Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Senate Approves $106 Billion Supplemental War Spending Bill

By Perry Bacon, Jr.
The Senate today overwhelmingly passed a bill that would fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through Sept. 30, giving congressional backing to President Obama's plan to increase troops and resources for the war in Afghanistan. The 91-5 vote sends the bill to President Obama for signing.

The $105.9 billion bill also includes $7.7 billion to prepare for a potential outbreak of a pandemic flu, an increased U.S. contribution to the International Monetary Fund and $1 billion to start the "cash for clunkers" program that will give Americans vouchers of up to $4,500 to turn in their old cars and purchase more fuel-efficient vehicles.

But the final bill also reveals congressional differences with Obama's foreign policy vision. Worried about the incarceration of detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in their districts or states, congressional Democrats joined with Republicans to strip $80 million from the bill to implement Obama's plan to close the detainee facility there. The bill allows for the movement of Guantanamo detainees to the United States solely for trials.

At the insistence of House Democrats who are opposed to increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan, the administration also will be required to submit to Congress its policy objectives in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as metrics to measure this progress, including formal reports every six months.

By Web Politics Editor  |  June 18, 2009; 5:19 PM ET
Categories:  B_Blog , Capitol Briefing  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama Opponents Finding Their Voice
Next: POTUS Events: Father's Day


Why do we need to allocate more money for a bogus war that the Russians already lost, and we were too stupid to leave alone? Almost like Vietnam all over. If various figures are correct, the CIA has an annual black budget in the neighborhood of a trillion dollars. Whose really running the military and Washington?

Posted by: neddelaney | June 19, 2009 8:58 PM | Report abuse


Thank you for the correction and the biting presumption.

Posted by: Sparkk | June 19, 2009 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Memo to Attorney General Eric Holder (c.c., Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod, Jay Carney):



The Bush-Cheney multi-agency extrajudicial targeting and punishment vigilante network and its related unconstitutional array of "programs of personal destruction" remain in place under a misinformed or naive Obama administration.

President Obama may not even be aware of some of the deeply entrenched "black ops" that make a mockery of the rule of law and threaten his presidency:

• The "multi-agency action" nationwide army of "community stalking" citizen vigilantes hiding behind federally-funded volunteer organizations such as Infragard , Citizen Corps, and USA on Watch, terrorizing unjustly targeted Americans via covertly implanted GPS tracking devices;

• Deployment of silent, injury- and illness-inducing radiation weaponry to police departments nationwide;

• Multi-agency unconstitutional programs -- ranging from pervasive spying to a parallel system of transaction processing that amounts to fascistic theft by deception -- must be taken down.

Immediately. Before more damage is done.

Before yet another "generated crisis" claims the renewed American spirit and again plunges the nation into despair and submission to "the dark side."

The security/military/intel agencies of government that are covertly commandeering this devolution of American democracy must be reined in and reformed, top to bottom, never again to subvert the rule of law.


Posted by: scrivener50 | June 19, 2009 9:32 AM | Report abuse

Well, Obama gives the lie to the Republican notion that Democrats don't support the troops -- in case any of you were dumb enough to buy it in the first place.

And the comment below clearly give the lie to the notion that Republicans put the troops above politics.

Posted by: nodebris | June 19, 2009 12:49 AM | Report abuse


Has anyone noticed they are approving and spending money that isn't there, and won't be for several generations again????

Posted by: dottydo | June 18, 2009 10:42 PM | Report abuse

Hey, here's a lot of the money, over one hundred billion, to finance expanded health care coverage in this country. ...

Posted by: Aprogressiveindependent
You keep talking like you are in the old USA...the new Obamaland would find killing off the people in war, is much cheaper, and makes room faster for the "new Americans" to distribute this overtaken wealth to.

You really didn't believe any of it would be for us did you?

In Obamaland, have you noticed that if it benefits the people, it isn't happening?

Posted by: dottydo | June 18, 2009 10:39 PM | Report abuse

You fit right in the plan kid.
Cousin Mohammad's sausuage factory is set up and running with Cousin Osama just waiting for cousin Obama to send over the meat.

What other job is there?

Your house, car, and clothes will fit the New American taking your identity just won't even be

It is almost like you aren't even gone these days.

How long have people enmasse not trusted Obama and his motives?

Voters in the cities of Arcata and Eureka California passed laws last November right after the elections called the Youth Protection Act. Obamaland promptly sued, arguing that the rights of free people interfere with the government's ability to raise an army and protect the country.

In some miserable place later, you might hate the war machine and it's funding.
Remember this then.

Posted by: dottydo | June 18, 2009 10:34 PM | Report abuse

Hey, here's a lot of the money, over one hundred billion, to finance expanded health care coverage in this country. The Obama administration will likely seek similar levels of funding for the Bush-Obama wars for at least a few years.

Which is more important, expanding health care coverage without new major financial hardships on tens of millions of people by reducing wasteful military spending by 25% and ending unnecessary wars, or continuing such wasteful spending, sort of expanding health care at the expense of the elderly in Medicare reductions, costly mandates many people will not be able to afford and higher taxes on many middle class people?

Obama the candidate would probably lean, in most respects, toward option one, Obama, the increasingly Bush-lite president, will probably chose option two, unless House Democrats stand their ground for true health care reform.

Obviously Obama is too politically timid to try to persuade the nation the huge increase in military spending under the Bush-Cheney regime was unnecessary. Eisenhower wisely opposed high military spending as detrimental to the economy and diverting needed resources to benefit humanity. Obama could at least show he has some principles by insisting upon a public plan and opposing, as he did as a candidate, individual mandates and especially taxes on employer provided health care benefits.

Posted by: Aprogressiveindependent | June 18, 2009 10:32 PM | Report abuse

You fit right in the plan kid.
Cousin Mohammad's sausuage factory is set up and running with Cousin Osama just waiting for cousin Obama to send over the meat.

What other job is there?

Your house, car, and clothes will fit the new American just won't even be

Posted by: dottydo | June 18, 2009 10:28 PM | Report abuse

Endless war . . . it is deeply discouraging and enough to make me a believer in the need for a third party.

Posted by: SarahBB | June 18, 2009 10:25 PM | Report abuse

To magnifico1000.
I think Obama had a fairly clear statement about why we were in Afghanistan, in his Cairo address, as well as why Iraq was a war of choice. I believe him when he says he has no desire to establish bases. But Obama can only be president for 2 terms, and if we go back to another knucklehead like the junior Bush in 7 years, we'll be attacking Iran and who knows what else. It's not so much that we're the world's policeman; we're the world's schizophrenic. Our foreign policy has a split personality and a different personality emerges every 8 years.

Posted by: ripvanwinkleincollege | June 18, 2009 10:19 PM | Report abuse

Also ceflynline,

In your first response to my first post you said....EVERY Democratic attempt to begin limiting the war in Iraq and EVERY Democratic attempt to shift priorities to Afghanistan met with Republican opposition, and since the Dems didn't then have the votes to beat down that opposition, they were stuck with fully funding Georgie's Follies.

Actually, that's not true. When the Dems insisted that the war funding bill had time lines for withdrawal and benchmarks, Bush used the veto, as expected. The Dems could have stood firm, sent it right back and said "Sorry Mr. President", but no time lines or deal. They didn't need enough votes for this. They just needed to stay firm and not cave in. Even Bush would have realized that he had no choice but to accept the terms or his war would not be funded any more.

The reason the Dems buckled is because they have an incredible fear of the political fallout when the Republicans accuse them of not supporting the troops. Again, they did NOT need enough votes, just the courage to stand firm and not back down.

The Dems will have 60 votes in the Senate whenever Sen Franken does arrive. They don't need 60 votes to pass health Care Reform, The Carbon Cap proposal.... Only need 51 to get it done. Providing they hav the courage to do so and the Blue Dog Dems don't betray their party.

Posted by: DeJaVu57 | June 18, 2009 10:12 PM | Report abuse

Really? and to think all this time i thought we were broke with all the talk about how were going to pay for Americans health care, but i guess we have 106 billion to waste on those neverending wars.Maybe congress needs to move to one of those countries if they believe all our money needs to be spent there.All of them,dems and reps.

Posted by: smorrow | June 18, 2009 9:38 PM | Report abuse

When will the Senate pass The New Deal to create 100 million
jobs in America?

Posted by: blakesouthwood | June 18, 2009 9:34 PM | Report abuse

Since you want to hold Obama to his promises, GO READ those promises.

Actually ceflynline,

My first post was more about my dissatisfaction with Congress than with Obama. You seem to be happy with what the Dem majority Congress has delivered on since winning the mid term elections in 2006. I'm not. So I guess we have a difference of opinion here.

As for Obama, I have read his promises, and I think he's keeping some, but not all. During the campaign Obama said he would have all troops out of Iraq in 18 months. That has now been extended. He said he would close Gitmo immediately. That has now been extended. He claimed he was against the warrant less spying program, then voted for it. He said he was against the Bush rendition policy, but now retains it. Said he opposed the Bush/Cheney claims of expanded Executive powers in a time of war, but now retains them. Said he would end the U.S. Military policy of Don't ask Don't tell, but hasn't..... Just to name a few.
I'll quote you and say, "these are all a matter of public record." He did indeed promise these things.

You may not have agreed with my first post, but fortunately for me you not liking what I have to say, doesn't make what I'm saying any less true. There was nothing inaccurate in my first post. I don't think there was anything inaccurate in your first response back either. Just a difference of opinion.

Posted by: DeJaVu57 | June 18, 2009 9:33 PM | Report abuse

And that's why America cannot take care of her own people. That's why we cannot afford medical care for 45 million uninsured Americans. That's why our budget deficit won't stop increasing. When does the need for Empire end? When do we stop being the World's Policeman?

Posted by: magnifco1000 | June 18, 2009 9:15 PM | Report abuse

In the past, on most things I have disagreed with poster zippyzap; on this I agree.

We are wasting our time, money and the lives of Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan; nothing we do in either country will result in any benefit to the U.S. or improve our standing in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Leave these primitive "cultures" to their own ends; now that we've enabled them to institute Sharia law into their "constitutions", they can stone, behead and amputate to their heart's content.

Get out of both places now!

Posted by: EddietheInfidel | June 18, 2009 9:14 PM | Report abuse

"Ron Paul would have all the troops home by now."

Troops are making us proud now. They are building the future. Work worth doing.

Posted by: GaryEMasters | June 18, 2009 9:06 PM | Report abuse

"I see no Americans protesting the disconnect between the actions of the U.S. government and the will of the American people."

Not me. I am very happy with our government and our foreign policy. Just wait five years and you will not even recognize the Middle East.

Posted by: GaryEMasters | June 18, 2009 8:59 PM | Report abuse

The Rhetoric of Defeat.

"It's not a matter of whether the war is not real,or if it is,victory is not possible.The war is not meant to be won,it is meant to be continuous."

The choice is not stop the war or have war forever.

It is "lose the war" or "win the war."

If you can not say "We won the war." you are part of the problem.

But that is OK. There are always people who defy the future.

Posted by: GaryEMasters | June 18, 2009 8:55 PM | Report abuse

"Are YOU that partisan? "

NO, just a realist. Even Obama said that the withdrawl would be timely and phased. It is being phased, and it is meeting its timeline. As I commented THEN, the withdrawl would take time regardless. Since you want to hold Obama to his promises, GO READ those promises. He is on schedule. As for the money being spent, it probably isn't enough to properly accomplish the mission at hand, get U.S. forces back home, manned up, properly housed, equiped, and trained. That costs money, and finding that money is something we need to have out in the open. You want defense, you pay taxes. I watch my Party's office holders just like I watch the republican's office holders. Find one of my posts that link to my profile pages and read my posts. Obama is doing just a little better than I expected he might.

By the way, were I able to have the Army I think necessary, it would be about triple its current size. Wish the Dems would go that route, but don't expect they will.

What I DON'T see is any real discrepancy between campaign promises and moves to make such promises fact. I DON'T see any deception, fraud, or stonewalling.

But I have some patience even if I would really like to see George, Dick, Don, and Paul in jail soonest.

Posted by: ceflynline | June 18, 2009 8:50 PM | Report abuse

In this instance, Mr. Obama is doing the right thing -- the only thing given our dependence on oil. If you voted for him thinking he would magically pull our servicemen out of harms way, you are truly naive.

Posted by: NoVaPatriot | June 18, 2009 8:46 PM | Report abuse

I am happy to see that President Obama is willing to allow Congress to put conditional reporting strings to funding Afghanistan the way the previous Congress record President Bush to submit to reporting measurable benchmark progess in Iraq. More Americans are demanding accountability and a measure of success for the military conflict in Afghanistan and now we have a President who isn't standing in the way for this requirement.

Posted by: TabLUnoLCSWfromUtah | June 18, 2009 8:45 PM | Report abuse

When is enough enough?

Posted by: squirt07 | June 18, 2009 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Yep, Jeff Morris-Saugerties, N.Y. Your post by: DeJaVu57 | June 18, 2009 6:33 PM pretty much sums up the sad state of affairs in Washington. I suppose Obama might get us out of Iraq eventually, but I've thought for years that we intend to stay in Iraq _and_ Afghanistan permanently. I see no progress being made by Obama in the foreign policy areas that count to me. Only $106 billion for so short a period? What about the national debt or healthcare?

So I listen to Coldplay's song "Viva La Vida" and contemplate how true the lyrics are. We did this to ourselves; nobody made us do the things we've done. I see and hear about 100s of thousands of Iranians marching to protest an election they actually probably lost; I see no Americans protesting the disconnect between the actions of the U.S. government and the will of the American people. And I realize that _American-style democracy doesn't work_. I give up.

Posted by: ptgrunner | June 18, 2009 8:29 PM | Report abuse

It's not a matter of whether the war is not real,or if it is,victory is not possible.The war is not meant to be won,it is meant to be continous.

Hierarchy society(the USA) is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance.

George Orwell

Posted by: jellyhouse56 | June 18, 2009 7:51 PM | Report abuse

Instead of commenting on Democrat/Republican right and wrong, let us all make sure that all of these bums get voted out of office as soon as possible. I think the Iranian protestors have the right idea. Actually, I'm beginning to miss the Bush/Cheney days.

Posted by: forrest4 | June 18, 2009 7:50 PM | Report abuse

You haven't straightened me out on anything I didn't already know. The 2006 voters mandate WAS to end the Iraq war, not extend it beyond 2011. Yes, I know who's responsible here (Bu$hCo) but it doesn't excuse the repeated spineless stand of the Democrats in Congress. They caved in on war funding, FISA,torture investigations.....way too much for limited space here. I'm not so partisan that I give Obama and or the Dems a free pass when they flip-flop on their promises. Are YOU that partisan?

Posted by: DeJaVu57 | June 18, 2009 7:36 PM | Report abuse

dotty do: So your saying you're AGAINST the war in Iraq?

Just checking.

Posted by: ceflynline | June 18, 2009 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Good grief, people, and I mean all of you Americans. If it weren't for your insatiable appetite for empire-building you wouldn't be in this mess right now. Take responsibility for your greed and learn to live more sustainably and peacefully, the rest will follow.


This coming from someone whose very freedom and security is provided by the US and its military.
And I quote "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then question the manner in which I provide it. I prefer you said thank you, and went on your way..."
I accept your apology

Posted by: dbeins | June 18, 2009 7:24 PM | Report abuse

You Amricans are embroiled in two UNWINNABLE wars and the so-called War On Terror cannot be won either, because you can't fight a conventional war against an ideology.

All you are doing in sending your nation broke and you know you are going to cut and run eventually, just like you did in Vietnam and you plan to do in Iraq shortly.

Forget it - withdraw your forces and personnel from Afghanistan and Iraq, mind your own business in the rest of the world - North Korea and Iran is not the business of the USA - and use your money to help your own people instead of squandering it on conflicts that you cannot win.

The writing is on the wall - you should read it and take heed.

Posted by: ziggyzap | June 18, 2009 7:22 PM | Report abuse

There is, though, a theme in all this: All these crypto or open Republicans believe that, since a Democrat is now President, Republicans shouldn't have to pay for these wars because Obama now has ownership of them.

Republicans never want ownership of the problems they cause, and want anyone but a Republican to pay for them.

Support our troops? Well, apparently not if it costs Republicans money.

Posted by: ceflynline | June 18, 2009 7:12 PM | Report abuse

DeJaVu57: Immediately upon Organizing the House and the Senate in 2006 the Democrats had to take up the problem of writing the 2007 budget that the republicans didn't even try to write. EVERY Democratic attempt to begin limiting the war in Iraq and EVERY Democratic attempt to shift priorities to Afghanistan met with Republican opposition, and since the Dems didn't then have the votes to beat down that opposition, they were stuck with fully funding Georgie's Follies. They tried, but didn't succeed because there were still too many Republicans in Congress. So the blame for those budgets goes to George and his Republicans. Pay attention to written down history, cause it is so easy to correct dissemblers like you. Now that the Dems have sufficient votes, Iraqi deployments are being drawn down, as the Dems asked for, Afghanistan is getting at least a more than token effort, as those Democrats called for, and the funding for the war is actually a part of the budget, not an after thought attempt to hide the true costs, also as the Dems promised. Now we work to get the wars right, and to openly talk about their actual costs, which for the next year or so are really primarily due to Georgie's arrogance.

Heads them Dems are right, tails the Republicans are wrong, and it is all a matter of public record.

Just to keep you straight about this.

Posted by: ceflynline | June 18, 2009 7:06 PM | Report abuse

Good grief, people, and I mean all of you Americans. If it weren't for your insatiable appetite for empire-building you wouldn't be in this mess right now. Take responsibility for your greed and learn to live more sustainably and peacefully, the rest will follow.

Posted by: nonamenostate

Oh shut up...
until your the taxpayer being rheemed in the wallet on agenda you disapprove of , send obamaland your own money.

Posted by: dottydo | June 18, 2009 7:04 PM | Report abuse

Hitler needeed a military to beat up on other Germans.

This Obama take from wallets is a bad idea.

Change your voter registration to Independent Party to give Congress a loud and clear thumbs down.

Posted by: dottydo | June 18, 2009 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Sparkk and rwikert:

You ought to keep your wars straight. Barack Obama, Senator, Candidate, and President, spoke of fighting the right war by reducing troops in Iraq as quickly as possible, which he is doing, and sending more troops to Afghanistan, which he is doing. He is pulling troops about as fast as he can and a bit quicker than his pre campaign timetables. But even should he have been intent on pulling ALL troops from the Islamic sphere of control, he would have to pay them while they were still there, and pay for all their needs. The current deployments in Iraq aren't his, they are Georgie's. and he simply has to cover until he can get disengaged.

And as for your not hearing about cash for clunkers, Sparkk, well, perhaps you were so intent on not paying attention to Obama on America's bungled wars that you didn't have time to hear about cash for clunkers, which most of the rest of the nation knew about.

Tell the truth, you're just KOZ or Drindl, or any of the other Bush leftover obfuscators, aren't you.

Posted by: ceflynline | June 18, 2009 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Oh we still gonna make war? cool! Free TEXAS!!! Texas soldiers should consider Texas freedom. Texas loves you when the two party system dont!

Posted by: longrowtohoe | June 18, 2009 6:46 PM | Report abuse

To all the suckers who voted for change and are complaining now…

Wake up!

You didn't vote for the right candidate...


The only honest one.

Ron Paul would have all the troops home by now.

Posted by: JackDixon | June 18, 2009 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Ya think the metaphor of Hillary breakin' her elbow would TELL YA (SENATORS) SOMETHIN' about you and yer hommie's lost war causes. --- FIRE MARSHALL BILL.

Posted by: HereComesTheJudge | June 18, 2009 6:38 PM | Report abuse

Meant to say 31 months ago, not 19. JM in NY

Posted by: DeJaVu57 | June 18, 2009 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Another 106 billion dollars wasted on two wars that have accomplished little. In the 2006 mid term elections the Democrats were elected to majorities in both the House and Senate. The most important issue by far was the Iraq war. Americans spoke out at the polls with a clear mandate to the Democrats to bring the disaster in Iraq to a close. That was over 19 months ago.

Since then, most Democrats, along with nearly all Republicans, have continued to fund both wars in Afghanistan and Iraq numerous times. Since the election of 2006, the Democrats have shown a real lack of leadership in stopping further funding of these wars.

We heard the excuses "we don't have the votes", we don't control the White House.... A Democrat has now been elected to the White House. The Democrats now have a huge majority in the House, and a 60-40 filibuster proof majority in the Senate. (Whenever Sen Franken finally gets to Washington anyhow) There is no longer any excuse to ignore the voters mandate.

Today we are trying to lift our economy from the worst financial recession since the Great Depression. Unprecedented amounts of taxpayer dollars (trillions) have been given to greedy, corrupt, already ultra rich Wall Street bankers to bail them out of the gigantic financial mess they themselves created with their own insatiable greed and mismanagement.

At the same time unemployment figures are nearing double digits nationwide. Almost 50 million Americans continue to lack health coverage. After eight years conducting two endless wars our nations roads, bridges, electric grid, and infrastructure in general, have been ignored and are now crumbling.

America is in serious decline. We need the few real leaders in Washington to question the rationale of wasting hundreds of billions more dollars on these endless, unproductive wars. They have done more harm than good concerning making us safer. It's time for a return to fiscal sanity. It's time to end the downward spiral in America. It's time to end these two wars. It's time for Healthcare Not Warfare. It's time for real change.

Jeff Morris-Saugerties, N.Y.

Posted by: DeJaVu57 | June 18, 2009 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Good grief, people, and I mean all of you Americans. If it weren't for your insatiable appetite for empire-building you wouldn't be in this mess right now. Take responsibility for your greed and learn to live more sustainably and peacefully, the rest will follow.

Posted by: nonamenostate | June 18, 2009 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Another, really - really bad day for the DEMOCRUDS.

Posted by: hclark1 | June 18, 2009 6:19 PM | Report abuse

Senate Approves $106 Billion Supplemental War Spending Bill- we paid for a War in Iraq... spending trillions and not worring about deficit or funding... but Health Care that would level the playing field in Business ... the Party of No said No.

Posted by: Elvis1 | June 18, 2009 6:19 PM | Report abuse

you weren't warnedI guess whatever is going to happen remains to be seen. Obama says whatever gets him Kudos and then proceeds to do what he wants. For those not familiar with Chicago style politics, I can see where it can be quite confusing. Don't say

Posted by: thebink | June 18, 2009 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Granted, I'm young and don't feel as strongly as many of you,

but I have to say, Bcamp55 you have quite an entertaining editorial swag to your type. :) I enjoy it.

Posted by: Sparkk | June 18, 2009 6:01 PM | Report abuse


Obama's first budget covers next year, FY 2010. This bill provides money for the remainder of FY 2009, money that was left out of Bush's last budget. But don't let that stop you.

Posted by: Revisited | June 18, 2009 5:59 PM | Report abuse

I hope the next $100 Billion appropriation is entitled: "Iraq for Iragis, Afghanistan for Afghanis--Bring the U.S. Troops Home Safely" Bill

Posted by: benighse | June 18, 2009 5:59 PM | Report abuse

When will these war mongering, empire building, oil hungry, revenge for daddy seeking, non compete contract beneficiary LIBERALS end this war?

Come on libs - I thought the Messiah's main selling point was that he was going to end this war and redirect all those "wasted" dollars to your pathetic causes.

Looks like you're going to need to lose some weight so you can fit with virtually every one else in this country he has thrown under that bus.

Admit it - Obozzo is nothing but a liar with a pack of lines you suckers bought hook, line, and sinker.

I'd be LMAO if I wasn't the one paying for his and your ignorance.

Posted by: Bcamp55 | June 18, 2009 5:58 PM | Report abuse

The US can't come up with funds to fix the health care in this country; but, they can sure find the money to go murder in other countries. But wait, if people are sick and dying here, they get two birds with one stone.

Posted by: linda_521 | June 18, 2009 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Whoa whoa whoa....I thought the Obama/Biden plan included everything in their original budget. I mean, that was the justification for huge increases, wasn't it? That the Bush Administration just kept adding supplemental budgets throughout the year?

Change indeed....oh, wait.

Posted by: Pacprop | June 18, 2009 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Now we see RIGHT throught the Obama's version of transparency: it's just more of the same GW Bush - only Bush was relatively honest about where he stood.

What we have from Obama is more war-mongering, more lost jobs, more foreclosures, more refugee and IDP misery, more civilian casualties, more bank failures, more bailouts of pharmaceutical companies who's antiviral will never be used, more bailouts to the IMF, no Gitmo Gulag closure, tax breaks for rich Hummer owners to buy SUVs, etc., and a trunk full of broken campaign promises.

Americans voted for Obama to change destructive US policies, not for he himself to change.

This is a catastrophe. Just look at his recent job performance polls - going down, down, down.

Posted by: lockmallup | June 18, 2009 5:48 PM | Report abuse

increasing, not increasingly*
"Cash for Clunkers"

Apologies for the errors.

Posted by: Sparkk | June 18, 2009 5:43 PM | Report abuse

I simply agree and repeat comments from RWIKERT with enthusiasm and EMPHASIS!

Posted by: janetmt633 | June 18, 2009 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Though I take a less hostile attitude towards it than rwikert, I also find it strange that President Obama is increasingly military spending after criticizing former President Bush for focusing so intently on it. I am curious as to his (Obama's) plans.

Perhaps, due to the recent volatile reaction to the Iranian president (Iran, yes?), President Obama's intentions are less militaristic and more political. Perhaps.

Also, this is the first I have heard of this "Cars for Clunkers" program, and I find it uncomfortable that this program has already received funding while (dare I say many?) Americans (at least me) are in the dark about this.

Posted by: Sparkk | June 18, 2009 5:41 PM | Report abuse

The WP left out the $1 Billion for the UN. To embarrassing huh? I guess it's ok. They've done such a good job in Darfur and around the world and we have money to burn. It's not like we are fighting two wars on our own. Maybe they can get the toilets fixed in the UN building in NYC.

Hopium Dopium

Posted by: JoeDBrown | June 18, 2009 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Isn't this the same "Senator" Obama along with most of the other Democrats in Congress who ripped President Bush a new one for his war spending? Isn'tthis the same "Senator" Obama who said he would get the military out of Iraq and "save" that $10 billion? Isn't this the same "Senator" Obama who, during the Presidential campaign, promissed to use that $10 billion in "savings" to fund at least a half dozen $10 billion projects? Isn't this the same President Obama who lies more than he tells the truth in his first 100+ days?

Posted by: rwikert | June 18, 2009 5:31 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company