Judge Jeanine's Opening Statement, May 30, 2015, regarding how easy it was for ISIS to end up with the weapons that we...
Posted by Johnny2k's America on Saturday, June 6, 2015
But it appears Obama doesn't care if Bergdahl is a deserter or not, and said the government is not currently seeking to punish him, the Associated Press said.
“Our main priority is making sure the transition that he’s undergoing after five years in captivity is successful,” he said during a news conference in Poland.
Questions have also been raised about the legality of the swap, as members of Congress say they were not informed within 30 days as required by law. According to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, Congress has heard nothing from the White House since 2011 when the idea of a prisoner swap was first suggested.
By Joe Newby
June 3, 2014
From examiner.com
National security adviser Susan Rice recently claimed that Bowe Bergdahl, the soldier held by the Taliban for five years, served with "honor and distinction." That report, however, seems to have been turned on its head Tuesday, when Fox News' Jennifer Griffin said Bergdahl left a note in 2009 renouncing his U.S. citizenship, Twitchy reported.
Bowe Bergdahl
"Great reporting from @JenGriffinFNC - new report: Berghdal left behind a note renouncing American citizenship...developing," Fox News anchor Jenna Lee tweeted.
Twitchy acknowledged that more information is needed, but the report is adding fuel to the criticism being leveled at the administration. Last weekend, Bergdahl was exchanged for five Taliban detainees, two of whom are wanted by the United Nations for war crimes.
Moreover, a number of soldiers have said Bergdahl deserted his post and other service members died in efforts to rescue him.
~~~ READ MORE on examiner.com ~~~
With mounting calls for the U.S. to withdraw from another war before it's won, it's important that the American people get a chance to sees not just how winnable the war is, but what's at stake if we lose it. More than American pride and prowess, and even our own safety from terror, it's the lives of millions of Afghan civilians for whom victory is only another word for survival that are on the line. If we can clear away the fog of war to see anything, let it be that.By Aaron Klein
Posted: February 13, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern
© 2010
The fog of war is a concept that has long been used to describe the uncertainty and lack of clarity that attends combat. Soldiers, as well as their commanding officers, find that war gives off this mental fog, creating "exaggerated dimensions and unnatural appearance," in the words of the great military thinker Carl von Clausewitz.
What we've realized in modern warfare, and maybe most painfully since Vietnam, is that the fog of war extends long after the battle has been concluded, seeping into the public discourse on what actually happened, tainting the accounts and even causing us to lose sight of why we were fighting in the first place.
It's precisely this kind of after-battle fog that has blurred and distorted both the war in Iraq, which is in its "drawdown" phase, and the war in Afghanistan, which still rages and where the fog of war is still causing dangerous confusion.
The recently released book "The Only Thing Worth Dying For" (Harper Collins) is one of the few – if not the only – accounts of the Afghanistan war that clears away the political mists. It does so by providing a clear, honest and faithful account of exactly what happened on the ground in Taliban country, just weeks after 9/11.
The book's author, Eric Blehm, tells the story of a team of 11 Green Berets who used the unusual amount of strategic responsibility they were given to begin chipping away at the Taliban's southern stronghold. Without much of a plan coming from the political echelon, the team, called ODA-574, led by a young captain named Jason Amerine (who now teaches at West Point), managed to form a rag-tag army of anti-Taliban freedom fighters who were able to pull off the impossible.
READ FULL STORY >
By Joseph Farah Posted: December 17, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 I'll say it, again. It's time to bring all U.S. soldiers home from Afghanistan now. I don't know where Code Pink is these days. I don't know where that anti-war movement went. I don't understand why the escalation of a war by leadership that cannot define victory is not a problem for more Americans. This week WND reported the details of America's new rules of engagement in Afghanistan. The situation is much worse than I imagined. In effect, the war against al-Qaida and the Taliban has deteriorated into a police action not much different than the one cops in America wage every day against common criminals at home.
- No night or surprise searches;
- Villagers are to be warned prior to searches;
- Afghan National Army or Afghan National Police must accompany U.S. units on searches;
- U.S. soldiers may not fire at insurgents unless they are preparing to fire first;
- U.S. forces cannot engage insurgents if civilians are present;
- Only women can search women;
Do you believe this? I'm just a little surprised that U.S. soldiers are not required to read suspects their Miranda rights before capture. Maybe that's coming. Clearly, this is no way to win a war. America has never achieved victory this way in the past. No army has. No military could. READ FULL STORY >
- Troops can fire on insurgents if they catch them placing an IED (Improvised Explosive Device) but not if insurgents walk away from where the explosives are.
By Chuck Norris Posted: November 30, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 Alas, after nearly three months of military deliberations, our commander in chief is finally coming out of the closet with his Afghan strategy. But is his plan based more upon politics than national security? In September, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, requested 40,000 additional troops on top of the 68,000 already there. This increase would allow the military flexibility to deploy 15,000 forces to the Taliban stronghold in the south, 5,000 to the eastern border with Pakistan and 10,000 as trainers for Afghan security forces. The other 10,000 would be deployed across the country in various overt and covert operations. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen suggested a plan deploying roughly 30,000 more forces. Vice President Joe Biden advocated a plan of only 10,000 to 15,000 more. And President Obama appears to be landing on roughly 30,000 more troops (with hopefully 10,000 more from the 41 country international alliance). And one of the big questions that keeps coming to our minds is: How is it that Obama fast tracks borrowing, bailouts or Obamacare, but he's slower than molasses when it comes to decisions like this one for the military, especially when he basically is returning to Gen. McChrystal's three-month-old request? Some answer that military decisions are more complicated – more life and death at stake, and warrant the delay. But I genuinely believe Obama's nearly three-month delay reflects both his leadership deficiencies and a quandary that he cannot appease the left and simultaneously fulfill his campaign promise, "I will make the fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban the top priority that it should be." READ FULL STORY >
By Joseph Farah Posted: October 17, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 I don't know why Barack Obama is having so much trouble deciding what to do about Afghanistan. He was so sure before he got elected. For starters, he ought to consult with Vice President Joe Biden. You remember Joe Biden, don't you? He is still vice president, isn't he? Well, just like Obama knew what to do in Afghanistan last year, Biden did, too. Obama wasn't waffling about sending more troops then, when the war seemed to be going better. But now that the war has hit a bit of a snag, he's not so sure. Biden was even more clear. He told us last October: "Ending the [Iraq] war will help us deal with Afghanistan, which we talked about at length this morning. In 2002, I said we should focus on finishing the fight against Osama bin Laden. Throughout this campaign, I have argued that we need more troops and more resources to win the war in Afghanistan, and to confront the growing threat from al-Qaida along the Pakistani border. "Over seven years after 9/11, the situation in Afghanistan is grave. This is the most violent year of the war, with the highest number of American casualties. The Taliban is on the offensive, al- Qaida has a sanctuary across the border in Pakistan, and some experts believe that 50 percent of the Afghan economy comes from the heroin trade. As the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff recently said, 'The trends across the board are not going in the right direction.' "Make no mistake: we are confronting an urgent crisis in Afghanistan, and we have to act. It's time to heed the call from General McKiernan and others for more troops. That's why I'd send at least two or three additional combat brigades to Afghanistan. We also need more training for Afghan Security forces, more non-military assistance to help Afghans develop alternatives to poppy farming , more safeguards to prevent corruption, and a new effort to crack down on cross-border terrorism. Only a comprehensive strategy that prioritizes Afghanistan and the fight against al-Qaida will succeed, and that's the change I'll bring to the White House." He said all this in his famous speech in which he predicted Obama would be tested in his first six months in office. In fact, he didn't just predict it – he "promised" it. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]
By Oliver North Posted: September 04, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 KANDAHAR, Afghanistan – Last month, our Fox News' "War Stories" team was in Colombia, covering the tough fight against a narco-insurgency, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC. This month, we're in Afghanistan, covering another narco-insurgency, the Taliban. In Colombia, cocaine fuels and funds the terror. Here in Afghanistan, it's opium. Despite extraordinary differences in culture, climate and terrain, there are dramatic parallels in the two campaigns. More importantly, lessons learned in the Andean basin are being applied here in the shadows of the Hindu Kush. Both countries have isolated agricultural populations vulnerable to coercion by insurgents financed by narcotics trafficking. In Colombia, the world's largest producer of cocaine, the FARC turned to drug funding when support from fellow communists dried up with the collapse of the Soviet empire. Here in Afghanistan, the global leader in opium production, the radical-Islamist Taliban became drug-dependent after being driven from power in 2001 during the opening days of Operation Enduring Freedom. Despite international efforts to cut foreign financial support for the Taliban and a crackdown on the movement's activities in Pakistan, the Taliban have derived newfound wealth from the heroin trade. A new U.N. report estimates that the Taliban reap as much as $70 million a year from the sale of precursor chemicals, taxes levied on opium farmers, "protection fees" for heroin processing laboratories and "product deliveries." Some U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration officials here believe Taliban drug revenues are more than twice that amount. They point out that the lucrative drug trade also has resulted in corruption on a massive scale within Afghanistan's national and provincial governments. This nexus of narcotics, crime and terror has prompted a dramatic change in allied strategy that provides new opportunities for success in Afghanistan. Coalition commanders, cognizant of growing public discontent about the course of the war, are focusing on how opium is funding the Taliban and adversely affecting prospects for a successful counterinsurgency campaign. Gen. Stanley McChrystal has all but abandoned efforts to eradicate opium poppy cultivation because it was raising resentment against his troops and the Afghan government. Now coalition efforts have shifted to targeting drug kingpins – and their connections to the Taliban. [CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE COLUMN]
By Barbara Simpson Posted: August 17, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 Did anyone in the Washington ruling party, from the president on down, notice that the remains of Navy pilot Capt. Michael "Scott" Speicher were found, positively identified and buried with military honors in Jacksonville last week? If not, why not? He's not "just" another name in the pantheon of U.S. military war dead. Capt. Speicher was the first casualty of the first Gulf War. Speicher was a lieutenant when he was shot down in 1991 on the first night of the Gulf War. He was 33. It took 18 years of investigation, searches and a variety of tips, including those indicating he'd been taken prisoner and was alive. The plane wreckage was found; his body wasn't. Over those years, his "status" was changed several times: missing in action, killed, prisoner. The military had no answers but to be safe, Speicher received regular promotions. His current rank is captain. For whatever reason, an Iraqi working with Marines recently said he knew some locals who remembered a plane crash and knew the pilot had been killed. Nomads buried the body. Following the tip, the remains were found several days later and identified. For the first time, Speicher's family, including his wife and children, had evidence about what happened to Scott. They finally were able to honor his courage, his life and his memory and lay him to rest with the military honors he deserves. He was finally home; not the way they wanted, but home – after 18 years, six months and 11 days, not that they were counting. It's too bad that the man who is president was too busy traveling across country, making speeches, defending his medical plan to take a few minutes to honor Capt. Speicher. Yes, Barack Obama, it's just too bad. [READ COMPLETE STORY]
By Patrick J. Buchanan Posted: July 23, 2009 10:30 pm Eastern © 2009 "The sound alone was worth the $24 billion!" So said fellow Nixon speechwriter Ray Price as the mighty Saturn V rocket lifted Apollo 11 and Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins off the launch pad, three miles away, on the start of their voyage to the moon. It was a splendid moment in that first year of the Nixon presidency, a year that had gone remarkably well for a minority president who had come to office with both houses held by the opposition. Within weeks of taking office, Nixon had taken a grand tour of the European capitals. He had proposed a Family Assistance Plan, cooked up in Pat Moynihan's shop, to wide applause. He had announced a withdrawal of 100,000 troops from Vietnam. He would greet the astronauts on the aircraft carrier in the Pacific on their return, travel to Guam to announce the Nixon Doctrine, journey on to Vietnam and visit the troops, thence to Romania – the first U.S. president to travel behind the Iron Curtain. Returning in triumph, Nixon departed for his August vacation. When he returned to D.C., the storm clouds had gathered. In mid-October, hundreds of thousands of protesters surrounded the White House demanding an immediate withdrawal from Vietnam, egged on by a media establishment that had cheered JFK and LBJ all the way into liberalism's war. With David Broder writing of the "breaking of the president," Nixon went on national television to implore the "great silent majority" to stand with him for peace with honor in Vietnam. The networks trashed the speech. But Vice President Spiro Agnew launched a counter-attack on media power and prejudice. By December, after another 500,000 had marched on Washington, Nixon was at 68 percent approval and Agnew, after Nixon and Billy Graham, was the third most admired man in America. Though elected in November 1968, it was November 1969 that made the Nixon presidency and produced the New Majority Republicans would rely on for decades. Obama is approaching such a moment of truth. The universal health insurance plans being advanced all appear too complex, costly and non-credible to pass both houses. The cap-and-trade carbon emissions bill, with its huge costs to be passed on to U.S. producers and consumers, as China opts out, seems an act of national masochism. The $787 billion stimulus bill has done zip to stimulate the economy. Less than 10 percent of the money has gone out the door, which makes one wonder why it was called a stimulus package. Unemployment is at 9.5 percent, well above what the Obamaites predicted, and rising. As worrisome is the situation in Afghanistan. The United States has 66,000 troops in country or on the way, as our NATO allies look for the exit ramp. We are seven and a half years in and the Afghan army is not remotely capable of defending the nation or regime. Afghanistan is now Obama's war. He made the decision to deepen U.S. involvement as we headed out of Iraq. Yet, it is unclear how many U.S. troops will be needed, for how long, to create a stable government and army that can secure the national territory and prevent a return of al-Qaida. Moreover, Kabul continues to protest U.S. air strikes that continue to kill civilians, as Pakistan protests the Marine offensive in Helmand that is driving the Taliban into Baluchistan, where a secessionist movement is developing. [CONTINUE READING]
By Roger Hedgecock © 2009 While the world and the American mainstream media were swooning over the Obamas in Europe, the independence and sovereignty of the U.S. suffered. The media's flattering pictures and fulsome words of Obama praise could not mask the price Obama paid for the harmony portrayed ("my new comrade" enthused Russian "President" Medvedev) and the "successes" counted. First, there's the war without end going into its eighth year in Afghanistan. At the NATO meeting, Obama failed to get European troop commitments. He desperately sought to deflect criticism that the U.S. was going it alone in escalating that war. While there are 32,000 European troops in Afghanistan already, too many are positioned far from the fighting. American troops will increase from 38,000 to 59,000 on Obama's orders – and will be used to intensify the war in the area of eastern Afghanistan/western Pakistan. Maj. Gen. John Campbell, the Army's deputy director of regional operations says the war will be "a long struggle." So far, 673 Americans have died in this war. Casualties in the first quarter of this year are twice as high as last year's first quarter. Experts believe it could take 50 years to "stabilize" Afghanistan. Sixty percent of the people there are illiterate; most people don't have a radio, TV or telephone. Only 12 percent of the land is arable – and the biggest cash crop is opium poppies, which produce 90 percent of the world's opium and account for 40 percent of the GDP of Afghanistan. There is no middle class, rampant graft, and deep-rooted ethnic and tribal rivalries. Growing a democracy in this hostile environment will make the nation building effort in Iraq look easy. Yet Obama persists with no exit strategy and an open-ended commitment funded by hundreds of billions of dollars the U.S. taxpayer will have to borrow. We are bogged down in Afghanistan with no specific goals much less a plan for victory. At the same NATO meeting where Europe gave lip service but no real help for Afghanistan, Obama also backed away from the U.S. promise to include Ukraine in NATO – a key concession to the Russians who ignored Obama's plea for Russian help to keep the Iranians from using the nuclear bomb the Russians helped them develop. The Iranians were amazed to be included in new talks promoted by the Obama administration to try negotiating with the "good" Taliban in Afghanistan. The Iranians, at the same time, sent scientists and technicians to help the North Koreans launch an ICBM potentially capable of obliterating Los Angeles. [Continue reading]digg story ~ Submitted by congresssucks
Posts
All Comments
