• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Change you can believe in

Tam

Well-known member
Obama to seek $83.4 billion for Iraq, Afghan wars
By ANDREW TAYLOR – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — 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's request, including money to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan, would push the costs of the two wars to almost $1 trillion since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, according to the Congressional Research Service. The additional money would cover operations into the fall.

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.

Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, acknowledged that Obama has been critical of Bush's use of similar special legislation to pay for the wars. He said it was needed this time because the money will be required by summer, before Congress is likely to complete its normal appropriations process.

"This will be the last supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan. The process by which this has been funded over the course of the past many years, the president has discussed and will change," Gibbs said.

Last June, Congress approved $66 billion in advance 2009 funding for military operations. All told, the Pentagon would receive $142 billion in war funding for the budget year ending on Sept. 30.

The request is likely to win easy approval from the Democratic-controlled Congress, despite frustration among some liberals over the pace of troop withdrawals and Obama's plans for a large residual force of up to 50,000 troops — about one-third of the force now there — who will train Iraqis, protect U.S. assets and personnel and conduct anti-terror operations.

The official request was sent early Thursday evening.

The request would fund an average force level in Iraq of 140,000 U.S. troops. It would also finance Obama's initiative to boost troop levels in Afghanistan to more than 60,000 from the current 39,000. And it would provide $2.2 billion to accelerate the Pentagon's plans to increase the overall size of the U.S. military, including a 547,400-person active-duty Army.

Some Democrats were not pleased.

"This funding will do two things — it will prolong our occupation of Iraq through at least the end of 2011, and it will deepen and expand our military presence in Afghanistan indefinitely," said anti-war Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif. "Instead of attempting to find military solutions to the problems we face in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Obama must fundamentally change the mission in both countries to focus on promoting reconciliation, economic development, humanitarian aid, and regional diplomatic efforts."

But House GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio predicted that Republicans would overwhelmingly support the request, provided congressional Democrats don't seek to "micromanage" the war by adding a timeline or other restrictions on the ability of military officials to carry on the fight.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a holdover from the Bush administration, said, "The reality is the alternative to the supplemental is a sudden and precipitous withdrawal of the United States from both places, and I don't know anybody who thinks that's a good idea." He said, "The reality is it would put everything we have achieved in Iraq at tremendous risk, and I believe it would greatly endanger our troops."

Obama was a harsh critic of the Iraq war as a presidential candidate, a stance that attracted support from the Democratic Party's liberal base and helped him secure his party's nomination. He opposed an infusion of war funding in 2007 after Bush used a veto to force Congress to remove a withdrawal timeline from the $99 billion measure.

But he supported a war funding bill last year that also included about $25 billion for domestic programs. Obama also voted for war funding in 2006, before he announced his candidacy for president.

The request includes $75.8 billion for the military and more than $7 billion in foreign aid. Pakistan, a key ally in the fight against al-Qaida, will receive $400 million in aid to combat insurgents.

The upcoming debate in Congress is likely to provide an early test of Obama's efforts to remake the Pentagon and its much-criticized weapons procurement system. He is requesting four F-22 fighter jets costing about $600 million as part of the war funding package but wants to shut the F-22 program down after that.

The special measure would include $3.6 billion for the Afghanistan National Army.

The White House wants the bill for the president's signature by Memorial Day, said a House Democratic aide.

Obama announced plans in February to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq on a 19-month timetable.

His new request would push the war and diplomatic money approved for 2009 to about $150 billion. The totals were $171 billion for 2007 and $188 billion for 2008, the year Bush increased the tempo of military operations in a generally successful effort to quell the Iraq insurgency.

What makes me think Pelosi is being scraped off of her office ceiling? :?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Obama was a harsh critic of the Iraq war as a presidential candidate, a stance that attracted support from the Democratic Party's liberal base and helped him secure his party's nomination. He opposed an infusion of war funding in 2007 after Bush used a veto to force Congress to remove a withdrawal timeline from the $99 billion measure.

There were quite a few critics on PB, of Bush, for this same exact thing. Let's see if they are as vocal about Obama.
 

Tam

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Obama was a harsh critic of the Iraq war as a presidential candidate, a stance that attracted support from the Democratic Party's liberal base and helped him secure his party's nomination. He opposed an infusion of war funding in 2007 after Bush used a veto to force Congress to remove a withdrawal timeline from the $99 billion measure.

There were quite a few critics on PB, of Bush, for this same exact thing. Let's see if they are as vocal about Obama.

What happen to all of Obama's defenders today. :?
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
I can believe one man could be this stupid, but not all the Democrats in Congress. What a bunch of weasels. Time to do what is RIGHT FOR THE COUNTRY!!!

Obama has so many CHANGES going on, I can't imagine he can keep up.
Every day there is some right we lose.

Now they have formed a Safety deal for motorists and the guy in charge is a big man in M.A..D.D. Now they can stop you and fine you for not wearing your seat belt. Before, it was a secondary offense; only applied if they stopped you for something else. They are going to make criminals out of everyone. They talked about it today as I was driving and I didn't get the full name of the new bureaucracy.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Faster horses said:
I can believe one man could be this stupid, but not all the Democrats in Congress. What a bunch of weasels. Time to do what is RIGHT FOR THE COUNTRY!!!

Obama has so many CHANGES going on, I can't imagine he can keep up.
Every day there is some right we lose.

Now they have formed a Safety deal for motorists and the guy in charge is a big man in M.A..D.D. Now they can stop you and fine you for not wearing your seat belt. Before, it was a secondary offense; only applied if they stopped you for something else. They are going to make criminals out of everyone. They talked about it today as I was driving and I didn't get the full name of the new bureaucracy.
In Sask. you get a $70 fine if you aren't wearing your seat belt.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Tam said:
In Sask. you get a $70 fine if you aren't wearing your seat belt.



You must be too foolish to know that if seat belt usages and the safety factor in wrecks goes up.....insurance goes down.
:roll: :roll:


But go ahead and dash you brains out on the " dash board" next you hit a moose, or some other Northern varmit standing in the middle of your loggin road/driveway.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Tam said:
In Sask. you get a $70 fine if you aren't wearing your seat belt.



You must be too foolish to know that if seat belt usages and the safety factor in wrecks goes up.....insurance goes down.
:roll: :roll:


But go ahead and dash you brains out on the " dash board" next you hit a moose, or some other Northern varmit standing in the middle of your loggin road/driveway.


Kola could you point out where she said she didn't wear a seat belt?

She was just telling FH what the fine in Sask was if caught not wearing one.

We also have helmet laws for motorcyclists. I don't know does Georgia?
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Big Muddy rancher said:
kolanuraven said:
Tam said:
In Sask. you get a $70 fine if you aren't wearing your seat belt.



You must be too foolish to know that if seat belt usages and the safety factor in wrecks goes up.....insurance goes down.
:roll: :roll:


But go ahead and dash you brains out on the " dash board" next you hit a moose, or some other Northern varmit standing in the middle of your loggin road/driveway.


Kola could you point out where she said she didn't wear a seat belt?

She was just telling FH what the fine in Sask was if caught not wearing one.

We also have helmet laws for motorcyclists. I don't know does Georgia?


I don't think the whole insurance system depends upon Tam and her wearing a seat belt.


Seat belts , as a whole, reduce insurance claims....NO MATTER WHO WEARS THEM.....thus less claims.....lower rates.


Yeah, we have helmet laws in GA and it saves lives.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
kolanuraven said:
You must be too foolish to know that if seat belt usages and the safety factor in wrecks goes up.....insurance goes down.
:roll: :roll:


But go ahead and dash you brains out on the " dash board" next you hit a moose, or some other Northern varmit standing in the middle of your loggin road/driveway.


Kola could you point out where she said she didn't wear a seat belt?

She was just telling FH what the fine in Sask was if caught not wearing one.

We also have helmet laws for motorcyclists. I don't know does Georgia?


I don't think the whole insurance system depends upon Tam and her wearing a seat belt.


Seat belts , as a whole, reduce insurance claims....NO MATTER WHO WEARS THEM.....thus less claims.....lower rates.


Yeah, we have helmet laws in GA and it saves lives.



So show us where she disputed seat belt laws?

Did she not just state what the fine for not wearing a seat belt in Sask. was?

By the way we have helmet laws here as well. Looks strange to go to Montana and see them not wearing helmets after we have had the law for many years.
Did they ever get a list of approved helmets for Georgia as I was looking, said bikers were beating Georgia's Helmet law wearing a ball cap since they had no Approved List of Helmets?
 

Texan

Well-known member
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.
I support this and commend President Obama for asking for it. Just as I supported President Bush for his war efforts. Many of us hoped that Obama would see the light once he got in office and was privy to the intelligence. It appears that is what has happened.

This request essentially means that John McCain was right. And Candidate Obama was wrong.

But the question remains...

Why aren't the Bush-haters in an uproar? Why aren't the Obama supporters throwing a fit over this duplicity? He said one thing to get elected - and now? He's doing the same thing that John McCain would have done. And the Obama supporters are silent?

I would think that at some point, Obama supporters would wake up and realize that he is treating them like fools. A question for you Obama supporters:

Why is this okay with you?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
kolanuraven said:
hypocritexposer said:
Some of this money is going to North Korea, and some more to Gaza! :shock: :shock:


Money has been sent to these places and others like them FOREVER!!!

why must we send money to North Korea FOREVER!!!??

Thats the GW appeasement we got in exchange for them stopping work on their nuclear program and destroying their reactor...
 

Steve

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Steve said:
kolanuraven said:
Money has been sent to these places and others like them FOREVER!!!

why must we send money to North Korea FOREVER!!!??

Thats the GW appeasement we got in exchange for them stopping work on their nuclear program and destroying their reactor...

as I said earlier in another post... The policy was dumb when Clinton gave them the nuclear program and it was dumber when GW continued the policy of appeasement towards North Korea..

But, to HOPE that Obama would CHANGE the policy is to much..

can we now call him McSameObama.. as he sure looks alot like a liberal BUSH, same tried old policy on North Korea, same tired old mistakes..

or is it the BUSH3 the "real transition"

the-bush-obama-morph-25181-1232742805-26.jpg
 

Broke Cowboy

Well-known member
Yup - absolutely everything wrong with the Unted States - that wretched country (sarcasm) - is all to be placed at the feet of Bush.

I truly hope there are some folks out there that see this is not the truth.

It goes back a lot farther and it is a heck of a lot deeper than one man.

Even this dumb Canuck can see that.

BC
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Steve said:
kolanuraven said:
Money has been sent to these places and others like them FOREVER!!!

why must we send money to North Korea FOREVER!!!??

Thats the GW appeasement we got in exchange for them stopping work on their nuclear program and destroying their reactor...

Would you rather they kept working on their nuclear program and that Bush had not tried to convince them to stop?

What do you think the cost of Obama dipolmatic talks are going to cost the US? We all know how he likes to talk nicey nice and spend money don't we? Tell us again what Obama's trash talk about the US being arrogant and bowing to the Saudi King got him at the G20 and NATO or the UN on the North Korea Missile launch. :? As I heard it was NOTHING but more debt for the US at the G20 , Nothing but a few soldiers for election day at NATO and Nothing at all from the UN on North Korea. :wink:

What do you think of the Change Obama brought to the US? Just how fast can he break all his campaign promises and spend a trillion or two or three dollars? When is the Honesty part to kick in Oldtimer? Lies lies and more lies is all you get from this guy and You don't have the guts to admit he is lieing to you. :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Broke Cowboy said:
Yup - absolutely everything wrong with the Unted States - that wretched country (sarcasm) - is all to be placed at the feet of Bush.

I truly hope there are some folks out there that see this is not the truth.

It goes back a lot farther and it is a heck of a lot deeper than one man.

Even this dumb Canuck can see that.

BC

Yep-- but for heavens sake don't tell the rightwingernuts that...So far today I see where Obama is the cause of piratism- paying appeasement to a nutso in North Korea- the entire North Korean problem-the US economy- the world economy- the Muslim problem- etc. etc. etc.--- and he did it all in 3 months time.... :wink:
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Broke Cowboy said:
Yup - absolutely everything wrong with the Unted States - that wretched country (sarcasm) - is all to be placed at the feet of Bush.

I truly hope there are some folks out there that see this is not the truth.

It goes back a lot farther and it is a heck of a lot deeper than one man.

Even this dumb Canuck can see that.

BC

Yep-- but for heavens sake don't tell the rightwingernuts that...So far today I see where Obama is the cause of piratism- paying appeasement to a nutso in North Korea- the entire North Korean problem-the US economy- the world economy- the Muslim problem- etc. etc. etc.--- and he did it all in 3 months time....

Finally you speak with wisdom for a change!! :D :D :D

EH??
 
Top