Giving credit where due: Obama picks a winner as CENTCOM Commander: Marine General Jim Mattis

.
Regular readers know that I have real, genuine heartburn with Obama and how he's been running the show in Afghanistan. The McCrystal debacle is just one example of problematic, morale-killing leadership (No, Mr. President, a withdrawal date makes no sense to anyone but the Taliban) but I have to give credit where it's due.

First, Obama taps General Petraeus to take over Afghanistan. Then, he replaces Petraeus with Marine General Jim Matthis, a product of our state and a graduate of Central Washington among others.

Best known for utilizing sayings like:

Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet;

I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m begging you, with tears in my eyes, if you f*&^ with me, I will kill you all; and

No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy.

There's a lot more to generalship than sayings, of course, but this guy is seemingly universally well thought of at the end user level.

My off the cuff is these are two good choices.
.

More on Pagan - Hutchinson Army deployment.

.
Well, I have to show some respect and admiration to anyone fired up enough about their perspective to spend this much time discussing it.

The comments in question are the product of a Craig Fosnock as opposed to anon.

Let me set the table here. To reiterate, I have a problem when ANYONE uses their kids as an excuse to violate their word, said word given when they enlisted. In this instance, the excuse for that violation is limited to the children of the mother in question.

In the first instance, Pagan's excuse was "her husband had a job where he frequently had to travel."

Tough. Change jobs, or don't have the kids until your service commitment is completed.

Pagan had FIFTEEN MONTHS to set up another program or option, and made the choice, quite deliberately, not to do so.

Thus, as I have repeatedly pointed out, she had no excuse.

I would again ask the question: what would happen to these kids if their mothers, in this case, Pagan and Hutchinson, were run over by a bus?

Would Pagan's husband give them up for adoption? Or would he do what he SHOULD have done THIS time, and CHANGED HIS FRICKING JOB?

What about Hutchinson's kid?

Sussman (Hutchinson's lawyer) said Hutchinson is no longer in a relationship with her son's father.

So? So what? GET the son's father BACK into the picture. Make HIM take custody of the kid.

But the idea that Hutchinson has no options is ludicrous.

BOTH of these women were/are making an attempt to manipulate the system. Pagan was unnecessarily successful. Hutchinson's actions are the result.

Failure to imprison these women and give them dishonorable discharges will result in dramatically increased numbers of others using the same dodge to get out of duty.

PAGAN was the time to send the message. But failing that, Hutchinson will do.

As for the other "7500," (Where does that number come from? I don't know.) I cannot speak for or about them. Clearly, however, they received deferments that were authorized regardless of the reason.

Pagan and Hutchinson did not. Unfortunately for the military, Pagan's convening authority blinked, because as Hasan seems to have proven, we've turned into an Army of expedience; doing the easy, low noise thing without any long term view of consequences... until now.

Court martialling Hutchinson will put an end to this, because if these women can't figure out what to do with their kids while they're deployed, perhaps they can figure out what to do with them while they're imprisoned.

What do any of us think would have happened if Pagan's commander had sat her down and told her that her choice was between prison/DD and her finding a way to have her kids taken care of and she deploys... what would that outcome have been?

Same thing for Hutchinson.

Either way, these two deploy, even if their kids are put into foster care, so some other poor bastard doesn't have to do their duty in their place.

LOL...well you got my point about this then you just ignored it. I will make a few more points then reinstate it. First a (low) percentage of women have always hidden behind their kids. How you may ask, well they get pregnant to avoid deployments, a lifetime commitment to avoid a deployment makes no sense to me but you figure that one out.

I appreciate your observation, but it's irrelevant what a "low percentage of women" do.

What's to "figure out?" They get pregnant, their unit leaves, they stay behind; or they deploy, they get pregnant and then are transferred out; they get an abortion.

It's only a "lifetime commitment" if they want it to be, and those willing to use their kids to avoid doing their duty ain't gonna score real high on the integrity meter.

You state that "her husband didn't feel like taking care of the kids"...the article states his job required him to travel...was he suppose to quit his job. Maybe he lied about the travel but until proven different I will say he was not going to be able (instead of not wanted) to put the kids into daycare.

That may be a difference between us. As I already stated, he could damned well change his job to one where he DIDN'T frequently travel.

Did he marry this woman in a vacuum? Do you suppose she never told him that she had an 8 year commitment and that she was subject to recall? Do you suppose she just forgot about that? Do you think she COULD have been responsible enough to put her commitment to possible deployment ahead of her biological clock?

He needed to man up and do the right thing.

And, of course, if he had done that, well, we wouldn't have heard anything about this, would we?

I again ask the question: what would this clown do if Lisa Pagan had been killed or crippled in a tragic bus-train accident?

Well, whatever THAT is, is what he SHOULD have done this time.

That he refused to put his family first and do what was required to help his wife honor HER word and HER commitment does NOT provide Pagan with ANY adequate excuse to avoid deployment.

There is a HUGE difference between "can't" and "don't want to." Clearly, both of these cases are of the "don't want to" variety, as opposed to the "can't" variety.

This wasn't a promise to run a cheerleader fund raiser car wash for a Saturday.

This was a sworn oath to do her duty for the 8 fricking years she signed up for. And her CHOICE not to do that duty SHOULD have resulted in her court martial and imprisonment.

You also ask "why the Army caved to this woman is a mystery to me." The simply answer is for the same reason they caved for the other 7,500 deferments, and for the same reason they will put on a dog and pony show about Hutchinson. This is the new military, and military readiness comes second to public relations.

Really?

Then why didn't they treat Hutchinson the same way? Why didn't they just kick her to the curb like they did Pagan?

Charges were never preferred against Pagan. So, why charge Hutchinson but not Pagan if it's just all about a "dog and pony show?"

You state the "7500" who didn't go MAY have had damned good reasons for it...the key word here is MAY...my argument is who determines this, unless you can determine the criteria then the argument is a moot point. Using your criteria all 7,501 people who got deferments are cowards so why pick on just one.

And using your criteria, anyone in the military should be able to get out whenever THEY feel like it, and get full benefits in the process.

In this instance, WHATEVER the criteria used to allow those others to leave, these two women obviously didn't qualify for it.

Another point Per military.com:

Hundreds of other IRR members, meanwhile, simply have failed to show up at deployment stations when ordered to do so.

And... so.... what, exactly? Does that make it right?

ANYONE missing their deployment should be arrested and court-martialled for desertion.

After the first few of those happened, what would the impacts be on the rest?

And instead of declaring the scofflaws as “absent without leave,” or AWOL, the Army is choosing to give these people “the benefit of the doubt,” Lt. Col. Pamela Hart, an Army spokeswoman in the Pentagon, said in a Tuesday interview.

Again... so what?

This is the WRONG decision to make, and at some point (and maybe the Hutchinson case is the point in question) the military will come to understand that a part of their critical manpower shortage could be solved by making these people do what they promised TO do.

And one thing that ain't happening, is that these people aren't getting any benefits.

Don't show up?

Then try getting VA.

Once again the main point of my argument is that yes it sucks that she "hid behind her kids". What sucks even more is that 7,500 hid behind something else, but they get a pass because they MAY have had a good excuse.

I, for one, believe that there IS no "good" excuse.

But let's run out the string.

Would I make a parent deploy if their child was dying?

No. Nor a wife or a husband, for that matter. Nor would I provide some sort of permanent deferment. Once the situation is resolved, one way or the other, then you're going.

And of these "7500" (and where did that number come from?) it is not unreasonable to assume that many of those fell under that or some similar situation.

Only communists deal in absolutes. But in the end, the glaring, gapping hole in your position is that NO ONE forced these people to sign up.

No one. And their decision to violate their word, which results in someone else having to uproot their life and go in their stead, cannot be condoned by either an indifferent military or government.

For the sake of argument lets say I agree with you but then until the military goes after the SOBs who do not even bother showing up why complain about Lisa Pagan.

You know, I tried the "everyone else is doing it" argument when I was a kid as well.

And it never worked for me, either.
.

There are times I am ashamed to have been in the Army and this is one of them: Watada gets over.

.
The Seattle PI web site is reporting that 1LT Ehren Watada is being allowed to resign during the first week of October.

You remember, Watada, don't you? He's that scumbag that bailed out on his men and his unit to avoid deploying.

While he's getting an "Other then Honorable" discharge (does anyone have any doubt that the ACORN-in-Chief will get it upgraded so this scumbag gets his benefits?) that doesn't come close to what he SHOULD be getting.... which is shot.

While he will, no doubt, be lionized by the fringe-left... the SAME fringe left that has so hypocritically been absent and mostly silent in the face of the empty-suit's mishandling of the war, one can only hope that he'll become so depressed because of his shame that he do us all a favor.

This waste of skin should never have been commissioned. And meekly letting this scumbag go when, at the very least, he should be spending the rest of his life in prison, the Army shames all of us that deployed to where-ever we were needed and where-ever we were sent without abandoning either our troops or our voluntarily assumed responsibilities.
.

Navy Captain Michael Scott Speicher... coming home at last.

.
God bless you and yours, Captain.

Sunday August 02, 2009

Remains of missing US pilot Michael Speicher found after 18 years in desert

Tim Reid in Washington

• 1 Comment

Recommend? (6)

(HO/AFP/Getty Images)

It is believed that Captain Speicher was buried by nomadic Bedouin tribesmen

The remains of the first American killed in the Gulf War have been found in Iraq, solving a mystery that has vexed the US military since his jet was shot down on the first night of the 1991 war.

The Pentagon announced yesterday that the remains of Navy Captain Michael “Scott” Speicher had been identified from bone fragments unearthed in the Iraqi desert, after two Iraqi civilians contacted Marines to say that they knew where he was buried.

The discovery ends 18 years of uncertainty about the fate of Captain Speicher, who left behind a wife and two young children when he disappeared. The Pentagon initially declared him killed but the lack of remains, and claims by some Iraqis over the years to have seen him in captivity, led officials to change his status to “missing in action” and later “missing-captured”.

After the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, an American military unit was detailed to search for the missing pilot. That lead to a number of false leads, including the discovery of what some believed were the initials “MSS” scratched on the wall of an Iraqi prison.

More:

The debacle of the Obama Fairy-Tale Foreign Policy

.
So, what have been the developments since the ascension of the empty suit?

North Korea pops a nuke and fires missiles.

Iran fires missiles and deploys their Navy (such as it is) while continuing to threaten the existence of Israel.

Israel notes his eagerness to sell them out and rightfully tells him to get stuffed.

Russia seems to be ignoring him altogether.

Afghanistan has all of the same problems it had when he were elected 7 months ago, and then some.

Europe was impressed by his shtick, but when it really counted, how much help did they provide for Afghanistan?

Pirates are becoming more emboldened by his incompetence and indecisiveness.

Yes, the security of the world is now in the hands of a buffoonish clown. Give me President Bush every day and twice on Sunday.

(Thanks to the boat-riding leftist for the title correction.)
.

Excerpts from letters ABOUT Iraq... and democrats playing politics with American blood.(Letter 2)

.
“His words bring pain to those who are serving and their families….his words also continue to show the rest of the world that free speech is alive and well in the United States.”

Sigh.

If all he was doing was bringing “pain” to our troops and their families, I could possibly agree with you.

But AAAAA, his words are doing more than that… his words are bringing death. His words result in the spilling of American blood. They don’t just bring pain; they bring an agony beyond description. Those who would destroy us; those who would kill you without a second thought… those who would kill our children with a smile on their faces are uplifted by these comments. They point to them… they use them as recruiting tools… they say, “See, even Americans in government think Bush is a murderer.”

And as a result, people will die because of his words as surely as if he pulled a .45 and put a bullet through their heads himself. And these things are ramping up, BBBBB. These words and these types of words are rippling through our society… and they play a role in the increasingly strident actions by leftists in this country, both individually (your article about the Marine’s burned flag) and as groups (Those Code Pink idiots and many school districts/colleges and so forth trashing military recruiters.) as they become emboldened by their leadership.

Who stands to pay the price? Who stands to bleed?

Our people, CCCCC…Yours and mine. These kinds of words may result in the deaths of our sons. And on that, I again defer to Oliver Wendell Holmes, who I believe cherished free speech as much as any man can, when he wrote:

"[w]hen a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.” Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)

I guess the question is this: are we at war? Do we have “men fighting?” And if we do, then why do we have to “endure” these “utterances?” Is there to be no accountability or responsibility for those who provide aid and comfort to our enemies with their words? Or are we limited to only acting against those we give money, weapons, or intelligence to when it comes to that provision of treason? At a minimum, this is called Sedition; (which I recognize is, apparently, no longer illegal) at a maximum, it’s called treason.

Article III Section 3 says this:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

The law:

the United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

Right now, for example, we have an American, Adam Gadahn, under indictment for treason… because he’s spoken supportively of al-qaida on videos.

Forgive me, but I honestly can’t ferret out the difference between what democrat leaders like Pelosi, Reid, Murtha, Stark and Durbin say and anything Gadahn has said, except for one minimal detail: the impact of the words spoken by these people is geometrically greater and more harmful than those of a moron like Gadahn. Yet HE is indicted for treason… and THEY are not? What happened to HIS “absolute right?”

Imagine, if you will, where we would be had sentiments such as those uttered by these people had been said on the floor of the House or the Senate during World War 2?

In the end, we cannot base our policies or our actions on what, for example, Togo or Curacao may think about how we administer our own civil rights in THIS country. Is what the rest of the world “thinks” worth the lives of those Americans who WILL die unnecessarily because Stark and those like him indulge themselves by raping the concept of free speech as they engage in their efforts to destroy the morale and reduce the capabilities of the Armed Forces of the United States?

This is, I believe, a war for our survival. When, in our history, have Members of our government ever taken the floor of the House or the Senate during a time of war, to denounce our military or our President? Why hasn’t this happened before? Why is it happening now?

That Congressman Stark could proclaim to the world that our military has, as one of its missions, the task to “blow up innocent people;” or that our President finds the decapitation of our soldiers “amusing” is a classic definition of precisely what Justice Holmes was referring to in his opinion.

I again refer to my little scenario, where you, 1LT DDDDDDDD, have to send some kid out on patrol on a route Black. He’s scared (Who wouldn’t be?) and he’s hearing it. He wants to know why he should put his ass on the line when members of his own government have just issued a blanket indictment against him for “blowing up innocent people.”

What do you tell him, Lieutenant? You NEED this guy. You need him to cover your back. You need him to do the mission.

But a congressman has just accused him and 150,000 of his coworkers of slaughtering innocents. And the Speaker of the House thanked him for doing so.

What do you tell him PFC Smith? Threatening him isn’t enough. Putting him in the stockade isn’t enough… you ain’t got one or a hundred stockades big enough to lock up those who think these same things.

How do you keep this kid and thousands like him from just saying, “Ahhhh, fuck it.” and tossing down his M4 while he refuses to go out for a meaningless mission where he has a high probability of bleeding for people that not only don’t care, but who condemn him because he’s there?

Every time, EEEEE. Every time these people make these attacks, they’re attacking HIM. Every time they get up there, like Stark got up there yesterday, they’re jamming a shiv into his ribs and twisting it. Every time they say these things, they bring agony down on the troops and their families. Every time they say these things, they’re increasing the likelihood that this kid, and others like him, are going to die. Every time they say these things, they strengthen our enemies… while they weaken us.

You indicate: If we are going to have free speech, we need to have it be absolute.

I would submit to you that there is not, and never has been anything approaching “absolute” freedom of speech in this country. Don’t believe me? Knock out a quick email to the White House threatening to kill the President. See what that gets you. See if, in fact, such a thing as “absolute” freedom of speech does exist.

Is such an absurd example to illustrate a point beyond the pale? I don’t know. But it is a fact.

As a society, we cannot have absolute freedoms. To have such a thing absolves us from individual responsibility. Absolved of that responsibility, as our government leaders seem to be, they’re encouraged to go farther and farther and farther in their allegations. And in so doing, they’re whipping up an element that is easily led, and that has a nefarious motive… an element who does not wish this country well.

If we are not at war, then none of this really matters. If we are, then feel free to point out where our freedoms have not been temporarily subjugated for the duration of that war in a dozen different ways… everything from the draft, where millions of men have been FORCED to serve in the military, many against their will, at risk of life and limb… perhaps the ultimate suspension of freedom possible in the last century, to the suspension of habeas corpus, to the internment of tens of thousands based on their race (an all too likely possibility to happen again if this country sustains yet another massive attack… with those of the Muslim persuasion being forced beyond barbed wire.) and a host of other forms of censorship.

Do these people have an absolute right to release classified information? Is there ANY line that cannot be crossed here? And if there is, then why don’t those lines include the treasonous and or seditious utterances of political opportunists who could care less what damage they do… damage that you ADMIT they do, but damage you would allow them to do… encourage them to do.

As I write this, it’s about 0100. It’s raining. Before I call it a night, I’m going out to my 24 foot tall flag pole. The Flag of the United States is flying there, fluttering in a breeze from the south, I think.

I keep the flag up around the clock, FFFFF. I have it lit up at night by a rather unsophisticated system of a photo cell, a small battery charger and a 55 watt fog lamp from Schucks Auto Supply. It comes on when the sun goes down, and it goes off when the sun comes up.

I will look up at the flag, as I frequently do… the flag that I, my brothers… and even-my-waste-of-skin, no-redeeming-value step-father served under in countries around the world… sometimes with people wanting us really, really dead.

But in all the years and places I served, no one ever compared me or my brothers or step father (A Pearl Harbor survivor, come to think of it) with the Nazi’s, or claimed our mission was to kill innocents, or stated that the President found the deaths of American troops “amusing.”

I will look up at the flag this morning and I will fear for my country, KKKKK. (as a brief aside, I will also pray that the almost 4,000 Americans killed over there will not have died in vain, and that the 30,000 or so wounded will not have bled for nothing… outcomes that these scum want with a passion.)

And up until the past couple of years, I never used to fear. But I feel that way now because far too many people are willing to chant “principle” while the house burns down around them.

That is why, in part, I disagree with GGGGG on his appeal. I disagree with him because of the relative outcomes.

If GGGGG is right, and the appeal overturns the decision, then negative impacts will be the order of the day, but GGGGGs principles will be shiningly intact. People will suffer mightily because of it, but man, his PRINCIPLES will be intact… and he will have been right.

OTOH, if he’s wrong (and as I’ve pointed out, I believe he IS wrong) then it will be very, very difficult for this to happen, which is the best outcome for several people but GGGGG’s principles will be shattered.

So, HHHHH… which way should we go on this? GGGGG certainly has the right to appeal.
Precisely like every American alive has the right, a right I devoted over 14 years of my life to protect, to oppose the War in Iraq.

Now, in pressing his point, is it OK for GGGGG to hide behind HIS “absolute” freedom of speech to achieve HIS goal? Is it OK for HIM to lie, distort, exaggerate, accuse the judges and the courts of slaughtering innocents while claiming that opponents to his position are “amused” by the deaths of Americans generally, and the deaths suffered by the Tribe in the past specifically?

Is it?

And if it isn’t… then please explain why it IS OK for those people in Congress to do that very thing to achieve THEIR political goal. Good God, IIIII… if you sell a product in this country and lie about it, you can go to prison and be heavily fined. But if you get up on the floor of the Senate and say things designed to strengthen our enemies, things that will get our people KILLED… well, nothing happens, because, after all, you have freedom of speech.

At least with GGGGG, very few people would die if he were to engage in those tactics. But people are dying in Iraq every day, in part because a political decision has been made to divide us in the name of power. People… not just us… are dying over there because our tea leaves are easily read by an intractable enemy... an enemy that becomes convinced with every fringe leftist speech that if they can… just… hang on a little longer…. The great satan will be defeated and a slaughter of Biblical proportions will commence.

In the military, on at least 5 separate occasions, I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. I would like to think that I have and do. But if, as I believe, we are at war, then the right to attack and denigrate those we send out to do the fighting and dying is not absolute. There are a wide variety of ways to express opposition to the War or any other policy of our government at every level.

But none of them should cause injury to our soldiers. None of them should strengthen our enemies and increase their resolve.

To my mind, statements like Mr. Starks do precisely both.

Imagine, if you will, that our sons go to fight in this war. Imagine that they are called upon to spill their blood.

And then, having made that sacrifice, imagine one of this country’s leaders standing on the floor of the House, in front of a microphone, looking up with so much sincerity. He looks up at the camera, and in effect, he says: “Hey, LLLLL. I just heard your son got blown to pieces by an IED yesterday. What’s the matter? Why wasn’t he out killing women and children? After all, that IS their mission, isn’t it? Gee, that’s really too bad, but who cares… and those guys have every right to kill our kids that WE SENT OVER THERE TO FIGHT FOR US.”

While no member of congress has yet to say such a thing (yet)… the impact, the meaning of Mr. Stark’s words were precisely that.

That wouldn’t bother you just the tiniest bit? Or would you just shine it on, because, after all, the speaker in question has the RIGHT to say what he or she wanted because of an absolute freedom of speech?

How far does that apply, MMMMM? You wouldn’t have a problem with one of your kids getting in your face and calling you every name in the book, due to their “absolute right of free speech?”

Or is that “different” somehow?

As far as that goes, what if JJJJJ doubted YOU? What if they began to say, so others could pick it up, that you were incompetent; that this is a done deal and there’s nothing you can do it about it; that you’re a moron, constantly beating up people who disagree with you and so forth? Theoretically, as long as the checks keep coming in, they have the right to say anything they want, right? Never mind that such pronouncements would cripple your ability to get the job done; after all, they’re just exercising their rights, aren’t they?

What would you reaction to that be? I mean, when you go into a meeting with a business, there’s very little chance you’d be coming out dead, right? How long would it take for you to them to jam it, and quit?

What’s the difference, NNNNN? Why shouldn’t OUR troops just say Screw You and walk away?

As our leaders continue to devalue our young men and women, it’s a matter of time until these more fringe elements begin to put those words into action. At some point, is it much of a stretch to imagine these sheep getting back into the spitting, “baby killer” screaming episodes and the like at our troops?

I, personally, didn’t have to go thru that kind of thing, but maybe it’s because I was sending out a vibe that said “I’ll break your jaw if you whip that kind of bullshit out on me.”

As I stated before, there is no freedom without responsibility. And that our country does not hold these people accountable for their words is not something to be proud of, as their efforts weaken our military, strengthen the resolve of nutburgers around the world, and heap insult on some of the finest men and women this country has to offer.

Oppose and be damned. But do it in such a way that the end result is not the death and maiming of a bunch of people who serve this country because they were stupid enough, and mislead enough, to actually believe it wasn’t meaningless; that their sacrifice and that of their family wasn’t a joke; a waste of time, money and effort.

Excerpts from letters ABOUT Iraq... and democrats playing politics with American blood.

.
July 30, 2007

I’ve been giving our chat in the car concerning the war and the freedom to oppose our actions in Iraq with the seeming dichotomy of my statements concerning opposition and commitment to the troops… my observation that once Congress voted to allow the invasion, their entire job became one of supporting our efforts there; your astonished reply that they should have the right to protest; your football coach analogy; my “once the play has started” response… my position that those speaking out in opposition to our Iraq involvement should run their remarks through what I would call the “filter of benefit.”

Like millions of others in this country, I haven’t been particularly happy with the “peace” of our post-Iraq invasion. We’ve badly mishandled that time frame, and I cannot defend the Administration’s actions either leading up to, or since, the invasion of Iraq occurred. But here’s where I again point out that the “how” we arrived here lacks any particular significance of the fact that we ARE here.

The discussion of those issues, taken in the perfection of 20/20 hindsight, will go on for decades. It will, I believe, extend much longer and much farther than the post World War Two examination of President Roosevelt’s actions up to and during that war… the “what did he know, and when did he know it” examination.

We’re in a day and age where political segments in our society are not motivated by the best interests of this country, unless those interests happen to coincide with their thirst for political power. The end result?

Blinded by the objective, politically motivated people who should know better will say anything; do anything; to achieve their goal of power.

People who should know better shove common sense aside in the interests of gaining power. They say and do things deliberately designed to assault the American people with a Chinese water-torture approach of changing our perception in an effort to achieve their aim.

Not because such a change is right for this country. Not because such a change is right for any given situation. But instead, entirely for the purpose of achieving political power. And, as a veteran of 14 years of service to the country, I submit to you that abusing a freedom to gain stark political power fuelled by the blood of those who believe what they’re doing DOES matter… goes far beyond the purpose, definition and need for “Freedom of Speech.”

For example, 3 months ago, when Senator Reid said the surge was a failure even before it was remotely completed, and the war is “lost;” his position was not based on a desire to do what is right; or to do what is in either the best interests of the Iraqi’s or of our military, who are spilling their blood by the thousands to achieve a worthy goal.

It is, instead, a stark and vicious position entirely motivated by the desire to gain political power, no matter how many deaths that goal costs, no matter how much positions such as those fracture our country, no matter how much statements such as those strengthen our enemies.

And BBBBB, statements such as these DO strengthen our enemies. And that goes to the heart of the matter.

When our leaders speak, what they say matters. When they speak irresponsibly, people die. And the blood of those deaths; the pain and agony those words garner… when do their authors take responsibility for what they’ve done?

Every freedom this country has is filtered thru limits. The classic limit on Freedom of Speech is to falsely yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Why do such restrictions exist?

Oliver Wendell Homes wrote: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”

Holmes went on:

"[w]hen a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right." Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)

For Senator Reid to utter such remarks, knowingly false, is to increase among ourselves AND our Allies a clear and present danger from our democrat-emboldened enemies who really, really would like to destroy us; not unlike the Schenck scenario anticipates.

In this day and age, words and the meaning of words have impacts far beyond those I believe were anticipated back in the 1900’s. I want to reiterate: I have absolutely no problem with opposition to the war.

But expressions of opposition should be based on what is best for our country and our military, thousands of whom have paid the ultimate price because this Nation asked them to. And opposition to the war should have been expressed BEFORE we went; not after. You cannot put the men and women who’ve been blown to pieces and/or killed back together again when you insist on telling them they’ve bled for nothing.

And with each utterance comparing our troops to Nazis, that’s what they do. With each utterance, telling us that we’ve already lost, that’s what they do.

Those expressions should not, CAN NOT, be made in such a way that it hurts our forces or strengthens our enemies. And those in government who lead the opposition, both political and to the war in Iraq, frequently and thoughtlessly express their opposition in ways that achieve that very outcome.

Every time our political leaders cast doubt on the mission, it negatively impacts the troops. It plants the seed of doubt. It impacts morale, and as a result, it impacts capabilities and effectiveness.

So, just for the sake of argument, let’s assume you’re a platoon leader (Which puts you at the rank of 2nd or 1st Lieutenant.) and PFC Snuffy Smith comes up to you one day and says,

“You know, Sir, I’m from Las Vegas, and Sen. Reid is my senator. When he says the war is lost, and the surge is failing, I have to ask myself: Why should I go out on patrol and risk my life for nothing? And how does Sen. Durbin get away with comparing me to a Nazi?”

How do you respond? How do you reply? How do you get Smith to believe what he does IS important? That what he does IS worth putting his ass on the line?

And if you can’t convince him of those facts, what does that do to his effectiveness and capabilities? And more importantly, what does it do to YOUR effectiveness and capabilities, and those of your unit; because you’ve got to know that he’s not the only one?

You’ve got to have SOMETHING, you’ve got to be able to give this 19 year-old SOMETHING to hang onto.

And frankly, AAAAA, I can’t, realistically, answer that question. I only put 10 years in as an NCO/officer, and that wasn’t enough to imbue me with the magic formula to undo the damage Reid, Pelosi, Murtha, Kucinich and those like him have done to our soldiers. I’m just not smart enough, or experienced enough.

The basis for this opposition is entirely a result of a strategic political reality: that strong support for the war and our mission by the democrats would eliminate any possibility of gaining them the majority in Congress or gaining democrat control of the White House. As a result, our people are bleeding. Unnecessarily.

Democrats oppose this war because they know they’d be relegated to political footnote status if they didn’t. They claim they express the will of the American people, but they make that claim without acknowledging that they are the ones primarily responsible for designing and developing that will… all, of course, in the name of seeking and achieving raw political power.

I posted this little snippet below on a Camaro board I’ve been on for 6 years or so… the language is a little rough, but it’s how I felt at the time, when confronted by one of the “support the troops, but not their mission” types:

“So, when you see any troop that's served over there... say, a JayDDD (one of the board members in the 101 Airborne serving in Baghdad right now) ... make sure you tell him: ‘I support you. I just don't happen to think that what you were doing over there was worth a f@$%.’

Head on over to the nearest military or VA facility set up to help the troops when they come home... to treat their wounds... to do the best we can to heal them. Make sure that they all know how you feel about the blood they spilled. And start going to a few military funerals. Make sure that everyone there knows your position on the war.

I mean, f@^& CCCC... you know more about it than anyone... your superior position on the matter would be hard to deny... and letting these people know that their sacrifice, and that of their loved one(s) is ‘bogus’ would be just the thing to improve their morale, and REALLY show your ‘support’ of the troops.”

The clearest illustration of that reality is that it really doesn’t matter what the Petraeus report says; it will not matter what results of the surge may be; in the name of political power and political power alone, it will not matter.

The democrats have backed themselves into a corner. If they adopt and support our continued efforts in Iraq, then they lose the fringe left and they lose any credibility with the American public.

POLITICALLY, they have no choice. They have no desire to take any action that will cast doubt on their judgment, and were they to do anything except hammer Bush, no matter what the report says, their house of cards would collapse and it would be 1994 all over again.

And they would rather cut off their cranks with dignity then admit they made a mistake in judgment or that their positions were, and are, motivated by anything other then what’s best for the country OR that anything they’ve said or done resulted in one hair on one troop’s head being slightly damaged.

Freedom of speech? You bet. But when you’ve been elected and you’ve got a title in front of your name, you had better damned sure be willing to stand up and make the phrase “With freedom, comes responsibility,” mean something.

And right now, the Reids, Pelosis, Murthas and the like aren’t losing any sleep over anything they’ve said or done. Because, after all, it’s all in a good cause, and none of those kids dying for us belong to them…

Do they?

Borowitz: Yankees Sign Iraqi Hurler - Shoe throwing Right-hander impresses scouts.

.
It was bound to happen.

Yankees Sign Iraqi Hurler

Shoe-throwing Right-hander Impresses Scouts

In their latest bid to beef up their pitching rotation for the 2009 season, the New York Yankees today signed Iraqi journalist Muntadar al-Zeidi to a three-year deal worth $32 million.

The right-handed al-Zeidi, 28, impressed the Yankee scouts with his performance in Baghdad yesterday when he threw both of his shoes at President George W. Bush.

While neither of the shoes hit their target, both throws "had great velocity and good movement," said Yankee owner Hank Steinbrenner."The first shoe was high and outside but the second one was right down the middle," Mr. Steinbrenner said.

The Yankee boss said that he was also impressed with Mr. al-Zeidi's fighting spirit when Secret Service agents tackled him.

"That could come in handy when we have a series with Boston," he said.
_________________________________

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!