Skip to main content

See also:

Jim Inhofe: Democrats want to eliminate the military

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Mandel Ngan / AFP / Getty Images

On March 6th, 2014, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) explained during the broadcast of Washington Watch to Family Research Council president Tony Perkins that the recently unveiled Pentagon budget "has the effect of killing our young Americans in combat."

The budget cuts, which will ultimately amount to a less than 1% cut of the Pentagon's $550 billion budget, were proposed to reflect both a national deficit and the increasing impracticality of a massive military force in the 21st century.

Inhofe, on the other hand, would much prefer to see the budget cuts as some sort of conspiracy by President Obama, whom Inhofe claims probably doesn't want to have a military at all.

"A real liberal in his heart doesn't think you need a military anyway," Inhofe insisted. "I know people that would never admit that, but people I have served with here in the United States Senate, that's the crisis we’re up against."

Perkins, an avid conspiracy theory peddler in his own right, was all too eager to agree, insisting that Democrats "despise the military," which he claimed was evidenced by their support for policies that have allowed members of the LGBT community to serve openly.

"If you think back, the president set his sights on the military from the very beginning, pushing the repeal of Don’t Ask Don't Tell, which was the beginning of the end of the military," Perkins declared.

Inhofe also took the opportunity to peddle his favorite conspiracy theory: Climate change denial, arguing that federal funds "wasted on the global warming stuff" should have gone towards the military instead.

Back in that pesky little thing called reality, however, Obama has been in no way critical of the U.S. military, and has instead stressed a need for the military to evolve to meet the challenges of the 21st century; on having highly trained elite fighting forces instead of overwhelming manpower, and protecting against cyber-attacks instead of missile assaults.

It's a fairly straightforward argument, but it's not something Inhofe or Perkins can logically lash out at, ergo Obama's policies had to be completely re-imagined into something they could comfortably condemn.

Getting things done in Washington would be so much easier if everyone could learn to discuss their ideological opponents as they actually are in real life.