Senate passes Pentagon budget, war funding

Wednesday 07th October, 07:00 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 32 Total Comments Show All

Sarge at 07:58 PM JST - 7th October

"Obama... is Commander-in-Chief"

Can you believe that?
SushiSake3 at 08:16 PM JST - 7th October

RomeoRamen - "If Obama thought Gitmo was such a bad idea, he could have closed it within a month and moved those residing there to any U.S. base by just telling the military to do it. He is Commander-in-Chief, isn't he?"

Yes, but democratic American politics under president Obama doesn't work like a dictatorship like it did under Bush, and your expecting the president to just wave a magic wand to implement a policy shows how little you understand about American politics.

The protestations we are seeing now are a hangover from the fear-mongering of the GWB years where Americans were made to fear things for reasons they still don't understand.

The president still has to get a majority in congress for legislation to be passed - and as anyone who pays attention knows - he can't pass laws himself.
SushiSake3 at 08:18 PM JST - 7th October

Sarge - "Lessee... the awful Taliban kicked out of power in Afghanistan, free elections, girls going to school again... the awful Saddam Hussein kicked out of power and brought to justice in Iraq, free elections held..."

After 8 long years, you STILL can't understand what's going on.

Some of what you say is true, but a lot of it was carried out while the rest of us watched the US economy transform from having a budget surplus under president Clinton to having the largest debt of any nation in history under GWB.

But I understand if you choose to ignore this simple but undeniable fact.
RomeoRamenII at 08:24 PM JST - 7th October

he's gonna have to start taking ownership of these things soon.

Obama? Taking responsibility for anything? Thanks for that knee slapper, skip.
SushiSake3 at 08:31 PM JST - 7th October

Romeo - who says president Obama isn't taking responsibility for things?

The ones who didn't take responsibilty were the men and women in leadership positions in the Bush administration whose sheer idiocy, bungling and truth-twisting led the US into 2 wars that have both dragged on longer than WWII.

Oh, and people like yourself who refuse to take any responsibility for any of your votes.
SushiSake3 at 08:35 PM JST - 7th October

That said, we've yet to see a Republican/conservative take responsibility for anything.

We've now got people like Sarge who are blaming the current president for the previous president's war.

That's pretty stupid.
RomeoRamenII at 08:47 PM JST - 7th October

The $626 billion measure, passed 93-7, also would ban outright any transfer of accused enemy combatants into the United States from the Guantanamo Bay,

Perhaps it's time for Obama to make another speech.
michaelqtodd at 08:51 PM JST - 7th October

This latest poll says 46 of americans support sending more troops.Wonder how many would go themselves?? http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10601777
SushiSake3 at 08:56 PM JST - 7th October

Romeo, why does it sound like you'd prefer to live under a dictator?

Democracy, in most cases, requires a majority to pass laws.

I'm not sure what you don't understand about your own democracy.

And while I acknowledge your limp attempts to imply president Obama is lame, many of us do, in fact, remember very clearly that it was the votes of people like you who got America involved in this mess in the first place.
SushiSake3 at 08:59 PM JST - 7th October

I'm curious why it seems to be only the Americans who exercise their intellectual faculties that understand, yet again, that becuase of the idiot decisions of GWB and his backers, here is another $626 billion that will barely never see the light of day in America, nor benefit the nation in any major way.

In fact, there's some Americans out there who see this insane level of spending as a good thing.

But most of them are the ones who voted for GWB's idio wars in the first place,so no surprises there.
TheQuestion at 09:39 PM JST - 7th October

The $626 billion measure, passed 93-7, also would ban outright any transfer of accused enemy combatants into the United States from the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility. Current law permits transfer of detainees to face trial or go to prison.

Could save a few bucks and I could pile them into my dads rowboat a few at a time and take em to one of the prisons around Miami...whoever lives longest gets a trial.

But in twin victories for the Boeing Co, the Senate measure includes $2.5 billion to fund 10 C-17 cargo planes, which were not requested, and $512 million for nine more F-18 Navy fighters than Obama requested.

There's fiscal responcibility for you and here's the kicker, do you know where around 900 million of that money for unnecessary aircraft came from? Directly from money that was allocated to maintenance for operations in Afghanistan, we could send all the troops but it won't make a lick of difference if the vehicals won't run, replacement parts aren't available, or equipment becomes unreliable. And all so that the pundits (several repubs but a whole lot more dems) could continue to recieve contributions from Boeing.

A White House position paper on the bill says the administration “strongly objects” to the decision for additional C-17s, but that fell far short of the veto threats that have been the key to killing the F-22 program and the much-criticized presidential helicopter.

Because, you know, it's not like we're already a few dozen C-17's over what the Pentegon has said was necessary for any possible military conflict.

An effort by Sen. John McCain on Tuesday to kill the additional C-17s failed by a 30-68 vote.

It was a spirited arguement (with a nice big graph might I add) that fell on deaf ears on both sides of the aisle.

I'm not sure what you don't understand about your own democracy.

My my, somebody is a bit antagonistic today.
RomeoRamenII at 10:59 PM JST - 7th October

Obama flat out declared to the American people in January that Gitmo would be closed by January 2010. If, for any reason at all, that date is missed, the fault lies squarely with Obama.

Where's Harry Truman's "The Buck Stops Here" desk sign when it's needed?
SuperLib at 11:30 PM JST - 7th October

It sounds like Sushi really hates Obama's policies. I voted for the guy, and I'm standing by him. If you choose to not support any of his policies, that's your choice.
SushiSake3 at 11:40 PM JST - 7th October
Superlib, what made you think I don't support president Obama's policy of closing Gitmo?

And no, I don't support the ongoing pouring of lives and money down the drain in Afghanistan.

And yes, I do support president Obama on
- imposing tougher government regulations on tobacco production and sales
- imposing much tougher regulations on carbon emmissions
- imposing tougher government regulations on vehicle tailpipe emmissions
- introducing a government healthcare option.
Superlib - "It sounds like Sushi really hates Obama's policies."

Hmmmmm....yes, I'm also really good at one-handed clapping.

Aren't you? :-)
SuperLib at 12:07 AM JST - 9th October

While it's nice you like his regulations on tobacco, it's too bad that you're 100% against him on Iraq and Afghanistan, which is the topic of this thread. I believe your standard rhetoric was that a President who spends money on Iraq and Afghanistan and not Americans must hate Americans. It's a shame that you feel that way about Obama. Either that or you're a hypocrite. I suppose I'll let you decide which one you are in the end.