Taliban fighters killed four Afghan police officers and their commander during an attack on a Afghan police patrol in western Afghanistan, authorities said on Thursday.
In Afghanistan’s eastern province of Laghman, four people returning home from a wedding were killed and another injured when a roadside bomb exploded next to their car. An Afghan police officer was also killed in the attack.
In other news: The U.S. military revealed on Thursday that a "sudden unprecedented hailstorm" struck Kandahar airfield on April 23, raining down golf ball-sized hail stones and inflicting heavy damage on more than 80 US military helicopters, ultimately grounding the choppers for weeks until repairs were completed. About eight of the helicopters are still unfit for operation.
However, the Obama administration recently entered into a $572 million helicopter contract with Russia's state-owned arms exporter for 30 military helicopters that will go to Afghan security forces. Hence, the U.S. military could always borrow some of the Russian-made, Afghan helicopters. Or, a second option: The Obama administration could continue to enrich the aforementioned Russian arms dealers and order some additional Russian helicopters for the U.S. military in Afghanistan........
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Taliban launches attack near Afghan Presidential palace and CIA station in Kabul
The Taliban Tuesday launched an attack near the Afghan Presidential Palace in Kabul, killing at least three security guards.
The gun-battle, and the subsequent suicide car bombing, occurred near the gate leading to the Presidential palace next to the Afghan Defense Ministry and the former Ariana Hotel, which houses a CIA station.
A Taliban spokesman released a statement saying the Presidential palace, the Defense Ministry and the CIA station were the intended targets.
The gun-battle, and the subsequent suicide car bombing, occurred near the gate leading to the Presidential palace next to the Afghan Defense Ministry and the former Ariana Hotel, which houses a CIA station.
A Taliban spokesman released a statement saying the Presidential palace, the Defense Ministry and the CIA station were the intended targets.
Friday, June 21, 2013
Obama administration's Russian arms supplier equipping Syrian regime with powerful S-300 missile system?
From Fox News:
In short, the S-300 missiles give the Syrian regime an incredible weapon that is capable of knocking out the most advanced military aircraft and missiles.
Last month, various media outlets quoted Syrian President, Bashar Assad, as saying that Syria had already received the first shipment of S-300 rockets from Russia. Other media sources report that, as of yet, Syria has not received any of the S-300's. While other media outlets have reported that Syria might have received some components of the S-300 systems. And, as noted earlier via Fox News, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in an interview with Russian state TV on Thursday that, "As yet, the contracts are not finished, they have not been delivered IN FULL", which would seem to suggest that, while the S-300's "have not been delivered IN FULL", they HAVE been delivered....
Whether Syria has actually received the S-300's from Russia, or some of the S-300's, or some of the components of the S-300 system, is not clear. However, Mr. Lavrov's quote, and the quote attributed to Bashar Assad, would seem to confirm that deliveries were made.
Nevertheless, the S-300 system aside, we do know with certainty - as I noted on Wednesday - that Russia, via its state-owned arms distributor, Rosoboronexport, is currently supplying the Syrian regime with various kinds of weapons. Rosoboronexport is also the arms firm that distributes the S-300 systems. It is also the same firm that has entered into a $572 million contract with the Obama administration for 30 Mi-17 military helicopters that will go to Afghan security forces. It is also the same company that has supplied Iran with various weapons, including surface-to-air missiles and aircraft bombers capable of carrying tactical nuclear weapons. It is also the same firm that was placed under sanctions by the Bush administration, until 2010, when Obama decided to lift the sanctions. And, starting in 2011, Obama decided to enrich the rogue Russian arms exporter with lucrative military contracts.
Russia says it will honor its controversial contract to deliver S-300 air defense missile systems to Syria.The S-300 systems have been described as state-of-the-art airplane and rocket-destruction devices. The latest updated version of the S-300, the S-300PMU-2, has the capacity to launch six missiles at once. Each missile is capable of knocking out aircraft flying at several times the maximum speed of the F-16 and F-22 fighter jets. The S-300PMU-2 also has the capacity to intercept tactical ballistic missiles, cruise and Tomahawk missiles.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in an interview with Russian state TV Thursday that "we respect all our contracts and are honoring all our contractual obligations.
"As yet, the contracts are not finished, they have not been delivered in full," he added.
Russia last month acknowledged it has agreed to sell Syria advanced S-300 air-defense missiles, which are considered to be the cutting edge in aircraft interception technology.
Russia has stood by Syrian President Bashar Assad during the two-year civil war, blocking several U.N. resolutions and calls for his ouster. The death toll from the conflict is at least 93,000.
In short, the S-300 missiles give the Syrian regime an incredible weapon that is capable of knocking out the most advanced military aircraft and missiles.
Last month, various media outlets quoted Syrian President, Bashar Assad, as saying that Syria had already received the first shipment of S-300 rockets from Russia. Other media sources report that, as of yet, Syria has not received any of the S-300's. While other media outlets have reported that Syria might have received some components of the S-300 systems. And, as noted earlier via Fox News, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in an interview with Russian state TV on Thursday that, "As yet, the contracts are not finished, they have not been delivered IN FULL", which would seem to suggest that, while the S-300's "have not been delivered IN FULL", they HAVE been delivered....
Whether Syria has actually received the S-300's from Russia, or some of the S-300's, or some of the components of the S-300 system, is not clear. However, Mr. Lavrov's quote, and the quote attributed to Bashar Assad, would seem to confirm that deliveries were made.
Nevertheless, the S-300 system aside, we do know with certainty - as I noted on Wednesday - that Russia, via its state-owned arms distributor, Rosoboronexport, is currently supplying the Syrian regime with various kinds of weapons. Rosoboronexport is also the arms firm that distributes the S-300 systems. It is also the same firm that has entered into a $572 million contract with the Obama administration for 30 Mi-17 military helicopters that will go to Afghan security forces. It is also the same company that has supplied Iran with various weapons, including surface-to-air missiles and aircraft bombers capable of carrying tactical nuclear weapons. It is also the same firm that was placed under sanctions by the Bush administration, until 2010, when Obama decided to lift the sanctions. And, starting in 2011, Obama decided to enrich the rogue Russian arms exporter with lucrative military contracts.
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Obama administration enriching Russian company that supplies weapons to Syria & Iran
From Fox News:
However, in 2010, the Obama administration lifted the sanctions against Rosoboronexport, and, in June of 2011, the administration awarded the company with a $375 million contract to purchase 21 Russian-made MI-17 helicopters for the Afghan air force. And, as I noted earlier, the administration has now entered into a new agreement with the Russian company: a $572 million contract to purchase 30 Mi-17 helicopters for the Afghan security forces.
During a recent press briefing, White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney, sharply criticized the Russian government for supplying the "tyrannical" Syrian regime with advanced weaponry. But apparently, the supplying of weapons to the Syrian regime hasn't deterred the Obama administration from doing business with the very same state-owned, Russian company that is supplying these weapons to Syria.
Bottom line: Obama deserves high marks for the way he has managed to reset U.S/Russian relations with his proverbial "Reset Button", thereby enabling the Russians to dictate U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, while at the same time enabling Russia's state-owned, rogue arms dealers to rake in millions upon millions of dollars from the American taxpayers.
An incredible achievement, indeed!
A Republican senator blasted the Pentagon after it entered into a new helicopter contract with a Russian company [the state-owned Russian arms dealer Rosoboronexport] which is supplying the Syrian regime - even as the U.S. moves to arm the Syrian opposition.In July of 2006, a Russian Daily reported that Rosoboronexport had contracted with Iran to modernize 30 Iranian Sukhoi Su-24 bombers that have the capacity to carry tactical nuclear weapons. Subsequently, the Bush administration, in August of 2006, imposed sanctions on Rosoboronexport for a period of two years. In 2008, the Bush administration renewed sanctions on Rosoboronexport after the company contracted once again to sell additional weaponry to Iran, incluing surface-to-air missiles.
The [$572 million] contract was announced Monday with Russian arms firm Rosoboronexport, for [30 Mi-17] military helicopters that will go to Afghan security forces...
"American taxpayers should not be indirectly subsidizing the murder of Syrian civilians," Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said in a statement.
Cornyn first challenged the Pentagon over a prior contract with Rosoboronexport last year, and was able to successfully pass an amendment in November barring the use of funds for contracts with the company.
But the latest contract used money from the fiscal 2012 budget, which was approved before Cornyn's amendment.
Cornyn said Tuesday that the Obama administration also could get around that amendment by arguing the contract was in the country's national security interests.
"In other words: they want us to believe that we are promoting U.S. security by doing business with a Russian arms dealer that is helping an anti-American, terror-sponsoring dictatorship commit mass atrocities," he said...
A Pentagon official wrote a letter to Cornyn in March 2012 that acknowledged "evidence" that Rosoboronexport's arms "are being used by Syrian forces against Syria's civilian population."...
Rosoboronexport... appears to be Syria's main weapons supplier.
However, in 2010, the Obama administration lifted the sanctions against Rosoboronexport, and, in June of 2011, the administration awarded the company with a $375 million contract to purchase 21 Russian-made MI-17 helicopters for the Afghan air force. And, as I noted earlier, the administration has now entered into a new agreement with the Russian company: a $572 million contract to purchase 30 Mi-17 helicopters for the Afghan security forces.
During a recent press briefing, White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney, sharply criticized the Russian government for supplying the "tyrannical" Syrian regime with advanced weaponry. But apparently, the supplying of weapons to the Syrian regime hasn't deterred the Obama administration from doing business with the very same state-owned, Russian company that is supplying these weapons to Syria.
Bottom line: Obama deserves high marks for the way he has managed to reset U.S/Russian relations with his proverbial "Reset Button", thereby enabling the Russians to dictate U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, while at the same time enabling Russia's state-owned, rogue arms dealers to rake in millions upon millions of dollars from the American taxpayers.
An incredible achievement, indeed!
Obama in '08 lambasted Pakistani President over Taliban talks
"We have to change our policies with Pakistan," said then-Sen. Barack Obama during an October 2008 Presidential debate. "We can't coddle a dictator, give him billions of dollars, and then he's making peace treaties with the Taliban..."
Fast forward: American taxpayers coddle Obama, give him billions and trillions of their hard-earned dollars, "and then he's making peace treaties with the Taliban..."
Fast forward: American taxpayers coddle Obama, give him billions and trillions of their hard-earned dollars, "and then he's making peace treaties with the Taliban..."
Taliban kills four U.S. soldiers after Obama administration announces formal talks
The Taliban claimed responsibility on Wednesday for a deadly overnight attack on Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, just hours after the Obama administration announced that it would begin formal talks with the group, the AFP reported. Four U.S. soldiers were killed in the attack.
"Last night two big rockets were launched at Bagram (air base) which hit the target. Four soldiers are dead and six others are wounded. The rockets caused a major fire," a Taliban spokesman told the AFP.
A pentagon official also confirmed that four Americans were killed during an overnight rocket attack at Bagram Airbase.
Bagram Air Base is the largest US-led military base in Afghanistan and is situated just 30 miles north of Kabul, the capital.
Related Post from January of 2012: Obama reaches out to Mullah Omar, while Mullah Omar reaches out for more destruction
"Last night two big rockets were launched at Bagram (air base) which hit the target. Four soldiers are dead and six others are wounded. The rockets caused a major fire," a Taliban spokesman told the AFP.
A pentagon official also confirmed that four Americans were killed during an overnight rocket attack at Bagram Airbase.
Bagram Air Base is the largest US-led military base in Afghanistan and is situated just 30 miles north of Kabul, the capital.
Related Post from January of 2012: Obama reaches out to Mullah Omar, while Mullah Omar reaches out for more destruction
Friday, June 14, 2013
After Clinton critique, Obama finally acknowledges Syria crossed Red Line
Despite the fact that the Syrian regime had crossed President Obama's declared "Red Line" quite some time ago with its use of chemical weapons, Mr. Obama, only yesterday acknowledged this fact, two days after former President Bill Clinton took a swipe at him and criticized him for ignoring the situation in Syria and paying too much attention to opinion polls.
The question of whether President Obama should intervene in the Syrian crisis or not, or whether he should have intervened at an earlier date, before Al Qaeda had significantly infiltrated the rebel ranks, is open for debate. But, nevertheless, it's worthy to note that "Red Lines", Chemical weapons, violence, chaos and terror are of little import to Obama. What matters to the Politician-in-Chief are Bill Clinton's critique and public opinion polls.
Hence, although Syria had already crossed the President's "Red Line" several months ago, it is only now, after Clinton's critique that Obama has decided to acknowledge this fact.
Precisely what course of action Obama plans to take in Syria depends on what the Politician-in-Chief feels is both the "politically correct" course of action for him to take and in his own best interest.
As to why Mr. Clinton suddenly took a swipe at Obama and sharply criticized his handling of the Syrian crisis, I speculated on that in my previous post: Mr. Clinton, perhaps, is trying to pave the way forward for Hillary's 2016 Presidential bid, hence he is trying to absolve her of any responsibility for the way Obama has handled the crisis in Syria.
Previous Post: Bill Clinton sharply criticizes Obama
The question of whether President Obama should intervene in the Syrian crisis or not, or whether he should have intervened at an earlier date, before Al Qaeda had significantly infiltrated the rebel ranks, is open for debate. But, nevertheless, it's worthy to note that "Red Lines", Chemical weapons, violence, chaos and terror are of little import to Obama. What matters to the Politician-in-Chief are Bill Clinton's critique and public opinion polls.
Hence, although Syria had already crossed the President's "Red Line" several months ago, it is only now, after Clinton's critique that Obama has decided to acknowledge this fact.
Precisely what course of action Obama plans to take in Syria depends on what the Politician-in-Chief feels is both the "politically correct" course of action for him to take and in his own best interest.
As to why Mr. Clinton suddenly took a swipe at Obama and sharply criticized his handling of the Syrian crisis, I speculated on that in my previous post: Mr. Clinton, perhaps, is trying to pave the way forward for Hillary's 2016 Presidential bid, hence he is trying to absolve her of any responsibility for the way Obama has handled the crisis in Syria.
Previous Post: Bill Clinton sharply criticizes Obama
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Bill Clinton sharply criticizes Obama
During a joint question-and-answer session with Sen. John McCain at the McCain Institute for International Leadership in Manhattan Tuesday night, former President Bill Clinton sharply criticized the way President Obama has handled the ongoing crisis in Syria.
Why did Clinton suddenly lash out at Obama and criticize his handling of the Syrian crisis? Is the former President paving the way for Hillary's 2016 Presidential bid by absolving her of any responsibility for the way Obama has handled the turmoil in Syria? Who knows.
According to Politico, the former President told McCain - during the joint question-and-answer session - that he agrees with his sentiment that President Barack Obama is not acting forcefully enough to support anti-Assad rebels in Syria.
"I agree with you about this", Clinton told McCain. Blaming a lack of intervention on opposition in polls or among members of Congress would be “lame”, Clinton said, adding that the American public elects presidents and members of Congress “to see down the road” and “to win."
The former President implied that Obama or any president risks looking like “a total fool” if they listen too closely to opinion polls and act too cautiously, Politico reported.
The masterful and cunning politician and PR man - albeit nowhere near a cunning and masterful politician as Obama - went on to say that Syria "is like Afghanistan was in the ’80s when they were fighting the Soviet Union … when President Reagan was in office [and] got an enormous amount of influence and gratitude by helping to topple the Soviet-backed regime and then made the error of not hanging around in Afghanistan” to try to cash in on the gains.
The former President omitted the fact that Obama and Hillary Clinton made the decision to prematurely withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan even as the level of violence in the country continues to rise at an alarming pace. On the flip side, Ronald Reagan had no way of knowing in the 80's that an Al Qaeda threat would arise from Afghanistan and attack the U.S. In fact, the Taliban did not take over the reigns of power in Afghanistan until 1996, and, guess who the U.S President was in 1996?
Oh, and did we forget to mention that Bill Clinton refused to take out Bin Laden when he had the chance.
Whether President Obama should intervene in Syria or not, or whether he should have intervened at an earlier date, before Al Qaeda had significantly infiltrated the rebel ranks, is a question that can be debated. What is an indisputable and sad fact is that, although Syria had been, and still is, designated by the U.S. State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism, Obama, in 2009, eased sanctions on the Syrian regime. And, despite the fact that the U.S ambassador to Syria had been recalled by President Bush because of Syria's involvement in the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Harri , Obama returned the U.S. ambassador to Syria in 2010, because, well, because, as Hillary Clinton likes to say: "What difference does it make?"
And, as long as we're quoting Hillary Clinton, let's not forget what the former Secretary of State called Bashar Assad, shortly after the turmoil in Syria started to brew: "A reformer." Heh...
Bottom line: "Incompetence" would be one way to describe Obama and Hillary, but a more appropriate label would be "terrorist appeasers". And, believe me, that's putting it mildly........
Why did Clinton suddenly lash out at Obama and criticize his handling of the Syrian crisis? Is the former President paving the way for Hillary's 2016 Presidential bid by absolving her of any responsibility for the way Obama has handled the turmoil in Syria? Who knows.
According to Politico, the former President told McCain - during the joint question-and-answer session - that he agrees with his sentiment that President Barack Obama is not acting forcefully enough to support anti-Assad rebels in Syria.
"I agree with you about this", Clinton told McCain. Blaming a lack of intervention on opposition in polls or among members of Congress would be “lame”, Clinton said, adding that the American public elects presidents and members of Congress “to see down the road” and “to win."
The former President implied that Obama or any president risks looking like “a total fool” if they listen too closely to opinion polls and act too cautiously, Politico reported.
The masterful and cunning politician and PR man - albeit nowhere near a cunning and masterful politician as Obama - went on to say that Syria "is like Afghanistan was in the ’80s when they were fighting the Soviet Union … when President Reagan was in office [and] got an enormous amount of influence and gratitude by helping to topple the Soviet-backed regime and then made the error of not hanging around in Afghanistan” to try to cash in on the gains.
The former President omitted the fact that Obama and Hillary Clinton made the decision to prematurely withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan even as the level of violence in the country continues to rise at an alarming pace. On the flip side, Ronald Reagan had no way of knowing in the 80's that an Al Qaeda threat would arise from Afghanistan and attack the U.S. In fact, the Taliban did not take over the reigns of power in Afghanistan until 1996, and, guess who the U.S President was in 1996?
Oh, and did we forget to mention that Bill Clinton refused to take out Bin Laden when he had the chance.
Whether President Obama should intervene in Syria or not, or whether he should have intervened at an earlier date, before Al Qaeda had significantly infiltrated the rebel ranks, is a question that can be debated. What is an indisputable and sad fact is that, although Syria had been, and still is, designated by the U.S. State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism, Obama, in 2009, eased sanctions on the Syrian regime. And, despite the fact that the U.S ambassador to Syria had been recalled by President Bush because of Syria's involvement in the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Harri , Obama returned the U.S. ambassador to Syria in 2010, because, well, because, as Hillary Clinton likes to say: "What difference does it make?"
And, as long as we're quoting Hillary Clinton, let's not forget what the former Secretary of State called Bashar Assad, shortly after the turmoil in Syria started to brew: "A reformer." Heh...
Bottom line: "Incompetence" would be one way to describe Obama and Hillary, but a more appropriate label would be "terrorist appeasers". And, believe me, that's putting it mildly........
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Iranian regime targeting internet users ahead of Presidential election, but don't expect any meddling from Obama, heh...
Google revealed on its security blog on Wednesday that it has detected a large-scale phishing campaign targeting and compromising the Google accounts of Iranian users ahead of Iran's June 14 Presidential election.
"The timing and targeting of the campaigns suggest that the attacks are politically motivated in connection with the Iranian presidential election on Friday," Google noted.
The attacks appear to be the work of the Iranian regime, as Google, in its announcement, noted that it [Google] was seeking to warn "targets of state-sponsored attacks" to take extra steps to protect their accounts.
Incidentally, it should be noted that only candidates who are approved by Iran's Guardian Council can run for the Iranian Presidency. The Guardian Council is essentially controlled by the country's tyrannical Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and his cronies - which means that all of the candidates are, in essence, proxies of the Supreme Leader. And thus, regardless of who wins the presidential election, the government's policies, and agenda, will likely remain the same.
But, in any case, don't expect President Obama to express any concerns about the the Iranian regime's phishing campaign and its interference in the country's Presidential election.
In 2009, when massive protests broke out in Iran following the country's rigged presidential election, President Obama refused to criticize the regime and speak out in support of the protesters, because, as he explained at the time, "It is not productive" for the U.S. President to be seen "as meddling in Iranian elections." Hence, while it may be productive for the Iranian regime to meddle in the Iranian people's internet accounts in order to influence the outcome of the upcoming election, it is not productive for the U.S President to criticize the Iranian regime and to meddle in its private affairs - especially when the Obama administration is simultaneously meddling in the phone activity, web activity and internet accounts of Americans nationwide......
"The timing and targeting of the campaigns suggest that the attacks are politically motivated in connection with the Iranian presidential election on Friday," Google noted.
The attacks appear to be the work of the Iranian regime, as Google, in its announcement, noted that it [Google] was seeking to warn "targets of state-sponsored attacks" to take extra steps to protect their accounts.
Incidentally, it should be noted that only candidates who are approved by Iran's Guardian Council can run for the Iranian Presidency. The Guardian Council is essentially controlled by the country's tyrannical Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and his cronies - which means that all of the candidates are, in essence, proxies of the Supreme Leader. And thus, regardless of who wins the presidential election, the government's policies, and agenda, will likely remain the same.
But, in any case, don't expect President Obama to express any concerns about the the Iranian regime's phishing campaign and its interference in the country's Presidential election.
In 2009, when massive protests broke out in Iran following the country's rigged presidential election, President Obama refused to criticize the regime and speak out in support of the protesters, because, as he explained at the time, "It is not productive" for the U.S. President to be seen "as meddling in Iranian elections." Hence, while it may be productive for the Iranian regime to meddle in the Iranian people's internet accounts in order to influence the outcome of the upcoming election, it is not productive for the U.S President to criticize the Iranian regime and to meddle in its private affairs - especially when the Obama administration is simultaneously meddling in the phone activity, web activity and internet accounts of Americans nationwide......
Violence in Afghanistan is increasing sharply as Obama hails progress in the Afghan war
As President Obama continues to hail so-called progress in the war in Afghanistan and continues to facilitate his Afghan exit strategy, violence in the country is increasing at an alarming pace.
Par for the course for the President....
Par for the course for the President....
Georgia said Wednesday that the country has closed two of its bases in Afghanistan after 10 of its soldiers were killed by militant attacks within the last four weeks... The bombings were part of a wave of militant attacks in recent weeks, pushing violence to some of the highest levels of the 12-year war as Afghan forces take over most security responsibility from international troops set to withdraw next year.And....
Violence continues to escalate this month in Afghanistan, with the Taliban and other insurgents targeting NATO troops, government forces, politicians and civilians. On Tuesday, 17 people died in Kabul when a Taliban car bomber hit buses carrying employees of the Supreme Court, the deadliest attack in the capital in a year and a half.
Wednesday morning, a motorcycle bomb killed an Afghan soldier and civilian in the south of the country, officials said...
In eastern Afghanistan, militants attacked a NATO convoy carrying supplies on Tuesday night, killing two Afghan police officers and two truck drivers...
The Taliban forced dozens of primary schools in southern Afghanistan to close for two months when provincial officials banned motorbikes — the insurgents’ favored form of transport, according to the United Nations. [The Taliban use motorbikes to conduct drive-by attacks on U.S. and NATO troops, and for suicide attacks.]
The government caved in after watching children go without school and their families sometimes without food, because the schools were used as aid distribution centers.
The closure of schools were detailed in a report warning that the conflict in Afghanistan is getting more complex, and the civilian death toll is rising. It was published [Wednesday] the day after a suicide bomber killed 17 people as they boarded commuter buses near the supreme court
“A growing number of local militia and other armed groups are targeting civilians through intimidation, coercion, extortion, abuse and targeted killings,” the Monthly Humanitarian Bulletin said...
Nato forces are heading home, leaving Afghan troops to lead the battle against the Taliban in most of the country, but the withdrawal of foreign forces is not bringing the reduction in violence that some had hoped for. [Quite the contrary; violence in Afghanistan is spiking.]
The number of civilians admitted to hospitals for war-related injuries rose sharply this year compared with 2012, and conflict-related admissions nearly doubled in Helmand province...
The number of people who have fled to other parts of Afghanistan because of violence has risen more than half a million for the first time.
Hagel to Ryan: Obama never consulted me about Defense bill veto
During a House Budget Committee hearing on Wednesday, Committee chairman Paul Ryan asked Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel the following questions:
Mr. Ryan, in his question to Mr. Hagel, pointed out that the House Military appropriations bills are in sync with the President's defense budget numbers. But of course - as was the case when the President threatened to veto any efforts by Congressional Republicans to do away with his sequestration mandate - in Obama's world, it's either my way or the highway, and politics as usual.
Mr. Hagel responded to Mr. Ryan's questions as follows:
It should be noted, however, that Mr. Hagel stated in September of 2011 that the defense budget is "bloated". This was several months after Obama had already announced $400 billion in defense cuts. Hence, even if the House bill is in sync with Obama's military budget numbers, it is likely still over bloated in Hagel's eyes, and in need of additional trimming - hence there was no need to consult with Hagel over the matter. Moreover, if the House defense appropriations bill meets the President's current numbers, that likely means Obama will feel compelled to change his numbers and seek additional defense spending cuts - which makes the need for consultation on the House bill totally unnecessary. Heh.....
"Last week, the House passed the military construction appropriations bill by a vote of 421-4. The administration then released a statement of administration policy saying that, 'Unless this bill passes the congress in the context of an overall budget framework' - meaning, one that's supports the President's increase in non-defense discretionary spending - 'the President's senior advisers would recommend a veto.' We're meeting the number that was requested by the administration. Are you among the senior advisers recommending a veto on that bill? And, the second followup is: Today the House is marking up the DOD appropriations bill, again, basically meeting the administration's number. Are you going to recommend a veto of that one as well?"The White House's complete statement is as follows: "Unless this bill passes the Congress in the context of an overall budget framework that supports our recovery and enables sufficient investments in education, infrastructure, innovation and national security for our economy to compete in the future, the President’s senior advisers would recommend that he veto H.R. 2216 and any other legislation that implements the House Republican Budget framework."
Mr. Ryan, in his question to Mr. Hagel, pointed out that the House Military appropriations bills are in sync with the President's defense budget numbers. But of course - as was the case when the President threatened to veto any efforts by Congressional Republicans to do away with his sequestration mandate - in Obama's world, it's either my way or the highway, and politics as usual.
Mr. Hagel responded to Mr. Ryan's questions as follows:
"First, Mr. Chairman, I have not been asked for my opinion on whether the President should veto the bill or not. Um, my, um, as you know, [my] responsibility is this department and that’s where I stay focused. If I’m asked for my thoughts on the overall budget, then I’ll give them to him, but I have not been asked."Interesting: Despite the fact that it is the Defense Secretary who is largely responsible for allocating Defense funds, Secretary Hagel was never consulted about the President's plans to veto the House defense appropriations bill.
It should be noted, however, that Mr. Hagel stated in September of 2011 that the defense budget is "bloated". This was several months after Obama had already announced $400 billion in defense cuts. Hence, even if the House bill is in sync with Obama's military budget numbers, it is likely still over bloated in Hagel's eyes, and in need of additional trimming - hence there was no need to consult with Hagel over the matter. Moreover, if the House defense appropriations bill meets the President's current numbers, that likely means Obama will feel compelled to change his numbers and seek additional defense spending cuts - which makes the need for consultation on the House bill totally unnecessary. Heh.....
Monday, June 10, 2013
Did Obama's parents set the world record for the longest wedding ever?
Did the President's parents - Barack Obama, Sr. and Ann Dunham - set the world record for the longest wedding ever?
If their wedding party commenced in 1960 and ended in 1961, then, that very well may be the case!
In 2007, while discussing civil rights, and the civil rights movement, then-presidential candidate Barack Obama stated that, "When my parents got married in 1960, '61, it would have been illegal for them to be married in a number of states in the South." [See the video below.] A wedding that began in 1960 and stretched out till 1961 is, in all likelihood, a world record! Which begs the question: Why wasn't this monumental achievement listed in the Guinness Book of World Records?!
In Dreams from my Father, Barack Obama wrote that his parents were married in February, 1961. However, from Obama's 2007 statement, it appears as if the unusually long wedding ceremony, and party, commenced in 1960 and concluded in February of 1961.
A world record, befitting the parents of our illustrious President!
Sunday, June 9, 2013
Afghan insider attack kills 3 more Americans
An Afghan soldier shot and killed three of his American trainers on Saturday. The tragic shooting was the latest in a perpetual stream of “insider attacks” that continues to raise concerns about the training of Afghan soldiers, the handover of Afghan security to the Afghan forces and President Obama's overall exit strategy.
Friday, June 7, 2013
Obama's Transparency Pledge: Making Americans' Privacy transparent - PRISM electronic surveillance, data mining, media wiretap, eavesdropping etc.
Whether its the government's PRISM [electronic] surveillance program: the mining of private data from social media outlets: Google, Apple, YouTube Facebook etc., or, the wiretapping of journalists' cell phones, or, the targeting and auditing of Tea Party & Conservative groups - President Obama has completely fulfilled his transparency pledge by making the privacy of ordinary Americans more transparent [and open] before the eyes of the U.S. government and the eyes of his scandalous administration.
A job, well done! Congratulations, Mr. President!
A job, well done! Congratulations, Mr. President!
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
Michelle Obama gets heckled at fundraiser & threatens to leave, what happened to the "thick skin"?
"Barack and I have been in the public eye for many years now, and we've developed a thick skin along the way. When you're out campaigning, there will always be criticism. I just take it in stride, and at the end of the day, I know that it comes with the territory."
Michelle Obama - July 31, 2008
"You just sort of have to have a thick skin in this thing . And your kids do too."
Michelle Obama - May 29, 2012
Whether Michelle Obama actually developed thick skin or not is debatable, but one thing is for certain, any thick skin she claims to have developed has clearly started to shed.
Although President Obama has never responded to hecklers in the same fashion - he never approached or accosted any of his hecklers, nor did he ever threaten to leave an event - nevertheless, he did lose his temper, on at least one occasion, when a group of AIDS activists interrupted his speech during a 2010 campaign event.
The activists were upset because the Obama administration had begun flat-lining funding for PEPFAR [President's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief], a program which was launched in 2003 by George W. Bush. Dr. Peter Mugyenyi, director and founder of the Joint Clinical Research Center in Uganda, said at the time that PEPFAR had saved millions of lives. But, he said, AIDS patients were suddenly being deprived of life-saving treatments because the Obama administration had begun flat-lining funding for the program.
Obama lashed out angrily at the hecklers and engaged in one of his typical spin jobs, as seen in the video below. I embedded the video starting at the midway point where Obama goes off the deep-end, but you could rewind the video to the beginning to see the background material and to listen to Mr. Mugyenyi's remarks in a clearer and uninterrupted fashion.
Michelle Obama - July 31, 2008
"You just sort of have to have a thick skin in this thing . And your kids do too."
Michelle Obama - May 29, 2012
Whether Michelle Obama actually developed thick skin or not is debatable, but one thing is for certain, any thick skin she claims to have developed has clearly started to shed.
First lady Michelle Obama had a rare run-in with an audience heckler Tuesday during a fund-raising event in Washington for the Democratic National Committee.The White House transcript of the First Lady's remarks omitted the part where she threatened to leave.
The outburst from the crowd distracted Obama from her prepared remarks, prompting her to threaten to leave if the woman wanted to keep speaking.
“One of the things I don’t do well is this,” she said, according to a pool reporter who attended the event. Television cameras were not allowed inside.
Obama walked toward the protester, saying she could “listen to me or you can take the mic, but I’m leaving. You all decide. You have one choice,” according to the pool report.
The protester..., [who] was calling on President Barack Obama to sign an executive order barring discrimination based on sexual orientation by federal contractors..., was escorted out of the event.
Although President Obama has never responded to hecklers in the same fashion - he never approached or accosted any of his hecklers, nor did he ever threaten to leave an event - nevertheless, he did lose his temper, on at least one occasion, when a group of AIDS activists interrupted his speech during a 2010 campaign event.
The activists were upset because the Obama administration had begun flat-lining funding for PEPFAR [President's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief], a program which was launched in 2003 by George W. Bush. Dr. Peter Mugyenyi, director and founder of the Joint Clinical Research Center in Uganda, said at the time that PEPFAR had saved millions of lives. But, he said, AIDS patients were suddenly being deprived of life-saving treatments because the Obama administration had begun flat-lining funding for the program.
Obama lashed out angrily at the hecklers and engaged in one of his typical spin jobs, as seen in the video below. I embedded the video starting at the midway point where Obama goes off the deep-end, but you could rewind the video to the beginning to see the background material and to listen to Mr. Mugyenyi's remarks in a clearer and uninterrupted fashion.
Obama IRS scandal: President should heed his own advice: no obstruction, no phony assistance
In order to clean up Barack Obama's mess - namely, his scandalous scheme of targeting Tea Party and other Conservative groups via the IRS - it is imperative that the President heed his own advice [in 2009] and to allow Republicans in Congress to both investigate the White House scandal and to clean up the President's mess without any obstruction, whitewashing or phony and counterproductive assistance from the White House and its allies in the Eric Holder-led Justice Department. Obama should heed his own advice, and simply get out of the Republicans' way.
Mr. President, no obstruction, please.
Mr. President, no obstruction, please.
Monday, June 3, 2013
David Plouffe: Obama administration has avoided scandals, and we hope to continue that!
Despite the multitude of Obama administration scandals, President Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, asserted in January of 2013, [while putting on his usual poker face]: "Some other administrations got in trouble with scandals. We avoided that, and we hope to continue that."
"We hope to continue that"?! Does that mean the Obama administration is going to continue treading down its scandalous path with abandon?!
"We hope to continue that"?! Does that mean the Obama administration is going to continue treading down its scandalous path with abandon?!
Friday, May 31, 2013
GAO: HHS Already Rationing Enrollment in Obamacare’s Pre-Existing Condition Plan
From CNS News:
A pre-existing condition health insurance program established by Obamacare is already straining its own budget and, to control costs, the administration’s Health and Human Services Department (HHS) has stopped enrolling any new people in the program, according to an audit by the General Accountability Office (GAO).
In addition, to further control spending, HHS has directed the program to shift more of the costs onto the current enrollees, thus raising the out-of-pocket health care expenses for the people with pre-existing conditions....
The rationing or denial of health care coverage in the marketplace for people with pre-existing conditions, or insurers charging higher premiums to people with pre-existing conditions were among the reasons cited by President Barack Obama and most congressional Democrats for implementing Obamacare, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Benghazi: Obama administration vs. Hicks & Nordstrom on terror militia's benevolence & nobility
In September of 2012, the Obama administration praised a Libyan-based terror militia, claiming the militia spontaneously volunteered its assistance to the U.S when Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other U.S. officials were killed in a terrorist attack in Benghazi.
However, Eric Nordstrom - the State Department's former regional security officer in Libya - testified at a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing earlier this month that the aforementioned militia - which was tasked by the Libyan government to guard the U.S. consulate in Benghazi - issued threats, in July of 2012, against former U.S. ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens and Senator John McCain.
Moreover, Gregory Hicks, the former deputy chief of mission in Libya, testified that the aforementioned militia was complicit in the Benghazi attacks - which begs the question: Why did the Obama administration allow these terrorist thugs to guard the consulate?
"Spontaneously volunteering" its assistance! You've got to be kidding!
However, Eric Nordstrom - the State Department's former regional security officer in Libya - testified at a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing earlier this month that the aforementioned militia - which was tasked by the Libyan government to guard the U.S. consulate in Benghazi - issued threats, in July of 2012, against former U.S. ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens and Senator John McCain.
Moreover, Gregory Hicks, the former deputy chief of mission in Libya, testified that the aforementioned militia was complicit in the Benghazi attacks - which begs the question: Why did the Obama administration allow these terrorist thugs to guard the consulate?
"Spontaneously volunteering" its assistance! You've got to be kidding!
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
Syria & Russia; Obama's fictional Reset button
As Russia continues to arm the Syrian government with advanced weaponry and missiles, the Obama reset button continues to be a vital component of the President's fictitious, but glorious, legacy.
Obama discusses "Monroe" [Moore] Oklahoma tornado during Jersey Shore photo-op
Appearing at the Jersey Shore on Tuesday for a joint photo-op session with New Jersey Governor, Chris Christie, President Obama discussed the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. He also mentioned the recent tornado that swept across the city of Moore Oklahoma.
However, despite the President's visit to Moore on Sunday - where he toured the widespread storm damage - he forgot the name of the city on Tuesday during his joint photo-op session with Governor Christie.
"Obviously, we're going to be there for the folks in Monroe Oklahoma after the devastation of last week," the President told the Jersey Shore audience as camera bulbs flickered in the background.
However, despite the President's visit to Moore on Sunday - where he toured the widespread storm damage - he forgot the name of the city on Tuesday during his joint photo-op session with Governor Christie.
"Obviously, we're going to be there for the folks in Monroe Oklahoma after the devastation of last week," the President told the Jersey Shore audience as camera bulbs flickered in the background.
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Student Loans subsidize ObamaCare
From The Hill:
Recent speeches by Tennessee Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander highlight a connection that has yet to be reported in the media and is yet to be understood by the young people struggling with high interest rates in the hopes of financing their college education.Oh, well....
According to the Congressional Budget Office, $8.7 billion of the money collected in student loan interest payments actually goes to pay for ObamaCare. The CBO estimates that the interest rate on these loans could be reduced from 6.8 percent to only 5.3 percent were the funds not used to subsidize the healthcare reform law and other federal programs.
The profits from student loans are divided as follows: $8.7 billion goes to pay for ObamaCare; $10.3 billion goes to pay down the federal debt; and $36 billion goes to Pell Scholarship grants.
The 16 million American students who now have student loans are paying for ObamaCare out of their meagre incomes just at the point when they graduate from college and need funds to start their lives, buy their first homes and begin a family.
Politically, how did the Republicans miss this issue in the last election?... Student loan payments are a daily present reality, standing in the way of the rest of [the students'] lives. They, alone among forms of debt, are not dischargeable in bankruptcy and stain their credit reports forever if they are not paid...
Alexander notes that the federal government borrows the funds for the student loan program at 2.8 percent and then lends it to the students at 6.8 percent, a markup of 4 percent.
The nexus between the student loan program and ObamaCare is purely opportunistic. As the Affordable Care Act was passing through Congress, its wheels greased by the wholly fraudulent assertion that it didn’t need 60 votes to pass the Senate, the administration decided to put in a provision eliminating the private student loan industry, fully federalizing the program. What was not widely understood at the time was that it hoped to raid the funds paid by students to provide money for the bottomless pit known as ObamaCare...
To tax students struggling to pay loans an extra 4 percent interest and then to divert a good portion of that money to pay for his [Obama's] healthcare reform is beyond belief.
Undoubtedly, few students know of this rip-off...The entire policy of student loans assures a kind of indentured servitude for our college graduates, and to piggy back on this burden the costs of ObamaCare is quite extraordinary.
Famous Siamese twins, Barack Obama & Chris Christie, arrive for yet another photo-op at Jersey Shore
The inseparable, and famous, Siamese twins, President Barack Obama and New Jersey governor Chris Christie, came out to the Jersey shore on Tuesday for yet another photo-op.
Obamacare tax forces reduction in Health Care benefits & deductibles
From the New York Times:
My advice to you, Ms. Bruce, is to stop complaining and to get with the program!
Say goodbye to that $500 deductible insurance plan and the $20 co-payment for a doctor’s office visit. They are likely to become luxuries of the past...That is true, Ms. Bruce. However, in Obama's eyes, you, and your husband, are wealthy individuals - and it is only right for you to drop out of school and take on additional jobs to pay for your husband’s medicine, because, well, because it's the fair thing to do. And besides, costly medical treatments and tests are so passé; we're living in a new era: the Obama era. "Hope & Change", remember?
Then blame — or credit — the so-called Cadillac tax, which penalizes companies that offer [so-called] high-end health care plans to their employees...
Workers with employer-paid health insurance are... beginning to feel the effects of [Obamacare]. Companies hoping to avoid the tax are beginning to scale back the more generous health benefits they have traditionally offered and to look harder for ways to bring down the overall cost of care.
In a way, the changes are right in line with the administration’s plan: To encourage employers to move away from plans that insulate workers from the cost of care and often lead to excessive procedures and tests ["excessive procedures and tests" - yeah, right, "excessive" in the eyes of the death panel, heh], and galvanize employers to try to control ever-increasing medical costs. But the tax remains one of the law’s most controversial provisions.
Bradley Herring, a health economist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, suggested the result would be more widely felt than many people realize. “The reality is it is going to hit more and more people over time, at least as currently written in law, ” he said. Mr. Herring estimated that as many as 75 percent of plans could be affected by the tax over the next decade — unless employers manage to significantly rein in their costs.
The changes can be significant for employees. The hospital where Abbey Bruce, a nursing assistant in Olympia, Wash., worked, for example, stopped offering the traditional plan that she and her husband, Casey, who has cystic fibrosis, had chosen.
Starting this year, they have a combined deductible of $2,300, compared with just $500 before. And while she was eligible for a $1,400 hospital contribution to a savings account linked to the plan, the couple is now responsible for $6,600 a year in medical expenses, in contrast to a $3,000 limit on medical bills and $2,000 limit on pharmacy costs last year. She has had to drop out of school and take on additional jobs to pay for her husband’s medicine.
“My husband didn’t choose to be born this way,” Ms. Bruce said.
My advice to you, Ms. Bruce, is to stop complaining and to get with the program!
The union representing her, a chapter of the [Obama enthusiast] Service Employees International Union, has objected to the changes. Her employer, Providence Health & Services, says it designed the plans to avoid having employees shoulder too much in medical bills and has reduced how much workers pay in premiums...
Cynthia Weidner, an executive at the benefits consultant HighRoads, [said] that the tax appeared to be having the intended effect. ['intended effect', heh...] “The premise it’s built upon is happening,” she said, adding, “the consumer should continue to expect that their plan is going to be more expensive, and they will have less benefits. ”...
Obama: We must 'give our troops the resources they need!' AHEM - Memorial Day speech, Arlington National Cemetery
Speaking at Memorial Day ceremonies at Arlington National Cemetery on Monday, President Obama proclaimed: "On this day, we remember our sacred obligation to those who laid down their lives so we could live ours: to finish the job these men and women started by keeping our promise to those who wear America’s uniform, to give our troops the resources they need...."
Beautiful words from the President!
And, no one is more suited than Obama to speak about the sacred obligation of giving "our troops the resources they need".
Whether it was the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan or the terrorist attacks in Benghazi, President Obama always made certain that our troops and diplomats were well-protected; he has consistently refused to put politics before the security and well-being of our soldiers and diplomats!
An incredible, and noble, accomplishment, indeed!
Hail to the chief!
Beautiful words from the President!
And, no one is more suited than Obama to speak about the sacred obligation of giving "our troops the resources they need".
Whether it was the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan or the terrorist attacks in Benghazi, President Obama always made certain that our troops and diplomats were well-protected; he has consistently refused to put politics before the security and well-being of our soldiers and diplomats!
An incredible, and noble, accomplishment, indeed!
Hail to the chief!
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Obama: 'We will never erase evil', Which "evil" is he referring to? - Speech, National Defense University
Speaking at the National Defense University on Thursday, President Obama asserted that, "We will never erase the evil that lies in the hearts of some human beings."
Question: Which "evil" was the President referring to? Was he referring to the "evil" that President George W. Bush wrought upon the Iraqi people when he freed them from the reigns of [Saddam Hussein's] tyranny? Or, was he referring to his own exit strategy in Afghanistan, which has left the Afghan people in a state of fear, and forced a mass exodus from the country?
Or, was he referring to the IRS & Obama administration's targeting of Tea Party and Conservative groups?
Question: Which "evil" was the President referring to? Was he referring to the "evil" that President George W. Bush wrought upon the Iraqi people when he freed them from the reigns of [Saddam Hussein's] tyranny? Or, was he referring to his own exit strategy in Afghanistan, which has left the Afghan people in a state of fear, and forced a mass exodus from the country?
Or, was he referring to the IRS & Obama administration's targeting of Tea Party and Conservative groups?
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
IRS: Obama said ASU officials would be targeted, but he decided to target Tea Party & Conservative groups
Speaking at the Arizona State University commencement ceremony in 2009, President Obama chided University officials because of their decision not to award him an honorary degree.
A school spokesman told the student newspaper at the time that Obama would not be awarded an honorary degree because "his lifetime body of work was still ahead of him."
However, ASU later announced that it was renaming a scholarship program for Obama. The scholarship program would be called the President Barack Obama Scholars Program.
But Obama wasn't about to let ASU officials off the hook.
"I'd just like to clear the air about that little controversy everybody was talking about a few weeks back," Obama stated in his commencement address. "I have to tell you, I really thought this was much ado about nothing, but I do think we all learned an important lesson. I learned never again to pick another team over the Sun Devils [the ASU basketball team] in my NCAA bracket. (Applause.) It won't happen again."
Obama added: "President Crow and the Board of Regents will soon learn all about being audited by the IRS." (Applause.)
The crowd laughed off Obama's comments, but in hindsight, it wasn't a laughing matter at all; just ask the Tea Party, and other Conservative groups, who've been targeted by Obama and the IRS.......
A school spokesman told the student newspaper at the time that Obama would not be awarded an honorary degree because "his lifetime body of work was still ahead of him."
However, ASU later announced that it was renaming a scholarship program for Obama. The scholarship program would be called the President Barack Obama Scholars Program.
But Obama wasn't about to let ASU officials off the hook.
"I'd just like to clear the air about that little controversy everybody was talking about a few weeks back," Obama stated in his commencement address. "I have to tell you, I really thought this was much ado about nothing, but I do think we all learned an important lesson. I learned never again to pick another team over the Sun Devils [the ASU basketball team] in my NCAA bracket. (Applause.) It won't happen again."
Obama added: "President Crow and the Board of Regents will soon learn all about being audited by the IRS." (Applause.)
The crowd laughed off Obama's comments, but in hindsight, it wasn't a laughing matter at all; just ask the Tea Party, and other Conservative groups, who've been targeted by Obama and the IRS.......
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
AP: Obama reluctant to seize Benghazi terrorists because 1) it could "harm fledgling relations with Libya" 2) he wants to close Gitmo
The AP reported on Tuesday that the Obama administration is disinclined to send a military force into Libya to seize the terrorists who perpetrated the attacks in Benghazi because there isn't enough evidence to try them in a U.S. civilian court as the Obama administration prefers.
The AP added:
Let me preface my remarks with the following comment: Although President Obama constantly feigns righteous indignation about the leaking of highly sensitive information, it is he and his administration who are actually the biggest leakers of 'em all.
Obama and his cronies have consistently used the AP and other media outlets as vehicles to leak out their [highly sensitive] misinformation campaigns - and their spin. "U.S. officials" are often quoted in the mainstream media reports as sources of "newly" obtained information - but these U.S. officials are, in actuality, Obama proxies who are tasked with relaying the President's misinformation campaign to the media and to the public. Hence, I have a hard time believing anything coming out of the mainstream media, especially when anonymous "senior U.S. officials" and/or anonymous "senior administration officials" are cited as sources of new information. Which is why I'm a bit skeptical about certain aspects of this latest AP report. Nevertheless, two significant observations can be gleaned from this report.
1) [As others have pointed out:] The reluctance on the President's part to seize the terrorists militarily if it entails bringing the terrorists to Guantanamo Bay.
Incredible!
2) The Obama administration's concern that, "Using military force to detain the [terrorists] might harm fledgling relations with Libya and other post-Arab-Spring governments."
Incredible!
Is this also the reason why the President refused to conduct a military rescue operation in Benghazi last year?
In truth, as I've noted previously, there are a host of reasons, and motives, that might explain why the President refused to carry out a rescue mission in Benghazi last year. Among those reasons is the fact that it was Obama who empowered the Al Qaeda-affiliated rebels in Libya, and thus the President was reluctant to send in boots on the ground to fight the very terrorists that he empowered, particularly when he had promised the American people that the U.S. involvement in the ouster of Muammar Gaddafi would not entail sending in boots on the ground. The reluctance to send in boots on the ground was compounded by the fact that the U.S. Presidential election was right around the corner.
The AP added:
The decision not to seize the men militarily underscores the White House aim to move away from hunting terrorists as enemy combatants and holding them at the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The preference is toward a process in which most are apprehended and tried by the countries where they are living or arrested by the U.S. with the host country's cooperation and tried in the U.S. criminal justice system. Using military force to detain the men might also harm fledgling relations with Libya and other post-Arab-Spring governments with whom the U.S. is trying to build partnerships to hunt al-Qaida as the organization expands throughout the region...The AP cited a senior administration official, and four senior U.S. officials - who were briefed on the investigation into the attacks and on high level strategy debates among White House, FBI and other counterterror officials - as the source of the above information. All five officials spoke on condition of anonymity.
Some of the men have... been in contact with a network of well-known regional Jihadists, including al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb...
The option most likely off the table would be taking suspects seized by the military to Guantanamo Bay, the facility in Cuba that Obama has said he wants to close.
"Just as the administration is trying to find the exit ramp for Guantanamo, [it] is not the time to be adding to it," said the former chief prosecutor for Guantanamo.
Let me preface my remarks with the following comment: Although President Obama constantly feigns righteous indignation about the leaking of highly sensitive information, it is he and his administration who are actually the biggest leakers of 'em all.
Obama and his cronies have consistently used the AP and other media outlets as vehicles to leak out their [highly sensitive] misinformation campaigns - and their spin. "U.S. officials" are often quoted in the mainstream media reports as sources of "newly" obtained information - but these U.S. officials are, in actuality, Obama proxies who are tasked with relaying the President's misinformation campaign to the media and to the public. Hence, I have a hard time believing anything coming out of the mainstream media, especially when anonymous "senior U.S. officials" and/or anonymous "senior administration officials" are cited as sources of new information. Which is why I'm a bit skeptical about certain aspects of this latest AP report. Nevertheless, two significant observations can be gleaned from this report.
1) [As others have pointed out:] The reluctance on the President's part to seize the terrorists militarily if it entails bringing the terrorists to Guantanamo Bay.
Incredible!
2) The Obama administration's concern that, "Using military force to detain the [terrorists] might harm fledgling relations with Libya and other post-Arab-Spring governments."
Incredible!
Is this also the reason why the President refused to conduct a military rescue operation in Benghazi last year?
In truth, as I've noted previously, there are a host of reasons, and motives, that might explain why the President refused to carry out a rescue mission in Benghazi last year. Among those reasons is the fact that it was Obama who empowered the Al Qaeda-affiliated rebels in Libya, and thus the President was reluctant to send in boots on the ground to fight the very terrorists that he empowered, particularly when he had promised the American people that the U.S. involvement in the ouster of Muammar Gaddafi would not entail sending in boots on the ground. The reluctance to send in boots on the ground was compounded by the fact that the U.S. Presidential election was right around the corner.
Fort Hood Shooter received $278,000 military pay while awaiting trial
When U.S. soldiers are killed in insider attacks in Afghanistan, the Pentagon, in its casualty reports, often [deliberately] mislabels the deaths as combat-related casualties: "He died in a combat operation in Afghanistan," the reports typically state.
Admitting that the soldiers were gunned down by their supposed Afghan allies - who they're supposed to be training and partnering with - reflects poorly on President Obama's exit strategy, hence the real cause of deaths are omitted from the casualty report, and the soldiers are falsely reported to have died in combat operations.
On the flip side, however, the Pentagon refuses to label the 2009 Fort Hood shooting spree a “combat related” incident; nor will it label the incident a “terrorist attack”; but has chosen instead to categorize the shooting - which took the lives of 13 soldiers and wounded more than 30 - as a case of “workplace violence".
Par for the course for this administration....
From NBC Dallas:
Admitting that the soldiers were gunned down by their supposed Afghan allies - who they're supposed to be training and partnering with - reflects poorly on President Obama's exit strategy, hence the real cause of deaths are omitted from the casualty report, and the soldiers are falsely reported to have died in combat operations.
On the flip side, however, the Pentagon refuses to label the 2009 Fort Hood shooting spree a “combat related” incident; nor will it label the incident a “terrorist attack”; but has chosen instead to categorize the shooting - which took the lives of 13 soldiers and wounded more than 30 - as a case of “workplace violence".
Par for the course for this administration....
From NBC Dallas:
The Department of Defense confirms to NBC 5 Investigates that accused Fort Hood shooter Major Nidal Hasan has now been paid more than $278,000 since the Nov. 5, 2009 shooting that left 13 dead and 32 injured. The Army said under the Military Code of Justice, Hasan’s salary cannot be suspended unless he is proven guilty...
Meanwhile, more than three years later soldiers wounded in the mass shooting are fighting to receive the same pay and medical benefits given to those wounded in combat.
Retired Army Spc. Logan Burnett, a reservist who, in 2009, was soon to be deployed to Iraq, was shot three times when a gunman opened fire inside the Army Deployment Center.
“I honestly thought I was going to die in that building,” said Burnett. “Just blood everywhere and then the thought of -- that's my blood everywhere.”...
Burnett is now fighting a new battle; only this one is against the U.S. Army.
The Army has not classified the wounds of the Ft. Hood victims as “combat related” and declines to label the shooting a “terrorist attack”.
The “combat related” designation is an important one, for without it Burnett and other shooting victims are not given combat-related pay, they are not eligible for Purple Heart retirement or medical benefits given to other soldiers wounded either at war or during the Sept. 11, 2001 attack on the Pentagon.
As a result, Burnett, his wife Torey, and the families of other Fort Hood victims miss out on thousands of dollars of potential benefits and pay every year.
To Burnett the shooting felt like combat.
“You take three rounds and lose five good friends and watch seven other people get killed in front of you. Do you have another term that we can classify that as?” asked Burnett.
The Army has categorized the shooting as a case of “workplace violence.”...
"There have been times when my wife and I cannot afford groceries. We cannot afford gas in our car,” Burnett said. “Literally, times where we ate Ramen noodles for weeks on end. This [that Hasan is still earning a paycheck] makes me sick to my stomach,” said Burnett...
Rep. Thomas Rooney (R) Florida said: “What happened here is not a case of workplace violence. What happened here was an attack on our military by a terrorist element specifically targeting our military, which just so happened to be in the United States of America."...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)