[Rushtalk] Veto Corleone Already in White House

Tom Matiska tom.matiska at att.net
Mon Oct 26 08:08:11 MDT 2015


Huh???  Our current defense spending is close to historic lows.   Cold war/Vietnam levels were more than double todays paltry 5% GDP levels.  Tom
T-Mobile. America's First Nationwide 4G Network

Carl Spitzer <lynux at keepandbeararms.com> wrote:

>  
>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!
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Rushtalk mailing list
>Rushtalk at csdco.com
>http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk


More information about the Rushtalk mailing list