Obama seeks $83.4 billion for Iraqi, Afghan wars

"pressing for special troop funding that he opposed two years ago"

Heh.

"pressing for special troop funding that he opposed two years ago"" I have no problem going for something you opposed in the past.

Continuing the same wars that he opposed a few months ago. Change we can believe in, LOL!

The problem with Obama is not being able to trust anything he says.

"...Bush increased the tempo of military operations in a generally successful effort to quell the Iraq insurgency."

LOL. Yeah, generally.

No more bailouts for failed ventures!!!

Ah-h-h-h-h-h I appreciate how the republicans love Barack Obama. How they ridicule a policy that Obama can't avoid, unless those same republicans would like for him to stop funding the troops and leave then without arms, fuel and other supplies.

At least in the future Obama funds the war responsibily and it's built in the budget. < :-)

daydream:

" Obama funds the war responsibily and it's built in the budget "

article:

" Obama is seeking $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 "

So "special troop funding" is "built into the budget"? Only in the mind of an Obamavoter...

So "special troop

So if I'm understanding the radical right correctly, they'd rather President Obama not support the troops.

Heh, how things have changed since the Dubya era.

Madverts:

I don´t know who the "radical right" is in your mind (anybody who doesn´t swoon over Obama, I suppose?), but as for I certainly notice that the only thing that has "changed" is only the attitude of the Obama crowd.

Suddenly, pumping money into the Iraq and the Afghanistan debacles is all fine --- since it is their hero who is doing it.

Change we can believe in, ROTFL!

The "radical" right are those that will see no good in anything Obama does and shriek at him at any oppertune moment here. On the other side, you have the radical left who see no wrong in anything he does.

Frankly, I thought Obama's election would stop a lot of the nonsense on JT. I was wrong because if anything it has radicalized many posters into some kind of frenzy.

But I find it funny to see radicals lile VOR, sarge and uhm, heh "him" now actually critisising Obama as he's battling for extra funds for the troops. In fact it's downright hilarious.

telepromt:

"LOL. Yeah, generally."

Yeah, generally. The families of all the of Iraqi's killed this week probably aren't sharing your "LOL", but it's nice to see how it's all a little game for you.

Madverts:

" But I find it funny to see radicals lile VOR, sarge and uhm, heh "him" now actually critisising Obama as he's battling for extra funds for the troops. "

You are saying you don´t see the irony in this guy campaigning against the Iraq and Afghanistan policies, and now continuing (and in the case of Afghanistan, doubling up on them?)?

And you don´t see the irony in the Obama supporters suddenly supporting the same policies they were screaming about before??

OK... if such flipflops make sense to you, there is nothing I can say.

As far as I am concerned, I have always said that both campaigns are horribly misguided, so save your simplistic labels.

83 bn dollars. That buys a lot of infrastructure. Schools. Internet access. Telephone systems. Hospitals and clinics. Inoculation programs. More advanced medical care, among other things.

Odd how the anti-liberation crowd never - ever - care to try and estimate how many tens or hundreds of thousands of lives are now saved in Iraq each year.

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.

WHO estimated back in '07 that in Afghanistan the decrease in infant mortality after the Taliban's ouster from Kabul in '01 meant a minimum of 40,000 lives saved each year thereafter.

It makes sense for an person to change his mind now he's dealing, or being elected ti deal with the full extent of someone else's bloody mess.

It's a far bigger irony for me to see the very same posters whom during the Bush years shrieked down any dissent in regards to the president and more importantly were constantly castigating fellow dissenting Americans to "support the troops", now apparently doing the opposite.

King Shriek Limbaugh himself has openly hoped for Presient Obama's failure. So has the teleprompter. I'm certain these radical individuals are hoping for another 9/11 style attocity in the US so that they can....you got it....blame it on Obama.

That's why they are "radicals".

"Odd how the anti-liberation crowd"

That label is a "radical right" creation. It is part of the binary "with us or against us" dumbassness.

"Anti hundreds and thousands of dead people and fuelling Islamic terrorism" would be a more correct label for myself, heh, and we all know how radicals like to label.

" meant a minimum of 40,000 lives saved each year thereafter."

You realize in williworld that means 40,000 new terror recruits. Looking at it like that, no wonder the radicals always implode on their own arguments.

Another Obama thread that will be full of post from subjects of European and Commonwealth nations where democracy is all but dead. Goes a long way towards helping expats like me understand what the US media means when they call Obama the World President.

It doesn't really matter if you're Democrat or Republican or pro-invasion or anti-invasion or whatever. The missions need funding. That's the long and the short of it. It's not rocket science.

Teleprompter:

" 83 bn dollars. That buys a lot of infrastructure. Schools. Internet access. Telephone systems. Hospitals and clinics. Inoculation programs. More advanced medical care, among other things. "

Lots of toys for the jihadists to blow up, and lots of accompanying hostages to take. To believe that any of this will make any difference (except draining Western resources) is delusional.

Madverts:

" King Shriek Limbaugh himself has openly hoped for Presient Obama's failure. "

He hopes for Obamas policies to fail.

And that is not any different from the Anti Bush crowd, who hoped for the last years for Bush to fail. (Except that they did not make the careful disctinction between policy and person -- for the last years, it was all personal).

Double standards par excelence.

"He hopes for Obamas policies to fail."

Exactly.

Just like the radical faithfull, Obama's failure wuld mean American failue. I find it almost a treasonous position to be in.

"And that is not any different from the Anti Bush crowd, who hoped for the last years for Bush to fail. (Except that they did not make the careful disctinction between policy and person -- for the last years, it was all personal)."

Most of Bush's contraversial policies were protested in advance the protesters wee anticipating failure. Heh, and Bush delivered did he not?

The personal issue the radical left had with Bush is no dfferent to the shreiking from the bitter republicans on this thread.

But I must complement you. A whole post without mentioning Islam.

Double standards par excelence.

WHoops, don't know what that last bit is doing there....

What happened to pulling the troops out of Iraq? Why can`t politicians see the desparation of their own ppl? Americans are losing their jobs in one report I read at the rate of 500,000/month while others are losing their homes. At the same time social security benefits are being cut and other benefits are being cut leaving Americans in desparate places economically yet the administration thinks nothing of spending 83.4 BILLION dollars overseas for a very questionable cause when its own ppl are in desparate need. That is sad.

willib

And that is not any different from the Anti bush crowd, who hoped for the last years for Bush to fail.

As a card-carrying member if the anti-bush crowd, I can say, with zero hesitation, that NONE of us hoped or wanted bush to fail. We wanted him to STOP failing. He didn't want nor need our hopes to fail and we didn't want or hope to give any aid in that regard.

Failure just happens to be his oxygen.

As for the special request for funding, I'm not happy about it. I hated it when bush did it and I hate it now, as well. It's being dishonest about the cost of the war. However, as superlib pointed out, until the troops are pulled out, they need to be funded.

Taka

teleprompter - "WHO estimated back in '07 that in Afghanistan the decrease in infant mortality after the Taliban's ouster from Kabul in '01 meant a minimum of 40,000 lives saved each year thereafter."

LOL!!! A member of the Extreme Right pretending to be worried about infant mortality in Afghanistan.

I haven't laughed so hard all day!! :-)))

teleprompter - "Another Obama thread that will be full of post from subjects of European and Commonwealth nations where democracy is all but dead."

I find it funny to see how you are attempting - lamely, I have to add - to criticize "subjects of European and Commonwealth nations."

Meanwhile, your country and the clueless supporters of bush II have just pulled the rest of the world into the deepest recession in almost a century.

Damn, the mess America is in almost makes Socialism look good, and please look up the meaning of 'socialism' before you start spinning hopelessly into the void in your reply.

Superlib - "It doesn't really matter if you're Democrat or Republican or pro-invasion or anti-invasion or whatever. The missions need funding. That's the long and the short of it. It's not rocket science."

Thanks again for placing your vote solidly for Obama.

You say the missions need funding.

Now, that's interesting.

Considering your country is mired in the worst recession in near on a century, has no money to its name and is indebted almost out of its depth to Japan and China, how long, may I ask, should these missions be funded for?

I notice 'prudence' and 'living within your means' are not concepts that have recently made tracks across the wild landscape of your mind.

jewel - "yet the administration thinks nothing of spending 83.4 BILLION dollars overseas for a very questionable cause when its own ppl are in desparate need. That is sad."

My thoughts exactly.

However, posters like SuperLib are certain that "The missions need funding."

The more sensible plan would be for America to cut its losses and get the heck out of both countries and consolidate finances for the huge economic challenges within.

But no, some Americans haver convinced themselves that spending untold billions on wars thousands of miles away is better than spending billions on Americans at home.

It's still amazes me how some Americans just don't have a clue what is best for their country.

That said, if I wrapped myself in the flag and shrieked to myself enough times that 'terrorists are evildoers!', I'd probably be talking just like some of the GOP supporters on JT. :-)

For the record, I oppose this latest measure by the Obama govt., but I also realize bush's arrogance and ineptitude has left President Obama with almost no wiggle room.

Obama is damned if he stays, damned if he pulls out.

bush has royally screwed Americans not just with the tanking economy but with these ongoing wars.

sushi - the troops need funding. Thety were sent to a war of their leader's making, like it or not, but they must have their funding. Anything else would be idiocy, afterall, they're the por blighters still holding the pieces of Bush's disaster together.

Madverts - the question is for how long?

The longer they are funded, the worse US finances will become - there's no denying that.

I'm just not sure how much worse US finances can become considering the nation is already heavily indebted and staring massive interest rate increases and cuts in domestic spending in the face, not to mention upcoming cuts to Medicaid and Medicare.

And the troops would not need to be funded if they are not in Iraq/Afghanistan.

I see it as a case of priorities, and in my view, the economic basketcase America has become is affecting not just the US but pretty much the entire global economy.

Yes, 'fighting the terrorists' is important, but not when compared to the ramifications of the global economic meltdown we are now witnessing.

Madverts: "Obama's failure wuld ( would) mean American failue ( failure )"

No, Obama's failure would mean the saving of the capitalist system, which has created the economy which which has been the envy of the world for years.

313: "As a card-carrying member of the anti-bush ( Bush ) crowd, I can say with ZERO hesitation that NONE of us wanted bush ( Bush ) to fail"

Yeah, sure, 313 didn't want Bush to fail as much as I don't want President Obama to suceed in turning my country into a socialist country.

Madverts: "Bush's disaster"

Is this the disaster which has kicked the terrible Taliban out of power in Afghanistan, brought to justice a terrible dictator in Iraq, and enabled free elections in both Afghanistan and Iraq?

Checking...

Yeah, it is!

Sushi: "Yes, 'fighting the terrorists' is important, but not compared to the ramifications of the global economic meltdown"

Apparently Sushi is ignorant of the economic ramifications of 9/11.

Sarge - "Yeah, sure, 313 didn't want Bush to fail as much as I don't want President Obama to suceed in turning my country into a socialist country."

You would be more credible if you actually knew what Socialism is.

Anf for your info, which president started the Socialist-like spree of buying up and near-nationalizing major US banks and finance companies?

Oh yeah, that's right - you must have forgotten - it was your buddy bush. :-)

Another Sarge argument bites the dust. :-)

Sarge - "Is this the disaster which has kicked the terrible Taliban out of power in Afghanistan, brought to justice a terrible dictator in Iraq, and enabled free elections in both Afghanistan and Iraq?"

Ha ha, are you pretending to be concerned about the Afghanistan people?

That's funny. You were never concerned about them before until your buddy bush invaded.

Oh, and yes - it's the disaster that has bought the entire global capitalist system and world economy to its knees.

It's also the disaster that YOU SUPPORTED.

Here on JT, when Obama lies it always ends up being George Bush's fault.

VOR - "it always ends up being George Bush's fault."

Finally, a GOP supporter who is starting discover reality.

sarge,

"Apparently Sushi is ignorant of the economic ramifications of 9/11."

That happened whilst your boy Bush was asleep at the wheel.

"As a card-carrying member if the anti-bush crowd, I can say, with zero hesitation, that NONE of us hoped or wanted bush to fail.

We wanted him to STOP failing"

Best argument of the day. Thanks, "313" :)

We wanted him to STOP failing"

Obama is doing exactly the same foreign policy that Bush did, he just has a nicer package to deliver it Madverts.

SushiSake: Considering your country is mired in the worst recession in near on a century, has no money to its name and is indebted almost out of its depth to Japan and China, how long, may I ask, should these missions be funded for? I notice 'prudence' and 'living within your means' are not concepts that have recently made tracks across the wild landscape of your mind.

So you're against Obama's funding of the missions?

Sailwind: Obama is doing exactly the same foreign policy that Bush did, he just has a nicer package to deliver it Madverts.

That pretty much sums it up.

At least on JT it appears that the republicans don't want the troops funded. These republicans are right on board with those like Sean Hannity and their ridicule is so blantantly immature.

Just bring the troops home. The republicans don't want them funded like their defunk leader george bush funded the troops before (now they finally find a voice), so just bring them home. Just bring the troops home.

This is the only way that Barack Obama has to fund the troops. And since the republicans have found their voices, which they didn't have while george bush was president, and they can not get the monies. Damn.

Then are there any republicans here on JT that can come up with an alternative method to fund the troops or are you just so locked in the, anti-Obama mind-think? < :-)

"Obama is doing exactly the same foreign policy that Bush did"

I wasn't aware he was lying to the American people and putting pressure on government agencies to find/twist/fabricate evidence to justify acts of agression on soveriegn nations....

Heh...you guys need to get a grip. It seems I'm the only one supporting the troops on this thread :p

It seems I'm the only one supporting the troops on this thread :p

Madverts that's not the topic. I don't for a moment think that these anti-Obama folks don't support the troops any more or less then I do. But we're discussing funding.

But take your right hand, put it over your right shoulder and pat yourself on the back. There you go. < :-)

"Madverts that's not the topic."

Funding for the troops isn't supporting the troops?

Heh, I give up today...

VOR at 10:25 PM JST - 10th April Here on JT, when Obama lies it always ends up being George Bush's fault.

What lies are you talking about?

It is almost laughable how the far right here is up at arms about anything that has the name President Obama on it.

Troops funding-> AAAWK no no Obama lies!

Veteran support--> AAAWK no no Obama lies!

Boarder security-> AAAWK no no Obama lies!

Funding the CIA--> AAAWK no no Obama lies!

Planning to go after Bin Laden--> AAAWK no no Obama lies!

Fighting terrorist--> AAAWK no no Obama lies!

Funding education--> AAAWK no no Obama lies!

Fighting crime--> AAAWK no no Obama lies!

Supporting our troops--> AAAWK no no Obama lies!

Sad, real sad how you guys allow personal feelings to stand in the way of our nation.

You guys are starting to sound, hm well dare I say.....

"Play the music Billy, play one in tribute to Cheney, play Kampflied der Nationalsozialisten!"

UnAmerican! My my you guys must hate the troops! Oh my my you guys must hate our future! We need to fight them there before they fight us here! You guys are sounding like traitors, traitors I say! No no not traitors, worse yes worse than traitors! Your sounding like your Socialist terrorist loving traitors!

LOL I love this, you far right wingers are going nutz over a budget that will only strengthen our war against the terrorist.

But for 8 years while Bush and his gang robbed us blind you guys said nothing you kept in lock step happily selling out America to the no bid contracts.

But when the non-party members yelled spoke out against the bold face theft of America you guys would yell out;

they hate our freedom

fight them in Iraq so we wont have to fight them here

freedom fries

Un-American

Un-patriotic

Support our troops by going out and shop

Your with us or against us

you hate our freedoms

Haliburton is good, they are the only ones that can do the job

Gitmo is needed

Torture? What torture?

Rendition? What renditions are you talking about

We are not spying on Americans!

The patriot act is our friend!

freedom of speech is over rated

freedom of expression? What is that?

Boarder security we will fund it, maybe we wont!

But now that we have a President that wants to do something real all you guys do is yell like Quaker parrots, AAAWK.

Then how about getting with the program? Why don't you jump on the team and come on in for the big win? (thank you Stanley)

Obama ran as the anti war candidate but is governing as anything but.

Don't get me wrong, Obama is doing the right thing turning his back on the people that voted for him and not the Iraqi people.

Actually he has not against his word, he said he was going to get us out of Iraq and he will.

He also said that he believed that the real threat was in Afghanistan and not Iraq. That is why he is moving our assets to Afghanistan so we can fight the terrorist.

okay JoeBigs go ahead and believe that.

VOR at 05:36 AM JST - 12th April okay JoeBigs go ahead and believe that.

To give you a bit of help in understanding where our President stands on the war in Iraq. This quote is from his own web site;

Barack Obama will responsibly end the war in Iraq: Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: successfully ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

Take a look for yourself, he has kept his promise up to now. He never claimed that he was going to pull out forces right away.