Victory For Obama Over Military Lobby

26 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sky Captain Sky Captain's picture
Victory For Obama Over Military Lobby

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.

[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/business/29defense.html?_r=2&em] Victory For Obama Over Military Lobby[/url]

[Please don't post full articles on babble - quote a small, relevant chunk and link to the rest.  Thanks - Michelle]

NDPP

Obama Signs Bills for Record Pentagon, Homeland Security Spending:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/oct2009/dfns-o30.shtml

"In a ceremony Wednesday, US President Barack Obama signed legislation authorizing the largest ever military budget, a gargantuan $680 Billion for the Pentagon, including $130 Billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On Thursday, he signed a spending bill funneling another $44 billion into the Department of Homeland Security to strengthen the apparatus of state repression within the United States.

the back-to-back signings are a clear demonstration that Obama is extending and intensifying the program of miitarims and attacks on democratic rights for which the Bush administration was deservedly hated, in the US and worldwide.."

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

From the second post:  Absurdly, the New York Times headlined its report on Obama's signing of the largest-ever military spending bill, "Victory for Obama Over Military Lobby," claiming that the deletion of a few big-ticket weapons systems, notably the F-22 fighter jet, represented "reform."

skdadl

Take it as a given that Rahm Emanuel pretty much dictated the spin of the NY Times article. Emanuel as ventriloquist has been showing through more and more of the NYT stories, especially those about rising or falling reputations (his is always up in those stories, o' course).

Sky Captain Sky Captain's picture

skdadl wrote:

Take it as a given that Rahm Emanuel pretty much dictated the spin of the NY Times article. Emanuel as ventriloquist has been showing through more and more of the NYT stories, especially those about rising or falling reputations (his is always up in those stories, o' course).

 

Hey, it may not be much, but it's a start. At least he's not letting the F-22 be built when they don't need it, which is something. But you guys want him to sweat blood, or open up his veins and bleed to death.

Whatever the reason for the general pissyness about Obama, you're going to have to accept that this is the leader of the United States, and that you won't be getting the socialist messiah that you all so desire. Also, you have to accept that the change won't come with the wave of a magic wand, or be resolved in an instant. As well, the left seems to be acting in the same way as the extreme right is (at least to me); calling him names and accusing him of not doing enough (try undoing 20 years of right-wing bullshit overnight by yourself). Why not write to him yourselves, and tell him what you want?

skdadl

I somehow suspect that neither Obama nor Emanuel is interested in the opinions of a li'l ole DFH lady in southern Ontario. They don't listen to their own DFHs -- y'know, the people who worked hard and did so much to get them elected?

 

I certainly do not want anyone to bleed to death. But two points: Emanuel is a power-player of a particularly nasty kind, and I would like to see his wee career checked, not beyond the bounds of all imagining. I think that Obama might be better without Emanuel  running the show. What I mainly pay attention to is the torture files and the DoJ, and I think we're long past being generous to this bunch on those scores. The torture regime is being maintained and extended (Bagram, etc); Obama has caved to the paranoid xenophobia of a minority on GTMO; and DoJ lawyers are in some cases making even more extreme arguments re state secrets and national security in a whole series of important legal cases. Clinton and Miliband have their fiendish little pact to frustrate High Court judges in the UK. And so on. Why should any of us be generous to these people? They are violating international and domestic law all over the place.

 

Equally important: Slavish stenography didn't used to be considered serious reporting, but the corporate media certainly made it so during the Bush regime. Laundering White House (or PMO) propaganda isn't reporting, and it's important that we all remain alert to the signs that that's what's going on in articles like this one, because it is. This kind of nonsense helped to start a war of aggression, but some people seem never to learn.

al-Qa'bong

Sky Captain wrote:

 

 

Hey, it may not be much, but it's a start. At least he's not letting the F-22 be built when they don't need it, which is something. But you guys want him to sweat blood, or open up his veins and bleed to death.

Whatever the reason for the general pissyness about Obama, you're going to have to accept that this is the leader of the United States, and that you won't be getting the socialist messiah that you all so desire.

 

For one thing, nobody here has said anything about committing great bodily harm on Mr. Obama.  For another, few here have confused Mr. Obama with a socialist.

 

I suggest you breathe into a paper bag for a few moments and regain your equilibrium before posting further.

George Victor

Sky Captain might also have argued that abandoning the economics of a military-industrial complex that has huge effect on employment numbers in a majority of states, just when stimulus is called for, is an unlikely scenario.  Perhaps toward the end of his second term? Turning around the good ship Lollipop sailing on the cesspool of ignorance left behind by Dubya will take a couple of moons - to be very, very optimistic.

Sky Captain Sky Captain's picture

How true. As I said before, this will take a while.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Sky Captain wrote:

Whatever the reason for the general pissyness about Obama, you're going to have to accept that this is the leader of the United States, and that you won't be getting the socialist messiah that you all so desire. Also, you have to accept that the change won't come with the wave of a magic wand, or be resolved in an instant. As well, the left seems to be acting in the same way as the extreme right is (at least to me); calling him names and accusing him of not doing enough (try undoing 20 years of right-wing bullshit overnight by yourself). Why not write to him yourselves, and tell him what you want?

Some people seem to get their jollies by coming to babble and rubbing our noses in the fact that the world is still being run by imperialist warmongers.

We used to call them trolls, back in the day.

Unionist

George Victor wrote:

  Perhaps toward the end of his second term?

I'd say his third term.

 

Jingles

Obama's victory for change in reducing the military budget from $580B to $680B wasn't all he did to clean up Bush's mess. After that, in a victory over the sugar lobby, Obama succeeded in increasing the chocolate ration from 10g to 5g per day.

Doug

Abandoning the F-22 isn't exactly a great blow against the Pentagon - they didn't want more anyway. Interest is now in the F-35.

al-Qa'bong

"sailing on the cesspool of ignorance left behind by Dubya will take a couple of moons - to be very, very optimistic."

 

Yeah, two months isn't a long time to be able to fix such matters.

 

I have a hunch that cesspool existed long before Dubya's presidency. How else could he have been elected in the first place without a huge base of ignorance on which to draw?

 

And before we become too smug, consider the possibility that the cesspool is draining into our hitherto intelligently dry dominion. Why, not a week ago the good burghers of Saskatoon paid $100 (CDN) to hear the wisdom of GeeDubya emanating from his own silver-plated lips.

George Victor

 

George Victor wrote:

 

  Perhaps toward the end of his second term?

 

 

U; "I'd say his third term."

 

That's spoken for - Michelle's turn.

 

 

Al : "And before we become too smug, consider the possibility that the cesspool is draining into our hitherto intelligently dry dominion. Why, not a week ago the good burghers of Saskatoon paid $100 (CDN) to hear the wisdom of GeeDubya emanating from his own silver-plated lips."

 

Too true, al. But so far, in Calgary, Toronto and now the new oil patch lite, Saskatoon, Sask., it's just been about reassuring the investing fraternity that Wall Street loves them too and Dubya's visions of the future are not dead.

al-Qa'bong

We ought to be clear about something that the thread title obscures. There is no "military lobby" in the USA.  The arms manufacturers and military establishment in that country are so integrated as to be both part of the warp and weft of the government structure.

 

I suppose this makes Obama's reduction in spending seem like a major accomplishment.

George Victor

Yep, if you are trying to turn back the clock on something that Eisenhower identified as becoming a structural threat, it's something, surely. (and whatever happened to warp and woof?)

al-Qa'bong

Oops, I got my cliché wrong.

George Victor

Nope.  Weft is there for use too.  Maybe a newbie?  Not a cliche at all , any more.   Wonderful addition to the language from back when.

al-Qa'bong

Yes, as was "Dark Satanic Mills."

Sky Captain Sky Captain's picture

al-Qa'bong wrote:
I suggest you breathe into a paper bag for a few moments and regain your equilibrium before posting further.

My 'equilibrium' is fine sir, and no, I wasn't shouting, unlike you and your posts most of the time.

I find it amazing to be told this by a supporter of left-wing authortarian regimes (Fidel as well).Laughing

 

Sky Captain Sky Captain's picture

al-Qa'bong wrote:

We ought to be clear about something that the thread title obscures. There is no "military lobby" in the USA.  The arms manufacturers and military establishment in that country are so integrated as to be both part of the warp and weft of the government structure.

 

I suppose this makes Obama's reduction in spending seem like a major accomplishment.

Inasmuch as these companies manufacture civilian aircraft and most of the vehicles used in the space program that made most of the advancements we take for granted possible, you might want not to be such a hater of them. Are you also a hater of EADS, Thompson, Airbus, too? Some of what they make also has military applications.

George Victor

Yes, as was "Dark Satanic Mills."

 

My word association was of a little cottage and all the family working at home, spinning and weaving, warping and woofing those threads at an earlier time, when their cow could be tethered on the common, etc.  I search for a happier imagery, always. Pre military/industrial complexities, where possible.

al-Qa'bong

Hmmm, a fan of Silas Marner perhaps?

 

Sky Captain wrote:

I find it amazing to be told this by a supporter of left-wing authortarian regimes (Fidel as well)...

 

Inasmuch as these companies manufacture civilian aircraft and most of the vehicles used in the space program that made most of the advancements we take for granted possible, you might want not to be such a hater of them. Are you also a hater of EADS, Thompson, Airbus, too?

 

Well I don't hate them nearly as much as I hate the Beatles. Holy hyperbole Batman! You have an amazing talent for spinning others' words right out of control. As a Sky Captain, could you tell us the colour of the sky in your world...maybe the molecular structure is different?

Sky Captain Sky Captain's picture

M. Spector wrote:

Sky Captain wrote:

Whatever the reason for the general pissyness about Obama, you're going to have to accept that this is the leader of the United States, and that you won't be getting the socialist messiah that you all so desire. Also, you have to accept that the change won't come with the wave of a magic wand, or be resolved in an instant. As well, the left seems to be acting in the same way as the extreme right is (at least to me); calling him names and accusing him of not doing enough (try undoing 20 years of right-wing bullshit overnight by yourself). Why not write to him yourselves, and tell him what you want?

Some people seem to get their jollies by coming to babble and rubbing our noses in the fact that the world is still being run by imperialist warmongers.

We used to call them trolls, back in the day.

 

So anytime people post a news item that has something positive that isn't the usual, it's trolling? Amazing about how free speech is treated here when it's a different point of view.

Fidel

Sky Captain wrote:
So anytime people post a news item that has something positive that isn't the usual, it's trolling? Amazing about how free speech is treated here when it's a different point of view.

You're absolutely right. There is silver lining in every storm cloud.

[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15932]How many countries do you have to be at war with to be disqualified from receiving the Nobel Peace Prize?[/url] William Blum

Quote:
The continuing desperate quest to find something good to say about US foreign policy


Not the crazy, hateful right wing, not racist or disrupting public meetings, not demanding birth certificates ... but the respectable right, holding high positions in academia and in every administration, Republican or Democrat, members of the highly esteemed Council on Foreign Relations. Here's Joshua Kurlantzick, a "Fellow for Southeast Asia" at CFR, writing in the equally esteemed and respectable Washington Post about how - despite all the scare talk - it wouldn't be so bad if Afghanistan actually turned into another Vietnam because "Vietnam and the United States have become close partners in Southeast Asia, exchanging official visits, building an important trading and strategic relationship and fostering goodwill between governments, businesses and people on both sides. ... America did not win the war there, but over time it has won the peace. ... American war veterans publicly made peace with their old adversaries ... A program [to exchange graduate students and professors] could ensure that the next generation of Afghan leaders sees an image of the United States beyond that of the war." [8] And so on.

On second thought, this is not so much right-wing jingoism as it is ... uh ... y'know ... What's the word? ... Ah yes, "pointless". Just what is the point? Germany and Israel are on excellent terms ... therefore, what point can we make about the Holocaust?

At least there was peace at some point, and not all Jews and Vietnamese were murdered. The glass is half full.

And I think the answer is five. Obama might have to wage war against five countries to be disqualified. He's only a cosmetic leader.