Inside the Ring: Military strained by Obama trip

WashTimes ^ | 4/2/09 | Bill Gertz

[gate2wire]

“500 people ???”

It’s good to be the king.

Hope he took the piss boy with him.

[autumnraine]

Why does he need 500 people?

When is someone going to recognize and voice out loud that Barack Obama is clinically insane? I mean someone in charge, someone who has influence. Someone who has the stones to be honest enough to say what we all see and we aren’t even in the loop.

This man is a megalomaniac. He AND his wife have some serious mental issues.

[Mr Rogers]

We do NOT have plenty of air transport. We never bought enough C-17s, and C-5s break a lot. The 141s have all been retired.

[kickonly88]

Doesn’t surprise me. At the venue where I work, rappers always have the largest entourage. He just wants to be down wi da brothers.

[MinuteGal]

Somehow I don't believe that GWB took 500 or so with him even if some were congresscritters. I'd have to see proof of this, but it's not worth the time to delve into.

Needless to say, your comment is correct. Bambi's entourage was exactly that, a retinue of satellites revolving around the star during the entire trip.

Leni

[anniegetyourgun]

The media lies, but here's what I found:

[Carley]

Most don’t realize that the Pentagon provides all the planes, etc. for the trips taken by the Pres and his family.

At time Bubba used so many assets that military personnel were stranded without the planes needed to get them from one area to another.

[cookcounty]

Foreign contractors? I’m sure they could have hired idled FedEx and UPS heavies, of which quite a few.

[anniegetyourgun]

Attribution is Reuters - but that’s a lie. So, take it with grain of salt.

[cookcounty]

The Reuters pick doesn’t show how the Helicopters and limos got to London,which was by C-17 and C-5.

[wtc911]

Then it truly is Bush’s fault.

[starlifter]

[MinuteGal]

I just read an article from today's Washington Times that referred to the "UNUSUALLY large number of people travelling with the President".....which infers that he has more entourage than past presidents.

As I said, I don't believe that GWB travelled with such a pack and I don't believe any "facts" put out by the leftists at Reuters. Plus the Bush Syndrome is still alive and well in the DBM.

Well, the facts will come out sooner or later, so we just have to wait it out a while longer. The mediawhores can't cover for Obummer like they used to, thanks to the internet.

Leni

[Lucky Dog]

Then it truly is Bush’s fault.

Unless you accidentally left off the sarcasm tag, you are really misinformed. Since shortly after the Berlin Airlift, airlift has always been under supplied with planes and crews to meet strategic objectives. The same is true of sealift, although to a lesser degree.

Guess who makes the fiscal allocations to buy and man these assets... Congress. The President submits a proposed budget which is put together by his staff (and for military purposes, the Pentagon). Congress changes and approves this input at their whim. Even if they had approved the President's budget, they still have the power later to appropriate the money and then allocate it, or not.

In short, the President proposes and Congress disposes when it comes to military hardware and troop level authorizations.

Hope that clarified the situation for you.

[Non-Sequitur]

The Air Mobility Command, part of the U.S. Transportation Command, was ordered to provide airlift for the president's entourage of nearly 500 people, including senior officials, staff, support personnel, news reporters and some 200 Secret Service agents for the European visit, which began Tuesday in London.

I doubt they flew over on C-5s or C-17s.

[Nachum]

The List, ping

[wtc911]

Then I guess we don't hold Clinton responsible for the 50% reduction in forces and capabilities. I guess we can't hold TOTUS responsible for coming cuts in military spending.

If after eight years and a war in two theaters of operation we are so short of heavy lifters that taking two or three temporarily out of rotation creates a problem then I fault the CIC.

btw...you can take your patronizing attitude and stick it.

[Lucky Dog]

btw...you can take your patronizing attitude and stick it.

Sorry you found the tone as you did. It was an attempt to be polite.

If after eight years and a war in two theaters of operation we are so short of heavy lifters that taking two or three temporarily out of rotation creates a problem then I fault the CIC.

It seems you still do not understand. No president can purchase ships, aircraft, etc., unless Congress has authorized it and appropriated money for it. You can certainly fault any president’s failure to request such. However, if mere requests were wings, then pigs could fly.

In short, the President can ask for more weapons systems, troops, etc., but, he cannot arbitrarily procure them without Congress. On the reverse side of the coin, Congress can get as many or as few as they choose with, or without Presidential approval. As cases in point in the past, Congress has notoriously bought more C-130’s, A-7’s, etc., than was requested in a number of different presidential budgets while refusing to buy as many F-111’s or C-5’s, etc., as presidents from both parties have asked for.

Then I guess we don't hold Clinton responsible for the 50% reduction in forces and capabilities. I guess we can't hold TOTUS responsible for coming cuts in military spending.

You can hold Clinton, Bush, Obama or any other president responsible to the degree that they are/were the leaders of their party and could not enforce enough party vote discipline when their party controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. Beyond that situation, you must hold Congress (both parties when they had majorities) primarily responsible and only, secondarily, the President.