Posts Tagged ‘Panetta’

Obama Administration To Troops In Combat Zone: ‘We Don’t Trust YOU Any More Than We Trust Our Afghan Allies, So You Are Ordered To Disarm’

March 16, 2012

You need to understand that this is unprecedented: an administration actually disarmed its very own troops prior to a visit to a combat zone:

It’s been reported that a car bomb exploded when Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta landed in Afghanistan earlier today, but no one was injured except the man who was driving the car when it burst into flames. In other news, an even bigger bomb was dropped on our Marines when they were ordered to disarm before entering a building in Afghanistan to hear Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta give a speech.
That’s right: our Marines, who are in a combat zone, were ordered to stack their M-4 rifles over here and their 9mm handguns over there before listening to Panetta ramble on about this and that (I don’t remember Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ordering our Marines to be disarmed in his presence, even once).
Although the Obama administration has tried to spin this and make it look like an admittedly unusual yet valid request, the man who carried out the order to disarm the Marines, Maj. Gen. Mark Gurganus, gave some insight into the reason behind this order which even MSNBC commentators labeled “unprecedented.” We didn’t want unarmed Afghans who attended the speech to feel out of place.


However, US troops often remain armed even when their Afghan colleagues have been asked to lay down their weapons and the incident is believed to be the first time they were stripped of guns during an address by their own secretary of defence.

You know when you see stacks of rifles like this? At surrenders as the surrendering enemy troops turn in their weapons. Only in this case we’re the side that is supposed to be winning.

This should be no surprise given how this administration has handled the soldiers under its misrule:


Troops: Strict war rules slow Marjah offensive
By Alfred de Montesquiou and Deb Riechmann – The Associated Press
Posted : Monday Feb 15, 2010 15:08:51 EST

MARJAH, Afghanistan — Some American and Afghan troops say they’re fighting the latest offensive in Afghanistan with a handicap — strict rules that routinely force them to hold their fire.


Family calls U.S. military goals ‘fuzzy’
Parents of soldier killed last week criticize firepower restrictions

By DENNIS YUSKO, Staff writer
First published in print: Thursday, June 24, 2010

QUEENSBURY — The parents of a Lake George soldier killed in Afghanistan attacked the Obama administration Wednesday for “flower children leadership,” and said they would work to change U.S. rules of military engagement in the nine-year conflict.

Hours before holding a wake for their 27-year-old son in Glens Falls, Bill and Beverly Osborn heavily criticized a military policy implemented last year that places some restrictions on when American troops can use firepower in Afghanistan. The new rules were set when Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal assumed command of the Afghanistan effort, and have reportedly made it harder for troops to call in for or initiate air power, artillery and mortars against the Taliban.

The counterinsurgency policy is intended to reduce civilian casualties and win the allegiance of Afghans, McChrystal had said. But echoing criticisms from the Vietnam era, Bill Osborn said Wednesday that it’s tied the hands of service members on the ground.

“We send our young men and women to spill their blood and we won’t let them do their job,” he said from his Queensbury home. “Winning hearts and minds is wonderful, but first we have to defeat the enemy.”


Fighting a War without Bullets?
by Chris Carter

Commanders have ordered a U.S. military unit in Afghanistan to patrol with unloaded weapons, according to a source in Afghanistan.

American soldiers in at least one unit have been ordered to conduct patrols without a round chambered in their weapons, an anonymous source stationed at a forward operating base in Afghanistan said in an interview. The source was unsure where the order originated or how many other units were affected.


Hold fire, earn a medal
By William H. McMichael – Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday May 12, 2010 15:51:31 EDT

U.S. troops in Afghanistan could soon be awarded a medal for not doing something, a precedent-setting award that would be given for “courageous restraint” for holding fire to save civilian lives.

And you wonder why things are going so godawful over there.

If you read over my articles on Obama’s massive social engineering on the military – such as imposing homosexuality on our troops – you ought to see that this is frankly no surprise.  These days, if a gay soldier in your unit fancies you, you’d better just bend over and let him sodomize you; because if you don’t he’ll file a sexual harassment suit against you – and under this administration you will be found guilty and punished to the fullest extent of the law.

It’s also no surprise that our first “emperor” president would begin to implement the first “Praetorian guard” approach to our soldiers.

I find it despicable; but of course everything this president has done has pretty much been despicable.

Obama To America’s Enemies: ‘I Will Veto Any Effort To Maintain U.S. National Security’

November 24, 2011

For the record, the Pentagon already had it’s budget slashed by $450 billion during a turbulent and violent time – and during a time when Obama has repeatedly demanded that the U.S. military intervene in several wars (Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, and now likely Syria) as well as expand the U.S. military global presence (in Australia – to the outrage of China).

“Pentagon officials are pushing back against cutting any more beyond the $450 billion they’ve already been asked to make, but at half the federal government’s entire discretionary budget — and growing — the defense budget is an obvious place to keep cutting.”

Now Obama is demanding that the military be cut by another $600 billion on top of that $450 billion.  He wants to preside over the destruction of America’s military strength.  And he is succeeding in his failure.

One of the characteristics of “God damn America” is that we would have a president who is determined to gut our national security when we need it the most.

Which is precisely why Obama is trying to gut our military when we need it the most; he is the epitome and the embodiment of God damn America.


Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has warned of the possible damage to national security with a supercommittee failure. That warning is echoed by leaders of every service and by others.

They are worried because the same Budget Control Act that gives unprecedented power to the special panel of six Republicans and six Democrats also comes with what Panetta calls a “doomsday mechanism” in case a majority of committee members refuse to reach a deal.

The mechanism — sequestration — forces future defense budgets and some popular entitlement programs to take across-the-board cuts. For defense, the deepest cut would occur in 2013, followed by automatic cuts of up to $55 billion a year for eight more years. This would be on top of $465 billion in defense cuts already planned over the next decade.

Recently, Panetta laid out in new detail what will befall defense programs if “maximum” sequestration is triggered so defense cuts total almost $1 trillion over the decade.

“The impacts…would be devastating,” Panetta wrote. In fiscal 2013, assuming the president exercises his authority to exempt military personnel accounts from automatic cuts, a 23-percent cut “would have to be applied equally to each major investment and construction program” of the Department of Defense, leaving “most of our ship and construction projects unexecutable — you cannot buy three quarters of a ship or a building.”

Many civilian workers would be furloughed, Panetta said.

“The situation does not get better” beyond 2013, he added, with cuts of up to $100 billion a year possible compared to the 2012 defense budget.

“Rough estimates suggest after 10 years of these cuts, we would have the smallest ground force since 1940, the smallest number of ships since 1915, and the smallest Air Force in its history,” Panetta wrote.

Wartime funding for Afghanistan would not be directly impacted, the secretary explained, but war efforts would suffer.

“Contracting personnel would be cut, resulting in delays in the contracts and the contract oversight that support the war. Payroll personnel would be cut, resulting in late payments to wartime vendors, and legal and policy support would be disrupted,” Panetta advised.

That’s what Obama’s OWN Secretary of Defense says.

Here’s what our Traitor-in-Chief says to those who care about their country:

“My message to them is simple: No. I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending. There will be no easy off ramps on this one.”

As we speak, the United States Navy is preparing to lay off 3,000 mid-level career sailors with ten years of experience who form the BACKBONE of our ability to protect our nation.

It won’t be long before Iran gets the nuclear bomb and the means to deliver that bomb. The day they do, they will be able to launch a wave of international terrorism and they will be able to block the Strait of Hormuz. With impunity.

George Bush TRIED to keep America safe from the Iranian threat. But Democrats – and in particular Barack Hussein Obama, Joe Biden and Hillary Rodham Clinton – did everything they could to successfully frustrate the safeguarding of America from its worst enemies:

THE NATION – Democrats rip Bush’s Iran policy
Presidential candidates say a new intelligence report shows that the administration has been talking too tough.
By Scott Martelle and Robin Abcarian
December 05, 2007

Democratic presidential candidates teamed up during a National Public Radio debate here Tuesday to blast the Bush administration over its policy toward Iran, arguing that a new intelligence assessment proves that the administration has needlessly ratcheted up military rhetoric.

While the candidates differed somewhat over the level of threat Iran poses in the Mideast, most of them sought to liken the administration’s approach to Iran with its buildup to the war in Iraq.

It’s not enough to say that they were completely wrong. They were DEAD wrong. They were TRAITOR wrong.

Meanwhile, on top of Iran moving full-speed ahead in developing nuclear weapons, Russia just threatened the United States with a clear act of war because they understand that Barack Hussein Obama is a feckless puke who is dismantling our ability to stand up and fight as quickly as he possibly can:

Medvedev threatens to target U.S. missile shield in Europe if no deal is reached
By Will Englund and William Wan, Updated: Wednesday, November 23, 6:02 AM

MOSCOW — President Dmitry Medvedev said Wednesday that Russia will target the American missile defense system in Europe with its missiles if Moscow cannot reach an agreement with Washington and NATO on how the system will be built and operated.

Russia just threatened Obama with World War III unless Obama backs down like the pencil-necked little coward they know he is.

Even during the height of the Soviet Union’s power, Russia would never have DARED to say anything that threatening to Ronald Reagan.

But then again, Ronald Reagan wasn’t a weak, pathetic, gutless fool who despised the United States of America.

And the Russians knew that Ronald Wilson Reagan – unlike Barack Hussein Obama – would stand up for the United States in a strong, powerful way.

Democrats New Attack Of Cheney And CIA Is Same Old Demagoguery

July 13, 2009

“Aha!” Democrats are out in droves telling everyone who will listen (which of course includes the entire mainstream media propaganda machine).  “The CIA really DOES lie to Congress!  And we have the smoking gun!”

They are referring to a “secret CIA program” that was not disclosed to Congress for nearly 8 years.

And they argue that it proves Nancy Pelosi, rather than being a lying demagogue who tries to cover her own lies by claiming that other everyone else are the actual liars.

Of this “secret CIA program” the generally reliably liberal Washington Post says:

In an interview last night with The Washington Post, an intelligence official said it was “generally known” from the beginning that Cheney had requested that the program be kept from Congress. The official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said it was unclear whether the agency was obligated to brief Congress.

During the second half of the Bush administration, CIA officials did not consult with the administration about the program or take orders from Cheney to keep it secret, according to former agency officials who held senior posts at the time.

“We never briefed the vice president, the president or the Cabinet,” said a former senior intelligence official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the program remains highly secret. He said the program remained in the planning stages and never crossed the agency’s threshold for reporting to the administration and congressional overseers.

Congress and the CIA have jousted for decades over the interpretation of the 1947 law creating the agency, which included a provision mandating that the committees be kept “fully and currently informed” of intelligence issues. Even for covert actions, lawmakers on the committees generally must be notified.

But the law also says such briefings should be done “to the extent consistent with due regard for the protection from unauthorized disclosure of classified information relating to sensitive intelligence sources and methods or other exceptionally sensitive matters.”

So two things come out of an actual examination of the facts:

1) “The program remained in the planning stages and never crossed the agency’s threshold for reporting to the administration and congressional overseers.”

2) The current flap is nothing more than the continuation of an debate that has been going on for 62 years as to just what “fully and currently informed” means in relation to the fact that such briefings only be conducted “to the extent consistent with due regard for the protection from unauthorized disclosure of classified information relating to sensitive intelligence sources and methods or other exceptionally sensitive matters.”

It doesn’t really sound like much of an issue for the Democrats to hang their hats on – and it certainly doesn’t sound like they have any legitimate issue to hang Dick Cheney by the neck until dead over.

Not that a lack of facts or evidence has ever stopped Demagogues before.

Democrats claim that the really evil thing about all of this is that Dick Cheney ordered the program kept secret, even as they argue that this evidence of the CIA’s failure to disclose information about programs somehow vindicates Nancy Pelosi.

A couple more things should come out:

First of all, there’s the letter that seven Democrats released following a classified briefing to Congress by CIA Director Panetta disclosing the “secret programs.”  They couldn’t wait to run and tell.  They just couldn’t wait to undermine secrecy for the sake of political demagoguery.  And if that doesn’t serve as a proof of the wisdom of Dick Cheney in wanting the CIA program kept secret, I don’t know what is.  If Senators and Representatives can’t keep their mouths shut about classified briefings, it’s better that they just be kept in the dark – just as the 1947 law provides.

Second of all, to whatever extent Leon Panetta’s briefing actually hurts Dick Cheney, just realize that this isn’t the first time that Leon Panetta has displayed the giant partisan chip on his shoulder regarding one Dick Cheney.

Another not-so-little issue is this: Nancy Pelosi didn’t just say that the CIA didn’t always fully inform: she said they repeatedly lied.  And in spite of all the Democrats own lies, there’s absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that Nancy Pelosi was right in her accusations, or even that the CIA failed to do anything they were required to do.

This is now the third time that Democrats have tried to dredge up the demonization of Bush officials and CIA professionals for the sake of political gamesmanship.  It is a frankly evil endeavor.

The biggest risk is that the CIA will become more bitter and defensive than they are already.  The biggest risk to our national security is that our intelligence professionals – who need to take risks and bold actions in order to be successful at what they do – will begin to refuse to take risks, and engage in the repetitive dotting of every ‘i’ and the crossing of every ‘t’.  It’s a process known as “slow rolling.”  CIA professionals will increasingly start sending avalanches of paperwork to cover their backsides rather than doing anything that might even possibly risk their pensions.  And you can count that it’s going on in an agency whose morale has been recently describe as sullen, depressed, and enraged.  That’s the “change” Obama and Democrats have brought to the CIA.