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…

The founder of Blackwater, Erik Prince, is a Navy man, is also a Christian of the conservative strand. He has given a bunch of money to conservative causes, including James Dobson’s “Focus on the Family” group. Just to set the stage.

And Obama said, as a candidate, that he would not “rule out” keeping Blackwater, now “Xe,” in Iraq. Hillary not so much, not even close:

(she) released a statement announcing that Clinton is now co-sponsoring legislation to “ban the use of Blackwater and other private mercenary firms in Iraq,” saying, “The time to show these contractors the door is long past due.”

Uh huh. And what has Obama done since becoming president? He’s given Blackwater, aka, Xe, a $70 million dollar contract. Doesn’t that make you feel all warm and fuzzy?

Here’s the thing: the founder of Blackwater, Erik Prince, has been implicated by two former employees for murder. Yep. And you are not going to believe this story. It is going to make you SO happy (that’s snark) that Obama has chosen to give this man, and his company, more money to stay in the Middle East. I’ll give you some of the highlights, but I urge you to read the whole piece (and the author, Jeremy Scahill, has written a LOT about Blackwater. He was a bit snide about Hillary Clinton and her resolve to NOT have Blackwater on the payroll any longer, even though that was in the same article in which he pointed out that Obama the Candidate he wouldn’t “rule it out.” Still, the articles are worth reading.). To the article:

A former Blackwater employee and an ex-US Marine who has worked as a security operative for the company have made a series of explosive allegations in sworn statements filed on August 3 in federal court in Virginia. The two men claim that the company’s owner, Erik Prince, may have murdered or facilitated the murder of individuals who were cooperating with federal authorities investigating the company. The former employee also alleges that Prince “views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe,” and that Prince’s companies “encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life.”

Now is when I remind you that Obama chose to retain this company. A “Christian crusader” hellbent on wiping Muslims off the map. WOW. There’s more:

Doe #2 states in the declaration that he has also provided the information contained in his statement “in grand jury proceedings convened by the United States Department of Justice.” Federal prosecutors convened a grand jury in the aftermath of the September 16, 2007, Nisour Square shootings in Baghdad, which left seventeen Iraqis dead. Five Blackwater employees are awaiting trial on several manslaughter charges and a sixth, Jeremy Ridgeway, has already pleaded guilty to manslaughter and attempting to commit manslaughter and is cooperating with prosecutors. It is not clear whether Doe #2 testified in front of the Nisour Square grand jury or in front of a separate grand jury.

The two declarations are each five pages long and contain a series of devastating allegations concerning Erik Prince and his network of companies, which now operate under the banner of Xe Services LLC. Among those leveled by Doe #2 is that Prince “views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe”:

To that end, Mr. Prince intentionally deployed to Iraq certain men who shared his vision of Christian supremacy, knowing and wanting these men to take every available opportunity to murder Iraqis. Many of these men used call signs based on the Knights of the Templar, the warriors who fought the Crusades.

Mr. Prince operated his companies in a manner that encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life. For example, Mr. Prince’s executives would openly speak about going over to Iraq to “lay Hajiis out on cardboard.” Going to Iraq to shoot and kill Iraqis was viewed as a sport or game. Mr. Prince’s employees openly and consistently used racist and derogatory terms for Iraqis and other Arabs, such as “ragheads” or “hajiis.”

Among the additional allegations made by Doe #1 is that “Blackwater was smuggling weapons into Iraq.” He states that he personally witnessed weapons being “pulled out” from dog food bags. Doe #2 alleges that “Prince and his employees arranged for the weapons to be polywrapped and smuggled into Iraq on Mr. Prince’s private planes, which operated under the name Presidential Airlines,” adding that Prince “generated substantial revenues from participating in the illegal arms trade.”

Doe #2 states: “Using his various companies, [Prince] procured and distributed various weapons, including unlawful weapons such as sawed off semi-automatic machine guns with silencers, through unlawful channels of distribution.” Blackwater “was not abiding by the terms of the contract with the State Department and was deceiving the State Department,” according to Doe #1.

This is disturbing on so many levels, isn’t it? Naturally, Prince denies any wrongdoing:

In their testimony, both men also allege that Blackwater was smuggling weapons into Iraq. One of the men alleges that Prince turned a profit by transporting “illegal” or “unlawful” weapons into the country on Prince’s private planes. They also charge that Prince and other Blackwater executives destroyed incriminating videos, emails and other documents and have intentionally deceived the US State Department and other federal agencies. The identities of the two individuals were sealed out of concerns for their safety.

These allegations, and a series of other charges, are contained in sworn affidavits, given under penalty of perjury, filed late at night on August 3 in the Eastern District of Virginia as part of a seventy-page motion by lawyers for Iraqi civilians suing Blackwater for alleged war crimes and other misconduct. Susan Burke, a private attorney working in conjunction with the Center for Constitutional Rights, is suing Blackwater in five separate civil cases filed in the Washington, DC, area. They were recently consolidated before Judge T.S. Ellis III of the Eastern District of Virginia for pretrial motions. Burke filed the August 3 motion in response to Blackwater’s motion to dismiss the case. Blackwater asserts that Prince and the company are innocent of any wrongdoing and that they were professionally performing their duties on behalf of their employer, the US State Department.

Yes, Prince is claiming everything he did was on behalf of the State Department. Oh, sure. I have no doubt that, given how Hilary Clinton spoke of his organization during the campaign, that she was all behind what he was doing in Iraq. Again, that is snark.

So – will Obama be held accountable for keeping Blackwater/Xe on the payroll and at the State Department, or will he pass the buck (again) and blame Clinton, even though she wanted nothing to do with them?

Will Erik Prince get his comeuppance for his private “crusade” against Muslims? Will he be held to account for smuggling weapons into Iraq? If what has been alleged against him is true, he deserves everything that is coming to him. Personally, I am exceedingly offended that this man and his company have been on OUR payroll, operating this way on OUR behalf. What he has been accused of doing is obscene. Just reprehensible.

Tell me again why Obama renewed his contract, because I don’t get it (even before these allegations)…

– 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.

[...]

Here’s some Feith fun from Pat Lang:

Patrick Lang told a hilarious story the other night, for example, about a job interview he had with Douglas Feith, a key architect of the invasion of Iraq.

It was at the beginning of the first Bush term. Lang had been in charge of the Middle East, South Asia and terrorism for the Defense Intelligence Agency in the 1990s. Later he ran the Pentagon’s worldwide spying operations.

In early 2001, his name was put forward as somebody who would be good at running the Pentagon’s office of special operations and low-intensity warfare, i.e., counterinsurgency. Lang had also been a Green Beret, with three tours in South Vietnam.

One of the people he had to impress was Feith, the Defense Department’s number three official and a leading player in the clique of neoconservatives who had taken over the government’s national security apparatus.

Lang went to see him, he recalled during a May 7 panel discussion at the University of the District of Columbia.

“He was sitting there munching a sandwich while he was talking to me,” Lang recalled, “which I thought was remarkable in itself, but he also had these briefing papers — they always had briefing papers, you know — about me.

“He’s looking at this stuff, and he says, ‘I’ve heard of you. I heard of you.’

“He says, ‘Is it really true that you really know the Arabs this well, and that you speak Arabic this well? Is that really true? Is that really true?’

“And I said, ‘Yeah, that’s really true.’

“That’s too bad,” Feith said.

The audience howled.

“That was the end of the interview,” Lang said. “I’m not quite sure what he meant, but you can work it out.”

Feith, of course, like the administration’s other Israel-connected hawks, didn’t want “Arabists” like Lang muddying the road to Baghdad, from where — according to the Bush administration theory — overthrowing Saddam Hussein would ignite mass demands for Western-style, pro-U.S. democracies across the entire Middle East.

And some Lang on Wolfowitz:

“I remember talking to [Paul] Wolfowitz, in his office, in the Pentagon, and telling him — this was after the propaganda build up had started, before the war. I said, ‘You know, these guys are not going to welcome you.’

“He said, ‘Why?’ I said, ‘For one thing, these guys detest foreigners, and the few who really like you are the least representative of the various breeds of people there. They’re going to fight you, then, if you occupy the place there’s going to be a massive insurgency.’”

“He said, ‘No, no, they’ll be glad to see us,’” Lang continued. “This will start the process of revolution around the Middle East that will transform everything.’

No, Lang told Wolfowitz, “that’s not gonna happen. It’s just an impossibility. They’re not like that. They don’t want to be us.”

Not everyone agrees with all of Lang’s views about the Arab world, but on this issue he was prescient, of course, as were almost all experts on the region outside of the neocon faithful.

How come we learned so much of this dispute only after the war?

And Lawrence Wilkerson on Tenet and “Curveball”:

Wilkerson provides a damning clue.

In February 2003, Powell’s top aide relates, he “spent five of the most intimate days of my life, and five nights, without sleeping, as did my team, staring into . . . the face” of George Tenet, Tenet’s deputy John McLaughlin, and other top CIA officials working on Iraq, at the agency’s headquarters at Langley.

It was the eve of Powell’s now infamous speech at the United Nations detailing Iraq’s alleged biological, chemical and nuclear programs.

“One of the things Secretary Powell and I told Mr. Tenet and Mr. McLaughlin at the outset of our frenetic five or six days, trying to get ready for the U.N., was ‘multiple sources.’ We will not take anything and put it in this presentation, unless there are multiple, independently corroborated sources for the items we’re putting in the testimony,” Wilkerson said.

“That was the going-in position.”

Subsequently, he learned that there was but “a single source for the mobile biological laboratories; that his code name was Curveball; and that there were several very key dissents as to this individual’s testimony, during or before the preparation of the secretary of State.”

Curveball, an Iraqi refugee, turned out to be a liar.

“None of that, ladies and gentlemen, none of that was revealed to the secretary of State, or to me, or to any member of my team, by either John McLaughlin or George Tenet,” Wilkerson said.

Tenet says in his memoir that he never heard of any serious questions about Curveball.

As readers of this column know , however, Tenet’s chief of European operations, Tyler Drumheller, insists he sent a flurry of warnings about Curveball to Tenet’s deputies.

Both can’t be right.

“Either George Tenet is lying through his teeth, or Tyler Drumheller is lying through his teeth,” Wilkerson says, “with regard to one of the most important pillars of Secretary Powell’s presentation at the United Nations: the mobile biological laboratories.”

We’re waiting now for a third CIA official to come forth with an answer.

Lots of people are dying because of the errors and idiocy perpetrated by Feith, Wolfowitz and yes, Tenet too.

– Steve Clemons

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has learned very little from the military trials and tribulations of the United States over the past 50 years. During that period, the United States has lost three costly and avoidable wars in Southeast Asia, Southwest Asia, and the Middle East. These wars involved U.S. military forces for more than 12 years in Vietnam, more than six years (and counting) in Iraq, and eight years (and counting) in Afghanistan.

Despite our military, intelligence, and technological superiority, we were stymied by two countries that had no air force, no navy, no army, no air defense. We were able to deploy weapons of great lethality, sophistication, maneuverability, and firepower. Nevertheless, Secretary Gates wants to reorient planning at the Pentagon so that the United States could be positioned to fight more such wars.

Despite his previous lip service to ensure that the State Department and various civilian agencies get more involved in implementing American national security policy, Gates clearly wants the Pentagon to have pride of place in international areas outside the principal mission of military operations. He wants to expand the military’s role in equipping and training foreign forces, and for educating foreign officers.

He also wants to expand the nation-building programs that grew out of our egregious experience in Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s, which the Obama administration seems to favor for our involvement in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Like his regional commanders, Gates seems to see the Pentagon as a “big Velcro cube that other agencies can hook to so we can collectively do what needs to be done” in such regional commands as the Middle East and Southwest Asia. Gates apparently would do nothing to reverse the trend of the recent past that allows general officers and particularly regional commanders to have more influence and leverage than their civilian counterparts in the implementation of American foreign policy.

The emphasis on adding to the ranks of the Army, the Marine Corps, and special forces and greater spending on low-tech weapons that are best suited for guerrilla or irregular warfare points to continued problems for American national security. Gates explained that he is “just trying to get the irregular guys to have a seat at the table and to institutionalize the needs they have.” Any shift in the direction of greater funding for such counter-insurgency operations as Iraq and Afghanistan is not encouraging.

The United States (and the Western community in general) can point to very few military successes in such operations and run the risk of large-scale and long-term occupations. We invaded Iraq six years ago when there was no connection whatsoever between that country and U.S. national interest, and now we are committing greater forces and resources to Afghanistan where there is no connection to our vital interests. President Obama and Secretary Gates want to move in the direction of nation building, although there is no operational strategy for involving the State Department and the Agency for International Development in stabilization and reconstruction in troubled areas.

Some aspects of the Gates’ doctrine are laudatory, particularly the decision to scale back spending on national missile defense; to create a professional procurement process; to cap production of the Air Forces’ F-22 fighter jet; to cancel production of a new presidential helicopter; and to reduce the Army’s Future Combat Systems. The effort to fix the procurement system is long overdue, and even Gates’ two previous budgets were mere straight-line projections of Donald Rumsfeld’s budgetary and procurement agenda.

The Pentagon’s weapons-procurement system has been a well-known disaster that presidential administrations and congressional committees have refused to address. In taking on the Pentagon’s inability to make hard choices in weapons systems or to undertake major reform, Gates is taking on President Eisenhower’s military-industrial-congressional complex.

A more promising development is in legislation sponsored by Senators Carl Levin (D-MI) and John McCain (R-AZ), who want to create a director of independent cost assessments, who would have a senior staff with the authority to obtain data from weapons contractors and to ensure that costs are justified. The services, which are responsible for cost estimates on weapons programs, have never developed a professional staff to provide accurate cost estimates, let alone discipline profligate weapons manufacturers.

Last year, according to the Washington Post, the Government Accountability Office reported that cost overruns on the largest weapons systems totaled about $300 billion.

Sadly, the Gates’ doctrine still points to the United States as the “indispensable nation,” in the words of former president Bill Clinton and his secretary of state Madeleine Albright, endowed by providence with unique responsibilities and obligations.

Gates and presumably President Obama want the United States to be able to respond to any and all crises, even those that have no relevance to American national interests, let alone vital national interests. Gates wants to maintain the offensive orientation of the Bush administration’s foreign policy and obviously believes that American military power will preserve law and order.

In his inaugural address, President Obama emphasized that “power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please.” It does not appear that Obama’s secretary of defense was listening.

Melvin A. Goodman,a regular contributor to The Public Record, is senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and adjunct professor of government at Johns Hopkins University. He spent more than 42 years in the U.S. Army, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Department of Defense. His most recent book is “Failure of Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA.”

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

Then, there’s how the Canadian handle the pirate problem? (Hint: It’s SMARTER!): The Canadians had the bright idea (!) of having military ships guard and escort their cargo ships delivering food to Africa. That link takes you to this video:

CTV Newsnet: Eric Margolis, foreign affairs expert, on the role of the Canadian ship

A Canadian ship will guard food deliveries in waters off Somalia because of the threat of piracy, which as a foreign affairs expert explains, is big business in the failed state.

The warships cannot solve the problem, because the answers  are on land.   The FT’s Robert Wright told us that there are two clans that dominate piracy, the Hawiye and the Darod, and they work in parallel.  The Hawiye command the Haradere area.  The Darod command the Puntland Coast around Eyl.  Only ground-based suppression will work, but that means Marines, air support, naval support, United Nations cooperation, civic and humanitarian structure — the comprehensive approach that the US has not wanted to risk since 1993.   Now the hostage scenario may force the Obama adminstration’s hand.   CENTCOM’s General Petraeus says that more ships are in-bound for the region, though this is an impotent and tardy gesture.  The FBI hostage negotiators are headed to the USS Belknap to open conversation with the pirates.  The demands are simple: food, fuel, cash and free passage back to our dens.  The Obama administration must now struggle with the policy that the US does not ransom hostages.   No appeasement, no concessions, no peace.  Surrender or die.  There is more than one hostage on that bobbing Maresk line lifeboat.  The US, the pirates, the POTUS and VPOTUS could become hostages, too.  It is not idle that the President would not answer a reporter’s question today about the pirates.  This is dangerous policy.  Blackhawk Down in deep water is make-believe, so far.    The pirates operate in packs; they may have land-based command and control; they may welcome jihadists into their mix; they know that one in two captured pirates have been set loose.   Easy to imagine there are tens of pirate boats pushing off from the coast and preparing to grab anything American.   Fat pickings, big pay-day possible, and the new bosses won’t shoot, will they?

From the blog and radio show site, The John Batchelor Show (with Podcasts). Larry Johnson is a regular guest Sunday nights on KFI-AM at 10:35 p.m. ET. Visit this blog on Sundays for promos that include the evening’s hot topics.

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.

Larry joins the show at 7:35 p.m. every Sunday.

Listen live here via Los Angeles AM station KFI 640. (Drop by early if you haven’t listened before since you may need to download a small, easy-to-install piece of software to listen.)

Here is John Batchelor’s preview of tonight’s show — including what to do about Guantanamo, the Justice Dept. implications, and whether prisoners should be handled by the military or the U.S. justice system:

735P:  Professional Roundtable with with Diana West, author, Larry Johnson, No Quarter and State (ret), Margaret Hoover, FNC, re the Inauguration, re the GITMO decision to close the facility and redistribute the inmates, re the voiding of Justice decisions since September 11, 2001, re the war continues as a military operation or as a law enforcement operation?