Posts Tagged ‘Marines’

America’s Disgrace-in-Chief Reveals His Naked Contempt For The Military He Just Sent To War

September 24, 2014

I don’t have words for such an act of disgrace:

Obama latte salute2.

I can only compare it to the same guy just a few weeks ago when he gave a speech about how heinous and evil Islamic State is after they had just beheaded an American on video for all to see. And then went golfing 8 minutes later and was seen yukking it up on the golf course.

It is widely agreed that it was those beheadings that ultimately forced Obama’s hand to stop ignoring the Middle East he had allowed to become a fiasco by doing NOTHING – and by making one false assurance after another that he had terrorists on the run – that forced America back into the war Obama took so much damn credit for getting us out of.

If you’re going to order men to war, you treacherous coward, the LEAST you can do is value your military more than your damn latte and pretend to show them the dignity and respect they deserve.

Update 9/25: As usual, the psychotic left that so rabidly despises George Bush is pointing to none other than George Bush to justify the behavior of their messiah Obama.  I mean, dude, if you think Hitler is a bad guy, DON’T POINT TO HITLER TO JUSTIFY THE BEHAVIOR OF YOUR HERO, OKAY?

I could jump on the horns of the dilemma and say that they both ought to be impeached, but it turns out that there are a few things that make these two salute situations very different.

The first is that Obama is carrying a latte cup while Bush is carrying his dog who is essentially a family member.  Which would you say is easier to toss into the trash on your way out of the plane?

NBC in its propaganda effort to protect their messiah Obama cited a picture of George Bush trying to salute with Barney in his arms says Bush.  They say that Bush should have put Barney on a leash.  Well, have you ever tried to walk a short-legged dog off the steps of an airplane ramp?  Unlike the coffee cup that could have and should have been trashed, SOMEBODY had to carry Barney off that plane.  And Bush did it himself rather than insult a Secret Service agent and have him carry the dog.

The second thing is that – despite the fact that Bush was carrying the larger and more awkward bundle of Barney versus Obama who only had a damn coffee cup in his hand, Bush STILL managed to salute with an empty right hand as the photo shows.  Which is to say that Bush came CONSIDERABLY closer to rendering a proper salute than Obama even though Bush had a much more substantial burden to carry than Obama had with his stupid coffee cup.

But it’s the third thing that makes the cake: when was the Bush photo taken?  It was taken on June 26, 2001.  Which is to say it was taken only five months into the Bush presidency and it was taken four months before America was attacked and President Bush found himself a president at WAR.  What was awkward, if not cute, prior to 9/11/2001 when America was attacked and Bush ordered the men who saluted him into war is rightly a national disgrace now.

This is similar to another of Obama’s grievous displays of his contempt for America.  George Bush loved playing golf.  But when the left attacked him for golfing while he was sending our sons and daughters into war, what did Bush do?  He had the character to stop golfing and never played another round during his presidency.  He sacrificed something he genuinely loved for the good of his nation.

Let’s look at that comparison, too.  Obama – as I already pointed out above – was on the golf course smiling and laughing only EIGHT MINUTES after describing the horror of beheaded journalist James Foley.  He was back on the course AGAIN within less than a day in spite of the deserved criticism for the round he had just played.  Then he later blamed the media for his “bad optics” as a man who pathologically refuses to accept responsibility for ANYTHING.  Obama is a man completely devoid of decency or integrity.  Since becoming president, in spite of the fact that he has been a president at war just like Bush was, Obama has played nearly 200 rounds of golf.  Compare that to professional golfer Tiger Woods, who has played 269 rounds of golf during the same period.  Obama’s behavior is not only a sick joke; it’s a national disgrace of a president who WILL NOT DO HIS JOB AND DO WHAT IS RIGHT FOR THE COUNTRY.

Obama had just ordered America back into war.  I mean, he had JUST ordered America back into war when he delivered this shame of a salute.

You tell me that the left wing media wouldn’t have gone bat-poop ballistic if Bush had given that disgrace of a salute with that damn coffee cup in his saluting hand if Bush had done that the day our military was fighting in Afghanistan after 9/11.

Could some propaganda hack show a picture of Bush golfing and then claim that Obama wasn’t doing anything Bush hadn’t done?  Yeah.  Their are plenty of “journalists” dishonest enough to do that.  Would those Goebbels hacks point out the differences that make Bush so much better than Obama it’s not even silly?  Absolutely not.

Who Won Last Night’s Debate? My View.

October 23, 2012

It’s rather interesting: in all four debates, no matter who was debating (Romney or Ryan versus Obama or Biden) or who the moderator was, somehow the Democrat was given more time four times out of four.

Now, I remember that Janet Jackson “wardrobe malfunction” that many people thought was very, VERY deliberate.  But here’s the thing: that was a one-off moment.  If Janet Jackson had done four Super Bowl halftime shows and had a “wardrobe malfunction” every single time, I don’t think most people would conclude anything OTHER than that it was very, VERY deliberate.  And for that very reason I can assure you that Obama-Biden getting more time in every single debate four times out of four was a very deliberate and intentional nod by the media to the Obama campaign.

I suppose there is ONE other possibility; and that is that both Barack Obama and Joe Biden are rude, nasty rat bastards and they simply interrupted their opponents and then kept talking and talking.  But that doesn’t explain why Obama got more time when everybody agrees the man was ANYTHING but aggressive.

And then you add Candy Crowley feeling that urgent need to take Obama’s side in that second debate and, well, when it comes to bias you ought to get the picture in crystal clear, high definition format.

As we enter tonight’s debate, we find that Bob Schieffer literally wrote the book on Ronald Reagan.  The title – Ronald Reagan and the Supporting Players Who Helped Him Create the Illusion That Held America Spellbound - ought to convey the arrogant liberal tone of the hit piece.  And Schieffer is also on the record for obsessing over what he demagogues as the GOP obsession.  So it’s not like he’s fair or objective anything.

So Romney starts out with that disadvantage of being a Republican right from the starting gate.  But nothing the media did stopped Romney from using the first debate to mop the floor with Obama’s face.  I mean, when you win a debate by fifty freaking points, you ought to be able to samurai-slice your opponent’s head off his shoulders at the end of the evening.

In the second debate, CNN’s post-debate poll said that Obama won the debate.  But if you actually looked at that poll, Romney won OVERWHELMINGLY on who would better handle the economy, who would better handle health care, who would better handle taxes, who would better handle the deficit and the debt, the answer was Romney across the board.  So unless you don’t care about the economy, or jobs, or debt, or health care, and all you want is a debator-in-chief, Romney won that second debate, hands-down.  And the clearly biased moderator couldn’t help Obama then, either.

I didn’t see  such a post-debate breakdown on issues in this third Obama-Romney debate.  But I do know that, like the second debate, a hardly overwhelming majority believed Obama won according to the CNN poll.

Frankly, I can see that.  Obama was considerably more aggressive, and “somehow” managed to get more time to talk, too.

Romney also could have been better, and after that pathetic first debate we all know that Obama could have been a whole hell of a lot worse.

I’ve got a theory on the debates that seems to fit the facts: namely, the guy in the biggest trouble is the one who comes out the most aggressively.  When Obama came out in debate #1, he had an overwhelming lead in both the national and the swing-state polling.  And Obama apparently decided he didn’t need to show up.  That debate changed the political universe such that in the second debate, it was Obama who was behind and damn he needed to come out and perform or the Romney landslide from debate #1 was going to roll right over his presidency.  The polls didn’t budge, and if anything Romney’s momentum had increased to the point where he went into debate #3 with a six-point lead according to Gallup.  For the record, that Gallup Romney lead is THE most dominent since 1968.  And so sure as shooting, a desperate Obama came out aggressively and ready to be nasty.

I submit that Romney could have won the debate and lost the election if he had focused on being “more aggressive.”

Why would I say that?  Well, there’s a movie I remember called “Poltergeist 2.”  The evil ghost is the Reverend Henry Kane.  He had convinced his followers that the world was going to end, buried them in a cave, and then wouldn’t let them leave to see if his prediction had turned out right such that they all died in their little hell-hole.  That’s basically how Obama wanted to present Mitt Romney: in the guise of, “If you elect my opponent, he will push the nuclear button and start World War 3 and kill you all.”

Romney did not fall for that trap.  He stayed away from being the warmongering ogre that Obama falsely tried to depict him as being.

What Romney DID need to do he accomplished: he presented himself as a man whom the majority of Americans could see as commander-in-chief.  He had to show that he knew enough to be commander-in-chief; he had to show that he wasn’t a warmonger; and he had to appear presidential.  I would argue that he succeeded on all three fronts.

What did Obama have to do?  He had to shatter Romney’s momentum.  And while the next five days will decide rather than me, I submit that Obama failed to do that.

And so the winner is Mitt Romney.

There were other things: Obama’s nastiest and I would say most petty line of the entire evening was when Obama lectured Romney:

“We also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s  changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on  them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.”

Well, the Marines still train with and use the bayonet (as I did as a soldier in the Army):

It’s too damn bad that Obama was too damned ignorant and self-absorbed to send some bayonet-equipped Marines to Libya so they could have saved the lives of our ambassador and the three other Americans who were murdered.

Aand you know what?  Our soldiers still do plenty of horseback riding too, it turns out (and see also here).  Well, and here:

Which is another way of saying pretty stupid fricking analogy, Obama.  And given that Obama himself was so completely IGNORANT of the military as president that he once repeatedly used the term “corpse man” to refer to a Navy medic, I don’t think his asanine arrogant tone has much virtue.

Obama claimed that he didn’t have anything to do with sequestration, that it was all Congress’ idea.  But Bob Woodward – you remember the award-winning journalist who brought down the Nixon administration? – says wrong, Barry Hussein:

“At 2:30 p.m. Lew and Nabors went to the Senate to meet with Reid and his chief of staff, David Krone. ‘We have an idea for the trigger,’ Lew said. ‘What’s the idea?’ Reid asked skeptically. ‘Sequestration.’ Reid bent down and put his head between his knees, almost as if he were going to throw up or was having a heart attack. He sat back up and looked at the ceiling. ‘A couple of weeks ago,’ he said, ‘my staff said to me that there is one more possible’ enforcement mechanism: sequestration. He said he told them, ‘Get the hell out of here. That’s insane. The White House surely will come up with a plan that will save the day. And you come to me with sequestration?’ Well, it could work, Lew and Nabors explained. What would the impact be? They would design it so that half the threatened cuts would be from the Defense Department. ‘I like that,’ Reid said. ‘That’s good. It doesn’t touch Medicaid or Medicare, does it?’ It actually does touch Medicare, they replied. ‘How does it touch Medicare?’ It depends, they said. There’s versions with 2 percent cuts, and there’s versions with 4 percent cuts.” (Bob Woodward, The Price Of Politics, 2012, pp. 326)

Jack Lew and Rob Nabors both work for the Obama White House.  And sequestration was all their - and therefore all Obama’s – idea.  It’s just so fitting that the lying weasel-in-chief would try to disavow that.

In another highly contentious moment, Obama was the liar and Romney was the truth teller.  Romney was correct about his statement that he did in fact argue that the government should have a role in helping the auto companies in bankruptcy.

WHEN Is This Evil Clown Going To Be Done Destroying America? With An Ambassador Murdered, Obama Plans To Cut $131 Million From Embassy Security

September 17, 2012

This is just so far beyond nuts I have nothing to say aside from letting the story speak for itself:

Obama to Cut 131 Million Dollars from Embassy Security
Posted by Daniel Greenfield on Sep 16th, 2012

You have to give Obama credit, this is a man who knows how to deal with a crisis. Some nut like Mitt Romney would run around shooting Muslims from the hip, but Obama meets with his advisers and dutifully studies ways to make each and every crisis that much worse. Because that’s what good government is.

Obama’s Sequestration Plan Would Cut $1.084 Billion From The State Department’s Diplomatic And Consular Program, Including $2 Million For The Protection Of Foreign Missions And Officials, And $129 Million For Embassy Security, Construction, And Maintenance. (“OMB Report Pursuant To The Sequestration Transparency Act Of 2012,” Office Of Management And Budget, pp. 135-136, 9/14/12)

Err what do embassies need security for anyway? What are the real odds of a bunch of Muslim Jihadists deciding to carry out a series of embassy attacks timed with September 11? Also who needs 20,000 Marines, let’s cut that money and put it into Solyandra and free condoms for Catholic schools.

But that’s okay. Stop looking at the negative and focus on the positive.

I know the images on our televisions are disturbing. But let us never forget that for every angry mob, there are millions who yearn for the freedom, and dignity, and hope that our flag represents. That is the cause of America – the ideals that took root in our founding; the opportunity that drew so many to our shores; and the awesome progress that we have promoted all across the globe.

There’s a silver lining for every cloud. For every Muslim who is burning an American embassy, there’s a Muslim yearning to move to America and bomb our bars, planes and Christmas tree lighting events.

Who needs security anyway?

Do you know who DOES get a full security detail?  Obama’s political adviser.  For the first time in history.  Because unlike Chris Stevens, Valerie Jarrett is trying to get Obama reelected.  And that makes her important.

I’m guessing that Ambassador Christopher Stevens would vote differently, if he could vote:

Fortuntely for Obama, Christopher Stevens can’t vote any more.  Because he’s too dead to vote.

He’s the first US ambassador to be murdered since … get ready for this: since the damn CARTER ADMINISTRATION:

Before Tuesday, five U.S. ambassadors had been killed in the line of duty, the last being Adolph Dubs in Afghanistan in 1979, according to the State Department historian’s office.

Because the lesson of history is that abject pathetic weakness invariably repeats itself.

An American ambassador who had been forced to flee American territory because there was no protection was raped before he was murdered.  Then his body was dragged through the streets in shame.  Not his shame – mine.  Yours.  America’s.

All of the above happened because Obama’s State Department rules banned the Marines from being in Libya.  Which was why all Ambassador Stevens had to protect him was magic unicorn fairy Obama messiah powder.  Like his country, he needed hope and change in the worst way and Obama failed to deliver.

But don’t worry.  Obama had his State Department working overtime to scrub their website of evidence of what a pathetic fool he is.  And the mainstream media worked even harder to demonize Mitt Romney for speaking out about what a gutless piece of filth Obama was instead of bothering to report any of the damn story.

Let’s Not Forget Who’s Most Important: No Marines for (Now) Murdered Ambassador In Hell Hole Libya, But A Full Security Detail for Valerie Jarrett Vacation

September 15, 2012

Puke alert time, better put on your raincoats:

No Marines for Libyan Ambassador, Full Security Detail for Valerie Jarrett Vacation
by Ben Shapiro
14 Sep 2012

Ambassador Chris Stevens did not have a Marine detail in Benghazi, Libya. But White House Senior Advisor and Obama confidante Valerie Jarrett has a full Secret Service detail on vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, according to Democratic pollster Pat Caddell.

That’s the pathetic foreign policy of the Obama administration, says Caddell today in an exclusive interview with Breitbart News. “Jarrett seems to have a 24 hour, around the clock detail, with five or six agents full time,” Caddell explains. “The media has been completely uninterested. We don’t provide security for our ambassador in Libya, but she needs a full Secret Service security detail. And nobody thinks there’s anything wrong with this. And nobody in the press will ask. What kind of slavish stoogery are they perpetrating here?

“This country has reached the point of absurdity. There are people dead because we don’t have security details for them. But she’s privileged to have a full Secret Service detail on vacation?”

Caddell points out that Americans are already unhappy with President Obama on foreign policy aside from the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Caddell, along with Republican pollster John McLaughlin, runs Secure America, a nonpartisan advocacy group. “We’ve just finished two polls coming out in the field today,” says Caddell, “but we already know that people feel strongly about Iran; they feel strongly about the administration’s policy with regard to Islamic extremists. They don’t like the Obama administration’s handling of these issues. And this election won’t only be about the economy. The American people aren’t stupid. They can walk and chew gum at the same time.” 

Caddell does reserve heavy criticism for the Republican establishment, which he believes has ignored foreign policy issues for far too long. “When three quarters of the American people believe Iran will give nuclear weapons to terrorists, you can see that Americans care about this issue. And people overwhelmingly believe that Obama’s sanctions policies will not work. The pronounced minority who disagree with those positions seem to be centered in the mainstream media – and ground zero seems to be at NBC and MSNBC.”

This is particularly obscene because even the evil and wasteful devil Bush did not give his Great Satan adviser Karl Rove a Secret Service detail:

President Obama has expanded the very small group of top aides who are given the privilege of taxpayer-funded personal drivers — who take them from their house to work and back home again each day — to include two top political advisers.

The Bush White House did not give the same privileges to any of its political advisers, according to former Bush administration officials. There is a record of the Clinton White House doing so once for two months, according to documents obtained by The Daily Caller.

Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod, both senior advisers to the president, have been given the luxurious and prestigious perk of being picked up at their homes and driven to work or around town throughout the day in government vehicles chauffeured by military drivers, according to a list of those given the benefit provided to The Daily Caller by the White House.

In addition, Jarrett has been made a “protectee” of the Secret Service, a spokesman for the agency said. It is not clear to what extent Jarrett receives protection. Neither the White House or Secret Service would comment on the matter.

“We don’t discuss the scope or nature of protection for any Secret Service protectee due to operational security concerns,” said Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan.

But except for a few weeks after 9/11, political advisers to Bush such as Karl Rove did not have Secret Service details with them except for the rare occasion where they gave a speech where protesters were expected.

Axelrod was given protectee status in the late summer of 2009, according to a blog written by a former Washington Post national security reporter. It is unclear whether he retains that status. Donovan declined to comment on Axelrod’s status.

Regardless, one knowledgeable source indicated that Jarrett has regular or semi-regular detail protection, which has left some questioning whether the close friend of the president’s, whose portfolio involves mostly outreach to the business sector and domestic policy, really needs the high level of security.

Okay, I’m going to quiz you now, and I’m warning you, it’s a tough question.  I say that because even our president wasn’t smart enough to answer it and he’s the most smartest man who ever lived.  Are you ready?

Which one of these people needed to have a security detail more:

Valerie Jarrett:

Or Ambassador Christopher Stevens:

Take your time now.  Like I said, this one COMPLETELY fooled your president.  Mind you, it might have been due to the fact that he’s skipped 62 percent of his daily intelligence briefings and just franklydoesn’t have a damn clue how to do his job.  They seem to have quit counting back in June after Obama had reached his 100th round of golf milestone, but do you have any idea how hard it is to keep your golf game sharp while endlessly campaigning?  Something damn well had to give.

And that’s why Obama was warned about this attack on the US Consulate in Libya a full 48 hours before it happened and did NOTHING:

According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and “lockdown”, under which movement is severely restricted.

And it is why Obama also skipped the daily intelligence briefing the next day after the United States Consulate in Libya was destroyed and Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans were murdered, you see.  Stuff like that just isn’t that important to Obama as compared to his campaigning and his golfing.

Oh, oh: 

There goes Mr. Creosote…

U.S. Marines Saying NO To Obama Fascism: And I TOLD You This Would Happen

March 22, 2012

The cover says it:

The accompanying review gives us more:

Sgt. Gary Stein might be saying things about President Obama that a lot of Marines think, but some are saying he took it too far.

Stein has come under fire for stating on Facebook that he wouldn’t follow certain orders given by his commander-in-chief. And Marines say Stein’s not alone in his disapproval. More anti-Obama talk is being heard in the workplace and new Military Times poll data shows declining approval among military service members for the president’s job as commander-in-chief.

The Marine Corps depends on its chain of command structure, especially in a time of war. Some Marines say Stein and other vocal Marines like him are undermining that system.

See this week’s issue for a breakdown on what is happening, what it means for the chain of command and what Marine’s are saying about it.

We’re told some of the reasons why:

The article cites hot button issues such as repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” relaxing restrictions of women in combat, and steep budget cuts, behind the disapproval numbers.

And what did I say would happen three years ago?

Messiah-in-Chief Barack Obama? Will Conservative Soldiers Stay In?

This is just idle speculation, but I wonder how many professional warriors would leave the military rather than take their orders from Commander-in-Chief Barack Hussein Obama?

Here are the poll numbers representing active duty military personnel:

If the presidential election were held today, for whom would you vote?
Total: 68% for McCain; 23% for Obama

Enlisted Personnel:
68% for McCain; 24% for Obama

Officers
70% for McCain; 22% for Obama

Which of the candidates would do a better job as president handling the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
74% for McCain; 19% for Obama

Which of the candidates would do a better job as president handling military personnel issues, such as pay and benefits?
73% for McCain; 18% for Obama

Which of the candidates would do a better job as president handling Defense Department issues, such as weapons purchases, the size of the armed forces and national security strategy?
77% for McCain; 15% for Obama

And here’s a link to the corresponding story in the Army Times.

I was a soldier, too. If a Barack Obama suddenly became my Commander-in-Chief, I would have realized the war is over, and America lost. I wouldn’t fight for the radical infanticide/abortion agenda, the radical gay rights agenda, or any other radical liberal agenda. I signed up to fight for the United States of America; not God Damn America. And I’d figure it’s about time that liberals sent their children off to die screaming in the mud for their new Peoples’ Socialist Republic under their new Messiah-in-Chief. Hell, instead of protesting military recruitment, these once-traitorous vermin (under the previous gone-but-not-forgotten United States of America) can quit protesting military recruiting stations and start actually signing up in them. That’s right, liberals; instead of bombing recruiting stations like Obama’s terrorist pal William Ayers you can go and start signing up to sacrifice your blood and guts for your new country.

Geez, I wonder if you’d stop bitching about how evil American soldiers were fighting terrorists all over the world if you actually had to do all the fighting yourselves? Heck, it’s possible it might even start to occur to you that a place like Guantanamo Bay is a better idea than releasing terrorists who will immediately start trying to kill you again the moment they get back to their old stomping grounds.

Heck, I’ve got an even better idea. Liberals have thought excluding gays from the military was so danged unfair and discriminatory. Why don’t we “swing the other way,” and have a “Gay All The Way!” military? Maybe – in the name of tolerance – you might allow a few token heterosexuals in as long as they don’t reveal that politically incorrect sexual orientation of theirs. It’s time to gear up for battle, Rump Rangers; you’re going to need to feed a lot of red meat into the grinder once the world’s dictators realize that the President of God Damn America is an appeasing weakling. You can use those superior compromising skills of yours to deal with Iran unleashing terrorist hell once your Messiah-President does nothing while Iranian President Ahmadinejad develops nuclear weapons so they can launch terrorism-by-proxy strikes on us with impunity.

The new God Damn America could augment its “Gay All The Way!” status with women who believe that being excluded from being able to do anything a man can do is discriminatory. They can start walking sustained patrols while carrying a hundred pounds of extra weight in 110 degree heat, and be the ones who try to keep all their body parts intact while running and dodging with fifty pound combat loads. Good luck with that, girls. The guys carry that; surely you can do it too. And don’t worry; you won’t have any heterosexual males around who would let that insulting and patronizing chivalry of theirs get in the way of your NOW-feminist-style equality. You’ll get the chance to develop that upper body strength of yours digging your own fighting positions out of the rock hard clay.

There’s already an upside: in the United States military, combat readiness has always been hampered by pregnancies that could run as high as 30%. The God Damn America military could drop that down to zero.

And the fighting men of the “Gay All The Way!” God Damn America Army could finally put an end to that tired old cliché about there not being in atheists in fox holes.

All I know is this: I look at the numbers of the conservatives serving in the military, and I can’t help but wonder – and even hope – that those conservatives start leaving the army of the nation that wants to start pissing on their basic values in droves. Let the liberals start doing the fighting. Conservatives have done most of the fighting; liberals have done most of the bitching. Maybe we conservatives could start bitching about how evil liberals are for trying to protect the country for a change.

With all due respect, as you look at what is happening with Obama’s planned-to-fail escalation of Afghanistan – because a timetable for withdrawal was never anything ever than a timetable to defeat – and as you look at our armed forces beginning to literally fall apart under the worst commander-in-chief in American history, just where exactly was I wrong three years ago?  I was completely right about the military disaster we would see; I was completely right about Obama’s failure to do one damned thing to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons and preventing the Armageddon the Bible said we would have; and I was right about soldiers becoming increasingly pissed off at this godawful miserable failure who is sticking his feet up on the Oval Office desk.  Just as I was right that the forcibly-homosexualized military would not go over well.

As a soldier who served with soldiers and led soldiers, I believed – and continue to believe – that I understand the military mindset.  And it continues to viscerally offend me what this smiling sack of cockroach feces has done.

Personally, I would have left as soon as possible after Obama became my CiC rather than watch him systematically destroy something that I loved.  But as I observed at the time, where are these warriors to go given the fact that Obama has given us a wrecked economy that will never create anywhere near the jobs we need as long as his depraved policies are in effect? 

And maybe mine was the coward’s way out, because I would have just slunk away and cut and ran from my Army.  And these NCOs who are standing their ground and trying to defy an immoral system that is breaking down all around them are the real heroes.

When Will The Mainstream Media Hold Barack Obama Responsible For Even A Fraction Of The Things They Demonized George Bush Over???

February 11, 2012

Think about how the media immediately tied George Bush to the scandal of the Abu Ghraib photos:

The New Yorker asked in its headline:

Torture at Abu Ghraib: American soldiers brutalized Iraqis. How far up does the responsibility go?

The Washington Post jumped on Bush, saying in its opening sentence:

A New Yorker article is raising uncomfortable questions for the White House about what President Bush knew about the horrific abuse at Abu Ghraib, when he knew it — and whether he and his top lieutenants bear more responsibility for it than they have acknowledged.

Slate’s title trumpeted:

Locked in Abu Ghraib: The prison scandal keeps getting worse for the Bush administration

Democratic Underground preserved an ABC piece with said title directly linking Abu Ghraib with Bush’s governance in Texas:

Prisoner Abuse Echoes: Texas Case Sheds Light on Abu Ghraib Scandal

Here is a title from the academic left:

`High crimes and misdemeanors': George W. Bush and the sins of Abu Ghraib

The media scolded the Bush administration for trying to claim it wasn’t responsible for the scandal:

When the Abu Ghraib abuse and torture scandal broke in April 2004, the Bush administration, including then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, blamed a few bad apples in one Army unit for acting without higher authority.

And then the media confronted Bush with “Does the buck stop with you or not?” to elicit a “confession”:

President Bush for the first time took a measure of responsibility for the 2004 Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq, during an interview with an Arabic TV network.
 
“Abu Ghraib was a terrible disappointment. And admittedly, I wasn’t there on the site, but I was the Commander-in-Chief of a military where these disgraceful acts took place that sent the absolute wrong image about America and our military,” Mr. Bush said. [...]

The Abu Ghraib scandal exploded in 2004 when photos and videos showing U.S. soldiers humiliating prisoners began to leak out and then were published by news organizations

Now, understand as to that last: what the hell was George Bush supposed to say???  Aren’t you ultimately responsible for this as the President?  Does the buck stop with you or doesn’t it, Mr. President?

The same mainstream media that crawled all over George Bush like stink on poop simply won’t ask Obama that question.

Think about Abu Ghraib: there were a handful of court martials.  The highest ranking officer involved received “non-judicial punishment” for dereliction of duty – which is to say his crime was in not paying enough attention to what was going on under him.  Does anybody truly believe that George Bush was “in” on the goings on within Abu Ghraib?  And the answer – as I documented – is that the media sure wanted you to think he was.

Here’s a couple – not one, but TWO – examples of Barack Obama’s “Abu Ghraib”:

Several weeks ago it came to the world’s attention that a number of Marine snipers were urinating on Taliban corpses.  I write about that here and will be repeating the essence of what I said about that episode in this article.

And now we have this pathetic instance in which Marines are posing with the Nazi “SS” symbol (as in the siegrune of the infamous Schutzstaffel who supervised the murders of 6 million Jews).

Here is the picture of the Marines under Barack Obama as the Commander-in-Chief:

Ten Marines, versus eleven soldiers involved in the Abu Ghraib fiasco.  And like Abu Ghraib, we’ve even got a picture.

Here is what a Nazi SS soldier looked like “back in the day”:

There is absolutely no question that men under the command of President Barack Obama are intentionally posing with the Nazi SS symbol that is so abhorrent that it is illegal to display in Germany today.

Where is the mainstream media blaming the Marines who urinated on corpses and the Marines who posed with the SS symbol on Obama???

The media would have erupted in OUTRAGE if these things had happened when George Bush was president.  We would have had

“stories” from the mainstream media until the public understood that this was truly all Bush’s fault.  These “stories” would have come from the highest levels of mainstream media, from ABC News, from the New York Times, etc, etc, etc.  As I document above.

Is Barack Obama a fascist?  You’re damn right he’s a fascist.  I can’t keep up with all of the incredible fascistic things this evil man is doing.  Right now Obama is engaged in a very “Hitler-like” war on the Catholic Church, on religious values and on the American Constitution.  And this right after being slammed down 9-0 for his previous fascist attack against religious freedom.

So where the hell is the mainstream media making the same linkages they made between Obama and his troops that they did with Bush and his troops???

“Hell” needs to be part of the answer: because the mainstream media today are propagandists on the same order that we same from Joseph Goebbels’ Ministry of Propaganda.

Why do we get this hypocritical double standard?

I cited this quote in my article on “the Marine pissers” that hits the nail right on the head:

Bush supported the troops. If the troops did something bad, it reflected on Bush and made him look bad. They were all in this together.

Obama despises the troops and keeps them at arms length. If the troops do something bad, it justifies Obama’s disdain and proves him to be correct in his policies.

Doesn’t that work out swell for the Left?

And since a picture is worth a thousand words, here is video that comes with my previous article “How Do Marines Feel About Obama?  When Silence Is Golden“:

So of course Barack Obama despises the military and can’t be held responsible for something he despises:

In refusing to hand Obama the blame for his “Abu Ghraib” the way they demonized Bush for his, the mainstream media that serves as the propaganda wing of the Democrat Party underscores the reality that Republicans and the military are justifiably connected to one another – and thus Republicans are responsible for the military – but that Democrats and the military ought not to have anything to do with one another. Such that you cannot blame a Democrat commander-in-chief for how the military ostensibly under his command behaves.

Barack Obama looks down on the military with abject contempt; and whereas bad conduct ought to reflect upon a Republican CIC, it merely serves to justify the contempt that Democrats feel for the armed forces of the United States of America.

That wasn’t always the case, of course.  But it most certainly HAS been the case since the late 1960s, with every single president from Jimmy Carter on being an abject slimebag.

Today, if you love your American flag, and if you honor your country on Independence Day, YOU ARE A REPUBLICAN.

Only a patriot can be blamed for what happens in the military, and therefore Barack Obama is exempt from blame.

Of course, that’s not all there is to it: the bottom line is that the same media that demonized George Bush for every single negative thing that happened during his presidency is the same media that is still demonizing George Bush for every single negative thing that is happening during the Obama presidency.

This nation cannot long survive the kind of outrageous lies that are being forced down our throats with a firehose by the mainstream media.

If The Media Were Objective Just Once: Marine Taliban ‘Pissers’ Ought To Be Obama’s Abu Ghraib

January 13, 2012

First of all, here’s the story of the Marines who urinated on Taliban corpses.

Hitting the nail right on the head:

Taliban Pissers are Obama’s Abu Ghraib
Free Republic ^ | 1/12/12 | Obam’s Fault
Posted on Thursday, January 12, 2012 6:56:42 PM by Mr. K

If Abu Ghraib was all Bush’s fault, then the the Taliban pissers are all OBAMA’s fault

And everyone in the chain of command on down, just like they blamed Bush.

The way the mainstream media covered the Abu Ghraib “scandal,” you would have thought that George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were the ones who were in all the pictures humiliating Iraqi prisoners.

It was simply an unfortunate incident that would never have generated “outrage” across the Muslim world had the media simply done what they would have done if they weren’t the treasonous rat bastards they have become and simply sat on the story as honorable American media would have done before liberals came to so completely own it during the 1960s and the Vietnam years.

But that’s not how the game is played today, is it?

One hitting the nail on the head moment is followed up by another as a commenter who calls himself ClearCase_guy says:

Bush supported the troops. If the troops did something bad, it reflected on Bush and made him look bad. They were all in this together.

Obama despises the troops and keeps them at arms length. If the troops do something bad, it justifies Obama’s disdain and proves him to be correct in his policies.

Doesn’t that work out swell for the Left?

Again, this is so true on so many levels.

As posted on my article, “How Do Marines Feel About Obama?  When Silence Is Golden“:

Many, MANY Marines justifiably have nothing but contempt for Obama.

And it turns out Barack Obama likewise has naked contempt for them and for all of our troops:

Report: Obama Sick And Tired Of Soldiers On Baghdad Visit
January 12th, 2012 (25) Posted By Pat Dollard.

Buzzfeed:

Michael Hastings’ new book, The Operators, jabs at what could be a vulnerable spot for the Obama Administration, the president’s relationship with the troops.

The book describes a visit to Baghdad:

After the talk, out of earshot from the soldiers and diplomats, he starts to complain. He starts to act very un-Obamalike, according to a U.S. embassy official who helped organize the trip in Baghdad.
 
He’s asked to go out to take a few more pictures with soldiers and embassy staffers.  He’s asked to sign copies of his book. “He didn’t want to take pictures with any more soldiers; he was complaining about it,” a State Department official tells me. “Look, I was excited to meet him. I wanted to like him. Let’s just say the scales fell from my eyes after I did. These are people over here who’ve been fighting the war, or working every day for the war effort, and he didn’t want to take fucking pictures with them?”

Pardon that State Department official’s “French”: Obama just rips it right out of the souls of decent people who cannot believe what a verminous weasel he is.

In refusing to hand Obama the blame for his “Abu Ghraib” the way they demonized Bush for his, the mainstream media that serves as the propaganda wing of the Democrat Party underscores the reality that Republicans and the military are justifiably connected to one another – and thus Republicans are responsible for the military – but that Democrats and the military ought not to have anything to do with one another.  Such that you cannot blame a Democrat commander-in-chief for how the military ostensibly under his comand behaves.

Barack Obama looks down on the military with abject contempt; and whereas bad conduct ought to reflect upon a Republican CIC, it merely serves to justify the contempt that Democrats feel for the armed forces of the United States of America.

This is nothing new for Democrats.  JFK and LBJ were the last two Democrats who were honorable patriots.

President Bill Clinton wrote of his “loathing the military” in his weaselling out of his obligation to serve his country.   When you read the letter that Colonol Holmes – who ran the University of Arkansas ROTC Department and who was the recipient of Clinton’s letter – note that this man who was in poor heath due to being a POW of the depraved Imperial Japanese – wrote of his fear of “the imminent danger to our country of a draft-dodger becoming Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States.”

And what happened as a result of that presidency?

Bill Clinton left George Bush with the massive Dotcom bubble collapse. That collapse that happened on Clinton’s watch wiped out 78% of the Nasdaq portfolio, and in fact vaporized more than 7.1 TRILLION DOLLARS in American wealth. And the ONLY reason we don’t talk about that – aside that too many in the media are just as biased and as stupid as you are, Smith – is that Clinton had also GUTTED the Pentegon and intelligence budget, leaving America both weak (Osama bin Laden called Clinton’s America “a paper tiger”) and blind. Clinton did to the CIA budget what he did to the Nasdaq – just wiped it out – and left us exposed to the 9/11 attack.

Osama bin Laden’s words in 1998 following the Clinton fiasco in Somalia where the US pulled out with its tail between its legs: “Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. … As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press…”

Here’s a little more about how we have Bill Clinton to thank for the massive 9/11 attack to go on top of his massive DotCom bubble collapse:

Author James Risen won the Pulitzer Prize on Tuesday for his much ballyhooed New York Times report last December that revealed President Bush’s previously secret terrorist surveillance program – a revelation he uncovered while researching his book “State of War.”

In the same book, however, Risen makes an equally explosive claim about President Clinton’s relationship with the CIA – which his editors at the Times have so far declined to cover.

Upon taking power in 1993, Risen reports, the Clinton administration “began slashing the intelligence budget in search of a peace dividend, and Bill Clinton showed almost no interest in intelligence matters.”

The agency cutbacks combined with presidential disinterest took their toll almost immediately.

“Over a three-or-four-year period in the early-to-mid 1990s,” reports Risen, “virtually an entire generation of CIA officers – the people who had won the Cold War – quit or retired. One CIA veteran compared the agency to an airline that had lost all of is senior pilots . . . “

After Clinton CIA Director John Deutch cashiered several senior officers over a scandal in Guatamala, the situation got even worse.

“Morale [at the CIA] plunged to new lows, and the agency became paralyzed by an aversion to high-risk espionage operations for fear they would lead to political flaps. Less willing to take big risks, the CIA was less able to recruit spies in dangerous places such as Iraq.”

And there’s the blindness that led to the 9/11 attack, combined with the fact that Clinton demonstrated to Osama bin Laden with the “Blackhawk Down” fiasco in Somalia that the U.S. was just “a paper tiger,” and ripe for a massive attack. That attack was planned, funded – and all the terrrorist assets were in the USA and even trained to fly in American pilot schools- during the Clinton misrule.

During the Bosnian War that followed, Bill Clinton displayed that “loathing the military” by so gutting it that flight crews had to cannibalize other jets and helicopters for parts just to continue flight operations.  It was deplorable.

The next Democrat to follow Bill Clinton was John Kerry.  There was this famous act of treason in 1971 when Kerry falsely demonized his “fellow” troops:

MATTERA: Do you think this crop of anti-war activists, do you there’ll be any frauds like Al Hubbard?

KERRY: I have no idea. I hope not.

MATTERA: Do you think that they will make slanderous accusations–accusing the troops of raping women, pillaging villaging, just like you did to the Fulbright committee?

KERRY: Uh, I didn’t make those.

MATTERA: You didn’t?

Audio clip, John Kerry, 4/22/71: [They told the stories at times] they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

Kerry claims Winter Soldier Investigations were substantiated by further investigation.

MATTERA: Did you ever verify those?

KERRY (crosstalk): I’ve been misquoted about that hundreds of times.

MATTERA: So you never substantiated those charges before you–

KERRY: I proposed–I gave them to the committee because I felt that they ought to be investigated and that’s exactly what I said. These are the–many of those charges, incidentally, were subsequently verified by different entities.

Slate: No criminal charges were filed as a result of any of the [Army’s Criminal Investigative Division] investigations into Winter Soldier.

Then there were all the lies Kerry told while he was in Vietnam to deceitfully make himself a “hero” and all the false claims he made when he got home:

Look at the letter that some 250 of John Kerry’s fellow Swift Boat veterans signed against him (to contrast with about a dozen Swift Boat veterans who support him). Their real outrage wasn’t over Kerry’s supposed “valor,” but rather against what he did when he came home. John Kerry willingly and publicly said of his own free will things that men like John McCain wouldn’t say even in the face of torture. And when John Kerry tried to defend his anti-American and anti-American-soldier statements by pointing to his record, the Swift Boat veterans demonstrated that he had misrepresented his record in provable ways beyond his infamous “Christmas in Cambodia” whopper.

Maybe John Kerry deserved all his decorations, and maybe he didn’t, but one thing is for sure: he did lie about several aspects of his record. And he was forced to publicly retract some of his most vitriolic statements as “the words of an angry young man.”

John Kerry had a paltry few men to testify about how honorable he was, versus a whopping load load of veterans who said he was unfit for command. Kerry literally resorted to trying to claim that men who were actually against him were for him.

A dozen of John Kerry’s Swiftboat “band of brothers” were for him versus two hundred and fifty who told the truth about him.  Here’s a representative sample of the type of character of those dozen “good” men:

John Kerry’s ‘Band of Brothers’ Includes Child Porn Pervert

John Kerry Enabler Stripped Of His Bogus Silver Star (Kerry’s Should Be NEXT)

John Kerry is a vile human being and a traitor to his country and to the United States military.

And then there is Barack Obama.

The Democrat Party continued to prove it is the party of treason in America with its deceitful opposition to the Iraq War (which 60% of Senate Democrats voted for, only to repudiate and claim Bush deceived them); its opposition to the Patriot Act; its opposition to Domestic Surveillance on calls from international terrorists; its opposition to Gitmo, even though it is the only reasonable place to hold these people that no country wants; its demand for full legal representation in civilian courts for terrorists; its opposition to even the reasonable use of profiling to weed out terrorists.  I could go on.  The facts since proved what treasonous piles of slime the Democrats were in opposing these things given how even Obama had to act when a Democrat actually had to GOVERN rather than simply treacherously backstab.  It boils down to the fact that the left despise anything that help us win the war on terror or protect us from terrorism.

Like John Kerry, the Democrats were for the war before they were against it.  Here is a display of the hall of shame that is the most prominent Democrats say-one-thing-then-lie-about-it betrayal of George Bush and of the nation at war he served as Commander-in-Chief:

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/bushlied.htm 
http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

… Just in case you wonder why I am so angry with Democrats and so angry with their propaganda wing a.k.a. the mainstream media.

Btw, it turns out that this isn’t the first time an American soldier urinated on a dead enemy “soldier.”

Thinking Of The 9/11 Tragedy. With Pride.

September 11, 2010

It’s been nine years.  But most Americans remember where they were when they first learned that a hijacked passenger jumbo jet had just slammed into the World Trade Center.

We also remember how we felt: the incomprehension, the shock, the fear and the anger.

A few moments stand out for me that give me pride to this day.

The Events That Took Place In the Skies Above Pennsylvania:

United Airlines flight 93 was a Boeing 757 on a morning Newark-to-San Francisco route. On 11 Sep 2001 the plane was hijacked by a four man hijacking team. Evidence suggests that the hijacking was apparently thwarted by the efforts of the plane’s passengers and flight attendants. The plane crashed southeast of Pittsburgh in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. The plan  was carrying 37 passengers and 7 crew members. There were no survivors.  Todd Beamer, a passenger, tried to place a credit card call but was routed to a customer service representative instead, who passed him on to supervisor Lisa Jefferson. She called the FBI. Beamer reported that one passenger was dead.  He asked if together they could pray the Lord’s prayer, which they did.  Later, he told the operator that some of the plane’s passengers were planning “to jump” the hijackers. The last words Ms. Jefferson heard from the plane were “Are you ready guys? Let’s roll.”  The plane crashed into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania at 10:03 AM, killing all aboard.  It is believed that this aircraft was intended to be crashed into the United States Capitol building in Washington, DC, Congress was in session at the time.

A shiver goes up my spine every time I try to visualize the raw courage of Todd Beamer and the beyond-heroic men and women who assisted him in taking back the plane so that it could not be used as a weapon against other Americans.  Even as they likely knew that they would surely die themselves.

I think particularly of Todd Beamer asking to pray with an operator whom he would never see in this life, and afterward that operator being able to recollect his last words, spoken to other passengers: “Are you ready guys?  Let’s roll.”

I feel pride.  and I pray, and hope, that I would have been like those heroes had I been on board that flight.

The Events Of The 343 Firefighters, Paramedics, And Police Officers:

As thousands of workers in the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center desperately fled down the stairs, there were heroes laboring their way up carrying their heavy gear.  Laboring up floor after floor, trying to make their way up to render aid when everyone around them was trying to make their way to safety.

Few if any of those men knew that they were climbing to their deaths.  But you know what?  I have a feeling that many of them would have kept on climbing even if they did know.  It was just who they were.

And on this day, I honor them.  And I’m proud of their sacrifice.

The Events On The Top Floors Of The World Trade Center:

One of the most vivid images in my mind was the footage of people in the top floors of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center throwing themselves out of windows to their deaths to escape the raging inferno within that dying skyscraper.  We can only imagine their horrific and terrorized desperation in facing the nightmare choice of a certain death by fire, or a certain death by fall.

In the months afterward, I watched a program putting these events into a spiritual context.  If my memory serves, it was R.C. Sproul who had the made the most memorable impression in my soul.

He spoke of 9/11 representing both the greatest evil and the greatest good in the world, of the evil of the terrorists, and of the love exhibited by those who perished as a result of their evil.

He described how he imagined the final moments of those who had been in the top floors, unable to escape the inferno.  He focused on the image of many of those who threw themselves out of the building: how they leaped to their deaths holding hands with their fellow workers.

I can imagine a crying, terrorized secretary, afraid to jump, but even more terrified of the terrible heat and smoke, and the approaching roaring flames.  And I imagine someone telling her, “Come with me.  Hold my hand.  We’ll go together.”

And amidst all that evil, they leaped.  Holding hands.

What love.

The image brings tears of sorrow, that so many such anonymous, but such wonderful, people, died that day.  But it also brings pride.

What would you do in that situation?  I hope if I had to go out like that, someone would be holding my hand.

The Events Of The President’s Visit To The Ground Zero Site:

Another vivid memory for me was President George Bush’s so-called “bullhorn moment” on September 14, 2001 as he visited Ground Zero following the attack.

I had joined my brother and his family and my parents in a restaurant which had a giant screen television.  And that’s where I saw Bush step up – literally – and say a very few, but now very famous, words:

As described by eyewitness and participant Karl Rove, who documented the scene in his book, Courage and Consequence:

Bush was hearing and seeing the rescue workers up close.  They were not shy about sharing their feelings.  These men were working on adrenaline and passion and, after three days and increasingly less frequent good news about survivors, they were nearly spent.  Pataki was right; the presidential visit was energizing for many of the people we met.  Bush later told me what he felt from the workers was deep, almost overwhelming anger, even hatred. [...]

There was a tug on my sleave.  It was Nina Bishop, a White House advance woman working the event.  She pointed to the chanting workers and said, “They want to hear from their president.”  No one had prepared remarks, but she was exactly right…

I pointed at the battered fire truck.  Andy [Card] made a beeline to the president.  Nina had commandeered a bullhorn from a man who worked for Con Ed and met me at the fire truck with it.  The bullhorn’s batteries weren’t that good, but it was all we had…

The president took the bullhorn and reached his hand up to the rescue worker, a retired sixty-nine-year-old firefighter named Bob Beckwith.  Beckwith looked down into the scrum below him, saw the outstretched hand, grasped, and pulled.  In an instant, Bush was sharing the top of the truck with Beckwith, who suddenly realized he’d helped up the president of the United States.  Beckwith tried to crawl down but the president asked, “Where are you going?”  Bob said he was getting down.  Bush said, “No, no, you stay right here.”

The cheers and chanting subsided and the president started to speak into the bullhorn.  With the National Cathedral prayer service still fresh on his mind, Bush began by saying, “I want you all to know that America today is on bended knee in prayer for the people whose lives were lost here, for the workers who work here, for the families who mourn.  This nation stands with the good people of New York City and New Jersey and Connecticut as we mourn the loss of thousands of our citizens.”  Someone yelled, “Go get ‘em, George!”  Someone else yelled, “George, we can’t hear you!” and others echoed this complaint.  Bush paused and then responded in a voice now fully magnified by the bullhorn, “I can hear you.”  The crowd went nuts – and he knew what to do from there.  “The rest of the world hears you,” he went on, “and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon.”  The crowd broke into defiant, even bitter, chants of “U.S.A.!  U.S.A.!”  Bush handed the bullhorn off and he climbed down.

In an iconic moment, George Bush was very much alone with an enormous responsibility.  The nation wanted reassurance; it wanted to know it had a leader who understood the mission America now faced.  No speechwriters, no aides, no advisers were involved in Bush’s response.  It was an authentic moment that connected with the public in a strong, deep way.  Without assistance and in an instant, George Bush gave voice to America’s desires.

Seeing President Bush hop up on that busted truck and stand shoulder to shoulder with a weary firefighter is a sight forever etched in my mind, and for many it remains one of the most inspiring scenes from the terrible events of 9/11.  Presidential historian Douglas Brinkley’s assessment of Bush’s visit to Ground Zero was prophetic: “We can’t just judge him as President Bush anymore, but we’re going to soon be judging him as commander-in-chief.”

Karl Rove, Courage and Consequence, pp 277-279

President George Bush was at his finest moment when the country needed him the most.

The Events Of Our Very Greatest Americans: The Congressional Medal Of Honor Recipients:

Our soldiers are all heroes, these days.  You don’t volunteer to serve in today’s military without realizing that you may very well be called upon to serve in a combat zone.  And with terrorism and the tactics used by terrorist fighters, anyone can suddenly find himself or herself on the front lines.

I’ve marveled at our soldiers and Marines since the first footage showed them ready to go into battle.  And from those first days to the present, they have been magnificent.

I am so proud of them, so proud of what they have accomplished, and so proud that these incredible men and women wear the flag that I cherish.

I obviously can’t name them all, and tell all of their stories.  But here are the stories of the greatest of the great: our Congressional Medal of Honor recipients:

  • Salvatore Giunta, Staff Sergeant, B Company, 2nd Battalion, 503rd Infantry Regiment, 173rd Infantry Brigade (Airborne), US Army
  • Robert James Miller, Staff Sergeant, A Company, 3rd Battalion, 3rd Special Forces Group (Airborne), US Army
  • Jared C. Monti, Sgt 1st Class, 3rd Squadron, 71st Cavalry, 10th Mountain Division, US Army
  • Michael P. Murphy, Lieutenant, Alpha Platoon, SEAL Delivery Vehicle Team ONE (SDVT-1), US Navy
  • Jason Dunham, Corporal, 4th Platoon, Company K, 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment (3/7), 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, USMC
  • Ross A. McGinnis, Specialist,1st Platoon, C Company, 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, US Army
  • Paul R. Smith, Sgt 1st Class, B Company, 11th Engineer Battalion, 3rd Infantry Division, US Army

These men, in receiving this the highest award for valor, have transcended themselves, and rightly epitomize the greatest attributes of not just soldiers, sailors, and Marines, but of human beings.  I think of the words of Jesus, “Greater love has no one than this, than that he lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13).

On this 9/11, I remember that the United States was attacked by men who had murdered their very own humanity in the name of a rabid religious ideology before they murdered nearly 3,000 Americans.  I remember that we are at war, whether all of us recognize it or not.  And I remember that we must hold the same steely resolve to fight against an adversary who practices no rules, has no compassion, and stops at no moral or rational limits.

But most of all, I remember the men and women who gave us the greatest possible example of love, of courage, of sacrifice, and of both the human and American spirit.

And I’m proud to be an American, because I am surrounded by such a cloud of magnificent heroes.

Thank you, Lord, for producing these magnificent men and women.

And Lord, please make more of them and keep them coming.  For we surely need others like them.

‘Corpse Man': Commander-in-Chief Reveals Shocking Ignorance Of Military

February 5, 2010

Today the President of the United States – and the Commander-in-chief of our armed forces – betrayed a shocking ignorance of the military he ostensibly commands:

There is not a single Sailor, Marine, or soldier who does not know what a “corpsman” is – or how to pronounce the title.  Certainly, any wounded Sailor or Marine – who would yell “Corpsman!” if wounded – knows how to pronounce the title of the guy he’d call to come over and save his life.

When George Bush showed his West Texas side in his pronunciation of the word “nuclear,” you would have thought that automatically categorized him (to quote Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel) as “f-ing retarded.”

Liberals constantly pointed out that George Bush was just such an imbecile.

You want to see the imbecile we’ve got now?

With no respect due, Barack Obama makes George Bush look like Einstein’s smarter brother.

Just the other day Barack Obonehead attacked Las Vegas for the second time after the first attack cost the city and the people who live there a couple of hundred million dollars.  Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman summed it up well when he said that “This president is a real slow learner.

A real slow learner as in, “Fell out of the stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down.”  As in, “An intellect rivaled only by garden tools.”  As in, “Has an IQ of room temperature.”  As in, “Any dumber and he’d have to be watered twice a week.”  As in, “The wheel is turning but the hamster is definitely dead.”

But Obama’s error in pronunciation isn’t just an indication that he’s every bit as stupid as liberals constantly said George Bush was.  It goes deeper.

Barack Obama just got a grade from the bipartisan Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Proliferation and Terrorism: and they gave him a flat ‘F’ in the field of keeping the country safe.

The military is confused as to how to carry out Obama’s contradictory policies.  For some incomprehensible reason, they want to actually have rules of engagement that allow them to kill the enemy and survive themselves.  Which is to say we either need to replace our 1.4 million member military with smarter soldiers or else replace our failure-in-chief.

For the record, I say we keep the soldiers and dump the failure-in-chief.

Obama’s total failure to comprehend the military – or its terminology – rather flies in the face of an Associated Press article that gushed over Obama’s diligence in pronouncing the names of foreign leaders and places to show respect.

From the AP article, “Obama, a stickler for pronunciation.”

The audience laughed, but Obama takes pronunciations quite seriously.His aides know that this is an area where the president wants to be right. In Obama’s view, pronouncing someone’s name or hometown correctly is a simple way of showing respect, they say. It’s a sort of baseline diplomacy. That’s particularly so in foreign relations, where aides say the president will privately practice pronouncing a leader’s name a number times before saying it publicly.

Alas that Obama doesn’t bother to show that same respect for the trained courageous professionals who save Sailors’ and Marines’ lives on the battlefields that Obama sends them to fight and die on.

The difference between “corpsman” and “corpse man” is the difference between life and death.

Shame on you for your demonstration of ignorance and disrespect, Barry Hussein.

A Time to Ponder: If US Attacked Again, Will We Still Favor Obama’s Dismantling Of Bush Safeguards?

September 11, 2009

9/11 should be a time for every American to ponder the events of that fateful and horrific day in 2001.

We had just suffered more casualties from a foreign enemy in an act of war than had ever been sustained by America on its own soil in its entire history – including the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Most Americans were angry and demanded action.  Fully 90% supported George Bush as he laid out his plans to respond to the attack.  And that support was still above 70% when President Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq in March, 2003.  We passed the Patriot Act with wide margins in both branches of Congress in October of 2001.  Only ONE Senator – Russ Feingold – voted against it.

And then, slowly at first, and then precipitously, Americans began to turn against the president they had supported, against the wars they had supported, and against the Patriot Act they had supported.

You can see in collections of quotes from Democrats regarding Iraq and the underlying justifications of the war how Democrats were “for that war before they were against it” as declining American support made undermining the war effort itself more and more politically advantageous.

Truth or Fiction
Freedom Agenda
Snopes

Democrat Jack Murtha denounced as war criminals and murderers Marines who were later proven to have been innocent.  Democrat House Majority Whip Representative James Clyburn said that good news in Iraq amounted to a problem for Democrats.  Democrats openly attacked Bush’s “surge” strategy that proved to be the difference in turning the war around and providing victory for the United States.  And Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, “Now I believe myself that this war is lost” even as our military was valiantly fighting on foreign soil to win.  Barack Obama joined Democrats in voting to defund the troops fighting overseas as a means of politically undermining George Bush.  Democrats denounced the credibility of General Petraeus even as liberals ran a New York Times ad entitled, “General Betray Us?”

Today, as we pause to reflect over 9/11, we no longer have a “war on terror.”  Now we have an “overseas contingency operation.”  We no longer want our Central Intelligence Agency to aggressively pursue terrorists and seek out any and all information to help us prevent the next attack.  Now we want to criminalize those operatives who tried to keep us safe as a warning to any future CIA personnel who might be so foolish as to violate liberal morays.  Better to lose a city or two than to waterboard a terrorist.

As I reflect on the hours of that terrible day of 9/11, I remember Palestinians cheering and dancing in the streets and holding up ‘V for Victory’ gestures.  I remember people leaping to their deaths from the top floors of the skyscrapers rather than endure the heat that would have murdered them even more agonizingly.  I remember Democrats and Republicans arm-in-arm singing “God Bless America” on the steps of the Capitol Building – at least until Democrats determined to undermine virtually everything they had previously supported.

On the anniversary of 9/11, I just wonder what will happen if we are attacked again.  How will we respond?  What will we want?  How will we demand our president act?

Will Americans say, “We agree with President Obama.  Let us hasten our dismantling of our intelligence apparatus to show the world our good will.”  Or will there be a dramatic swing back to the strategy envisioned and implemented by former President George Bush, based on aggressively taking the fight to the enemy, remaining in those fights, and winning them?

I hope that Americans soberly reflect how they would respond to the next massive terrorist attack today.  Because virtually every expert agrees that another such attack is surely coming.  And rather than swing wildly and frankly psychotically between extremes, perhaps we might come to a considered and committed path based on the real will of the American people.

Ask yourself this: if we are attacked again, would you want a President Bush, or would you want a President Obama?  Would you want to handled the next massive attack in which thousands, or tens of thousands (or even more) Americans die to be handled as an act of war, or as a law enforcement investigation?  Would you prefer to go to war against any nation that threatens us, or would you prefer to talk and negotiate instead?  Would you prefer a president who fights our enemies, or a president who voted against fighting and who in fact voted for undermining the war effort in order to stop it?

Just what is it you want your commander in chief to do in response to a massive terrorist attack?  What is it you expect your commander in chief to do in order to prevent such an attack from ever happening in the first place?

Let us realize that the next “Iraq” is rushing toward us in the form of a nuclear-weaponized Iran.  Is such a country a threat?  Should we allow them to develop their weapons of mass destruction, or should we use all means – including military power – to stop them?  The media first reports that Iran’s nuclear weapons program has been dramatically slowed down, then reports that they can literally make a bomb whenever they want within the space of a couple of weeks’ time.  One thing seems quite sure: Iran is inexorably working toward nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them.  What do we want our president to do about it?  Everything?  Nothing?

To the extent that the American people are even capable of genuine self-reflection and wise contemplation of the future, I hope we take this opportunity to do so today.

I also hope that every single American – regardless of political party – takes a moment to thank God for our troops and pray for their safety and for their victory.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 530 other followers