It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Barack voted May 24, 2007, 8:26 p.m. against funding troops in Afghanistan

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 07:17 AM
Vote description: This $120 billion dollar package was passed in the Senate by an 80-14 vote on May 24. The bill primarily focuses on funding for the Iraq war but also addresses other unrelated topics.
A previous war funding bill was vetoed by the president because it included troop withdrawal deadlines, which were largely supported by anti-war Democrats.

Ten Democrats opposed this new bill with no withdrawal deadlines, while 37 supported its passage. Congress had to act to replace war funding that would have ended May 28.

According to the Washington Post, this bill includes 18 benchmarks that the Iraqi government must meet to continue receiving reconstruction aid.

One hundred billion dollars in funding is slated to support continuing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The bill says that the President and Congress must not take any action that will endanger the troops and that they provide any funds necessary for training, equipment and other types of support to ensure their safety and the effectiveness of their missions. The president is required to give a first report on the Iraqis' progress in meeting the benchmarks to Congress on July 15.

Seventeen billion dollars in the package is for domestic spending. Out of this funding, $6.4 billion is for Gulf Coast hurricane relief efforts, $3 billion in emergency aid for farmers, $1 billion to upgrade port and mass transit security, $3 billion towards converting closing U.S. military bases to other uses, and $650 million to increase funding for children health care. A Congressional Research Service summary states that the other domestic beneficiaries include state HIV grant programs, mine safety research, youth violence prevention activities, and pandemic flu protection.

posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 08:38 AM
Here's the Washington Post article which backs up your post:


This is really getting ridiculous. I think Obama must wake up in the morning and toss darts at a dartboard in order to determine what policies he'll support that day. I've never seen a politician who can contradict himself on major policy issues quite like this guy can and still get away with it. In his defense, I guess you could argue that it wasn't specifically for Afghanistan, but I'm not sure that's an argument that I'm going to buy.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to be Obama's policy regarding Afghanistan and Iraq:

1) He supports a surge in Afghanistan, necessary for similar reasons as the one in Iraq, but...
2) He still opposes the Iraq surge, yet...
3) He believes the Iraq surge worked
4) Meanwhile, as this article indicates, in the recent past, he has opposed funding troops in Afghanistan, yet those troops would be necessary for the surge that he supports there.

posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 09:23 AM
Obama made a choice between voting to continue the status quo and voting against it. He voted against it. Here, he says why:


This vote is a choice between validating the same failed policy in Iraq that has cost us so many lives and demanding a new one. And I am demanding a new one.”
This President has led us down a disastrous path and has arrogantly refused to acknowledge the grim reality of this war, which has cost us so dearly in lives and treasure.”

“After he vetoed a plan that would have funded the troops and begun to bring them home, this bill represents more of his stubborn refusal to address his failed policy.”


"Sen. McCain required a flak jacket, 10 armored Humvees, two Apache attack helicopters, 100 soldiers with rifles by his side, so he could stroll through the market in Baghdad just a few weeks ago," Obama said. "That's the truth in Iraq."

Obama said the status quo in Iraq is no longer acceptable.

"I know the toll of this war," he said. "And what I know is that what our troops deserve is not just rhetoric. They deserve a new plan."

I personally would have stopped voting to fund this war long ago.

posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 07:24 PM
Very nicely put, BH

Thats the side most people arent ever allowed to see (like the OP here) :shk:

In politics, there are bills that say "lets save the whales" with tiny text that says "by killing all polar bears"

and if you want to save the whales, but dont want to kill all polar bears, all you can do is vote against it.

Then, somewhere, somehow, and someday, someone will use that against you, in a childish and ignorant manner that leaves out the "fine print" as it were, and say "you dont want to save the whales!!!!!!"

same thing applies here.

[edit on 7/23/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 10:44 AM
If I didn't realize that Obumma was a paid actor dancing on a stage with heavy puppet strings attached . . .

I'd think he was a real super clueless traitor.

As it is, I just think he's a dumb traitor.

He's a sharp crowd handler.

What a disaster as a leader.

His reality testing is the pits.

His awareness of END TIMES and GLOBALISM EVILS is . . . even for an insider rushing to support the coming tyranny--it's ghastly.

And the people going gahgah over him are worse.


posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 11:22 AM
reply to post by mabus325

Um, not to be snooty, but isn't your post copied from the article that vor78 posted? If so, then it should have external quotes with the source given, or else it is plagiarism.

If it is too late to edit your post, you can ask a moderator to edit your post if you send them a U2U message.

Also, if it weren't for the title of the thread we wouldn't know what it is you are trying to say. You claim that Obama voted against funding troops in Afghanistan even though the bill includes all the other items you listed.

Do you expect Obama to vote for a bill based solely on one one item even though he objects to other items on the bill? This bill was also thrown together at the last minute because the current funding was about to run out. The reason the previous bill failed was because it was vetoed by GB, so I guess he voted against funding for the troops as well.

new topics

top topics

log in