WARNO: inbound Soldier will need help
Iranian nuke program stalled by computer virus?

Can California make Boxer “Ma’am” again?

Cassandra, over at Villainous Company, does a wicked takedown of one of my “favorite” politicians, Babs “call me Senator” Boxer.  She makes the point that Boxer’s new found love for the military is most likely election year temporary:

Boxer began her political career as an anti-war activist and endeared herself to core Democratic voters with her advocacy against the first Gulf War and her vote against the invasion of Iraq, which she has described as her "proudest moment." In her 1992 campaign, a year when she advocated chopping defense spending in half, her television ads highlighted how she had exposed pricey purchases by the Pentagon in the mid-1980s that included $7,622 coffee pots.

And her record speaks of hypocrisy:

In the 1990s Boxer campaigned on her record of eliminating "wasteful" defense spending from the budget. Military might, she maintained, was not the key to a strong national defense. Changing times demanded drastic cuts to the defense budget and the redirection of American tax dollars to domestic programs:

"If we cannot take care of our children, it doesn't matter how many tanks or missiles we have; we won't be a strong nation," Boxer said in an interview.

This is hardly a surprising position for a progressive from California, but it begs the question: why does a Senator who vehemently opposed the use of military power for decades want to force taxpayers to buy an enormously expensive cargo plane the military neither wants nor needs?

Go read the whole thing.