Dear President Obama: You're A Real Moron!

photo of Normandy Cemetary

from the blog Dear Mr. President
Sunday, May 10, 2009

Dear President Obama: When it comes to Veterans and the military, you're a real moron.

Mr. President, I fear that one day, soon, your lack of value for the military, both present and past, is going to cost us blood.

American blood.

Once again, in it's own inimitable way, the fine folks at BLACKFIVE have hit the nail on the head.
And, as a brief aside, that racist crap you thought was so funny... about Limbaugh succumbing to kidney failure?

Oddly enough, I'm coming to feel the same way about you.

Hah, hah. Yuk, yuk. Funny, eh?

Your cluelessness about the military and veterans is already legendary. That you never cared enough about our country to serve it emphasizes your clueless idiocy about all things military.

Mr. President, this isn't ABOUT you. It's about those who put their asses on the line so a dumb shit like YOU could unfortunately be elected to the most powerful office in the world.

So, do us all a favor.

Don't go. Stay here. Send Biden. Send Clinton. Hell, send that lie of a "I'm going to get a dog out of a shelter" mutt that got more coverage than Darfur.

That you would use this as a photo op disgusts me. The networks will, of course, be on there knees in front of you, again, and make some totally absurd effort to make you One Of Us.

It's as bad as ripping us off for $350,000 for a photo op that could have been photo-shopped for nothing.

Dispicable.











from Blackfive
I Refuse to Listen....
Posted By Deebow

I am not trying to harsh the Best Ranger Mellow...

I refuse to listen to anything that the Obama Administration, or President Obama says about how much he "values the sacrifices of our veterans" when he continues to do things like suggest that combat related injuries would need to be covered by my Blue Cross/Blue Shield (what a tool-bag idea).

And I remain unconvinced that he even has any idea about the sacrifices that veterans make for the freedoms that many others, besides America, enjoy now. And this is why...


The 65th Anniversary of D-Day is fast approaching. Barack Obama will attend the events on June 6th as George Bush did in 2004 for the sixtieth memorial service.

Here is the rub, as of now Obama’s State Department has asked (read demanded) the French government not allow tour guide services to operate that day. It is a big day for Normandy tourism. Yet, the king will not allow those not connected with government to enjoy the day.

I refuse to listen to a Commander in Chief who continues to treat me like a battered wife; telling me how much you love me after you spend most of the evening slapping me around the kitchen for dinner not being hot.

His continued disrespect of the sacrifices of men who he isn't fit to hold the hat of sends me absolutely to the moon, and I know I should not get this angry about this stuff, because it is who he is, but I am flat tired of being told, in a very battered wife sorta way, that I am a potential terrorist, that I am not allowed to tour the grounds where heroes shed their blood for the freedom of others (and my comrades lie forever) and that I better get a job with good health insurance, so I can use it to cover my combat injuries.

Here's A Previous Golden Oldie from Dear Mr. President :
Monday, March 16, 2009

Dear President Obama: Here's why the military loaths you (III) Is there some reason you won't listen?

Mr. President, I've tried to be as patient with you when it comes to you screwing up my country; as empty a suit who has ever lived in the White House; as possible.

I've tried to tell you that your multiple snubs of the Military are having a damaging impact across the board in our confidence in you as Commander and Chief.

From the contempt you exhibit, consciously or unconsciously, every time you "salute" as you leave the chopper, or step out of our 747; from blowing off our wounded kids so you could go shoot hoops in Landstuhl because DOD would not let you use their blood and pain as a campaign prop, to blowing off the Medal of Honor Ball at your inauguration... to this.

Your complete betrayal of every veteran of the Armed Forces of the United States.

Mr. President, you're skating on increasingly thin political ice. You see, you're starting to worry that the bloom is falling off the rose. And in that much, you're absolutely right.

When you were in, oh, about 4th grade, I was raising my hand to enlist in the United States Army.

As a part of that contract (yeah, I know... your moronic idea to continue to pump billions of our dollars into AIG has turned just the tiniest bit unpleasant with that bonus thing and all... but allegedly, a contract is a contract.) the government promised to take care of me, "from the tip of my toes to the top of my head, FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE," the recruiter said.

It was during that little tiff in Southeast Asia, Mr. President. You might have heard of the Vietnam War? I was 17, you son of a bitch. In fact, I just got my high school diploma... 37 years after I became a 16 year old senior.

And now, you're going to take that promise away from me, Mr. President? You're going to violate the word of the Government of the United States to me and the millions of others that strapped on a uniform to protect dumb shits like you, Mr. President.

See, Mr. President... this is the risk we run by serving our country. Some civilian dumb ass comes along, never set foot in uniform because he's a selfish bastard that thinks he's OWED something... and when we're done in the Military, we run the risk of someone like you... someone utterly without a clue... someone who has NO IDEA what it is to sacrifice for their country... someone like you coming along and taking it all away... so we can go back to the days of "Vets and dogs, Keep off the grass."

And that's why we're starting to loath you, Mr. President.

It's because you loath us.

And this silly-assed effort to screw us long after we served to, among others, keep YOU safe is going to cost you in the end.

Soon, Mr. President, people will begin to see you the way we see you. Every day, you're pealing off another layer... and another and another. Your leadership has been a disaster for this country and you just got here.

Senator Murray TOLD you this idiotic plan was dead on arrival. That your lackey Shinseki hasn't rammed his resignation down your arrogant throat is all I need to know about that gutless sellout as well.

Mr. President, this is by no means the "Change" I can "Believe in."

In fact... it's just the opposite.

Wrong Obama Decision Could Cause A Mutiny!

Al-Maliki is publicly making these charges because he believes Obama will probably come out and say, "Oh we're so sorry. We are a morally corrupt nation of horrible people. Yes, we need to prosecute our soldiers who are guilty of this crime." (not far fetched based on his recent world tour)

It's very telling to notice Al-Maliki's careful choice of words. He didn't accuse our troops of a 'war crime', no he just said 'crime'. If he had said 'war crime', then charges would have to be made in the World Court. No, he conciously just used the word 'crime' so that he could then demand that the American Military hand over our soldiers to stand trial in Iraqi courts.

The first thing Obama should do is tell Al-Maliki that the U.S. will NEVER turn our soldiers over to Iraq, the UN, or any other entity. This is a war we're involved in and if our troops failed to execute their orders properly, then the U.S. Military will investigate and administer justice if necessary.

If the troops were just following orders, but the orders were subsequently determined to be "unlawful" orders, then you have to move back up the military chain of command to determine who's responsible. Guess who is ultimately responsible? Yes, Obama. The Commander in Chief. The job that he so wishes wasn't his.

Obama started us down this slippery slope by contending that situations like these are nothing more than mere criminal activity. It started with the Somali pirate being brought to America to be brought up on criminal charges in the U.S. court system.

Obama has shown nothing but contempt for our Military and Intelligence Services. If Obama aquieses and hands over our soldiers for trial by the Iraqi Government, we might as well immediately pull-out every one of our soldiers.

If Obama releases these soldiers to Iraqi custody, the military will turn on him, in addition to at least half of all Americans.
Rees

By BRIAN MURPHY
Associated Press Writer
Sun Apr 26, 8:30 pm ET

BAGHDAD – Iraq's prime minister denounced a deadly U.S. raid on Sunday as a "crime" that violated the security pact with Washington and demanded American commanders hand over those responsible to face possible trial in Iraqi courts.

The U.S. military, however, strongly denied that it overstepped its bounds and said it notified Iraqi authorities in advance — in accordance with the rules that took effect this year governing U.S. battlefield conduct.

The pre-dawn raid in the southern Shiite city of Kut ended with at least one woman dead after being caught in gunfire and six suspects arrested for alleged links to Shiite militia factions.

But efforts were quickly launched in an attempt to tone down the dispute.

The six detainees were released, said Major Gen. Read Shakir Jawdat, head of the provincial police that includes Kut. At the same news conference, U.S. Col. Richard Francey offered condolences to the family of the woman killed.

The fallout marks the most serious test of the security pact so far and could bring new strains during a critical transition period.

U.S. forces plan to move out of most major Iraqi cities by the end of June in the first phase of a promised withdrawal from the country by the end of 2011.

A statement from Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki — in his role as commander general of Iraqi forces — called the raid a "violation of the security pact."

He asked the U.S. military "to release the detainees and hand over those responsible for this crime to the courts," according to an Iraqi security official who read the statement to The Associated Press.

In Kut, the cascade of protests and questions began just hours after the sweep into Kut, which the U.S. military said targeted suspected backers of Shiite militias believed to have links to Iran.

Hundreds of demonstrators gathered at the mosque in Kut, about 100 miles (160 kilometers) southeast of Baghdad, to decry the American action and demand an investigation.

The provincial council then called an emergency meeting and a three-day mourning period. The Iraqi Defense Ministry also ordered the arrest of two high-ranking Iraqi officers for their alleged roles in allowing U.S. forces to operate in Kut.

"We condemn this crime," said Mahmoud al-Etaibi, head of the council.

Iraq's military spokesman, Maj. Gen. Qassim al-Moussawi, described it as the "first violation after signing the security pact."

The U.S. military said its troops acted within the framework of the security pact, saying "the operation was fully coordinated and approved by the Iraqi government."

The accord, which took effect Jan. 1, requires American commanders to coordinate raids and other pre-planned strikes with the Iraqi government and military, or work in joint U.S.-Iraq units.

At least one person died in the raid, which the U.S. military said targeted the financier of Shiite militia factions believed to be backed by the Iranians. Iraqi officials placed the death toll at two.

The Defense Ministry spokesman, Mohammed al-Askari, said an Iraqi brigade commander and a battalion commander were arrested for "allowing American troops to conduct a military operation in Kut province without informing the Iraqi government or coordinating with it."

Kut provincial police chief, Brig. Gen. Raed Shakir Jawdat, said he was unaware a raid was conducted. The U.S. military did not provide information on whether Iraqi security forces took part.

The military said a woman was in the area during an exchange of gunfire with one of the suspects and "stepped into the line of fire."

It said those detained were suspected of aiding so-called "special groups" — Shiite militia factions that were once part of the Mahdi Army of anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr — and another faction known as the Promise Day Brigades created by al-Sadr.

Washington says the special groups are backed by Iran. Tehran denies the charges.

Iraqi police officials say the wife and brother of a local clan leader were killed. They also say the soldiers arrested the clan leader, Ahmed Abdul Muneim al-Bdeir, his brother — an Iraqi police captain — and five others related to the al-Bdeir.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not allowed to release the information.
Associated Press Writer Chelsea J. Carter and Qassim Abdul-Zahra contributed to this report.
Click to read the article

Clinton says North Korean launch would come at a cost

from Reuters Newsby Arshad Mohammed
editing by Chris Wilson
Wed Mar 25, 2009

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Wednesday a potential missile launch by North Korea would be a provocative act that would have consequences for talks on Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions.

Clinton's comments came as a U.S. official said North Korea had positioned what is believed to be a long-range ballistic missile on a launch pad in what could be a preparation for a launch.

"We have made it very clear that the North Koreans pursue this pathway at a cost and with consequences to the six-party talks which we would like to see revived and moving forward as quickly as possible," she told reporters on a visit to Mexico City.

"This provocative action ... will not go unnoticed and there will be consequences," she said.
Click to read the article

Combat Brigades Will Remain In Iraq Despite Obama’s Campaign Promises

I completely agree with leaving combat brigades in Iraq after the majority of the troops leave. The United States lost too many lives removing Saddam Hussein, and and too many lives establishing the fragile peace that now exists in Iraq, to prematurely remove all troops and allow Iraq to fracture from within. That would be criminal.

Our troops will ultimately operate in the background of the Iraqi Society with little disruption. There are currently about 40,000 stationed in Germany doing the same thing. The U.S. bases provide jobs for the surrounding area, and the troops consume food and utilize the local services. The presence of our troops will present a long-term picture of stability and security for Iraq, which is essential if Iraq expects other Countries to begin to make investments in the future of Iraq.

The disappointing thing about this news is that Obama was either very naive about our military and the situation in Iraq, or he was being outright dishonest to those Americans who ultimately voted for him. He's in the White House now, so I hope that it wasn't the latter.
Rees

from IPS News
By Gareth Porter
March 25, 2009

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Despite Obama’s Campaign Promises, Combat Brigades Will Stay in Iraq

WASHINGTON, Mar 25 (IPS) - Despite President Barack Obama’s statement at Camp LeJeune, North Carolina Feb. 27 that he had "chosen a timeline that will remove our combat brigades over the next 18 months," a number of Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs), which have been the basic U.S. Army combat unit in Iraq for six years, will remain in Iraq after that date under a new non-combat label.




A spokesman for Defence Secretary Robert M. Gates, Lt. Col. Patrick S. Ryder, told IPS Tuesday that "several advisory and assistance brigades" would be part of a U.S. command in Iraq that will be "re-designated" as a "transition force headquarters" after August 2010.



But the "advisory and assistance brigades" to remain in Iraq after that date will in fact be the same as BCTs, except for the addition of a few dozen officers who would carry out the advice and assistance missions, according to military officials involved in the planning process.



Gates has hinted that the withdrawal of combat brigades will be accomplished through an administrative sleight of hand rather than by actually withdrawing all the combat brigade teams. Appearing on Meet the Press Mar. 1, Gates said the "transition force" would have "a very different kind of mission", and that the units remaining in Iraq "will be characterised differently".



"They will be called advisory and assistance brigades," said Gates. "They won't be called combat brigades."



Obama’s decision to go along with the military proposal for a "transition force" of 35,000 to 50,000 troops thus represents a complete abandonment of his own original policy of combat troop withdrawal and an acceptance of what the military wanted all along - the continued presence of several combat brigades in Iraq well beyond mid-2010.



National Security Council officials declined to comment on the question of whether combat brigades were actually going to be left in Iraq beyond August 2010 under the policy announced by Obama Feb. 27.



The term that has been used internally within the Army to designate the units that will form a large part of the "transition force" is not "Advisory and Assistance Brigades" but "Brigades Enhanced for Stability Operations" (BESO).
Click to read the rest of the article

Restraint urged in maritime disputes

photo of Chinese President Hu

The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman refers to the USNS Impeccable as a spy ship. They believe the next survey ship will also be a spy ship.

I believe there will be another incident with China shortly after this next survey ship arrives. I believe this next incident will result in the Chinese forcing the ship into a Chinese port. I think it will be similar to the airplane incident. The Chinese want to embarrass Obama, They know he won't do anything about it because the U.S. needs China to buy our debt.
Rees
by Zhang Xin
from China Daily
Updated: 2009-03-25

China yesterday reiterated its determination to protect its territory in the South China Sea, and urged all parties concerned to work together to avoid escalating tensions.

"We call on all claimants of disputed islands to refrain from taking any action that could heighten tensions, and abide by international conventions," Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said during a regular briefing.

China has demonstrated a clear stand and principles in South China Sea issues, as reflected in its reaction to the USNS Impeccable spy ship incident, he added.

Qin made the remarks in response to a series of disputes in the South China Sea this month, with the Malaysian and the Filipino governments claiming sovereignty over some disputed islands and a US surveillance vessel intruding into China's exclusive economic zone.

Adding to the tension, a US survey vessel is to arrive in the South China Sea next week "to conduct a sea floor survey", the South China Morning Post has reported.

The planned "geological survey" will be conducted within 200 nautical miles (about 370 km) off Hainan Island - well inside China's exclusive economic zone - without permission from Beijing, the report said.

"The US survey ship is risking another confrontation in a flashpoint region, less than a month after a standoff between six Chinese patrol vessels and the Impeccable," Professor Yuan Peng of the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations said.

"The US is making this move at a particularly sensitive time, amid other complications in the South China Sea," Yuan said.
Click to read the article

Can We Win The War In Afghanistan? Yes! But Will Obama Allow It To Happen?

from The National Review

by Rich Lowry

March 24, 2009

The War Hasn’t Been Tried

Nothing will be possible in Afghanistan without a fight.

Kabul — Could Afghanistan become another Iraq? A few years ago that would have been a question full of foreboding. Now, it expresses an aspiration.

The Afghan war has, as any American officer will tell you, long been “under-resourced,” a word that in a counterinsurgency war is almost always a synonym for failure. While Iraq had 15 American combat brigades before the surge and 20 during it, Afghanistan was in the low single digits and will only reach six brigades with the addition of the 17,000 American troops just ordered by Pres. Barack Obama.

An American general has a pointed formulation for the relative priority of the two wars over the last seven years: “If you needed it in Iraq, you got it; if you needed it in Afghanistan, you figured out how to do without it.” That has changed, but by how much and for how long will be defining questions for the Obama administration.

The challenges in Afghanistan bear an uncanny resemblance to those in Iraq prior to the surge — insufficient coalition force levels, making it impossible to secure the population; a population that is sitting on the fence, waiting to see whether the insurgency or the coalition has more staying power; an indigenous army that is too small and a police force plagued by incompetence and corruption; and a weak political leader at the top who is triangulating between the coalition and its enemies and too parochial in his outlook. (President Hamid Karzai is both unpopular and likely to win re-election in August.)

On top of all of this, Afghanistan is a broken country, shattered by the Soviets, who did their utmost to wipe out the traditional social structure, and then by years of civil war. It would be a poor and ramshackle nation — a complex patchwork of ethnicities and tribes — even without the serial catastrophes that have befallen it. It has the socio-economic profile of a poor African country.

In the Pashtun areas of the south, where the insurgency is strongest, 25 percent of children live less than five years, the average life expectancy is 45, and half of men and more than 80 percent of women are illiterate. One police sub-station in Kandahar has 45 officers — only two or three of whom can read. The opium trade equals more than half of the GDP of Afghanistan, with as much as $500 million a year of the illegal largesse going to the insurgency. By way of comparison, the operating budget of the ministry of defense is just $58 million.

All of this calls for realism about what can be achieved here, but doesn’t justify ill-informed, all-consuming despair. Afghanistan is not about to fall to a revitalized Taliban.

Click to read the rest of the article and comments

Israel May Be Seeking A New Best Friend

When I started reading this column, my first thought was that the U.S. has too close of a relationship with Israel for something like this to ever happen.

However, I've been following Obama for quite some time and I believe I understand who he really is. I've watched closely as he has positioned anti-Israel people on his foreign policy staff.

The first thing he did after his inauguration was make a call, not to any of our European friends, not to Israel, our closest friend in the Middle East, not even to Russia or China. No, he called the Palestinian Leader Mahmoud Abbas.

Right out of the gate he made a statement about where his allegiance would be.

After reading the entire article, it was clear to me that if Obama's foreign policy should continue on its current course, the scenario outlined in the article could very well happen.
Rees

from Joshua Pundit
March 23, 2009

The Obama Administration has made it crystal clear that they regard Israel as a problem rather than the loyal ally it's been since the Nixon Administration.

Some very influential Israelis are thinking ahead and saying that it's time Israel had a new best friend. No less than Avigdor Lieberman, Israel's presumptive foreign minister has said that Israel's ties with Russia "must rise to the level of a strategic partnership" :

Relations between Russia and Israel must and can rise to a level of strategic partnership, said Avigdor Lieberman, the leader of the Israel is Our Home party and a future member of Israel's new coalition government in an interview with Interfax.

"I've been saying all along that relations between Israel and Russia must rise to a level of strategic partnership. This is even more relevant today, then previously," Lieberman said.

The Israel is Our Home party won the third largest number of votes in the parliamentary elections and it is involved in the talks on the formation of Israel's new government.

"However paradoxical it may seem, the global economic crisis gives Israel new opportunities to reach the Russian market, after many of the Western companies abandoned it," the Israeli politician said.

Lieberman, who co-chaired the Russian-Israeli intergovernmental commission for trade and economic cooperation in 2003-04, said that, the two countries have accomplished "a real breakthrough" in this area, but the potential is far from being exhausted.

The same refers to military-technical cooperation between Israel and Russia, he said.

"Israel has quite a few things to offer Russia in this sector - from the electronic stuffing for fighter jets to drones," Lieberman said.

Could it happen? Possibly. Russia, after all does not really need oil and gas, which is what Iran and the Arabs have to sell. And as the price of oil goes down, countries like Iran have less money to buy what Russia has on offer.

And while it's not evident yet, there could be significant conflicts in the future between Russia and Turkey, who are traditional antagonists and Russia and Iran, as the three countries attempt to expand their influence into the gas and oil regions in the old Soviet empire in central Asia.
Click to read the rest of the article and comments

The Afghanistan War Story That MSNBC 'Missed' This Weekend

from Holger Awakens