military

WaPo Openly Calls for the Destruction of Our Military

It’s no surprise that they want to see an end to America’s military. Everyone knows that Washington Post leans so far left they’re about to fall over. Their theory is simply the logical extension of “defund the police.” We don’t need cops anymore because we don’t have laws. Likewise, we don’t need an army because we no longer have a border to defend. Welcome to the New World Order, as administered here by the Imperial Governor of our North Central American district, His Wisdom Joseph Robinette Biden Junior.

Military going extinct

Washington Post is furious that the House Armed Services committee would actually increase the Pentagon’s budget. In 2022, they can spend an extra $24 billion. How dare they, liberals scream.

Democrat palace officials “claim to be winding down decades-long wars.” The progressives are convinced that “even maintaining current levels of military spending” would have been a slap in the face. After all we don’t need to pay for Afghanistan anymore.

"

Liberals think that there is some sort of evil conservative conspiracy to spend money on war just for the fun of it. They believe Dwight D. Eisenhower intentionally built the “military-industrial complex” all by himself simply for the rakeoffs. Republicans, they cry, are taking all the profits for themselves.

The Pentagon spends trillions on defense contractors and they aren’t generally voting Democrat. Both sides of the aisle in Congress manage to cash in on the arrangement though. “Dozens of members of Congress and their spouses own millions of dollars’ worth of stock in those companies.”

There’s a good reason why “Pentagon officials regularly leave their government posts to serve on corporate boards,” anti-military liberals snipe. Day and night all they do is lobby on behalf of defense contractors.

The GAO grudgingly admits that “between 2014 and 2019, 1,718 former Defense Department senior and acquisition officials went to work for many of the country’s largest defense contractors.”

Generals make fortunes

The Washington Post is appalled at the way generals have a nasty habit of getting rich after they leave military service. All they have to do, it seems, is “hock their experience leading a conflict that lasted 20 years, cost taxpayers trillions, and claimed the lives of 176,000 people — only to fail in its primary objective.”

To liberal Democrats, the clear winner of the war on terror is “the ex-generals and admirals and other defense contractors who made millions off of it.”

They’re just mad because they don’t get paid that well. Progressive peaceniks can’t tolerate for a second the idea that “decisions about whether to engage in military conflicts are shaped by people who have a vested interest in perpetuating these conflicts.”

When the talking heads are interviewing big brass honchos, there should be little streamers across the bottom of the screen announcing the sponsorship details of “their financial interests in these policies.”

Just to explain their theory, the authors note, three generals made a whole bunch of appearances in the media in a week and a half.

Jack Keane chairs a military-vehicle manufacturer, Barry McCaffrey “has a long history of not disclosing conflicts of interest,” and David Petraeus “serves on the boards of two firms with interests in the defense sector.” The lords of war as it were.

Related Posts