[Rushtalk] Veto Corleone Already in White House

Carl Spitzer lynux at keepandbeararms.com
Sun Oct 25 20:15:18 MDT 2015


  
Veto Corleone Already in White House

        By David Swanson | War Is A Crime| October 23, 2015


President Barack Obama has vetoed a military authorization bill. Why
would he do such a thing?

Was it because dumping $612 billion into a criminal enterprise just
finally struck him as too grotesque?

Nope.

Was it because he grew ashamed of holding the record for highest average
annual military spending since World War II, not even counting Homeland
Security Department or military spending by the State Department, the
Energy Department, the Veterans Administration, interest on debt, etc.?

Nope. That would be crazy in a world where pretense is everything and
the media has got everyone believing that military spending has gone
down.

Was it because the disastrous war on Afghanistan gets more funding?

Nope.

The disastrous war on Iraq and Syria?

Nope.

The monstrous drone wars murdering 1 vaguely identified person for every
9 innocents slaughtered?

You kidding?

Oh, I’ve got it. Was it because building newer, bigger, and smaller more
“usable” nuclear weapons is just too insane?

Um, nope. Nice guess, though.

Well what was it?

One reason that the President provided in his veto statement was that
the bill doesn’t allow him to “close” Guantanamo by moving it — remember
that prison still full of people whom he, the President, chooses to keep
there despite their having been cleared for release?

Another reason: Obama wants more money in the standard budget and less
in his slush fund for the War on the Middle East, which he renamed
Overseas Contingency Operations. Obama’s language suggests that he wants
the base budget increased by more than he wants the slush fund reduced
by. The slush fund got a piddley little $38 billion in the vetoed bill.
Yet the standard budget is deemed so deficient by Obama that, according
to him, it “threatens the readiness and capabilities of our military and
fails to provide the support our men and women in uniform deserve.” For
real? Can you name a man or woman in uniform who would receive a dime if
you jumped the funding of the most expensive military in the history of
the known universe by another $100 billion? The President also complains
that the bill he’s vetoed did not allow him to “slow growth in
compensation.”

Another reason: Obama is worried that if you leave limits in place on
military spending in the “Defense” Department, that will mean too little
military spending in other departments as well: “The decision reflected
in this bill to circumvent rather than reverse sequestration further
harms our national security by locking in unacceptable funding cuts for
crucial national security activities carried out by non-defense
agencies.”

Hope and Change, people!


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20151025/681cbcf0/attachment.html 


More information about the Rushtalk mailing list