NAVAL STATION NORFOLK, Va. — Two Navy SEALs accused in the mistreatment of an Iraqi suspect in the 2004 slayings of four U.S. contractors were arraigned in military court Monday, and one SEAL said he was gratified by support from the public and some members of Congress.

The judge scheduled courts-martial next month for Petty Officer 2nd Class Matthew McCabe of Perrysburg, Ohio, and Petty Officer 1st Class Julio Huertas of Blue Island, Ill. A third SEAL will be arraigned later.

The SEALs have received an outpouring of public support on the Internet, and a California congressman has led a campaign urging Defense Secretary Robert Gates to intervene. About three dozen protesters, including the mother of one of the slain contractors, stood outside the Norfolk Naval Station gate Monday morning holding signs of support.

McCabe is accused of striking the detainee in the midsection, dereliction of duty for failing to safeguard the detainee, and lying to investigators. He deferred entering a plea until his Jan. 19 trial.
McCabe told reporters he was confident he would be exonerated.
“I feel very good about it,” he said as he made his way through the crowd of supporters, shaking hands and thanking them. “The support is phenomenal. It makes us feel better, all these people being behind us.”

While this travesty was being perpetrated in North Carolina at Camp LeJunne The nation’s highest-ranking military officer told soldiers and Marines Monday that the insurgency in Afghanistan has grown in the last three years and he expects casualties to rise next year as additional U.S. troops pour into the war.
“This is the most dangerous time I’ve seen growing up the last four decades in uniform,” Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told about 1,000 Marines at Camp Lejeune.(and I believe it is the most dangerous time that our brave men and women have gone into battle because they have been ordered, as they were told by MulleN yesterday, that if we kill a dozen terrorist Taliban but also kill one or two civilians during the fir fight . It is not a victory! We have to protect the civilians!)

My question is this:. Admiral, how do we determine that people who mostly wear robes that can HIDE underneath an AK-47, that those among the ones shooting at our men and women, are not potential killers?

Many attending Mullen’s talks at Camp Lejeune and Fort Campbell, Ky., will be sent to Afghanistan after this Christmas aspointed out in President Barack Obama’s plan announced last week.

After the first of the year, the Marines will begin sending an additional 6,200 from Lejeune and Camp Pendleton, Calif., the Pentagon announced Monday. The Army will also begin sending in the first of its forces in the spring — a training brigade with about 3,400 soldiers from Fort Drum, N.Y. Three brigades from Fort Campbell’s 101st Airborne Division are also heading to Afghanistan and about 4,100 support forces from various places will deploy early.

“We are not winning, which means we are losing and as we are losing, the message traffic out there to (insurgency) recruits keeps getting better and better and more keep coming,” Mullen said. “That’s why we need the 30,000 and in particular, and you are the lead on this, getting in there this year, over the next 12 months, almost in lightning bolt fashion.”

Mullen told 700 soldiers at Fort Campbell that military leaders believe they have 18 to 24 months to reverse the insurgency, in what he expects to be a tough and bloody fight.
“I am sure we will sustain an increase in the level of casualties, and I don’t want to be in any way unclear about that,” he told troops at Fort Campbell. “This is what happened in Iraq during the surge and as tragic as it is, to turn this thing around, it will be a part of this surge, as well.”

“I expect a tough fight in 2010,” Mullen said. ( what he did not say to the Marines, was that they only have 18 months to accomplish the mission. Then the President has promised he will withdraw!!)
Many questions from soldiers and Marines focused on the role of Pakistan and America’s NATO allies in containing al-Qaeda and the Taliban and on the July 2011 withdraw date.

Mullen said the 2011 date is not an end or withdrawal date.Not exactly what Obama said when he gave his speech to the cadets at West Point!
“In the long run, it is not going to be about killing Taliban,” Mullen told the Marines at Camp Lejeune. “In the long run, it’s going to be because the Afghan people want them out.”( never in my life have I heard a senior officer say war was not about killing the enemy! McArthur and Eisenhower have been be making back flips in their graves!

Just why this aristocratic admiral is the Chief of Staff of the Armed forces is evidentially because he believes as Obama does that we can win over our enemies by being nice to the civilians. Forget about the axiom “kill or be killed”. As Winston Churchill said in 1944: “No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism.”War is about killing the enemy before hey kill you!!

Mullen also said, “in the long run, we are anxious to get at al-Qaeda and the leadership that resides in the border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Strategically the way you do this in my view is to bring pressure from both sides.”So he expects the Pakistani military to help the Marines, but all the reports(and there are few) about the location of Osama bin Laden are that he is hiding in Pakistan with full knowledge of the Pakistan government who either cannot locate or will not capture him. I would not expect too much co-operation from them!

The thrust of this post is that it appears to me that we are sending brave men and women, all volunteers, into HARMS way with orders to give Miranda rights to any one they capture and to not shoot until they are shot at. NO WAY TO WIN A WAR!!!

If the United States waited until Germany and Italy had stable governments before we invaded Europe in 1944. The British and most of Europe would be speaking German, possibly Russian by now.

We went to war to defeat the Nazis and the Japanese who attacked Pearl Harbor.Not to establish a stable government!
MacArthur set up the government in Japan and Eisenhower set up the government in Germany AFTER we defeated the enemy!

Today we dither around at the peril of the brave men and women who are trying to defeat al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, despite the fact that the General sent by Obama has asked for 40,000 more troops to complete the job that Obama sent him to Afghanistan to do.

The absurdity of the dialogue about sending more troops is centered around the establishment of a stable government. We do not even have a stable government in the USA in my opinion. How can you equate what Obama and the Democrats are trying to do with health care and cap-and-trade with the Constitution and Bill of Rights! You cannot!!

But todays news highlites the statement by the spokes person in NATO that they would not consider sending troops to fight in Afghanistan until a stable government has been established.
“Bratislava, Slovakia (AP) – Two NATO members said Friday they will not send more troops to Afghanistan unless its Nov. 7 presidential runoff creates a legitimate government and until President Barack Obama decides on a new strategy there.
Dutch Defense Minister Eimert Van Middelkoop said his country, with 2,160 troops in Afghanistan, is awaiting the final election results “because the legitimacy of the Afghan government is key,” as well as a decision by the Obama administration.

“I think most countries are waiting for the American decisions,” van Middelkoop said at a meeting in Bratislava of the defense ministers of the 28 NATO countries.
I believe they will have to wait until Obama gets his Health Care Bill and the CAP and Trade(aka Tax) are passed, and then he will say that the economy will not support the sending of 40,000 troops as an excuse to do what he intended to do two months ago. Deny McChrystal’s request for 40,000 troops!

The top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, was briefing NATO ministers — including U.S. Defense Minister Robert Gates — on his view of the war in Afghanistan at the meeting.
Danish Defense Minister Soeren Gade said allies won’t increase troop levels until they’re assured the new government in Kabul is committed to the NATO goals.
“I think whoever is going to send more troops to Afghanistan will put up some conditions,” said Gade, whose country has 690 soldiers in Afghanistan. (who cares what a country steeped in socialism that only has 690 troops committed cares?)

“They need to see the new Afghan president and say: ‘If we send more troops to your country, you have to deal with this, this and this.’ We have to make sure the new government in Afghanistan are committed to their job before we send any more troops to Afghanistan.”
Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung of Germany said he also doesn’t expect his country to increase its troop numbers in Afghanistan when the soldiers’ mandate from the German parliament comes up for renewal in December. The existing mandate allows the deployment of a maximum 4,500 soldiers, and Germany currently has just over 4,200 troops in Afghanistan.

The” Hill” is reporting today that: In a speech to nearly 3,000 servicemen at the Naval Air Station in Jacksonville, Fla., Obama said those who died gave “the last full measure of devotion.”9But will he send the troops to watch their backs as McChrystal has requested?)
In the same speech, he pushed back against critics who say he hasn’t acted swiftly enough.( he has not!!)
“While I will never hesitate to use force to protect the American people or our vital interests, I also promise you this — and this is very important as we consider our next steps in Afghanistan — I will never rush the solemn decision of sending you into harm’s way,” Obama said. “I won’t risk your lives unless it is absolutely necessary. And if it is necessary, we will back you up to the hilt.”( I guess he forgot his votes against anything that Congress was doing to support the troops in the Iraq war!)
Monday’s loss of U.S. troops in Afghanistan followed Sunday’s car bombs in Iraq that killed more than 150 people, many of them children.

The president met with some of his national security advisers Monday in the White House Situation Room, the sixth meeting of its kind, to discuss the situation in Afghanistan. But fewer advisers were included, and Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in the region who reportedly has asked for nearly 40,000 additional troops, did not participate! (It sounds like the failure of McNamara and president Lyndon Johnson to listen to the generals in Viet Nam while they were listening to the anti-war chants in the streets and reading the negative articles in the Washington Post and New York Times)

Will Americans allow this smooth talking president to be Commander in Chief over the modern day Viet Nam! And do not believe the Left when they say we are invoved in a civil war that has been going on for 35 years. What we are fighting for is to destroy alQaeda before they attack us again. We would rather defeat them in their hideouts than in the streets of the USA!

Governing  involves tough, unpopular choices and cutting deals with opponents. It requires doing things rather than talking about them!.

Obama is showing little appetite for this. Instead of being the commander-in-chief, he is the campaigner-in-chief.
After a disastrous summer that saw his approval rating drop more than any other president at the same stage since Harry Truman in 1953, Mr Obama has temporarily abandoned the campaign-style events promoting his stalled health-care reform initiative.

Now, he is stumping for Democratic candidates in states he won last year but which are now in danger. Last Wednesday in Hackensack, Mr Obama took to the stage to proclaim: "Your voice can change the world. Your voice can elect Jon Corzine, governor once again of New Jersey." Change the world? Mr Corzine is a former Goldman Sachs executive whose political career was launched when he spent $57 million of his own money on a Senate seat in 2000.

And as he always does, Mr Obama blamed every economic woe on the Bush years, conveniently forgetting that Republicans are no longer in office and it's been his mess for nine months now.

Campaigning and raising cash is what Mr Obama does best. Next week's fundraising events in Florida and Virginia will bring to 24 the number of such functions he had headlined since entering office in January. During his first year in office, Mr Bush attended just six fundraisers.

Late-night comics, although unabashedly liberal and at a loss last year as to how to poke fun at the rather humourless Mr Obama, are having a field day portraying him as a do-nothing prevaricator obsessed with his own image.

"Obama agreed to commit an additional 40,000 troops to help fight Fox News," quipped NBC's Jay Leno. "Senior White House adviser David Axelrod told reporters that Fox News is just pushing a point of view. Well, yes, but at least they've got a point of view." Mr Obama was elected on a promise of being post-partisan to Washington and transforming the country. Thus far, he has won the support of only a single Republican for his health-care plan and has shown himself to be as aggressive a Democratic partisan in office as anyone in the fabled Clinton war room.

All this says much about Mr Obama's priorities at a time when he is sitting on an urgent request for 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan, seemingly unsure about whether the counter-insurgency strategy he announced in March is the right one.
And while our version of Nero dithers, a total of 46 US troops have died in Afghanistan in October in what is already by far the bloodiest year in the country since the 2001 US-led invasion.
With enough effort, resources and time, the marines are confident the Afghan population can be won over. But, with the platoon’s influence limited to a small area around their base, many soldiers wonder if the Taliban and Al-Qaeda may simply outlast them, or if the US and Afghan governments have the resolve to send enough troops to win. Top Republican senators have escalated their call for Obama to grant McChrystal's request for more troops in Afghanistan, and one prominent Democrat warned that a failure to do so could jeopardize U.S. forces.Source:


Despite the urgency in Afghanistan and the decreasing morale problem, Obama procrastinates in his decision to grant or deny McChrystal's request for 40,000 more troops.
Obama has said he would make up his mind in the coming weeks, and no announcement is expected before November. A senior administration official said the president is still working through and considering various options as has not settled on one. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the debate is ongoing.

Source: Telegraph.uk.com

Cognitive dissonance is described by webster: "as refusing to process facts that conflict with deeply held beliefs". And this aptly describes the way Obama has been acting the past few months, and came to a culmunation when he chaired the UN Securuty Council meeting with 19 other leaders of Countries sitting at the table.

His position was and still is, that we can talk the madmen in control of Iran not to build nuclear bombs. While he spoke to the Security Council he had in his mind, and for all I know, in his pocket news that Iran has buit a new facility for enriching uranium securely within a mountain. But even though he had these facts he talked of his dream of a nuclear free world and the abilty of talking Iran out of developing nuclear weapons.
This feckless naivete brought shock and disbelief to the president of France and any person who acknowledges that North Korea is also in the process of getting nuclear weapon cabapability.

In March of this year Obama said this:"“Let me be clear: Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran’s neighbors and our allies. The Czech Republic and Poland have been courageous in agreeing to host a defense against these missiles. As long as the threat from Iran persists, we intend to go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven.” That was President Obama, speaking in Prague. What or whom changed his mind? source:CSN NEWS.com

In December 2007, the National Intelligence Estimate announced, “We assess with moderate confidence [that] Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.” Well, Tehran just admitted it has a second uranium enrichment facility. Fuel produced there could be used to develop nuclear weapons.

When Obama addressed the General Assembly,he actually said, "No one nation can dominate another nation." That adolescent mindlessness was followed with the declaration that "alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War" in fact "make no sense in an interconnected world." Has he discounted Borth Korea also?

Now while he dithers over General McCrhrystal's request for more troops, Obama has decided to abrogate the pact with Poland and the Czech Republic to set up a defensive missile base and radar station to detect icoming missiles. It appears that this was decided when Obama visited with Russia's KGB man, Putin, because Putin stongley objected! What did we get in return? Nothing fro m Russia and Communist China, who keep sending gasoline and strategigic materials and weapons to Iran!
The reason given was that Iran is developing short range missiles more than they are long range missiles that could reach Europe and our Middle East bases.
Strangly, the administration claims that we don’t need the sites in eastern Europe since “U.S. missile-defense capabilities and technologies have advanced in recent years.” That ought to be an argument to deploy them even more widely, not to scrap one site because the defenses elsewhere (say in Alaska or California) are working.And since Naval ship based missiles are subject to the new anti-ship missiles that we know Iran has recieved from China, now makes them vulnerable to destruction if they come into firing range. They offer little to our Iranian nuclear missile defense, if and when they are needed.


By canceling the missile defense plans for Europe we are affectively telling  the world that “America is harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend.” By abandoning promises to our allies and failing to share the benefits of our missile defenses. Abandoning the planned anti-missile sites results in producing a self-inflicted wound we cannot afford at this critical time of our Republic!


And to further make my point that Obama ignores facts. Try this on for size! Obama publicly sends McCrystal to Afghanistan as the new commander and asks for his assessment of the situation. McCrystal does not tell Obama what he wants to hear (in private) so he decides to do something other than what his commander on the ground tells him he needs to do, and then has the gaul to say it publicly at a military conference in England.
Apparently this angered Obma. So he summond the general to ameeting in Copenhagen in his 747. Apparently to remind the general who is Commander in Chief, even though he does not act like it I believe!
As he has done much of the time, when issues are divisive to the voters. He sends out his sycophants, as he did yesterday when General Jones appeared on two networks to dicredit the man POTUS sent to Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban. The Securitry adviser is a retired Army General who is acting as hatchet man for Obama to discredit the Commander in the field by stating that there are many other isues that must be decided before POTUS decides to send 40,000 more troops as were requested!  Like how to placate the anti war movement that voted for Obama who when in the Senate ,opposed the Iraq war!!

Apparently Obama reacted like Truman did to General McArthur when he spoke out to the public about bombing China to win in Korea. Obama I believe was very mad and demanded a meeting with McCrhrystal in Copenhagen to tell him who was in charge! The meeting lasted only 25  minutes. Just long enough for a one way conversation by Obama!

What apparently prompted the meeting was that in London, Gen McChrystal, who heads the 68,000 US troops in Afghanistan as well as the 100,000 Nato forces, flatly rejected proposals to switch to a strategy more reliant on drone missile strikes and special forces operations against al-Qaeda.

He told the Institute of International and Strategic Studies that the formula, which is favoured by Vice-President Joe Biden, would lead to "Chaos-istan".
When asked whether he would support it, he said: "The short answer is: No."
He went on to say: "Waiting does not prolong a favorable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely, and nor will public support."

The remarks have been seen by some in the Obama administration as a barbed reference to the slow pace of debate within the White House.
Gen McChrystal delivered a report on Afghanistan requested by the president on Aug 31, but Mr Obama held only his second "principals meeting" on the issue last week! Jones said thre more meetings were scheduled!!

"One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half. Never run away from anything. Never!"...Winston Churchill


On March 27, following a "careful policy review," Mr. Obama proclaimed Afghanistan and Pakistan as "the central front in the war on terror," announced a "comprehensive new strategy" for the region and ordered 21,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan -- increasing the number of Americans there to 68,000 by the end of this year. A month and a half later, he made Gen. Stanley McChrystal -- an advocate of pursuing a counterinsurgency campaign -- the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan. On Aug. 17, the president declared: "This is not a war of choice; it is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al-Qaida could plot to kill more Americans."Source:PatriotPost.com

IT APPEARS TO ME THAT OBAMA HAS A VERY SHORT MEMORY, OR PERHAPS SOMETHING THAT IS TOO HORRIBLE TO CONTEMPLATE, THE ANTI-WAR 50 CONGRESSMEN LED BY "RED" PELOSI HAS CHANGED OBAMA'S MIND!

It was just six months ago in Prague that Obama said:  “Let me be clear: Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran’s neighbors and our allies. The Czech Republic and Poland have been courageous in agreeing to host a defense against these missiles. As long as the threat from Iran persists, we intend to go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven..”
But last month he canceled the plans to build a missile base in Poland and a radar station to track incoming
enemy missiles in the Czech Republic. This after both countries, that were over run by the Communist USSR during World war II, had defied Russian objections to the bases! This now puts hundreds of thousands of people in both countries at the wrath of Putin and his KGB buddies!

Historian  Bernard Lewis has warned, the U.S. can’t afford to tell the world that “America is harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend.” Yet we’re doing exactly that by abandoning promises to our allies and failing to share the benefits of our missile defenses. Canceling the planned sites is a self-inflicted wound we cannot afford. Source: E. Feulner


If this were not enough to enbolden our enemies and strike terror in the hearts of those who count on our military might to protect them. Then the dithering about the request for more troops from the commander in Afghanistan should convince them that they have a leader of the USA that is naive and indicesive that makes him no match for their determination to destroy US and Israel!

Could you imagine FDR having three meetings with his miliatry advisors that took over thirty days after Pearl Harbor was bombed by the Japanese? No FDR declared war the next day and began plans for Doolittle's bombing raid on Tokyo!
But we have a president who recieved a request from the field commander for more troops over 30 days ago, and all he has done since then is have a teleconference meeting with three more scheduled before he makes his decision! And then left to travel to Denmark to help persuade the Olympic Committee to grant Chicago the 2016 Olympics!
And to make the situation more dangerous. Fifty(50) Congressmen sent a letter demanding that Obama not send more troops to Afghanistan before a complete exit strategy is formed. This is insanity and in my opinion tantamont to defeatism, and that is what the anti-victory people want1
But any right thinking person realizes that if we let the Taliban drive us out of Afghanistan it will become the 21sr Century version of VietNam and will destroy the military might and MORALE  that this Country once had.

Is it possible that is part of the master plan that POTUS has for the CHANGE he wants to accomplish?

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

It appears to me that our president is more interested in promoting the Chicago bid for the 2016 Olympics than he is in acting on the request of his appointed Commander in the field of war, General McChrystals request for more troops.
On August 30, Gen. Stanley McChrystal sent Defense Secretary Robert Gates a war assessment in which he said more U.S. troops are needed if the U.S. is to defeat the insurgents in Afghanistan.

Since that Aug. 30 date, a total of 43 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines have died in a war that is now the subject of  too much discussion,and apparently some confusion!

Forty-two of those casualties have been identified by name in U.S. Defense Department press releases, while the 43rd casualty, which occurred yesterday, has been confirmed in press reports, but not by name.
In his confidential report, which was leaked to the Washington Post on Sept. 21, Gen. McChrystal warned that defeating the insurgents will not be possible if the United States fails to "gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum" over the next 12 months.Does Obama accept the word defat, or does he not like it as he prefers not to use the word victory?

When will Obama decide that the war protestors who voted for him will be unhappy unless he declares the war un- winable and brings the troops home, and abondons yet another of his campaign promises. The promise that he would wage war against al Qaeda in Afghanistan!

If Obama fails to agree to the request of his man in charge of defeating the Taliban and al Qaeda, it will put the United States in much greater danger, because failure in Afghanistan will turn into a base for attacks on the U.S. and its allies.And when (not if)  Iran gets it's nuclear weapons. Afghanistan will become a staging ground for missile launchers and "suitcase bombs" to blow up cities in the USA you can be sure!

Despite the urgency of the request, the Obama White House has said repeatedly that the president would consider McChrystal's recommendations, and those of other advisers, carefully and methodically before announcing his next move. Obama has said the goal of the U.S. presence in Afghanistan is to disrupt, dismantle and destroy the al-Qaida terrorist network and its sympathizers.
What is to consider? Either you give the commander in the field what he wants or you relieve him and replace him with a general who will preside over the defeat!

History shows those who care to look that "dictators" and plolitical leaders who do not listen to their field comanders loose. Field Marshal Erwin Rommell advised and requested that Hitler move all the Panzer tank divisions from the Eastern front to the coast of France prior to the June 6th invasion of Normandy by the allies. Hitler refused Rommell and the landing was a success, although costly and bloody for the allies.And Germany lost the war. I am thankful that they did loose, but you get the point.


In our own country the Admiral in charge of the fleet at Pearl Harbor in 1941 specifically asked, by dispatch and in person, for all information aboutt the Japanese. Admiral Kimmel never received the secret "Magic" dispatches that showed vital information about the Japanese intentions. He also never received the famous 14-part message the Japanese were delivering in response to the U.S. "ultimatum" of November 26. Especially not the 14th part which indicated the 1:00 p.m. (EST) delivery of the message and ordering the destruction of the "coding" equipment, even though this had been decoded some nine hours before the attack. Washington either decide to withhold the information or delayed in sending it to Kimmel. Either way we will never know, but had he received the Japanese ultimatum he could have put his forces on alert and avoided many deaths at Pearl Harbor.

When will our leaders decide to proceede as leaders should when they want to defeat the enemy? I know that Obama does not like the word "VICTORY", nor do his sycophants want us to call it a war on terrorists, but either you win or you loose! And we are fighting radical Islamics who do not only want to win. Not only win, but wipe us and Israel off the face of the map if they could!

Will we become the strongest nation of the world who sends its brave men and women off to war to win? Or will we become like the Socialist Country of Denmark that is consisdering prosecuting three of their soldiers waging war in Afghanistan, for having in their hand guns and possesion hollow point bullets!?

The penalty if convicted is life in prison, so says the Denmark papers. They call the bullets that have the stopping power that normal nine millimeter bullets do not, "dum dum bullets", These are used regularly by the FBI and many law enforcement agencies in the USA, because the only use for a hand gun is in close combat and it is kill or be killed! The dum dum bullets stop the enemy in one shot, and many times that is all one gets!.

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

If  you believe half of what an aspiring politician tells and promises during his/her election campaign. I think you are a gullible person who is a candidate for buying a piece of the Brooklyn bridge.
But when a man consistently tells untruths and exaggerates his accomplishments i begin to suspect that he is a person who does not recognize the truth if it bit him. A pathological liar!

The Truth About Deception defines pathological liar as: "A pathological liar is usually defined as someone who lies incessantly to get their way and does so with little concern for others. Pathological lying is often viewed as coping mechanism developed in early childhood and it is often associated with some other type of mental health disorder. A pathological liar is often goal-oriented (i.e., lying is focused - it is done to get one's way). Pathological liars have little regard or respect for the rights and feelings of others. A pathological liar often comes across as being manipulative, cunning and self-centered" Does this sound familiar?

There are too many lies that Obama told to get into the White House and since he got there to enumerate them all, but the two that I think reveals the true nature of Obama's deception are the promise that if elected he would not raise taxes on the middle class and would make the Afghanistan war his main foreign policy.
He promised he would do everything to win in the fight against al Qaeda and their leader Osama bin Laden!

In July 2008, then-candidate Obama told CNN, “We allowed the Taliban and Al Qaeda to regenerate itself when we had them on the ropes. That was a big mistake, and it’s one I’m going to correct when I’m president.”

On Mar. 27, 2009, Obama announced a “comprehensive new strategy” for Afghanistan, saying that this policy came after careful review by military commanders and diplomats, government officials in Afghanistan, NATO allies, and members of Congress. “The situation is increasingly perilous,” said Obama, and “the safety of people around the world is at stake.”

“I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan and to prevent their return to either country in the future,” said Obama in March.

Last Monday, however, Obama said he was not willing to send troops “beyond what we already have” until he was sure the United States was employing the right strategy in the region. Currently, there are about 56,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. McChrystal says an additional 40,000 is needed to effectively implement a counterinsurgency strategy and bring political and civil order to the country.

On several occasions during the campaign, Obama also said he wanted to treat Afghanistan like the primary front in the war on terror that he believed the Central Asian nation to be.

 Back on Aug. 1, 2007, Obama was already talking about the redeployment he would order as president: “Our troops have fought valiantly there [Afghanistan], but Iraq has deprived them of the support they need -- and deserve. … As president, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counterterrorism operations and support NATO’s efforts against the Taliban.”

On July 20, 2008, Obama took a trip to Afghanistan and told Lara Logan of CBS: “For at least a year now, I have called for two additional brigades, perhaps three.” He also told Logan he believed “this has to be our central focus, the central front, on our battle against terrorism.”

That same month, Obama made a speech on foreign policy outside the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, D.C. There, on July 8, he said he thought Afghanistan was more central to the security of the United States than Iraq. “If another attack on our homeland comes, it will likely come from the same region where 9/11 was planned,” said Obama. “And yet today, we have five times more troops in Iraq than Afghanistan.”
He also told the audience that the top-priority mission in Afghanistan was failing because of the troop commitment to Iraq.
“Our troops and our NATO allies are performing heroically in Afghanistan, but I have argued for years that we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq,” Obama said

Despite those comments, Obama recently indicated he may not give McChrystal the 40,000 troops the top military authority in Afghanistan says he needs for success, at least until he is satisfied that the “right strategy” is in place, and apparently in place of the “new comprehensive strategy” he outlined in March.

Now, last Monday, Sept. 21, the president told ABC’s Charles Gibson: “Until I'm satisfied that we've got the right strategy, I'm not going to be sending some young men or women over there beyond what we already have.”Source: CNSNEWS.com

Apparently, Obama cannot remember what he "said" yesterday, let alone the flagrant lies he told on the campaign "trail.". Maybe that is why he carries a pocket teleprompter.?

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

Earlier this year, President Obama wrote to Russian President Medvedev and said he was willing to bargain away U.S. missile defense plans in Europe if the Russians helped to completely eliminate Iran's threats to global security.


Furthermore, an Administration spokesman recently admitted that the so-called third site for missile defense won't protect Europe from a strike launched in Iran. But this ignores the fact that Iran is not the only place from which a ballistic missile could hit Europe -- and in that case, if our missile defenses will not protect Europe, what will?
President Obama's personal popularity in the international community will protect them. Or the self-imposed restraint of terrorist states. Or the moral force of U.N. Security Council Resolutions. No, missile defense is our best chance to check the aggression of imperialist regimes and terrorist thugs alike. It undermines their motivations to spend billions on missile technology.


This is why former leaders of Central and Eastern European countries recently wrote an open letter to President Obama to remind him of the sacrifices they had made on behalf of freedom and the need for leadership now from Washington. It is also why Poland and the Czech Republic have bravely volunteered to host the "third site." Its deployment there makes the most strategic sense, both for the United States and our allies, and also represents the most cost-efficient option available to us. BUT OBAMA SAYS NO!!

At issue is whether missile defense represents a threat to the security and stability of the world or whether missile defense is, in fact, as Ronald Reagan said, the greatest hope the cause of peace has ever had.

It says a great deal about the world that enemies of freedom reflexively distrust missile defense, and that free people have difficulty understanding why anyone would find it even remotely controversial. It says even more about the United States and the American people that, even as the world's lone superpower, our greatest achievement in military technology is exclusively defensive in nature. No powerful society in history could ever make such a boast -- indeed, no other society would want to. SOURCE: HERITAGE FOUNDATION

From the words of his speech yesterday to the UN general assembly it appears that he is still apologizing for the USA strength and protection of the free world. He has cozied up to tyrants like Chavez, Castro and yesterday Kadafi, the mastermind behind the killing of 290 people in the Lockerbie plane bombing.
His own words say that he was more comfortable with his leftist(Marxist) professors and the radical students of all ilk while attending college. And he sat in a pew of a church whose pastor was anti-American, race bater and anti- free enterprise zealot for twenty years.
WE do not know what his thesis was based upon when he attended Harvard law school, nor do we know what type articles he wrote while being head of the Law Review, as they are strangely and ominously sealed!

What we do know is that he campaigned against Bush's Iraq War, and said we should take the fight to Afghanistan. Now that he is president and the casualties are rising. The general in charge has recommended that the Commander in Chief dispatch 40,000 more troops to avoid defeat at the hands of the Taliban. But Obama says he is not certain he will do send more troops!
I wrote a blog several months ago predicting that Obama would allow the Afghanistan war to become the 21 st Century version of the Viet Nam war. If he does not do what the commanders in the field wants him to do. How can he expect him to lead our brave troops to VICTORY?
 I know victory is a dirty word in Obama's mind, but is he willing, as Commander in Chief of the armed forces, willing to send our brave men and women into a massacre? For if he lets them die on the vine rather than pull out if he does not want a victory. He is guilty of dereliction of his duty as president, and I believe impeachable!

Fox News is reporting a continuing disturbing pattern of the Obama administration treating Terrorists as criminals not as what they really are, terrorists!
I believe as do most Americans that terrorists do not deserve any Constitutional civil or judicial rights that are granted to our citizens.
The ACLU and too many leftist ruling Federal judges have the opinion that the rights granted to all USA citizens are applicable to people who advocate death and destruction to Americans. I think they are dead wrong! But unfortunately Law schools like Yale and City University of New York have some professors and too many students who are willing to step up to the Bar of Justice to defend these terrorists!

Human rights campaigners have argued that the prisoners in Afghanistan should be given the same rights as those at Guantanamo, but the U.S. military argues that Bagram detainees should be treated differently because they are being held in an active theater of war.

Their status is the subject of lawsuits in the United States. A federal judge ruled in April that several Bagram detainees have the right to challenge their detention in U.S. courts.

Ramzi Kassem, a law professor at City University of New York and some of his Law students are presently representing one of the Bagram detainees, and are anxious to participate in the defense of those Taliban terrorists who will now challenge their detention as outlined by the Obama administration. Talk about giving aid and comfort to the enemy!

What tools and fools these jihadi-enablers be. Civil liberties opportunism is literally a part of the al-Qaida handbook. A terrorist manual seized in a Manchester, England, raid in 2005 advised operatives: “At the beginning of the trial,the brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by state security before the judge. Complain of mistreatment while in prison.” Jihadi commanders rehearsed the lines with their foot soldiers “to ensure that they have assimilated it.”

Since 9/11, the selective champions of privacy have recklessly blabbed about counterterrorism operations, endangered the lives of military and intelligence officials at Gitmo, and undermined national security through endless litigation. They accused Bush immigration officials of xenophobia for pursuing visa overstayers from jihadi-friendly countries. They accused local law enforcement, FBI and other homeland security officials of “racial profiling” for placing heightened scrutiny on mosques and jihadi-linked charities.

Now, caught red-handed blowing the cover of CIA operatives, they shrug their shoulders and dismiss it as “normal” research on behalf of “our clients.”

But don’t you dare question their love of country. Spying to stop the next 9/11 is treason, you see. Spying to stop enhanced interrogation of Gitmo detainees is patriotic. And endangering America on behalf of international human rights is the ultimate form of leftist dissent.Source:Michelle Malkin

I do not understand the reasoning of those who think they can bargain with the Devil.For do not confuse these prisoners as similar to those who occupy our prisons. The terrorists have been capture on the field of battle without uniform or flag. Their main objective is to kill and maim American troops and any of their fellow citizens who get in the way.

You cannot dance with the Devil and make everything safe for Americans in the field of battle or here at home!

And we must always remember that Lying and cheating in the Arab world is not really a moral matter but a method of safeguarding honor and status, avoiding shame, and at all times exploiting possibilities, for those with the wits for it, deftly and expeditiously to convert shame into honor on their own account and vice versa for their opponents. If honor so demands, lies and cheating may become absolute imperatives.” [David Pryce-Jones, “The Closed Circle” An interpretation of the Arabs, p4]

“No dishonor attaches to such primary transactions as selling short weight, deceiving anyone about quality, quantity or kind of goods, cheating at gambling, and bearing false witness. The doer of these things is merely quicker off the mark than the next fellow; owing him nothing, he is not to be blamed for taking what he can.” [David Pryce-Jones, “The Closed Circle”, p38] So how can anyone allow these people the right to lie to facilitate there release from military prison to return to killing our brave troops, and still be called an American?

While the Secretary of Defense Gates, said when asked if the U.S. would send more troops to Afghanistan, He would have to evaluate the COST! A Cato report exposes the fact that the bureaucracy that Obama is rapidly expanding within the Federal government has received continuous raises to the point where the pay exceeds the Private sector.
The Bureau of Economic Analysis has released its annual data on compensation levels by industry. The data show that the pay advantage enjoyed by federal civilian workers over private-sector workers continues to expand.

The George W. Bush years were very lucrative for federal workers. In 2000, the average compensation (wages and benefits) of federal workers was 66 percent higher than the average compensation in the U.S. private sector. The new data show that average federal compensation is now more than double the average in the private sector.

In 2008, the average wage for 1.9 million federal civilian workers was $79,197, which compared to an average $49,935 for the nation’s 108 million private sector workers (measured in full-time equivalents). The federal pay advantage (the gap between the lines) is steadily increasing.

The federal advantage is even more pronounced when worker benefits are included. In 2008, federal worker compensation averaged a remarkable $119,982, which was more than double the private sector average of $59,909.

What is going on here? Members of Congress who have large numbers of federal workers in their districts relentlessly push for expanding federal worker compensation. Also, the Bush administration had little interest in fiscal restraint, and it usually got rolled by the federal unions. The result has been an increasingly overpaid elite of government workers, who are insulated from the economic reality of recessions and from the tough competitive climate of the private sector.

It’s time to put a stop to this. Federal wages should be frozen for a period of years, at least until the private-sector economy has recovered and average workers start seeing some wage gains of their own. At the same time, gold-plated federal benefit packages should be scaled back as unaffordable given today’s massive budget deficits. There are many qualitative benefits of government work—such as extremely high job security—so taxpayers should not have to pay for such lavish government pay packages.Source: Cato Institute

So it is more important to our Congressman and Senators to pay their bureaucracy then to provide the troops and weapons to fight in Afghanistan it appears to me!
Gates was quoted as follows in the Atlantic Council web site:

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, "any recommendation for more forces would have to address his concerns that the foreign military presence in Afghanistan could become too large and be seen by Afghans as a hostile occupying force.

"Clearly, I want to address those issues and we will have to look at the availability of forces, we'll have to look at costs. There are a lot of different things that we'll have to look at," he told reporters.

"While there's a lot of gloom and doom going around ... I think we have some assets in place and some developments that hold promise," Gates said on a visit to a Lockheed Martin factory building F-35 fighter jets in Fort Worth, Texas.

Many people who are daily contributed to blogs are young people who have no knowledge or recollection of the disaster that occurred in the Philippines during the first months of World War II.
On Corregior and Bataan the Army defenders ran out of ammunition and were forced to surrender to the attacking Japanese, who took their prisoners on the Bataan Death March!
The Bataan Death March (also known as The Death March of Bataan) took place in the Philippines in 1942 and was later accounted as a Japanese war crime. The 60-mile (97 km) march occurred after the three-month Battle of Bataan, part of the Battle of the Philippines (1941–42), during World War II.

The march, involving the forcible transfer of 75,000 American and Filipino prisoners of war[1] captured by the Japanese in the Philippines from the Bataan peninsula to prison camps, was characterized by wide-ranging physical abuse and murder, and resulted in very high fatalities inflicted upon the prisoners and civilians along the route by the armed forces of the Empire of Japan. Beheadings, cut throats and casual shootings were the more common actions — compared to bayonet stabbings, rapes, disembowelments, numerous rifle butt beatings and a deliberate refusal to allow the prisoners food or water while keeping them continually marching for nearly a week in tropical heat. Falling down or inability to continue moving was tantamount to a death sentence, as was any degree of protest or expression of displeasure.20,000people died during the march! Source:Wikapedia

My purpose of including the preceding narrative of what occurred over 60 years ago, is that if Obama and Congress continue on their path to establish the welfare State of America and ignoring the brave troops who are in Afghanistan, We,in my opinion will have the equivalent of the death march by attrition.Our troops are dying because they are charged with such obtuse orders as giving captured Taliban forces their Amanda rights on the field of battle, and the objective of the Commander of Chief and the Generals in the field are directed to wage a counterinsurgency that protects the population in Afghanistan! Politically correct pieties instead of the command to kill or be killed,and given the troops and munitions are necessary to accomplish the mission in Afghanistan. Or as George Will said in his Post today:"we should withdraw"!
will result in a modern day equivalent of Corregidor and Bataan.

If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace." —Thomas Paine · "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!" —Samuel Adams

I only spent four years in the regular Navy, so my interaction with Admirals was limited to a brief visit to 50 Fell Street in San Francisco to submit my resignation to the Admiral Ryan, the chief of the division of the 7th Fleet that I was a part of, at his office in the heart of the San Francisco Civic Center.
Since I was a lowly lieutenant, I entered his office with great trepidation, but after I told him my "sad" personal story, he allowed me to resign with a stern lecture about what I was giving up and what the Navy had invested in me!
What has this got to do with anything that would interest some one who bothers to read this post, you say?

Well, even though it was not a pleasant experience for me. I noticed the zeal and dedication to the service that this Admiral had for the Naval service and the men whom he commanded that he felt I was letting down because of my resignation. WE did not have women in the Navy Fleet in those long gone days!

Fast forward to today, and I find a difference in attitude that Admiral Mullen, the 17th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has than the Flag officers of the "old" Navy
Admiral Mullen serves as the principal military advisor to the president, the Secretary of Defense, the National Security Council and the Homeland Security Council.A military bureaucrat! A product of the new military high command who seem to me to be more politically correct than Flag Rank officers were in the days of my service and both of my brothers who served in the Army and Marines.

Why, You ask do you feel this way. Well,not only the CJCS but the General in Charge of "winning"( that's a dirty word to our president) the war in Afghanistan seem to be preoccupied with winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. A people who hate us because we invaded their country! They hated and defated a Russian force of over 100,000 troops, and are dedicated to drive us out!Yet our Flag leaders appear to be more interested in their attitude towardus than winning the war!

To back up my charge that Admiral Mullen is politically correct. I include an excerpt from a speech he gave to the media today. A speech he gave regarding our mission in Afghanistan.
"No amount of public relations will establish credibility of the United States if American behaviour overseas is perceived as arrogant, uncaring or insulting, the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff has said in a critique of the government’s efforts at ‘strategic communication with the Muslim world’.

‘To put it simply, we need to worry a lot less about how to communicate our actions and much more about what our actions communicate,’ Admiral Mullen wrote in an essay published on Friday by the Joint Force Quarterly, a military journal.

According to the New York Times, the admiral’s views were significant as they coincided with the Obama administration’s fresh efforts to counter militant propaganda as part of its strategy to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
How about winning the war and then worrying about rebuilding the Country. Or are were just there to destroy the military by attrition?

Fortunately we have not heard that our men lack clothing and "KIT" as some British mothers have told the London Times as recently as yesterday. One poor women said she had spent over a thousand pounds( their version of dollars) during the past year buying boots, socks,a thermal sleeping bag and t-shirts for her son who is serving in the British Army in Afghanistan. She had to buy these items from a military surplus store, because the Army only issued one pair of boots,a non-thermal sleeping bag and two t-shirts, and had no replacements!

Yet, as Oliver North reports in today's Patriot Post that "On Capitol Hill, members of Congress have threatened to cut the budgets of federal agencies that use security contractors instead of government employees to protect key personnel and sensitive installations.

At the Pentagon -- which uses more civilian contractors in the war effort than any other U.S. government entity -- the response to the criticism was capitulation.

In April, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced plans to hire 30,000 additional DoD employees to cut the percentage of work being done by contractors. The fiscal year 2010 defense budget request replaces nearly 14,000 contractor personnel with government employees -- even though the "lifetime cost," counting government benefits and retirement, will more than double the expense to American taxpayers.

The numbers don't mesh, but when it comes to getting the press and politicians off the backs of Pentagon poo-bahs, cutting contractors loose is apparently a small price to pay".
Maybe this is how Obama plans to get more people off unemployment by enlarging the Federal government workforce!

Across the Atlantic,the British politicians are ignoring the fact that they are in a war more than our politicians and media are here at home. This story from London should remind us where we are leading our troops if our politicians don't start concentrating on the war we are involved in, and give less attention to socializing our health care industry!

In a column in The London Times newspaper, Lord Guthrie wrote: "And muddle is the word, as was manifest in a scathing report into defence procurement leaked this week.

General Lord Charles Guthrie,"Its author, the former Labour adviser Bernard Gray, an experienced observer of the defence scene, blamed incompetence and "political fudge" for £35 billion of defence project overspending.

"Moreover, The Times revealed that poor decisions about software have kept eight Chinook helicopters, costing a total of £259 million, in climate-controlled hangars during the Iraq and Afghan conflicts.

"Such an error would never happen in the private sector without dismissals and a plain identification of where the buck stopped. (Socialism raises it's ugly head)

"The revelation is all the more appalling because Chinooks are lifesavers. They are the safest way to evacuate injured soldiers from the battlefield - and a brilliant tactical device to get behind Taliban lines to confuse and mystify the enemy.

"Chinooks also help resupply and reinforcement where land movement is dangerous.

The Afghanistan dilemma is best explained by the size and structure of the Ministry of Defence. The department employs 87,000 civilian staff for 175,000 servicemen and women.

"At the head of this unwieldy edifice are six ministers, each enjoying a private office and their own staff - six private empires, with their own turf to be jealously guarded. Sadly, bigger does not mean more efficient; usually quite the opposite.

"Ministers change, but permanent staff ought to be there to provide continuity and experience. Unfortunately, too many senior civil servants in today's MoD lack a defence background.

"Instead, they are parachuted in to lead this complex department with little idea of how it works."

Meanwhile figures showed the Armed Forces are thousands of personnel short of requirements. (maybe it is because little old ladies have to buy "KIT" for their sons and grandsons who are fighting a war that no one wants to recognize), and to top it off their government officials made a deal apparently, to release the plotter of the Lockerbie airplane disaster so he can be back in Lybia with his fellow Britt and American haters!