Tag Archives: Afghanistan

Karzai said what?

It’s time for the United States to leave Afghanistan; according to Reuters, Afghan President (Bush’s handpicked puppet) Hamid Karzai has said in an interview to a private Pakistani TV channel broadcast that Afghanistan would support Pakistan in case of military conflict between Pakistan and the United States.

So, the country that has been harboring the Taliban and insurgents killing Afghans would side with that country?

“God forbid, if ever there is a war between Pakistan and America, Afghanistan will side with Pakistan,” he said in the interview to Geo television.

“If Pakistan is attacked and if the people of Pakistan needs Afghanistan’s help, Afghanistan will be there with you.”

It’s time for the United States to bring everyone home from that hell hole, we’ve accomplished the original mission of hunting down and killing those responsible for 9-11; After a decade there we have 1,814 Americans dead; 14,342 wounded; and have spent upwards of $1,042,000,000 dollars and the Taliban is still there, and spending another ten years there and another trillion dollars won’t change that.

As I said, it’s time to bring our people home, and on the way out the President needs to make it absolutely clear if Afghanistan ever harbors terrorists again then America’s retribution will come swiftly and without mercy upon those training to kill innocents, obliterating any and all traces of the camps, and anything else around it. He needs to tell them, “Fine, you want to handle things this way, well, we’ll see ya; but understand, America will never tolerate again terrorist training camps anywhere in your country, and we will destroy them and anything else near them with such force there will be no doubts from where it came. Oh, and have a nice day.”

Leave a comment

Posted by on October 23, 2011 in Afghanistan


Tags: , ,

McCain claims Afghan drawdown unnecessary risk?

2008 Republican/Tea Party (GOTP) Presidential candidate (lost) Senator John McCain said Sunday the Obama administration is taking an unnecessary risk in drawing down the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, and has  said none of the U.S. military commanders has recommended the drawdown.

Two things Senator, first, what would you call unnecessary, and second, which U.S. military commanders? These are questions your statements do not address.

How necessary is it for the United States to remain in Afghanistan? Thanks to President Obama’s decision to take out Bin Laden the original purpose for invading has been accomplished. We spend an estimate $2 billion dollars per week in Afghanistan, money our country can ill afford to continue spending.

Which U.S. commanders are you referring too, or are you just making that up? May I remind the Senator that the President of the United States is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and doesn’t need to listen to the U.S. Commanders. If any of them have disagreed as you claim let them come forward and say so, or they can cower behind you and remain anonymous. United States commanders do not criticize the President any more than any other military personal do, they follow orders. Privates do not disagree with lawful orders of superiors, and neither should these so-called commanders you claim to be speaking for. Of course, had you and the Ice Queen been elected into office you’d still have more than 100,000 soldiers in Iraq, and hardly any in Afghanistan while in all likelihood Bin Laden would still be hiding, and  you would have engaged in military action against Iran as you claimed you would have. Thank God you were not elected.

President Barack Obama has ordered troop reductions of 10,000 by the end of the year and another 23,000 by September 2012, and while the Marine general expected to carry out the president’s order to begin withdrawing U.S. troops has said the drawdown schedule is a bit more aggressive than the military had anticipated he has not said – as McCain has claimed – that it is an unnecessary risk.

You, Senator McCain, need to keep your opinions on military strategy where they belong, echoing inside your seemingly empty head. You were not elected because American voters rejected your delusional policies, and your promise to continue the same failed delusional policies of the Bush Administration. Get this through your thick skull – you are not the President and you will never be the President; thank you for your service, but now you need to accept you’re not in charge, and as I said before, thank God for that.

Leave a comment

Posted by on July 3, 2011 in Afghanistan


Tags: , , ,

Pat Tillman’s Mom says McChrystal should be removed from White House post?

Pat Tillman’s mother is calling for the dismissal of GEN Stanley McChrystal from his recent appointment by the White House as co-chair of a commission on military families. Mary Tillman, whose son left his NFL career to become an Army Ranger following the terrorist attacks on 9-11 and who was later killed in Afghanistan by friendly fire in April 2004, said McChrystal — the commander of special operations in Afghanistan at the time — was involved in the cover-up of the circumstances surrounding her son’s death and said President Obama’s appointment of the now-retired general “makes him look foolish.”

“I was actually pretty shocked to hear it; I don’t think it’s the appropriate choice,” Tillman told ABC News. “Considering that we have plenty of evidence indicating that McChrystal was involved in the cover-up of Pat’s death. . .he’s not the right person for that kind of a job.”

Amen to that Mrs. Tillman. Anyone, least of all a senior officer, who is involved in a cover-up surrounding one of his soldier’s deaths, has forfeited the trust of his subordinates, and their families. How does any family believe this guy will ever have their best interest at heart? How can they believe anything he tells them about their family members?

Not long after Tillman was killed in 2004, he was posthumously awarded the Silver Star for bravery. The Army’s initial report did not include any mention Tillman was killed by friendly fire and misrepresented key facts of the incident; McChrystal was the approving authority and the individual who submitted the award up the chain of command.

In 2009, McChrystal admitted to being part of the cover-up and apologized for it. Last year, McChrystal was dismissed as commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan after an article in Rolling Stone quoted the general and members of his staff disparaging senior Obama administration officials. So, one has to ask, why is this smuck still around? Why hasn’t he been asked to,  as Douglas MacArthur once said, “fade away”?

It’s time to fade away General, it’s time to fade away.

Leave a comment

Posted by on May 10, 2011 in Afghanistan


Tags: , , , ,

Give Bush Credit?

So, conservatives believe we should give George W Bush some credit? OK, here goes nothing …

Thanks for appointing such extremely incompetent people to head your intelligence/national security teams; you know the ones, the folks who couldn’t have gotten a scouting report for a pee wee football team right, much less figure out if Bin Laden was a threat, and who didn’t think it was odd for a group of Arab men to want to learn how to fly jet airliners but who didn’t want to learn how to land them …

Thanks for allowing those same terrorists to attack the United States on our own soil, killing close to 3,000 innocents …

Thanks for expanding the Federal Government beyond any other previous president’s dreams …

Thanks for creating/expanding federal agencies beyond all scope – DHS and TSA…

Thanks for fighting two wars – one of which was unnecessary and illegal – without raising taxes, and for paying for those wars “off budget” thereby exploding the federal debt and deficit …

Thanks for giving the OK to US troops and CIA ops to violate our own laws, and international laws, and to torture prisoners …

Thanks for unlawfully and unconstitutionally suspending habeas corpus …

Thanks for opening secret CIA prisons in former Soviet Block nations …

Thanks for giving no bid contracts to Cheney’s homeys in Iraq and Afghanistan – Halliburton ring any bells? – and for spending $2 billion per week there …

Thanks for allowing Cheney to decide your administration’s energy policy in his secret meetings with oil executives who stripped the guts out of regulations so badly the oil industry turned around and rewarded us all with the BP Deep Water Horizon spill in the Gulf …

Thanks for your ever so inspiring leadership during one of the worse natural disasters in American history, and for appointing a horse breeder to over see FEMA … “heck of a job Bushy!”

Thanks for driving the economy off the cliff …

Thanks for those tax cuts, especially for the ones at the top, you know those top 2% who were going to use their cuts to create jobs … um, still looking, and waiting for those jobs to be created … what’s that? They created millions of jobs, problem is they’re overseas …

There ya go, credit given where it was deserved … I wish I could list a whole bunch of positives concerning the Bush presidency, but I can’t think of any … W was one of the worse presidents in American history, and that’s really saying something …

Leave a comment

Posted by on May 3, 2011 in War on Terror


Tags: , , , ,

Top 10 Worst Things about the Republican Budget?

The GOTP is not, repeat NOT, a friend to students, teachers, woman, the poor, or most especially to our country’s veterans … cutting in half the vouchers being given to vets to prevent homelessness. Once again they send soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen to fight, and then stab them in the back! This is a disgrace! But everyone who voted for the GOTP in November, you go ahead and continue to sleep warm and comfy in your beds while vets are under bridges, they didn’t do anything for you.

This is the hypocrisy of the right, plain, simple and out in the open. Our nation spends $2 BILLION DOLLARS per week in Iraq and Afghanistan! $2 BILLION DOLLARS! They – the GOTP – continue to cater to the upper 2% of the population providing them with tax cuts which would have provided billions of dollars to the nation’s coffers, all while cutting education programs, gutting NPR and Public television, taking away food and medical help from millions of woman and children – including prenatal care – and screwing our vets!

Notice, however, there are no defense cuts. We don’t want to upset the military industrial complex, we’ll pay them their billions and then screw the troops for serving their country. This is a disgrace!

NEVER again will I vote for a Republican! NEVER AGAIN! Not if this is what the party of Reagan has become.

The Republican budget would:

1. Destroy 700,000 jobs, according to an independent economic analysis.

So, this is what the GOTP meant about jobs bills, and taking care of jobs in America …

2. Zero out federal funding for National Public Radio and public television.

Yeah, here’s the GOTPs version of the fairness doctrine. They – the GOTP – only want the country hearing Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck. No more programming questioning what they’re doing …

3. Cut $1.3 billion from community health centers–which will deprive more than three million low-income people of health care over the next few months.

I can hear Ebenezer whispering in Boehner’s ear now, “If they had rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population!” This is the GOTP health care plan for America, only the strong and rich will survive in their new America. Can’t afford health care? Too bad!

4. Cut nearly a billion dollars in food and health care assistance to pregnant women, new moms, and children.

As Reagan – the GOTP hero of heroes would no doubt intone – All those welfare queens in their caddies suckling from the nation’s breasts. You’re done! Go get jobs! Go beg! But we’re not helping you anymore!

I’m confused? Isn’t this the party that prides itself on America being a “Christian” nation? Wasn’t there something about taking care of the poor, and how it would easier to put a camel through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven?

5. Kick more than 200,000 children out of pre-school by cutting funds for Head Start.

The GOTP is tired of taking care of your snot nosed kids. If you can’t afford pre-school then too bad! Your kids aren’t worth it! You’re poor! Send your kids out to beg, like in other countries!

6. Force states to fire 65,000 teachers and aides, dramatically increasing class sizes, thanks to education cuts.

The GOTP hates teachers, and it hates public education. The Governor of Wisconsin, Limbaugh, Hannity et al, have been screaming about the lousy teachers getting rich doing nothing all day! No more!

7. Cut some or all financial aid for 9.4 million low- and middle-income college students.

According to Boehner and friends, if you can’t afford college you shouldn’t be there! Why should the rest of us pay for your college education! Go dig ditches, or beg or something. Who are you to think you could better yourself?

8. Slash $1.6 billion from the National Institutes of Health, a cut that experts say would “send shockwaves” through cancer research, likely result in cuts to Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s research, and cause job losses.

Once again Scrooge is speaking from the pages of literature through the GOTP, “If they’d rather die …” If you’re not wealthy enough to afford health care in Boehner’s America then you should just die. It’s a very simple health care plan. Those who can afford it survive. Those who cannot afford it? Too bad.

9. End the only federal family planning program, including cutting all federal funding that goes to Planned Parenthood to support cancer screenings and other woman’s health care.

The GOTP doesn’t care about poor woman, just about their own wives, mistresses and daughters. If you die giving birth to your welfare child, who cares? Not Boehner and company.

10. Send 10,000 low-income veterans into homelessness by cutting in half the number of veterans who get housing vouchers this year.

Boehner – who washed out of Navy basic training – could care less. Typical GOTP attitude. Claim to love America, drive around with your “support the soldiers” magnetic yellow ribbon on your car, and then knife them in the back once they’ve fought, and bled for you.

This is a disgrace …

1 Comment

Posted by on March 7, 2011 in Federal Budget


Tags: , , , , , , ,

Afghanistan A War of Obama’s Choosing?

While speaking at a Republican Party of British Petroleum (GOBP) fundraiser in Connecticut on Thursday, RNC Chairman Michael Steele’s comments were captured on camera and posted online. In the midst of his shilling, Steele criticized President Barack Obama and his handling of the nine-year-old war begun by Republican President George W. Bush in response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. He suggested the war cannot be won.

Steele said Afghanistan is, “a war of Obama’s choosing” and the conflict “is not something the United States has actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in.”

Well, let’s see, Bush invades Afghanistan in Oct 2001 in order to catch Bin Laden; gets side tracked by the bright shiny object Iraq, ignoring Afghanistan, thus allowing the Taliban to regroup and Bin Laden to escape, which then creates the absolute necessity of sending in a “surge” of troops in order to stabilize Afghanistan, push back the Taliban and maybe finally catch the man who “can run, but who can’t hide”.

In trying to place the war at the President’s feet, and in painting a picture of defeatism Steele said, “If he’s such a student of history, has he not understood that, you know, that’s the one thing you don’t do is engage in a land war in Afghanistan? All right? Because everyone who’s tried, over a thousand years of history, has failed,” Steele said. “And there are reasons for that. There are other ways to engage in Afghanistan.”

Steele quickly tried to dodge the fallout, and issued a statement Friday, saying, “There is no question that America must win the war on terror. … And, for the sake of the security of the free world, our country must give our troops the support necessary to win this war.”

He said, “The stakes are too high for us to accept anything but success in Afghanistan.”

Steele’s comments came as President Obama’s new chief in Afghanistan, Gen. David Petraeus, arrived in the country Friday to take over the war. The President, last week dismissed his previous commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, after he made disparaging comments about his superiors in a Rolling Stone interview.

Steele called the dismissal “very comical” but said it shows the frustration members of the military have with Obama. This might be true except for the fact that 45% of the military vote in 2008 went to President Obama. This is one of the great myths of the conservative right in America today, that the military loathes the President.

Unhappy with Steele’s words, DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse said it was “simply unconscionable that Michael Steele would undermine the morale of our troops when what they need is our support and encouragement. Michael Steele would do well to remember that we are not in Afghanistan by our own choosing, that we were attacked and that his words have consequences.”

Weekly Standard conservative pundit Bill Kristol, has called Steele’s resignation.

“There are, of course, those who think we should pull out of Afghanistan, and they’re certainly entitled to make their case,” wrote Kristol, who has consistently supported the Afghanistan war. “But one of them shouldn’t be the chairman of the Republican Party.”

Steele has enraged congressional Republicans throughout the last year; he has predicted the GOBP won’t win House control this fall. He has also criticized fellow Republicans in a book that party leaders didn’t know he was writing until it was published. His GOBP critics were irked further when he told them to “get a life” and “shut up.”

Earlier this year, his oversight of the RNC was called into question because of lavish spending, including money to entertain donors at a lesbian bondage club in Los Angeles. That incident led to the departure of a key Steele adviser, the party’s finance chief and the top committee staffer.

Steele, has been, and ever after shall be a political joke…

Leave a comment

Posted by on July 4, 2010 in Politics


Tags: , , , ,

Troops do not have a “right to defend themselves”?

During an appearance on Tuesday’s (29 Jun 10) Fox and Friends, God’s Self-proclaimed spokesman, Glenn Beck, suggested that the rules of engagement (ROE) in Afghanistan prevent American soldiers and marines from defending themselves, saying that American leaders (aka President Obama) should “take the shackles off our troops; they have a right to defend themselves.” Only problem with Bruder Beck’s suggestion is, well, current ROE states “that no one is ever denied the right to self-defense.”

Fox and Friends talking head Steve Doocy asked the Beckster what he wants GEN Petraeus to say, “You know, I’m going to start pulling things out in a year?”

Beck replied, “First of all — first of all, if our troops feel they’re in danger, shoot to kill. Take the shackles off our troops; they have a right to defend themselves. Enough with this little medal where — you know, it’s very interesting to me that the radicals who are now in charge from the 1960s who used to call our troops baby killers and really under George Bush did everything but call them baby killers, he was ‘General Betray-us.’ They give an award now for having restraint. That’s just a nice way of saying here’s a medal for not killing a baby. It’s the same thing. Take the handcuffs off and respect these people.”

Of course, the truth of the matter is that according to current rules, “no one is ever denied the right to self-defense”, in fact, the incoming commander, GEN David Petraeus, in a 17 Mar 10 congressional hearing (accessed via Nexis), testified that the directive emphasizing the protection of civilian lives “says that no one is ever denied the right to self-defense, nor will we ever hesitate, if someone is pinned down by fire, in responding to ensure that those troopers never feel as if they’re fighting with their hands tied behind their back.”

And in declassified portions of a revised “Tactical Directive” to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan issued in July 2009, outgoing commander, GEN Stanley McChrystal wrote: “This directive does not prevent commanders from protecting the lives of their men and women as a matter of self-defense where it is determined no other options (specific options deleted due to operational safety) are available to effectively counter the threat.” McChrystal also wrote: “I recognize that the carefully controlled and disciplined employment of force entails risks to our troops — and we must work to mitigate that risk wherever possible. But excessive use of force resulting in an alienated population will produce far greater risks.”

At the stroke of midnight, Wednesday was just another day of making stuff up for Beck; and just another day of spreading falsehoods and half truths for Fox News.

(thanks again to our friends at Media Matters)

Leave a comment

Posted by on July 1, 2010 in Afghanistan


Tags: , , , , , ,

McChrystal “didn’t get the rules of engagement” or troops he wanted?

According to that consummate military expert, Rush Limbaugh, Gen. Stanley McChrystal “didn’t get the rules of engagement” or the number of “boots on the ground” he wanted in Afghanistan. However, regardless of Limbaugh’s bovistations, it is well known that McChrystal has stated the rules of engagement are based on his “experience,” and has agreed President Obama provided the “right number” of additional troops.

During his 23 Jun 09 broadcast Rush said, “Well, it made a big difference to McChrystal. It’s a big difference. He didn’t get the boots on the ground that he asked for. He didn’t get the rules of engagement that he — saddled with. But we elected the guy, so we live with it. Yip-yip-yip-yip-yahoo, ta-da-ta-da-ta-da.”

Of course Rush, being documented as being right 99.9% of the time, always gets everything right, as clearly demonstrated in declassified portions of a revised “Tactical Directive” to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan issued in July 2009, wherein McChrystal wrote that American troops should avoid “causing civilian casualties or excessive damage and thus alienating the people” and that “excessive use of force resulting in an alienated population will produce far greater risks.” [NATO, 7/6/09]

But wait, that’s not all, McChrystal also agreed with a U.S. senator’s statement that he was not “directed” to implement rules of engagement. During a 9 Dec 09, Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, GEN McChrystal was asked by Senator Jack Reed (D-RI), “General McChrystal, the rules of engagement within Afghanistan emphasize minimizing civilian casualties. That was a point you made when you took over, and Admiral Mullen made the same point yesterday at Camp Lejeune.

“That is based, I think — and let — I don’t want to be presumptuous, but my understanding is based on your experience, your understanding of counterinsurgency warfare, the experience of the — the Soviets before us that it’s not — that you are not directed to do that by anyone, is that correct?”

And, oh snap, guess what the General answered? “That — that is correct, Senator. I did, before I deployed out, watch the situation going on. So I had formed opinions but got no specific direction.”

The important part of the statement is, “So I had formed opinions but got no specific direction.” He was given no “specific direction” regarding the rules of engagement (ROE) in Afghanistan. HE WAS GIVEN NO “SPECIFIC DIRECTION” REGARDING THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT IN AFGHANISTAN! So Rush, who has
never spent a single day in uniform, needs to remember that when he – or his ditto-heads – try to blame the ROE on President Obama.

Furthermore, Michael Hastings’ 22 June profile of McChrystal in Rolling Stone (the profile that consequently lead to the general’s professional demise), reported that McChrystal advocated “a controversial military strategy known as counterinsurgency” in Afghanistan and that “[i]n the end … McChrystal got almost exactly what he wanted.” Hastings also reported that McChrystal defended the rules of engagement during a question-and-answer session with soldiers, stating in part, “What I’m telling you is, fire costs you. What do you want to do? You want to wipe the population out here and resettle it?” Of course Rush very conveniently avoided any sections of the profile where decisions such as these were made by the general. Instead wanting to blame the President for any and all military decisions made in theater.

Concerning his “counterinsurgency” strategy, in his 30 Aug 09, commander’s assessment of the strategy in Afghanistan, McChrystal wrote that NATO forces require “a new strategy that is credible to, and sustainable by, the Afghans.” He continued: “This new strategy must also be properly resourced and executed through an integrated civilian-military counterinsurgency campaign that earns the support of the Afghan people and provides them with a secure environment.” McChrystal also stated that his strategy “requires more forces” in order to “accomplish the mission with appropriate and acceptable risk.” [NATO, 8/30/09]

President Obama responded to the general’s request, in his 1 Dec 09, address at West Point, the president announced his decision to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. President Obama also emphasized “a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security.” He continued:

“This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai’s inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We’ll support Afghan ministries, governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas — such as agriculture — that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.

“The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They’ve been confronted with occupation — by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand — America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect — to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron.” [, 12/1/09]

McChrystal was pleased with President Obama’s comments and subsequently stated the “coalition is encouraged by President Obama’s commitment” to the war. A 2 Dec 09, press release issued by Gen. McChrystal praised the President’s address on the war in Afghanistan. McChrystal said in the release that “[t]he clarity, commitment and resolve outlined in the President’s address are critical steps toward bringing security to Afghanistan and eliminating terrorist safe havens that threaten regional and global security.” He further stated that “[t]he 42 other nations of the Coalition will benefit from a strengthened U.S. commitment.”

McChrystal further praised the president’s change in strategy during congressional hearings just days after Obama’s announcement he told the Senate Armed Services Committee, “I participated fully in the President’s Assessment and decision-making process and was afforded multiple opportunities to provide my recommendations and best military advice — which I did. Combined with insights and policy considerations from across our Government, I believe the decisions that came from that process reflect a realistic and effective approach.” McChrystal went on to say: “The President’s decision rapidly resources our strategy, recognizes that the next 18 months will likely be decisive, and ultimately, enables success. I fully support the President’s decision. The President has also reiterated how this decision supports our national interests. Rolling back the Taliban is a pre-requisite to the ultimate defeat of al-Qaeda.” [Senate Armed Services Committee, 12/8/09]

But Rush – the great arm chair general that he is – has also tried to sell the opinion that the president did not provide McChrystal with adequate boots on the ground, in-spite-of the general agreeing 30,000 troops was the “right number” of additional U.S. troops to send to Afghanistan. From McChrystal’s 8 Dec 09, appearance before the House Armed Services Committee (accessed from Nexis), Rep Randy Forbes (R-VA) apparently hoping to demonstrate President Obama’s lack of support for his newly appointed general said, “Here’s the core of what every member of this committee needs to know and the American people need to know. In your experience, in your best military advice, should we send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan or a number greater than 30,000 — not what you requested, not what were in documents, not what the president ordered — in your best military advice?”

McChrystal was quick to reply, “In my best military advice, this is the right decision. The additional coalition forces that I expect will be helpful as well. But I believe that this is the right … “

Forbes cut in, “So you believe 30,000 would be the right number?”

McChrystal replied, “Of U.S. forces, yes, sir.”

But GEN McChrystal has again offered support for President Obama’s strategy in his resignation statement wherein he stated, “I strongly support the President’s strategy in Afghanistan.” Followed by an issued statement after his resignation he was again stated his support for Obama’s Afghanistan strategy, “This morning the President accepted my resignation as Commander of U.S. and NATO Coalition Forces in Afghanistan. I strongly support the President’s strategy in Afghanistan and am deeply committed to our coalition forces, our partner nations, and the Afghan people. It was out of respect for this commitment — and a desire to see the mission succeed — that I tendered my resignation.
“It has been my privilege and honor to lead our nations’ finest.”

So, once again, America’s self proclaimed “truth detector” doesn’t come anywhere close to the truth, but instead shows a lack of understanding for the subject, and a clear lack of caring whether what he say has any truth in it.

(Thanks to our friends at Media Matters for providing the quotes and background info)


Posted by on June 27, 2010 in Afghanistan


Tags: , , , ,

Duty? Honor? Country?

General Stanley A. McChrystal, USA, the current Commander, International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and Commander, U.S. Forces Afghanistan (USFOR-A)  previously served as Commander, Joint Special Operations Command from 2003 to 2008, where he played an active role in the cover-up of the Pat Tillman friendly fire incident.

Corporal Tillman – Defensive Back for the NFL’s Arizona Cardinals – enlisted in the U.S. Army following the terrorist attack on 9-11-01. He was killed by friendly fire while serving as an Army Ranger in Afghanistan in 2004. Within a day of Tillman’s death, McChrystal was notified that Tillman was a victim of fratricide. Shortly thereafter, McChrystal was put in charge of paperwork to award Tillman a posthumous Silver Star for valor.

On April 28, 2004, six days after Tillman’s death, McChrystal approved a final draft of the Silver Star recommendation and submitted it to the acting Secretary of the Army, even though the medal recommendation deliberately omitted any mention of friendly fire, included the phrase “in the line of devastating enemy fire,” and was accompanied by fabricated witness statements.

On April 29, 2004, McChrystal sent an urgent memo warning White House speechwriters not to quote the medal recommendation in any statements they wrote for President Bush because it “might cause public embarrassment if the circumstances of Corporal Tillman’s death become public.” McChrystal was one of eight officers recommended for discipline by a subsequent Pentagon investigation but the Army declined to take action against him.

McChrystal also served as commander of what Newsweek termed “the most secretive force in the U.S. military,” where he maintained a very low profile until June 2006, when his forces were responsible for the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. After McChrystal’s team successfully located Zarqawi and called in the air strike that killed him, McChrystal accompanied his men to the bombed-out hut to personally identify the body.

McChrystal’s Zarqawi unit, Task Force 6-26, became more well-known for its interrogation methods, particularly at Camp Nama, where it was accused of abusing detainees. After the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal became public in April 2004, 34 members of McChrystal’s the task force were disciplined, but he was not.

Having deliberately taken part in falsifying an award, and in knowingly covering up the death of a U.S. soldier, plus having commanded a task force that abused detainees, how can anyone truly trust the man who is in charge of the United State’s war effort in Afghanistan?

Clearly we now live in a time when the words, duty, honor and country are merely that, words. Clearly the much publicized seven Army Values, values such as respect and integrity, in reality, have very little “value” to men such as Gen. McChrystal, even though one point of the Soldier’s Creed of the United State’s Army clearly states, “I serve the people of the United States and live the Army Values.”

According to the Army Values, “Integrity” means to “Do what’s right—legally and morally”.

“The American people rightly look to their military leaders not only to be skilled in the technical aspects of the profession of arms, but also to be men of integrity. People of integrity consistently act according to principles—not just what might work at the moment. People of integrity do the right thing not because it’s convenient or because they have no choice. They choose the right thing because their character permits no less.

“Conducting yourself with integrity has three parts: Separating what’s right from what’s wrong; always acting according to what you know to be right, even at personal cost; and saying openly that you’re acting on your understanding of right versus wrong.”

I’m finding it difficult to understand how anyone serving in today’s United State’s Army, much less as a General Officer can reconcile his part in lying and covering up the death of a soldier and the Army’s definition of integrity.

The Army Values define “Respect” that you “Treat people as they should be treated”.

“Army leaders honor everyone’s individual worth by treating all people with dignity and respect.”

“The leader who feels and gives the respect which is due to others cannot fail to inspire in them regard for himself.  While he who feels, and hence manifests, disrespect toward others, especially his subordinates, cannot fail to inspire hatred against himself.

“Respect for the individual forms the basis for the rule of law, the very essence of what makes America. In the Army, respect means recognizing and appreciating the inherent dignity and worth of all people. This value reminds you that your people are your greatest resource.”

Clearly the Army’s definition of “respect” is different for the man who commanded a task force known for abusing detainees.

I’m also finding it difficult to understand what value this General still has to his country. How is his appointment to lead the new surge in Afghanistan of any worth to our country’s efforts there? Clearly he is a man without integrity, without honor and who does not respect others. If he did so, he would have resigned rather than lie to Pat Tillman’s family and to his country.

President Obama was wrong in placing him in command. He should have asked for his resignation, as well as the resignation of any other leaders who have in any way likewise soiled the reputation of the Army or of the United States. There are other men and women in the Army who can command and who still believe in what our country and in what our military stand for.

Leave a comment

Posted by on December 1, 2009 in Afghanistan


Tags: , , , ,