OMB: Veto defense authorization if F-22 still in it


	OMB: Veto defense authorization if F-22 still in it

masbury

6-25-2009 4:23 PM

139 views

tags:

f-22, veto, military

masbury says:

Pentagon doesn't want it, Armed Services committee wants to buy it anyway.

Add a Comment

Login to Comment. Not a member yet? Sign up

Today's Top Clips

visit the Top Clips page

View the Top Clips from June 25, 2009

Embed This Clip In Your Site...

<div style="margin: 12px 0px; font-family: arial; color: #333333; background: #ffffff; border: solid 4px #e5e5e5; width: 100%; clear: left;"><div class="CM_CTB_Content_Wrap" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;background-color: #ffffff;"><div style="border-bottom: solid 1px #dcdcdc; white-space: nowrap; margin-bottom: 8px; background-color: #eeeeee ;background-image: url(http://www.clipmarks.com/images/source-bg.gif); background-repeat: repeat-x; height: 24px; line-height: 24px; vertical-align: middle; padding-bottom: 4px; color: #666666; font-size: 10px;" ><a href="http://clipmarks.com/clip-to-blog/" title="see clips that are hot right now"><img src="http://content.clipmarks.com/blog_embed/da4475ba-3c93-4c68-917b-1d09c4be0e22/D958A170-A705-4096-95F7-74E91741A985/" alt="" width="19" height="19" border="0" style="vertical-align: middle; margin: 0px 4px; display: inline; border: none; float:none;" /></a>clipped from <a title="http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/24/sap-veto-f22/" href="http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/24/sap-veto-f22/" style="font-size: 11px;">thinkprogress.org</a></div><blockquote style="text-align: left; padding: 0px 8px; margin: 4px 0px 8px 0px; background: transparent; border: none;" cite="http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/24/sap-veto-f22/"><H2 class="title"><A title="Permanent link to 'OMB advises veto of defense authorization if it contains F-22 funding.'" rel="bookmark" href="http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/24/sap-veto-f22/">OMB advises veto of defense authorization if it contains F-22 funding. </A></H2></blockquote><div style="height: 2px; font-size: 2px; background: #dcdcdc; border-bottom: solid 1px #f5f5f5; margin: 2px 4px;"></div><blockquote style="text-align: left; padding: 0px 8px; margin: 4px 0px 8px 0px; background: transparent; border: none;" cite="http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/24/sap-veto-f22/"><P>Last week, the House Armed Services Committee <A href="http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/17/democrats-f-22/">reinstated funding for the F-22</A>, over the objections of the Pentagon and the White House, by eliminating funding for nuclear waste cleanup. (Rep. Barney Frank [D-MA] has <A href="http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/23/frank-f22-monopoly/">introduced an amendment</A> eliminating the money for the F-22.) Today, the Office of Management and Budget issued a Statement of Administrative Policy <A href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/asset.aspx?AssetId=1436">recommending a veto</A> if the bill contains the F-22 funding:</P></blockquote><div style="height: 2px; font-size: 2px; background: #dcdcdc; border-bottom: solid 1px #f5f5f5; margin: 2px 4px;"></div><blockquote style="text-align: left; padding: 0px 8px; margin: 4px 0px 8px 0px; background: transparent; border: none;" cite="http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/24/sap-veto-f22/"><P>This afternoon on MSNBC, VoteVets Chairman Jon Soltz debated Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA), who proclaimed, “We absolutely need 381 of these planes, and not 187.” Soltz called the claim “ridiculous,” and argued that military funds should be spent on troops on the ground:</P></blockquote><div style="height: 2px; font-size: 2px; background: #dcdcdc; border-bottom: solid 1px #f5f5f5; margin: 2px 4px;"></div><blockquote style="text-align: left; padding: 0px 8px; margin: 4px 0px 8px 0px; background: transparent; border: none;" cite="http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/24/sap-veto-f22/"><P>It’s about how we spend our money. <STRONG>The Congressman cares about the Lockheed Martin stock price, and I care about the men and women who fight on the ground.</STRONG> And this weapon system does nothing for us.</P></blockquote><div style="height: 2px; font-size: 2px; background: #dcdcdc; border-bottom: solid 1px #f5f5f5; margin: 2px 4px;"></div><blockquote style="text-align: left; padding: 0px 8px; margin: 4px 0px 8px 0px; background: transparent; border: none;" cite="http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/24/sap-veto-f22/"><div align="center"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rFZh6YCGRCA&hl=en&fs=1" height="329" width="400" wmode="opaque" quality="high" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed></div></blockquote></div><div style="margin: 0px 6px 6px 4px;"><table style="font-size: 11px;border-spacing: 0px;padding: 0px;" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tr><td style="background:transparent;border-width:0px;padding:0px;">&nbsp;</td><td align="right" style="background:transparent;border-width:0px;padding:0px;width:107px" width="107"><a href="http://clipmarks.com/share/D958A170-A705-4096-95F7-74E91741A985/blog/" title="blog or email this clip"><img src="http://content7.clipmarks.com/images/c2b-foot.png" border="0" alt="blog it" width="107" height="17" style="border-width:0px;padding:0px;margin:0px;" /></a></td></tr></table></div></div>

Clipmarks: Home; New Clips; Top Clips; Dashboard

Popular Topics: News; Life; Science; Technology; Entertainment

Get Started: Sign Up; Install Clipping Tool; How Clipping Works; Clip-to-Blog™; ClipSearch

Tools and Resources: FAQ; ClipWeek; Top Clippers; Top Tags; Site Map

About Clipmarks: About Us; Contact; Blog; Copyright; Privacy; EULA

Search Options

Today's Top Clips