It wasn't in the New York Times, or the Los Angeles Times, or on any other mainstream news source. It wasn't covered by any of the other local media outlets which typically cover Long Beach's C-17, and it was not even on the White House web site, but, nevertheless, last week there was a major blow and a near complete victory, in the C-17 budget boxing match up. At this point, the Obama administration Challengers are tottering back and forth and just about to fall to their knees in complete defeat. The cause of this impending defeat is not a crushing blow from the C-17 Defenders, but rather, a basic surrender--throwing in the towel.

Last week, as the Senate was getting ready to act on the Pentagon's budget for the fiscal year which starts on Thursday, the Obama Administration finally put out a definitive statement on their official position on the pending bill. Oddly enough, you will not find any reference to the official STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY, SAP, anywhere on the expansive White House web site. The pronouncement is missing in action on the site, even though there are sections which specifically claim to present: 1. "Speeches and Remarks--Text and video of speeches and remarks by President Obama, the First Lady, and members of the administration", 2. "Press Briefings--Transcripts of press briefings and statements from the White House Press Secretary", 3. "Statements and Releases--Announcements from the White House Press Office", and 4. "Presidential Actions--Executive Orders, Memoranda, and Proclamations".

Nevertheless, the Administration did publish an SAP last Thursday, 9/25/09 and this document is their throwing in the towel in the C-17 budget boxing match up. With national attention targeted on Iran's secret nuclear site, the leaked request for more troops in Afghanistan, the G-20 meeting, President Obama's United Nations speech, and healthcare reform, the Administration's SAP on the pending senate defense budget bill was overlooked by the mainstream press. But, the good Boeing C-17 people in Long Beach have nothing to fear, www.OC180NEWS.com brings you the C-17 Defenders budget victory.

To be sure, the fiscal 2010 defense budget bill has not yet been signed by the President. In fact, it has not even been to the conference committee, not to mention a vote by the full Senate or House. Nevertheless, the bell is just about to ring.

Why such confidence that this match up is just about to go to the C-17 Defenders? Here's what the SAP says about the Senate defense budget bill which includes funds for 10 more of the unwanted C-17s: "The Administration strongly supports Senate passage of H.R. 3326, with the Senate Committee-reported text, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010." The "Senate Committee-reported text" is the wording which includes the 10 additional C-17s. It doesn't exactly sound like a veto threat.

But wait, there's more. The Administration makes it crystal clear where the veto, their only remaining offensive move, awaits Senators and Representatives. It's not with regard to the unwanted C-17, that much is clear. Here's what the SAP says about the threat of a veto: "The Administration appreciates that the Committee does not include unrequested funding for three such programs that could result in a veto – unrequested advance procurement funding for the F-22 fighter aircraft, the continued development of the Joint Strike Fighter Alternate Engine, and additional funding for the VH-71 Presidential Helicopter Program."

Your Editors believe the absence of the C-17 from this list represents the Administration's capitulation on their attempt to terminate C-17 production. Here's what the SAP does say about the C-17: "The Administration strongly objects to the addition of $2.5 billion in funding for 10 unrequested C-17 airlift aircraft. Analyses by DOD have shown that the 205 C-17s in the force and on order, together with the existing fleet of C-5 aircraft, are sufficient to meet the Department’s future airlift needs, even under the most stressing situations."

"strongly objects" when presented as something definitively different and separate from the veto threat items, is not a veto threat. Since there appears to be little or no support in either house of congress for ending C-17 production, it is a safe bet that at least the 10 C-17s in the senate bill will survive a full Senate vote and the conference committee. Your Editors believe at least 10 C-17s will be in the bill which goes to the President, and based on the SAP put out last week, the President is not going to veto it.