Category Archives: Military
During his Friday, 25 Mar 11, broadcast Rush Limbaugh, the self proclaimed spokes bovine of the GOTP decided he needed to “weigh” in – no small feat for Rush – on the United Nations no fly zone in Libya by mocking the Obama administration for using the term “kinetic” to describe the military action, saying the President’s people had “come up with the ludicrous term”.
“We’re not at war. We are engaged in ‘kinetic activity’,” Limbaugh brayed. “Here we have a headline, this is from the DC Examiner, ‘In the last few days the Obama regime — officials frequently faced the question, is the fighting in Libya a war? And for military officers to White House spokesmen up to the president himself, the answer’s been ‘no.’ Well, OK then, what is it?”
Gee Rush, I don’t know? Why don’t we rely on your extensive military service to explain it to us? Oh wait, you never served in the military did you? No, Rush Hudson Limbaugh III a.k.a. “Rusty” never served.
But when has a lack of knowledge and facts, either institutional or educational ever stopped Rush? And so, he attempted his own “expert” military analysis, “At any rate, this guy, the deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes took a crack at an answer said, ‘Well, I think what we’re doing is enforcing a resolution that has a very clear set of goals,” Limbaugh said. “‘Which is protecting the Libyan people, averting a humanitarian crisis, and setting up a no-fly zone; obviously, that involves kinetic military action, particularly on the front end.’
“Folks, this is pathetic. Literally, genuinely pathetic. ‘Kinetic military action, particularly on the front end.’ Kinetic simply means motion. That’s all it means. Depending on movement for its effect, of, relating to, or resulting from motion. So, now we’ve got ‘kinetic military action.’”
There are two things wrong with Rusty’s statement. First, in terms of a military action being “kinetic” – or being set in motion – it would be “depending on motion for its “affect” not “effect”. Maybe you should’ve stayed in school Rusty. Had you done so you would’ve known that you almost always use affect with an “a” as a verb (motion as used here is considered a verb) and effect with an “e” as a noun; once again, so much for being right 99.9% of the time. Second, exactly how is this pathetic, the use of the term “kinetic” when referring to military action? In order for the no fly zone to take “affect” we, the United States and our allies, had to put the Navies and their planes into motion, allowing the no fly zone to be put into effect, thus affecting the air and ground forces of Qaddafi.
Rusty then quoted a statement by Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Tuesday in Moscow as he spoke with reporters about the Libya operation, “I think as we are successful in suppressing the air defenses, the level of kinetic activity should decline. I assume in the next few days.”
Limbaugh went on to conclude, “KMA, kinetic military activity, has replaced WTF. Winning the future — I’m sure you thought it was something else. Kick my — has replaced — what the — kinetic military — OK, so I guess we’re to assume it’s not a protest anymore, it’s a kinetic assembling action. It’s not a riot, it’s kinetic thuggery action. It’s not a vacation, it’s kinetic leisure action. It’s not golf, it’s kinetic ball-striking action. It’s not dancing, it’s kinetic food action. It’s not sex, it’s kinetic Lewinsky. It’s not — I’m not drunk, I’ve been engaging in kinetic adult beverage action. It’s not an election, it’s kinetic voting. It’s not radio, its kinetic Limbaugh action. Whatever. It’s just — kinetic means motion. Military means armed forces, action means motion. Kinetic action, moving motion. And these are the smartest people in the world. Well, the reason they can’t say it is because they don’t want to say what it really is.”
Yeah, that’s right Rusty; the President doesn’t want you to say what it “really is”. OK, whatever that means? So, why don’t you try to explain it for us?
“You know, we all know what it is, but they don’t want to say it, they don’t want to go on record as saying what it really is because they’re actually trying to pretend it isn’t anything,” Rusty said. “It’s — and it’s not really a military intervention, it’s kinetic military action. That’s why they’ve come up with this ludicrous term. Right, that’s why they don’t want to call it a war on terror because the Muslims don’t intend to occupy us, they just blew up the World Trade Center. Of course, you might get some argument on that from certain people.”
By the way, for the record Rusty, during a Presidential press conference on 11 Oct 06 President Bush used a certain word to describe military conditions in Iraq; do you know what word that was Rusty? Let’s take a walk down memory lane and see.
A reporter asked, “I’m just wondering, two months ago, Prime Minister Maliki was here, and you talked about how we had to be nimble and facile in our approach. And my question is, are we being nimble and facile in the right way? Is what General Casey telling you the most effective advice? Because it would seem in the two months since Prime Minister Maliki was here, things have only gotten more bloody in Iraq.
President Bush answered, “No question, Ramadan’s here. No question, we’re engaging the enemy more than we were before. And by the way, when you engage the enemy, it causes there to be more action and more kinetic action. And the fundamental question is, do I get good advice from Casey? And the answer is I believe I do. I believe I do.” [Federal News Service, 10/11/06, accessed via Nexis]
And guess who else used a certain word Rusty? Why none other than your pal the former Secretary of Donny Rumsfeld during an 18 Jun 03, Defense Department operational update briefing, “Security throughout the country is indicated here. Green is what’s characterized as permissive. That’s not to say perfect, but it’s permissive. The yellow is semi-permissive and the red area in Baghdad and then in the area north towards Tikrit is considered not permissive or semi-permissive. There are now some 8,000 police officers back at work and 2,000 on patrol. And in those pockets, you’ll recall that when President Bush indicated that the major military activities had ended, we said very explicitly that that did not mean that the — that was the end of kinetics; that there would continue to have to be significant efforts to root out the remnants of the regime. That’s been going forward, and it’s been going forward in recent days, particularly, in ways that have been quite helpful. [Federal News Service, 6/18/03, accessed via Nexis]
And oh snap, Donny used it again while discussing Afghanistan during a 6 Feb 04, interview on an edition of FOX PACs’ Special Report, “The bulk of the problems are along the Pakistan border. And that is where the kinetics, for the most part, are taking place,” Don said. “And it is entirely possible that that would be the last sector.” [Fox News, Special Report, 2/6/04]
But wait Rusty, there’s more, in a 5 July 05, interview on Hot Talk with Scott Hennen, Rummy said, “Well sure. I mean to the extent people say things that give encouragement, and if you’re engaged in a test of wills as we are here, this is partly a battle on the ground using kinetics, and partly it’s a test of will as to whether or not we’ll be willing to continue to aggressively help the Iraqi people defeat this insurgency, depends on support from the American people. It depends on support from the international community. It depends on confidence level on the part of the Iraqi people. Which side’s going to win, they say to themselves. Do we want to support the Iraqi government and the coalition, or do we wait and see maybe they’re not going to have the staying power?” [Federal News Service, 7/5/05, accessed via Nexis]
But hey guess what Rusty? Military leaders regularly use that special word to describe military campaigns too; for instance when yours’ and Hannitys’ personal hero GEN Tommy Franks used it during a 15 Aug 02 Defense Department briefing, “What I prefer to do is think about the amount of energy that is devoted to what I call kinetic work in some provinces and places inside Afghanistan, where there is much work left to be done, and then work which is much more humanitarian, if you will, in nature, that goes on across 10 to 12 additional provinces in Afghanistan. [Federal News Service, 8/15/02, accessed via Nexis]
Hold on to your formerly nicotine stained fingers Rusty because Franks isn’t the only military officer to use it. BG Stanley McChrystal during a 23 Mar 03 Pentagon news briefing said, “Well, sir, we can see whether or not we hit targets, in many cases. And we’re still gathering that. But we’re running an effects-based campaign that is partially kinetic, partially non-kinetic, partially information operations. And so what we judge effectiveness by is not just whether there’s a hole in the roof of a building, but whether or not the function that that element did before ceases to be effective. [CNN, 3/22/03, accessed via Nexis]
Are you ready for more, big guy? Are you ready for more proof as to why you’re an idiot? OK then, on with facts.
LG Raymond Odierno used our special word on 17 Jan 08, “”We have not done a kinetic strike in at least six months. It might even be longer than that. I think it’s even longer than that, but it’s been a very long time. I track every one of them and they brief me weekly on that. [Political Transcript Wire, 1/17/08, accessed via Nexis]
Of course non-military types have also repeatedly used the term. Why, as a matter of fact, you – Rusty – withheld from your listeners that Byron York, in the very 23 Mar 11 column you sited said, “Kinetic” is a word that’s been used around the Pentagon for many years to distinguish between actions like dropping bombs, launching cruise missiles or shooting people and newer forms of non-violent fighting like cyber-warfare. At times, it also appears to mean just taking action. [The Washington Examiner, 3/23/11]
From a 20 Nov 02, Slate article, “In common usage, ‘kinetic’ is an adjective used to describe motion, but the Washington meaning derives from its secondary definition, ‘active, as opposed to latent.’ Dropping bombs and shooting bullets — you know, killing people — is kinetic. But the 21st-century military is exploring less violent and more high-tech means of warfare, such as messing electronically with the enemy’s communications equipment or wiping out its bank accounts. These are ‘non-kinetic.’ (Why not “latent”? Maybe the Pentagon worries that would make them sound too passive or effeminate.) Asked during a January talk at National Defense University whether ‘the transformed military of the future will shift emphasis somewhat from kinetic systems to cyber warfare,’ Donald Rumsfeld answered, “Yes!” (Rumsfeld uses the words “kinetic” and “non-kinetic” all the time.) [Slate, 11/20/02]
In trying to drive home his misguided, uninformed, litany to his generally equally misguided and uninformed listeners, Rusty closed with, “All of this is nothing more than one of these intellectual exercises to excuse Obama, give him a pass. It really isn’t war. Democrat presidents don’t like using the U.S. military. If the truth be known, liberals actually are happier when the U.S. military loses.”
Really Rusty, Democratic Presidents don’t like using the military? Which Democratic Presidents would you be referring to? Woodrow Wilson? Franklin D. Roosevelt? Lyndon Johnson? Bill Clinton? Barrack Obama? News flash Rush! They all used the United States military. And what’s wrong with a President not wanting to rush into a war? To not want to place our soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen in harms way? Difference between Democratic Presidents and most of their Republican counterparts is that the Democrats try to use up every possible avenue before the killing and maiming begins, wherein some Republican Presidents have almost gleefully sent our young men and women off to war. So, maybe in that sense you’re right, Democratic Presidents really don’t like “using the military”. But hey Rusty, even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in awhile.
And WOW Rusty, did you really mean to say this, or is your drug addled mind no longer capable of rational thought? “If the truth be known, liberals actually are happier when the U.S. military loses”? I’m not sure if you’re just plain stupid, or if you’re crazy. You are a certifiable jackass Rusty. You’re no longer the spokes bovine of the GOTP, you’re now the official talking spokes jackass of the GOTP. And you no longer bloviate, now you bray. This is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard, and it belongs right up there with comments by progressive commentators who claim Republicans hate the environment. You’re right Rush, Liberals hate America, and want it to fail. Grow up, or move on.
Rusty, the truth (something I’m sure your ten perpetually ham sandwich stained fingers could never find, even with a flash light) is first, this is a military action; an honest to goodness United Nations sanctioned military action, unlike Bush/Cheney’s “war” in Iraq; second, the term kinetic has been used frequently to describe this very type of military action, and is a perfectly suitable word to use here; finally, you Rush Hudson Limbaugh III are either an ignoramus or a charlatan, and probably both. You’re not right 99.9%, but are frequently never right. You hate the President, and I believe a good part of that hatred is due to your southern Missouri upbringing. Yes, Rusty, I think you’re a racist. Your previous comments to African-American callers and about African-American athletes are well documented and stand as a witness. You’re inability to ever base your comments on facts is shameful, and your deliberate misleading of your listeners, whether they’re gullible little sheeple or not is criminal. Rusty, one day in all probability your name will be mentioned in the same breath with Father Coughlin, and Joseph Goebels, not a place any self respecting broadcaster would ever choose to be. But who could ever accuse you of being a self respecting broadcaster?
(Many thanks to hard working folks at Media Matters for supplying the background information)
Newt Gingrich spent a lot of badly needed brain cells last week criticizing President Barack Obama for not imposing a no-fly zone over Libya. Now the former House Speaker is lashing out at the White House’s intervention, calling it as “badly run as any foreign operation in our lifetime.”
Really Newt, as “badly run as any foreign operation in our lifetime”? You can’t really be serious? I think Operation Iraqi Freedom will very probably go down as, if not the very worse, than one of the very worse foreign operations of not only our lifetime, but of all time. Second probably only to Xerxes’ decision to invade Greece in what we like to call “Operation Persian Folly”.
“The standard he has fallen back to, of humanitarian intervention, could apply to Sudan, to North Korea, to Zimbabwe to Syria this week to Yemen, to Bahrain,” the Newtered one said on the “Today” show Wednesday morning. “This isn’t a serious standard. This is a public relations conversation.”
As compared to, oh I don’t know? We’re invading Iraq because Saddam is a really, really bad guy, and he dresses funny, and therefore we’re going to take him out? Gee Newt, that thinking could have applied to any number of “bad guys” throughout the globe, like Kim Il-sung, Hu Jintao, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or maybe even Glenn Beck. Talk about not having a serious standard on foreign policy decisions and U.S. military intervention. But wait, perhaps your standard would be more along the lines of such great successes as selling arms to the Contras? Or sending Marines into Lebanon? Or invading Somalia?
“I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi. I think there are a lot of other allies in the region we could have worked with,” the Newtster added. “I would not have used American and European forces.”
Yeah, if Newt were President he’d have sent in the guys on camels from Egypt; or maybe he’d tell the rebels if they really loved their country they should grab a congressional aide and have a good old fashioned affair.
Newt seems just a tad bit conflicted these days, just last week, he said he would implement a no-fly zone “this evening.”
“We don’t need to have the United Nations,” he told FOX PAC. “All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we’re intervening.”
YEAH! YOU GO NEWT! YOU SHOW EM’ WHO’S BOSS! THAT’S TELLING EM’ BOY!
OK, I’m sorry Mr. Former – I had to resign because I didn’t have any morals and lost my party’s congressional majority – Speaker, with all due respect, did you fall out of the stupid tree and hit every branch on the way to the ground? Were you dropped – repeatedly – as a child? Yeah, your idea of a foreign policy intervention has no ramifications whatsoever. Did you even bother call President Bush before you stole his plan for the Middle East, or did you come up with this all on your own? This is another really good example, in an ever growing list of examples, as to why you’re in no way remotely qualified to be President. Now, really, just back away from the presidency and you won’t get hurt; don’t make me roll up a newspaper and hit you on the nose with it; just back away like a good boy.
Finally the United Nations, Great Britain, France and the United States have pulled their collective heads out of their fourth points of contact and have launched forces into action against the regime of Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi; as the attacks began, President Obama declared from Brazil that the “people of Libya must be protected.”
“In the absence of an immediate end to the violence against civilians, our coalition is prepared to act and act with urgency,” Obama said at a news conference in Brazil’s presidential palace following meetings with the newly elected President Dilma Rousseff.
Of course it’s only taken how long to decide to act with “urgency” Mr. President? You may have decided to move with too little, too late. Where were the United States, Great Britain and France when the revolution was on the very brink of toppling Qaddafi? It’s understood that the Bush/Cheney attitude of bomb and invade, shock and awe, and ask questions later was over kill, but there are times when America needs to use its strength to help those who are fighting to overthrow despots. There are few – if any – members of our military who wouldn’t jump at the chance to help people legitimately fighting for their liberties, as opposed to being used as tools imposing freedom by Presidential whim and edict.
Minutes before he began speaking, officials from the United States, Europe and the Arab world meeting in Paris announced immediate military action to protect civilians amid combat between Qaddafi’s forces and rebel fighters. French warplanes were targeting Qaddafi’s forces. American ships and aircraft were poised for action but weren’t participating in the initial French air missions.
France, Britain and the United States had warned Qaddafi on Friday that they would resort to military means if he ignored the U.N. resolution demanding a cease-fire.
How nice it is to have our forces be part of legitimately enforcing a U.N. resolution instead of pretending that was the reason for our involvement. This time around, our men and women will know they’re fighting with their allies as the enforcement arm of the U.N. and not pretending to enforce U.N. sanctions or simply using the United Nations as an excuse to cover a questionable invasion.
United States involvement at this point is to be limited – according to Administration officials – and its primary objectives will be to helping protect French and other air missions by taking out Libyan air defenses; however, things could intensify depending on the response and the U.S. is prepared to launch additional attacks in support of allied forces.
“This is a broad international effort,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said from Paris. “The world will not sit idly by while more innocent civilians are killed. The United States will support our allies and partners as they move to enforce” the resolution.
The President has already ruled out sending in U.S. ground troops. But the U.S. has a host of forces and ships in the area, including submarines, destroyers, amphibious assault and landing ships. One U.S. official said the Navy was planning a sea-launched missile attack from the Mediterranean against elements of Libya’s coastal air defenses.
And this is precisely how the U.S. should be conducting itself. America never needed to send ground forces into Iraq, and could have easily forced Hussein to yield through multiple, well targeted air strikes, and the use of ground forces to take him out could have been small in scope and supported from the air (i.e. Special Forces, Rangers, SAS, etc.). There was no need then, and there is no need now, to put boots on the ground, and the rebels in Libya have not asked for them. They want air cover, and the allies can certainly supply that.
The daughter of Frank Buckles, the longest-living American to serve in World War I, is urging lawmakers to let her father’s body lie in the Capitol Rotunda to honor all the war’s veterans.
“There is no one left,” Susannah Buckles Flanagan wrote in a statement to The Associated Press. “If we lost the opportunity to bestow this highest of honors on the person who was the last surviving representative, there can be no making it up later.”
Congressional Leaders – largely along party lines – have been divided over how to best honor Buckles and the 4.7 million other Americans who served during World War I.
West Virginia lawmakers want to see him lie in the Capitol Rotunda, and are upset with House and Senate leaders – Republican (GOTP) Speaker John Boehner, and Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid – who have objected.
Someone please explain what there is to object over? Who in their right mind sees this as something to oppose? No one is asking every veteran be accorded this honor, although they all deserve it. They’re asking for the body of last soldier of the Great War to be placed in honorable repose as a symbol of the sacrifice made by all.
Flanagan said it was one of her father’s wishes to lie in the Rotunda after his death – not as a personal honor but in memory of all veterans of World War I.
“He looked upon this as his final duty, which he took seriously,” Flanagan said. “If the last American soldier surviving is not suitable to serve as a symbol around which we can rally to honor those who served their country in the Great War, then who can serve that purpose?”
Her point is well taken. Mr. Buckles is the last American to have served in World War I. He’s it; there are no more. What’s the big deal? And why are Boehner and Reid seeking Pentagon permission to conduct ceremonies in the amphitheater at Arlington National Cemetery, where Buckles will be buried? This really seems to be a no-brainer, and yet these two are opposing it?
Lying in honor – called lying in state in the case of elected U.S. officials or military officers – has occurred only 30 times starting in 1852 with Henry Clay, a longtime senator and congressman. Others include Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan, unknown soldiers from America’s wars and civil rights hero Rosa Parks.
Buckles’ biographer and family spokesman, David DeJonge, said of the debate over how Buckles should be honored, “We want to afford every American full opportunity to pay honor and respect to that symbol of a great generation.”
Flanagan said no extraordinary precedent would be made by honoring Buckles in the Capitol Rotunda, “The next similar request will come for the last survivor of World War II in 25 or 30 years’ time, and it will be appropriate to honor that person, as well.”
The difference will be, for some, that the World War II generation has received an inflated hero status above all other generations. They’re the “greatest generation” meaning none before and none after will ever measure up to their heroism and sacrifice. All of which is hog wash.
No one will dispute that the so-called “greatest generation” overcame tremendous obstacles, but were they greater than the generation which fought and secured America’s independence? Were they greater than the generation which fought and died to preserve the union? Were they greater than those who battled in Korea and Vietnam? Were they greater than the young men and women fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan? The “greatest generation” was a force made up mostly of draftees; today’s fighting force is all volunteer, no draftees. Tell me which – if any – generation is the “greatest”?
Frank Buckles is the last veteran to have fought in the First World War, the “war to end all wars”; he – and his fellow veterans of that great conflict – deserve this honor. If the common soldier who served so well and faithfully, representing his entire generation of soldiers, who likewise served so well and faithfully, doesn’t deserve this singular honor than who does; certainly not those who are objecting to it.
As the Boehner and his lackey, Cantor, already know it isn’t going to happen. Even if the House passes a bill to repeal the Health Care law, the Senate isn’t going too, and even if that happens, the President is going to veto it.
One thing’s for certain, this is a huge waste of time, and money. It’s all a show, and the GOP members of Congress all know it’s a show, and the talking heads at FOX PAC all know it’s a show. The only people who don’t seem to know it’s a show are their supporters/viewers. The Tea Party folks, and Limbaugh listening, Beck watching, mindless conservative rabble. The people who all complain about the government until their trailer court gets hit by a tornado, or is flooded out by a hurricane. The ones who declare you can have their guns when you pry them out of their cold dead fingers. And Rush, Hannity et. al., will sing their praises and claim the Dems are the party of No, and their listeners will nod vigorously, while forgetting blissfully how the GOP – 99% of the time as a block – voted against everything in the past two years.
The GOP members of Congress, in the mean time, will all thump their chests and say, “We put up a valiant fight to repeal the evil Obamacare, but those nasty Democrats wouldn’t allow us to, all they wanted to do was obstruct, obstruct, obstruct!”
Gee, I wonder who those mean old nasty Democrats might have learned that tactic from?
And here’s another thought, there’s nothing more important right now for the GOP Congress to tackle?
Like, oh I don’t know?
Passing a budget?
After all, it was one of those things the GOP was all upset about until it came into power. Now suddenly it’s, “Budget, smudget we’ll get around to it after we do all this really important stuff”.
And, what about passing the Defense Authorization Bill?
Gee, maybe the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan would like to know there’s money to support them?
I don’t know, maybe?