Yesterday I linked an article regarding how President Obama is aggressively going after the military vote (a constituency that traditionally tends to vote Republican).

Reuters is reporting that if the election were held today, President Obama would indeed win the military vote by as much as 7 points:

Mack McDowell likes to spend time at the local knife and gun show “drooling over firearms,” as he puts it. Retired after 30 years in the U.S. Army, he has lined his study with books on war, framed battalion patches from his tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, a John Wayne poster, and an 1861 Springfield rifle from an ancestor who fought in the Civil War.

But when it comes to the 2012 presidential election, Master Sergeant McDowell is no hawk.

In South Carolina’s January primary, the one-time Reagan supporter voted for Ron Paul “because of his unchanging stand against overseas involvement.” In November, McDowell plans to vote for the candidate least likely to wage “knee-jerk reaction wars.”

Disaffection with the politics of shock and awe runs deep among men and women who have served in the military during the past decade of conflict. Only 32 percent think the war in Iraq ended successfully, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll. And far more of them would pull out of Afghanistan than continue military operations there.

Read the rest.

Thomas Ricks:

Reuters says veterans report being tired of our wars, are angry about the foolishness of invading Iraq, and worried by the situation with Iran. One says he likes how Obama handled Libya.

On the other hand, 37 percent of vets asked said they disapprove of the way Obama has handled the presidency, vs. just 27 who approve, and everyone else up in the air. So the poll numbers leave me a bit confused.

Mitt Romney is a Republican version of John Kerry, I think — a rich politician from Massachusetts who doesn’t really know who he is but (as James Carville has put it), was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple.

A U.S. soldier cries as he watches the live televised inauguration ceremony for President Obama, in Baghdad's fortified Green Zone. Ali Al-saadi-AFP/Getty Images

Marketing seeks to create images in our minds by relying on the creativity of a writer. Political marketing often involves the creation of myths, transforming an ordinary man into a heroic figure with selfless ideals who is willing to endure suffering to serve his fellow man.

This transformation of normal ordinary men into heroes of mythical figures has never been more obvious than the stories of our most recent Liberal presidents Clinton and Obama.

We were just subjected to a reelection commercial featuring former President Clinton explaining the potential fallout and risk for President Obama if the SEAL raid in Pakistan had gone horribly wrong.

Suppose the Navy SEALs had gone in there . . . suppose they had been captured or killed. The downside would have been horrible for him [Obama].

This was a unique opportunity for Americans to observe and compare our most notorious Narcissists, and watch one create the typical Narcissistic pool for all of us to admire the other’s reflection.

The myth of Narcissus is from the ancient Greeks. Greek Myths are stories that are a means to teach lessons of morality. If you will give your imagination a little freedom we will imagine the Myth of Narcissus in a contemporary setting.

Echo the Nymph was desperately in love with the handsome young hunter Narcissus, but he was proud and disdained all those who admired him, for he was in love with himself. Nemesis, a tricky god, directed him to a pool where he could observe his own reflection. From that point on, Narcissus spent all his time observing his own handsome features, unable to quit staring at his image and caring for nothing else, he eventually died by the pool. A flower grew where he fell and was to be known as the Narcissus.

If we replace Echo with the American people and the personality of Narcissus with President Obama, the basis for the myth is recreated after two thousand years.

While the American people have been dreaming of being loved and cared for by the object of their imagination, the harsh truth becomes more glaringly obvious with the passage of time, for the Narcissist exists for himself and only loves his own being.

Only Bill Clinton, the accused serial rapist who refused to kill or capture Osama and avoid the catastrophe that was 9/11, understands the strain facing the Narcissist Personality. For when he says:

“Suppose the Navy SEALs had gone in there . . . suppose they had been captured or killed. The downside would have been horrible for him [Obama].”

Zeus Is The Universal Boogeyman, Here Disguised As A Swan He Rapes Leda

Zeus Represents The Powers That Threaten Mere Mortala And From Whom We Need The Protection Of An Omnipotent

Former President Clinton concentrated on portraying Obama as the wily Prometheus who risked stealing fire from Zeus to give it to mortal man. He thus risked the possibility of tragedy through this trial of personal sacrifice. For in the myth, Zeus was enraged with the theft and tied Prometheus to a rock on a mountain and during the passage of each day, an eagle ate his liver and each night his liver grew back, to be eaten again the next day. Oh, how Prometheus suffered for the crime of bringing the fire of Zeus to mankind: fire that was used only for warmth, cooking, and light. Prometheus became a man of constant sorrow for the crime of serving man. This is the fate Obama risked to serve his people. He was so near this position of constant sorrow that he needed to be pulled from the golf course during the commission of this service to mankind, lest the mission fail and he would be tied directly by a Zeus like boogeyman, supine on the mountain and the feathered beast allowed to savage his vital organs.

The personality of this same Prometheus has been a favorite reference for Karl Marx to portray the martyrs of Communism, representing those who suffer unselfishly for the cause of mankind.

True to form, the Narcissist views the world as it relates to him. Thus we have become inoculated to the “I” word and now are conditioned to view world events through the personal pronouns of Obama.

“Tonight, I can report . . . I directed Leon Panetta . . . I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden . . . I met repeatedly with my national security team . . . I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action. . . . Today, at my direction . . . I’ve made clear . . . Over the years, I’ve repeatedly made clear . . . Tonight, I called President Zardari . . . and my team has also spoken . . .These efforts weigh on me every time I, as commander-in-chief . . . Finally, let me say to the families . . . I know that it has, at times, frayed . . .”

In our personal lives, we tend to tire of people who see the world revolving around them and all to ready to overuse the personal pronouns in every conversation, but with Obama, we have been conditioned to excuse and overlook his boorish behavior.

Being programmed by these harpies of Madison Avenue to believe and accept the allusion of the strong leader who protects us from the evil of the world is a feature of being subjected to media. Most of the recent efforts Of the Obama marketers have been amateurish and obvious, but precious few of us caught the ambiguities of Clinton marketing Obama.

Sometimes, it is the utter audacity of the marketing ploy that creates the lasting impression. The vision of a man’s liver being eaten each day and of a maiden being raped by a God in the form of a swan are not easy to accept, but they have survived for 2500 years, and their story lines are still being used to teach and create allusions.

Unfortunately for Obama, the image of Narcissus is working against him, for Narcissus is his only enemy and it is his self-absorption that ultimately destroys him. The comparisons are all too obvious and transparent, and his adoring public like Echo grows weary of the self-absorbed man who loves himself above all others.

NARCISSUS. A large genus of flowers of the amaryllis family, native to Asia and Europe, is called narcissus. Included are the daffodil, the poet’s narcissus, the jonquil, and others.

Yes, the troops in Afghanistan have been inspired or at least lectured, by a vainglorious president, a man of little note and record, President Obama. In a speech hailed by Obama’s most outspoken sycophant and pimp, Chris Mathews, as being reminiscent of Henry V’s address to his troops on the eve of a critical battle, in which they faced almost certain annihilation at Agincourt, France.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Chris Mathews,

“I imagine being a soldier over there — this is what you want to hear.”

It was right out of Henry V actually, a touch of Barry, in this case, in the night for those soldiers risking their lives over there.

The troops are backed up by the people at home and there you have your Commander-in-Chief there with you personally. It’s great stuff.

Well that’s great stuff. I was so proud of the President there, I must say. This has nothing to do with partisanship; this is the Commander-in-Chief meeting with the troops.

In his typical style, Mathews continued to praise Obama, making up for a lack of meaningful content with enthusiasm and adolescent puppy love.

Jim Moran, Democrat from Virginia, seemed to read from the same script writer, he also joined the chorus praising Obama:

“He is our Commander-in-Chief and not just by claiming to be, but by acting as a Commander-in-Chief should act. This was a Commander-in-Chief’s speech. It was not political. It was motivational; it was just exactly what the troops needed to hear and [just] as important, what their families need to hear back home.”

Moran claimed that the president was “acting” like a commander “should act” and not just by claiming to be a commander, that the speech was not about politics and that Obama was not going to make this into a campaign issue. One of the most remarkable things about Moran’s remarks is that he said them with a straight face.

We must remember that no one knows exactly what Henry V said on the eve of that fateful battle. We tend to romanticize about him and the battle because of Shakespeare’s play.

Henry’s position was more tenuous than Obama, he faced not only the destruction of his army, but his own death. There was no question as to the courage of the war time commanders in the days of Henry V. He needed to inspire his men to fight beyond their abilities and he was willing to fight alongside them.

The genius of Shakespeare and the speech writers of Obama are hardly worthy opponents, but Mathews has stressed the similarity of Obama and Henry. Of course the Henry that everyone visualizes is a fictional character, but the fill in the blank president is primarily a fictional character, since we don’t really have the facts concerning his murky past.

Shakespeare’s Henry had to convince his troops that their smaller numbers would be an advantage, that battles were more than mathematical formulas; they had the opportunity to fight for honor, for justice, and for glory. The upcoming battle was an honor and a chance to accumulate more honor than anything else they would face for the rest of their lives. Henry was careful in noting the bond between king and commoner, in Act III, scene 1, he skillfully unites himself with his men.

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers.
For he today that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition….
(IV.iii.60–63)

Thus Henry reassures the commoner that he will be forever linked to royalty by fighting in the glorious battle.

Although, Shakespeare has inspired the speeches of many commanders before battle, most have been careful to delete the nuances of class distinctions and leave out the “I” word, but it is too hard to resist for our Narcissist. He wants desperately to be perceived as a great war strategist and leader, to be identified with our warriors, and unless he sounds as if he is actively involved like Henry was, his image suffers.

Good evening from Bagram Air Base. This outpost is more than 7,000 miles from home, but for over a decade it’s been close to our hearts. Because here, in Afghanistan, more than half a million of our sons and daughters have sacrificed to protect our country.

Today, I signed a historic agreement between the United States and Afghanistan that defines a new kind of relationship between our countries — a future in which Afghans are responsible for the security of their nation, and we build an equal partnership between two sovereign states; a future in which war ends, and a new chapter begins.

Tonight, I’d like to speak to you about this transition. But first, let us remember why we came here. It was here, in Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden established a safe haven for his terrorist organization. It was here, in Afghanistan, where al Qaeda brought new recruits, trained them, and plotted acts of terror. It was here, from within these borders, that al Qaeda launched the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 innocent men, women and children.

And so, 10 years ago, the United States and our allies went to war to make sure that al Qaeda could never again use this country to launch attacks against us. Despite initial success, for a number of reasons, this war has taken longer than most anticipated. In 2002, bin Laden and his lieutenants escaped across the border and established safe haven in Pakistan. America spent nearly eight years fighting a different war in Iraq. And al Qaeda’s extremist allies within the Taliban have waged a brutal insurgency.

But over the last three years, the tide has turned. We broke the Taliban’s momentum. We’ve built strong Afghan security forces. We devastated al Qaeda’s leadership, taking out over 20 of their top 30 leaders. And one year ago, from a base here in Afghanistan, our troops launched the operation that killed Osama bin Laden. The goal that I set — to defeat al Qaeda and deny it a chance to rebuild — is now within our reach.

Still, there will be difficult days ahead. The enormous sacrifices of our men and women are not over. But tonight, I’d like to tell you how we will complete our mission and end the war in Afghanistan.

First, we’ve begun a transition to Afghan responsibility for security. Already, nearly half of the Afghan people live in places where Afghan security forces are moving into the lead. This month, at a NATO Summit in Chicago, our coalition will set a goal for Afghan forces to be in the lead for combat operations across the country next year. International troops will continue to train, advise and assist the Afghans, and fight alongside them when needed. But we will shift into a support role as Afghans step forward.

As we do, our troops will be coming home. Last year, we removed 10,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Another 23,000 will leave by the end of the summer. After that, reductions will continue at a steady pace, with more and more of our troops coming home. And as our coalition agreed, by the end of 2014 the Afghans will be fully responsible for the security of their country.

For those of you who read Obama’s speech, I commend you for your dedication and patience. Our troops could zone out, but they were ordered to listen to the inane political commentary. Shakespeare’s speech is still being recited four hundred years later, I doubt if any teachers will be requiring students to read or recite Obama’s speech after the election in November; unless, the Progressives can assert their control over the country and in Orwellian and Maoist fashion, the insipid remarks of Obama are celebrated as great classical literature.

In response to Mathews and Moran, the speech was an example of poor and boring theatrics being used to score cheap political points. The troops were bored to tears and so is America. Your comparison of Obama’s speech writers to Shakespeare is hilarious, but entertaining. May I suggest you keep these fictionalized accounts in the forefront, we have come to expect nothing less from the fill in the blanks president.

Last week President George W. Bush led a group of servicemen and woman who had been wounded serving our country on a 100 kilometer mountain bike ride. Called the W100 it ” highlights the bravery and sacrifice of the warriors wounded in the global war on terror, as well as those organizations that have made continuing commitments to supporting America’s heroes.” It is just one way our former President shows his support for our heroes via the Military Support of the Bush Institute:

The Bush Institute honors the sacrifices and service our U.S. servicemen and women and their families make for our freedom. The Institute helps military support organizations achieve their missions more effectively by raising awareness and spotlighting best practices.

Check out some of the great pictures from the event:

George W. Bush slowed up his mountain bike and looked around.

The former president saw many of the 19 wounded veterans riding in the the Bush Institute’s Warrior 100K Ride still holding strong. But with only a mile left to go on the final leg of the three-day event, he didn’t see them all.

So Bush paused the lead group in the middle of Palo Duro Canyon State Park and waited until every last veteran made their way to the front.

“Team ride,” he said. “We’re gonna ride it in together.”

Bush and and the group of veterans then powered up the last hill and crossed the finish line early Saturday afternoon with an American flag in tow. The effort drew out thunderous applause from volunteers and a clutch of patriotic fans.

It even brought a few in attendance to tears.

“Seeing that flag just raised the hair on my arm,” said retired Army Col. Michael Endres, director of the Bush Institute’s Military Service Initiative.

[link]

Every time I listen to Barack Obama describe how he repelled down a rope from a stealth helicopter on a dark Pakistani night and took down Osama Bin Laden I am reminded of the movie “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.”

Seldom has a story been more dishonestly spun than the one surrounding the death of Osama Bin Laden.

Barack Obama is celebrating the deathday of Obama Bin Laden with a party from himself. I caught a post over at Weekly Standard in which Dan Halper notes that the smirking Obama once again suggests that Mitt Romney would not have made the decision to kill Bin Laden. Obama is quoted as saying:

“I’d just recommend that everybody take a look at people’s previous statements in terms of whether they thought it was appropriate to go into Pakistan and to take out bin Laden,” Obama said, obviously taking a shot at Romney. “I assume that people meant what they said when they said it. And that’s been at least my practice. I said that I would go after bin Laden if we had a clear shot at him–and I did. If there are others who have said one thing and now suggest they would do something else, then I’d go ahead and let them explain it.”

But here’s the part that caught my eye:

“I’d just recommend that everybody take a look at people’s previous statements in terms of whether they thought it was appropriate to go into Pakistan and to take out bin Laden,”

As if going into Pakistan was his decision. Or his plan.

It wasn’t.

Going into Pakistan was George Bush’s decision, based on the advice of a CIA analyst named “John.”

While he was shepherding the hunt for bin Laden, John also was pushing to expand the Predator program, the agency’s use of unmanned airplanes to launch missiles at terrorists. The CIA largely confined those strikes to targets along Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan. But in late 2007 and early 2008, John said the CIA needed to carry out those attacks deeper inside Pakistan.

It was a risky move. Pakistan was an important but shaky ally. John’s analysts saw an increase in the number of Westerners training in Pakistani terrorist camps. John worried that those men would soon start showing up on U.S. soil.

“We’ve got to act,” John said, a former senior intelligence official recalls. “There’s no explaining inaction.”

John took the analysis to then CIA Director Michael Hayden, who agreed and took the recommendation to President George W. Bush. In the last months of the Bush administration, the CIA began striking deeper inside Pakistan.

Barack Obama adopted John’s and Bush’s plan. Then he co-opted it.

“John” persisted in the hunt for Bin Laden for a very long time. Then in 2007 a co-worker of John’s targeted “Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti.”

All the while, John’s team was working the list of bin Laden leads. In 2007, a female colleague whom the AP has also agreed not to identify decided to zero in on a man known as Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, a nom de guerre. Other terrorists had identified al-Kuwaiti as an important courier for al-Qaida’s upper echelon, and she believed that finding him might help lead to bin Laden.

“They had their teeth clenched on this and they weren’t going to let go,” McLaughlin said of John and his team. “This was an obsession.”

It took three years, but in August 2010, al-Kuwaiti turned up on a National Security Agency wiretap. The female analyst, who had studied journalism at a Big Ten university, tapped out a memo for John, “Closing in on Bin Laden Courier,” saying her team believed al-Kuwaiti was somewhere on the outskirts of Islamabad.

The intel used to find and kill Bin Laden came from a career CIA analyst- not from Barack Obama.

John and his team had guessed correctly, taking an intellectual risk based on incomplete information. It was a gamble that ended a decade of disappointment. Later, Champagne was uncorked back at the CIA, where those in the Counterterrorism Center who had targeted bin Laden for so long celebrated. John’s team reveled in the moment.

And it has been revealed that the decision to undertake the raid was not Obama’s decision either. That belonged to Admiral William McRaven.

It’s been almost a year since President Obama’s leadership and foreign policy bona fides were allegedly established by the operation that killed Osama bin Laden. A campaign film narrated by Oscar-winning actor Tom Hanks tells of the president’s alleged solitary, agonizing decision.

With apologies to Vice President Biden, maybe President Obama doesn’t carry quite as big a stick as Joe would lead us to believe.

As reported by Big Peace, Time magazine has obtained a memo written by Leon Panetta, then-director of the Central Intelligence Agency and now-Secretary of Defense, that says “operational decision-making and control” was really in the hands of William McRaven, a three-star admiral and former Navy SEAL.

“The timing, operational decision-making and control are in Adm. McRaven’s hands,” the memo says. “The approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the president. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the president for his consideration. The direction is to go in and get bin Laden and, if he is not there, to get out.”

In other words, it was McRaven’s call to pull the trigger or not on the raid.

Now back to that Obama assertion:

President Obama’s campaign has highlighted a 2007 quote from Mitt Romney, who suggested that the fight against terrorism was bigger than bin Laden, and that it wasn’t important to “move heaven and earth” to catch him.

Curiously, back in 2009 Obama held pretty much the same position:

Obama: Killing bin Laden may not be essential

In a late Wednesday interview with CBS News, Obama signaled a more measured approach to catching the ever-elusive bin Laden, refusing to deliver any “dead or alive” ultimatums.

“I think that we have to so weaken his infrastructure that, whether he is technically alive or not, he is so pinned down that he cannot function,” Obama said.

“My preference obviously would be to capture or kill him. But if we have so tightened the noose that he’s in a cave somewhere and can’t even communicate with his operatives, then we will meet our goal of protecting America.”

It’s no stretch to assert that it was Barack Obama who in 2009 co-opted Romney’s 2007 position on the capture of Barack Obama. It is completely disingenuous for Obama to suggest otherwise because he was the beneficiary of the decisions made by George Bush and “John’s” detective work. You’d never know that by listening to Obama. Contrast the braggadocio of Obama

“I directed Leon Pannetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority”

“I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden”

“I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden”

“I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action and authorized an operation to get Usama bin Laden and bring him to justice”

“Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad Pakistan”

“I have made clear, just as President Bush did shortly after 9/11, that our war is not against Islam; bin Laden was not a Muslim leader”

to the quiet and classy reserve of George Bush describing the capture of Saddam Hussein:

The success of yesterday’s mission is a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq. The operation was based on the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator’s footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers in the hunt for members of the fallen regime, and in their effort to bring hope and freedom to the Iraqi people. Their work continues, and so do the risks. Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate ‘em.

Barack Obama did not decide to take the war into Pakistan. Obama did not decide to send drones deeper into Pakistan. Obama did not find Bin Laden. Obama did not pull the trigger on the raid. What you could bet your life on is that had the mission failed McRaven would have been thrown under the bus and Obama would have said “You know, this was not our plan, per se.” What Obama did do was take credit for it all.

His behavior is so offensive that he has blasted by John McCain and the SEALS. Even Arianna Huffington has called Obama’s ad “despicable.”

This morning on Fox News the CIA interrogator who over saw the CIA EIT program (and who personally briefed Nancy Pelosi) said that the interrogating Abu Zubaydah gave them a rather important piece of information- that Osama Bin Laden was communicating with the outside world through one person- the courier.

Barack Obama has called waterboarding torture and sought to prosecute those who carried out the EIT’s all the while being the beneficiary today of the information gained from those techniques.

Barack Obama is full of sh*t. He is a miserable low life.

But we can’t leave without revisiting the only truth Ted Kennedy ever uttered:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Well….dead enemy.

Like Joe Darby (of Abu Ghraib fame), an anonymous soldier took 18 sensitive photos and “leaked” them to the press. Specifically, to the LA Times.

The photos have emerged at a particularly sensitive moment for U.S.-Afghan relations. In January, a video appeared on the Internet showing four U.S. Marines urinating on Afghan corpses. In February, the inadvertent burning of copies of the Koran at a U.S. base triggered riots that left 30 dead and led to the deaths of six Americans. In March, a U.S. Army sergeant went on a nighttime shooting rampage in two Afghan villages, killing 17.

The soldier who provided The Times with a series of 18 photos of soldiers posing with corpses did so on condition of anonymity. He served in Afghanistan with the 82nd Airborne’s 4th Brigade Combat Team from Ft. Bragg, N.C. He said the photos point to a breakdown in leadership and discipline that he believed compromised the safety of the troops.

The only comment I want to make here is to question whether or not this anonymous “whistleblower” bothered to bring attention to these photos by first going through the proper chain of command. What compelled him to give these 2-yr old photos over to the Los Angeles Times? And why now?

Actually, it doesn’t seem that the soldier was offended by these photos having been taken (which violates Army standards). He wasn’t motivated by a belief that these photos were wrong to take. Apparently he’s using them to draw attention to something else.

It would seem that personal security concerns are allegedly his motive, 2010 being a tough year for his brigade:

He expressed the hope that publication would help ensure that alleged security shortcomings at two U.S. bases in Afghanistan in 2010 were not repeated. The brigade, under new command but with some of the same paratroopers who served in 2010, began another tour in Afghanistan in February.

U.S. military officials asked The Times not to publish any of the pictures.

~~~

The soldier who provided the photos, and two other former members of the battalion, said in separate interviews that they and others had complained of inadequate security at the two bases.

And so by making these photos public, security for his brigade will improve…how?! How does that correlate? The photos are 2 yrs old and the brigade itself is under new leadership. Yet he feels that these photos will expose “a breakdown in leadership and discipline that he believed compromised the safety of the troops.” Unless what results is our immediate withdrawal and surrender from Afghanistan, does anyone believe public attention to this will increase the security of our troops?

Times Editor Davan Maharaj explains why he denied the request of the military not to publish any of the photos:

“After careful consideration, we decided that publishing a small but representative selection of the photos would fulfill our obligation to readers to report vigorously and impartially on all aspects of the American mission in Afghanistan, including the allegation that the images reflect a breakdown in unit discipline that was endangering U.S. troops.”

And I’m sure they weighed in the potential consequences of whether or not publishing these photos might not be used for propaganda purposes, potentially further endangering U.S. and NATO troops. Surely it wasn’t for macabre sensationalism to sell papers.

Why not simply tell the soldiers’ stories about security inadequacies and personal losses without the publishing of these photos?

Photo: Soldiers from the Army's 82nd Airborne Division, along with Afghan police, pose with the mangled corpse of a suicide bomber. The Army says such photos are a violation of military standards and has launched a criminal investigation.

Soldiers have always done macabre things, along with displaying gallows humor to cope: Trophy body-part collecting, photos with the gruesome, etc. And given that these guys lost about 35 in their brigade in 2010 with 23 from suicide bombers, taking a photo with a failed suicide bomber is a rather tame reaction. Should we demand a higher standard of our soldiers? Certainly, the rest of the world always seems to be holding our soldiers to a tighter microscope.

The soldiers might have used bad judgment in defying Army standards by taking the photos; really poor judgment in circulating them around. The soldier who wanted to make a statement exercised even worse judgment in handing the photos over to the LATimes. But worse than all this? The LATimes going ahead and publishing a couple of them.

WaPo:

The 18 photographs were taken in 2010 in Zabul province by soldiers from the 82nd Airborne’s 4th Brigade Combat Team, the newspaper reported. Although the pictures were dated, the fresh disclosure of misbehavior extends a string of recent incidents in which U.S. troops have disrespected the dead, allegedly killed Afghan civilians and desecrated the Koran.

U.S. officials, concerned that the cumulative impact will further alienate an Afghan public already weary of foreign military occupation,

The Afghan public aren’t the only ones that are growing war weary…

“Our presence by its very nature creates tension between us and the local population,” Smith said in an interview Wednesday. “Past a certain point, a foreign presence is as destabilizing as it is stabilizing, and that’s what these incidents are pointing out.”

Democrats always attack, decimate, reduce, belittle, disarm, and de-fund the military.

Here is some more of the Democrat party putting down the military and making them pay taking their pay.

The United States military forces were greatly reduced by the Democrats after World War I in the years before the December 07, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor. At that time our military had been reduced to a very dangerously low level. We had to pay dearly for that foolishness.

Such are the Democrats and their complete denial and ignorance of history.

The Democrats have always despised the American military, who maintains the freedom of the United States, so much so that they continuously attack the American military in any way they can, especially financially.

In the sixties the Air Force was paid twice a month, on the fifteenth and the thirtieth. Most military families lived payday to payday because the pay was so poor. They were forced to plan on two week budgets. Then their payday was changed to once a month, to being paid on the last business day of the month. The pay they planned on and needed on the fifteenth of the month did not happen. The total pay for the month was the same but families who planed on their pay every two weeks had to go an extra two weeks to receive that pay. This was extremely hard on those who had to live from payday to payday. For what it maybe worth, most of these families could have qualified for food stamps. In the military you could not even apply for food stamps.

But the government got a two week cash flow benefit.

So our payday became the last business day of the month, we survived and we adjusted.

Another outrage was promotion freezes; I went through several of these during my twenty plus years in the USAF.

Then there were the years of the pay freezes, no Cost Of Living Allowances (COLA, which was supposed to keep up with inflation).

There were years of reductions in forces, material, weapons, R&D, bases being closed, medical care (promised but not delivered).

There are many more.

Then the payday was changed again to the first business day of the month instead of the last business day of the month. Only a day or two change, but that had an effect on the government’s cash flow. Ours as well but we did not count, again we adjusted.

Here is the latest rip off (no other words apply).

The once a month pay that was paid on the first business day of the month was changed again.

December 2011, the payday was changed, this time the rule was that if the first of the month is a holiday or a weekend the payday would be the last business day of the preceding month.

Only a day or two you say?

Here is what a difference a day or two can make.

The kicker: January the first is always a holiday, therefore the January 2012 pay was moved to December 31, 2011.

The INTENDED consequences were that I and all other retired and active duty military personnel in all branches of military service would be taxed on thirteen months of pay (the thirteenth month was the January 02, 2012 pay that was received on December 31, 2011 and accounted as 2011 pay).

Count the days.

This increased my taxable income enough that part of my Social Security became taxable.

Wait!….What?

In case you did not know, Social Security IS taxable. Now you know about another democrat party lie.

To continue: this shifting of income from 2012 to 2011 put me in higher tax brackets. It also made part of my Social Security taxable which bumped me into yet another higher tax bracket.

The end result was an additional $251.00 in income taxes. This was effectively a reduction in pay of $251.00 for that “thirteenth month”.

That may not sound like much, but it is more than one month’s basic utilities (gas, water, and electric) for me.

How would you feel about that?

Obama and the democrats have once again given me and every retired and all active duty military personnel in all branches of service, another screwing. We will all have to pay taxes on thirteen months of pay for 2011. Multiply my cost/loss by the total number of retired and active duty military service personnel in all branches of service.

I am not typical; the real amount will be far higher.

That is a huge amount stripped (stolen) from our military and their families.

Once again our United States military pays the cost.

So where will this money go?

Where did the TARP go?

I can not understand how anyone, especially anyone in the military, can vote for Obama or any Democrat or even believe anything the Democrats say.

Well on second thought, maybe I can. I used to associate with people who were: “Blissfully Blind”, “Determinedly Stupid” and “Invincibly Ignorant”. Thankfully I got away from them without being infected.

(I think know they were liberals)

In 2012 I will have to pay taxes on twelve months of pay, the January 2013 pay will be moved to 2012. That is twelve months of pay. That means there is no way I can ever recover from this financial fraud.

This is another story you will never see in the MSM (Marxist, Socialist, Media, also known as the propaganda arm of the Obama administration/Democrat party).

USAF RET MSG Al Cooper

Anwar al-Awlaki, a militant cleric who was an American citizen, was killed in Yemen.

While I don’t disagree with the Administration over this policy, I find the whole situation ironic. It was just a few years ago liberals were crying and protesting all over the fact that the United States waterboarded a few high level terrorists.

But I guess it’s ok to just a put a bullet in their head rather than making them a widdle bit scared with water eh?

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. asserted on Monday that it is lawful for the government to kill American citizens if officials deem them to be operational leaders of Al Qaeda who are planning attacks on the United States and if capturing them alive is not feasible.

“Given the nature of how terrorists act and where they tend to hide, it may not always be feasible to capture a United States citizen terrorist who presents an imminent threat of violent attack,” Mr. Holder said in a speech at Northwestern University’s law school. “In that case, our government has the clear authority to defend the United States with lethal force.”

…While Mr. Holder is not the first administration official to address the targeted killing of citizens — the Pentagon’s general counsel, Jeh Johnson, did so last month at Yale Law School, for example — it was notable for the nation’s top law enforcement official to declare that it is constitutional for the government to kill citizens without any judicial review under certain circumstances. Mr. Holder’s remarks about the targeted killing of United States citizens were a centerpiece of a speech describing legal principles behind the Obama administration’s counterterrorism policies.

“Some have argued that the president is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a United States citizen who is a senior operational leader of Al Qaeda or associated forces,” Mr. Holder said. “This is simply not accurate. ‘Due process’ and ‘judicial process’ are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.”

Like I noted, I agree with the Administration.

But the hypocrisy is just mind boggling. If Bush has been suggesting these things heads would be exploding across both coasts.

Oh, one more note from the above article:

Still, the speech contained no footnotes or specific legal citations, and it fell far short of the level of detail contained in the Office of Legal Counsel memo — or in an account of its contents published in October by The New York Times based on descriptions by people who had read it.

Hmmmm, Obama and pals were all fired up to release some earlier memo’s…..oh right, that’s because they were written under Bushitler’s watch.

If we are to gauge the level of respect and honor in our civil society, we need only look to those we – or our elected representatives – consider deserving of special hero worship. Some of these high honors include the flying of Old Glory at half-staff, the honor of having Naval vessels named for an individual, or perhaps being the recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Considering several events of late, I can not help but think that the standards that our society deems iconic have hit some unacceptable lows.

Three examples of late have had me shaking my head in bewilderment, tho I’m quite sure these are not only examples.

The Republican governor has ordered U.S. and state flags flown at half-staff at all state government buildings on Saturday, the day of her funeral.

Christie defends his decision by deeming the singer a “cultural icon” of the state, along the lines of Jersey musicians Frank Sinatra, Count Basie and Bruce Springsteen.

He goes on to say, “Whitney Houston was an important part of the cultural fabric of this state … Her accomplishments in her life were a source of great pride for many people in this state and for this state as a whole. On that basis, I think she’s entitled to have that recognition made for her.”

According to official Flag Code, Gov. Christie has all rights as the Governor of the State to order the Old Glory’s half-mast status to honor whomever he wishes. That is not in question. What may be in question is his judgement in applying such an honor to a woman who can hardly be considered a role model to the young, and ended up abusing her extraordinary gift of song. Or perhaps this is what our society has come to… that our focus, adoration and attentions gravitate to drug addicted entertainers instead of genuine heroes amongst us that do not enjoy national fame.

It’s also embarrassing that this extends even to our 24/7 news outlets, i.e. Greta Van Sustern interrupting an interview with Karl Rove about the new Obama budget for the “breaking news” of the jet, carrying Whitney Houston’s body, hitting the tarmac in New Jersey. You’ve gotta be kidding me…

In a society where few can name the Vice President or Speaker of the House, but can name the past four season’s winners on Dancing with the Stars, I suppose it’s not all that surprising that ratings conscious broadcast entities cater to this mentality. But I do find it disconcerting that arrangement of priorities has reduced our fates, and that of our children and grandchildren, as nothing more than a side note or also ran…. preempted by another pandering opportunity to mourn sundry entertainers – like Houston and Michael Jackson – who also happen to be junkies that ended up engineering their own deaths.

What have we come to when we telegraph to the young that these people are deserving of some of our highest honors?

I have to admit, as a Navy wife back in the era of Vietnam, the announcement by Obama Naval Secretary appointee, Ray Mabus, to name the latest littoral combat ship off the drydock after former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, really stunned me. While I have nothing against Ms. Giffords personally, and wish her well in her recovery, I find that such an honor bestowed on someone because they were the target of a lunatic falls fall short of our traditional standards for naming naval vessels in the past, as documented by this 2011 CRS report. Generally, the LCS class is named for small and medium sized American cities.

But this is not Mr. Mabus’ first, or only controversial choice of names. In April, 2010, the Naval Secy announced the LPD-26, the 10th ship in the class, would be named for the late Representative John P. Murtha. Needless to say, this was not a decision that was received well by the masses. While Pelosi saw him as a tireless advocate for the troops, more than a few of us instead remembered his 2005 accusation that US Marines killed Iraqis in cold blood…. Marines that were later exonerated of charges.

The proposed LCS Gabrielle Giffords is not only an off tangent honor for that class of ship, but also in the fact that very few ships are named after the living. This places the former House member in the exclusive company of Carl Vinson, Adms Rickover and Burke, John Stennis (weird in itself that a ship is named after a racial segregation Senator…), Bob Hope, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter and George Bush the elder. And why? Because she was the unfortunate victim of a shooting?

Mabus comes up with a pretty flimsy reason… as quoted from the Washington Times editorial I linked above.

Mr. Mabus said Mrs. Giffords was a source of “great inspiration” who represents “the Navy and Marine Corps qualities of overcoming, adapting and coming out victorious despite great challenges.”

I’m sorry, but I have to agree with the Times editorial staff… if overcoming, adapting and achieving victory over great challenges is the criteria, one need look no further than Walter Reed Hospital for heroes who willingly took bullets for our nation for that inspiration.

USNS Cesar Chavez

Although the authority to choose naval vessel’s names has been the Secretary of Navy’s privilege since the late 1800s, this does not eliminate Congressional interest, and influence, when controversial suggestions arise. Incidents where Congress and the POTUS have interceded are documented as examples from the CRS background report:

For example, one source states that “[the aircraft carriers] CVN 72 and CVN 73 were named prior to their start [of construction], in part to preempt potential congressional pressure to name one of those ships for Admiral H.G. Rickover ([instead,] the [attack submarine] SSN 709 was named for the admiral).”20 Another example was
a rivalry of sorts in Congress between those who supported naming the aircraft carrier CVN-76 for President Truman and those who supported naming it for President Reagan; the issue was effectively resolved by a decision announced by President Clinton in February 1995 to name one carrier (CVN-75) for Truman and another (CVN-76) for Reagan.21 One press report suggests that the decision to name CVN-77 for President George H.W. Bush may have been influenced by a congressional suggestion.22 Section 1012 of the FY2007 defense authorization act (H.R. 5122/P.L. 109-364 of October 17, 2006), expressed the sense of the Congress that the aircraft carrier CVN-78 should be named for President Gerald R. Ford, and the Navy announced on January 16, 2007, that CVN-78 would be so named.

And apparently this discernible trend by Obama’s Naval Secretary appointee has begun to raise Congressional eyebrows. So this past December, “…a clause in the Dec. 12 congressional report accompanying the defense authorization bill calls on the defense secretary to review the policy for naming vessels.” This is not exactly a vote of confidence in the trend of name choices and defining the acts which are deserving of this honor.

This was done prior to the announcement of the USS Gabrielle Giffords. And I honestly believe that few Congress members would have the fortitude to stand up and say that one of their own is not worthy of this honor for fear of public repercussions. But I will. And frankly, I do believe that not only should Ray Mabus.. who served two years in the Navy in the 70s… be bounced out with nothing but skivvies in hand, but that his choice of names should be reviewed and reversed before the paint is dry on the hull.

The last example of the decline of US moral society, as reflected in “honors”?

By gum, there’s not much to say about this abomination of choice. Why did Obama feel Buffett, a close crony to his admin, was worthy of such an honor?

Obama said Buffett “uses his stature as a leader to press others of great means to do the same.” “

Apparently, this POTUS believes that if one of wealth decides to gift their inheritance to those they don’t know instead of relatives, it’s an example of leadership.

????

So what do we have here? Flags at half-staff for junkies, ships named for labor leaders, and Congressional members who either accused and disgraced our military, or simply were a victim of a loon, and the celebration of any-one-but-family charitable giving. Is our society in such moral decline that this is an acceptable trend by our elected leaders?

Or have our thresholds gotten so low that one really knows, or cares, what constitutes a hero/heroine, worthy of honor anymore?

Ben Franklin warned government with his clever sayings. I expect several would apply to Obama devastating the military ground forces today. We may be saving a few billion dollars now, but is may cost us 100’s of billions in the near future.

The current administration currently plans to reduce US Army ground forces by as much as 20 Brigade Combat Teams. This is the equivalent of 5-6 Divisions. To put this in perspective, this is more combat power than the US had in Iraq at any one time.

So, what does this mean to non military people? It means we cannot sustain a ground battle like Iraq unless the US keeps the troops in theater until the fighting is complete. There will only be enough troops to replace them with no reserve. In the event there is fighting in Korea and somewhere in the middle east, the US will not have the capability to fight and win in both theaters.

While Obama explains he is planning on increasing air and sea power, history has showed that no war has ever been won without taking and holding the ground. Air and sea power project power but cannot by themselves win.

I remember the Carter military reductions. There was no money to maintain the bases. At FT Benning, there was money for painting buildings, but not repairing buildings. Remember the Clinton “peace dividend”? The Democratic Congress and Clinton made major force reductions to pay for domestic programs. A great number of excellent soldiers were released. After 9/11, their expertise was needed but absent.

If the US must fight a foreign war, will there be adequate assets left to defend the homeland? There are currently more than known 80 Hezbollah cells already in the US. Only God knows how many terrorist cells there really are in the US. Can we fight China’s expanding military and the terrorists at home? If the military is so greatly reduced, will there be the capability for them to “defend the country against all enemies foreign and domestic”? Just like the Carter and Clinton administration, it looks like we again are using a strategy that is penny wise and pound foolish!