyqeo
Enjoy.
February 17, 2008 @ 11:21 pm | Comment
6
By nanheyangrouchuan
What did the Clintons sell China? How about guidance systems from Loral/Hughes aerospace for everything from the missiles pointed at Taiwan to the new DF-24s.
Clinton also sent our rocket scientists to help the PLA’s second artillery division fix its problems with liquid fuel pumps and ignition so that China’s satellite launches would stop blowing up on the pad.
Of course, Bush is letting advanced carbon fiber technology get into China’s hands via the 787, a Xian aerospace company is assembling the tail rudder. Any wonder why the 787 keeps having rollout delays?
But China is making big strides in stealth cruise missile and stealth UAV technology.
Friends of China = enemies of humanity.
February 18, 2008 @ 1:45 pm | Comment