I believe this man says it best: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/unless-you-have-been-shot-at-by-the-taliban-shut-your-mouth-war-is-hell-allen-west-weighs-in-on-urinating-marine-scandal/
Yep, I hope he runs for President someday, he'll definetly get my vote.
With the 20/20 clarity provided by hindsight I'll say we should have just stayed the hell out of there.
Not because of the phony WMD data (every major intelligence agency in the world believed in them), not because it was "Bush's War" (Congress gave their okey-dokey on it) and not because of any question regarding the legality of the actions.
We never wholeheartedly supported the military when they were deployed there. THAT'S WHY WE SHOULD HAVE STAYED OUT!!
Our troops were sent in with one arm tied behind their backs in the way of asinine "rules of engagement". The media did what they could to sabotage any support (remember the LA Times placing a photoshopped pic of a Marine pointing his weapon at terrified women & children? It turned out he originally held out his empty hands in reassurance. Photoshop is the liar's friend.) The entire conflict was treated like a political football during the Bush years, with the troops getting shit on left, right and straight up the middle.
Abu Gharib? Hey, it was on the level of frat hazing ala "Animal House". I mean really, how bad was it? Yes the damned fools who perpetrated that idiocy were court-martialed and rightfully so. But come on, how much true pain and suffering were inflicted?
But to hear the media and those gunning for Bush's head, you'd have thought it was on a par with Dachau.
Gitmo? Hey, wasn't our present Commander-in-Chief elected with the promise to shut the place down? Hows that going? Truth to tell, the supposedly heinous conditions suffered by the inmates are so bad, the military has brought in a dietitian because so many have become obese. Yep, another concentration camp in the making. Noted.
But all the critics would have you believe our military was taking sadistic pleasure in torturing those "poor souls".
How about Haditha? The NCIS was hellbent for leather to prosecute and convict 8 Marines based solely on the testimony given by relatives of the Iraqis killed in that incident. Thankfully, the courts-martial have seen through the bullshit and dismissed all charges.
The military of this nation is routinely treated like a sociological petri dish for all types of PC experimentation (repeal of DADT comes to mind), they're micromanaged and Monday morning quarterbacked every step of the way. Thats just in peace time. When they're sent off to war by their civilian bosses (including you and I) they're viewed as baby-killing, sadistic, torture prone mental misfits who are employed in a government workfare program. They're never left to do their job, they're harassed, criticized, denigrated, and denied the respect we would show to homeless bums panhandling for their next fix.
Our troops have been treated like shit from the get go, trying to do their damned job the best way they could and getting shit on in the process.
Now they're leaving Iraq, an Iraq with a constitution that recognizes the primacy of sharia law, an Iraq where Christians are increasingly persecuted, an Iraq that you can bet will fall into the Islamonazi orbit within six months of our departure.
Gee, I'll bet those military who served there (some of them for multiple tours) are really satisfied. They know it was worth their separation from home, their comrades' deaths and maiming, the completion disruption of their own lives.
Yep, they'll look at what they're leaving, recall how they had to operate there and under what kind of PC micromanagement and slap one another on the back with a "Well Done" on their lips.
My ass.
We've the best damned military in the world, the most professional, compassionate warriors anyone could hope to encounter. We treat them like shit.
While they've been at war we've been at the mall.
God help this nation, we really suck.
Found this at www.washingtonpost.com via Lucianne.com:
Death of the War Powers Act?
By Bruce Ackerman and Oona Hathaway,
This week, the War Powers Act confronts its moment of truth. Friday will mark the 60th day since President Obama told Congress of his Libyan campaign. According to the act, that declaration started a 60-day clock: If Obama fails to obtain congressional support for his decision within this time limit, he has only one option — end American involvement within the following 30 days.
Obama has not only failed but he hasn’t even tried — leaving it to Sen. Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, to call for a “specific resolution that would give [the president] authority.” Neither the president nor the Democratic congressional leadership has shown any interest. They have been sleep-walking their way to Day 60.
Obama’s politics of silence contrast sharply with clear and consistent legal pronouncements of the executive branch. Richard Nixon vetoed the act in 1973, precisely because it imposed restraints on presidential warmaking. But two-thirds of both houses of Congress overrode his veto, and the presidency soon fell into line. Jimmy Carter’s Justice Department expressly affirmed the constitutionality of the 60-day clock in 1980 — and its verdict has not been challenged by executive-branch lawyers.
Obama has continued this tradition. His March 21 letter to Congress telling of the Libyan campaign stated that it was “consistent with the War Powers Resolution.” And his Justice Department issued an opinion that acknowledged the 60-day rule without questioning its constitutionality.
Why, then, hasn’t the president been pressing Congress to approve the war before the looming deadline? Because it’s easier to paper over the problem with new legal fictions pretending that the time limit doesn’t apply to this instance. By Friday, the administration’s legal team is likely to announce that the clock stopped ticking on April 1 — the date when NATO “took the lead” in the bombing campaign. Since NATO is running the show, the argument will go, the War Powers Act no longer applies, and the president doesn’t have to go back to Congress after all.
But American planes and drones continued their bombing long after the April turnover — and the drones are still flying over Libya. Since the cost of the mission is at three-quarters of a billion dollars and climbing, it is sheer fiction to suggest that we are no longer a vital player in NATO’s “Operation Unified Protector.”
This is especially so when an active-duty American officer remains at the top of NATO’s chain of command. As supreme allied commander, Adm. James Stavridis “leads all NATO military operations.” While a Canadian air force general, Charles Bouchard, is in charge of the Libyan campaign, the buck doesn’t stop with him but with Stavridis, who also reports to the Pentagon as head of the U.S. European command. Even if American drones discontinue their operations before the deadline, an American admiral will still be in a position to call the shots.
This is no accident. NATO has been a key vehicle for American military interests since the 1950s. It would create a terrible precedent to pretend otherwise. Once Obama crosses the Rubicon, future presidents will simply cite Libya when they unilaterally commit America to far more ambitious NATO campaigns.
Make no mistake: Obama is breaking new ground, moving decisively beyond his predecessors. George W. Bush gained congressional approval for his wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bill Clinton acted unilaterally when he committed American forces to NATO’s bombing campaign in Kosovo, but he persuaded Congress to approve special funding for his initiative within 60 days. And the entire operation ended on its 78th day.
In contrast, Congress has not granted special funds for Libya since the bombing began, and the campaign is likely to continue beyond the 30-day limit set for termination of all operations.
Since the House of Representatives is out of session this week, Congress can’t approve the operation before the Friday deadline. But under the expedited procedures specified by the act, speedy congressional approval is feasible next week.
If nothing happens, history will say that the War Powers Act was condemned to a quiet death by a president who had solemnly pledged, on the campaign trail, to put an end to indiscriminate warmaking.
Whoever is doing the comparison should read this; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/09/AR2010070904926.html?hpid=moreheadlines
Yep, I'll bet those Nazi concentration camp prisoners loved it so much where they were at, they were kicking and screaming when the Allies liberated them. Sure they were.
I'm taking a break. It's gotten so I dread going online because I'll be cutting and pasting information found about yet another military member killed. It's wearing me out.
If that makes me a candyass, fine. So be it.
So the posts will be suspended for a bit. No longer than necessary but for a bit.
How do the military representatives who notify the families manage to do it as a routine duty?
I've mentioned in the past how our troops are hamstrung by idiotic "rules of engagement". Below is an excerpt from an interview done with a correspondent who witnessed them firsthand. Found this at www.npr.org via Drudge;
RENEE MONTAGNE, host:
Next, we have a story that underlines the difficulty of fighting a war amid a civilian population. It's the story of U.S. Marines who had Afghans in their gun sights, Afghans who looked like they might be planting a bomb. The Marines had to decide whether to pull the trigger. Their decision says a lot about the rules of war against insurgents in Afghanistan.
NPR Pentagon correspondent Tom Bowman watched the story unfold during a recent visit to the country, and he joins us now to talk about it. Hello.
TOM BOWMAN: Hi, Renee.
MONTAGNE: Now the rules of engagement have changed lately for troops in Afghanistan.
BOWMAN: That's right. General Stanley McChrystal, the overall commander there, tightened up these rules on when soldiers can fire. And he did this because there was - there were too many civilian casualties in Afghanistan. But this all illustrates the basic dilemma for U.S. troops. They want to kill insurgents who are trying to kill them, but their job is to make sure they only fire when they're very sure of their targets.
MONTAGNE: So, Tom, tell us what it was that you saw?
BOWMAN: Well, Renee, we were in this combat outpost down in southern Afghanistan, in the Helmand River Valley, and we were inside this center, a command center, watching a video screen. They were watching live while these guys were digging a hole for a roadside bomb. And there were other indicators, too, besides digging the hole. There was a guy swimming across a canal with this wire, and the wires are used to detonate the bomb.
Unidentified Man #1: I have two guys on the west side of the cow buoys(ph) running wires across the canal to the west side, where a (unintelligible) an IED the other day. So, they're watching them right now.
BOWMAN: There were a couple of guys keeping watch and stopping traffic. And the Marines were intercepting a radio call from these suspected insurgents while they were doing these other activities.
MONTAGNE: And on the radio, they were saying we're planting a bomb?
BOWMAN: And on the radio they were talking about planting a bomb.
MONTAGNE: So from the Marines perspective, the Afghans really did appear to be insurgents. So what did they do?
BOWMAN: Well, they felt comfortable. They had all the indicators that these guys were insurgents planting a bomb. So they thought about using a machine gun to shoot these guys. There was another combat outpost not too far away. The problem was there was a compound of houses between where the Marines were with their machine gun and the guys planting the bomb.
So then they decided to bring in the helicopters and use the machines guns and the helicopters to shoot these guys. As the helicopters came in, these guys look up in the air and start walking away. One of the guys was carrying a yellow jug - and that's become the icon of the roadside bomb. They mix fertilizer and diesel fuel in this, and that becomes a part of the bomb. And then we saw one of these guys throw this jug into a haystack.
Unidentified Man #2: And hiding the jug into the hay pile right now, and then are walking near the open field, so just wait until�
BOWMAN: And they were gone. It was all over. They could no longer shoot at them.
MONTAGNE: So why didn't they shoot at them?
BOWMAN: Well, they thought that they were still too close to this compound of houses to allow these helicopters to use their machine guns to shoot, so they decided against it.
MONTAGNE: So, in being very, very careful about shooting at what they absolutely believed to be insurgents, they ended up, in effect, losing these guys. How did that make them feel?
BOWMAN: Well, they weren't happy at all. And some of them stormed out of this command center. And we talked with one of them afterwards. This is Lieutenant James Wendy(ph).
Lieutenant JAMES WENDY (U.S. Marines): There's no way that anyone other than the enemy would've been injured.
BOWMAN: So, why weren't you allowed to shoot?
Lt. WENDY: Honestly, I don't know. I'd like to say I wish we could play by the big boy rules, you know, but, you know, it's just the way it is. And if I had known how frustrating it'd be and was able to better prepare myself for that mentally, I think that maybe I would've been better off.
MONTAGNE: What about the military leaders? Is it reaching the top? Are they hearing these complaints about these rules of engagement that are so restrictive?
BOWMAN: You know, they are hearing these complaints. And I had a few minutes this week with their overall commander, General McChrystal, and I told him the same story, Renee, I told you. And I asked him about the rules of engagement. Here's what he had to say:
General STANLEY MCCHRYSTAL (U.S. Commander, Afghanistan): I've been at this a long time now, since 9/11, and there were a tremendous number of times when I've seen activities done, which, on the surface of what was seen, looks exactly one way, looks completely convincing. And then in the aftermath, what you saw was incomplete. In fact, what we find is civilian casualties who are unarmed civilians.
I think when we err on the side of maturity and caution, there is a cost. And I know that we're asking an extraordinary amount from them to operate with such restraint and self-discipline, but I think it's how we win the war.
BOWMAN: So, that being said, there's still a widespread frustration among the troops, of feeling that their hands are tied in going after insurgents.
MONTAGNE: NPR's Pentagon correspondent Tom Bowman. Thanks very much.
BOWMAN: You're welcome, Renee.
(Soundbite of music)
MONTAGNE: You're listening to MORNING EDITION from NPR News.
You can bet those "insurgents" will return to fight/kill Americans another day. Then blogs like mine will be listing the casualties under a "R.I.P." heading. This is no way to win a war. I normally don't participate in armchair quarterbacking but when something is blatantly fubar it's a different story.
The comments made by the Marine lieutenant are significant. I admire his restraint.
As I understand it he said we'll fight to "break the momentum" * of the Taliban. At least for another 18 months.
What a steaming crock of shit.
How would a grunt on the ground feel about that one? "Hey buddy, go risk your neck and hopefully in a year and a half when we leave it'll have been worthwhile."
Riiigghhttt. Noted. That sort of "appreciation" will do wonders for our military's morale.
If this is the best he can do in the way of commitment then just pull the damned plug and bring the troops home. No American life is worth risking for such a load of bullcrap.
And nowhere was the word "victory" used or strongly implied.
*Could someone tell me just what the hell THAT means?
Name: Army Chief Warrant Officer 2 Earl R. Scott III
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age: 24
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jacksonville, Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assigned to the 2nd Squadron, 6th Cavalry Regiment, 25th Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, Schofield Barracks, Hawaii
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incident: Army Chief Warrant Officer 2 Earl R. Scott III died Nov. 8 in Tikrit, Iraq, of injuries sustained when his OH-58D helicopter crashed. Also killed was Chief Warrant Officer 2 Mathew C. Heffelfinger.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Died: November 08, 2009
I'm too riled about that subject to post anything right now. I'll be getting back to the topic in a few days.
What a steaming crock of shit;
The White House said Wednesday that it was "possible" that President Barack Obama would decide whether to send thousands more US troops to Afghanistan before the runoff election on November 7.
"It is certainly possible," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said, when asked whether the troop decision could come before the second election between Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his top challenger Abdullah Abdullah.
Found it on Breitbart.
That's it, "possible"?
Hey B.O., thanks for taking care of the troops. Hope it didn't interfere with your stinking perennial campaigning and constant trash talking of the Bush Administration.
What a jerk.
"Possible". I wonder if it's "possible" the American people will ever wake up and realize those are real men and women over there. Actual Americans who are serving this country for no other reason than patriotism. They deserve more than "possible". They deserve the best and fullest support they can get.
That entails a full commitment to victory and the guts to follow through. Part of that is getting rid of "rules of engagement" that effectively tie their hands behind their backs (one example being the prohibition of razing any mosque that is known to be stockpiling weapons and material for the enemy).
Shit, it's Viet Nam all over again. America is at the mall while the military is at war.
While reading this article I ask viewers to remember the hue and cry raised a few years ago over inadequate armor on the underside of troop vehicles in Iraq. Seems the troops aren't so important to these lawmakers now.
U.S. troop funds diverted to pet projects
Shaun Waterman THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Senators diverted $2.6 billion in funds in a defense spending bill to pet projects largely at the expense of accounts that pay for fuel, ammunition and training for U.S. troops, including those fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to an analysis.
Among the 778 such projects, known as earmarks, packed into the bill: $25 million for a new World War II museum at the University of New Orleans and $20 million to launch an educational institute named after the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat.
While earmarks are hardly new in Washington, "in 30 years on Capitol Hill, I never saw Congress mangle the defense budget as badly as this year," said Winslow Wheeler, a former Senate staffer who worked on defense funding and oversight for both Republicans and Democrats. He is now a senior fellow at the Center for Defense Information, an independent research organization.
Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, called the transfer of funds from Pentagon operations and maintenance "a disgrace."
"The Senate is putting favorable headlines back home above our men and women fighting on the front lines," he said in a statement.
Mr. Wheeler, who conducted the study, compared the Obama administration's requests for funds with the $636 billion spending bill that the Senate passed. He discovered that senators added $2.6 billion in pet projects while spending $4 billion less than the administration requested for fiscal 2010, which began Oct. 1.
Mr. Wheeler said that senators took most of the cash for the projects from the "operations and maintenance" or O&M accounts.
"These are the accounts that pay for troop training, repairs, spares and supplies for vehicles, weapons, ships and planes, food and fuel," Mr. Wheeler said.
Raiding those accounts to fund big-ticket projects the military does not want, but that benefit senators' home states or campaign contributors, amounts to "rancid gluttony," he said.
The administration's budget requested $156 billion for the regular O&M account and $81 billion for O&M for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill passed by the Senate cut $2.4 billion from the regular account and $655 million from the war O&M fund.
Senate appropriators insisted that the O&M accounts, despite the cuts, do not shortchange the troops.
"The operation and maintenance title is fully funded," Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel K. Inouye, Hawaii Democrat, said during the debate on the bill. "There is no shortage. ... The committee is deeply concerned that the critical operational needs of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are met with the finest equipment available."
Money for the Kennedy Institute was inserted by Mr. Inouye and Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat. Sen. Mary L. Landrieu, Louisiana Democrat, and Sen. David Vitter, Louisiana Republican, sought the funding for the World War II museum.
Whitney Smith, a spokesman for Mr. Kerry, said the earmark was "a worthy investment."
"Sen. Kennedy served on the Armed Services Committee for 27 years, where he fought to deliver top-of-the-line body armor and armored Humvees to protect our troops and save lives. Educating Americans about these battles is a core mission for the Edward M. Kennedy Institute, which showcases one senator's ability to make a difference," Mr. Smith wrote in an e-mail. "This funding will help the Edward M. Kennedy Institute become one the nation's pre-eminent civic educational institutions, and Sen. Kerry is proud to have worked with Chairman Inouye to make it possible."
Mrs. Landrieu said she was "proud to fight" for money for the World War II museum, which is not just a "monument to the brave men and women who served during World War II," but also "a constant reminder to future generations about the tremendous sacrifice of millions of Americans." She added that the earmarked funds "will help to increase tourism to New Orleans."
Beyond those two earmarks, the largest in the Senate bill are:
- $20 million for Humvee maintenance at an Army National Guard installation in Maine, sponsored by Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe, Maine Republicans. The senators said cuts in the maintenance program proposed by the administration would result in the "layoff of 175 employees in a region already suffering" from the recession.
- $20 million for the Maui Space Surveillance System in Hawaii, requested by Mr. Inouye.
- $25 million inserted by Mr. Inouye for the Hawaii Federal Health Care Network. Mr. Inouye's Web site says the health care program "supports applied research, development and deployment of technology to improve access and the quality of care to service members, military families and impacted communities."
Laura Peterson, of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan spending watchdog, told The Washington Times, "Earmarks like these take money away from other defense programs that the Defense Department actually wants. While military health care is certainly a worthwhile venture, it's hard to see how a program located in Hawaii that openly favors Hawaii-based industries guarantees [the Department of Defense] the best value for such an exorbitant price tag."
Mr. Inouye had a total of 35 earmarks worth more than $206 million in the final bill, and the ranking Republican on the committee, Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi, sponsored 48 worth $216 million.
Mr. Cochran defended earmarking as part of Congress' responsibility to direct government spending.
"I am not ready to cede the power of the purse to any administration," he told The Times in an e-mail. "It is vested by the Constitution in the Congress." He added that appropriators had "reviewed the budget request very carefully, conducted public hearings and reported the appropriation bills that the committee thinks will serve the public interest."
In addition to the $2.6 billion in earmarks, the bill includes $2.5 billion for 10 Boeing C-17 cargo planes that the military says it does not need, and $1.7 billion for an extra DDG-51 destroyer not requested in the Pentagon's budget proposal.
Mr. Coburn mounted a rear-guard action on the Senate floor to try to restore some of the money to its original purpose. One proposed amendment restored $100 million to the accounts by correcting the economic projections used in the bill to estimate future costs. That passed, but other amendments to prevent the use of O&M money to fund earmarks were soundly defeated.
Mr. Wheeler said senators had raided O&M accounts to pay for narrowly targeted projects in every budget since 2002, with dire results for troops on the front lines.
"Air Force and Navy combat pilots training to deploy are getting about half of the flying hours they got at the end of the Vietnam War," he wrote in his analysis. "Army tank crews get less in tank training today than they did during the low-readiness Clinton years."
Mr. Wheeler told The Times that the figures were drawn from the Pentagon's budget justification.
Mr. Coburn said in May that the Navy had been forced to curtail at-sea training and flying because of a shortfall in 2009 O&M funds.
The White House Office of Management and Budget has called on lawmakers to reverse the cuts.
"These reductions would hurt force readiness and increase stress on military people and equipment," the agency said.
The House approved its version of the bill in July. Ms. Peterson said that lawmakers still could restore the funding in the conference that reconciles the two versions of the bill.
The conference "presents a final opportunity for Congress to take their hands out of the cookie jar and put some dough where it's really needed - protecting our fighting men and women," she said.
For years now, the troops have been used as nothing more than chips in a political game. Congressional representatives howled like banshees over perceived negligence regarding the aforementioned vehicle armor. The MSM has displayed their returning caskets for no other reason than to score points against Bush, if this wasn't so they'd still be pushing for the "right" to do it. During the Bush years we were treated to horror stories regarding multiple deployments and their effect, heard anything like that since Jan. 20? I certainly haven't. Cindy Sheehan and her ilk were almost nightly staples on the news up till the start of this year, did they pull up stakes and all go home?
If any other section of our society was used/abused in this manner you can bet the self-styled "elites" would be singing like the Temptations. But the feeling is the same as it's always been regarding the military, i.e. "Screw 'em".
Proving that it isn't a new sentiment, here's a bit of Kipling;
Name: Air Force Senior Airman Matthew R. Courtois
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age: 22
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Lucas, Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assigned to the 366th Security Forces Squadron, Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incident: Air Force Senior Airman Matthew R. Courtois died Sept. 20 as a result of a nonhostile incident on Abdullah Al Mubarak Airbase, Kuwait.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Died: September 20, 2009
The following is from a Collin County website;
Collin County soldier killed in Kuwait
Sr. Airman Matthew R. Courtois, 22, of Lucas died Sunday, Sept. 20 "as a result of a non-hostile incident on Abdullah Al Mubarak Airbase" in Kuwait. Courtois served under the 366th Security Forces Squadron of the Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho, according to a released statement.
Master Sgt. Drew Leonhard of the Mountain Home Air Force Base said the incident that led to Courtois' death is currently under investigation by an investigation board and he could not release any details surrounding the incident.
"Airman Courtois was a valued member of our Gunfighter team," Browne said in a released statement. "Matthew's passing is a huge loss for Mountain Home Air Force Base and the Air Force. Our condolences go out to the family and friends of the Courtois'."
Courtois was on his second deployment to the region after arriving at the Mountain Home Air Force Base in July of 2007. Courtois, a native of Lucas, attended basic training at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas in December of 2006 after graduating from high school. He headed to the technical school at the Lackland base for the "Security Forces Apprentice Course" and reported to the Mountain Home Base in Idaho in June of 2007. He served as a security forces patrolman as part of the Security Forces Alpha Flight, 366th Security Forces Squadron, according to military records released by the Mountain Home base.
Courtois was deployed to the Bucca Air Force Base in Iraq as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom on June 10, 2007 where he served a full tour of duty until Feb. 10, 2008. He returned to the region as a response force leader and redeployed to Kuwait on July 25 in continuing support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, according to military records.
Found this at www.miamiherald.com via Insight Scoop;
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama vowed his unwavering support for the full gay rights agenda Saturday night, saying that he'll push Congress to repeal the ban on gays serving openly in the military.
He also said that he'll work to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as solely between a man and a woman, to guarantee that gay and lesbian couples get the same benefits as straight couples, and to ban anti-gay discrimination in the workplace.
"There are still laws to change and hearts to open," he told the annual dinner of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay-rights group. "This fight continues. And ... I'm here with you in that fight," he said to applause and cheers.
It's not an easy fight, he said, because questions of equal rights for gays and lesbians still "raise a great deal of emotion in this country." But he said "these issues go to the heart of who we are as a people."
He acknowledged that he hasn't delivered as fast as gay rights activists want.
"I appreciate your support," he said. "I also appreciate that many of you don't think progress has come fast enough. ... It's not for me to ask you to be patient," he said, any more than it was right for anyone 50 years ago to ask African-Americans to be patient.
Joe Solmonese, the president of the group, introduced Obama with praise for his commitment to the gay rights agenda.
"We have never had a stronger ally in the White House - never," Salmonese said.
But he added that many gays and lesbians are eager to see quicker results from a president who has long been on their side, and he noted that many will march in the capital on Sunday to demand action.
"This is ... a time of great impatience," he said, "and thousands will take to the streets of Washington tomorrow to express just that."
Obama insisted that some progress has been made on the gay agenda, noting last Thursday's vote in the House of Representatives to expand federal "hate" crimes laws to include additional penalties for crimes based on "sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability." The federal government now calls for tougher penalties in crimes motivated by a victim's race, color, religion or national origin.
"This bill is set to pass, and I will sign it into law," Obama said.
On the question of gays serving openly in the military, he said that he's working to end the "don't ask, don't tell" policy adopted in 1993 that allows gays to serve as long as they keep their sexual orientation secret.
"I will end 'don't ask, don't tell.' That's my commitment to you," Obama said, to loud applause.
Last year, more than 600 people were forced out of the armed services under the policy.
"We are moving ahead on 'don't ask don't tell." Obama said. "We should not be punishing patriotic Americans who've stepped forward to serve America ... especially at a time we're fighting two wars."
He said he's working with the Pentagon and congressional leaders to enact legislation repealing the policy, apparently referring to a bill introduced by Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Pa., that so far has 176 cosponsors.
Obama also put the White House squarely behind efforts to protect gays and lesbians from workplace discrimination. "Nobody in America should be fired because they're gay ... We're going to put a stop to it," he said.
For gay and lesbian couples, he said he's already ordered the federal government to grant as many of the benefits offered married couples as possible under current law. And he said he's prodding Congress to do more.
"I've called on Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage act and pass the domestic partners benefits bill," he said.
Despite his vows, Obama did not spell out how much political capital he would, or could, use to push the gay rights agenda at a time he's reworking the war strategy in Afghanistan, pushing for a health care overhaul and struggling to save a climate bill in the Senate.
"I understand the president has a crowded agenda, but I have been serving under this law for 16 years," said Air Force Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, before the speech. He's an Iraq war hero who is set to be discharged under the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy, and he went into the evening looking for a more solid commitment from the president.
"We have no doubt President Obama intends on correcting the mistake made in 1993 with the passage of DADT," said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the group. "But we've seen no action, and the clock is ticking. A clear timeline from this White House and Congress is urgently needed."
So let me get this straight (no pun intended); B.O. spends more time reassuring a bunch of clamlickers and fudgepackers they'll be taken care of than he did conferring face-to-face with the man running the war effort in Afghanistan. I'll assume this is the case since a dinner normally takes more than 25 minutes, which is the amount of time he could spare for General MacChrystal in Copenhagen.
Priorities, it's all about priorities.
I recall reading of how the Iraqi government was allowed to vote in a new constitution based on sharia law, this was a few years ago. At the time I thought, "This ain't smart." Seems I was right; Persecution of Christians Increasing in Iraq
IMO since we defeated the government of Saddam Hussein we had the responsibility to insure whatever took it's place was something other than a third world lashup. Sixty years ago we took over both Germany & Japan and made sure we could live with whatever leadership came to power. The inanity of being "sensitive" and "nonjudgemental" to the followers of the Pedophile Prophet in Iraq barred us from using such sanity again. With the results we now see. I honestly don't believe this would happen if we were driving that nation towards a more Westernized frame of mind about religious freedom and other liberties we take for granted here. It's all part of a package deal, the mindset of those leading the nation trickles down to the man in the street.
In addition to everything else, B.O. is now leading the charge for us to get out of that country. For some reason I'm reminded of how we boogied out of Viet Nam and left our former allies hanging high and dry.
I hope I'm wrong but it seems history is about to repeat itself.
I deliberately looked at the Drudge Report and Breitbart for anything regarding the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan tonight. Maybe my timing was off but I couldn't find a single thing. Not. One. Story.
This comes after reading our local fishwrap the past couple of weeks and seeing few if any stories in there regarding the war in these nations.
I wonder how the military feels, putting their lives on the line and getting the cold shoulder like that? How do their families take it?
What will the eventual outcome of this be? And there will be some unforseen consequences, look at how the vets returning from Viet Nam felt after the treatment they received. I'm not talking about the urban legends that have thousands of former servicemen from that time addicted to drugs, living on the streets, turning to crime, etc. That was all crap IMHO. But when you talk to anyone who served then, even those who never went overseas, it isn't uncommon to hear of hardened attitudes generated by the ingratitude of a highly vocal minority and their MSM sycophants.
At least during that time period some attention was paid to the troops, even if it was highly negative. This deafening silence would be much worse I'd think. The military is at war and America is at the mall, phooey!
So what will the seeds of neglect now sown reap for this nation in later years? Nothing good I think.
Found in the Dallas Morning News, written by columnist Steve Blow.
Even at Christmas, duty calls for departing service members
08:23 PM CST on Wednesday, December 24, 2008
We've all seen the daily celebration at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport to welcome soldiers returning home on leave.
But each day, another quieter, more somber sort of ritual also occurs at the airport as service members board an airplane carrying them back to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yes, every day. Even at Christmas.
"Christmas Day, just like any other day, 365 days a year," said U.S. Army Maj. Patrick McAfee,
who oversees military personnel movement at the airport.
So today, let's a pause a moment from our holiday festivities to remember those whose duty means leaving home at Christmas.
I really didn't need to ask Pvt. Johnny Cummings his feelings about being among those headed back on Tuesday. The forlorn look on his face said it all.
Pvt. Cummings, 19, is from Valley Mills, north of Denton. He waited on an airport bench with his father and grandfather beside him on the right and his arm draped around a pretty young lady on his left.
"It's really kind of sad," he said, "especially just being married."
Yes, he and the new Mrs. Kimberly Cummings decided on the spur of the moment to marry Dec. 15 while he was home on his 15-day leave.
A trip back to Iraq is definitely no honeymoon. And he won't be home again until October.
Parting this week was also tough for Pfc. Lorenzo Zesati. He found a quiet corner of the airport's
USO for a long, quiet phone talk with his wife, Michelle, back in El Paso.
Other service members killing time at the USO laughed at a standup comic on the big-screen TV. But Pfc. Zesati's thoughts were still of home, where his wife gave birth to their son one week ago.
"He's a big boy – eight pounds, five ounces," Pfc. Zesati said proudly. It will be August before he holds his son again.
The departing troops muster at noon each day in Terminal B. D/FW is the departure point for all service members west of the Mississippi, so most of them say their goodbyes to family at home airports.
But those living in the area bring family along for the farewell. Heather Tracy sat calmly beside her husband, Capt. Bob Tracy. They had driven up from Harker Heights in Central Texas.
Capt. Tracy is now serving in Afghanistan. A previous tour in Iraq was cut short by combat injuries to his right arm. "I had seven surgeries and they fixed me up, so here I go again," he said, sounding upbeat.
Ms. Tracy was more subdued but resolute. "This is what he wants to do, and I'm proud of him. So this is what I do," she said.
That businesslike approach seems to be the hallmark of these departures. Airport chaplains roam among the troops waiting to depart. Rarely do they encounter someone overcome by fear.
But that doesn't mean they don't hear some heartbreaking things. Chaplain Les Grounds said: "I had one man to pull at my coattails and say, 'Can we talk? My wife served me with divorce papers while I was home.' "
Sgt. Greg Thomas of Rialto, Calif., took a few moments to pray before the charter jet took off on Tuesday from D/FW International Airport. He and hundreds of other soldiers are returning to their units in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Others are just exhausted. "Some are on their third and fourth tours," said Chaplain D.D. Hayes. "These guys are tired. Their families are tired."
And yet they go, even at Christmastime.
Boarding began at 2:45 p.m. As always, those with family present were allowed to board last.
USO volunteer Joan Wright said: "That's the hard part – watching the families tell them goodbye. I tear up just talking about it."
Indeed, those long farewell hugs – a mix of love and fear – were wrenching to see. The soldiers put on strong faces and turned toward the departure door. Wives and mothers wiped back tears rolling down their cheeks.
As on every flight, a chaplain boarded the plane for a final parting prayer. "Our Heavenly Father, we want to say thank you for every one of these ladies and gentlemen that have committed their service to our country," Chaplain Grounds began.
With the prayer said, the jetway pulled back and the airplane door closed. At 3:15 p.m., the plane pushed back from the gate. Standing in the jetway, Maj. McAfee and his colleagues snapped into crisp salutes as the jet slowly crawled past them.
In the cockpit window, the flight captain returned the salute and the journey was begun.
Back to battle. Back to work. Christmas notwithstanding.
This AP sourced story was in our local fishwrap the other day. Instead of being on page one WHERE IT DAMNED WELL BELONGED, it was buried back in the "man-bites-dog" section".
FORT BRAGG, N.C. – Capt. Kyle Walton remembers pressing himself into the jagged stones that covered the cliff in northeast Afghanistan.
Machine gun rounds and sniper fire ricocheted off the rocks. Two rounds slammed into his helmet, smashing his head into the ground. Nearby, three of his U.S. Army Special Forces comrades were gravely wounded. One grenade or a well-aimed bullet, Capt. Walton thought, could etch April 6, 2008, on his gravestone.
By the end of the six-hour battle deep within the Shok Valley, Capt. Walton would bear witness to heroics that on Friday earned his team – two of them from Texas – 10 Silver Stars, the most for a single battle in Afghanistan.
Capt. Walton, of Carmel, Ind., and his team from the 3rd Battalion, 3rd Special Forces Group had been sent to kill or capture terrorists from a rugged Shok Valley that had never been penetrated by U.S. forces. Besides his team, there were two other Special Forces teams and a company from the 201st Afghan Commando Battalion.
The helicopters couldn't land on the jagged rocks in the valley, so the Special Forces soldiers and Afghan commandos dropped from 10 feet above the ground.
Staff Sgt. John Walding, of Groesbeck, Texas, and Staff Sgt. David Sanders, of Huntsville, Ala, led the way on a narrow path that zigzagged up the cliff face to a nearby village where the terrorists were hiding. Capt. Walton followed with two other soldiers and a 23-year-old Afghan interpreter who went by the name C.K., an orphan who dreamed of going to the U.S.
Sgt. Walding and Sgt. Sanders were on the outskirts of the village when Staff Sgt. Luis Morales, of Fredericksburg, Va., saw a group of armed men run along a nearby ridge. He fired. The surrounding mountains and buildings erupted in an ambush: The soldiers estimate that more than 200 fighters opened up with rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, machine guns and AK-47s.
C.K. crumbled to the ground.
Capt. Walton and Spc. Michael Carter, of Smithville, Texas, dove into a small cave. Staff Sgt. Dillon Behr couldn't fit, so the Rock Island, Ill., native dropped to one knee and started firing. An F-15 made a strafing run to push back the fighters, but it wasn't enough.
Sgt. Sanders radioed for close air support. The nearest house exploded; the firing didn't stop. "Hit it again," Sgt. Sanders said.
For the rest of the battle, F-15 fighters and Apache helicopters attacked.
Sgt. Behr was hit next – a sniper's round passing through his leg. Sgt. Morales tried to help his wounded comrade and kept firing until he, too, was hit in the leg and ankle.
Sgt. Walton and Sgt. Carter dragged the two wounded men to the cave. Staff Sgt. Ronald J. Shurer, a medic from Pullman, Wash., fought his way up the cliff to help.
Sgt. Walding made it to the cliff when a bullet shattered his leg. He watched his foot and lower leg flop on the ground as Capt. Walton dragged him to the cliff edge. With every heartbeat, a stream of blood shot out of Sgt. Walding's wound.
Capt. Walton was sure his men would be overrun. He sent Sgt. Sanders to find a way down. He found a steep path, then made his way back up.
Down below, Staff Sgt. Seth E. Howard, of Keene, N.H., took his sniper rifle and started climbing with Staff Sgt. Matthew Williams, of Casper, Wyo.
At the top, Sgt. Howard used C.K.'s lifeless body for cover and started to shoot. He fired repeatedly, killing as many as 20 attackers.
Master Sgt. Scott Ford of Athens, Ohio, organized a counter-assault. He was wounded in the arm.
All the Americans survived.
Months later, Sgt. Walding wants back on the team even though he lost a leg. Sgt. Morales walks with a cane.
The raid, the soldiers say, proved there will be no safe haven in Afghanistan for terrorists. As for the medals, the soldiers see them as emblems of teamwork and brotherhood. Not valor.
"When you go to help your buddy, you're not thinking, 'I am going to get a Silver Star for this,' " Capt. Walding said.
When the enemy shows up, he brings fighters. When the Americans take to the field, we send warriors. Army, Marine, Navy, Air Force, whatever, ours are the best. As such they deserve our support.
Or not.
Found this at military.com via the Lair of the Catholic Caveman.
FARAH PROVINCE, Afghanistan — In the city of Shewan, approximately 250 insurgents ambushed 30 Marines and paid a heavy price for it.
Shewan has historically been a safe haven for insurgents, who used to plan and stage attacks against Coalition Forces in the Bala Baluk district.
The city is home to several major insurgent leaders. Reports indicate that more than 250 full time fighters reside in the city and in the surrounding villages.
Shewan had been a thorn in the side of Task Force 2d Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force Afghanistan throughout the Marines’ deployment here in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, because it controls an important supply route into the Bala Baluk district. Opening the route was key to continuing combat operations in the area.
“The day started out with a 10-kilometer patrol with elements mounted and dismounted, so by the time we got to Shewan, we were pretty beat,” said a designated marksman who requested to remain unidentified. “Our vehicles came under a barrage of enemy RPGs (rocket propelled grenades) and machine gun fire. One of our ‘humvees’ was disabled from RPG fire, and the Marines inside dismounted and laid down suppression fire so they could evacuate a Marine who was knocked unconscious from the blast.”
The vicious attack that left the humvee destroyed and several of the Marines pinned down in the kill zone sparked an intense eight-hour battle as the platoon desperately fought to recover their comrades. After recovering the Marines trapped in the kill zone, another platoon sergeant personally led numerous attacks on enemy fortified positions while the platoon fought house to house and trench to trench in order to clear through the enemy ambush site.
“The biggest thing to take from that day is what Marines can accomplish when they’re given the opportunity to fight,” the sniper said. “A small group of Marines met a numerically superior force and embarrassed them in their own backyard. The insurgents told the townspeople that they were stronger than the Americans, and that day we showed them they were wrong.”
During the battle, the designated marksman single handedly thwarted a company-sized enemy RPG and machinegun ambush by reportedly killing 20 enemy fighters with his devastatingly accurate precision fire. He selflessly exposed himself time and again to intense enemy fire during a critical point in the eight-hour battle for Shewan in order to kill any enemy combatants who attempted to engage or maneuver on the Marines in the kill zone. What made his actions even more impressive was the fact that he didn’t miss any shots, despite the enemies’ rounds impacting within a foot of his fighting position.
“I was in my own little world,” the young corporal said. “I wasn’t even aware of a lot of the rounds impacting near my position, because I was concentrating so hard on making sure my rounds were on target.”
After calling for close-air support, the small group of Marines pushed forward and broke the enemies’ spirit as many of them dropped their weapons and fled the battlefield. At the end of the battle, the Marines had reduced an enemy stronghold, killed more than 50 insurgents and wounded several more.
“I didn’t realize how many bad guys there were until we had broken through the enemies’ lines and forced them to retreat. It was roughly 250 insurgents against 30 of us,” the corporal said.
“It was a good day for the Marine Corps. We killed a lot of bad guys, and none of our guys were seriously injured.”
The terrorists had 250 fighters, the USMC had 30 warriors. That was all the difference there needed to be.
