Obama to seek $83.4 billion for Iraq, Afghan wars
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama asked Congress on Thursday for $83.4 billion for U.S. military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, pressing for special troop funding that he opposed two years ago when he was senator and George W. Bush was president.
Obama is also requesting $350 million in new funding to upgrade security along the U.S.-Mexico border and to combat narcoterrorists, along with another $400 million in counterinsurgency aid to Pakistan.
"Nearly 95 percent of these funds will be used to support our men and women in uniform as they help the people of Iraq to take responsibility for their own future — and work to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan," Obama wrote in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
Interesting article.
Smedley Butler was right.
Presto-chango?
Is that what you were expecting?
Presto-chango?
Is that what you were expecting?
[youtube]yW1bk6est84[/youtube]
Shoot, I'll have to wait until I get home to watch it. :)
Welp, there's your change for you. Obama the candidate is finding out what Obama the President has to actually do to act in the nation's interest, and humanity's not so incidentally.
I'd rather hoped he would.
Interesting article.
Imagine that. Funny how a person running for president can change his tune after he is read-in on all the facts concerning security and national defense issues.
You mean after he gets a chance to make an informed decision? I'm actually ok with the banter beforehand. I just hope Obama is smart enough to make the right call after he gets "all the info"
Was this in the budget or is this an additional expense not already accounted for?
Separate budget. Not accounted for previously in discussions about the economy but it has been looming large on the edge of the room.
So we are adding this? After all the talk of how wrong Bush was to not include the war in his budget, this looks an awful lot like the same thing.
Yes, added or adding as the case may be.
I dont understand the issue here.
Yes, this supplemental to the 09 budget is not in the budget that was adopted last year. 09 was Bush's last budget and did not include war funding (none of his budgets ever included war funding) and Bush's last supplemental (non-budget request) was only through May.
Starting with the 2010 budget, Iraq and Afghanistan war costs are budgeted. That is the difference.
The plan for withdrawing most troops from Iraq has been extended from the 16 month campaign pledge to 18 months, after consulting with the commanders in the field. It could very well change again, depending on conditions on the ground.
I still dont like doubling down in Afghanistan, but at least there is a plan now.
Imagine that. Funny how a person running for president can change his tune after he is read-in on all the facts concerning security and national defense issues.
Or after he's been taken to visit "the Kennedy Room".
Also, why the hell would a senator vote for anything, if he isn't told why he's being asked to vote for it? Any senator that would vote for something without knowing the facts should be run out of congress. Secrecy be damned.
Just saying.
I dont understand the issue here.
Yes, this supplemental to the 09 budget is not in the budget that was adopted last year. 09 was Bush's last budget and did not include war funding (none of his budgets ever included war funding) and Bush's last supplemental (non-budget request) was only through May.
You are very good at avoidance Redux.
This administration made an issue of the war funding not being in the previous administrations budgets.
This administration also made a big issue of their transparency... Also this administration said that the war funding would be in the budgets from now on. ok, fine. Nothing new there.
Now just weeks after passing their budget they come back for another 85,000,000,000. I'm sure no one thought of this "in their plan" just a few weeks ago, eh? Seems rather shady to me. No one thought to slip this in so it would get counted under Bushs budget - nahhhh. That's Chicago style.
Also, why the hell would a senator vote for anything, if he isn't told why he's being asked to vote for it? Any senator that would vote for something without knowing the facts should be run out of congress. Secrecy be damned.
Yet the opposite is true. Too many sheep following the wonderful rhetoric.
You are very good at avoidance Redux.
This administration made an issue of the war funding not being in the previous administrations budgets.
This administration also made a big issue of their transparency... Also this administration said that the war funding would be in the budgets from now on. ok, fine. Nothing new there.
Now just weeks after passing their budget they come back for another 85,000,000,000. I'm sure no one thought of this "in their plan" just a few weeks ago, eh? Seems rather shady to me. No one thought to slip this in so it would get counted under Bushs budget - nahhhh. That's Chicago style.
I dont think you get it.
Iraq/Afghanistan funding runs out this month because it was not included in Bush's FY 09 budget or his last supplemental budget request.
What option is there other than a new supplemental appropriation for funds through the rest of this fiscal year (through Sept 30)?
Its not like it could have been included in the FY 2010 budget proposal released several weeks ago.....it doesnt work that way...different year, different budget.
And starting with the 2010 budget, war costs are included.....that is a first and that is a fact.
Yet the opposite is true. Too many sheep following the wonderful rhetoric
Is this where I am supposed to say....baaahhhh, baaahhhhh
They have no choice but to ask for funding. Bush made a habit of not including the budget for funding Iraq/Afgan in his budget and making it a supplemental so they could get it through Congress. The precident has been set for Obama and the Afgan/Iraq funding.
Now just weeks after passing their budget
for next year
they come back for another 85,000,000,000.
for this year.
Is this where I am supposed to say....baaahhhh, baaahhhhh
Nah - you been saying that for awhile. JUST KIDDING.
I understand it just fine. Still seems like SSDD or SSDA.
for next year
for this year.
There ya go!
Filtering my political babble into simple monkey talk that even a classic human should be able to understand!
There is/was never any confusion over the budgets and when it was being appropriated for.
Nevermind - no complaint Obama is great and all is well in the world.
Nevermind - no complaint Obama is great and all is well in the world.
You must submit comrade. :D
http://thepeoplescube.com/Laika.phpsnip~
This administration also made a big issue of their transparency... Also this administration said that the war funding would be in the budgets from now on. ok, fine. Nothing new there.
Now just weeks after passing their budget they come back for another 85,000,000,000. I'm sure no one thought of this "in their plan" just a few weeks ago, eh? Seems rather shady to me. No one thought to slip this in so it would get counted under Bushs budget - nahhhh. That's Chicago style.
Yet the opposite is true. Too many sheep following the wonderful rhetoric.
So when you don't understand what's going on, you start whining about transparency... it's all them being deceptive.
Nevermind - no complaint Obama is great and all is well in the world.
And then when it's explained, you won't even admit it was your lack of understanding, and not their lack of transparency, so you answer a straight foreword question with a smartass remark.
No wonder so many people are sick of this forum.
The discussion was changed Bruce, as usual. My opinion was that this is simply adding money to fight a war without it being in the budget. That is all. Which part of that is not clear?
And ot ask for this money just weeks after their own budget for next year is passed is "smokey" at best. It reeks of the same shit as the last administration that they complained about. Is it simply a matter of circumstance and timing? Perhaps, but I am not buying it.
The discussion was changed Bruce, as usual. My opinion was that this is simply adding money to fight a war without it being in the budget. That is all. Which part of that is not clear?
And ot ask for this money just weeks after their own budget for next year is passed is "smokey" at best. It reeks of the same shit as the last administration that they complained about. Is it simply a matter of circumstance and timing? Perhaps, but I am not buying it.
Bush did precisely the same thing. Budgets did not include in-progress wars.
Obama = Bush = LBJ.
Same old shit.
The discussion was changed Bruce, as usual. My opinion was that this is simply adding money to fight a war without it being in the budget. That is all. Which part of that is not clear?
And ot ask for this money just weeks after their own budget for next year is passed is "smokey" at best. It reeks of the same shit as the last administration that they complained about. Is it simply a matter of circumstance and timing? Perhaps, but I am not buying it.
The money for the war
is in next year's budget.
That starts in September.
They asked for money to fund the war from when Bush's money runs out (now) until the new budget starts in September.
There is nothing "smokey".
There is no "reeking".
There are no "sheep".
There is no "wonderful rhetoric"
There is, however, a whole thread of pissing and moaning about a problem that never existed.
The discussion was changed Bruce, as usual. My opinion was that this is simply adding money to fight a war without it being in the budget. That is all. Which part of that is not clear?
This year's budget was made last year, under Bush, who did not want the wars to be in the normal budget.
Obama wants the wars to be in the normal budget, and they are in the first budget under his administration- the 2010 budget. He can't retroactively put this year's wars' worth of spending in the budget passed last year. Or, I suppose, the way to do that would be through a supplemental. Which is what he is doing.
There is, however, a whole thread of pissing and moaning about a problem that never existed.
Apparently there is nothing worth pissing about or questioning. I am not 100% sure I get the whole deal, but suffice to say...
I was wrong - thread ended.
There is plenty to piss & moan about. So much in fact, why waste time on the things that aren't? Question? Sure, but once the answer is revealed move on.
I guess we will see. Next year there will be no excuses.
Whats happening next year? The pissing and moaning will still be as partisan as ever. Remember next year is an election year. It'll probably just get worse.
What I meant was, he can't say next year that it isn't his budget. He can't use the excuse of Bush, because he will have been in office for a year.
The "Bush excuse" valid or not will be used for a decade or more.
It will always be Bush's fault we went there, but next year it won't be Bush's fault that it's not in the budget. And if Obama takes too long to leave, it will eventually be his fault we're still there.
some will find a way. Hell, some nutjobs still manage to tie nixon and/or reagan into 3 out of 5 posts.
... and vietnam. :tinfoil:
The "Bush excuse" valid or not will be used for a decade or more.
Why not? The conservatards are still yapping about Clinton.
And some are still whining about Carter.
It will always be Bush's fault we went there, but next year it won't be Bush's fault that it's not in the budget. And if Obama takes too long to leave, it will eventually be his fault we're still there.
I have made my mind up to begin to blame Obama for all the worlds economic woes. Fits nicely with the years of blaming Bush for everything, don't you think?
I have made my mind up to begin to blame Obama for all the worlds economic woes. Fits nicely with the years of blaming Bush for everything, don't you think?
Sure. It also fits in with the years of blaming Clinton.
Boo hoo hoo, you're so picked on.
:stickpoke
I have made my mind up to begin to blame Obama for all the worlds economic woes. Fits nicely with the years of blaming Bush for everything, don't you think?
No actually I don't. Bush did things to warrant those accusations. Obama has not. He's only been in office for about 3 months. How in the fuck is ANY of this HIS fault?
Because he's top management, and everyone knows 85 % of our problems are traceable to top management. ;)
Because he's top management, and everyone knows 85 % of our problems are traceable to top management. ;)
Yes, but he wasn't top management when it happened, and he is dealing with it, regardless of the republicans trying to block his every move.
Calm thyself, everyone knows that, even the Republicans. :chill: