Obama to Seek $75.5 Billion More for Wars in 2009

bhkad · 02-26-09, 11:32 AM

Parts of this text as well as the link to the article have previously been posted on these pages between June and November 2008.

Once again...

Quote:

Don’t Expect a Big Change in U.S. Foreign Policy

Want more George W. Bush foreign policy? Elect John McCain – or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Regardless of who wins in November, the current foreign policy will live on in the next White House.

None of the main candidates has disavowed the war on terror. Each has called Mr. Bush tactically deficient. But the debate over the war on terror is over how, where and when. The candidates have all argued that they would do a better job of fighting it.

Administrations bequeath foreign policies to their successors that are then tweaked, but rarely transformed. The seeds of Ronald Reagan’s Cold War strategy were sown in the defense buildup of the later Jimmy Carter years. President Bush’s purported “obsession” with Baghdad began in the hawkish statecraft of Vice President Al Gore. In 1998, Bill Clinton made regime change official U.S. policy, and in 2003 Mr. Bush made it a reality.

This Side of the Pond » Timothy Lynch and Robert Singh in today’s Wall Street Journal

marduc · 02-26-09, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by American

Link

Doesn't seem like anything much has changed.

Somehow I have a hunch that had he NOT asked for more funding you would be screaming bloody murder because he was cutting and running and not supporting our troops I bet. Either way he does wrong in your eyes

American · 02-26-09, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marduc

Somehow I have a hunch that had he NOT asked for more funding you would be screaming bloody murder because he was cutting and running and not supporting our troops I bet. Either way he does wrong in your eyes

That argument is irrelevant, what matters is whether he is doing what he said. I already know that Bush warned both Obama and Clinton during the campaign not to say anything that would cause them to have to backpedal should they win, because the campaign is one thing....being faced with reality once in office is another.

WillRockwell · 02-26-09, 12:02 PM

Once the momentum of the military is engaged in a region and our soldiers are in harms way every day, the cost of keeping them safe is irrelevant. Obama will remove the army from Iraq as quickly as he can while keeping them safe. They should not have been there in the first place, the Iraq war has cost more than human lives and the grief of thousands of parents, it has stolen our treasury and removed the National Guard from its important primary job of defending American soil and responding to national emergencies, like Katrina.

It is exactly this issue that has enraged Americans, that their president would mobilize the military for no good reason, lie to America, to Congress and to the UN about it, and that his supporters make excuses for his irresponsible action for the remaining 6 years of his presidency. If you understand this, you understand why Republicans are held in contempt by so many Americans.

bhkad · 02-26-09, 12:02 PM

Quote:

WASHINGTON -- The Central Intelligence Agency's new director outlined spy policies Wednesday, including an aggressive campaign in Pakistan, that underscored considerable continuity with the Bush administration.

CIA Director Leon Panetta, in his first meeting with reporters, said the agency will continue to carry out drone attacks on militants in Pakistan. He also said that while CIA interrogations will have new limits, President Barack Obama can still use his wartime powers to authorize harsher techniques if necessary.

[...]

The Obama administration has also shown a reluctance to overturn Bush administration views on certain terrorism-related legal matters. Earlier this month, it backed Bush-era positions that a case against a contractor alleged to have helped with CIA renditions shouldn't go forward because it will reveal "state secrets," and that detainees in Afghanistan don't have the right to challenge their detention in a U.S. court. Coming cases that will provide additional signals include a lawsuit to force the release of Justice Department memos on anti-terrorism policies.

CIA Signals Continuity With Bush Era - WSJ.com

WillRockwell · 02-26-09, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

CIA Signals Continuity With Bush Era - WSJ.com

I think you will see us entering Pakistan on the ground, with respect and apologies to Pakistan. After all, they have given up trying to control their northern areas, and that is where our enemy is in the War on Terror. It is only logical for the American military to move into the tribal areas and root out AlQaeda and the Taliban.

bhkad · 02-26-09, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillRockwell

Once the momentum of the military is engaged in a region and our soldiers are in harms way every day, the cost of keeping them safe is irrelevant. Obama will remove the army from Iraq as quickly as he can while keeping them safe. They should not have been there in the first place, the Iraq war has cost more than human lives and the grief of thousands of parents, it has stolen our treasury and removed the National Guard from its important primary job of defending American soil and responding to national emergencies, like Katrina.

National security and/or diplomatic sensitivity prevented the Bush Administration and/or the Obama team from revealing the complete circumstances behind the war in Iraq.

However, a good argument can be made that it was to prevent a much worse war from being fought in the Middle East between Israel and Iraq, potentially dragging other Arab countries into the mix, too.

Only the naive pretend that only the publicly disclosed information reveal all there was to our decision to invade.

I say the Iraq war was a necessary and even a well considered move on the part of the Bush Administration.

If you wish to debate this matter at some depth start a new thread and I will join it or let me know and I will start a new thread.

The idea that the Iraq war was unnecessary is an unenlightened viewpoint which ill serves the United States interests and our future.

marduc · 02-26-09, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by American

That argument is irrelevant, what matters is whether he is doing what he said. I already know that Bush warned both Obama and Clinton during the campaign not to say anything that would cause them to have to backpedal should they win, because the campaign is one thing....being faced with reality once in office is another.

I don't see what it is he is doing by this action that is going against what he has said, perhaps you could elaborate for me?

I don't recall any statements that he would stop funding our engagements cold turkey.

bhkad · 02-26-09, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillRockwell

I think you will see us entering Pakistan on the ground, with respect and apologies to Pakistan. After all, they have given up trying to control their northern areas, and that is where our enemy is in the War on Terror. It is only logical for the American military to move into the tribal areas and root out AlQaeda and the Taliban.

I wouldn't bet against your prognostication. But I hope you aren't one who sees Afghanistan as being the "Good War" we should have spent our blood and treasure fighting.

If so, I ask that you watch this PBS FRONTLINE show:

FRONTLINE: the war briefing | PBS

Pitwolfy · 02-26-09, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ikari

Yeeee-HA Hope and Change.

I wonder how much longer it will be before we go into Pakistan.

Make sure you say it right! Pahk-eee-stahn!

02-26-09, 12:02 PM	#14
WillRockwell Professor Join Date: Jan 2009 Last Seen: 03-16-10 07:27 PM Posts: 1,787 Thanks: 49 Thanked 343 Times in 242 Posts Gender:	Re: Obama to Seek $75.5 Billion More for Wars in 2009 Once the momentum of the military is engaged in a region and our soldiers are in harms way every day, the cost of keeping them safe is irrelevant. Obama will remove the army from Iraq as quickly as he can while keeping them safe. They should not have been there in the first place, the Iraq war has cost more than human lives and the grief of thousands of parents, it has stolen our treasury and removed the National Guard from its important primary job of defending American soil and responding to national emergencies, like Katrina. It is exactly this issue that has enraged Americans, that their president would mobilize the military for no good reason, lie to America, to Congress and to the UN about it, and that his supporters make excuses for his irresponsible action for the remaining 6 years of his presidency. If you understand this, you understand why Republicans are held in contempt by so many Americans.
	__________________ Last edited by WillRockwell; 02-26-09 at 12:05 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode