Obama to seek $83.4 billion for Iraq, Afghan wars

WASHINGTON – Congressional aides say President Barack Obama is seeking $83.4 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan into the fall.
Once approved by Congress, the money would bring the total amount for U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan since Sept. 11, 2001 to almost $1 trillion.
Budget office spokesman Tom Gavin says the White House will send an official request to Congress this afternoon.
Obama was a harsh critic of the Iraq war as a candidate. He opposed a war funding bill in 2007, when former President George W. Bush increased the tempo of military operations.
The upcoming request will include $75.5 billion for the military and more than $7 billion in foreign aid.
Obama announced plans in February to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq on a 19-month timetable.



Hmmmmmm???? Guess Obama is a war monger now, lol.

he should leave them there for the next 19 months with no monetary aid? why do you hate the troops?

Ending the bad war and bringing focus back to the good war.

:tu

Wow!! Funding the war!!? Damn him!! :cuss

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oh, Gee!!

he should leave them there for the next 19 months with no monetary aid? why do you hate the troops?

---

Not hating the troops. I have 2 cousins over there. I was just pointing out a contradiction of how Obama could vote AGAINST funding while Bush was president, and now he is for funding. Just thought that was interesting contradiction on his part. Nothing more.

That's the difference between a protest vote from a junior senator and a budget proposal from a sitting president.

or he could just pull the troops right now, and not gradually. That would be earn the OP's respect I'm sure.

At the risk of sounding like a fiscal dinosaur, the supplemental nature of the appropriation is inappropriate.

IMO it's a bad idea to keep wars *conceived of as being long*, off the books.

Funding war exclusively through the supplemental process was a GWB novelty; now I guess it is a precedent. :rolleyes

Continuity you can believe in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

At the risk of sounding like a fiscal dinosaur, the supplemental nature of the appropriation is inappropriate.

IMO it's a bad idea to keep wars *conceived of as being long*, off the books.

Funding war exclusively through the supplemental process was a GWB novelty; now I guess it is a precedent. :rolleyes

---

I think the difference is the war spending is now being included in spending projections, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

That's the difference between a protest vote from a junior senator and a budget proposal from a sitting president.

---

difference to you he is not bush and he is a dem

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ducks

difference to you he is not bush and he is a dem

---

I would have been happy with Bush if he had opposed his own war as a junior senator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

I think the difference is the war spending is now being included in spending projections, etc.

---

I did not see that in the reporting today, but my reading was not exhaustive. Was it announced previously?

That's my understanding. I didn't read anything about planning to change the appropriations process. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the change was including all the numbers.

Why do it as a supplemental if the budget projections take it into account? Or does the supplemental represent unanticipated costs? Hard to reckon, given the projected outlay for 2009 is $150 billion.

God, this fucking bailout makes war seem cheap. It wouldn't have seemed cheap to me a year ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Ending the bad war and bringing focus back to the good war.

:tu

---

I don't care whether or not it's good if it's not winnable. Is it?

Has winning in Afghanistan even been defined yet? I see the same strategic opacity as Iraq. How will we know if we've won?

Obama repeatedly voted to fund the war in Iraq........It was a sore point between Hilary and he during the primaries Hilary pointed out that Obama had voted to fund the war in Iraq as many times as she had, and yet tried to say he didn't. The only senator to run for president who never voted to fund the war in Iraq was Ron Paul, but of course he's crazy.

I couldn't tell you what the written goal is. As far as fighting terraists, treating Afghanistan and the Pakistan frontier as one operational theater is a move in the right direction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hope4dopes

Obama repeatedly voted to fund the war in Iraq........It was a sore point between Hilary and he during the primaries Hilary pointed out that Obama had voted to fund the war in Iraq as many times as she had, and yet tried to say he didn't. The only senator to run for president who never voted to fund the war in Iraq was Ron Paul, but of course he's crazy.

---

He was funding the troops.

http://www.bartcop.com/obama-iraq-troops-409.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Ending the bad war and bringing focus back to the good war.

:tu

---

the obamanations found themselves a "good war"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hope4dopes

the obamanations found themselves a "good war"

---

It was always the good war compared to Iraq. You were just too stupid to notice. :tu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

It was always the good war compared to Iraq. You were just too stupid to notice. :tu

---

Oh my god you called me ..stupid..I'm withering

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hope4dopes

Oh my god you called me ..stupid..I'm withering

---

Hm... might want to think up a better comeback next time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Hm... might want to think up a better comeback next time.

---

yeah something really intelligent like calling people who don't share your view...stupid

I never really saw any significant opposition to military action in Afghanistan.

If micca can direct us to evidence of it, I will retract my characterization in this particular case. Otherwise, it was a pretty stupid thing for him to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpuronyourFace

WASHINGTON – Congressional aides say President Barack Obama is seeking $83.4 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan into the fall.
Once approved by Congress, the money would bring the total amount for U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan since Sept. 11, 2001 to almost $1 trillion.
Budget office spokesman Tom Gavin says the White House will send an official request to Congress this afternoon.
Obama was a harsh critic of the Iraq war as a candidate. He opposed a war funding bill in 2007, when former President George W. Bush increased the tempo of military operations.
The upcoming request will include $75.5 billion for the military and more than $7 billion in foreign aid.

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


Hmmmmmm???? Guess Obama is a war monger now, lol.

---

Guess you don't understand what it takes to leave Iraq, lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

I never really saw any significant opposition to military action in Afghanistan.

If micca can direct us to evidence of it, I will retract my characterization in this particular case. Otherwise, it was a pretty stupid thing for him to say.

---

hey man give peace a chance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hope4dopes

hey man give peace a chance

---

I was giving you a chance.

You failed.

Stupid it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

I was giving you a chance.

You failed.

Stupid it is.

---

damn Chimp your starting to sound like chenney with all this talk of "good wars" what happen to hope and change. Are you insane what will the world think of us if we go charging into Afganistan? your talking like a rouge nation or some tin pot cowboy from texas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hope4dopes

damn Chimp your starting to sound like chenney with all this talk of "good wars" what happen to hope and change.

---

I was never opposed to the military action in Afghanistan.

Quote:

---

Are you insane what will the world think of us if we go charging into Afganistan?

---

They understood. You must be too stupid to remember the support the US enjoyed after 9/11.

Quote:

---

your talking like a rouge nation or some tin pot cowboy from texas.

---

You're talking like someone who is very stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

I was never opposed to the military action in Afghanistan.They understood. You must be too stupid to remembber the support the US enjoyed after 9/11.You're talking like someone who is very stupid.

---

Uh oh Chimp you made a spelling error in the above statment, you must of been frazzled don't worry I won't rat you out to Mrs. W the grammer Nazi.but you owe me one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hope4dopes

Uh oh Chimp you made a spelling error in the above statment, you must of been frazzled don't worry I won't rat you out to Mrs. W the grammer Nazi.but you owe me one.

---

Grammer?

Indeed.

I'll fix it though. Thanks for the correction.

what is afghans population?

all you could do is ship them all out too sea, and bomb the shit out of the country and then return them back....

Only 32 million.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hope4dopes

Uh oh Chimp you made a spelling error in the above statment, you must of been frazzled don't worry I won't rat you out to Mrs. W the grammer Nazi.but you owe me one.

---

I like the mispellings. They led you to confess your own imposture, then to call me a woman and a Nazi. Insecure much?

WH, you were right about the funding issue. Apparently the military needs the money this fiscal year before the Obama budget kicks in. Additionally, Obama's opposition to supplemental spending bills in the past hinged upon their having no timeline for a withdrawal from Iraq. That's what the pinko sites are saying anyway.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/11/wo...gram.html?_r=2
Obama to Appeal Detainee Ruling
By THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: April 10, 2009
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said Friday that it would appeal a district court ruling that granted some military prisoners in Afghanistan the right to file lawsuits seeking their release. The decision signaled that the administration was not backing down in its effort to maintain the power to imprison terrorism suspects for extended periods without judicial oversight.

In a court filing, the Justice Department also asked District Judge John D. Bates not to proceed with the habeas-corpus cases of three detainees at Bagram Air Base outside Kabul, Afghanistan. Judge Bates ruled last week that the three — each of whom says he was seized outside of Afghanistan — could challenge their detention in court.

Tina Foster, the executive director of the International Justice Network, which is representing the detainees, condemned the decision in a statement.

“Though he has made many promises regarding the need for our country to rejoin the world community of nations, by filing this appeal, President Obama has taken on the defense of one of the Bush administration’s unlawful policies founded on nothing more than the idea that might makes right,” she said.

A version of this article appeared in print on April 11, 2009, on page A6 of the New York edition.

More continuity.