Wow. I am not surprised by this news, though, in all honesty. The photo released by the White House as the Powers-That-Be watched the mission unfold (or at least some of it), made that abundantly clear:

From the get-go, it looked to me like Obama was sitting in the “Kid’s Chair,” while the adults were around the big table. If the White House Insider is accurate, and Larry Johnson is now stating after intel he’s received that the insider is at least 80% accurate, that’s exactly what was going on here. The decision had been made, and not by Obama. As the Insider stated in a previous interview, it was a coup, a term the insider stands by in the update on May 3, 2011 to SocyBerty.

Make no mistake – this is huge. Huge.

So, who did give the order to go after Osama bin Laden? It was Leon Panetta, backed by Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, David Petraeus, and Jim Clapper. Not Barack Obama, despite his taking credit for it (though that is not a surprise, either – that has been his MO for years and years). If you have not had your fill of Obama BS, just watch his “60 Minutes” interview in which he blathers on and on about his “plan.” As you will read below, there was no such plan, at least not from him.

There is so much to this interview, and I urge you to read the complete post, but here are some key components:

Q: You stated that President Obama was “overruled” by military/intelligence officials regarding the decision to send in military specialists into the Osama Bin Laden compound. Was that accurate?

A: I was told – in these exact terms, “we overruled him.” (Obama) I have since followed up and received further details on exactly what that meant, as well as the specifics of how Leon Panetta worked around the president’s “persistent hesitation to act.” There appears NOT to have been an outright overruling of any specific position by President Obama, simply because there was no specific position from the president to do so. President Obama was, in this case, as in all others, working as an absentee president. (Emphasis mine.)

I mentioned above who was doing the overruling – a star-studded group if ever there was one (well, except for maybe Jim Clapper – you remember him – the Director Of Intelligence who seemed woefully ignorant of Intelligence, who claimed the Muslim Brotherhood was “largely secular.” Yes, that guy.). Anyway, it was this group against Valerie Jarrett, and her puppet, Obama:

I was correct in stating there had been a push to invade the compound for several weeks if not months, primarily led by Leon Panetta, Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, David Petraeus, and Jim Clapper. The primary opposition to this plan originated from Valerie Jarrett, and it was her opposition that was enough to create uncertainty within President Obama. Obama would meet with various components of the pro-invasion faction, almost always with Jarrett present, and then often fail to indicate his position. This situation continued for some time, though the division between Jarrett/Obama and the rest intensified more recently, most notably from Hillary Clinton. She was livid over the president’s failure to act, and her office began a campaign of anonymous leaks to the media indicating such. As for Jarrett, her concern rested on two primary fronts. One, that the military action could fail and harm the president’s already weakened standing with both the American public and the world. Second, that the attack would be viewed as an act of aggression against Muslims, and further destabilize conditions in the Middle East.

Wow. Yes, those should be our primary concerns when it comes to National Security, would it make Obama look bad, and angering Muslims? Good grief. That does confirm what many of us have thought, though. Our National Security has been couched by how it will appear to Muslims around the world, not about what is best for the United States of America. There is something seriously, seriously wrong with that.

The interviewer then asked about how they got Obama to change his opinion, to which the insider said they didn’t – Obama didn’t HAVE an opinion. The complete response is too long to include here, but the term “masterful manipulation” was used to describe how Leon Panetta made this happen. Here is just part of the response by the Insider:

[snip] Basically, the whole damn operation was already ready to go – including the specific team support Intel necessary to engage the enemy within hours of being given notice. Panetta then made plans to proceed with an on-ground assault. This information reached either Hillary Clinton or Robert Gates first (likely via military contacts directly associated with the impending mission) who then informed the other. Those two then met with Panetta, who informed each of them he had been given the authority by the president to proceed with a mission if the opportunity presented itself. Both Gates and Clinton warned Panetta of the implications of that authority – namely he was possibly being made into a scapegoat. Panetta admitted that possibility, but felt the opportunity to get Bin Laden outweighed that risk. During that meeting, Hillary Clinton was first to pledge her full support for Panetta, indicating she would defend him if necessary. Similar support was then followed by Gates. The following day, and with Panetta’s permission, Clinton met in private with Bill Daley and urged him to get the president’s full and open approval of the Panetta plan. Daley agreed such approval would be of great benefit to the action, and instructed Clinton to delay proceeding until he had secured that approval. Daley contacted Clinton within hours of their meeting indicating Jarrett refused to allow the president to give that approval (emphasis mine). Daley then informed Clinton that he too would fully support Panetta in his actions, even if it meant disclosing the president’s indecision to the American public should that action fail to produce a successful conclusion. Clinton took that message back to Panetta and the CIA director initiated the 48 hour engagement order. At this point, the President of the United States was not informed of the engagement order – it did not originate from him, and for several hours after the order had been given and the special ops forces were preparing for action into Pakistan from their position in Afghanistan, Daley successfully kept Obama and Jarrett insulated from that order. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

At this point, you may be wondering just who Valerie Jarrett is, and why she has so much influence over Obama, more so than a number of top Cabinet officials. Well, she is the Senior Advisor to the President now, but prior to that worked for Mayor Richard Daley, and hired Michelle Obama as an assistant to the mayor. Oh, but get this – only after “…re-assuring Michelle’s fiancé, Barack Obama, that the job was right for her.” Gee, sexist much?

Anyway, here are some of the ways in which she has been described:

Chicago businesswoman Valerie Jarrett has earned all sorts of nicknames as an aide to President-elect Barack Obama — from “First Friend” to “big sister” to “the other half of Obama’s brain.” As co-chair of his transition team, Jarrett has spent the past week denying rumors, parsing policy changes and insisting that she doesn’t know where she’ll end up in the new administration (although Beltway gossip suggests she may be appointed to Obama’s seat in the Senate). Of her relationship with the 44th commander-in-chief, Jarrett says simply: “He is my dear friend. I would do anything the President of the United States asked me to do.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

And apparently, she has a tremendous amount of sway over Obama in terms of policy, foreign and national. That is quite something for someone who was not elected, or had to pass Congressional scrutiny.

But that is not all there is to Valerie Jarrett (or Michelle Obama). There is more that is not so glowing:

[snip]But not a word about Jarrett’s involvement in Michelle Obama’s patient-dumping scheme at the University of Chicago Medical Center, where Jarrett sat of the board of directors.

And not a word about Jarrett’s involvement in Grove Parc — the Chicago slum complex managed by Jarrett’s company, Habitat, Inc. To this day, Jarrett refuses to answer questions about the dilapidated housing development. [snip](Click here to read the rest.)

Yeah, she’s a piece of work, the embodiment of a Chicago-style politics. But she also is someone who has WAY too much power in the White House, and way too much power over affairs of State.

Again, if only 80% of what the White House Insider says is true, this is damaging stuff, indeed. It explains a lot, though, including Obama’s look while sitting in the Kiddy chair while the mission unfolded, and how fortunate we are that there are actual grown ups in this Administration willing to stick their necks out to protect our nation. One thing is for sure – that does not include Obama or Valerie Jarrett. When push came to shove, Obama continued to cave to Jarrett rather than listen to the people in positions to know better. His incompetence is dwarfed only by his narcissism for taking credit for results for which he had no involvement whatsoever.

One thing is crystal clear – Obama is not presidential material, and he sure as hell should not be president again. At least that’s what I think. How about you?

Basically, a foreign national has been killed by another foreign army. What does Pakistan have to do with this, then? Nothing and everything. And this nothing yet everything has placed Pakistan between a rock and a hard place.

If Pakistan admits that it helped US forces kill bin Laden it fears a backlash from the different militant organizations with in its boundaries, and if it denies any such cooperation then it will be labeled a supporter of Al Qaeda.

For this reason Pakistan – which is defined as the Pakistan Army and the agencies, including the infamous ISI – stayed silent. So silent that it’s scary. It’s the silence before the storm. This storm is not necessarily directed at the US, the CIA, Afghanistan or India. The tempest could be directed at foreign militants. Remaining silent was a wise approach and the best strategy so far for Pakistan. Be aware of that silence. The pendulum could swing either way. The forces that actually control Pakistan — and I’m not referring to politicians — could back any horse at this point. Or spread the wager across the board. Only time will tell.

The US media has been hammering Pakistan day and night. The media should consider Pakistan’s tight spot here. The US needs help, not just rooting terrorist networks out of Pakistan but in Afghanistan as well. It’s not easy for a country to sustain repeated bombardments, knowing that it depends on the country doing the bombing for large quantities of foreign aid. Already, a number of politicians and the Pakistani media are defining the bin Laden raid as another example of infringement of sovereignty and using bin Laden’s death to goad the US to pull out of Afghanistan. Rock, meet hard place. If only the US media understood that.

Then there have been conflicting reports coming out of various US departments. But the fact is that the raid could not have succeeded without the ISI’s help. Clearly bin Laden’s time was up. Given the ISI’s deserved reputation for treachery and intrigues, wouldn’t there have been a strong and deep bunker under that mansion to hide bin Laden? Or a maze of tunnels to help him and his family escape? Bin Laden was trapped, with the local support on the ground.

Obama said last night that he got confirmed reports of bin Laden’s location last week. I looked out for events that happened last week. President Obama was busy dealing with Trump’s nonsense, while the Pentagon was hosting ISI chief General Pasha. Coincidence? I don’t think so. There must have been a deal, a tit for tat.

Pakistan’s religious quarters have already started to question then authenticity of the killing. Above all, they have started asking US to wrap up their “war” and leave the region. Which again the US or NATO cannot afford to do. Not yet at least. The US has to deal with Afghanistan, Karzai, the Taliban, the Quetta shura…and the list goes on.

So let’s not get carried away here. The war is not over yet. Bin Laden killing has improved Obama’s approval ratings, but bin Laden’s death has hardly put a dent on al Qaeda. Keeping in mind that Al Qaeda’s's real ideological inspiration is al-Zuwahiri, who’s still very much alive. And probably on the ISI’s watch list too.

To make matters worse, as Jake Tapper reports, Obama informed the Congress via a letter that we had gone to war. Surprise! Separation of powers? What separation of powers? Read it here:

Amidst claims by members of Congress that they were insufficiently consulted, and ensuing White House pushback, President Obama Monday officially notified congressional leaders that at “approximately 3:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, on March 19, 2011, at my direction, U.S. military forces commenced operations to assist an international effort authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council and undertaken with the support of European allies and Arab partners, to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security by the crisis in Libya.”

The notification was part of the president’s “efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution,” but given complaints from both Democrats and Republicans in Congress, and the fact that the war started two days ago, it had the effect of a rather discomforting “While You Were Out…” note. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Then there is the little problem of Obama turning over control of our military to a political coalition.

You can’t make this stuff up. Well, maybe if you worked at The Onion or Mad Magazine.

Holy moley.

So check this out. Remember back in the day when Obama was depicted as the Hope And Change Agent of the Universe? I know, I know, some are still caught up in that Kool Aide induced haze, but not everyone went so far as to change the 100+ year old name of a school. You may recall that a school in New Jersey did just that. Yes, Bangs Avenue Elementary decided to change its name to Barack Obama Elementary a year or so ago.

Guess what? That school is closing. Yep, turns out it will save the district a bunch of money to close it, and send the children to two other schools instead. At the end of this school year, the Barack Obama Elementary School will be no more. The building will keep Obama’s name, though, ans be used for other things (basketball? Golf? Parties?).

I have two quotes from this article I have to share with you. The first is from the Superintendent, Denise Lowe:

[snip] “Change is never easy, but the district is at a pivotal point where difficult decisions must be made,” Lowe said in a statement Thursday afternoon. “The consequences of idleness are far greater than the improvisation that is now necessary.” [snip]

And this one:

[snip] “We needed a change … we need to fix our school district,” said Nina Summerlin, the Parent-Teacher Organization president at both the Obama and Middle schools.[snip]

Oh, my. Now THAT is some “change we can believe in,” right? The irony, the irony.

Oh, want to hear another irony? Wanna guess how much money was being spent PER child in this district (Asbury Park)? About $36,000 per child. And as Michelle Malkin points out, what they get for this hefty price tag are the lowest test results that Education.com offers. Holy moley.

And now for another story you may have seen, but which bears repeating. That would be Senator Claire McCaskill, her plane, and the hundreds of thousands of dollars she owed in back taxes on said plane.

Now, here is what makes this so, oh, what’s the word, laughable. Or hypocritical, take your pick:

[snip] McCaskill recently co-sponsored a bill in the Senate that would send pink slips to federal employees who are found to have unpaid taxes, a measure Republicans also highlighted Monday, calling the Democrat a hypocrite. But a McCaskill aide said that was not a fair attack. “Those are people who knowingly have not paid their taxes and have refused to own up to it and to make that right,” an aide told Fox. “She didn’t knowingly do this. This is a situation where a mistake was made. As soon as she found out…she made it right,” the aide told Fox.

Because planes are not licensed the way automobiles are with the state of residence, rather they are licensed with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the state has no record of ownership and, therefore, sends no property tax bill.

As for that bill, the McCaskill aide said, “The senator has already written and sent the check to repay this money. There was no effort to evade taxes here.” [snip]

Um, over $287,000, 3 years worth, is not trying to “evade taxes”? Yeah, okay, sure. I suppose that could happen to just anyone, right? And the IRS would SURELY understand such a thing if it happened to a regular old citizen, no doubt about it! They are so understanding about things of that nature. Cough, cough. Well, unless someone is a senator or representative (think Charlie Rangel) that is.

As an aside, who among us can sit down and write out a check for that amount of money at the drop of a hat? Yeah, me, neither. I also have to ask, what the hell kind of plane is this that the annual taxes are so hefty? Good grief.

There were other issues with the plane, too, like her use of it, for which she had to pay back $89,000 to the government. Oops. I guess she forgot what the rules are around things like using taxpayer money to fund political trips, 89 of them, to be specific. Yeah, right, that’s the ticket, she just forgot! Sheesh, what do you want from her? Ahem.

As for McCaskill and the plane, well, this is her take:

[snip] An audibly exasperated McCaskill told reporters, “I have convinced my husband to sell the damned plane. He has hired a broker, and I never intend to step foot on that plane ever again.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Yes, it is all that “damn” plane’s fault! Harrumph!

Oh, and before anyone tries to compare this to Sarah Palin selling a jet on Ebay, bear in mind, Palin did not buy that plane, her predecessor did. Nor did Palin want the state to have to pay for it, so she had it sold for $2.1 million.

Once again, we see demonstrated, from the top down from Obama to McCaskill, that the rules, the laws, do not apply to people whom we have elected. Don’t know quite how that has become the case, since they swear to uphold the Constitution, but it sure does seem to be the way of Washington. We see it from Obama essentially waging war without Congressional approval to failing to pay taxes while expecting others to do so lest they face harsh consequences. Those consequences all seem to be for others, though – “for thee, not me.” That might as well be the mew motto on the Presidential Seal, don’t you think? As long as they can get away with it, they seem hellbent on breaking the rules. I think it is far past time they get their comeuppance. Perhaps in 2012?

So you’ll forgive me when I take this headline with a pound of salt, “Obama Backs ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Compromise That Could Pave Way For Repeal.” Obama has done jackshit but give lip service on repeal. There are others who actually HAVE been working on this issue, especially Rep. Patrick Murphy, along with several US Senators (e.g, Joe Lieberman and Carl Levin). But Patrick Murphy is the one who has really been pushing this, as the following video makes clear:

Note the date on that video – 2008.

The other person pushing for repeal is Senator Lieberman, along with Sen. Carl Levin:

It is not that Obama is insisting that this be brought now. Rather,it seems he is making a political calculation since it has become clear the House is going forward with this, not because it is the right thing to do:

President Obama has endorsed a “don’t ask, don’t tell” compromise between lawmakers and the Defense Department, the White House announced Monday, an agreement that may sidestep a key obstacle to repealing the military’s policy banning gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the armed forces.

The compromise was finalized in meetings Monday at the White House and on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers will now, within days, vote on amendments that would repeal the Clinton-era policy, with a provision ensuring that any change would not take effect until after the Pentagon completes a study about its impact on troops. That study is due to Congress by Dec. 1.

In a letter to lawmakers pushing for a legislative repeal, White House budget director Peter Orszag wrote Monday that the administration “supports the proposed amendment.”

“Such an approach recognizes the critical need to allow our military and their families the full opportunity to inform and shape the implementation process through a thorough understanding of their concerns, insights and suggestions,” he wrote.

While gay rights advocates hailed the move as a “dramatic breakthrough,” it remained uncertain whether the deal would secure enough votes to pass both houses of Congress. Republicans have vowed to maintain “don’t ask, don’t tell,” while conservative Democrats have said they would oppose a repeal unless military leaders made it clear that they approved of such a change.

Even if the compromise language passes, a legislative repeal would take effect only after Obama certified that the change would not harm the nation’s military readiness.

In a statement, Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese said the announcement “paves the path to fulfill the President’s call to end ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ this year and puts us one step closer to removing this stain from the laws of our nation.”

The White House had initially hoped that Congress would wait until after the Pentagon study was completed before bringing up a repeal, but senior lawmakers made it clear that they intended to push ahead on the issue, with or without administration support. Now the controversial issue will return to the national conversation as fall reelection campaigns gear up.

“…but senior lawmakers made it clear that they intended to push ahead on the issue, with or without administration support.” Again, this is not exactly Obama PUSHING for this.

Memo to Joe Salmonese – this is not the President wanting “to fulfill the President’s call.” This is Obama seeing the writing on the wall, IMHO, and trying to cover his backside.

He is not the only one, though:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who is running for reelection and had previously supported a repeal of the law, said at a recent congressional hearing that the legislation is “imperfect but effective” and that “we should not be seeking to overturn.”

Rep. Mike Pence (Ind.), a member of the House GOP leadership, said Monday of a repeal: “The American people don’t want the American military to be used to advance a liberal political agenda. And House Republicans will stand on that principle.”

While some Democrats, particularly in the House, wanted to wait for the Pentagon study to be finished, more-liberal Democrats were pushing for an immediate repeal. The compromise is designed to satisfy both concerns.

“We can live with this and we’re asking, enthusiastically, members to support and vote for it,” said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Rep. Patrick J. Murphy (D-Pa.), the lead sponsors of repeal legislation, promised Monday night to pursue their goal quickly.

The White House letter clears the way for votes Thursday in the House on the overall spending bill, which Democrats expect will include Murphy’s amendment. The same day, the Senate Armed Services Committee will vote on its version of the spending bill, and Lieberman will introduce the same repeal language.

“It is our firm belief that it is time to repeal this discriminatory policy that not only dishonors those who are willing to give their lives in service to their country but also prevents capable men and women with vital skills from serving in the armed forces,” Lieberman and Murphy said in a statement.

If the compromise is approved, the 1993 policy could be removed from the nation’s law books within weeks. That would satisfy one of the most significant promises Obama made to the gay community during his campaign.

Once in office, however, Obama moved slowly, often causing frustration among his gay supporters.

That’s what I am talking about, right there. Obama has been dragging his feet on this issue. Again, he’s not the only one:

In February, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, said they supported a repeal of the policy. Mullen said, “I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.”

But Gates angered some activists by requesting time to assess how best to make the cultural shift within the ranks.

The effort to reverse the ban accelerated with Obama’s one-sentence endorsement of a repeal in his January State of the Union address, sources close to the negotiations said. The next morning, advocates began a multimillion-dollar effort to convince six moderate members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

On Sunday, White House officials invited gay rights leaders to the White House for a Monday-morning meeting with Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina and administration lawyers, according to sources familiar with the meeting.

Here’s the thing – I would be delighted to have this horrible bill repealed. At the time, it was far better than what they had, but it has been flawed from the get-go.

However – Obama has done NOTHING to change this law. He has a history of claiming credit for accomplishments he didn’t earn, and with which he had nothing to do. We saw that time and time again with Candidate Obama, taking Hillary Clinton’s policies whole cloth, claiming work done on committees as a US Senator, as an IL state senator,and as president. It is infuriating that he will get credit for the repeal of this law (should it pass Congress) when he has done NOTHING to effect that change itself to essentially say he won’t stand in the way.

I will rejoice when DADT is repealed, absolutely. But unlike HRC’s Joe Salmonese, among others, I’ll give credit where credit is due: Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, Rep. Patrick Murphy, and Senators Joe Lieberman and Carl Levin.

Obama does not belong in that list, not by a long shot. The long list of homophobic associates and close friends of his speak volumes to me. Don’t even get me started his new appointee, Jonathan I. Katz, a RAGING homophobe who refers to gay people as “sodomites,” among other things. So, uh, yeah – not a ringing endorsement, if you ask me.

Repeal DADT for sure, and give credit where credit is due. That’s what I think. How about you?

UPDATE: Ellen D queried below what would be in DADT, and what would REALLY happen if it was passed. Excellent question. And now I have an answer for her. This is from Adm. Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I have to say, the news is not all that good:

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said yesterday that he’s comfortable with proposed legislation that seeks to repeal the law that bans gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the military because it includes “very clear language” that gives senior leaders the final say in whether it’s implemented.

The proposed amendment, which Congress could put to a vote as soon as this week, wouldn’t immediately go into effect if passed, Navy Adm. Mike Mullen told about 500 servicemembers at a town hall session here.

Implementation wouldn’t take place until after a Defense Department study assessing its impact is completed, the chairman explained, and military and defense leaders get to weigh in on the findings.

The review, expected to be completed by December, is progressing well, the chairman said, “but by no means is it over.”

Oh, boy. That doesn’t sound all that promising. Neither does this:

Mullen said he’s particularly interested in determining how the law’s repeal would affect “readiness, unit cohesion and our ability to do our mission.” That, he said, requires input from the people directly affected.

“That was what was behind making sure we surveyed our people and our families — to understand … the potential impact,” he told the group. “And I, as a senior military leader in the country, feel obligated to make sure I understand that, so should it change, I can lead that and understand what the impacts are.”

After reviewing results of the study, Mullen, the service chiefs and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates would provide their recommendations to President Barack Obama. “So having that information will inform me and our leaders about what our recommendations will be,” he said.

Mullen called the “certification trigger” provided in the proposed amendment critical.

“The language in there right now preserves my prerogative – and I believe, my responsibility – to give the best military advice,” he said.

“That trigger is to certify whether we should move ahead with that change, even if the law were to repeal it,” he told a reporter following the session.

Mullen brought up the issue at the end of his town hall session after no one had asked about it. He occasionally gets questions about it when he meets with servicemembers, the chairman told reporters traveling with him, but just as often doesn’t. “I haven’t found it to be a particularly burning issue,” he said.

Am I understanding this correctly? Even if DADT is repealed, it might not change anything? At the very least, even if it was repealed tomorrow, it sounds like nothing will change at least until Dec. 1 when the study is due to be completed. The more things change…

Well, they might as well stop trying. This story just out (h/t to Sowsear), Military Tells Congress To Keep Gay Ban For Now. Well, that headline pretty much says it all, but here is the justification:

Senior Pentagon leaders on Friday warned Congress not to tamper with the ban on gays serving openly in the military until they can come up with a plan for dealing with potential opposition in the ranks.

In a strongly worded letter obtained by The Associated Press, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen told the House Armed Services Committee that forcing policy changes on the military before it’s ready would be a mistake.

“Our military must be afforded the opportunity to inform us of their concerns, insights and suggestions if we are to carry out this change successfully,” Gates and Mullen wrote to the panel’s chairman, Missouri Democrat Ike Skelton.

Gay rights advocates want an immediate freeze on military firings of openly gay service members, and some senior Democratic senators have said they want to offer such a bill. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Friday said the Obama administration should suspend enforcement of the law until the Defense Department completes its study and Congress can act to change it.

But other lawmakers, including Skelton, have said they are uneasy about lifting the ban and don’t want to act before the force is ready.

The letter provides Skelton and other unsettled Democrats political cover not to press the issue until after this year’s midterm elections. Earlier this week, Skelton asked Gates in a letter to outline his views as the House committee prepares the 2011 defense authorization bill.

President Barack Obama has said the 1993 law, known as “don’t ask, don’t tell,” unfairly punishes patriotic Americans and asked Congress to repeal it.

In a statement released late Friday, White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said Obama’s commitment to repealing the law remains “unequivocal” and that Obama “is committed to getting this done both soon and right.”

First of all, how insulting is it that the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs do not think our military is as capable of serving alongside openly gay people as the UK, or Israel, or a host of other countries??

Second of all, nice political cover for the Democrats, especially Obama. It is disingenuous for the White House to claim Obama really, really wants to change this law. If he wanted to, he already would have. And, considering his Justice Department lent their hefty support to keeping “DADT” using outdated quotes from Colin Powell that even HE doesn’t agree with anymore, it just makes this laughable. Or would, if it wasn’t people’s lives and service at stake.

This is also a bit hard for me to believe:

Gates says he supports lifting the ban but wants to survey the troops first on how it should be done. He has ordered a study by Dec. 1 that will look at whether housing arrangements would have to be altered and gay partners would be allowed military benefits.

If Congress acts before then, “it would send a very damaging message to our men and women in uniform that in essence their views, concerns and perspectives do not matter,” he and Mullen wrote to Skelton.

The letter prompted immediate protests from gay rights groups.

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said that if Congress doesn’t act this year it would send the message to gay troops that “the impact on them and their families does not matter to the military leadership, including their commander in chief.”

This is one reason why I left the HRC – the belief by people like Solmonese that, despite all evidence to the contrary, Obama gives a damn about GLBT people. Wake the hell up already, Joe – ask Donnie McClurkin or James Meeks what Obama REALLY thinks of us. Sheesh.

Doesn’t it just gripe you when people continue to believe promises made with absolutely NO basis? Does me.

And here’s the part where they bascially call our military personnel a bunch of homophobes:

Defense officials hope the protracted timeline will also help troops adjust to the idea of serving with openly gay colleagues before they have to accept the change.

Sen. Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who heads the Senate Armed Services Committee, is expected to propose in the 2011 defense authorization bill a moratorium on gay firings in the military.

In the House, Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Pa., is considered the most likely to offer the legislation.

Just more bullshit from this White House and those who serve it. More broken promises. More, “Hey, I really WANT to do it, but gee – I’m just the president, what do you want from me?” Spare me.

The only acceptable justification for NOT allowing gays to serve in the military comes from The Onion (that’s your alert that this is SATIRE):

Hey, if I’m not laughing about this, I’m crying, especially when I think of all those who have served proudly, wish to do so, but have been dismissed. I’m just shaking my head in disbelief. How about you?

This is an OPEN THREAD. Discuss this, or whatever else is on your mind today!

There is another increasingly controversial “K” that U.S. officials should refrain from using, especially in a derogatory manner. And that “K” stands for Karzai. Until recently the United States has treated the Afghan President as a puppet without realizing that his power base has grown in Afghanistan. It’s true that when Karzai was installed by the Bush administration he had little to no support in the country. But just the Bush era has passed and America has voted in a new President, time has not stood still for Karzai. The sooner the US realizes this the better for the Afghanistan, the NATO, the British and the US army.

Over the years Karzai made himself matter in the country while rumors of his impending political death continued to circulate.

The first sign of Karzai’s power was evident last year when the West discredited him during Afghanistan’s presidential elections. His opponent Abdullah Abdullah was openly supported by the Obama administration. The conflicting reports coming out of Afghanistan made the geniuses in Washington conclude that an ethnic Pashtun shouldn’t represent Afghanistan. Karzai didn’t take the news well.

On the ground the situation was quite different. An intelligence expert based in Afghanistan said that if Abdullah Abdullah runs again he will still lose to Karzai. The reason? Abdullah Abdullah is of Tajik ethnicity. It’s on the record that when Karzai agreed to a second round run-off vote Dr. Abdullah withdrew from the race. Abdullah’s claims that he had dropped his bid because of overwhelming voter fraud was only part of the story.

This doesn’t mean that the elections were clean. From Peter Galbraith to the U.N. to Hamid Karzai, there was agreement that ballot mishandling and corruption took place — but what do you expect from a country run by the Taliban for five years and then taken over by the Western armies with little to no understanding of internal Afghan dynamics? If Karzai’s brother is a warlord and a drug trafficker, Abdullah Abdullah has such criminals in his camp too, the difference being that Karzai’s brother is reported to be helping U.S. intelligence.

Hamid Karzai’s recent statements about joining with the Taliban have been unhinged, but they reflect his growing frustration with his Western sponsors. Just last month Karzai, like a shrewd chess player, made a point of inviting Iran’s Ahmadinejad to visit Afghanistan, presumably as a goodwill gesture to reach out to his neighbors. Afghanistan can not change its neighbors at the behest of the United States – but Karzai can certainly rattle some cages when need be.

That President Obama’s schedule suddenly opened up following that visit, necessitating a rush to Kabul that speaks not only to the wiliness of Karzai, but also the importance of Afghanistan and, more disturbingly, the disarray of U.S. policy toward that country. Angered by Karzai’s threats to join with the Taliban, the White House has started threatening to call off Karzai’s trip to the U.S.

A bevy of questionable opinions being circulated in the American press are adding fuel to the fire. Such suggestions look good on paper but are not practically executable. This Pentagon theory will bear no results, as it is impossible to deploy the army countrywide, take out the middle tear of Taliban sympathizers and eventually nab the upper tier. Logically, the army doesn’t know who is Taliban and who is not; furthermore, who are the “good” and “bad” Taliban? Who can be negotiated with and brought into political talks and which elements are too ideologically hardened and radicalized, thereby incapable of negotiating?

Such an approach indicates that decision makers are living in lalaland while ground realities are totally different, especially when Obama wants to bring back troops while Karzai is willing to talk to ‘good Taliban’. Karzai is another ‘K’ that can not be ignored.

The significance of the Obama-Karzai meeting and a look at the military strategy being implemented in Afghanistan will be addressed in my next writeup.

–
Crosspost from: The Pakistan Update

The contents of which we pretty much already know at this point (thus raising the question why we still have to listen to Obama), a whole bunch of people are protesting the expected surge. One group is Code Pink:

Another person who thinks we care what he has to say is Michael Moore, that arrogant, sanctimonious windbag (okay, okay – I admit it – I own Fahrenheit 9/11 and used to like him), who seems to think he is both a military strategist and a member of the Intelligence Community. He wrote Obama a letter laying it all out for prior to the speechifying. Moore says Obama should NOT listen to the generals on the ground regarding Afghanistan because we are a civilian nation. In other words, he thinks the generals should be told what to do by the likes of Moore, apparently, as opposed to listening to the people who are actually in theater. I guess Moore missed it when Obama was campaigning and made the claim that Agfhanistan was going to be his primary focus in the War on Terror. Oh, right – no one actually listened to what he said, just the melodic, dreamy way in which he said, it.

Excuse me – I have to go throw up now.

Don’t take my word for it. Here’s Obama in his own words (you won’t have to wait long for it):

It gets better. Moore, with his apparent connections to the Intelligence Community, claims there are fewer than 100 members of Al Qaeda still in Afghanistan. Now, I know a bunch of people have gone to Pakistan. I get that. But, where the hell is Moore getting this information, which, if true, I assume might be classified? I’m just wondering.

Te letter goes on (and on). Feel free to click HERE if you care to read any more of it.

You can watch the speech tonight, if you wish. Or you can read this NY Times article and get the scope. I can bottom line it for you: 30,000 troops over 6 months, not as many as Gen. McChrystal wanted, but big surprise there. And, Obama will set a timeline for when the US will start pulling back those reinforcements. You’re welcome!

Bottom line, Mr. Moore, and Code Pink – Obama s actually keeping one campaign promise, even though he dragged his feet for months before he did it. Believe you me, no one is more surprised than I am. And maybe now you know you should have actually paid attention to the “Words, Just Words” that were coming out of his mouth during the campaign and not being lulled into your Obama LaLaLand of Happy Rainbow Unicorns. Just a thought.

Oh, just in case you don’t know this about me, I am not a war hawk, not by a long shot. But on this, going after the people who attacked us, I think we are right, Code Pink and Michael Moore notwithstanding. Do I wish we had accomplished our mission there already? Absolutely. Should we leave before we do? No. That sends a dangerous message – people can attack us, and after a while, we’ll just give up on finding them. These are patient people. They will wait until our guard is down. I don’t see how we can afford not to continue in Afghanistan until the job is done. Can you?

I reasonably can see “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” eliminated… I would never make this a litmus test for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Obviously, there are so many issues that a member of the Joint Chiefs has to deal with, and my paramount obligation is to get the best possible people to keep America safe. But I think there’s increasing recognition within the Armed Forces that this is a counterproductive strategy — ya know, we’re spending large sums of money to kick highly qualified gays or lesbians out of our military, some of whom possess specialties like Arab-language capabilities that we desperately need. That doesn’t make us more safe, and what I want are members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who are making decisions based on what strengthens our military and what is going to make us safer, not ideology.

So, he can “see” doing it, it’s just the ACTUAL doing it with which he seems to have problems.

As a bonus, here is something else Candidate Obama said in this interview when asked this questions:

What event or person has most affected your perceptions of or relationship to the LGBT community?
Somebody else who influenced me, I actually had a professor at Occidental — now, this is embarrassing because I might screw up his last name — Lawrence Goldyn, I think it was. He was a wonderful guy. He was the first openly gay professor that I had ever come in contact with, or openly gay person of authority that I had come in contact with. And he was just a terrific guy. He wasn’t proselytizing all the time (emphasis mine), but just his comfort in his own skin and the friendship we developed helped to educate me on a number of these issues.

Oh, yes, we LGBT people are practically missionaries. So glad this one professor didn’t “proselytize” his students, or push his “gay-ness” on them. What a guy. I’m sure it was difficult for him since, you know, that’s just how we are. Ahem.

And people wonder why I have said all along that Obama is not our friend? Because he is not.

Here is the story of one highly decorated pilot:

Here is a follow-up to Lt. Col. Fehrenbach’s story:

Did you catch the very beginning, the ways in which someone can have a service member investigated in both videos? Shocking. Just shocking.

As is the lack of any action whatsoever by Obama on this issue. Sure he gave a talk to the (sell out) HRC a month or so ago, claiming, once again, that he would abolish DADT at some point. But that’s just talk. Here is what President Obama has done thus far on this issue:

* crickets *

How many more broken promises before DADT is abolished? One thing is for sure. On the Eve of Veteran’s Day, there are too many new Veterans as a result of this law. 500 too many.

‘If one suicide bomber can kill 100 enemy soldiers because they were caught off guard that would be considered a strategic victory,’ he is said to have written.

Once again, just to be clear, this is not the belief system of the vast majority of Muslims, but of a very small few fringe elements. All Muslims cannot be painted with a broad brush stroke, just as all Christians, Jews, et al, cannot be categorized by the actions of a few. That being said, in my opinion, this is a horrible interpretation of the Koran, and the words of Muhammad.

For more information on the latest in this case, including additional information on Hasan’s religious beliefs, and posts he allegedly wrote, you can click HERE or HERE.

One of the most comprehensive articles I have seen on this horrific tragedy at Fort Hood comes from The Daily Mail. In addition to photographs of Hasan in the 7-11 he routinely visits, this time in traditional Muslim dress, just hours before the carnage began, it includes a piece on Muslims in the Army and The Psychological Cost Of War.

And this article includes information on the police officer who took down Hasan, shooting him four times, Sgt. Kim Munley:

The heroic policewoman who shot an army psychiatrist during a murderous gun rampage at an army base was today named as Sergeant Kimberly Munley.

She had been on routine traffic patrol when Major Nidal Malik Hasan entered a medical centre at Ford Hood, Texas, shouted ‘Allahu Akbar‘ (God is greatest) and opened fire.

It took just three minutes for the slightly built mother-of-one to get to the scene, engaging the killer in a gun battle which ended with him being shot four times.

In the course of the cross-fire, Sgt Munley, who has a daughter, was shot in the leg. Hasan had managed to kill 13 and wound 30 others before she got there.

Lt. Gen. Bob Cone described her actions as ‘amazing and aggressive’.

‘She was quite effective, one of our most impressive young policemen,’(sic) he added. ‘She walked up and basically engaged him. I think, certainly, this could’ve been far worse.’

Hasan, who was furious about US military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, is also in a stable condition in hospital and under armed guard.

(Twitter photo)

Greatest thanks to Officer Hunley (on the left above) for her quick thinking and action in this tragic shooting. She is truly a hero, and no doubt saved many lives with her efforts. I wish her a full and speedy recovery, as I do for all those who were wounded in this horrific tragedy.

I understand that, as of this writing, President Obama will be speaking again about the attack at Fort Hood. Here is my question: WHY THE HELL IS HE NOT AT FORT HOOD NOW??? Seriously. Why hasn’t he done what he has done so many times now for far less important events, hop on Air Force One and get down there already?? He is the Commander in Chief, and he needs to start acting like it. I might add, not with his “wildly disconnected and inappropriately light president” (emphasis mine) as written in this article,”Obama’s Frightening Insensitivity Following Shooting“:

Three minutes in, the president spoke about the shooting, in measured and appropriate terms. Who is advising him?

Anyone at home aware of the major news story of the previous hours had to have been stunned. An incident like this requires a scrapping of the early light banter. The president should apologize for the tone of his remarks, explain what has happened, express sympathy for those slain and appeal for calm and patience until all the facts are in. That’s the least that should occur.

Uh yeah, and not with his blinkety blink blink short statement he has to read from a piece of paper instead of speaking from his heart. Wow. Get down there, President Obama. This takes precedence.

One last thing – you better believe Hillary Clinton would already be there visiting the wounded and talking to the commanders on the ground. You KNOW she would. Obama? Uh, yeah, NO. That is unconscionable, just unconscionable.

UPDATE: This is a good article about Sgt. Munley and her actions at Fort Hood. According to those who know her, she was “born and bred to be a police officer.” I’ll say.

On the eighth anniversary of the beginning of the war in Afghanistan, President Barack Obama is gathering his national security team for another strategy session.

Obama, who inherited the war when he took office last January, is examining how to proceed with a worsening combat situation that has claimed nearly 800 U.S. lives and sapped American patience. Launched after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to defeat the Taliban and rid Al Qaeda of a home base, the war has lasted longer than ever envisioned.

House and Senate leaders of both parties emerged Tuesday from a nearly 90-minute conversation with Obama with praise for his candor and interest in listening. But politically speaking, all sides appeared to exit where they entered, with Republicans pushing Obama to follow his military commanders and Democrats saying he should not be rushed.

Obama said the war would not be reduced to a narrowly defined counterterrorism effort, with the withdrawal of many U.S. forces and an emphasis on special operations forces that target terrorists in the dangerous border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Two senior administration officials say such a scenario has been inaccurately characterized and linked to Vice President Joe Biden, and that Obama wanted to make clear he is considering no such plan.

The president did not show his hand on troop increases. His top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has bluntly warned that more troops are needed to right the war, perhaps up to 40,000 more. Obama has already added 21,000 troops this year, raising the total to 68,000.

I understand the importance of trying to proceed with the best plan possible, but at some point, especially when one is talking about a war in which action can move quickly, it seems one would want to make a decision sooner rather than later:

Obama also gave no timetable for a decision, which prompted at least one pointed exchange.

Inside the State Dining Room, where the meeting was held, Obama’s Republican opponent in last year’s presidential race, Sen. John McCain, told Obama that he should not move at a “leisurely pace,” according to people in the room.

That comment later drew a sharp response from Obama, they said. Obama said no one felt more urgency than he did about the war, and there would not be nothing leisurely about it.

Well, then, make a decision already!! Ahem. So, what is Obama considering:

Obama may be considering a more modest building of troops — closer to 10,000 than 40,000 — according to Republican and Democratic congressional aides. But White House aides said no such decision has been made.

The president insisted that he will make a decision on troops after settling on the strategy ahead. He told lawmakers he will be deliberate yet show urgency.

“We do recognize that he has a tough decision, and he wants ample time to make a good decision,” said House Republican leader John Boehner. “Frankly, I support that, but we need to remember that every day that goes by, the troops that we do have there are in greater danger.”

What’s clear is that the mission in Afghanistan is not changing. Obama said his focus is to keep Al Qaeda terrorists from having a base from which to launch attacks on the U.S or its allies. He heard from 18 lawmakers and said he would keep seeking such input even knowing his final decision would not please them all.

That’s politics. That being said, there are LITERALLY lives at stake here. So far this month, there have been 17 US Casualties. Time is of the essence, I would think. But I’m not the Decider:

Obama’s emphasis on building a strong strategy did not mean he shed much light on what it would be. He did, though, seek to “dispense with the more extreme options on either side of the debate,” as one administration official put it. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss details of the closed-door meeting.

The president made clear he would not “double down” in Afghanistan and build up U.S forces into the hundreds of thousands, just as he ruled out withdrawing forces and focusing on a narrow counterterrorism strategy.

“Half-measures is what I worry about,” McCain, R-Ariz., told reporters. He said Obama should follow recommendations from those in uniform and dispatch thousands of more troops to the country — similar to what President George W. Bush did during the 2008 troop “surge” in Iraq.

Public support for the war in Afghanistan is dropping. It stands at 40 percent, down from 44 percent in July, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll. A total of 69 percent of self-described Republicans in the poll favor sending more troops, while 57 percent of self-described Democrats oppose it.

The White House said Obama won’t base his decisions on the mood on Capitol Hill or eroding public support for the war.

“The president is going to make a decision — popular or unpopular — based on what he thinks is in the best interests of the country,” press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters.

Okay…So, WHEN???

Here is what Senator John McCain had to say after the meeting mentioned above:

Hopefully, the meeting President Obama has planned for this anniversary day with his War Council will help prompt him to make a decision, a good decision, the BEST decision sooner rather than later.

And on this anniversary, here is but a glimpse of one area in which our military is working in Afghanistan:

And to all of the families and friends who have lost loved ones in this war, my heart goes out to you. You are in my thoughts and prayers. Your sacrifice is our sacrifice, and it is a debt we can never fully repay, but one which mandates that as keep our nation strong by upholding the Constitution of the United States so that your loss, our loss, is not made in vain…

– calling the vetting process for Obama administration nominees “ridiculous” and “a nightmare.”

At a question-and-answer session with staff from the U.S. Agency for International Development, a woman asked her when the agency would be getting a new administrator and “why it’s taking so long.”

“Let me say it’s not for lack of trying,” Clinton replied. “The process — the clearance and vetting process — is a nightmare,” she told the staff. “It takes far longer than any of us would want to see. It is frustrating beyond words.”

The secretary said she “pushed very hard last week, when I knew I was coming here, to get permission from the White House to be able to tell you that help is on the way and somebody will be nominated shortly.” But, she said, “the message came back, ‘We’re not ready.’”

Wow. So everyone who wants to work for the Obama Administration has to submit to a colonoscopy. Hillary certainly did. Oh, oops. Sorry. My bad. I guess. I mean. Not exactly everyone. I don’t think the Commander in Chief has ever submitted to, nor could he pass, his own vetting process. And Timmy “Turbo Tax” Geithner clearly would have failed, too, according to the criteria of the White House, except for the fact that our President made a big case of saying Timmy was the only one who knew how to fix the economy.

So how’s that working out so far?

Hey, in Timmy’s case, maybe a strict vetting process would have been a good idea. What a shame he was not subject to the same scrutiny as prospects for the USAID position. As Secretary Clinton further states:

“Anyone who has gone through it or looked at this process will tell you that every administration it gets worse,” she added.

“Some very good people just didn’t want to be vetted,” she explained. “You have to hire lawyers, you have to hire accountants. I mean, it is ridiculous!”

Drawing laughs from the crowd, Clinton said, “And then here’s one of the questions you get asked: First of all, you have to remember everywhere you’ve lived since you were 18. And, beyond a certain age you can’t even remember when you were 18!”

One of her “all-time favorite questions,” she said, is, “Please tell us every foreign national you know.”

“I mean, some people who are of different ancestry, they’re a hyphenated American and they have family still living in other countries, finally said it’s ridiculous. I mean, I have lots of cousins I’ve never met. You’re going to ask me to put their names down so they can all be interviewed? That’s ridiculous!

“You’re sensing my frustration!” Clinton sighed.

Now I know that news media is always looking for any sensational headline it can squeeze out to put Clinton and Obama at odds, but really this does seem to be undermining of her efforts? The combined one-two punch of the State Department and USAID is important and I am continually amazed, if not surprised, how this Administration keeps shooting itself in the foot, not able to focus on the big picture.
A job needs to get done here and this over burdensome vetting process is not helping, particularly when it is only selectively applied.

More do as I say, not as I do, I guess.

Valerie Larabee, a ten-year veteran of the Air Force who retired in 1995 is proud of her service and now runs the Utah Pride Center. The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear arguments in a case challenging the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. (Francisco Kjolseth/The Salt Lake Tribune)

In her final year in the military, Air Force mortuary officer Valerie Larabee was called upon to care for four families grieving the suicides of fellow airmen.

“It really impacted me emotionally, but I couldn’t even go to the base chaplain to talk about it, because I was just so fearful,” she said. “I knew that he would ask, ‘Who else do you have in your life that can help comfort you?’ And I knew I couldn’t tell him.”

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear arguments Monday in a case challenging the constitutionality of the military’s controversial “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which bans openly gay people from serving in the U.S. military.

Gay-rights activists, including Larabee, the director of the Utah Pride Center, decried the court’s decision, which let stand a lower court ruling in favor of the ban. They said it would permit the military to continue to treat tens of thousands of gay and lesbian service members as second-class citizens.

“I am really hopeful about how things are going in our country right now and I feel like we have some tremendous opportunities,” Larabee said. “But this is disappointing.”

She’s hopeful? Why? Does she know something we don’t? Ahem. I assume she means because of Obama, though honestly – I just continue to be boggled by this – he has done NOTHING for our community, and CONTINUES to do nothing, and people STILL think he will?? Oh, but wait – there are REASONS why we’re at the back of the bus:

Noting the ongoing wars and the nation’s floundering economy, Larabee said she understands there are other pressing matters for Congress, the White House and the nation’s highest court to consider.

“But do I think our issues are every bit as important as those? Yes, I absolutely do,” she said, adding that she wished the court would have taken up the case.

But ya know what? If our President and Congress can decide to take over our banks and our private companies in such a short amount of time, something that was NOT on the (SPOKEN) Obama agenda, why the hell haven’t they gotten to this?? I mean, really – they have a MAJORITY – they should be able to take care of this in one day, right? That is, if they really intend to do anything about it. Here, I’ll even write it for them: “Because ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” treats US Citizens in an unequal manner under the law; because we are losing tremendous assets as a result of this flawed law; because being homosexual does not in anyway impede one’s ability to serve one’s country as numerous allies have well demonstrated; we hereby repeal this biased law, and will reinstate ALL military personnel dismissed under this law who wish to return to service immediately.” There ya go. I’m giving you that for free. No charge. Take it.

Ahem. Then, maybe we could get back people like Lt. Choi, and Larabee:

Larabee spent 10 years in an Air Force uniform before resigning her commission in 1995 — two years after the Clinton-era law, which was thought of by many as a step forward for gay rights — went into effect. She said that she would have liked to have continued serving her country, but she couldn’t keep living a lie.

“I would still be in the military today if I didn’t have to lie about who I am,” she said. “My military service is the thing that I’m most proud of in my life.”

Having to keep secrets from those who are supposed to be brothers and sisters in arms “ends up causing a lot of anxiety,” she said. “It’s shameful that we should have to do that.”

Uh, yeah – that’s putting it mildly. Once again, people seem to be lieve the rhetoric instead of the reality:

But gay service members might not have to keep up the pretense for long. Author Nathaniel Frank said he figures the policy might last another two years, given the country’s need for service members at a time of war and a national sentiment he believes is moving in the direction of gay rights.

In his book Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America , Frank writes that gay service members have been forced out of service since the Revolutionary War. The first recorded case was in 1778, when Lt. Gotthold Enslin was kicked out of the Army in a ceremony in which an officer’s sword was broken over his head after he was caught in bed with another soldier.

Set against 230 years of military history, Frank said, Monday’s ruling is a blip on the radar.

“I wouldn’t think too much of this,” he said. “The court has a tradition of deferring to military and congressional judgment.”

He believes that President Barack Obama, though slow out of the gate on ending the ban as promised during his campaign, “still wants and needs this — and it should be played out not in the courts, but at the White House and in Congress.”

I mean, really – if Obama can take the time to give a command for Stephen Colbert’s hair to be cut, you don’t think he can place a phone call to Pelosi and Reid and tell them to get this done NOW? Please. Okay. Just keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better, but bear in mind that this “belief” affects a lot of people.

Still, there is some light on this – not coming from Obama, of course:

There appears to be some movement on the issue in Congress, where California Democratic Rep. Ellen Tauscher has convinced 150 of her House colleagues to co-sponsor a bill that would end the ban. The Obama Administration, meanwhile, has made no specific move toward ending it and has declined to step in to stop the dismissal of gay service members, such as West Point graduate and Iraq War veteran Lt. Dan Choi. He is being processed for discharge from the Army after publicly disclosing that he is gay.

In an open letter to the president, the New York National Guard member took issue with the idea that his sexuality was a detriment to good order and discipline in his unit.

Much to the contrary, he wrote, “I refuse to lie to my commanders. I refuse to lie to my peers. I refuse to lie to my subordinates. I demand honesty and courage from my soldiers. They should demand the same from me.”

More than 230 service members (emphasis mine) have been kicked out of the military under the policy since Obama took office, according to the Service Members Legal Defense Fund.

We have only heard about the very tip of the iceberg, as I have said before. We have only heard about people like Lt. Choi who decided to “make a federal case” out of it. TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY service members have already been kicked out. But people like Larabee use the excuse of us being in two wars as a rational for why Obama has not done anything about this yet? That is opposite world thinking, in my opinion – it is PRECISELY because we are in two wars now that we NEED to keep all of the people who are willing to fight for this country, not lose them over some ill-founded, homophobic, backwards, illogical, hateful law. We could USE an Arabic linguist like Lt. Choi at a time like this, don’t you think?

Repeal the law – it cannot POSSIBLY take that long. Like I said, look how fast Obama got some other things done he wanted done. If he wanted this law repealed already, he would have. Rather, Obama chose to not even weigh in on this to the Supreme Court. LOOK AT THE FACTS, not the rhetoric!

Here’s the bottom line to the LGBT community: STOP MAKING EXCUSES FOR THIS GUY. Stop humiliating yourselves hoping, crossing your fingers, and wishing that Obama is going to do right by you because he said he would, or because you think he’s “dreamy.” Had you opened your eyes and paid attention to his actions (or lack thereof) over the course of his political career, or the people with whom he chooses to surround himself, you wouldn’t have picked the guy you thought was “cool.” You would have supported the person who has stood with YOU for years. But you didn’t. And here we are, no farther along for it.

Aren’t you TIRED of begging for the crumbs to drop from the table?? Aren’t you ready to be a guest at the table, where you belong?? All the excuses in the world for Obama do nothing but let him off the hook, and diminish YOU. Seriously, you, we, deserve better. Deep down inside, you must know that is true. At least I HOPE you do…

Wow. That is some mighty disturbing news (here is the LINK, if you’d rather read the article), is it not, both in terms of Muhammad and bin Laden? Well, Joe Biden said this president was going to be “tested by an international crisis within the first six months,” and so he is. It’s a shame he’s too busy trying to garner more accolades from other countries* rather than dealing with the very pressing issues here at home, but I think most of us expected that, didn’t we?

And so this isn’t abstract, this is Private Long, the soldier whose life was snuffed out bu this domestic terrorist:

As of this writing, Obama STILL has not made a statement about the soldiers ambushed in Little Rock. His silence speaks volumes. Especially as he IS the Commander in Chief. But he has nothing to say about two US Army soldiers gunned down in broad daylight in one of our cities? Nothing?? Holy smokes. Like I said – that speaks volumes to me, and what it says is NOT GOOD.

I cannot help but wonder how these two soldiers’ families feel that Obama has remained silent this attack? Especially Private Long’s family, as they deal with their tragic loss with no phone call from the White House? Not to mention what it says to their fellow soldiers…What kind of impact is this having on them? I can only imagine… I know it’s having a pretty big impact on a whole bunch of us who care about terrorists attacks on our own soil of those who have given their lives in service to this country…And I do know that many of us extend out hearts and prayers to all of them, the families, the other soldiers, and the people of Little Rock.

The difference between the treatment and coverage of the murders of Dr. Tiller and Pvt. Long is getting some notice, though:

I hope that Obama will wait no longer to extend his sympathies to Pvt. Long’s family. But I’m not holding my breath…And that’s just sad.

* By the way, Obama has claimed that our country has one of the largest Muslim populations in the world. This is laughable on the face of it, but if you want to read the actual statistics, and a great post on this topic as well as Obama’s latest Magical Mystery Tour, I recommend LisaB’s, “When Is ‘Hussein’ Not A Smear? When Obama Say’s It’s Not, OF Course.” I won’t keep you in suspense – we are nowhere CLOSE to having the largest Muslim population in the world. We have about 2.3 million Muslims here, nowhere NEAR as many as a number of other countries.

For today’s A.P. story, “Obama draws praise, but piracy escalation feared,” Larry Johnson was telephoned and interviewed extensively by London-based A.P. reporter Gregory Katz:

[...]

Some military strategists believe it may ultimately be necessary to attack the pirates’ base in Somalia, much as the British used to do two centuries ago. But few have the appetite for another land operation in Somalia, where a U.S. military foray in the early 1990s ended in humiliation. And the cost in civilian casualties would likely be extremely high, some warn.

“That would be nuts,” said Larry Johnson, a former CIA agent and State Department counterterrorism specialist. “These people are not organized into any military force, they are intermingled with women and children. You’re talking about wiping out villages.”

He said the U.S. action—and a French attack a few days earlier on a pirate-held yacht with hostages on board—were corrective measures that did not solve the underlying problem.

“When you allow a bunch of Somali clans to grab their weapons and head to sea and collect millions of dollars in ransom, you can’t be surprised when it gets out of control,” he said. “You need an international coalition, with all the countries that have flag ships, to make it impossible for the pirates to get in a boat and leave the shore. Otherwise the ships will continue to be sitting ducks.”

Johnson has in the past criticized Obama as inexperienced, but he said the new commander in chief deserves credit for using established national security procedures to deal with the crisis while refraining from making comments that would have inflamed the situation.

“He stepped back and let the professionals do what they are supposed to do,” Johnson said. “Since the 1980s we’ve built national security doctrine for how to handle these matters, and Obama allowed these procedures to operate.”

Charles Heyman, a defense specialist and former British army officer, said the Obama administration showed its resolve by refusing pay ransom for Phillips’ release.

“That would have been disastrous,” he said. “America would have been a laughingstock and we really don’t need that.”

But he said history shows pirates can only be defeated if nations unite, which is not happening.

“As long as governments don’t come together and defeat it, it goes on like a plague,” he said. “People have to be very, very tough with this.”

The U.S. rescue effort was a clear success in tactical terms, but Vice Adm. Bill Gortney, commander of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command, warned that it could lead to increased violence in the region. … Read all.

h/t American Girl In Italy

Susan’s Update here: THIS IS UNCONSCIONABLE BEHAVIOR BY THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. Way to rally the troops, Obama!

Talk about leading with your chin. Heck of a job, you loser. (This is NOT to say that we don’t all realize that things aren’t going well in Afghanistan and won’t ever go well when we’re dealing with people who live in the 4th century. BUT, BY GOD, a COMMANDER NEVER SAYS THIS OUT LOUD, TO HIS TROOPS as well as the American people!!!)

The right blogs have the correct reaction to the story:

• “PRESIDENT SCARY WILL SURRENDER TO TALIBAN
  US CAPITULATES TO ISLAMIC DOMINATION,” Atlas Shrugs
• “It Has Begun: Obama Announces He Is Open to Appeasing Taliban …Update: Hamas & Hezbollah Too?,” Gateway Pundit

MORE from Gateway Pundit, which caught the story from Astute Bloggers:

Gee, they only harbored the terrorists behind the 9-11 attacks. What could go wrong?

In a shocking move Barack Obama announced today that he was open to appeasing the anti-American Taliban fundamentalists. …

LisaB’s story: Look what the NYT has today.

President Obama declared in an interview that the United States was not winning the war in Afghanistan and opened the door to a reconciliation process in which the American military would reach out to moderate elements of the Taliban, much as it did with Sunni militias in Iraq.

The NYT had an interview with Obama aboard Air Force One and the article mentions the financial crisis, health care and Afghanistan. Apparently that was not enough, so after that interview, BO called reporters back.

After the interview, which took place as the president was flying home from Ohio, he called reporters from the Oval Office to assert that his actions have been “entirely consistent with free-market principles” and to point out that large-scale government intervention in the markets and expansion of social welfare programs began under President George W. Bush.
———–
The president spoke at length about the struggle with terrorism in Afghanistan and elsewhere, staking out positions that at times seemed more comparable to those of his predecessor than many of Mr. Obama’s more liberal supporters would like. He did not rule out the option of snatching terrorism suspects out of hostile countries.

Asked if the United States was winning in Afghanistan, a war he effectively adopted as his own last month by ordering an additional 17,000 troops sent there, Mr. Obama replied flatly, “No.”

And to those people who expected those celestial choirs and happiness?

Mr. Obama signaled that those on the left seeking a wholesale reversal of Mr. Bush’s detainee policy might be disappointed. Mr. Obama said that by the time he got into office, the Bush administration had taken “steps to correct certain policies and procedures after those first couple of years” after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Oh yeah, but since he won’t change things, he’ll just say the “other guy” made the necessary changes already. Oh, wait. Not the “other guy,” but the other guy’s minions.

When discussing the economy, BO has his own “go shopping” moment.

“What I don’t think people should do is suddenly stuff money in their mattresses and pull back completely from spending,” he said.

And, of course, in a total non sequitur, BO mentions . . . . . . blogs.

Mr. Obama rode to the White House partly on his savvy use of new technology, and he has a staff-written blog on his presidential Web site. Even so, he said he did not find blogs to be reliable, citing the economy as one example.

I guess BO doesn’t tweet and everything he says is COMPLETELY reliable.

Not.