2004 Presidental Election Returns (Red=Bush; Blue=Kerry).
2005 U.S. Military Base Closures (Red=Open; Blue=Closed).
Written by Dylan Jameson
WASHINGTON, D.C. (PoopyCaca.com) – Using a map of the 2004 election returns as a "strategic guide," the Pentagon proposed shutting about 180 military installations in states that voted for John Kerry – from Massachusetts to California.
"The people in these states voiced their opinion through their votes against the President," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said at a Pentagon press conference announcing the base closures. "These voters clearly believe that America is not under threat from terrorism, so we are listening to them and responding accordingly. If they disagree with our military policies then we’re not going to foist the power, might and protection of the U.S. armed forces upon them."
Under Rumsfeld’s plan, functions now carried out at facilities such as the U.S. Naval Submarine Base in Groton, Connecticut – which is responsible for patrolling the entire East Coast – will be shifted to a new $891 billion base in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The closuer will mean the loss of 7,096 military jobe and 823 civilian jobs, hitting the economy hard in Connecticut, a state that voted overwhelmingly for Kerry.
Donald Rumsfeld is unable to contain his glee over the closure of military bases in Democratic states.
"Does it matter that Oklahoma is a land-locked state in the middle of the country, thousands of miles from the East Coast? We don’t think so," Rumsfeld said, asking and answering his own question. "What is more important to this administration is the kind of Americans who will be serving in our nation’s defense – and the president and his military advisors are far more comfortable knowing that the good, God-fearing people of Oklahoma will be keeping our East Coast safe from terror."
"Republican Lobbyist/Part-Time Pastor Quits Church."
"Pope’s Sainthood Stalled In Cardinal Subcommittee
Article comments
1 - Thomas M. Sipos
Here in California, people are whining over their base closures. Essentially, BOTH sides treat the military as pork. Which is why there's so much military fat in all states.
Of course bases should be located according to national security needs, not by their impact on local communities. But I don't expect that to happen, as both Democrat and Republican leaders oppose such a policy, each prefering to dole out the pork to their constituents.
2 - Eric Berlin
This is funny stuff. It's always sad to see military base closings and the impact they have on communities. But I can understand it in terms of economics and shifting national security needs. But to play politics with the military (and I'm not saying it's the case as I haven't looked into the matter enough) would be truly sickening.
3 - mike hollihan
What's *really* odd is that a naval support station just outside of Memphis is going to get a major expansion, potentially bringing one thousand new jobs. Yes, Memphis is on the Mississippi, but the Millington NSA is nowhere near the river! Kinda strange.
4 - SFC SKI
Maybe the old sub hulls are being converted into special tunneling machines and they are using old coal mine shafts for research.
5 - Shark
The irony is that the Red State, "let's cut taxes and get big government out of our lives!" Republicans will be falling over each other trying to give Bush and Rummy a blow job in order to keep their respective useless military pork villages.
Cut government spending -- unless, of course -- the wasted money is flowing into your district.
Some "patriots", eh?
My prediction: thanks to a "compromise", those Red State military bases will be converted to *detention centers for that smattering of pesky American "liberals" who aren't yet extinct.
*nudge nudge wink wink
("Thanks, but I've already been de-loused today, Mr. Secretary...")
6 - Eric Berlin
That might be the funniest use of "de-loused" I've ever seen, Shark.
7 - Shark
PS: Is it just me, or does that photo of Rumsfeld make ya wanna *send money to a Saudi madrassas?
*just jokin' -- CIA people!
8 - SFC SKI
LOL, Shark.
Of course, being funny won't save you.
Get back to me after you answer the door...
9 - Taxed
First it's going to be the bases and in time. As the whole idea is downsize the military. So, with that logic. Once they get the force sizes down to their required strength levels, well that's when they'll go after the military retirement plans. Non-combatant forces (deskjobs personnel) will have get their retirement checks at age 60, unlike how it is now, most get off of active service when their 40 or older.
The savings to the government will be huge. I would imagine combatant forces who are on the frontlines (grunts as they are called). Will have cheated death, probably won't see any deferment in their retirement plans.
Which is understandable, they are like getting shot at... Verse, the folks who live on a ship are typically out of harms way. Military life in the future is going to be way different than it is today. Technological advances will also displace alot of peole as automation will replace those jobs. More with less.