President Obama Echoes Eisenhower's Farewell Address' Military Industrial Warning
Finally, although today is about our defense strategy, I want to close with a word about the defense budget that will flow from this strategy. The details will be announced in the coming weeks. Some will no doubt say that the spending reductions are too big; others will say that they’re too small. It will be easy to take issue with a particular change in a particular program. But I’d encourage all of us to remember what President Eisenhower once said -- that “each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs.” After a decade of war, and as we rebuild the source of our strength -- at home and abroad -- it’s time to restore that balance.
I think it’s important for all Americans to remember, over the past 10 years, since 9/11, our defense budget grew at an extraordinary pace. Over the next 10 years, the growth in the defense budget will slow, but the fact of the matter is this: It will still grow, because we have global responsibilities that demand our leadership. In fact, the defense budget will still be larger than it was toward the end of the Bush administration. And I firmly believe, and I think the American people understand, that we can keep our military strong and our nation secure with a defense budget that continues to be larger than roughly the next 10 countries combined.
read entire remarks: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/01/05/remarks-president-defense-strategic-review
Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the Nation
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=90&page=transcript
= new reply since forum marked as read
As explained by Wiki, "An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"
, short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominim
Similar explanations can be found elsewhere on the web.
Your suggestion that Eisenhower was warning us about JFK ("Or maybe Kennedy? Just sayin.'" , although unjustified, is not an ad hominem attack.
The response to you which contrasts JFK with LBJ ("JFK did not profit from the MIC" is both factually true and is also not an ad hominem attack. In Viet Nam, one of the largest contractors who made money from Uncle Sam was RMK BRJ Corp. LBJ had connections with that company through his wife. His wife Lady Bird would ultimately become a major shareholder of Halliburton and a member of the Halliburton board of directors. This is well known and has been discussed many times on DU, with more or less details.
JFK kept us out of war on more than one occasion and would not even support a military invasion of a country just 90 miles off our shores. Although he initially increased the number of Army advisors in Viet Nam, and did so as a follow up to what was begun by Truman and Eisenhower, he ultimately rejected his military advisors and announced his decision to withdraw from that country. Pointing out that he did not profit from the MIC was not an ad hominem attack on you, LBJ, or Obama.
You do realize that you have attributed whole paragraphs to me that I never typed.
