Barack Obama vs. The Military

Obama v. Military

Obama did NOT include one dollar of military spending in the entire "stimulus"

event	description
Note:	Items are archived in this category in the order of discovery.
Obama Milks Military To Offset Domestic Spending	Obama's strategy for obtaining deep cuts in Pentagon weapons buying has emerged: squeeze the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps to pick up more war costs in Iraq and Afghanistan, forcing them to forego new planes, ships and vehicles. Obama's 2010 budget outline now being debated in Congress provides $130 billion to fund the two wars. But that is $11 billion less than this year at a time when 17,000 new troops are moving to Afghanistan and when savings from a phased withdrawal from Iraq are unclear. Added to this scenario is the fact that 2010 will be the last year of a separate war budget, or supplemental, as it is known. So the four branches will have to absorb even more war costs in the so-called "out years." An analysis by Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee reveals the four military branches will be forced to make up a $141 billion shortfall over two years. The White House needs to milk the military to help offset soaring domestic spending that will create trillion-dollar annual deficits. The crunch can only have one result: deep cuts in programs. "They are really setting the stage to drop the hammer in 2011 and 2012," said James Jay Carafano, a military analyst at the Heritage Foundation. "And at the same time what they're trying to do is basically come up with the rhetoric to just disguise this as just good government." The military will eventually suffer combat readiness problems as it did under Democratic presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, who both inflicted deep wounds in defense spending.
Military Strained By Obama Trip	And, speaking of Obama's 500-plus G-20 entourage, The Washington Times is reporting that Obama's European visit this week has strained the US Air Force's heavy-airlift capabilities and obliged the military to hire more foreign contractors to help resupply U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan, according to military sources. The large delegation traveling with the president in Europe required moving several transports, including jumbo C-5s and C-17s, from sorties ferrying supplies to Afghanistan to European bases for the presidential visit, said two military officials familiar with the issue. They spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid any misunderstanding with White House officials. The Air Mobility Command, part of the U.S. Transportation Command, was ordered to provide airlift for the president's entourage of nearly 500 people, including senior officials, staff, support personnel, news reporters and some 200 Secret Service agents for the European visit, which began Tuesday in London. Airlift for the traveling entourage also was used to move the president's new heavy-armored limousine and several presidential helicopters used for short transits. To make up for the shortfall, the Air Force had to increase the number of Eastern European air transport contractors hired to fly Il-76 and An-124 transport jets into Afghanistan loaded with troop supplies, the two officials said. The airlift crunch comes at a particularly difficult time, as the military is stepping up deliveries of supplies in advance of a surge of 21,000 U.S. troops. One official said the problem was not only the vehicles and helicopters that were needed for presidential security, but also the unusually large number of people traveling with the president. The official said U.S. taxpayers are paying twice for airlift, once for Air Force jets that are not available for a war zone and again for foreign contractor aircraft that are.
How The Rescue Happened	Blackfive makes the point that the commander on scene already had the authority to deal with an imminent death situation in his standing rules of engagement. That means that when this situation was escalated to national command authority, i.e. Obama, those rules were suspended and Obama implemented new ones specific to this incident. Then he had to restore the authority the captain already had to use deadly force to save a hostage from execution. There is considerable talk that the initial new "Rules of Engagement" (ROE) that Obama instituted did not allow a rescue so as to allow the negotiations to proceed, and then a second set of ROE was instituted after the Navy could not respond to Captain Phillip's escape attempt. That is unconfirmed but fits the facts as they happened. Blackfive just finished listening to the press conference with Admiral Gortney about the rescue of Captain Phillips. At the time it happened the USS Bainbridge was towing the lifeboat to calmer waters as the sea state was deteriorating. One of the pirates was on board the Bainbridge as the talks about obtaining Phillip's release continued. The lifeboat was approximately 25 meters behind the Bainbridge when snipers on the fantail observed one of the pirates in the pilot house of the lifeboat pointing an AK-47 at the back of a tied up Phillips and the other two pirates on board were visible (at least shoulders and heads). The standing authority gave them clearance to engage the pirates if the life of the captain was in imminent danger. The on scene commander deemed this to be true and gave the order to fire. All three bad guys were taken out and then a rigid inflatable boat went to the lifeboat to retrieve Phillips. It is unknown at this point whether the shooters were SEALs or Marine Scout Snipers as both would have been available. This was not a rescue attempt ordered by National Command Authority, i.e. the President. It was a reaction by the on scene commander under standard authority to safeguard the life of a hostage. The AP is reporting that President Obama gave the order to use military force to rescue the hostage, that is misleading. Obama did affirm the military's authorization to use force if the captain's life was in danger, but the Navy already would have had that authorization as part of their standard rules of engagement. If there are innocents about to be slaughtered the same reasoning that authorizes self defense also covers an imminent execution unless the ROE specifically forbid it. The AP is making it sound like there was an active rescue ordered by Obama. It was not, there was an imminent threat and the local commander gave the order to fire. Good on Obama for ensuring their authorization was clear, but let's also be clear that he did not authorize or order an active rescue attempt. Obama's part in this was apparently to reinforce the authority already possessed by the on scene commander. Matter of fact if there was a second communication with Obama it may have been because his first order actually restricted them from taking action, i.e. why nothing happened when Phillips made his escape attempt. Regardless, Obama did not order a rescue and Blackfive doubts he would have. Blackfive wonders why the pirates would have threatened Phillips or considered killing him. It would be an obvious death sentence, as evidenced. The second they shot him, it would have allowed free rein for the Bainbridge to blow them out of the water. Oh and for you lefty Kossack wankers, these were SEALs, Marines and sailors with zero Special Forces. Not that an uninformed ass clown would know. There's more here . . .
Obama Troop Greeting Staged	Newsbusters is reporting that an all-too-predictable gusher was delivered by Jennifer Loven, a Democratic operative disguised as Associated Press reporter: Cheered wildly by U.S. troops, Barack Obama flew unannounced into Iraq on Tuesday and promptly declared it was time for Iraqis to "take responsibility for their country" after America's commitment of six years and thousands of lives. "You have given Iraq the opportunity to stand on its own as a democratic country," the Obama said as he made a brief inspection of a war he opposed as candidate and now vows to end as commander in chief. "That is an extraordinary achievement." MacsMind contends that the troop contingent was contrived, based on an e-mail he says he received "from a sergeant that was there." The corresponding sergeant also dropped a telltale clue: We were pre-screened, asked by officials "Who voted for Obama?", and then those who raised their hands were shuffled to the front of the receiving line. They even handed out digital cameras and asked them to hold them up. Take a look at the picture at AP and notice all the cameras are the same models? Coincidence? I think not. Indeed, there are an awful lot of cameras that look awfully identical. Another consolidated wire report found at the Dallas Morning News at midnight on April 8 described the event as "hundreds of U.S. troops cheering wildly" and as "a stunning show of appreciation for Obama from military men and women who have made great sacrifices, many serving repeated tours in a highly unpopular war." So it seems that the establishment press got played. It also appears that New Media made them look like the fools they are. And it looks like Team Obama is going to have to improve its stealth techniques the next time around.
Obama Fails To Use Best Radar	The Obama Administration denied permission for the U.S. Northern Command to use the Pentagon's most powerful sea-based radar to monitor North Korea's recent missile launch, precluding officials from collecting finely detailed launch data or testing the radar in a real-time crisis, current and former defense officials said. Jamie Graybeal, Northcom public affairs director, confirmed that Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, the Northcom commander, requested the radar's use, but referred all other questions to the Pentagon. Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Mr. Gates' decision not to use the $900 million radar, known as SBX, was "based on the fact that there were numerous ground- and sea-based radars and sensors in the region to support the operational requirements for this launch." SBX, deployed in 2005, can track and identify warheads, decoys and debris in space with very high precision. Officials said the radar is so powerful it could detect a baseball hit out of a ballpark from more than 3,000 miles away, and that other radars used by the U.S. would not be able to provide the same level of detail about North Korea's missile capabilities.
Veterans Are Also A Focus Of FBI Extremist Probe	It turns out that Janet Napolitano's targeting of America's war veterans is not an isolated event. The Federal Bureau of Investigation earlier this year launched a nationwide operation targeting white supremacists and "militia/sovereign-citizen extremist groups." The report focuses on veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, according to memos sent from bureau headquarters to field offices. The initiative, dubbed Operation Vigilant Eagle, was outlined in February, four weeks Obama's inauguration and two months before a memo giving a similar warning was issued by the Department of Homeland Security. A Feb. 23 draft memo from FBI domestic counterterrorism leaders, obtained by The Wall Street Journal, cited an "increase in recruitment, threatening communications and weapons procurement by white supremacy extremist and militia/sovereign-citizen extremist groups." The FBI said in the memo, meant for internal distribution only, that its conclusion about a surge in such activities was based on confidential sources, undercover operations, reporting from other law-enforcement agencies and publicly available information. The memo said the main goal of the multipronged operation was to get a better handle on "the scope of this emerging threat." The operation also seeks to identify gaps in intelligence efforts surrounding these groups and their leaders. The aim of the FBI's effort with the Defense Department, which was rolled into the Vigilant Eagle program, is to "share information regarding Iraqi and Afghanistan war veterans whose involvement in white supremacy and/or militia sovereign citizen extremist groups poses a domestic terrorism threat," according to the Feb. 23 FBI memo. OK? Is anyone really surprised that one of Obama's first directive's to the Justice and Homeland Security Departments is to begin to create dossiers on America's heroes? The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced that yesterday evening it filed a federal lawsuit against Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. The lawsuit claims that her Department�s "Rightwing Extremism Policy," as reflected in the recently publicized Intelligence Assessment, "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," violates the civil liberties of combat veterans as well as American citizens by targeting them for disfavored treatment on account of their political beliefs. Click here to read the complaint filed by the Thomas More Law Center. Senators Coburn, Brownback, DeMint, Burr, Murkowski, Inhofe, and Vitter sent the following letter to DHS Secretary Napolitano yesterday requesting that she show them the data.
Obama, BackSeat Commander	On the 14th, Blackfive reported that early reports indicated that Obama had hindered the military's rescue of Merchant Marine Captain Phillips. Flopping Aces now confirms, from first-hand reports, that Obama did indeed restricted Navy SEALs from rescuing the Maersk Alabama's captain with force. Aces spoke to some SEAL pals in Virginia Beach yesterday and asked why the incident dragged out for 4 days. He was told the following: 1. BHO wouldn�t authorize the DEVGRU/NSWC SEAL teams to the scene for 36 hours going against OSC (on scene commander) recommendation. 2. Once they arrived, BHO imposed restrictions on their ROE that they couldn�t do anything unless the hostage�s life was in "imminent danger." 3. The first time the hostage jumped, the SEALS had the raggies all sighted in, but could not fire due to ROE restriction 4. When the navy RIB came under fire as it approached with supplies, no fire was returned due to ROE restrictions. As the raggies were shooting at the RIB, they were exposed and the SEALS had them all dialed in. 5. Obama specifically denied two rescue plans developed by the Bainbridge captain and SEAL teams. 6. The Bainbridge captain and SEAL team commander finally decide they have the OpArea and OSC authority to solely determine risk to hostage. 4 hours later, 3 dead raggies 7. Obama immediately claimed credit for his "daring and decisive" behavior. As usual with him, it�s BS. So per our last email thread, I�m downgrading Oohbaby�s performace to D-minus. Only reason it�s not an F is that the hostage survived. Read the following accurate account. Philips� first leap into the warm, dark water of the Indian Ocean hadn�t worked out as well. With the Bainbridge in range and a rescue by his country�s Navy possible, Philips threw himself off of his lifeboat prison, enabling Navy shooters onboard the destroyer a clear shot at his captors -- and none was taken. The guidance from National Command Authority -- Obama -- had been clear: a peaceful solution was the only acceptable outcome to this standoff unless the hostage�s life was in clear, extreme danger. The next day, a small Navy boat approaching the floating raft was fired on by the Somali pirates -- and again no fire was returned and no pirates killed. This was again due to the cautious stance assumed by Navy personnel thanks to the combination of a lack of clear guidance from Washington and a mandate from the commander in chief�s staff not to act until Obama, a man with no background of dealing with such issues and no track record of decisiveness, decided that any outcome other than a "peaceful solution" would be acceptable. After taking fire from the Somali kidnappers again Saturday night, the on scene commander decided he�d had enough. Keeping his authority to act in the case of a clear and present danger to the hostage�s life and having heard nothing from Washington since yet another request to mount a rescue operation had been denied the day before, the Navy officer -- unnamed in all media reports to date -- decided the AK47 that one captor had leveled at Philips� back was a threat to the hostage�s life and ordered the NSWC team to take their shots. Three rounds downrange later, all three brigands became enemy KIA and Philips was safe. There is upside, downside, and spinside to the series of events over the last week that culminated in the dramatic rescue of an American hostage. Almost immediately following word of the rescue, the Obama administration and its supporters claimed victory against pirates in the Indian Ocean and declared that the dramatic end to the standoff answered questions of the inexperienced president�s toughness and decisiveness. Despite the Obama administration�s (and its sycophants�) attempt to spin yesterday�s success as a result of bold, decisive leadership by the inexperienced president, the reality is nothing of the sort. What should have been a standoff lasting only hours -- as long as it took the USS Bainbridge and its team of NSWC operators to steam to the location -- became an embarrassing four day and counting standoff between a ragtag handful of criminals with rifles and a U.S. Navy warship.
From Supremacy To Adequacy	U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, spoke on the Senate Floor Monday delivering a detailed review of Obama's proposed cuts to the Department of Defense (DoD) budget. "I come to the Senate Floor today to speak out of great concern that we are heading down a dangerous road leading to the gutting of our military and settling for 'adequacy' versus 'supremacy,'" Senator Inhofe said on the Senate Floor. "I first made my concerns known in a YouTube video posted from Afghanistan immediately following the announcement by the Obama administration. My concerns drew an interesting reaction from the left. Not only did they say I was wrong to say that there were proposed cuts to the budget, they actually said that Obama proposed to increase the budget. I must confess it is a rare day when liberals actually claim to support increasing our nation's military. "The problem is the left is focused on one number -- one piece of military spending -- when we need to look the total Defense Budget -- what DoD actually spends on all its operations and how that money is used to maintain our military capabilities. In actuality, thanks to Obama, overall defense spending has been cut by $10.7B in FY09 and will be cut again in FY10 based on projected inflation and potential use of what is being called 'Overseas Contingency Funds.' Perhaps this is the new term for our Global War on Terror. "We have reached a crossroads where we will choose to either invest in the modernization and readiness of our military or mistakenly 'kick the can down the road' once more. Based on the projected defense budget for the next ten years, it looks like this administration is taking us down a path that leads to a weaker military that is poorly equipped. "The Obama budget of social welfare will triple the public debt in 10 years. We have already spent almost $2 trillion. The $700B for the Bank Bailout, that we now know was Tim Geithner's plan, was simply thrown away. The October 2008 vote gave $700B to an unelected bureaucrat to spend with no restrictions or accountability. Yet, all we need is an additional $28B for defense in FY10 to adequately fund our military. "My fellow Oklahoman Congressman Tom Cole said it best, 'Throughout his campaign and during his short tenure as President, he has made it clear that he believes his charm and eloquence are adequate substitutes for a strong military. That will not work.'" But, Jim, Obama is only doing what he said he would do during the campaign -- video.
It Just Doesn't Stop	The Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright must be proud of his student, as Obama continues, his "God Damn America" campaign. On the heels of the firestorm over the release of Bush-era memos on CIA interrogation techniques, Obama agreed late Thursday to release 44 photographs depicting alleged abuses at U.S. prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush White House. The decision to release the photos was announced in a letter filed in a federal court in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union in 2004. A "substantial number" of other images, will be released by May 28. The ACLU says making public additional images of detainee treatment is critical for helping the public understand the scope and scale of prisoner abuse as well as for holding senior officials accountable for authorizing or permitting such abuse. "These photographs provide visual proof that prisoner abuse by U.S. personnel was not aberrational but widespread, reaching far beyond the walls of Abu Ghraib," said Amrit Singh, staff attorney with the ACLU. The images were part of the military's investigation of potential abuse of detainees by U.S. personnel at facilities other than Iraq Abu Ghraib, though the photos apparently aren't as shocking as those that set off a prisoner abuse scandal in 2004, the Los Angeles Times reports. Even so, Defense officials say they worry that the new release of photos could set off a backlash in the Middle East against the United States, the Times reports.
A Military Marathon	I have watched the running of the Boston Marathon for over 60 years. I grew up a stones-throw from the Lake Street checkpoint. For the first time in 113 years, the National Guard deployed 400 Massachusetts National Guardsmen from the 126th Combat Support Battalion, "to keep the Boston Marathon race route clear" -- never happened before Obama's buddy, Deval Patrick -- sarcastically referred to a "Coupe Deval" -- was selected to govern by the progressives who control this single-party "commonwealth." The deployment is yet another example of the U.S. military collaborating with local law enforcement around the country. Under the Posse Comitatus Act passed on June 16, 1878 after the end of Reconstruction, the federal uniformed services -- including the Army, Air Force, and State National Guard forces -- are prohibited from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order" on non-federal property, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. National Guard forces operating under the state authority are technically exempt from Posse Comitatus Act restrictions. However, with the passage of the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007, federal law was changed so that the governor of a state is no longer the sole commander in chief of their state�s National Guard, a direct violation of Article I, Section 10 and Clause 3 of the Constitution. Last year, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced a fiat accompli when ordered the Pentagon to conduct a "broad review" to determine if the military and the National Guard and Reserve can "adequately deal with domestic disasters," including "a catastrophic attack on the country." Gates "pressed officials to better integrate reservists into the modern day military and consider treating them on a more equal basis to the active duty troops," according to CBS News. Earlier this month, we reported on a joint checkpoint operation involving DHS, federal and state agencies, the Air Force, and local law enforcement in Tennessee -- another instance violating Posse Comitatus. Another example, the U.S. Army dispatching soldiers to patrol the streets of Samson, Alabama, after a rampaging gunman killed 10 people. Last June, D. H. Williams of the Daily Newscaster reported the deployment of 2,300 Marines in the city of Indianapolis under the direction of FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. Other instances of military deployment and collaboration with local law enforcement are too numerous to mention. The deployments and exercises have increased significantly since the U.S. military announced last year it will place 20,000 troops on the streets of America by 2011 under the control of the Northern Command. In October, the Department of Defense announced it was assigning a full-time Army brigade to be "on call' to facilitate military cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security. A National Guard spokesman said the soldiers were in attendance to "safeguard" the public. However, this role is usually assigned to the police, not a combat support battalion. The military�s job is to break things and kill people during war, not protect civilians from participants in a marathon.
On Second Thought	The New York Times reports that the Obama administration is considering reviving military tribunals to try the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. An anonymous administration official sums up: "The more they look at it," said one official, "the more commissions don't look as bad as they did on Jan. 20." As Jules Crittenden notes, you can infer the administration's embarrassment from the timing of the Friday afternoon leak. I hope someone is keeping track of Obama's many sub silentio ratifications of once-criticized Bush administration policies. I was considering placing this item under "Obama's Lies," but that page is rapidly filling up. Obama's pronouncements run from simple dissembling to bold-faced lying.
Military Police at the Kentucky Derby	A Google News search does not produce a story or even a brief mention of the fact military police were on hand at the Kentucky Derby to keep the restless in line. However, an Associated Press photograph, posted on the Yahoo! News website, shows two MPs in combat fatigues with side arms restraining a man at the derby. The military has no business policing citizens except during extraordinarily exceptional times of national emergency by an executive order. This is very disturbing and completely un-American. Maybe even more disturbing is that no one seems to care how quietly and easily we have accepted the burgeoning police state. The presence of uniformed and armed military police at the Kentucky Derby is part of an ongoing campaign to acclimate the populace to the presence of soldiers at public events.
Obama Budget Cuts Target Pentagon	Obama has targeted the Department of Defense to absorb more than 80 percent of the cuts he has proposed in next year's budget for discretionary programs. In its "Terminations, Reductions and Savings" booklet, which the administration released Thursday, the White House highlighted the results of the president's line-by-line scrubbing of the federal budget. The administration identified $11.5 billion in discretionary program terminations and reductions for next year. The Defense Department will take a $9.4 billion hit, constituting 82 percent of the cuts. "We can no longer afford to spend as if deficits do not matter and waste is not our problem," Obama said. (giggle!) While defense spending accounts for 19 percent of the federal budget, it would absorb 55 percent of $17 billion in total cuts. The defense cuts send "a very clear signal that this administration is not going to be as forceful on national security issues as the previous administration. I think that's pretty clear," said Sen. Saxby Chambliss, Georgia Republican. Obama's just doing what he said he would do during the campaign. (video)
Obama Cancels Nuke Program	Michael Crowley, writing at The New Republic, says that Obama's new budget plan includes a little-noted sea change in U.S. nuclear policy, and a step towards his vision of a denuclearized world. It provides no funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead program, created to design a new generation of long-lasting nuclear weapons that don't need to be tested. (The military is worried that a nuclear test moratorium in effect since 1992 might endanger the reliability of an aging US arsenal.) But this spring Obama issued a bold call for a world free of nuclear weapons, and part of that vision entails leading by example. That means halting programs that expand the American nuclear stockpile. For the past two budget years the Democratic Congress has refused to fund the Bush-era program. But Obama's budget kills the National Nuclear Security Administration program once and for all. "My colleagues just stared at that line," says Joe Cirincione, a longtime nonproliferation expert and president of the Ploughshares Fund. "They had never seen anything like that." Killing the program, he said, was "the first programmatic impact of the new [zero nukes] policy. People have said they want to see more than words, this is the very first action." Here's the relevant language from Obama's budget explaining the thinking behind the move: In the upcoming year, NNSA will participate in the national debate to lay out a vision for our nation�s nuclear security and non-proliferation goals. This vision is based on the reality that nuclear security is not just about warheads and the size of the stockpile. The vision emphasizes that we must increase our focus on nuclear security and transforming the Cold War nuclear weapons complex into a 21st century national security enterprise. We must ensure our evolving strategic posture places the stewardship of our nuclear arsenal, nonproliferation programs, missile defenses, and the international arms control objectives into one comprehensive strategy that protects the American people and our allies. One particularly interesting angle here: Obama has overruled his secretary of defense, Robert Gates, who has been pushing for months to maintain the warhead program. Last October, Gates warned that "[t]o be blunt, there is absolutely no way we can maintain a credible deterrent and reduce the number of weapons in our stockpile without resorting to testing our stockpile or pursuing a modernization program." But even though "modernization" has now been halted, Obama will almost certainly not resume nuclear testing. So one has to presume Gates is not a happy camper on this score.
Obama's War Funding Passes House	With a vote of 368-60, the House on Thursday wholeheartedly approved of Obama's request for extra funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The $96.7 billion bill includes $44 billion for operations, maintenance and military personnel for the two wars and $26 billion to replace planes and equipment. Not only did the bill easily pass, it came without any timelines or benchmarks that the Democrats have insisted upon in past supplemental requests made by the Bush Administration. House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., had included a list of conditions to be met within a year's time when he outlined the bill earlier this month, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., took them out. Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., leader of the Out of Iraq Caucus, threw up her hands when asked why Democrats backed the bill. Continue reading here . . .
Obama on D Day	On June 6, 1944, the United States and its allies launched the largest air and sea armada in world history. The purpose of this mission was clear: liberate Europe from the grip of Nazi despotism. The landings on the Normandy beaches led to unprecedented death and destruction. American soldiers leaving their amphibious landing crafts measured their life expectancy in minutes. In the first hour of battle hundreds lost their lives and in succeeding waves thousands were killed as the beaches at Omaha and Utah were soaked with the blood of young men in their teens and early twenties. click photo for awesome larger image 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 Obamamessiah will not allow those not connected with government to enjoy the day. Obama is very important you know. This is an unprecedented request. I hope the French come to their senses and deny it. For the fallen heroes lying in their graves this ignorance is lamentable. Perhaps it explains why Obama can apologize and apologize again and many Americans can applaud, or at the very least, accept his gesture for foreign consumption. I cannot. I am appalled that we can ignore, forget or rationalize away American heroism. I don't think we should ever apologize for what the United States has done to extricate millions from the yoke of totalitarian control. It is not arrogance to recall the limbs that were shattered and the bodies broken to set history on the course of democracy, imperfect as it is. Before Obama stands supinely before the G-20 again and engages in a form of national self-flagellation, I would urge him to stand amid the crosses and stars in Normandy cemetery and recall the sacrifices made by those youngsters so that he could stand amongst their graves and breathe an unadorned version of freedom.
Obama's Rules Of War	The Justice Department confirmed last week that FBI agents in Afghanistan are reading Miranda warnings to suspected terrorists captured there, a practice that Republican congressmen this week branded as "crazy" and "stupid." Miranda warnings were mandated by a U.S. Supreme Court decision that said domestic law enforcement agencies must inform criminal suspects arrested in the United States of their rights under the 5th Amendment. "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law," says the typical Miranda warning. "You have the right to an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights?" The Obama administration's decision to make this statement to terror suspects captured on the battlefield in a foreign country has sparked outrage among several Republicans Congress who spoke with CNSNews.com. It also contradicts what Obama said in March, when he indicated that Miranda rights did not apply to terror suspects captured overseas. Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), as first reported in The Weekly Standard, said he was recently in Afghanistan and personally witnessed FBI agents reading the Miranda warning to captured combatants. "I was a little surprised to find it taking place when I showed up because we hadn�t been briefed on it, I didn�t know about it," said Rogers. "We�re still trying to get to the bottom of it, but it is clearly a part of this new global justice initiative." "Anytime that you offer confusion in that environment that�s already chaotic and confusing enough, you jeopardize a soldier�s life," said Rogers. Continue reading here -- with video . . .
Another Major Blow on Gitmo	PatriotRoom.com reports that closing Gitmo in January became one step closer to legally impossible today. Already this week, the House showed its defiance of Obama's goal of shutting down the facility by approving a $100 billion war-spending bill that stipulates that it will not allow the use of federal money to close Guantanamo in the final months of this budget year. That bill is expected to be passed by the Senate soon. The bill before the House Thursday prohibits the release of detainees into the United States during the 2010 budget year. It would allow the transfer to the United States of detainees for prosecution or detention only after Congress has had two months to read a White House report on how it plans to shut the detention facility and disperse the inmates. The House bill also requires the Obama administration to notify lawmakers of any plans to transfer detainees to other countries. But the chamber also rejected an amendment by Rep. Jerry Lewis, a Republican, that strengthened the prohibition by stopping in its tracks funding for any government activity related to closing the facility. The amendment first went down on a 216-212 vote. After Republicans demanded a recount, it was defeated again, 213-212. If the bill passes the Senate, Obama could veto it, which would maim him politically, or he can sign it. If it doesn't reach his desk for another few weeks, he will still have to craft a still-elusive reason for shutting the place down, and then Congress gets 60 days to review it. Any plan that specifically lists locations in the United States for relocation of the terrorists will run into a blowtorch of opposition by those states' congressional delegations. Looks more likely that Obama will have to renege on yet another campaign promise, and keep Gitmo open. The sound you hear the day he capitulates on that issue will be the sound of liberal heads exploding.
50 Or More Gitmo Trials Possible	Attorney General Eric Holder said Wednesday there may be 50 or more trials of Guantanamo Bay detainees as the Obama administration works to shut the detention center by early next year. Holder discussed the plan before the Senate Judiciary Committee, where the senior Republican called him "too soft" on terrorism while a second GOP lawmaker said he was on the right track in handling detainees. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., criticized Holder for the release of Bush administration memos that authorized harsh interrogation techniques. Sessions said the memos gave important information to America's enemies. Holder told senators protecting Americans from terrorists is his top priority. Under questioning from Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Holder outlined efforts to close Guantanamo. Last week, the administration shipped 10 detainees from Guantanamo, leaving 229 still there. Obama has ordered the center closed by January. Graham said he expected about one-quarter or fewer of the inmates to be brought to civilian or military trial. Holder said he thought that figure was "about right." Continue reading here . . .
Obama�s Rules Of Engagement	Don�t shoot back! Don�t pick the poppies! And don�t bother the women and men in burqas! These are the new rules of engagement for leathernecks in Afghanistan. Sound incredible? They�re true. Welcome to the modern Marine Corps under Barack Hussein Obama. On July 1, the U.S. military initiated Operation Khanjar or "Strike of the Sword," an invasion of the Helmand Province by 4,000 Marines and 650 Afghan soldiers. "Strike of the Sword" represents the first military operation to be ordered by Obama. The purpose of the campaign is to flush out Taliban operatives from southern Afghanistan in order to safeguard the re-election of Afghan President Hamid Karzai on August 20. The military initiative is being conducted by the insistence of Kharzai, who fears that a strong Taliban presence will produce unfavorable results for him on election-day. To accomplish this objective, Obama remains determined to deploy 68,000 additional U.S. troops to southern Afghanistan within the next six weeks. But the Marines, thanks to Obama, are conducting this mission with their hands tied. The first order from America�s new faux-commander is that the Marines must not return enemy fire for fear of killing an Afghan non-combatant. ABC Correspondent Mike Boettcher, who is embedded with Golf Company, reports that the young Marines, when ambushed by Taliban forces with automatic weapons, were ordered to shoulder their rifles. Their command, Boettcher writes, warned them that "one civilian casualty could negate the No. 1 objective of this operation -- winning the trust and respect of the farmers of the Helmand River Valley." Details here . . .