The Lesser Rights of Heroes

I have two other posts in the works – one is my continuation of my series on the lessons of Nazism, the other is a review of a new movie starring Sigourney Weaver – but tonight I wanted to bring to light the situation of a US Army Ranger who is about to spend another Christmas away from his family for no reason other than defending himself from a known terrorist.

Lt. Michael Behenna joined the US Army in 2006 after graduating college; he joined the Rangers and deployed to Iraq in 2007. On April 21, 2008, his convoy was hit by an IED and two of his men were killed. The incident weighed heavily on the young officer, yet he continued to lead his men as only a soldier can. On May 5, Army intelligence reported that they had identified the insurgent leader responsible for the IED that killed his men: Ali Mansour. Lt. Behenna’s platoon was sent to arrest Mansour at his home; they found more than they might have expected. He had an RPK machine gun (similar to the AK-47; larger and with a little more oomph), a large stash of ammunition, RPG’s, material to make IED’s and multiple illegal passports – including one from Iran.

Two weeks later, Army intelligence inexplicably decided they didn’t have enough evidence to keep Mansour and ordered Behenna’s unit to return the terrorist to his home. En route to Mansour’s residence, Behenna ordered the convoy to stop; he took Mansour out of the vehicle, away from the convoy, and over to a culvert and bridge where he threatened to kill Mansour if he didn’t confess to planning the IED that had killed his men. The interpreter, known as Harry, later testified that he didn’t believe Behenna would actually kill Mansour. At some point during the questioning, Behenna turned briefly to Harry and Mansour attacked. Behenna was forced to fire a controlled pair of shots in self-defense and Mansour was killed. Behenna’s NCO, Staff Sgt. Warner, decided to hide the evidence; he placed an incendiary grenade under Mansour’s head, pulled the pin, and walked away. Behenna panicked and failed to properly report the incident. That is the worst that can be said of his actions on May 16, 2008.

Three days later, Army intelligence issued a “kill or capture” order for Mansour. They didn’t know he was already dead. His naked and burned body was discovered still in the culvert and an investigation was launched, at which point Behenna told the truth about what had happened. In November he was shipped back to Fort Campbell for desk duty to await prosecution.

SSG Warner was offered a plea deal (although what kind of deal I haven’t been able to find) to testify against Lt. Behenna. Harry, the interpreter, also testified – he claimed that Lt. Behenna stripped Mansour naked, sat him down on a rock and executed him. The forensic evidence, however, proved he was lying. Both Iraqi and American forensic experts – including the prosecution’s own expert, Dr. Herbert MacDonnell – agreed that when Mansour was shot, he was standing, with his arms raised. He was shot while in an attack position.

What will blow you away is what happened next. Army prosecutors sent Dr. MacDonnell home without having him testify. Dr. MacDonnell told Lt. Behenna’s lawyers as he was leaving that he knew Lt. Behenna was innocent, but that because of his contract he couldn’t say why; they needed to ask the prosecutors. Before the case went to the panel (jury) for deliberation, defense attorneys specifically asked prosecutors if there was any exculpatory evidence that they needed to enter into the record.

Prosecutors at that point said NO. Then, after the verdict was reached, upon Dr. MacDonnell’s insistence, prosecutors finally turned the evidence over. This incident turned up a very damning piece of information: Army prosecutors had deliberately withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense. When Dr. MacDonnell told them that Lt. Behenna was telling the truth and that all of the forensic evidence pointed to that fact, prosecutors sent him home and refused to pass his findings on to defense attorneys. Such actions are a blatant violation of the rules of the court and have led to immediate nullification of several major convictions over the years. Lawyers have been suspended, even disbarred for this kind of infraction. Both prosecutors and defense attorneys are required by the Supreme Court verdict in Brady v. Maryland to hand over any evidence that is considered important to the guilt or innocence of the accused; such evidence is called exculpatory, or is known as “Brady material”.

In this case, a further horror was laid on Lt. Behenna and his family when the judge refused to grant a mistrial and order a new trial. Despite the open and willful flaunting of criminal law by prosecutors, the judge let the verdict stand and sentenced Lt. Behenna to 25 years at Fort Leavenworth Prison. Two different panels have since taken time off of his sentence, reducing it to 15 years.

Regardless of the reduction, the entire episode is an unspeakable injustice against an American hero who did nothing more than defend himself against a known terrorist who tried to attack him. Since the death of Ali Mansour, not one single justice has been afforded the Behenna family; not one person in the government has stopped to acknowledge the cruelty of the situation. Untold numbers of Americans, including elected Congressmen, have insisted that the original verdict be overturned and a new trial ordered. Despite everything that has happened, despite the evidence, despite the expert testimony and despite the outrage that Army prosecutors committed in the courtroom, yesterday the Secretary of the Army, John McHugh, denied Lt. Behenna’s request for clemency. He refused to give this hero a single day of clemency.

Even worse, when the appeal hearing was held just a couple of weeks ago, Army prosecutors backed away from their original narrative – that Lt. Behenna had executed Mansour as he sat naked on a rock. Now they’re claiming that the instant Lt. Behenna pointed a loaded gun at Mansour, regardless of the reason, he forfeited his right to self-defense.

That is the most incredibly ludicrous argument against self-defense that I have ever heard in my life. It’s being made by the Army against an exemplary soldier. There can be no forgiveness for such deliberate injustices.

This Saturday, Lt. Behenna’s parents, brothers and girlfriend will visit him for Christmas. They and their supporters are doing all they can to help lift his spirits. Three different Oklahoma agencies have promised him a job when he is released and members of the Oklahoma government, all the way to the governor, have written letters to plead his case. It may be 15 months before a decision is made on the appeal. By that time, Lt. Michael Behenna will have spent his third Christmas in prison, wishing to be free, to hold his girlfriend, hug his mother, and celebrate with those he loves.

Visit to find out how to help the Behenna family, write to Lt. Behenna, and see further news on the case. Write to your Representatives and Senators to plead for intervention and stop the injustice being repeatedly visited upon this family of civil servants.

(Keep your eyes peeled for that movie review…we’ll have a contest to give away a free copy!)

What is Wrong with the GOP?!?

Someone forwarded me the name of Adam Kokesh. I’d heard the name before but couldn’t remember, though I seemed to recall he was aligned with an anti-war group. Enter the Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) yet again. Members of this group are widely known among conservative bloggers, milbloggers and current military as an embarrassment. They have done all manner of ridiculous things from claiming ranks they did not have to pushing full-on phony soldiers as the real thing to issuing threats of violence. They’ve even papered a couple of colleges with racist fliers and attributed them to conservative organizations such as Young America’s Foundation, later claiming it was “satire.”

Ace of Spades picked up on this back in January – no idea how I managed to miss it – but one of their star members, Adam Kokesh, is running as a Republican with the blessing of the GOP as a Representative for New Mexico’s third district. Jonn has been following Kokesh for some time, to the point that when he goes to cover an IVAW event, Kokesh looks everywhere but at him and, when appropriate, runs in the opposite direction.

Kokesh has also been tracked to activities with socialist organizations World Can’t Wait and ANSWER. Click here and you can see the interview with FOX News contributor Judge Andrew Napolitano, who didn’t do his homework – not once is it mentioned in the piece who Kokesh really is or what he stands for. Not a single word is uttered about it.

Here’s the short story: Kokesh WAS a sergeant in the Marine Corps serving in the Civil Affairs group (all that front-line action sure did teach you a lot, didn’t it, buddy?). I say “was” because he was caught trying to smuggle an Iraqi pistol back to the United States and was busted back to E-3 (that’s a lance corporal in the Marines, a private first class in the Army, seaman in the Navy, or airman first class in the Air Force). He requested a second tour in Iraq but was denied because of the theft during his previous tour. At some point shortly after this, he left active duty in the Corps and went to live with IVAW. That was when the mouthiness began – he bashed blogger Michelle Malkin, Israeli supporter David Horowitz, and he and his buddies openly trashed the Gathering of Eagles, a group of bikers who gather annually to support the troops and their mission in Washington, DC.

When the bloggers and demonstraters they had bashed fought back it got ugly. Kokesh started issuing threats, making comments that he wanted to “blow up” the GoE and bragging that he wasn’t marked with PTSD, so he could buy all the guns he wanted, “not to mention the vast arsenal I brought back from Iraq!” He issued a “new fatwah” on his blog at one point, calling on jihadists to openly assassinate Malkin and fantasized about wanting to see Ann Coulter hog-tied with electrical wire in Fallujah. Kokesh made appearances in which he called himself “Sergeant Kokesh” despite his demotion and was later given an “other than honorable” discharge from the Corps after visiting Germany to openly recruit US troops to desert and join IVAW and a demonstration in DC where he wore his Marine uniform on a “mock patrol” in which he and other members mockingly tortured actors.

The New Mexico Republican Party has, thus far, not begun to distance themselves from Kokesh or his outlandish stupidity. How he can dare run as a Republican when he has spent the last several years disparaging everything the party stands for is beyond me, but the GOP needs to wake up and publicly disavow any support for this rat bastard. It should speak volumes, though, that 9/11 truth nutwad Ron Paul has thrown his support behind this coward.


One of the best nonfiction books I have ever read was written by Marcus Luttrell, a Navy SEAL who was the sole survivor of SEAL team 10 on Operation Redwing in the Hindu Kush of Afghanistan. Luttrell relates his story as his team, sent to put eyeballs on a Taliban bigwig, ends up all but being stepped on in their hiding places by three Afghani goatherds. They knew by the way these guys were looking at them that if they didn’t kill them, within minutes of turning them loose they’d be set upon by all the Taliban soldiers in the village they were watching–and they’d end up dead.

In WWII, this wouldn’t have been an issue. The bad guys would have been killed and we’d have heard nothing about it. Luttrell goes into the realities they faced on the side of that mountain: if they let them go, the Taliban would kill the American SEALs as quickly as they could. But if they killed the goatherds, the SEALs knew that the Taliban would play it up, the US media would eat it up, and to quell the anger at killing unarmed people the military courts would chew them up and spit them out. They knew that their careers would be over if they did what they would have to do to save themselves.

Most of the country knows what happened by now. They let the goatherds go, and in no time the mountainside was swarming with Taliban killers. Luttrell was the only man to survive of the four-man team. The Taliban even managed to shoot down the helicopter sent to rescue them, killing all the souls on board.

We haven’t learned the lessons of that fight. It has just been announced that three Navy SEALs are being court martialed for supposedly abusing a prisoner, one who was a most-wanted terrorist in Iraq. SO-2 Matthew McCabe, SO-2 Jonathan Keefe and SO-1 Julio Huertas refused an admiral’s mast (a non-judicial punishment) offered in the wake of accusations that they punched Ahmed Hashim Abed.

The evidence? Abed had a bloody lip.

Cry me a goddamn river.

What’s worse is that the bad guy is claiming he was punched in the gut, but his LIP was bloody! Are we serious? They offered a non-judicial punishment and the SEALs decided to stand up for themselves. My Lord, what are we coming to when the media jumps on something like this and our troops, who are heroes for capturing this flab of human debris, are targeted instead?

I find it completely astounding that the FBI and the military weren’t willing to do a damn thing to stop a known jihadist within their own ranks before he carried out jihad on 14 souls (one of those soldiers was pregnant–the victim count should be FOURTEEN) but when our boys save the day by catching a murdering fiend, we move to protect the murderer. Abed, by the way, led the mob that murdered and burned the bodies of four US Blackwater employees, dragged them through the streets, then hung them from a bridge in Fallujah.

Shame on whoever thought this should be prosecuted. SHAME ON YOU.

Winter Soldier Syndrome

More than one reader has suggested that I go to a website hosted by Iraq Veterans Against the War to read about the “reality” of the Iraq war. It actually started before I joined Steve and Philip here on last year–people began emailing me on MySpace and telling me to read IVAW articles and quit talking about what I don’t understand. At least one was a person I knew; he had served in the Marines, but his boots never left U.S. soil. Others quoted names such as Jessie MacBeth and Josh Lansdale and suggested that I was fabricating knowing several people who had served and believed in their mission.

What’s hilarious to me now is that every single name quoted to me by those folks has been debunked as a fraud. And the list of said frauds continues to grow as time wears on. Let’s start at the beginning:

Shortly before the Iraq invasion, comic book author Micah Wright published a book called You Back the Attack, We’ll Bomb Who We Want! In it he claimed to be a former Army Ranger who’d served in Operation Just Cause (the 1989 invasion of Panama meant to depose drug lord and Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega) and had been forever changed by war. He was exposed as a fraud by Richard Leiby in the Washington Post and later recanted his story, resulting in his publishers dropping his material before his contract was set to expire.

Jimmy Massey claimed that, during his service as a Marine in Iraq, he and his comrades committed heinous atrocities. Among them were that his unit had fired on unarmed, peaceful Iraqi protesters, American Marines had shot a 4-year-old Iraqi girl in the head, and that at one point, his unit had killed so many civilians that they had to call in a tractor-trailer rig to carry the bodies away. He went on a speaking tour with Cindy Sheehan to warn parents of the evils of military recruiters and wrote a book called Kill, Kill, Kill that was a big hit in France. The Associated Press took Massey’s claims and ran with them, trumpeting them from every media outlet that would carry the story. They never checked their facts: they had a reporter, Ravi Nessman, embedded with Massey’s unit, and Nessman wrote in excess of 30 pieces about the unit’s activities. Nessman was never consulted, nor were the Marines ever asked to respond to the story before it was published as the gospel truth. To this day, however, he maintains a website where he peddles his lies and they are swallowed whole.

Jessie MacBeth was once the darling posterboy of IVAW. He claimed to be an Army Ranger who served in Iraq and, like Massey, claimed he had either carried out or witnessed unspeakable acts of horror on innocent civilians in Iraq. He even posted a picture of himself in uniform with a flag backdrop. But as soon as the picture was released, real Rangers were all over MacBeth like flies on a cowpie. His beret was worn backwards, his BDU undershirt was the wrong color, his sleeves were rolled up (Rangers don’t do that), and his unshaven face was completely outside of Army regulations. A tiny bit of digging turned up MacBeth’s form DD-214 (his record of honorable discharge): he served from January to June, 2003, and never left basic training. He certainly never went to Ranger school or Iraq. To be fair, IVAW later began requiring proof of service and no longer endorses MacBeth.

Josh Lansdale, through Wesley Clark’s VoteVets organization, spoke up on behalf of vets by claiming that the Bush administration’s slashing of VA benefits left him unable to access care for his severe PTSD and “busted ankle” (as he put it) for six months. A VA spokesman raised the first red flag when he said that a soldier such as Lansdale would have been bumped to the top of the list and would have been treated within less than 30 days. Clark’s VoteVets group featured Lansdale in an ad designed to smear the Republican incumbent Clark was running against and claimed that soldiers were being sent to Iraq with “Vietnam-era body armor” (a patent lie). Lansdale disappeared shortly after the ad aired; his 1Sgt, Gary Kuehn, spoke about Lansdale’s claims after he retired and shot down every single one. He even pointed out that Lansdale’s busted ankle came from playing volleyball.

Scott Thomas Beauchamp wrote Shock Troops, a diary series, in The New Republic. In it he claimed that he had taken part in ridiculing a woman disfigured by an IED blast, laughed at a fellow soldier as he supposedly marched around with the skull of an Iraqi child, and helped another soldier use a Bradley vehicle to run over dogs. It was the claims of jerking the Bradley “hard to the right” to run over a dog that caught the attention of several reporters; a Bradley is a big, bulky vehicle incapable of sharp turns. Beauchamp later recanted, admitting that he had hoped that his time in the war would earn him credibility as a writer–after claiming “absolute moral authority” on the grounds of simply being a soldier.

Last but not least, today Michelle Malkin and This Ain’t Hell have exposed another fraudster used by the anti-war crowd to push their agenda. Rick Duncan claimed to be a former Marine. He claimed he survived the attack at the Pentagon on 9/11 and later served three tours in Iraq with the Marines. He claimed to have been a Marine Captain and said he’d graduated the US Naval Academy at Annapolis. He also claimed that during his third tour in Iraq, he was badly injured in an IED attack that killed four Marines and left him with a plate in his skull and blew off a finger (which was miraculously reattached). This week, members of the Colorado Veterans Alliance–a group that “Duncan” founded–discovered that he was actually Richard Glen Strandlof, and he’d actually been a patient in a mental hospital in Nevada during the time he supposedly survived the IED in Fallujah. He’s now in custody and is being investigated by the FBI for stealing money from the coffers of the CVA.

I can’t remember the last time I heard such a fable being fabricated by someone who supports the war.

Media fact-checking faux pas aside, the IVAW, Winter Soldier, VoteVets and other similar organizations have put people just like this up on their pedestals to speak for them before confirming the veracity of their claims. Not only is it damning to our country, but such fairy tales demean the thousands upon thousands who have served honorably (and the many who have bled and died) in the war, having never witnessed or committed any atrocity like the ones claimed by these charlatans. Winter Soldier began with a political wannabe named John Kerry and his cohorts lying to Congress about witnessing similar atrocities in Vietnam. Winter Soldier Syndrome lives on today.

We Can’t Have it Both Ways

I’ve been noticing over the past few years that American society is not only fickle, but impossible to please. It seems that the majority of those living in my country (legally or illegally) amount to little more than a mob with a short fuse and an even lower IQ. It’s very frustrating to me, particularly when someone tries to shout me down after begging me to debate an issue with them, be it the war, 9/11 conspiracy theories, religion, immigration–you name it.

It all leads to one problem: we subconsciously wish we could have everything both ways.

We can’t, yet that’s exactly what we want. During Clinton’s presidency, we were attacked multiple times by radical Muslims bent on destroying America. Each time, Clinton tucked tail and ran, apologizing as he went. And each time he did that, the attacks became more brazen, leading up to the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000. But the big finale would come on 9/11, when 19 murderers carried out plans they’d been making for years and managed to do more damage and cause more carnage than all of their predecessors combined.

After it happened, everyone bitched about the government’s lack of response. Where was that anger when we were attacked in Mogadishu? Or when the Khobar Towers were bombed? Or when our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were all but vaporized? Or when the Cole was attacked? Nobody demanded to know why Bill Clinton hadn’t done anything to stop those attacks. Clinton had plenty of opportunity, but he never took it, and he left every possible door open for 9/11 to happen (yes, folks, it took years for a plan like that to come together the way it did, and I promise Clinton had a hand in ignoring the warning signs). Did Dubya have a chance to stop 9/11? Maybe. But if he had done something to stop it before it happened, we would’ve had another problem.

Any time we do act preemptively in an attempt to protect ourselves from a pending attack, people decry the move as premature and tragic. They complain (quite loudly) that there wasn’t enough evidence for us to take such action. Iraq is the perfect example. Plenty of mistakes have been made. The war wasn’t planned properly and our rules of engagement are atrocious (requiring our soldiers to see the sniper that’s picking them off before firing is a prime example of how ridiculous it is). I think we should’ve taken out Bin Laden before taking on a bigger responsibility in Iraq. Be that as it may, we’re there, and it was going to happen whether we liked it or not. If we hadn’t taken Saddam out, he might’ve formed an alliance with Iran that would eventually have spelled disaster for America.

In acting preemptively, we have stopped an active threat against us before that threat could become even more real. We know Saddam had weapons of mass destruction; he used mustard gas and sarin in bombs he used on Iranians and Kurds. If he had those weapons, you know he had others, and pictures like this tell us stories that thousands still refuse to believe:


Those are US troops digging a MiG-25 Foxbat, an advanced fighter plane, out of the Iraqi sand. Saddam was allowed to have fighter jets, but had limited flying ability and wasn’t supposed to have them fitted to carry ordinance (weapons). Three of these practically brand-new Russian-made planes were found, all fitted to carry the weapons Saddam wasn’t allowed to have; more than 50 planes total were hidden near al-Taqqadum airfield. We know there were mass movements toward Syria in the days before we invaded. What else was he hiding?

The fact is that we’re never satisfied. If we don’t act to stop a major atrocity, we didn’t do enough; if we do act and disaster is averted, we acted too quickly and should be ashamed of ourselves. We can’t live this way.

It’s the same way with everything in our culture. We’re expressly forbidden from watching a potentially violent person without mountains of evidence. But when that person does snap and kills thirty people, such as in the Virginia Tech massacre, everyone cries foul that more should have been done–he should have been forced to get help, he should have been stripped of his civil liberty to buy firearms, blah, blah, blah. I’m not trying to make light of any issue, but we’re shooting ourselves in both proverbial feet by acting this way.

WWI was fought over a few issues, but was started by the Serbia assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand (yes, the band got it’s name somewhere). Americans were adamant that it wasn’t our fight, but it was the arms race that ultimately led Germany to start taking out her neighbors and eventually leading American leaders to decide that we had to help our allies. The anti-war marches then would put the marches against the Iraq war to shame. But we barely spent a year in that war before it ended, and some argue that it was the US involvement that turned the tide. We lost a lot of our soldiers in WWI and were in no hurry at all to fight again.

Hitler’s popularity was largely based on his insistence that Germany regain her dignity after being crushed so decisively during the first great war. The Allies so demeaned Germany in the terms of surrender that the German people were very bitter and quite embarrassed. Hitler, signing alliances with Italy’s Mussolini and Japan’s Tojo, began by slowly wearing away at his European neighbors–taking back the Rhineland, then the Sudetenland and later the rest of Czechoslovakia. Everyone was so busy trying to appease the bad guys and refusing to believe there was any evidence of hostility that they were blind to what was possible and what later happened.

Even now, we look back on WWII, the holocaust, and the other atrocities (like the rape of Nanking) and wonder why we didn’t get involved sooner. We all know why: if we had stopped Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo in their tracks, we would have later complained that we didn’t have enough evidence to make our actions right.

We can’t have it both ways. We can’t refuse to act because we don’t want to fight or take a risk and later complain that we didn’t do enough. History is littered with such indecision, and it has been the death of many a civilization. It will, one day, be our undoing.

You know why? We’ll never learn. We’re too proud to do that.

Presidential “Race” Cards: Rush is onto something

[polldaddy poll=1028479]

What’s better than a 50% African-American running on behalf of socialist liberals who don’t like to work? How about a 100% African-American like Condoleezza Rice who; while Barack was “experiencing racism” from his grandmother who happened to be the sole bread winner (whom he’s flying to visit in Hawaii), actually witnessed good friends killed in Birmingham during the riots.

But somehow, Condi turned out to be an Uncle Tom who managed to escape writing books on racism to advance herself politically. Nah, Condi did it the “Uncle Tom” way by graduating college at age 19 and earning her doctorate at age 24 and becoming the youngest African-American AND woman to control the educational department and budget at Stanford and served as a distinguished political science

 My sweet moonbat-buddy Robert continues to leave comments on my page, so I have decided to answer the last one directly.

Yes, this campaign is about “race.” White liberals who are under-achievers and spend their time blaming the rest of society for their troubles, lack of personal responsibility, liberal spending in their own lives, and academic failures, are campaigning on this more than blacks are in the public eye.

The fact is the Democratic Party has had many chances to appoint African-Americans to high positions, but coming out of their Klan clubs, it took the darlings a while to warm up. Then when they finally did warm up, they decided that blacks had to pass litmus tests before they would help them out.

Conventionally, for liberals, the more death statistics fly up among black males in the inner cities, the better their pro-socialist arguments can go. The more black mothers are on welfare, the more they can argue pro-taking away from hard-working Americans to “spread the wealth around.

They love it. And of course, with no work ethics whatsoever, can we really blame them?

People like Robert and the blacks in the inner cities killing one another in gangs oppose removal of gun bans so that decent Americans are prohibited from defending themselves. People like Robert are willing to sell their countries and its ideals out for a one-time handout that basically keeps him and his peeps poor and out in the cold (but for that one-time annual welfare check he is to receive) while opportunists like Barack Obama stay powerful and wealthy, not to mention the Clintons, Howard Dean, and Barney Frank.

People like Robert mean one thing to Barack Obama. A vote.

When Rush Limbaugh factually points out that this is about race among African-Americans, liberals suddenly trade in their Klan hoods for equality swords.

Any real American (white or black) knows that the only reason Barack Obama was nominated as President is because liberals like Robert love the fact that he promotes more socialism than Hillary did, promotes sex-ed to kindergarteners, promotes infanticide, and whose middle name is “Hussein.

The last time liberals selected a black man for a position of high power was Thurgood Marshall, who held radical liberal views much like Obama where he joined the Warren court and assisted in laws that eventually released hardened criminals back to society, legislated Roe V Wade which eventually led to partial-birth abortion and finally, Barack’s support of infanticide.

Barack Obama voted against a Bill in Illinois that would protect the life of a baby born that had survived an abortion.

These two men were not appointed by liberals because they are “black,” they are appointed because they were/are insane!

(Robert originally endorsed Dennis Kucinich whom makes Barack look like a moderate).

A poll released last week by the Military Times reveals that of almost 5,000 active and enlisted military members, almost 70% support John McCain for president.

White non-Hispanics support McCain by 76% to Obama 17%.

Hispanic or Latino support McCain by 63% to Obama 27%.

Blacks support OBAMA 79% to McCain 12%.

Not about race, huh?

http://www. militarytimes. com/static/projects/pages/081003_ep_2pp. pdf

Let’s also observe the fact that the serving military right now supports John McCain and his policies. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t support him.

Two years ago, liberals were telling us that the military hated Bush and they’d be all for allowing only the military to vote in 2008.
Wonder if they’d say that now?

Apparently, Obama will really have it in for them now.

Hey, another reason for liberals to love him!

What Robert doesn’t understand though is that hard-workers like myself and others that I “pal around with” will survive even the most crazy liberal economic policy because we have what it takes. Who is really going to suffer though are the ones like Robert who are relying on Barack’s economic promises the most.

Apparently Robert needs his empty promises.

I do not.


Think Before You Vote

I ended up too busy with guests at home yesterday to post…so I’ll do it today.

I’ve talked before about the difference between thinking with one’s emotions and thinking with one’s logic.  Some of the conversations I’ve had lately have once again put this issue in the forefront of my mind, as I think there are still far too many people who base their reactions to certain things–such as politics–on their emotional feelings rather than logic.  I met a lady yesterday who is an absolute joy to spend time with, but one of the conversations we had reminded me starkly of the same conversation I’ve had with several people.

There are a handful of reasons why several of those I know are voting for Obama, but the same two keep being paraded out by everyone: abortion rights and “diplomacy”.  I have to say, there are many much larger reasons to consider before voting this year, and the diplomacy argument isn’t being considered past your own living room.  You have to really think, and genuinely expand what you know before you can say you really know why you’re voting a certain way this year.

Abortion is a big reason for a lot of women.  This, I say again, is NOT serious enough to be the sole reason to vote for any candidate, let alone our next President.  Personally, I believe abortion should be outlawed past a certain point; I believe partial-birth abortion should be outlawed as cruelty and there should be laws (ones that Obama has never supported) that protect babies delivered alive during certain abortion procedures.  I think the morning-after pill is perfectly acceptable.  Too many women, though, say they don’t want Palin to be one step away from the Presidency because they think her religion is her “agenda” somehow.

Let’s talk about Palin’s religious agenda.  That argument is stricken dead by Palin’s own record.  In her first year as governor of Alaska, the people of her state overwhelmingly voted to approve a ballot measure that would have banned gay partners of state employees from receiving benefits the way married couples do.  Yet when the resolution hit her desk, Palin unequivocally vetoed it.  If her religion is her agenda, she hasn’t shown it.  There’s no evidence of this.  Try again.

What about the War on Terror?  Has anyone considered this?  Another issue commonly raised is that we’re somehow not being “diplomatic” enough in our dealings with other countries.  I beg to differ.  We’ve been nothing but diplomatic with Iran.  Part of diplomacy means that when you’re done talking, if nothing has been accomplished, you let the other guy know that you will use force if necessary.  We’ve been very diplomatic with North Korea and Russia.  We’ve been diplomatic with everyone–even Iraq.  Bush gave Saddam the opportunity to snap to and start following the terms of surrender laid down for him in the first Gulf War, and he refused to do it.  So, Bush told him that he had until a certain date to have a change of heart, lest he be invaded.  Two days before we invaded, a massive movement of something into Syria was recorded by US military intel on satellite images.

We’ve tried diplomacy.  Where it doesn’t work, you have to be willing to stop talking, roll up your sleeves, and take a huge swing at the bad guy’s proverbial chin.  You can only talk so long before diplomacy becomes useless.  We tried diplomacy with Jimmy Carter back in the ’70’s, when Iranian radicals took the American Embassy in Tehran and held the employees hostage for over a year.  The day Reagan was inaugurated, they let the hostages go without precondition.  They knew that Reagan would beat them to death if they didn’t.  When diplomacy didn’t work with Moammar Quaddafhi, Reagan bombed the guy’s complex; he stopped supporting terrorism immediately because he knew we weren’t kidding.

Barack Obama wants to downscale our military the way Clinton did.  Clinton spent eight years downscaling our military; by the time he left office, military spending had been cut by more than 35%.  Nine months later we watched the towers fall in New York.  Coincidence?  I think not.

You have to stop feeling and start thinking.  You have to read both sides of every issue before making a decision based on a gut reaction.  If you’re not making an attempt to be logical about it, you may be making the most grave mistake of our generation.

A Nail Through the Obama Campaign’s Heart?

If it’s true, it should send shockwaves through the country, particularly those who were undecided in battleground states.  The New York Post has printed an article claiming that while Senator Barack Obama was visiting Iraq, demanding General Petraeus for a solid withdrawal timetable, he was going behind everyone’s back and asking the Iraqi government to hold off on negotiations for a US troop pullout.  I don’t always agree with or believe the New York Post, but they’re still a member of the Associated Press and they’re quoting a credible Iraqi official.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama pressed the Iraqis to cease all negotiations with the Bush Administration for a troop pullout, telling them that US Congress should be involved in the deal.  Verbatim, the Post quotes him saying, “he asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington.”  He went on to say that Obama had said “it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush Administration in its ‘state of weakness and political confusion’.”

This after Obama, here in the good ol’ USA, has lambasted George W. Bush for NOT having our troops out of Iraq already.  That’s aside from the aforementioned visit to Iraq–the same one where Barry O refused to visit wounded troops in Landstuhl because he wouldn’t be allowed to bring the media with him into the hospital.

It’s a strong accusation to make, announcing to the public that a Presidential candidate is deliberately attempting to sabotage the safety of our troops for his own gain.  But it’s equally strong to accuse a well-founded news organization of making up quotes and attributing them to real people, which you would have to do with the Post.  They may twist quotes on occasion, but there are some things that are nearly impossible to take out of context.

What this means, once again, is that Barack Obama was making public demands at home that he knew his constituency wanted to hear, and turning around and trying to play the game to make it look better for him in Iraq, where he thought nobody would rat him out (or that nobody would believe him).  He did this potentially at the cost of the safety of our loved ones, something I take very, very personally.  This could prove him to be every ounce the spineless weasel he’s accused everyone else of being.

Paging Lindsay Lohan…you still thing Obama’s the freakin’ messiah?  What about you, Matt Damon?  Chevy Chase?  Candace Bergen?  Hell-ooooo…?

Media Already Mischaracterizing the Plan for Withdrawal

Just a few hours later, the AP is now reporting that the withdrawal of troops may begin in June of next year. 

But what makes me chuckle is the opening statement of the article:

BAGHDAD – Iraq and the U.S. have reached preliminary agreement to withdraw American forces from Iraqi cities by next June, six years into the increasingly unpopular war

Uh, should that say “increasingly uncovered war?”

Next, it states:

The negotiations over a withdrawal timetable follow long insistence by President Bush that setting any schedule for U.S. troops to leave would be dangerous. The draft agreement with Iraq would link troop reductions to achievement of certain security milestones, although the details have not been made public.

What the hell does the media think is going to happen?  One day, we’re just going to send planes to gather them all up at once?  I do believe Bush stated – as was completely true – that setting a timetable BEFORE Iraq was on a clear path to success on its own, with their own military, would have been dangerous.

Amazingly, the media and liberals have lost concern for the troops and now have a new mission of their own: spend from now until November convincing Americans that this was a mission failed as opposed to a mission accomplished.

Success Propelling Withdrawal

The AP reports this morning that Iraq and the United States are getting closer to an agreement to start setting a timetable and finally start bringing our guys home. 

This is after years of awesome work on behalf of our military and commander-in-chief. 

I remember the beginning and capturing a monster like Saddam Hussein alone seemed impossible yet we pulled it off.  Iraq has began re-building, writing its Constitution, has established a government, has held various elections where the people continue to show up in higher numbers everytime to take part in history – moving this once very-troubled and diseased country to a functioning democracy and a strong foothold for the United States so we may continue to monitor the terrorist evil happening around that region.

To all the naysayers, we couldn’t have done it without you.  As crazy as they drove us, we have to thank the naysayers because they exuded what happens in a great Democracy.  Iraq got to see first hand how people can co-exist in a functioning Democracy and completely disagree on one issue.  And contrary to liberal opinion, liberals got to create phony conspiracies about 9/11 (as covered wonderfully by Mel the last few days), call their President a terrorist, call the entire administration liars, and refrained from being fed through a wood-chipper!  Can you imagine what this did for the Iraqi people?  And even though it would have been a real hoot to watch just once, even the liberals’ hysteria about being hauled off to Guantanamo for dissenting from the President’s policies never materialized as well either. 

The only sad thing is that with violence down, the accomplishments made by our troops, the successful road our military is leaving Iraq in, this celebratory tone I fear will not make it to the hearts of our brave men and women who deserve it the most.  Now, we have a presidential election and suddenly the mainstream media doesn’t seem to care about Iraq anymore now that we have won.