Where are the clowns, bring in the clowns....

[PLC1]

This is some expensive clowning around, it seems to me.

Despite objections and veto threats from the White House, a $636 billion Pentagon spending bill passed by a 400-30 vote Thursday contains money for a much-criticized new presidential helicopter fleet, cargo jets that Gates says aren't needed, and an alternative engine for the next-generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter that the Pentagon says is a waste of money.

400 out of 430 want to buy a helicopter fleet for the pres and fund a jet fighter that the Pentagon says is a waste of money. That's 93% in favor.

Bring in the clowns.

It also contains $128 billion for Pentagon operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which would bring the total appropriated by Congress for those wars and other efforts to combat terrorism above $1 trillion. The bill rejects Obama's $100 million request for the Pentagon to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center in Cuba.

Let's spend a trillion, or $3,000 per person, for the war on terror, but not $100 million, or 30 cents each, to close what has become a symbol for the terrorists.

Bring in the clowns.

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., the chief author of the defense spending measure, had originally sought $369 million for a start on 12 additional F-22s. But after a veto threat from Obama - and a decisive vote against the airplane in the Senate last week - Murtha beat a tactical retreat and instead directed $139 million toward spare engines for the F-22 and the C-17 cargo plane.

Isn't that the same John Murtha who has been lambasted as a pacifist in the so called war on terror? He's no pacifist when it comes to spending the taxpayer's money, is he?

And that F-22, isn't that the airplane that the Pentagon, you know, the guys who actually know something about defense, say is a waste of money?

Bring in the clowns.


Don't bother, they're here.

Oh, but there is hope!

The Senate will deal with the spending measure in September.

With any luck, they'll be able to inflate the bill to two trillion, easy.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Seems that we both posted an article about the defense bill and both have generated little or no attention at all...My topic lead in was: Mean While Back At The Ranch...this defense bill is headed for a veto!!

Gates continues to struggle with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle who are loyal to existing military programs benefiting contractors that provide jobs and large campaign donations.
House appropriators want to buy, for example, extra C-17 transport planes and F-18 jets, as well as four extra military jets used by lawmakers and Pentagon VIPs. And they want to keep alive a troubled missile-defense interceptor program and continue the troubled VH-71 presidential helicopter program.

Politics as usual from both sides of the isle...Senators with military manufacturers in their specific areas won't let go of the golden goose and they will see to it that this goes forth even with the President saying 'NO WAY'!!!

 

[top gun]

Seems that we both posted an article about the defense bill and both have generated little or no attention at all...My topic lead in was: Mean While Back At The Ranch...this defense bill is headed for a veto!!


Politics as usual from both sides of the isle...Senators with military manufacturers in their specific areas won't let go of the golden goose and they will see to it that this goes forth even with the President saying 'NO WAY'!!!

Spot on ASPCA... and good thread PLC1.

This is actually a designed tactic of defense contractors. They intentionally spread their manufacturing of any major weapons system to locations all over the country specifically so it gains major support & backing (because of the jobs) from multiple Senators & Representatives.

This is all part of the vast military industrial complex President Eisenhower warned about and how it could easily bleed over into politics.

Now I'm not saying we don't need defense contractors. But obviously the rules and requirements need changed so that we not only get the lowest bid on a project... but that a project is really seriously needed... and that it's building cannot be purposely spread out just to gain political back scratching.

 

[Andy]

We have an entire administration of clowns.

 

[BigRob]

400 out of 430 want to buy a helicopter fleet for the pres and fund a jet fighter that the Pentagon says is a waste of money. That's 93% in favor.

Bring in the clowns.

Not everyone in the Defense world agrees that the F-22 is a useless waste of money.

Let's spend a trillion, or $3,000 per person, for the war on terror, but not $100 million, or 30 cents each, to close what has become a symbol for the terrorists.

What do you mean a "symbol for the terrorists." GTMO is well run at this point, it is transparent, and it is better than many of the alternatives.

Isn't that the same John Murtha who has been lambasted as a pacifist in the so called war on terror? He's no pacifist when it comes to spending the taxpayer's money, is he?

And that F-22, isn't that the airplane that the Pentagon, you know, the guys who actually know something about defense, say is a waste of money?

Bring in the clowns.

Again, not everyone in the Pentagon agrees with this. Further, don't kid yourself and pretend that politics is not running rampant in the DOD as well.

 

[PLC1]

Seems that we both posted an article about the defense bill and both have generated little or no attention at all...My topic lead in was: Mean While Back At The Ranch...this defense bill is headed for a veto!!


Politics as usual from both sides of the isle...Senators with military manufacturers in their specific areas won't let go of the golden goose and they will see to it that this goes forth even with the President saying 'NO WAY'!!!

Great minds think alike, you know.

Only a mere trillion of our borrowed and tax generated money, ho hum, that's no big deal, I guess. I posted this one on Thursday before going camping for the extended weekend, and come back to three affirmations and one rebuttal, saying that politics are rampant in the DOD as well (which is true, of course).

Now, had this been a thread about gay marriage, or evolution, or how liberals (conservatives) are ruining the country, then it would have gone on for at least 10 pages by now.

It's only money, no big deal.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

This is some expensive clowning around, it seems to me.

400 out of 430 want to buy a helicopter fleet for the pres and fund a jet fighter that the Pentagon says is a waste of money. That's 93% in favor.

Bring in the clowns.

No....no....no....no!!!!

We just got-RID of one!!!!!!!!!! (...But, it is a work-in-progress....)

​

 

[PLC1]

This sums up the matter nicely, don't you think?

From a Libertarian point of view, that is.

 

[top gun]

Not everyone in the Defense world agrees that the F-22 is a useless waste of money.

True. There will always be someone who wants more no matter what the cost. Defense loves Defense. There's some who probably think almost all of our budget should be spent on Defense.

But they are only being self serving and totally wrong IMO. I'd like to see us get out of Iraq and out of Afghanistan and cut military spending by 20% or more if possible. Call it a "peace dividend" like under President Clinton.

We don't have a Super Power to have to worry about facing off with anymore. We need that money for other things here at home. We've been on our little 10 year Nation Building tour... it's time to come home and focus on problems here.

What do you mean a "symbol for the terrorists." GTMO is well run at this point, it is transparent, and it is better than many of the alternatives.

It is a symbol for terrorist recruitment because of the way it was established under Bush/Cheney. I have no problem with the facility itself... and President Obama made sure we aren't TORTURING anyone anymore.

But the symbol remains. (going big here) It's like if the Germans totally updated and made a state of the art modern prison out of the old Auschwitz location. It's just causes too many strong bad memories in a lot of people for that to be a good thing.

Gitmo could have been operated successfully. No TORTURE... set up some type of justice system, trials or tribunals... formally sentence the guilty for a crime. But that didn't happen. Now we have a problem.

Again, not everyone in the Pentagon agrees with this. Further, don't kid yourself and pretend that politics is not running rampant in the DOD as well.

You're right... there is politics at the Pentagon. But that only highlights how important it is to have the right person as President. I think the plan is to get out of Iraq... kick some butt in Afghanistan and kill off some of the most organized & radical. But always looking toward that big pull out ASAP.

That's a better plan than what we had and I think the Pentagon is seeing that as well... or at the very least will go in that direction if that's what is really wanted at the White House.

 

[BigRob]

True. There will always be someone who wants more no matter what the cost. Defense loves Defense. There's some who probably think almost all of our budget should be spent on Defense.

Well, the price tag to keep the F-22 line alive was only $1.75 billion. Seeing as how the Constitution does state "provide for the common defense" it seems that we could have found that money to at least keep the line alive in my view. We blew $787 billion on stimulus, even with the F-22 spending, the defense budget comes in far less than that.

But they are only being self serving and totally wrong IMO. I'd like to see us get out of Iraq and out of Afghanistan and cut military spending by 20% or more if possible. Call it a "peace dividend" like under President Clinton.

We cannot yet "get out" in the manner that you are advocating. Doing so, at least at this point, would in my opinion only increase costs over the long term.

We don't have a Super Power to have to worry about facing off with anymore. We need that money for other things here at home. We've been on our little 10 year Nation Building tour... it's time to come home and focus on problems here.

We do have two rising peer competitors (possibly three) that will directly challenge us. We have terrorism, rouge state proliferation. The Cold War is over yes, but the world is no less safe.

It is a symbol for terrorist recruitment because of the way it was established under Bush/Cheney. I have no problem with the facility itself... and President Obama made sure we aren't TORTURING anyone anymore.

Well we never were torturing down there, but that is not the issue. That said, I completely disagree that it is a symbol for terror recruitment. The manner that terrorists recruit has little to do with GTMO. If anything it has been demonized in the Western world, and I would wager many of those who are likely to be recruited for terrorism have never heard of the place.

Gitmo could have been operated successfully. No TORTURE... set up some type of justice system, trials or tribunals... formally sentence the guilty for a crime. But that didn't happen. Now we have a problem.

We have had the "torture" debate, so I will let this one pass.

You're right... there is politics at the Pentagon. [/B]But that only highlights how important it is to have the right person as President. I think the plan is to get out of Iraq... kick some butt in Afghanistan and kill off some of the most organized & radical. But always looking toward that big pull out ASAP.

That's a better plan than what we had and I think the Pentagon is seeing that as well... or at the very least will go in that direction if that's what is really wanted at the White House.

It was the Bush White House that finalized the plan to get US troops out the cities. Additionally, it was the Bush White House that sent additional soldiers (before the latest round) into Afghanistan.

No one wants to stay forever, but the object needs to be to win, not simply how to pullout.

 

[PLC1]

No one wants to stay forever, but the object needs to be to win, not simply how to pullout.

I'm not so sure that no one wants to stay forever, but maybe. The question is, how will we know when we've won?

Are the terrorists going to sign an armistice?

 

[top gun]

Well, the price tag to keep the F-22 line alive was only $1.75 billion. Seeing as how the Constitution does state "provide for the common defense" it seems that we could have found that money to at least keep the line alive in my view. We blew $787 billion on stimulus, even with the F-22 spending, the defense budget comes in far less than that.

Well I'm sure you don't believe that without the F-22 we can't provide for the common defense like a thousand times over.

And we didn't "blow" money on the stimulous... we prevented The Bush Recession (the greatest economic downturn since The Great Depression) from quite possibly becoming another Depression.

We cannot yet "get out" in the manner that you are advocating. Doing so, at least at this point, would in my opinion only increase costs over the long term.

I agree. I'm saying in the next couple years I see us out of the region in a major military combat role.

We do have two rising peer competitors (possibly three) that will directly challenge us. We have terrorism, rouge state proliferation. The Cold War is over yes, but the world is no less safe.

True. But without a Super Power threat unless we have more misguided dreams of continuing to invade and occupy entire countries once we get out of our current entanglements we can cut back then.

Well we never were torturing down there, but that is not the issue. That said, I completely disagree that it is a symbol for terror recruitment. The manner that terrorists recruit has little to do with GTMO. If anything it has been demonized in the Western world, and I would wager many of those who are likely to be recruited for terrorism have never heard of the place.

I have to totally disagree on this one. I think you could search low and wide to never find a terrorist that hasn't at least heard tales of Gitmo. Now would they be against us either way... probably. It's to a great extent a twisted religion thing. But the damage to our reputation with Abu Grabe, Gitmo and TORTURING detainees in general was a huge black eye internationally without doubt.

We have had the "torture" debate, so I will let this one pass.

Thanks! That could go on for days.

It was the Bush White House that finalized the plan to get US troops out the cities. Additionally, it was the Bush White House that sent additional soldiers (before the latest round) into Afghanistan.

No one wants to stay forever, but the object needs to be to win, not simply how to pullout.

All true.

BUT... he really had little choice in Iraq. They were kicking us out either way. We would have had to fight the very government we had supported if Bush had tried to stay a day longer.

And Bush without doubt took his eye off of Afghanistan (and it's real 9-11 connection) for years while he pursued Mr. NO WMD's Hussein and implemented his Iraq Nation Building plan.

 

[BigRob]

Well I'm sure you don't believe that without the F-22 we can't provide for the common defense like a thousand times over.

Well, I suppose that depends on your definition of defense. I think a proactive approach abroad is a good defense at home. Additionally, without the F-22, in less than a decade, we would be directly challenged for air dominance by rising peer competitors.

And we didn't "blow" money on the stimulous...

we prevented The Bush Recession (the greatest economic downturn since The Great Depression) from quite possibly becoming another Depression.

That is interesting, seeing as how we have yet to spend the vast majority of it.

True. But without a Super Power threat unless we have more misguided dreams of continuing to invade and occupy entire countries once we get out of our current entanglements we can cut back then.

We have three easily identifiable major power threats on the horizon. Some view us as serious threat and are organizing their army to fight ours. We should not be cutting back in my opinion.

I have to totally disagree on this one. I think you could search low and wide to never find a terrorist that hasn't at least heard tales of Gitmo. Now would they be against us either way... probably. It's to a great extent a twisted religion thing. But the damage to our reputation with Abu Grabe, Gitmo and TORTURING detainees in general was a huge black eye internationally without doubt.

I think it was a huge black eye, but not among those who you are saying. I seriously doubt anyone who did not hate us before started after GITMO.

All true.

BUT... he really had little choice in Iraq. They were kicking us out either way. We would have had to fight the very government we had supported if Bush had tried to stay a day longer.

I can assure that in 2012, President Obama will take credit for "getting us out of Iraq" in his reelection campaign.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I can assure that in 2012, President Obama will take credit for "getting us out of Iraq" in his reelection campaign.

and if things get bad....the Right will say it was all his plan ....And only reason we are getting out is 1 Iraq said get out, and 2 The Left finaly pushed till Bush budged....though like always he did so far later then should have.

 

[BigRob]

and if things get bad....the Right will say it was all his plan ....And only reason we are getting out is 1 Iraq said get out, and 2 The Left finaly pushed till Bush budged....though like always he did so far later then should have.

The Left finally pushed until Bush budged? What do you mean by that?

Many on the Left demanded that we leave Iraq before there was any "surge" or any "awakening." That is not really pushing for anything.

It was never the plan of the Bush admin to stay in Iraq forever, and after the Awakening and the Surge, the situation became one that it was even possible to think about pulling back, which is what occurred.