Good grief.

Thanks heavens some US Senators are speaking out about this incredibly sanitized, downright false characterization of Major Hasan’s intentions when he began to shoot down unarmed soldiers in the name of Allah. Here is more on this issue:

Sen. Susan Collins on Wednesday blasted the Defense Department for classifying the Fort Hood massacre as workplace violence and suggested political correctness is being placed above the security of the nation’s Armed Forces at home.

During a joint session of the Senate and House Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday, the Maine Republican referenced a letter from the Defense Department depicting the Fort Hood shootings as workplace violence. She criticized the Obama administration for failing to identify the threat as radical Islam.

Thirteen people were killed and dozens more wounded at Fort Hood in 2009, and the number of alleged plots targeting the military has grown significantly since then. Lawmakers said there have been 33 plots against the U.S. military since Sept. 11, 2001, and 70 percent of those threats have been since mid-2009. Major Nidal Hasan, a former Army psychiatrist, who is being held for the attacks, allegedly was inspired by radical U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen in late September. The two men exchanged as many as 20 emails, according to U.S. officials, and Awlaki declared Hasan a hero.

It is just mind boggling that our government is attempting to sanitize to the point of absurdity the horrific attack by Major Hasan at Fort Hood. Senator Collins is correct, this is taking political correctness to an extreme that is downright dangerous.

And that denial is dangerous not just to the nation, but to our military, specifically:

The chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Connecticut independent Sen. Joe Lieberman, said the military has become a “direct target of violent Islamist extremism” within the United States.

“The stark reality is that the American service member is increasingly in the terrorists’ scope and not just overseas in a traditional war setting,” Lieberman told Fox News before the start of Wednesday’s hearing.

In June, two men allegedly plotted to attack a Seattle, Wash., military installation using guns and grenades. In July, Army Pvt. Naser Abdo was accused of planning a second attack on Fort Hood. And in November, New York police arrested Jose Pimentel, who alleged sought to kill service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. (Click here to read the rest.)

And yet, knowing this, our government, in their infinite wisdom (cough, choke), has decided to redefine radical Islamic attacks as “workplace violence.” Wow. This is up there with Napolitano’s “man made disasters” term. But both are disingenuous at best, and deliberately misleading at worse.

Of course, radical Islam is not the whole of Islam, but to deny its existence in this country is doing a tremendous disservice to those killed at 9/11, those killed at Fort Hood, those killed at bases overseas, those killed in the attack on the USS Cole, and so, so many more instances too numerous to mention here. Why our government seems more concerned with insulting these groups than naming them for what they are is just beyond me. This revisionist history must stop, and must stop now. Call it what it is by name. Nothing less will do.

I, for one, am very glad this law will no longer be on the books. It is about time our LGB Americans are able to serve openly without fear of reprisal should their private life be found out. No one should have to hide who they are for fear of being stripped of their position, of their vocation (for some), of their income, simply because of who it is they love. This is long, long overdue.

But for some in the community, this change comes to late. One such person is Lt. Dan Choi, a decorated war veteran, and graduate of West Point. Lt. Choi was dismissed because of his sexuality. It was a tremendous loss for our Army, and for Lt. Choi, who was willing to serve his nation, and did, with great distinction.

And now, Lt. Choi is considering throwing his support not to Barack Obama, but to former governor, Gary Johnson:

Choi, who in 2010 was arrested for chaining himself to the fence of the White House in protest, told The Daily Caller in an email, “I lost significant trust in Obama and his fawning gay elites in the wake of recent homophobic court appeals and election-induced double-talk.”

Choi’s frustration with the president’s apparent lack of interest in the policy’s repeal during the lame duck session of Congress has been compounded by administration appeals of court decisions that have ordered an immediate end to the policy’s enforcement.

[...]

Choi has ruled out supporting Minnesota Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann, who he said “foolishly aids the Obama camp in making a cartoonish parody” of Republicans.[snip]

Interesting. I admit, I do not know much about Gary Johnson, but I certainly share Choi’s frustration with Obama. I am pretty tired of people acting like he is all that for the LGBT community when his DOJ has repeatedly upheld DOMA, for instance, not as a matter of law, but by characterizing gay people as perverts. For Obama to now say he supports a bill by Sen. Feinstein to repeal DOMA is just laughable. That’s an easy thing for him to say – costs him nothing. But those of us who have been paying attention know what his Administration has done to keep it in place.

In much the same way, Obama has done NOTHING to abolish DADT. He didn’t push for it, others did. He merely paid some lip service when it was politically expedient for him to do so. Like all of a sudden having the Certification to end DADT coming as his numbers continue to decline. What a coincidence, huh? Yeah, I didn’t think so, either.

But Lt. Choi didn’t stop there:

[snip]“There are some very appealing candidates such as Governor Gary Johnson and others who are much better than Obama on civil rights,” Choi said. “Our community is too often manipulated by homophobic Democrats; I see very little difference when being manipulated by homophobic Republicans,” Choi said. “One group is openly vile while the other remains closeted towards the same objective: political exploitation.” (Gary Johnson assails conservative Iowa group’s marriage pact.)

[...]

“Our community is too often manipulated by homophobic Democrats; I see very little difference when being manipulated by homophobic Republicans,” Choi said. “One group is openly vile while the other remains closeted towards the same objective: political exploitation.” (Click here to read the rest.)

Ain’t that the truth. We are the newest political football – whee!

I never expected Obama to do anything for this community anyway. As I have written numerous times, the people whom he has counted as close friends, like IL Senator, the Reverend James Meeks, or campaigned with, like Donnie McClurkin, are not exactly gay-friendly (that is a massive understatement – they are both unbelievably homophobic). Quite the opposite, in fact. Still, it is nice to see people like Lt. Choi realizing Obama is no friend to us – unless it helps his poll numbers, that is…

In any event, at long, long last, in 60 days, all Americans will be able to serve equally, without fear of reprisal. This is no small thing. Having to hide something so fundamental, so integral, is soul-sucking stuff. It is a horrible thing to do to another human being, and it sure shouldn’t have been institutionalized in our military.

It will be a good day, indeed, when this is behind us…

Pakistan had received about $1.9 billion in military assistance from the U.S. in fiscal 2010, which ended Sept. 30, including about $300 million in grants to buy U.S. defense equipment.

U.S. officials hoped the new aid could effectively eliminate Pakistan’s objections that it doesn’t have the equipment needed to launch more operations in the tribal areas.

By July 2011, the U.S. had taken unilateral actions to kill Osama bin Laden and a number of different high level targets through drone strikes. The apparent non-cooperation or push back from the Pakistan military to attack al Qaeda operatives in the northern areas angered U.S. lawmakers. Meanwhile, relations between the two countries soured and hit all-time low — or did they?

Despite the anger expressed by Washington lawmakers, a bill to freeze the $2 billion aid package to Pakistan failed to pass Congress. Now comes news that the Obama administration, in an attempt to appear tough on the Pakistan military, has canceled $800 million of the said aid, purportedly to persuade Islamabad to do far more to combat terrorism.

This cancellation might satisfy Pakistan’s critics, most of whom pushed the administration to press Pakistan to fight militants effectively. But at some point the U.S. has to decide whether paying the Pakistan military is helpful or not. When the aid was initially approved, officials from both the U.S. and Pakistan rejected the notion that the military assistance was a quid pro quo, arguing that they are trying to build a partnership, not cut a deal.

Subtract $800 million from $2 billion and what’s left is the partnership.

The military aid was approved to pressure Pakistan to start operations against militants in the northern areas, which it did not. Now at the time when this aid is being “canceled,” the Pakistani military has already launched a full-fledged operation in central Kurram Agency.

The cancellation of the $800 million plays well in an election year. The American public has grown increasingly concerned about the deteriorating economic situation in the U.S.; add to that the perception that the Pakistan army is less than honest about its sincerity to fight terrorism. The fact of the matter is that the U.S. had no option but to cancel this military aid, which funds the military equipment and the U.S. trainers that Pakistan military refused to accept.

In simple words, the U.S. was not going to hand this amount to Pakistan in cash. The aid is being held back because of training cutbacks including intelligence, surveillance, arms and ammunition and other support equipment. The U.S. had to spend this on its own soldiers, and its own equipment. Since the Pakistan military refused to budge, the U.S. has this money as a little flag on its ledger.

This explains why the Pakistan military announced that suspension of aid would not affect its ongoing campaign against militants in the tribal areas.

The “pause in the military aid,” as the Pakistan ambassador to the U.S. puts it, or “delay” as the U.S. defense department called it, does include a $300 million reimbursement, but the Pakistan army can take advantage of this non-payment to fan the flames of anti-Americanism by claiming that the U.S. is not a reliable partner. This is an $800 million game that Pakistan played, putting the U.S. in a situation where it is left with no option but to follow.

President Lyndon Johnson once asked, “Did you ever think that making a speech on economics is a lot like pissing down your leg?” Then answered, “It seems hot to you, but it never does to anyone else.” It seems that in this case, this situation has reversed and it seems hot to everyone else but to you.

So why did Charlie Brown keep trying? To quote Samuel Johnson, Charlie Brown’s determination was an example of the triumph of hope over experience.

Like the relationship between the United States and Pakistan for the last 60 years.

Following 1947″s bloody partition from India, Pakistan followed a more pro-Western policy whereas the Indian government defined its foreign policy as more leftist. Diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Pakistan were established shortly after Pakistan’s independence. In May of 1950, Prime Minister Liquiat Ali Khan made the first state visit to the United States, stopping in New York, Washington, Houston and Kansas City. The prime minister was seeking financial and military assistance. The U.S. did not see the usefulness of a strong relationship with Pakistan and her interests in Pakistan were limited.

1954 marked a turning point in the history of relations between the two countries, as the U.S. began providing Pakistan with military aid, which would increase over the years. It was in the same decade that Pakistan experienced its first military coup, when its Army Chief Ayub Khan took power in 1958.

It was at that point that the football, in the form of aid, support of civilian government and cooperation in the war on terror entered the picture. Over the years, the U.S. and Pakistan’s relationship would improve and worsen in increasingly dramatic cycles.

The U.S. refused to provide military assistance to Pakistan during the 1965 Indo-Pakistani War. In April of 1979 the United States suspended all economic assistance to Pakistan (with the exception of food assistance) over concerns about Pakistan’s nuclear program.

The tide shifted in 1981, when Pakistan and the United States agreed on a $3.2 billion military and economic assistance program aimed at helping Pakistan deal with the heightened threat to security in the region and its economic development needs. With U.S. assistance — in the largest covert operation in history — Pakistan armed and supplied anti-Soviet fighters in Afghanistan. Weapons flowed through Pakistan to arm the mujaheddin through General Zia Ul-Haq, another military dictator who rose to power through a coup.

But the relationship’s cracks were becoming more obvious. As Lawrence Wright wrote in his New Yorker piece “U.S. Support for Pakistan: A Long Messy History;”

At the same time, Zia began giving support to an Islamist organization, Jamaat-e-Islami, the forerunner of many more radical groups to come. In November, a mob of Jamaat followers, inflamed by a rumor that the U.S. and Israel were behind an attack on the Grand Mosque, in Mecca, burned the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad to the ground, killing two Americans and two Pakistani employees. The American romance with Pakistan was over, but the marriage was just about to begin.

After 9/11, Pakistan, led by General Pervez Musharraf, reversed course under pressure from the United States and joined the “War on Terror” as a U.S. ally. This alliance began rather dramatically. According to Musharraf’s biography, In the Line of Fire, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage threatened to “bomb Pakistan into the stone age” if the country didn’t get with the program. It was an “offer” that Pakistan was in no position to refuse. General Musharraf was strongly supported by the Bush administration.

In return for their support, Pakistan has received about $10 billion in U.S. aid since 2001, primarily military.

Where did the money go? According to Military Inc., by Ayesha Siddiqa, Pakistan’s army, which has never won a war, found creative ways to take advantage of Western largesse, investing in hotels, real estate, and shopping malls. According to a 2008 GAO report, more than a third of U.S. funds provided Pakistan since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were subject to accounting problems, including duplication and possible fraud.

And then there’s the thorny topic of A.Q. Khan, the father of the “Islamic Bomb.” While Khan was operating a nuclear bazaar, the government of Pakistan argued that if there had been wrongdoing, it had occurred without the military’s knowledge or approval. Critics noted that virtually all of Khan’s overseas travels, to Iran, Libya, North Korea, Niger, Mali, and the Middle East, were on Pakistan government aircraft.

Then comes Osama saga.

For decades, the United States has made the mistake of equating “Pakistan” with its army and supporting military governments. The U.S., in the role of Lucy, has turned aid into a football. Unlike Charlie Brown, the Pakistani people, who do not benefit from this aid, have stopped trusting Lucy.

Meanwhile, Pakistan has also played the role of Lucy, offering assistance in the war on terror. While Pakistan has been helpful and the country’s people have suffered immeasurably as a result of brutal and ongoing terrorist attacks, the army and the ISI, like Lucy, have at times been too clever by half. Despite outward signs that aid will continue to flow to Pakistan’s military, there are growing signs that the U.S. is tired of playing the Charlie Brown role.

Charlie Brown never stopped trying to kick the football. Hope triumphed over experience. Can the same be said for the future of U.S. – Pak relations?

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.

I had another post all ready to go this morning of Lara Logan’s interview on “60 Minutes,” but that can keep until tomorrow. Today, the big news, as President Obama announced late last night, Osama bin Laden has been killed.

The reports have been a bit conflicting on just how he died, however. Initially, reports stated he had been killed by a drone attack last week, and that they had kept his body to determine through DNA analysis that it was indeed him.

Obama’s statement to the nation, though, claimed that he had (reaffirmed) the order to the CIA to get bin Laden (Bush initially gave the order), and that bin Laden was killed yesterday. Now we are told it was a Navy Seal who took him down, on a mission aided by CIA intel, as well as information gleamed from Khalid Sheik Muhammad at Gitmo. Apparently, the Pakistanis aided the US in this mission as well.

Following are excerpts of Obama’s remarks on this historic event (and I am glad he was finally able to use the word, “terrorist,” since it was one he and his Administration have worked hard not to use. Ahem.):

“Tonight, I can report to the American people and to the world that the United States has conducted an operation that killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda, and a terrorist who’s responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men, women, and children.

“It was nearly 10 years ago that a bright September day was darkened by the worst attack on the American people in our history. The images of 9/11 are seared into our national memory — hijacked planes cutting through a cloudless September sky; the Twin Towers collapsing to the ground; black smoke billowing up from the Pentagon; the wreckage of Flight 93 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, where the actions of heroic citizens saved even more heartbreak and destruction.

“And yet we know that the worst images are those that were unseen to the world. The empty seat at the dinner table. Children who were forced to grow up without their mother or their father. Parents who would never know the feeling of their child’s embrace. Nearly 3,000 citizens taken from us, leaving a gaping hole in our hearts.

“On September 11, 2001, in our time of grief, the American people came together. We offered our neighbors a hand, and we offered the wounded our blood. We reaffirmed our ties to each other, and our love of community and country. On that day, no matter where we came from, what God we prayed to (emphasis mine – you knew it was coming, right?), or what race or ethnicity we were, we were united as one American family.

“We were also united in our resolve to protect our nation and to bring those who committed this vicious attack to justice. We quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda — an organization headed by Osama bin Laden, which had openly declared war on the United States and was committed to killing innocents in our country and around the globe. And so we went to war against al Qaeda to protect our citizens, our friends, and our allies.

“Over the last 10 years, thanks to the tireless and heroic work of our military and our counterterrorism professionals, we’ve made great strides in that effort. We’ve disrupted terrorist attacks and strengthened our homeland defense. In Afghanistan, we removed the Taliban government, which had given bin Laden and al Qaeda safe haven and support. And around the globe, we worked with our friends and allies to capture or kill scores of al Qaeda terrorists, including several who were a part of the 9/11 plot.

“Yet Osama bin Laden avoided capture and escaped across the Afghan border into Pakistan. Meanwhile, al Qaeda continued to operate from along that border and operate through its affiliates across the world.

“And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network.

“Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by our intelligence community, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan. And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice.

“Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability. No Americans were harmed. They took care to avoid civilian casualties. After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body.

I admit, while watching this, I was waiting for Obama to say, “I just returned from Pakistan where I, personally, took out Osama bin Laden, with the help of our military. And you thought George Bush was a cowboy. He doesn’t have anything on me.” Sorry, but there were just a few too many “I”‘s in there for someone who has downplayed the whole issue of terrorism.

Yes, he gave the command to proceed, which is good. Yet many are acting as if this is showing great leadership on his part, while to me, it seems like a no-brainer. I mean, really – have our expectations of him sunk so low that the opportunity to take out this mastermind of terror is seen as a sign of “leadership”? Wow.

Back to the comments:

“For over two decades, bin Laden has been al Qaeda’s leader and symbol, and has continued to plot attacks against our country and our friends and allies. The death of bin Laden marks the most significant achievement to date in our nation’s effort to defeat al Qaeda.

“Yet his death does not mark the end of our effort. There’s no doubt that al Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us. We must — and we will — remain vigilant at home and abroad.

“As we do, we must also reaffirm that the United States is not — and never will be — at war with Islam. I’ve made clear, just as President Bush did shortly after 9/11, that our war is not against Islam. Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader; he was a mass murderer of Muslims. Indeed, al Qaeda has slaughtered scores of Muslims in many countries, including our own. So his demise should be welcomed by all who believe in peace and human dignity.

Hillary Clinton just made the point that bin Laden killed many Muslims, too, just as Obama did, and that bin Laden had made threats against Pakistanis themselves. One can make of that what one will…

More from Obama:

[snip] “Tonight, I called President Zardari, and my team has also spoken with their Pakistani counterparts. They agree that this is a good and historic day for both of our nations. And going forward, it is essential that Pakistan continue to join us in the fight against al Qaeda and its affiliates.

“The American people did not choose this fight. It came to our shores, and started with the senseless slaughter of our citizens. After nearly 10 years of service, struggle, and sacrifice, we know well the costs of war. These efforts weigh on me every time I, as Commander-in-Chief, have to sign a letter to a family that has lost a loved one, or look into the eyes of a service member who’s been gravely wounded.

“So Americans understand the costs of war. Yet as a country, we will never tolerate our security being threatened, nor stand idly by when our people have been killed. We will be relentless in defense of our citizens and our friends and allies. We will be true to the values that make us who we are. And on nights like this one, we can say to those families who have lost loved ones to al Qaeda’s terror: Justice has been done.

“Tonight, we give thanks to the countless intelligence and counterterrorism professionals who’ve worked tirelessly to achieve this outcome. The American people do not see their work, nor know their names. But tonight, they feel the satisfaction of their work and the result of their pursuit of justice.

“We give thanks for the men who carried out this operation, for they exemplify the professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage of those who serve our country. And they are part of a generation that has borne the heaviest share of the burden since that September day.

“Finally, let me say to the families who lost loved ones on 9/11 that we have never forgotten your loss, nor wavered in our commitment to see that we do whatever it takes to prevent another attack on our shores.[snip]

There is a bit more to this speech, and you can click here to read it.

Can I just say, though, listening and watching Obama last night really puts a lie to the meme that he is such a great speaker. He isn’t. His speech was stilted and halting, with a number of mistakes as he read the teleprompter. It was blatantly clear that he was – you could watch his eyes move.

I am confused as to why they chose to bury bin Laden at sea, and so quickly. I would have thought they would want to perform an autopsy, recover the bullet that killed him, see if he really was ill, all of that. So that choice is interesting to me. Why the rush to dispose of him? Oh, wait – here is why – it is in keeping with Islamic tradition.

Huh? Okay, so Obama makes it crystal clear that bin Laden was not a Muslim leader. However, we do know he was the leader of Al Qaeda, a Muslim organization, but alright. Interesting distinction Obama (and Clinton) are making here. Still,we finally get this mass murderer, we have his body, and we forgo obtaining some answers to uphold his religious tradition? Wow. What do you think about that? Is it an attempt to stave off more attacks?

If so, that is a bit misguided. We KNOW there will be reprisals from Al Qaeda as a result,as Leon Panetta has acknowledged we can expect. Honestly, these people are bound and determined to get us anyway, so taking out this one man who has caused so much damage to our great nation is a reason to be thankful, even if one abhors violence, or killing for any reason.

Bringing justice to this man who has done so much damage to our nation as a result of the tireless efforts of our intelligence community and our highly trained military, is a good day. Thanks to all of those who have worked to this end, though it is not an end to the war on terrorism. Bin Laden may be gone, but there are others out there wishing us harm. Our military and intelligence officers continue to have their work cut out for them, regardless of Obama taking the credit for this, it belongs, IMHO, to those who were on the ground. Well done.

There is a video I want to share with you. It is an impromptu celebration at Ground Zero after learning of bin Laden’s demise. This pretty much says it all, though there are many good videos out there of interviews with family members of those lost on 9/11, and first responders. I urge you to take a look and listen when you have time. Until then, I leave you with this:

UPDATE: A few of you have been kind enough to provide links regarding why Osama bin Laden was buried at sea. Here are the pertinent facts:

[snip] The official described the procedure to NBC News as follows:

* The deceased’s body was washed and then placed in a white sheet.
* The body was placed in a weighted bag.
* A military officer read prepared religious remarks that were translated into Arabic by a native speaker.
* After the words were complete, the body was placed on a prepared flat board, tipped up, whereupon the deceased’s body eased into the sea from the USS Carl Vinson.

The rites sparked a debate about Islamic customs, with some Muslim clerics calling the procedure humiliating and others saying it was proper.

A U.S. official said that the burial decision was made after concluding that it would have been difficult to find a country willing to accept the remains. There also was speculation about worry that a grave site could have become a rallying point for militants.

President Barack Obama said the remains had been handled in accordance with Islamic custom, which requires speedy burial. [snip]

Okay, so there weren’t a lot of countries willing to accept his body. There is cremation, after all.

And how do you feel that so much care was taken to prepare his body according to Islamic tradition? Wow…

No, I don’t mean whatever flu or cold this is going around right now. I mean what is happening to a number of our women who serve their country in the military.

This is a disheartening result, and is a stain on the honor of those who serve. And that would be this – there is an epidemic of rape and sexual assault against (primarily) women in the Armed Services.

But some of these women are fighting back, as this article highlights
Gates, Rumsfeld Sued Over U.S. Military’s Rape Epidemic:

A landmark lawsuit filed Tuesday against Defense Secretary Robert Gates and his predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld, alleges that the military’s repeated failures to take action in rape cases created a culture where violence against women was tolerated, violating the plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights.

“There are three types of women in the Army,” says Rebecca Havrilla, a former sergeant and explosive-ordnance-disposal technician. “Bitch, dyke, and whore.” During the four years that Havrilla was on active duty, she was called all three—by fellow soldiers, team leaders, even unit commanders. Once, during a sexual-assault prevention training, the 28-year-old South Carolina native claims, she watched a fellow soldier—male—strip naked and dance on top of a table as the rest of the team laughed. While deployed in Afghanistan, Havrilla spent four months working under a man she alleges bit her neck, pulled her into his bed, and grabbed her butt and waist—on a daily basis. When, on the last day of her deployment, she alleges she was raped by a soldier she considered a friend, it was, she says, “the icing on the cake.”

But Havrilla calls herself lucky: the end of her military commitment was in sight. In other cases, soldiers have had to keep fighting alongside, or even under, the person who assaulted them; been ostracized by their units for reporting an attack; or, as another woman says, simply “shoved to the side.” Havrilla and 16 others are now plaintiffs in a class action suit filed Tuesday against Defense Secretary Robert Gates and his predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld, alleging that their failure to act amounted to a violation of the plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights. The suit, brought by Washington, D.C. attorney Susan Burke, and filed in the Eastern Virginia federal court, charges that despite ample evidence of the problem, both Gates and Rumsfeld “ran institutions in which perpetrators were promoted; … in which Plaintiffs and other victims were openly subject to retaliation… and ordered to keep quiet.” The plaintiffs, in turn, have been “directly and seriously injured by Defendants’ actions and omissions.” “It’s shocking,” the case’s lead investigator, Keith Rohman, tells The Daily Beast. “And it’s just hard to understand why they’ve held off. Families all over America send their young men and women to serve and they do that at tremendous personal risk and danger. But this is not a risk that those families want to assume.”

Nor is it a risk they SHOULD assume. Too often, these perpetrators get off scot-free, with the victims further victimized by the very institution they serve.

I have to say, while reading about this lawsuit, and seeing what has happened to these women at the hands of their commanding officers and/or colleagues, often resulting in their dismissal, I am reminded of the story of the 14 year old Bangladeshi girl, raped by her uncle, and then charged with adultery. It is a matter of degrees. The woman is still blamed, and still bears the brunt of both the assault, and loss of vocation, employment, or career (in the matter of the Bangladeshi girl, she lost her life after being lashed to death).

But I am getting ahead of myself. This kind of treatment of women has been going on for a while, but it is getting worse, not better:

[snip] Meanwhile, the numbers continue to rise. In 2009 reported sexual assaults went up 11 percent, according to Department of Defense statistics, with one in three women reporting having been sexually violated while serving in the military. The Pentagon itself admits that reported incidents probably represent just 20 percent of those that actually occur. Female recruits are now far more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed in combat. But women aren’t the only victims; statistics from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs indicate that more than half of those who screen positive for Military Sexual Trauma are men.

“The military is so focused on operational readiness that all these other issues can be labeled ‘minor.’ But the fact of the matter is, it’s destroying the military internally.”

Even when rape cases are reported, the ACLU finds that only 8 percent of them are prosecuted—the civilian system prosecutes 40 percent of alleged perpetrators—and the military trials are often stunningly mishandled. Prosecutors in a case brought by Christine Smith—a civilian who was says that in 2006 she was raped by a man serving in the airborne division—said that they’d lost her underwear, so didn’t introduce it as evidence. But after the soldier was acquitted Smith received a phone call saying she could come retrieve the underwear from the military investigative office.

Oh, dear goddess. That is a staggeringly low percentage. But to first claim evidence was lost to then offer to return it post-trial is the height of callous disregard. What is worse, there is little one can do:

In such cases, the plaintiff has little recourse. “For lots of reasonable historical bases, the military has a level of civil immunity in our society which is quite high,” investigator Rohman says. “There’s a downside to that: their lack of external accountability means that they have not had to adjust in the way the rest of society has.” In particular, a 1950 Supreme Court ruling, known as the Feres Doctrine, places the military beyond the reach of workplace laws regarding sexual discrimination and sexual harassment. To make matters worse, charges are usually investigated within the immediate chain of command. “There’s no investigatory training. They don’t tell you to look for evidence,” says Greg Jacob, who spent 10 years in the Marines and rose to the rank of captain. Instead, they hand over a manual for courts martial, which explains, among other things, that the investigating officer should consider, first and foremost, “the character and military service of the accused.” Jacob says that essentially means weighing each soldier’s past and future value to the unit. “It’s an HR approach to criminal conduct,” he says. “Military justice imbued me with the ability to be judge and jury. Honestly, I had no idea what to do.”

It was watching the military bungle one such investigation that eventually caused Jacob to leave the service. When a course critique revealed that a senior enlisted marine in his company was systematically assaulting “dozens and dozens” of female trainees, Jacob investigated, got more than 80 corroborations of the behavior, and sent the report up along the chain of command. Less than a week later, the offender was sent to Camp Lejune and subsequently deployed for Iraq. When Jacob asked why he hadn’t been prosecuted, Jacob says he was told, “He’s a good soldier. He just can’t handle an integrated training environment.” In Iraq, the marine was killed, leaving a widow and five children. “If they’d prosecuted him, he would have stayed here and lost some stripes, but not been killed,” Jacob says. “That’s when I decided to get out. I’d been in for ten years. I was a decorated combat Marine. They were going to send me to take a unit to Iraq. But they lost out on all my experience, all the money they’d spent on me. The reach of this problem stretches a long way.” (A spokesperson for the Marine’s Manpower and Reserves Public Affairs office said that she couldn’t comment on individual cases.)

Jacob left the military. Ultimately, Havrilla left as well. Three months after returning to the States she was discharged, having been diagnosed with both combat PTSD and sexual assault PTSD. She’s now living in Missouri and is currently unemployed. She hopes that the lawsuit, and the attention it will receive, will compel the military to start outsourcing sexual assault training. “You’re not going to change hearts and minds overnight,” she says. “Someone who is a misogynistic asshole isn’t going to change their minds because of some PowerPoint presentation. But at that point, at least you can’t claim ignorance. There’s no wishy-washy ‘Oh, it’s just boys being boys.’ If you have a leadership that doesn’t give a shit, nothing’s going to change. It has to start from the top down.” And while the suit seeks significant monetary damages, a payout is neither expected nor entirely the point. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

This is disturbing on so many levels. As noted above, often these victims are victimized repeatedly, through the deliberate lack of action taken, as was the case here:

[snip] In one incident, an Army Reservist says two male colleagues raped her in Iraq and videotaped the attack. She complained to authorities after the men circulated the video to colleagues. Despite being bruised from her shoulders to elbows from being held down, she says charges weren’t filed because the commander determined she “did not act like a rape victim” and “did not struggle enough” and authorities said they didn’t want to delay the scheduled return of the alleged attackers to the United States.

“The problem of rape in the military is not only service members getting raped, but it’s the entire way that the military as a whole is dealing with it,” said Panayiota Bertzikis, who is a plaintiff in the lawsuit and claims she was raped in 2006. “From survivors having to be involuntarily discharged from service, the constant verbal abuse, once a survivor does come forward your entire unit is known to turn their back on you. The entire culture needs to be changed.” [snip]

Indeed, the culture does need to be changed, though it is too late for these women, whose victimization continues through the “trial,” or the threat or actual loss of career, as was the case for Kori Cioca:

[snip] Even though the man confessed to having sex with her, Cioca said in the lawsuit she was told if she pressed forward with reporting the sex as a rape, she would be court-martialed for lying. She said the man pleaded guilty only to hitting her and his punishment was a minor loss of pay and being forced to stay on the base for 30 days. She said she was discharged from the military for a “history of inappropriate relationships.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Court-martialed for “lying.” So, not only was she assaulted by this man physically, but sexually as well, and SHE as the one court-martialed. There is something seriously, seriously wrong with this.

Here is Ms. Cioca detailing what happened to her:

“It wasn’t important. I wasn’t important.”

I don’t know about you, but I need a minute after watching this video. Wow.

That is one helluva message for the military to be sending to women. Now you know, I appreciate those who are willing to serve their country, and have a nephew now serving his 3rd tour in the Middle East. But this kind of behavior is systemic, and must be addressed as such. Anyone willing to give of themselves in service to the country deserves to know that the very people in their unit are not going to assault them. And if they DO, they must face the consequences in a sober, serious, meaningful way. Whatever the military is doing now is clearly not working.

I hope these women and men win this lawsuit. But until we, as a nation, are willing to address how women are treated in our country, in our culture, any changes as a result of the lawsuit will be window dressing. As Havrilla said above, “You’re not going to change hearts and minds overnight,” she says. “Someone who is a misogynistic asshole isn’t going to change their minds because of some PowerPoint presentation.” Indeed, we need real, systemic change. Nothing else will do.

It is believed that his cover was blown in retaliation for naming ISI chief Ahamad Shuja Pasha in a US lawsuit by families of 26/11 Mumbai attack victims. The suit asserts that Pasha and other ISI officers were ‘purposefully engaged in the direct provision of material support or resources’ to the planners of the Mumbai attacks.

A similar legal complaint was filed in Pakistan on behalf of Kareem Khan, a resident of North Waziristan who said that his son and brother were killed in a drone strike. Khan was seeking $500 million in compensation, and accusing CIA’s top officer in Pakistan of running a clandestine spying operation out of the United States Embassy.

This locking of horns should have been tackled sensibly. Instead, the confrontation ended up costing CIA an experienced officer. Interestingly, not many Americans known the name of the former CIA station chief, whereas whole of Pakistan is familiar of his name, especially the people in North Waziristan. Yes, North Waziristan, which the US believes is the new haven of militant extremists. 

This is not the first time that the two agencies have engaged in a power struggle. On September 30th this year, a US fighter helicopter crossed into Pakistan airspace and fired on a position occupied by Pakistani soldiers. As a result of this attack, three soldiers were killed and the rest severely injured. 

Hurting an ally came with a huge price for the US when Pakistan halted the flow of NATO supplies into Afghanistan through the Torkham for at least 10 days. It’s not that the trucks were just parked and were driven away after the ban was lifted. The Pakistani agency made sure to set an example and did not guard the trucks. As a result, the trucks were attacked by terrorists. 

These are just two major incidents that happened this year on Pakistan’s home ground, where the CIA, NATO, the Pentagon, the White House and the State Department cannot act without the ISI’s blessing. Its not your turf, but theirs.
Not helping ease relations were notorious incidents such as the threat by an obscure American pastor to burn the Quran, protests against a proposed Islamic Center in New York City and a Pakistani official delegation cutting its trip to United States short because of protocol issues. 

To make matters worse, none of the internecine US-Pakistan clashes were reported properly in the American press. The coverage was either one-sided or full of accusations. The media did cover the NATO trucks blockage, but offered neither context nor an apology for the cause of the attack. It did cover the removal of the CIA spy but did not suggest establishing person-to-person contact rather than strictly military-to-military relations. 

US agencies, whether on or off the ground, have to realize that Pakistan has sacrificed a lot more than it deserves. The Americans at the same time need to know that United States’ presence in Afghanistan has radicalized Pakistanis and turned many of them not only against the West. One count says the Pakistan army has lost more than 3,200 soldiers in recent fighting against Taliban forces along their border with Afghanistan. This does not include the civilians killed by drone attacks or by the suicide bombers.

This little rift between the two agencies is an open secret, and has been going on for years now. Every now and then, the CIA tries to prove that it has more resources and pushes ISI to ‘act as advised’. It needs to bring its ego down a notch, just for the sake of the war which both countries have to win. 

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!

One would expect the Air Force’s top civilian adviser to be someone who has spent some time in the US military or who has a very particular educational or skills set that brings something special to what is, after all, a very senior and sensitive position. Not so. Dr. Lani Kass, who is the senior Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force General Norton A. Schwartz, was born, raised, and educated in Israel and then served in that country’s military where she reached the rank of major. She has a PhD in Russian studies but advises Air Force Generals on Cyberwarfare, terrorism, and the Middle East. And Kass appears to have close and continuing ties to her country of birth, frequently spicing her public statements with comments about life in Israel while parroting simplistic views of the nature of the Islamic threat that might have been scripted in Tel Aviv’s Foreign Ministry.

Kass’ official Air Force bio, which has been expunged from the Pentagon website possibly due to less than flattering commentary regarding her appointment, indicates that since January 2006 she has been “the principal adviser on policy and strategy and formulates, develops, implements, and communicates the policies, programs and goals of the Air Force.” Another official bio adds that she “…conducts numerous complex, high priority special assignments involving research and fact-finding to develop analyses, position and issue papers, and generate new initiatives based on a variety of strategic subjects of critical importance to the Joint Staff and/or the Joint Force.” There have also been suggestions that Kass has recently become an informal adviser to Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on Middle Eastern policy.

Dr. Lani Kass is married to Norman Kass, a former Pentagon Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, and resides in McLean, Virginia. She has been naturalized as a US citizen and is presumably a dual national who now holds both American and Israeli passports. Her three children were all born in Israel. While it is perhaps not unusual for American citizens to volunteer with the Israel Defense Forces as White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel did in 1991, it would have to be considered unprecedented for a senior Israeli military officer to obtain a high level position at the Pentagon. In fact, it is hard to imagine that anyone carrying out a security background investigation would approve such a transition under any circumstances, suggesting the possibility that Kass’s ascent to high office might have been aided or even godfathered by friends in key positions who were able to override or circumvent normal procedures.

Dr. Kass’s full first name is Ilana and her maiden name is Dimant. She has a 1971 BA in political-science and Russian area studies, summa cum laude, from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a 1976 joint PhD from the Kaplan School of the Hebrew University and Columbia University in international affairs. She apparently met her husband Norman at Columbia. Both she and her husband are fluent in Russian and Hebrew. After completing her PhD, she served in the Israeli Air Force, achieving the rank of major. For those who are unfamiliar with the military, the rank of major is a senior rank that normally would be awarded to a career officer.

Between 1979 and 1981, Kass worked at the Russian research Center of Booz Allen and Hamilton. Between 1985 and 2005 she held the position of Professor of Military Strategy and Operations of the National War College. In 1992 Dr. Kass obtained a senior position at the Pentagon as Special Assistant to the Director, Strategic Plans and Policy Directorate (J5). Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense at the time. She returned to the Pentagon under Secretary William Cohen and stayed on during 2000 – 2001 as Senior Policy Adviser and Special Assistant for Strategic Initiatives to the Director, Strategic Plans and Policy Directorate (J5) under Donald Rumsfeld.

In early November 2006, US Air Force officials formed the Air Force Cyberspace Command that had the “authority to launch wars in cyberspace.” The command was reported to be “largely the brainchild of Dr. Lani Kass, director of the Air Force Cyberspace Task Force.”

Dr. Kass’ position and access inevitably raise a number of questions. Her appointment is somewhat unseemly, which even the Air Force appeared to recognize when it removed her bio from the website. Surely there must be qualified Americans who would be both delighted and proud to serve their country in the position she holds. Surely someone in Washington must see the security implications of a former foreign military officer holding a high level post in the Pentagon with full access to classified information. To challenge Dr. Kass’s position is not to question her academic credentials and intelligence or even her ability or integrity, but it is not unreasonable to ask why the Pentagon would appoint to a sensitive position someone who was born, raised, and served at a senior level with the armed forces in a foreign country.

And it is also not unreasonable to stop and consider whether Kass might well be an agent working for the Israeli government, which aggressively spies against the United States. She left Israel and began her journey through the US defense department in 1981, when Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard was still active. Israeli intelligence certainly was then and is now capable of what is referred to in intelligence jargon as a seeding operation in which “a mole” is placed in an innocuous position and expected to rise higher, eventually obtaining access to top secret information and even sometimes winding up in a position in which it is possible to direct policy as a so-called agent of influence. Kass started her ascent by working on Russia for beltway bandit Booz Allen Hamilton, quite likely for completely innocent reasons but also possibly because it was a non-threatening way to ease her entry into the world of government contractors.

In seeking to discover how she wound up where she is now it is fair to ask how exactly she obtained the positions that she has held with the Pentagon and who sponsored her through the bureaucracy. How did she manage to obtain a clearance in spite of the obvious red flags in her background? In light of legitimate security concerns, has she been polygraphed, what questions about her relationship with her former country were asked, and what were her answers? Was any deception indicated? Has she been re-polygraphed recently? This is not intended as harassment or as any accusation against Kass but rather to determine if she has been subject to normal and appropriate security measures. CIA officers are, for example, required to undergo polygraph exams every five years and the questions concentrate on possible unreported relationships with foreign governments.

Critics note that while Kass is genuinely an expert on Russia, she has little background to qualify her as an authority on the currently fashionable Cyberwarfare, where she has somehow turned herself into a major spokesman through mastery of the necessary buzzwords and talking points. Nor does she have any genuine expertise on the Middle East or on terrorism to share with Mullen and others, apart from her own Israeli perspective. Her access to the highest levels of the Air Force also raises the questions of just what is she advising and what does she know? Does she support an air war against Iran, for example, and is she actively promoting that option? Does she know how the Obama Administration will react if Tel Aviv tries to stage a unilateral attack on Iran? Such information would be pure gold for the Israeli government.

There are indications that Dr. Kass is a major player in shaping US security policy. She has been described as a “key participant” in the development of the national strategy for combating terrorism, as well as the national military strategic plan for the Global War on Terrorism. In September 2007, The Times of London reported that she was a leading participant in “Project CHECKMATE, a “highly confidential strategic planning group tasked with ‘fighting the next war’ as tensions rise with Iran” that was “quietly established” by the US Air Force in June 2007 as a “successor to the group that planned the 1991 Gulf War’s air campaign.”

Also per The Times, CHECKMATE “consists of 20-30 top air force officers and defense and cyberspace experts with ready access to the White House, the CIA and other intelligence agencies.” Its director Brigadier-General Lawrence A. Stutzriem and Kass reported directly to General Michael Moseley, at the time chief of staff of the Air Force. The Times cited Defense sources saying, “detailed contingency planning for a possible attack on Iran has been carried out for more than two years.” Regarding Iran operations, Kass was quoted as saying “We can defeat Iran, but are Americans willing to pay the price?”

Dr. Kass is not directly linked to any neoconservative groups but appears to be a kindred spirit, possessing a Manichean world view. Her comment cited above about defeating Iran has a dismissive tone to it, as if she is not identifying as an American herself. And she is also reported to have said “Remember what Israelis tell their children when they cry: ‘Don’t cry — you want to be a paratrooper don’t you?’” Some other public utterances are also revealing, suggesting that if General Schwartz and Admiral Mullen are actually listening to her it is no surprise that some US defense and security policies are largely based on simplistic bumper sticker analysis. In a speech at Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho on July 9, 2007, she said radical Muslims hate the western world because Europe took their dominant political position away and they want it back. To support her claim she produced a map taken from an obscure Jihadi website showing the entire world depicted as the “United States of Islam,” in which everyone will have to follow Sharia Muslim law. Kass likes to use the map as a prop in many of her public appearances. In her speech she explained that Muslims hate western culture and want to dominate the world, adding that because radical Islam has a “culture of death” all those who do not submit to Islam must die, an assertion so absurd that one suspects her political analysis derives from the Free Republic website. She also compared all Americans to sheep and sheepdogs. The former keep their heads down hoping that someone else will be eaten by wolves a.k.a. terrorists while the latter fight back. Kass sees herself as a sheepdog. For her Air Force audience she concluded that the long war against the Islamists will end “when they learn to love their children more than they hate us,” a comment originally attributed to Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir.

Kass’s powerpoint demonstration “A Warfighting Domain,” dated September 26, 2006, is equally scary, and more than a little Strangelovean in its language and appeal. It includes the map of the United States of Islam and defines the “mission” as “to fly and fight in the Air, Space, and Cyberspace.” She boasts “as Airmen we are the nation’s premier multi-dimensional maneuver force, with the agility, reach, speed, stealth, payload, precision, and persistence to deliver global effects at the speed of sound and the speed of light.” Her objective? To “foster a force of 21st century warriors, capable of delivering the full spectrum of kinetic and non-kinetic, lethal and non-lethal effects in the Air, Space, and Cyber domains.”

Dr. Kass the Kremlinologist might have been a dab hand at interpreting the Nomenklatura standing on top of Lenin’s tomb but her embrace of Cyberwar and her comments relating both to terrorism and the state of the Middle East make one wonder how she has ascended to her lofty perch…and equally why she should remain there. Legitimate security concerns about her possible conflicted loyalty and her intentions should have blunted her trajectory long ago. But on the other hand, the global war on terror is so much of a joke that it perhaps needs someone like Dr. Kass to symbolize its absurdity and to launch the US Air Force on a vital new mission replete with lethal warrior-airmen delivering “global effects” at the speed of light. At an estimated cost of $100 billion, one might add. Captain Kirk? Are you ready to beam me up? Things are getting kind of strange down here.

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?

Susan Nieman had an Op-Ed in the New York Times, of all places (what us be sycophants?), telling the REAL deal in her piece, “Change Germans Can’t Believe In.”

In her very good piece Ms. Nieman had this to say:

Barack Obama’s speech in Independence, Mo. (6/30/08)WITH gestures that ranged from a wink to a sneer, most anyone you met here this week volunteered the view that Barack Obama’s visit to Europe caused unprecedented frenzy. But it’s been hard for me to find a European, aside from two Harvard-educated friends in Paris, who confessed to excitement — not just about the visit, but the prospect of an Obama presidency.

It is true that Der Spiegel, the German newsweekly, featured Mr. Obama on its cover, topped by the words “Germany Meets the Superstar” — but the cover was satire, and nasty satire at that. The editors managed to find the ugliest photograph of Mr. Obama ever taken. It caught the senator at a moment that might be exhaustion but looks like conceited smirking. When Der Spiegel featured Mr. Obama on its cover in March, the cover line was “The Messiah Factor.” Must one add that this, too, was not meant to be taken at face value?

Europeans will be as relieved as 72 percent of Americans to see the end of the Bush administration, but their attitudes toward the Democratic candidate are far from being the same as the ones he arouses at home. Mr. Obama makes Europeans uncomfortable.

Well, yes – of course Europeans, and the REST Of the planet, will be relieved when Bush is out of office. One little problem with that – Congress. Most of those Bush Enablers will still be IN office once he is gone. And heaven knows, they have done BLESSED little to rein him in. Nope – rather, they have gone along with just about every single thing he has requested, including shredding the Constitution, and I don’t just mean with the recent FISA debacle. Anywho, more than Bush need to leave office before there is REAL change: Pelosi, Hoyer, Reid, Dodd, Kerry, Leahy, to name just a very, very few, but I digress…

From our media, would you have ever gotten that the Berliners were anything less than thrilled, or that the Der Spiegel cover was a SATIRE?? Um, no. No, you wouldn’t. I don’t know about you, but I am pretty damn sick and tired of the media manipulating us to promote Obama. Sick of it. And I am not overstating the Berlin case. Here’s a little more:

In Germany, politicians in front of large, shouting crowds evoke images that nobody wants to see repeated. But genuine worries about demagoguery are not all that’s at issue. The mocking undertone that accompanies most descriptions of Mr. Obama in the European news media signifies a trans-Atlantic divide. George W. Bush made matters far worse than they ever were, but the neoconservatives who advised him were right about one thing: Europe is gripped by a world-weariness that resists American dreams.

There’s more, particularly about Obama’s speech and from where he drew his “inspiration, ” but you can go read about it if you wish. The point is that it was not all a bed of roses for Obama, despite the attempts to paint it otherwise (remember how when Obama went to Iraq, all of the newspapers were blaring how the Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki supported his plan?? Then come to find out, not so much, but they did not blare THAT correction, oh no…).

And to address this whole US Military Hospital in Landstuhl that Obama did not visit, since I am talking about Germany. He is now claiming that it was the Department of Defense that derailed his big plan to go visit our wounded soldiers there. I guess in a sense, they did – they said that he could go as a SENATOR, but not as a CANDIDATE. He could take a few of his staff, but not his entire entourage of staff and press. That is to say, he could not use a visit to the wounded warriors as a freakin’ PHOTO OP for his campaign. How DARE they!!! So, instead of going to see them, as a US Senator, he went and worked out in the Ritz Carlton hotel where he was staying. Oh, if I was in the military, that would sure make ME want him as my Commander in Chief – NOT!!!!

And now, for more smoke and mirrors. By now, you have probably heard that Obama is considering yet another Republican to be his running mate. Before I get to that, allow me to digress – again – by bringing up Chuck Hagel, whose name was ALSO floated as a potential Obama VP choice. Hagel, the one who accompanied Obama on his “fact-finding” tour and demurred to him all along the way, even though HAGEL has actually been in the Senate for a while. But wait, there’s more – Hagel is one of the owners of Diebold. You know, as in the Diebold VOTING MACHINES. As in he won re-election in 2002 with a whopping 83% of the vote. It was unprecedented. Care to take a guess what kinds of voting machines they use in Nebraska?? Well, I imagine it came as a surprise to Ol’ Chuck that the Obama people are looking at another Republican, this time, a woman. Someone who served in BUSH’S administration. Ann Veneman, the Secretary of Agriculture, is the person at whom they are currently looking. Amie Parnes and Ben Smith have written a comprehensive article on her, and the Democrats reaction to this news, in this article, “Obama Considers GOP Running Mate“. Thanks to my buddy, Diamond Tiger, for sending this to me this morning. She warned me to not be drinking anything when I read it – I suggest that to you as well. (There will be more posts on this, to be sure!)

See, here’s the thing. I have long thought that Obama was more Republican than Democratic anyway. When he started praising Ronald Reagan as a “transformative” president, a president who did VERY little for the African American community, and DISSED Bill Clinton’s two-term presidency, I became very suspicious indeed. When he went further and said that he wanted to return to the Foreign Policy of George H.W. Bush, i.e., Donald Rumsfeld’s policies, I knew, just KNEW, that he was a closet Republican (and if rumors can be believed, that is not the ONLY thing about which he is in the closet, if you know what I mean!). And of course, choosing a WOMAN is supposed to both appease all of us Hillary supporters (as if that is the ONLY reason we want her – it’s all about her being a woman, not that she is far more qualified) and to prove that they aren’t a bunch of misogynistic pigs. Oh, yes – choosing a Republican woman just covers ALL of those bases – they get cross over votes, and appease all of us PUMA people mad that the woman in the race was treated like pure-T crap. Yes, we ARE mad that Senator Clinton, and by extension, all women were treated horribly in this election season by the DNC and the MSM, but just picking any ol’ woman, especially a REPUBLICAN woman, is not going to change the fact that they trashed the most qualified candidate in the field. And it does not give Obama any more experience, or integrity, or honesty.

Wow – they must really think we are stupid.

One last little smoke and mirror for your entertainment. And by entertainment, I mean another way a SD was arm-twisted to support Obama. That would be John Edwards. Yes, this is about John, his mistress, and his love child. Apparently, this has been known for some time in DC circles. Had it been anyone else (whose name happened to be Bill or Hillary), it would have been screamed all over the media 24/7/365. But the Obama/R/DNC could use this to their advantage, and boy, did they ever!! I trust that now the cat’s out of the bag, it might make it to the MSM, but there again, I’m not holding my breath on that. You know we cannot cast any aspersions on Obamessiah, without being damned for all eternity, that is. I always liked Elizabeth way more than John anyway, but especially now – it makes her disappearance from the public eye that much more telling. I guess she knew this was coming down the pike. I hate it for her, though. She doesn’t deserve this. Frankly, John was lucky to have her. She was what made him seem more believable. Well, that mirror is broken, and the smoke cleared now.

Holy cow – talk about your hoodwinking bamboozling. Please, please, PLEASE tell me why all of these so-called progressives (and I consider myself very progressive – and I make my own cappuccinos every single day. Oh, and I am highly “educated” too!) are supporting this Republican Lite?!?! I sure don’t get it. His version of “change” is looking more and more like the Same-o Same-O to me, especially if you are a REPUBLICAN. Way to go R/DNC!! We now have ONE party in this country (nod to you, WorkingClassArtist and rosieriter)!! Wait, that isn’t a good thing, is it?? Yikes.