Tag Archives: war

Veterans, Thank you!

It was the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month in 1918 when nations the world over celebrated the end of World War I.

Originally, this day was celebrated as “Armistice day” marking  the peace agreement signed in Rethondes, France.  In 1954 Congress designated November 11th as Veteran’s day in order to honor all Veterans.

In 1971 President Nixon declared it a Federal holiday on the second Monday in November which would be the 14th.

This year, the holiday is on a Friday, today. The kids are out of school, mail won’t be delivered and parades will be held throughout the nation. At 11am, consider a thanks, a salute, a moment of silence to honor our veterans then, pick one of the military veteran support charities at the bottom of our “Support our troops” page and give. They have.

“Iran to be Held Accountable”: Out Comes the Obama Wet Noodle!

Without a doubt, the story of the day was the unveiling of an Iranian plot to assassinate Ambassadors to the United States, ON U.S. soil, from Saudi Arabia and Israel.  At minimum, this is a clear act of provocation by a regime that has made it clear their contempt for the United States and Israel.  At worst, it’s an act of war.

 

Yet the big, theatrical, megalomaniacal laugh that should have been coming from the general direction of Tehran was drowned out by the snickers of millions when they heard Attorney General Eric Holder state, “The United States is committed to holding Iran accountable for its actions.”

 

Really? Why start now?

 

The Obama administration is already talking about more sanctions – which, by the way hasn’t seemed to deter Iran from continuing to build a nuclear weapon, despite their claiming to need it for “energy” reasons.  They’re floating on a sea of oil, folks.

 

There can really only be one reason why a yet still non-nuclear country (we think) like Iran would risk the wrath of the U.S., post-9/11 – the have no fear of real reprisal.

 

Such was, is and will always be the response of despots to the hand of appeasement.  Such people’s disdain and hatred only increases in the face of pacification.  To them, it is a sign of weakness, ineptitude and the embodiment of everything they despise about our culture and society.

 

For most in the civilized world, this type of thinking seems, well, foreign.  We have been brought up to believe that we should look for commonalities and work toward bridging gaps – they want to blow up those bridges or, in this case, ambassadors.

 

They will only respect one thing – a firm powerful punch to the solo plexus followed by the willingness to deliver another blow.  Iran’s leadership knows that this administration simply doesn’t have the stomach for that.  In fact, the President goes out of his way to telegraph to the world that he has no intention of keeping those types of options on the table whatsoever.

 

A wise Jewish carpenter once said, “how can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man?”  It’s even easier if the strong man voluntarily ties himself up!

 

I am reminded of one of the most memorable line in movie history that came from the low-budget cult classic Terminator.  It rings in my mind every time I hear some talk of placating our modern enemy and so I adapt it slightly for our modern reality:

 

 

“That [terrorist] is out there. It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead!”

 

 

The days (and years) after 9/11 found us kicking ourselves for not taking Al-Qaeda seriously.  Will history look upon this date with the same remorse?

Lawrence O'Donnell: What A Dirtbag

If you haven’t heard about the interview Herman Cain did with Lawrence O’Donnell on Thursday night by now, I’m sure you will pretty soon.  It was one of the worst things I’ve seen on cable news in recent memory.  It might even be the worst thing I’ve seen on cable news, period.  It’s hard to rank these things, but I’m pretty sure this is "top 10" material.

The interview, in question, was pretty lengthy, as MSNBC has it broken up into three parts.  You can see them here, here, and here.

Now, I know many of you don’t expect outstanding journalism from MSNBC, and for the most part, I don’t either, but… This was pretty bad.  In part one of the interview, Lawrence O’Donnell chastises Herman Cain for not being more involved with the Civil Rights movement.  He actually gives Cain a hard time, because Cain said he sat in the back of the bus, so he wouldn’t get in trouble.  Keep in mind that Herman Cain is a man who got his Masters Degree and has been very successful in many industries; Cain is not wired to be a "trouble maker".  That wasn’t good enough for O’Donnell.  The MSNBC anchor pushed him and implied that progress in the Civil Rights movement would have never been made, if all of the black people just sat in the back of the bus.  It was a very awkward and terrible segment.  It’s actually what I was going to write about at first…..  But then I saw part two of the interview, and what I saw upset me so much that I stopped watching and began writing the words you’re looking at right now.

The subject was Herman Cain’s service to this country during the Viet Nam War.  The short story is this:  Herman Cain went to college (got a masters degree, even) and worked for the Department of the Navy doing analysis that helped with ballistic weapons.  Lawrence O’Donnell then went on to accuse Herman Cain of being a draft dodger, because he didn’t VOLUNTEER to go.  (Cain was actually available for the draft, but his number was never called)  Here’s some of their conversation below:

Lawrence: Can you explain how you avoided military service during the Viet Nam War and during the draft and why you should be Commander in Chief if you did successfully avoid military service during the war that came during what would have been your war years?  After avoiding the Viet Nam war, why should you be Commander in Chief?

Cain:  Now, your choice of words… "How did I avoid the Viet Nam War?"  I wasn’t trying to avoid the Viet Nam War.  Here’s what happened, Lawrence…  I was working in a critical area called "exterior ballistics".  I worked on something called the "rocket assisted projectile" for the department of the Navy.

Cain then went on to say:

Cain:  …When they had the (draft) lottery, I made myself available.  The year that they had the lottery for the draft, they did not draft me, because they did not get to my number.  So I think that’s a poor choice of words on your part to say that "I avoided the Viet Nam War".

Lawrence:  I am offended on behalf of all of the veterans of the VIet Nam War who joined, Mr. Cain.  The veterans who did not wait to be drafted, like John Kerry, who joined.  They didn’t sit there and wait to find out what their draft board was gonna do.  They had the courage to join and to go and fight that war.  What prevented you from joining, and what gives you the feeling that after having made that choice, you should be the Commander in Chief?

Alright… Let me get my snarky thought out of the way first.  Mr. O’donnell, what made Barack Obama think he should be the Commander in Chief?  Was it all of the flyers he stapled to telephone poles on the south side of Chicago?  Was it his church that said we "deserved 9/11 to happen to us"?  Was it his wife who had never been proud of America?  What, Mr. O’Donnell, made our current president think he "should be Commander in Chief"?

Secondly, I rarely pull the military card, but I have served this nation honorably, and I can tell you things that might not be common knowledge.  Herman Cain might not have gone off to the Viet Nam War to go live what has been described by many to be hell, but he did do work that helped make life less of a hell for the service members who did go.  He stayed in the United States and helped the military develop artillery.  When I was in the service, I cannot tell you how thankful I was to civil servants and contractors who made our weapons for us. 

See, I don’t know if many people realize it or not, but our warriors don’t work in the factories that make the many weapon systems that we use, and they don’t design them either.  They may have input on what ends up being developed, but it is civilians who bust their humps here in the United States that actually provide us with the tools that we need.  Herman Cain was providing those tools.  It is asinine to say that Herman Cain did not serve during the Viet Nam War.  He was helping develop weapons systems while he was in the draft pool.  The man didn’t "dodge" anything, and he did more to serve this country than President Obama ever chose to do.

That segment of the interview was infuriating for me to watch.  It was honestly one of the most disrespectful and least truthful things I have seen a supposed journalist do.  Herman Cain helped work on the weapons that service members were using to fight the war.  You don’t have to stand on the front line to play a part in winning the war, and again, Cain has done more to serve this country than President Obama ever thought to do.  He’s created more jobs too, but that’s beside the point.

Before I go, I thought you might like to see an example of what "rocket assisted projectiles" does.  Maybe this will give you an idea of why I said service members would find what Cain did to be helpful.  Click here, and enjoy.

The United States Enters 4th War? Against Pakistan?

We see some more startling news about supposedly NATO gunships now attacking a Pakistani Army post and injuring two soldiers today. From CNSNEWS.COM:

DERA ISMAIL KHAN, Pakistan (AP) — A NATO helicopter attacked a Pakistani army post near the Afghan border Tuesday, injuring two Pakistani soldiers in an incident that could further increase tension following the U.S. raid that killed Osama bin Laden, Pakistani intelligence officials said.

A Pakistani Army post on the border with Afghanistan gets attacked by a gunship chopper and a NATO puppet says that yes there has been an “incident” and we will have to access the situation. Why isn’t the U.S. Military Commander in charge there answering questions and explaining why we have now attacked Pakistan on their own soil ?  I do believe this is turning out to be just like in Libya, where a bomb strike murdered 3 innocent children and Ghaddafi’s son, and the only explanation we have to date is that it was a “NATO” plane. Why are the people not being told if it was a U.S. plane ( most likely), or a plane from another country that bombed those innocent children? Maybe if we made G.W. Bush Preisdent for one more day the supposed mainstream media would have the courage to investigate and report the facts behind the bombing? I am pretty certain that Bush would be called a murderer and war criminal if he had attacked Libya under these same conditions. Thus the media spin and lies continue today, in keeping Americans in the dark about the truth. So who attacked Pakistan today ?

There were helicopters operating in the border region, and we are aware there has been an incident, said NATO coalition spokesman Lt. Col. John Dorrian. “But we are going to have to assess the situation.”He declined to give further details or say which NATO country was involved. (emphasis mine)

Just as the U.S. is now hiding behind the NATO coalition disguise to wage an illegal war action against Libya, it now appears it is being used here to deny accountability for today’s attack on Pakistan. The fact is, that most Helicopter gunships flying in this region are in fact, AMERICAN.

Pakistani troops responded with machine gun fire and deployed two helicopter gunships over the post, but the American NATO helicopter had already left, they said. ( strikeout is mine)

Is the U.S. now at war with Pakistan, making us involved in a record four wars at one time ?  It will be interesting to see the spin and misinformation to come out of the media propagandists when the White House gives its mandated talking points in order to cover this debacle up. One thing is for sure, Obama has already played most of his “blame Bush” cards, but now he can just blame a mysterious, unidentified NATO gunship as the culprit here. People can not call anyone a war criminal for the murder of innocents in Libya, and now nobody can be held accountable for today’s attack on a Pakistani Army post. Isn’t this convenient for the previously anti-war Senator Obama? It sure is, seeing as he is in perpetual campaign mode 24/7, some year and a half before the 2012 elections.

 

 

On-the-Air 9pm Central- 5-12-11 : The Anti-Candidates

Tonight, May 12th: Rich and Co-Host Michelle Ray discuss:

– Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Donald Trump – arguably the most visible GOP candidates for president. We’ll be talking about what they have stood for and why their prominence shouldn’t last.

Guest: Amelia Hamilton will talk about her work with Guardian Angel For Soldier’s Pets

 

The show will start at 7pm Pacific, 8pm Mountain, 9pm Central, 10pm Eastern and you can  listen live here:  Live Radio – The Plain, Hard Truth with Rich Mitchell

If you’d like to call in and talk to the hosts or guests, dial: (424) 220-1807

 

Help The WAR KITTENS!! (9 months old)

On the show, Amelia told us about  two military kittens that need a home you can contact her about the kittens at:

[email protected]

or

@gadsdenista on twitter

 

Miss the Show? Here’s the recording:

Listen to internet radio with Rich Mitchell on Blog Talk Radio

 

Words Really Do Make A Difference

What a difference the choice of wording makes!

On September 14, at Ground Zero, President George W. Bush declared:

“I can hear you! I can hear you! The rest of the world hears you! And the people — and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!”

Simple words from the heart and soul of a man who was tireless in his fight against terrorism. These words struck a chord so deep within me and inspired me so much that this quote is now framed and hanging on the wall in my home office.

While I did not agree with everything that President Bush did in office it was not hard to see that he was committed to take whatever action necessary to make sure the perpetrators of the most heinous act of terror on American soil were punished. In the midst of the most horrific terror and most overwhelming sorrow our nation has ever faced in modern history, I saw resolve in our nation’s leader.

It is most unfortunate that the same cannot be said for the current administration.

Words are no longer simple and from the heart and soul, they are instead pretentious, flowery,  calculated and pre-determined at an attempt to “soften the blow” of the reality we face as a nation. This administration fails to realize that calling a lion an overgrown cat doesn’t change the ability for destruction that a lion is instilled with.

In 2009, in her first testimony to Congress, newly appointed Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano sought to diminish the steadfast determination of this nation’s military men and women who were and still are sacrificing their time, blood, sweat, tears and very lives to bring justice that Americans so rightly deserve for the terrorist attacks against us. During her testimony she couldn’t bring herself to breathe the “t” word, opting instead to rename the attack and others like them to “man caused disasters”. I guess it just sounded “cuter to her!  When asked by the German news site Spiegel Online if Islamic  terrorism “suddenly no longer posed a threat” to America, she stated that this administration wanted to move away from the “politics of fear”, opting instead to “be prepared for all risks” that can occur.

It appears as though she missed the mark on that one! This administration is not at all prepared for any risk that comes along! Investing in the stock market is more risky now than it was in the previous administration. In today’s housing market, it is quite risky to buy a house. And one of the biggest risks Americans take today is driving up to the gas pump! The price of gas is rising at a rate of overwhelming proportions! Personally, I would never have called any of these situations terrorism, but it does most definitely resonate with Ms. Napolitano’s newly defined terminology. President Obama and his administration are most certainly causing an abundance of disasters. But isn’t this just running headlong back into the “politics of fear”? They would probably do better if they chose to call it more along the lines of “politics of conspiracy.”

President Bush was very clear that we would make no distinction between the terrorist themselves and the countries and leaders who harbored them. Not so with President Obama, because there is no longer a “War On Terror”, it is now downgraded to an “Overseas Contingency Operation.” What does that even mean?

According to the definition given at dictionary.com, this is the last term in the world that would give me confidence that we have things under control.

con·tin·gen·cy
dependence on chance or on the fulfillment of a condition; uncertainty.

Thesaurus.com gives synonyms for “contingency” as: accident, crisis, crossroads, emergency, event, if it’s cool, incident, juncture, likelihood, occasion, odds, opportunity, pass, pinch, predicament, probability, strait, turning point, uncertainty, zero hour

Plus there are a few more listed.

So, I could essentially rename President Obama’s Operation as “Across The Ocean If It’s Cool Operation”.

Or how about “Transmarine Crossroads Operation”?

Hmmm…. We could go with “On The Other Side Of The Very Large Body Of Water Uncertainty Operation”. No… none of those combination of flowery words seem to give me true confidence that yes, we will take whatever means necessary to see this to an end!The latest member of Obama’s administration to try his hand at flowery rhetoric is Eric Holder. Testifying before the House Judiciary Committee, when asked if enhanced interrogation methods were used in obtaining information that led to the eventual killing of Osama bin Laden, Mr. Holder simply could not bring himself to affirm that yes, our country succeeded in killing the mastermind behind the most horrific terrorist attack on our land! In true fashion that is this administration, he said, there was a “mosaic of sources that led to the identification of people who led” our military to Osama bin Laden. He said that assuming enhanced interrogation methods were used is hypothetical. OK, if you say so, Mr. Holder! Come on now, let’s be real! I guess this is what he had to say, because the sensibilities of the left just cannot handle the truth in this matter! And  my goodness! What if Muslims found  out that we indeed used some form of enhanced persuasion on these enemy combatants!? They might just retaliate…. or something! But wait! We can no longer call them “enemy combatants” !  Let’s instead call them “Bad Person Contenders”. Or we could even say a “patchwork” of things led us to identify the “Revolutionary Serviceman”? Yes! Much better! That will work indeed! It’s all good. Just look it all up at thesaurus.com!

And finally, in an effort to make everyone feel better about events in history, I guess we will now have to reprint all the previous books that use that horribly offensive word “War”. Hitler was bad enough! We don’t want to have to utter that horribly offense “W” word! So now we will just call it “World Kinetic Military Action 2”. And we really must use the written number rather than the Roman Numeral to keep things from appearing so barbaric! Oh hey, look! Now it makes it seem almost like a movie sequel- right?  Things weren’t so bad after all!

See now?  Changing the words to “tone down” the harsh reality makes you feel allllll better now… right??!!

Hey, Hey, BHO. How Many Wars Do You Have To Go?

Hey, Hey, LBJ. How Many Kids Did You Kill Today? The liberal anti-war movement of the Vietnam era intoned this chant countless times. They used it in mass rallies. They used it any time President Lyndon B. Johnson got up the courage to show his face in public. They used it as a means to an end. They used it ad nauseum. And it worked. Now, 38 years since the last American troops left Vietnam, yet another Democratic president has launched a new war that threatens to bog the U.S. military down for the long-term. President Harry S. Truman started the semantics game during the Korean War by refusing to call it a war. He called it a Police Action. President Barack Obama has borrowed a page from the Truman playbook and is calling his Libyan adventure a Kinetic Military Action (KMA) – whatever the Hell that is supposed to be. Obama gains a couple of talking points with the KMA semantics game. He can claim that he didn’t need the approval of Congress prior to commencing military operations in Libya because it isn’t a war. It’s just a KMA. And he also gains supposed credibility as a tough talker/tough walker with his ass-kicking routine at the expense of a tinhorn Arab dictator. What could go wrong? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

Just a few short years after Nancy Pelosi proclaimed dissent to be the ultimate act of patriotism, the peacenik, anti-war; Nancy Sheehans of the country are nowhere to be seen. The total absence of leftist protesters in the face of this ill-advised Libyan misadventure exposes the hypocrisy of the left. The left never was against war – the left just used anti-war protests as a way to leverage them into power. Let’s not kid ourselves here. It was a Democratic president that appeared before Congress after the attack on Pearl Harbor and declared war on Japan. It was a Democratic president that owned the Police Action in Korea. It was a Democratic president that first sent advisors to Vietnam. It was a Democratic president that escalated the Vietnam conflict to the point that we had half a million troops in the jungle nightmare of a war. It was a Democratic president named Bill Clinton that dodged the draft in 1969 but had no problem sending U.S. troops into harm’s way 30 years later in Yugoslavia. And it is a Nobel Peace Prize-winning Democratic President that has interjected himself into Libya – a nation in which the United States has no vital national security interest. Given that track record, who are the Democrats to complain about George W. Bush?

Obama is also taking yet another ill-advised course by placing U.S. troops under NATO command – a move which is schedule to take place tomorrow evening. Can you say UNITED WORLD ORDER? American fighting forces will now conduct military operations under the orders of foreign leaders. Obama has been frantically backpedaling from taking responsibility for his involvement in Libya. He prefers that the New World Order command our troops. He prefers that European leftists and Arab League tyrants take command of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. It gives him cover for whatever might go wrong. And what could possibly go wrong? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

Obama’s failure to convince the nation that he had just cause to promulgate the Kinetic Military Action, or war for lack of a better term, in Libya demonstrates once again the hypocrisy of the left. Obama ignores the threat to our nation on our southern border. He ignores the threat to international shipping by pirates off the coast of Somalia in the Indian Ocean. He ignores the righteous cause of the Sunni protesters in Syria. He ignores the growing insurrection in Yemen. He ignores the protesters in Saudi Arabia. He ignores the near certainly of the Muslim Brotherhood gaining complete control in Egypt. He ignores the missile offensive by Hamas against Israeli cities. He ignores the bomb blast in central Jerusalem that has been determined to have been the work of professional terrorists. Instead, Obama chooses to engage as a full participant in the Western campaign against Muammar Qaddafi. Obama is teaching the world a lesson in how liberals conduct war. Obama tells us that the United States will work with its allies to hasten the day when Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi leaves power, but will not use force to topple him. It makes you almost think that Obama is nothing more than Neville Chamberlain in drag. Obama sounds tough. He drops a few bombs. He risks the lives of precious American servicemen and women. But he doesn’t follow through. He has problems defining the mission. He has problems following the mandates of The United States Constitution regarding his duties in regard to obtaining Congressional approval – not very impressive for a man who considers himself a Constitutional scholar. He abdicates command for American troops to NATO, the European Union, and the Arab League. He claims U.S. involvement in Libya is for humanitarian purposes but instead of protecting the Libyan citizenry he allows scope creep to occur and is now demanding regime change.

In Vietnam Redux, Obama is repeating the mistakes of that benighted conflict. A rank amateur in all things military, Obama is now micromanaging three wars simultaneously. Obama ran his campaign on an anti-war platform. But he is governing like a warmonger run amok. He escalated the war in Afghanistan – and lowered the boom on the brilliant General Stanley McChrystal in the process. His waffling on troop levels and his insistence on following a strategy that can’t win is eerily reminiscent of Vietnam – where political meddling resulted in orders that prevented American troops from achieving victory. Now Obama is doing the same thing in Libya. He seems to think you can have a pretend war where nobody gets hurt. He orders the military into action but forbids ground troops – which are a prerequisite for victory. In fact victory appears to be a naughty word as far as Obama is concerned. If we aren’t in it to win it what are we in it for? By no means am I suggesting that the U.S. should be involved in the Libyan “Kinetic Military Action.” But if we are going to be involved shouldn’t we have the aim to achieve victory? And given Obama’s vacillating attitude on the scope of the mission just what would constitute a victory? – Or at least an exit strategy. Or for that matter, what was our entry strategy? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

But no matter what happens in Libya now, Obama owns the mess. General Colin Powell is famous for his statement that if “you break it, you own it.” Obama owns the mess in Libya. He started it. He broke it. It is all his. He can’t blame Bush. He can’t blame Palin. He can’t even blame Bill Clinton. This one is his. To date, Obama still hasn’t loosened up on oil drilling bans in the Gulf of Mexico and in Alaska. He just doesn’t seem to have grasped the concept that with the Middle East engulfed in flames that perhaps the wise thing to do would be to ensure a reliable source of energy for the United States. Or perhaps he simply doesn’t care. Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, has so weakened anti-terrorism initiatives that Obama is going to completely own any future terrorist attacks on American soil. And if the U.S. economy craters it is fully on Obama’s shoulders where the blame will rightly fall. Obama is pursuing economic policies that handcuff the nation’s economy, put workers on the welfare rolls, and slowly squeeze the life out of countless private businesses.

Obama is a disaster for America. It is unthinkable that he isn’t aware what he is doing to America. Oh, he’s aware all right. The problem is that he approves of it. He is nothing more than a communist ideologue that is bent on the destruction of the greatest nation in the history of mankind. He desires for America to become a communist dictatorship in which every imaginable aspect of our lives is controlled by puppet masters. He has a vision of a communist Utopia and he is determined to bring it to pass regardless of the damage he does in the process. Obama’s wars are just one more lever he pulls in order to drain the vitality and strength from America. He is intent on bringing down the American dream and replacing it with his communist utopia.

Isn’t there someone in America who is willing to stand up to this dictator wannabe? Aren’t their patriots in Congress willing to commence impeachment proceedings against America’s first anti-American President? Won’t Congress hold Obama accountable for his flagrant disregard of the Constitution of the United States? Won’t the Supreme Court of the United States step up and declare Obama’s actions to be unconstitutional. Aren’t there brave men and women left in the country who will rise up and defend freedom against this tin-horn tyrant?

Yes, there are patriots who will fight Obama. It doesn’t appear that there are enough of them in positions of power to rid the country of Obama at this moment. But we still have the power of the ballot box. November of 2012 is coming and Obama knows it. The only question is who will be left standing at that time, Obama or us? Let us pray is it us.

Recent Entries »