Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
Some Good News
Seriously, the president and the secretary deserve some credit for this:
When the Obama administration proposed canceling a host of expensive weapons systems last spring, some of the military industry’s allies in Congress assumed, as they had in the past, that they would have the final say.
But as the president signed a $680 billion military policy bill on Wednesday, it was clear that he had succeeded in paring back nearly all of the programs and setting a tone of greater restraint than the Pentagon had seen in many years.
Now the question is whether Mr. Obama can sustain that push next year, when the midterm elections are likely to make Congress more resistant to further cuts and job losses.
White House officials say Mr. Obama took advantage of a rare political moment to break through one of Washington’s most powerful lobbies and trim more weapons systems than any president had in decades.
Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, said Wednesday that the plan was to threaten a veto over a prominent program — in this case, the F-22 fighter jet — “to show we were willing to expend political capital and could win on something that people thought we could not.”
Once the Senate voted in July to stop buying F-22s, Mr. Emanuel said in an interview, that success “reverberated down” to help sustain billions of dollars of cuts in Army modernization, missile defense and other programs.
Mr. Emanuel said the strategy emerged when the defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, told Mr. Obama they needed to “shake up sacred cows and be seen as taking on fights.”
Military analysts said Mr. Gates, a holdover from the Bush administration, also aimed at the most bloated programs. And Senator John McCain of Arizona, the former Republican presidential candidate, who has criticized the Pentagon’s cost overruns, provided Mr. Obama with political cover to make the cuts without being seen as soft on the military.
This means we can spend the money we're saving on making other government departments and agencies more useful, perhaps. Or pay off our Chinese creditors.
I am glad your happy Andrew.
I am glad your happy Andrew. Care to join me as I deliberate over Afghanistan for 18 holes at Bethpage Black. Secretary Gates is going to caddy.
Your grammar sucks, Mr.
Your grammar sucks, Mr. President.
Yeah, BO, maybe you and
Yeah, BO, maybe you and Andrew can spend some of that $2billion+ that got cut from ammo and maintenance and sent to pork barrel projects that have nothing to with defense at the 19th Hole. I'm sure when some squad runs out of .223 in the Kush they'll be just happy as pigs in doo-doo to know the country is in the best of hands.
i guess I need to self-report that last to whatever Czar is appropriate as mentioning pork twice in a comment regarding operations in a primarily Muslim area violates some part of the "hate-crimes" provisions that are also in that "defense" bill. I'm sure of that.
The defense lobby must
The defense lobby must looove you
Nice Obama and Gates :-)
Nice Obama and Gates :-)
Tour de Force performance by
Tour de Force performance by Mr. Gates. Bravo.
One Man Gang - The final
One Man Gang - The final bill did not cut $2bn from O&M, it cut ~$270M. Shafting the O&M budget in favor of earmark projects has been common practice long before January 2009, and Republicans (like Saxby Chambliss, as detailed in the recent Wheeler article) love this as much as their counterparts. Now go back to peeing in jars so the Great Leader can't capture your bodily fluids.
You know, this "you
You know, this "you an'othern" argument is getting real damned old. I don't give a Continental damn who did it before. It's effing wrong EVERY time it happens and you know it. I thought the new regime was going to do things differently. All I've seen so far is the same old same old with more zeros attached to the tab,.
Tell me again where I'm wrong.
At the end of the bill,
At the end of the bill, there is a "Division E--Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act"
Was this provision part of a concession to the defense industry?
Schmedlap, According to
Schmedlap,
According to Wikipedia, it is a separate bill that was tacked onto the Defense bill after playing musical committees since the 107th Congress (2001!)
Yeah, the US legislative process is completely f&^%ed. And your point is? That it is f*&êd in ways not related to the power of the defense industry? That the defense industry is dominated by homosexuals? That the EVULLL LIBRALS are destroying the Constitution? Are you trying to point out something that every reader of this blog already knows, or are you conspiracy-mongering? Or both?
In the off chance that you
In the off chance that you are being serious, I'll respond.
I was making a joke.
Yeah, way to go Obama - now
Yeah, way to go Obama - now the entire future of the US fighter corps is dependent on a single plane that hasn't even gone through Development Hell yet (which is probably going to be a real bitch, seeing as how the plane now has to everything for everyone). I'm just glad we've got a number of other countries in on the project, since it will ensure that they won't be able to cancel the project when the unit price starts skyrocketing and the usual parties scream to high heaven.
@ AM actual, "This means we
@ AM actual,
"This means we can spend the money we're saving on making other government departments and agencies more useful, perhaps."
If you want to do that, start en masse firings right there in DC. Or they can give you a budget to go euthanasia vigilante at night and you can thin out the parasites. Otherwise I'm Astounded at Your Laminated Armor Naivete. Were you kidding?
"Or pay off our Chinese creditors"
Well I'm sure they'd take 22 Billion, which would pay off a nice 0.0275% of the principle. Only leaves $772 Billion to go.
The way to pay them back BTW is in kind for something they consider so critical they'd go to war over it. Energy.
We drill baby drill, mine baby mine, and dig up some of the 100 years plus of Natural Gas we're literally sitting on. But that might bother Gaia, so I guess not.
Add your comment