Obama Was For War Spending; Then Against It; Now For It Again

PObama Seeks $83B for War Spending in Iraq, Afghanistan

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. AP
Thursday, April 09, 2009

President 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.

---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/09/obama-seek-b-war-spending/
---------------------------------------------------------------

Major war-funding legislation while Barack Obama was in the Senate, and how he voted:

_May 2005: Congress approved an $82 billion bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and international anti-terrorism efforts. Obama voted yes.

_June 2006: Congress cleared a $94.5 billion bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as provide aid to hurricane victims. Obama voted yes.

_September 2006: Congress cleared a $448 billion Pentagon funding bill that included $70 billion for U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama voted yes.

_April 2007: Congress cleared a $124 billion spending bill that provided $90 billion for war costs but mandated the withdrawal of U.S. troops within six months. Obama voted yes, but President George W. Bush vetoed the legislation.

_May 2007: Congress approved a roughly $100 billion spending measure to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and domestic projects, including hurricane relief. Obama voted no.

_December 2007: Congress cleared a $555 billion catchall spending bill that included $70 billion for U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama did not vote.

_June 2008: Congress approved a measure to spend $162 billion for war costs as well as provide a 13-week extension of unemployment benefits and emergency relief for the flood-ravaged Midwest. Obama voted yes.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090409/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_war_costs_votes_1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts

While Obama is doing the right thing funding our troops, it is still a bit confusing because contradictory to his stance on funding the war over the last few years.

He spent two out of the last three years voting against spending on the war. He only voted for it when it was advantageous for him to do so to seem more moderate last year. It again makes me wonder who Obama really is.

I, also, like that he is trying to strengthen security at the US-Mexico border. However, just throwing money at the problem won't fix it. Let's see how they use the extra funds.

Sen. Wicker Says Bipartisan Consensus Says No Troops Should Be Deployed to US-Mexico Border

My Thoughts

Militarizing the border should be kept on the table, but it shouldn't be done except as a last resort normally. However, the problem is increasing rapidly. The Mexican Drug Wars are expanding into the US at an alarming rate. A minimal military presence might be in order at the border. Especially after a recent report of terrorists also coming into this country through the border. We shouldn't dismiss it so easily.

Hezbollah Terrorists Crossing US-Mexico Border Along With Mexican Drug Cartels, Threatens National Security

http://


My Thoughts

Apparently, it not just the Mexican drug gangs that have been invading the country from the south.

Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the left wonder why we want a border fence and want use the National Guard to protect the border. They think it's because we are racist, but it's to protect citizens from the drug gangs and terrorists that cross over with the decent migrants. We need to be able to separate the good immigrants from the bad. We need to be able to expel those who wish to harm our citizens. She thinks it's "un-American" to kick illegals out, but I think it is un-American not to protect our sovereignty and people's lives.

Clinton said that we need more gun bans to lessen the violence caused by the gangs at the border, but with all of those guns that Sara said they are bringing over, homeowners like George Barnett need guns to defend themselves from the army crossing into our country everyday.

Mexican Drug Cartel Violence Prompting Obama to Possibly Deploy National Guard to Border

Obama Considering Deploying Troops to U.S.-Mexico Border
President Obama tells regional reporters it is "unacceptable if you've got drug gangs crossing our borders and killing U.S. citizens." 

FOXNews.com Thursday, March 12, 2009

President Obama says he's considering whether to deploy National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border, after Texas Gov. Rick Perry made an urgent call fort 1,000 more "boots on the ground" to deal with the growing violence. 

The president weighed the option during a meeting with regional reporters Wednesday afternoon. 

"We're going to examine whether and if National Guard deployments would make sense and under what circumstances they would make sense," Obama said, according to an account by McClatchy Newspapers. "I don't have a particular tipping point in mind. ... I think it's unacceptable if you've got drug gangs crossing our borders and killing U.S. citizens."

More than 1,000 people have been killed in Mexico in drug-related violence this year, and officials warn the violence is spilling into some U.S. cities, such as Atlanta, Phoenix and Birmingham, Ala.

Lawmakers have held a series of hearings on the violence on Capitol Hill in recent days, with one House panel holding a hearing Thursday on what the Homeland Security Department can do to secure the Southwest border and prevent Mexican drug cartel violence from spreading.

The top Republican on the House of Representatives' appropriations committee criticized the Defense Department on Tuesday for not making the situation in Mexico as big a priority as Afghanistan. 

Rep. Jerry Lewis, a Republican, said the situation in Mexico is far more important than Afghanistan at this point. "We need to raise this to a higher level," Lewis told The Associated Press. 

Perry said late last month that he was asking the Department of Homeland Security for extra resources and troops. 

"As along as they are boots on the ground that are properly trained to deal with the border region, I don't care whether they are military troops, or National Guard troops or whether they are customs agents," he said. 

Obama suggested to regional reporters Wednesday that he's taking a cautious approach. 

"We've got a very big border with Mexico," he said. "I'm not interested in militarizing the border."

---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/12/obama-considering-deploying-troops-mexico-border/
---------------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

This is a "war" that has been going on since the 1969 and the Nixon administration. We've been losing the war for a long time. The government seems to have all but given up on it.

One of the main reasons that we are losing is because of the illegal immigrant problem and sanctuary cities. Now, most of those that cross the border are just people that want a better life, but many are not. Drug mules or gang members come here to prey on Americans.

That is why it is so important to get control of the illegal alien problem. It's not that we want to keep all immigrants out, but we need to make sure that we are letting ones in that will benefit American society instead of hindering its progress.

If he actually goes through with the deployment, it could be an important step in getting our borders under control. However, the Democrats including Obama favor amnesty for illegal aliens. So, I doubt that they would be used for that purpose. Although, it would be better than nothing.