McCain Was Against FCS Before He Was For It

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Following up on an item from yesterday, John McCain decided this week to start taking on Barack Obama over military spending, chastising Obama yesterday for having the audacity to support "slow[ing] our development of Future Combat Systems" The criticism might be more compelling if McCain hadn't also lashed out at the Army's bloated Future Combat Systems modernization program. Noah Shachtman explained last night that McCain was blasting Obama for taking the same position McCain has held for years.

As Blake Hounshell notes (and as the Obama campaign confirms) the Illinois senator was "referring to Future Combat Systems (FCS), the controversial, $200 billion Pentagon procurement program, rather than 'future combat systems' as a generic concept."

McCain is, of course, extremely familiar with FCS, the Army's effort to revamp soldiers' networks, robots, and fleets of ground vehicles. Not only is it the biggest modernization project in the Army's history. But in 2006, McCain held hearings on the program -- specifically, on the shady deal between Boeing and the Army for FCS. Somehow, the contract (then estimated to be worth a mere $128 billion), was put under the federal regulations that control the purchase of "off-the-shelf" items, like Microsoft Word. Which meant next-to-no government oversight. The massive contract was being overseen by the contractors themselves -- a classic case of the fox watching the henhouse.

McCain tore into the deal, regardless -- another example of the Arizona senator's long, long history of exposing waste, corruption, and pork in the Pentagon budget. He was warned that any changes to the contract might delay FCS. McCain pushed for 'em, anyway.

So, by going on the attack yesterday, was McCain abandoning his previous position? And if so, why?

More often than not, it seems McCain gives up on reason and consistency altogether when he goes on the offensive, and just hopes no one notices. It's kind of sad to watch, actually.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

[IAMX 3,055]

Who knows, maybe he was talking to an audience that is dumb and spoonfeeds from what he says.

That is, if people forget the things Obama said in San Francisco which he won't repeat anywhere else.

Wouldn't it be nice if they'd both just be ###### rational for a change.

[akdiver 3]

The last person who should be elected president is someone who makes up his mind about something and stubbornly refuses to change it for any reason - unable to be convinced of the merits of the other side, unable to admit one is wrong, and unable to admit that someone else might have a better solution.

We have one of these people as president now....don't really need any more.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The last person who should be elected president is someone who makes up his mind about something and stubbornly refuses to change it for any reason - unable to be convinced of the merits of the other side, unable to admit one is wrong, and unable to admit that someone else might have a better solution.

We have one of these people as president now....don't really need any more.

Amen to that!

[Heracles 417]

Anyone who is against investing in future combat system is loony. Especially considering how unstable the world really is.

I would rather we have less wars and use that resource to develop the best technology to defend ourselves.

[IAMX 3,055]

At the same time, it makes far more sense to change one's mind when logic swings that way, rather than stubbornly preach the same #######, then, in a swift politically correct moment, change one's mind.

In Obama's case, that would be in regards to his rant against rural conservatives (who he needs to appease to in the state he trashed), oil (he's been back and forth on drilling), and FISA (he voted against FISA strengthening last year, and now suddenly voted not only for a much stronger FISA, but AT&T/Verizon retroactive immunity from prosecution to allow the courts to decide it was not constitutional which came out of NOWHERE).

Not that McCain isn't a loose cannon either, but Obama has certainly been equally as guilty.

Edited September 10, 2008 by SRVT

[akdiver 3]

Random selection of government leaders would do wonders to eliminate political expediency.

[Heracles 417]

People can change their mind.

Only idiots stick to a stance and refuse to sway from it no matter what the fact, circumstances or evidence presented to them.

As long as someones principles stay the same, that is what matters to me.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Only idiots stick to a stance and refuse to sway from it no matter what the fact, circumstances or evidence presented to them.

Indeed. We're about to retire one of that species.