• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama to Seek $75.5 Billion More for Wars in 2009

American

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
96,085
Reaction score
33,411
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Link

By Tony Capaccio
Feb. 25 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama will seek $75.5 billion more for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through the end of this fiscal year, according to three people familiar with the request.
It will be submitted along with the fiscal 2010 budget Obama sends to Congress tomorrow. That proposal will request $130 billion for the wars in fiscal 2010 in addition to a total Defense Department budget of about $534 billion, the people said.
The amounts for the wars are less than Defense Secretary Robert Gates asked for and in keeping with expectations that the president plans a major reduction of the 142,000 U.S. troops now in Iraq.
The extra funding for fiscal 2009, which ends Sept. 30, includes money for adding 17,000 troops to the U.S. force of 38,000 in Afghanistan.
Gates in December said he would need $69.7 billion more this year, not counting the cost of adding troops in Afghanistan. On Feb. 3, he told the White House he would need as much as $83 billion. Obama announced the troop increase two weeks later.
The $130 billion requested for the conflicts in fiscal 2010 is at the low range of the Pentagon’s request for $130 billion to $140 billion.
Congress already has approved $65.9 billion in emergency wartime spending for fiscal 2009.
Click to expand...
Doesn't seem like anything much has changed.
 
But it's okay when HE does it! :)
 
Pitwolfy!!!! There you are. :)
 
I hear ya. I was expecting Obama to pull out the troops cold turkey. :doh

Honestly, is that what you expected???

He said he was going to come up with a timeline for Iraq. Until then, he will need more dough. Unless, of course, you're against the troops and Halliburton getting paid.
 
American said:
Doesn't seem like anything much has changed.
Click to expand...
I don't quite understand your point :confused:

The US and Iraqi governments previously agreed that all US military forces will be removed from Iraq by the end of 2010. This time-frame necessitates funding during the interval. Beyond simply abandoning all infrastructure and military equipment, it is hardly possible to safely accomplish such a huge task with greater rapidity.
 
Tashah said:
I don't quite understand your point :confused:

The US and Iraqi governments previously agreed that all US military forces will be removed from Iraq by the end of 2010. This time-frame necessitates funding during the interval. Beyond simply abandoning all infrastructure and military equipment, it is hardly possible to safely accomplish such a huge task with greater rapidity.
Click to expand...
That was under Bush, and Obama railed against the Bush administration on every level, so why are they adhering to this "idiotic" policy agreed to by the incompetent Bush administration? I smell hypocracy.
 
American said:
That was under Bush, and Obama railed against the Bush administration on every level, so why are they adhering to this "idiotic" policy agreed to by the incompetent Bush administration? I smell hypocracy.
Click to expand...


Re-read what Tasha wrote. It makes perfect sense.
 
Yeeee-HA Hope and Change.

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

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.
Click to expand...

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


Doesn't seem like anything much has changed.
Click to expand...

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 :rolleyes:
 
marduc said:
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 :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
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.
 
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:
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.
Click to expand...

CIA Signals Continuity With Bush Era - WSJ.com
 
bhkad said:
CIA Signals Continuity With Bush Era - WSJ.com
Click to expand...

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.
 
WillRockwell said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
American said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
WillRockwell said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Ikari said:
Yeeee-HA Hope and Change.

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




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

:rofl
 
Again, the Anit-Obamites (I swear to God, I will come up with a clever name to pet name yous guys) expected this "change". Obama ran one of the greatest campaigns in recent history (not just at the Presidential level) and you think he would have done it by telling the "TRUTH".
Bahahahahahahahahaha

It's a said affair that American politics are won by white, and black, and orange lies.
 
bhkad said:
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.
Click to expand...


I don't see Afghanistan or any other place as being a "good war", but it is the place we started pursuing AlQaeda. The war will not end till we catch them, in whatever country they flee to. If Bush had paid attention to his priorities, the war would be over long ago.
 
Arch Enemy said:
Again, the Anit-Obamites (I swear to God, I will come up with a clever name to pet name yous guys) expected this "change". Obama ran one of the greatest campaigns in recent history (not just at the Presidential level) and you think he would have done it by telling the "TRUTH".
Bahahahahahahahahaha

It's a said affair that American politics are won by white, and black, and orange lies.
Click to expand...

Has changlings been said before?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom