Human Cattle and the "Muslims" of Afghanistan's Gentlemen of Perversion… Not only in Afghanistan is the "Muslim" tradition of pedophilia perversion rampant, but so is it in Saudi Arabia. What is even more interesting is that the whole world is aware of this "Muslim" perversion yet the "Arabic Muslim" world seems to be unaffected. This in itself demonstrates the strangle hold that the "Islamic" world already has on the power elite and over those who abhor such practices. As with many distasteful practices in the "Islamic" world (like stoning) so is the case of the use and abuse of Muslim women, but also women from the Slavic regions, Europe, and even the U.S. Those who either do not make the grade as sexual servants or slave labor, in one form or another end up being the victims of a jealous lead wife, are used as unwilling organ donors for a never ending market, or left to wander in the desert to die… never be heard of again. A~
On Tuesday night, I watched the harrowing Frontline: The Dancing Boys of Afghanistan which exposed an ancient practice known as as "bacha bazi" which, literally translated, means 'boys' play'.
This illegal practice exploits orphans and street boys, and has been revived by powerful warlords, businessmen and military commanders in Afghanistan. These men dress the boys in women's clothes, who are trained to sing and dance for their enjoyment. The dancing boys are also used sexually by these men.
This is outstanding journalism by Afghan journalist Najibullah Quraishi, and my hat's off to PBS and to the Frontline producers for doing such an admirable job. I was particularly impressed by Quraishi and his producers' attempts to arrange the rescue of one of the dancing boys profiled in the film, an 11-year-old boy bought from an impoverished rural family.
In contrast with other productions (see my post of yesterday, for instance) the 11-year boy's face was blurred throughout the film to preserve his anonymity and self-respect.
Homosexuality is forbidden in Islam, and yet pederasty and boy concubinage has had a long history in the Persian cultural world which includes much of Afghanistan.
Women, children of both sexes, animals, Christians, Jews… who is not in line for their abuse? Yet, these are the people we are allowing to use the (our) U.S. Constitution against us… Wake-up America! You just need to look at practices in the Middle East and Europe to see what is coming!! You can continue to look away, but this won’t get better or go away… in fact it will come to your neighborhood!
However we better start speaking up soon… or it may be to late! Today courts in India… tomorrow?
“On Saturday a Delhi Court ordered 22 social networking sites, including Yahoo and Microsoft, to wipe the objectionable and defamatory contents and file compliance reports by February 6, 2012.”
“A Google spokesperson told the website: 'We comply with valid court orders wherever possible, consistent with our long standing policy.”
Court orders Google and Facebook to remove all anti-Islamic content
Social websites including Google and Facebook have been ordered by an Indian court to remove all 'anti-religious' and 'anti-social' content within six weeks.
On Saturday a Delhi Court ordered 22 social networking sites, including Yahoo and Microsoft, to wipe the objectionable and defamatory contents and file compliance reports by February 6, 2012.
Additional Civil Judge Mukesh Kumar passed the order on a suit filed by Mufti Aijaz Arshad Qasmi seeking to restrain the websites from circulating objectionable and defamatory contents.
Qasmi had objected to a number of images on the websites which he complained would cause 'irreparable loss and injury to the people who are offended by them'.
He argued that some of the images defamed Hindu gods, Prophet Mohammed and other religious figures, India Today website reported.
The order will raise serious questions about how users' posts and opinions will be edited, censorship and freedom of expression.
On December 22 Judge Kumar had issued summonses to the social networking sites, demanding they remove photographs, videos or texts that might offend religious sentiments, the Hindustan Times website reported.
The order comes a day after a criminal court issued summonses to the sites for facing trial for allegedly webcasting objectionable contents.
Santosh Pandey, appearing for complainant Mufti Aijaz Arshad Qasmi, told The Hindu Times after the court hearing that the websites have to submit a report to the court by February 6 describing the action they had taken to remove the contents from the websites.
Representatives of Yahoo India Pvt Ltd and Microsoft told the court that they had not got copies of the order and complaint against them, but Qasmi's counsel told the court that he would supply the relevant documents to them, according to the Hindustan Times.
The order comes at a controversial time as IT minister Kapil Sibal had recently discussed with representatives of some of the companies ways to guarantee the offensive contents are not posted.
India Today quoted him as saying: 'There were some demeaning, degrading, clearly pornographic depictions of gods and goddesses which no reasonable, sensible person anywhere in the world would accept, on any site.
The minister insisted he was not smothering free speech but was suggesting screening possible 'incendiary' material.
The Hindu Times reported Facebook India, Facebook, Google India Pvt Ltd, Google Orkut, Youtube, Blogspot, Microsoft India Pvt Ltd, Microsoft, Zombie Time, Exboii, Boardreader, IMC India, My Lot, Shyni Blog and Topix were all given the order.
A Google spokesperson told the website: 'We comply with valid court orders wherever possible, consistent with our long standing policy.
'We're yet to receive the details of this order and can't comment on this specific case.'
US (Obama) bars media from covering return of 30 dead soldiers killed in Afghanistan
WASHINGTON: The Pentagon has ruled out media coverage of a ceremony marking the return of 30 US soldiers, including 22 Navy SEALs, who were killed when the helicopter they were travelling in was shot down in Afghanistan.
The return of the remains in flag draped coffins to the Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, possibly today, was denied media coverage because given the nature of the attack there were "no identifiable remains" of these servicemen, Pentagon spokesman Marine Col David Lapan told reporters during an off camera briefing.
The International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan said the CH-47 Chinook helicopter was reportedly shot down by an insurgent rocket-propelled grenade while transporting the US service members and Afghan commandos to the scene of an engagement between ISAF and insurgent forces.
As a result of the attack, the helicopter exploded in midair, killing everyone on board.
"Due to the catastrophic nature of the crash, the remains of our fallen service members will be returned to the US via Dover AFB in unidentified status, until they can be positively identified by the Armed Forces Mortuary Affairs Office at Dover," another Pentagon spokesman, Navy Capt Jane Campbell said in a statement later.
"Because the remains are unidentified at this point, next-of-kin are not in a position to grant approval for media access to the dignified transfer," he said.
Therefore, in accordance with the policy of the Department of Defense, no media coverage of the arrival and dignified transfer is permitted, Campbell said.
"Families will however, be given the opportunity to be present for the arrival," he said.
Coverage of arrival of soldiers killed in battlefield was banned for the media during the previous Bush administration.
The Obama administration permitted media coverage of the return ceremony for service members killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, subject to the approval by the next-of-kin. But this time the Department of Defense ruled against the media coverage.
Pentagon Press Association president Nancy Youssef said the organization has protested the decision to ban media coverage and had sought to reverse the decision. posted at Times of India - US
Then mysteriously by the end of the day the reports began to change and the news was “corrected”, now it was being reported that it wasn’t any of the guys from the Bin Laden mission but other Seals.
We have friends who has a son serving right now that is part of a Special Forces Team and just back states side at a base filled with Special Forces. He says that everyone of them believes that there is something fishy with the deaths, the reports, the events and especially the changing story. Below is some input:
Was Seal Team Six Executed by Obama Administration?
The shocking death of the SEALS who took out bin Laden is starting to stink like a corpse. And the one who’s sniffing that stench the loudest is Ann Barnhardt. Immediately upon the tragic news of the deaths of Seal Team 6, Ann erupted with disgust at why President Obama’s staff had blared news of the deaths before the families of the deceased had themselves been notified. This is NOT in accordance with military protocol. She was also vehemently suspicious of just how Obama had been able to know the identities of the dead personnel when there hadn’t been enough time for DNA analysis; indeed, most of the bodies hadn’t yet been recovered. But most of all she was highly suspicious as to just how the bumbling buffoons of the Taliban had been able to take out the elite Seals. We all know that America’s soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan are awesome – but, face it folks, the Seals are a breed apart.
Seals operate in total secrecy, nobody knows who they are, where they are or what they’re doing; in short, the Seals are ‘invisible’ to the world, including their own fellow soldiers. In fact, the Seals are ‘invisible’ to themselves in terms of knowing where they will be within the next hour or what they will be doing. That secrecy protects them. And the protection is ratcheted even higher when one adds in the amazing agility with which Seals move; finding them is nearly impossible because they slip and slide amongst the landscape like – well, like seals do in the ocean, darting at awesome speeds in the twinkling of an eye. Which means that even if you DO get them in your sights, their speed is so incredible they could vanish before you pull the trigger. So, given the slovenly ineptitude of the Taliban (a ragtag bunch of losers who more often blow themselves up instead of their targets), it is unthinkable that such a band of incompetents would have been able to execute such a huge number of highly trained, incredibly well-protected Seals. It was akin to a high school dweeb taking down Bruce Lee with a single kick.
As far as Barnhardt was concerned, the death of the Seals could only have happened because of insider information. The Taliban had to have known exactly where and when those Seals would be appear on the landscape – and had to been waiting with proper weaponry that would fire at precisely the right moment and angle. Only then could all of those Seals been taken down. The Seals wouldn’t have told the Taliban, their brother officers wouldn’t have and neither would have their immediate superiors. No, only someone much higher up, someone privy to top secret information could have given that out. And once you understand that an attack of this magnitude needed an insider, the next logical question is – why would the insider do that? What would be their motive?
Well, if that insider were a President who refused to take out bin Laden because that President didn’t want to ‘upset’ the Muslims, than getting revenge on the ones who did is a whopper of a motive. A fit of the self-pitying sulks only makes the motive worse. Contrary to the lies from his administration, Obama was not glorified by the take down of bin Laden, he was instead humiliated. This is because Obama never had a single thing to do with the terrorist’s death; it was all the work of CIA Director Leon Panetta. Four months before the attack on the terrorist, Panetta and General Petraeus had located bin Laden’s whereabouts and begged the President to authorize a takedown of the murderer. But Obama flatly refused. He was more concerned with the feelings of the Muslim world than the grief and pain of the American victims of 9/11. Enraged by Obama’s stance, Panetta then staged a palace coup by secretly organizing the entire operation himself (with the explicit cooperation of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates). The killing of bin Laden was thus Panetta’s triumph, not the Commander in Chief – which accounts for that humiliating picture of the Command Center in the White House basement on the night bin Laden died. Whereas Clinton, Gates and even VP Biden are all seated at the command table as they’re briefed (off camera) by Panetta on the takedown, the President of the United States is banished from the table to squat in the corner like a tyke on his potty straining to make Number 2. (Obama even has his finger in his mouth.) It also explains why Obama’s nanny, Valerie Jarrett, was nowhere in sight. Because she’d shrieked even worse than Obama against taking out the terrorist because of her concern for Muslim ‘good will’, Panetta had slammed the door of the room shut in her face. Trust me – Valerie and Barack had more than enough motive to ‘punish’ the Seals.
Well, someone did just that because now the Seals are dead. Barnhardt is smelling a rat – and I am also. And the smell is only getting worse with the news (which Barnhardt outlines below) that the Seals themselves were not only clumped together in abnormally huge numbers (they never travel in large packs) but were also NOT traveling in their usual specially armored choppers.
I hope and pray that I (and Ann) are wrong. But I don’t think so.
————————-
Tip from Afghanistan
Posted by Ann Barnhardt – August 7, AD 2011 6:57 AM MST
I received a tip from a soldier stationed with an aviation brigade out of Jalalabad overnight.
“Almost immediately, after news of the crash began to spread, we were placed in an internet and phone blackout. This means communication with family, friends and “others” back home, in real time, is prevented until further notice.
However, there are also chinook pilots, crews and mechanics assigned here who were privy to the details of the crash almost immediately. One of confirmed details they have been discussing is that the chinook shot down belonged to a National Guard unit. Which is causing people to whisper in astonishment, “why were some of the most elite of America’s military, in such large numbers, tooling around on a National Guard aircraft?”
Also, those around me are wondering why such a large number(extremely unconventional for Seals, Green Berets, etc) of them riding in a single aircraft instead of being spread out into numerous aircraft.
Without question, I mean no disrespect to the pilots and crew of the National Guard aircraft, but the fact is that it’s very “strange” that Seals would be conducting an actual mission, with such large numbers, in such a basic aircraft. Especially, given the fact, that there were special operation chinooks easily available, and sitting idle, when this tragedy took place.”
I am not a journalist. I have no means of checking this. But SOMEONE needs to investigate if in fact the SEALS were on a National Guard helo, if there were SPECOPS Chinooks available and idle, and what the difference in armament is between Guard Chinooks and SPECOPS Chinooks. This potential difference in armament is HUGE and could account for the possibility of the Chinook being shot down by an RPG, if that is what happened.
Hello? Journalists? Anyone out there?
UPDATE: The SPECOPS Chinook is a very different beast that is heavily upgraded with enhanced survivability features. It is the Boeing MH-47E/G. Boeing’s Homepage for the SPECOPS chinook here. The soldier quoted above contends that the SEALS were NOT in one of these units, but rather in a standard Chinook while these SPECOPS Chinooks were available and sitting idle. Again, a JOURNALIST needs to confirm this.
UPDATE 2: From a reader:
Ann, You are on to something here. I was in the 160th 1982- 1985 and I can tell you that the reason the aviation wing was created was so special ops would never again have to fly missions with anyone other than their own pilots and birds.
UPDATE 3: From a reader:
Ann, I’m sure you’re getting a lot of notes on the Chinook debacle. I’m retired USAF familiar with how the system works when it comes to the questions asked by your Jalalabad contact. First, look to the Command Authority. Dispersion protocols are almost never broken except on direct order up the chain high enough that nobody could question or refuse the order without jeopardizing their career.Second, ‘who benefits’? Follow the trail of beneficiaries to the incident. Tactically, intell had to be passed to the shooters as to the timetable. I’m willing to bet that there were several RPG’s (if not Stinger’s – remember, we provided quite a few and never kept a record during the Soviet incursion into Afghanistan) involved. Then, once fired, the shooters had to egress unseen to fight another day. Many people I know, including some recently back from that area say this stinks to high Heaven, as you do.
Updated August 8, 2011 3:30pm ET
Today 31 NATO troops, 20 of them Navy Seals from the Osama bin Laden operation died in what is reported as a helicopter crash in Afghanistan.
The chances of this story being true is almost nil. The chances of this being a staged cover-up is over 80%. We believe these people were murdered to silence them. This is why.
Some Possibly Killed in Abbottabad Helicopter Crash Months Before
By Gordon Duff, Senior Editor – Veteran Times
We have solid information on two areas:
Osama bin Laden died in 2001 as an active CIA employee and his body was recovered in Afghanistan and taken to “the sand box.” We were told it was frozen. We have so much verification from this, CIA, ISI, US military and top officials. I have a direct confirmation from Bin Laden’s CIA handler who I grilled mercilessly on this.
The Abbottabad operation involved numerous American deaths, witnessed, bodies all over, a helicopter crash. (suppressed translated TV interview below) These bodies were recovered by land vehicle from Islamabad and there was NO “successful” bin Laden operation of any kind. There was and has been a CIA safe house in Abbotabad where terror suspects were stored for years.
This gave the US several areas of severe vulnerability. Generally, Navy Seals are the best people in the world at keeping their mouths shut, these are real team players, as the term “Seal Team” belies.
We at VT were informed that the bin Laden operation was staged at this time, a theatrical farce, to cover the exit of Secretary Gates, the move by former CIA Director Leon Panetta into the DOD as Secretary of Defense and to stem any heroic claims by new CIA Director Petraeus of killing the long dead Osama bin Laden, the long frozen CIA operative.
Petraeus is a possible presidential contender and had to be denied this “gift from heaven,” a fast track to the oval office for sure.
Will We Ever Know What Happened?
Again, I remind you, I went over specific meetings on bin Laden with his handlers, getting every last detail. I have watched what has gone on, the continuing need to vilify a long dead top CIA operative to provide residual cover for the Bush administration….
The reason? Bush and his cronies are all facing charges of war crimes, not just in minor jurisdictions but heading for the ICC, putting them on the dock with Gaddafi ( a far less harmful character).
As for the timing of this incident? This we will work on. What we can easily surmise is that some of the dead have been dead since their bodies were taken away from the helicopter crash site in Abbotabad.
Who would order such a thing? We are going to have to wait but we are going to find out. However, we expected this, the timing is exactly as predicted.
HOW VT TRIED TO SAVE THEM
When the phony Abbotbad operation came out, I immediately understood what happened. I also saw much potential good from it other than the tragedy of the dead Americans from the crash. I wrote of this and see their deaths as more heroic than many recognize.
They died to erase for all time remnants of the Bush era fairly tale of bad guy and evildoer Osama bin Laden. Enough good men had died chasing a ghost who lived only in phony video and audio tapes by “Bin Laden Studios” in Tel Aviv and in the continual “boogeyman” rhetoric of professional fear-mongers.
Not long afterward, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, another able public servant announced the near defeat of Al Qaeda, another Bush fairly tale.
Al Qaeda has never existed, there are no magic worldwide terror conspiracies other than those run by governments. There are several of those and I have written extensively on these. Google will help you with this if you are curious.
When VT saw why the government staged this, we saw we could accomplish two things:
We could simply report the truth for those willing to believe it, something we believe is the right thing to do.
We could also support the United States in a very real way, knowing Pakistan would weather this crisis, timed, in some ways, as a face saving move in response to the embarrassing Raymond Davis affair. I believed if the truth came out, clear enough for insiders, intel and military for sure, to understand that we knew and other insiders knew, there would be no reason to “clean house” afterward, to stage a cover-up and get rid of any involved.
Abbotabad – How Many Died Here?
I had felt that we had provided cover for the Seal Team, we hadn’t trashed them, we acknowledged the dead at Abbotabad where no one else bothered, this is our job as fellow members of America’s military forces (current and former).
More importantly, we got out word, I certainly did enough radio and TV on this, enough that, for anyone who care, the “truth was out there.”
This is all we could do but I hoped it would stem a need for covering tracks. After all, anyone leaking real information on the operation would only seem like they had gotten it from me and I put it out there in such a manner that I allowed room to be “debunked.”
I do this to protect myself but I really was thinking of them. These are great guys, Seals are among the best people on earth. The Seal and Special Forces communities are, of the military groups in the US, some of the finest people I know.
They also help cover my “behind,” which I appreciate.
This is just too obvious, too brazen. I can’t imagine it started at the White House or even cabinet level but maybe I am deluding myself. Bin Laden was all about the election.
After the bond collapse and credit disaster yesterday, anything threatening President Obama’s reelection is seen, by some, as a threat to America’s financial survival. This debt crisis is a bigger threat to the US than a Japanese invasion in 1942 would have been.
You may not see it that way and you certainly cant get out your hunting rifle to fix it. (Don’t be a sap, kill a Jap!)
Osama in Better Days
Someone had gotten to someone. My best guess and this is a guess…an expose’ by the mainstream media, perhaps Murdoch, another guess, conjecture I admit, regarding the farce at Abbottabad, information possibly gotten through spying, bribery and blackmail, threatened to take down Obama.
With Murdoch’s good friend and “monkeyboy,” Netanyahu ‘on the ropes,” with crowds marching in Israel’s streets demanding his ouster, we have more timing to factor in.
The bin Laden killing, the third rate drama of capturing an unarmed frozen dead guy and throwing him into the ocean had probably become an albatross around certain high ranking necks.
Norway was no accident, it was a warning too. It has been containerized, just as the Murdoch espionage issue is now “poor Rupert and the pie thrower.”
These Americans are casualties in a game, one like 9/11, sacrificial pawns, like Britain’s 7/7, all lies, all theatre, all evil.
This is not for public consumption. There are those who know exactly who I am talking to.
There are many of us here who still keep our mouths shut about so many things. There are too many who don’t even care, most of us at VT do. Yes, I am aware I can be jailed, I am aware my passport can be pulled, I already see the damned surveillance.
Amateurs.
We aren’t anti-American. I am simply sick of seeing solutions that go one direction, stealing everything that isn’t nailed down. I am also sick of the fact that Washington can’t visit the “head’ without Israel’s permission.
This…today, this is too much. It is unforgivable. We are not going to allow this to stand.
We have a long standing history of “cleaning house” after operations of this kind. Usually its dead senators in plane crashes, heart attacks, car wrecks, like the Minot Barksdale or 9/11 incidents. I could name a dozen more. Does the name Wheeler meaning anything to you? Anyone remember Pat Tillman?
But this many?
g
Keep checking in with us and Ann Branhardt for updates to this story. Ask Marion~
Then mysteriously by the end of the day the reports began to change and the news was “corrected”, now it was being reported that it wasn’t any of the guys from the Bin Laden mission but other Seals.
We have friends who has a son serving right now that is part of a Special Forces Team and just back states side at a base filled with Special Forces. He says that everyone of them believes that there is something fishy with the deaths, the reports, the events and especially the changing story. Below is some input:
Was Seal Team Six Executed by Obama Administration?
The shocking death of the SEALS who took out bin Laden is starting to stink like a corpse. And the one who's sniffing that stench the loudest is Ann Barnhardt. Immediately upon the tragic news of the deaths of Seal Team 6, Ann erupted with disgust at why President Obama's staff had blared news of the deaths before the families of the deceased had themselves been notified. This is NOT in accordance with military protocol. She was also vehemently suspicious of just how Obama had been able to know the identities of the dead personnel when there hadn't been enough time for DNA analysis; indeed, most of the bodies hadn't yet been recovered. But most of all she was highly suspicious as to just how the bumbling buffoons of the Taliban had been able to take out the elite Seals. We all know that America's soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan are awesome - but, face it folks, the Seals are a breed apart.
Seals operate in total secrecy, nobody knows who they are, where they are or what they're doing; in short, the Seals are 'invisible' to the world, including their own fellow soldiers. In fact, the Seals are 'invisible' to themselves in terms of knowing where they will be within the next hour or what they will be doing. That secrecy protects them. And the protection is ratcheted even higher when one adds in the amazing agility with which Seals move; finding them is nearly impossible because they slip and slide amongst the landscape like - well, like seals do in the ocean, darting at awesome speeds in the twinkling of an eye. Which means that even if you DO get them in your sights, their speed is so incredible they could vanish before you pull the trigger. So, given the slovenly ineptitude of the Taliban (a ragtag bunch of losers who more often blow themselves up instead of their targets), it is unthinkable that such a band of incompetents would have been able to execute such a huge number of highly trained, incredibly well-protected Seals. It was akin to a high school dweeb taking down Bruce Lee with a single kick.
As far as Barnhardt was concerned, the death of the Seals could only have happened because of insider information. The Taliban had to have known exactly where and when those Seals would be appear on the landscape - and had to been waiting with proper weaponry that would fire at precisely the right moment and angle. Only then could all of those Seals been taken down. The Seals wouldn't have told the Taliban, their brother officers wouldn't have and neither would have their immediate superiors. No, only someone much higher up, someone privy to top secret information could have given that out. And once you understand that an attack of this magnitude needed an insider, the next logical question is - why would the insider do that? What would be their motive?
Well, if that insider were a President who refused to take out bin Laden because that President didn't want to 'upset' the Muslims, than getting revenge on the ones who did is a whopper of a motive. A fit of the self-pitying sulks only makes the motive worse. Contrary to the lies from his administration, Obama was not glorified by the take down of bin Laden, he was instead humiliated. This is because Obama never had a single thing to do with the terrorist's death; it was all the work of CIA Director Leon Panetta. Four months before the attack on the terrorist, Panetta and General Petraeus had located bin Laden's whereabouts and begged the President to authorize a takedown of the murderer. But Obama flatly refused. He was more concerned with the feelings of the Muslim world than the grief and pain of the American victims of 9/11. Enraged by Obama's stance, Panetta then staged a palace coup by secretly organizing the entire operation himself (with the explicit cooperation of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates). The killing of bin Laden was thus Panetta's triumph, not the Commander in Chief - which accounts for that humiliating picture of the Command Center in the White House basement on the night bin Laden died. Whereas Clinton, Gates and even VP Biden are all seated at the command table as they're briefed (off camera) by Panetta on the takedown, the President of the United States is banished from the table to squat in the corner like a tyke on his potty straining to make Number 2. (Obama even has his finger in his mouth.) It also explains why Obama's nanny, Valerie Jarrett, was nowhere in sight. Because she'd shrieked even worse than Obama against taking out the terrorist because of her concern for Muslim 'good will', Panetta had slammed the door of the room shut in her face. Trust me - Valerie and Barack had more than enough motive to 'punish' the Seals.
Well, someone did just that because now the Seals are dead. Barnhardt is smelling a rat - and I am also. And the smell is only getting worse with the news (which Barnhardt outlines below) that the Seals themselves were not only clumped together in abnormally huge numbers (they never travel in large packs) but were also NOT traveling in their usual specially armored choppers.
I hope and pray that I (and Ann) are wrong. But I don't think so.
Posted by Ann Barnhardt - August 7, AD 2011 6:57 AM MST
I received a tip from a soldier stationed with an aviation brigade out of Jalalabad overnight.
"Almost immediately, after news of the crash began to spread, we were placed in an internet and phone blackout. This means communication with family, friends and "others" back home, in real time, is prevented until further notice.
However, there are also chinook pilots, crews and mechanics assigned here who were privy to the details of the crash almost immediately. One of confirmed details they have been discussing is that the chinook shot down belonged to a National Guard unit. Which is causing people to whisper in astonishment, "why were some of the most elite of America's military, in such large numbers, tooling around on a National Guard aircraft?"
Also, those around me are wondering why such a large number(extremely unconventional for Seals, Green Berets, etc) of them riding in a single aircraft instead of being spread out into numerous aircraft.
Without question, I mean no disrespect to the pilots and crew of the National Guard aircraft, but the fact is that it's very "strange" that Seals would be conducting an actual mission, with such large numbers, in such a basic aircraft. Especially, given the fact, that there were special operation chinooks easily available, and sitting idle, when this tragedy took place."
I am not a journalist. I have no means of checking this. But SOMEONE needs to investigate if in fact the SEALS were on a National Guard helo, if there were SPECOPS Chinooks available and idle, and what the difference in armament is between Guard Chinooks and SPECOPS Chinooks. This potential difference in armament is HUGE and could account for the possibility of the Chinook being shot down by an RPG, if that is what happened.
Hello? Journalists? Anyone out there?
UPDATE: The SPECOPS Chinook is a very different beast that is heavily upgraded with enhanced survivability features. It is the Boeing MH-47E/G. Boeing's Homepage for the SPECOPS chinook here. The soldier quoted above contends that the SEALS were NOT in one of these units, but rather in a standard Chinook while these SPECOPS Chinooks were available and sitting idle. Again, a JOURNALIST needs to confirm this.
UPDATE 2: From a reader:
Ann, You are on to something here. I was in the 160th 1982- 1985 and I can tell you that the reason the aviation wing was created was so special ops would never again have to fly missions with anyone other than their own pilots and birds.
UPDATE 3: From a reader:
Ann, I'm sure you're getting a lot of notes on the Chinook debacle. I'm retired USAF familiar with how the system works when it comes to the questions asked by your Jalalabad contact. First, look to the Command Authority. Dispersion protocols are almost never broken except on direct order up the chain high enough that nobody could question or refuse the order without jeopardizing their career. Second, 'who benefits'? Follow the trail of beneficiaries to the incident. Tactically, intell had to be passed to the shooters as to the timetable. I'm willing to bet that there were several RPG's (if not Stinger's - remember, we provided quite a few and never kept a record during the Soviet incursion into Afghanistan) involved. Then, once fired, the shooters had to egress unseen to fight another day. Many people I know, including some recently back from that area say this stinks to high Heaven, as you do.
Is there anybody out there besides me that thinks this is just too much of a coincidence??
KABUL, Afghanistan -- A military helicopter was shot down in eastern Afghanistan, killing 31 U.S. special operation troops, most of them from the elite Navy SEALs unit that killed Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, along with seven Afghan commandos. It was the deadliest single incident for American forces in the decade-long war.
The Taliban claimed they downed the helicopter with rocket fire while it was taking part in a raid on a house where insurgents were gathered in the province of Wardak late Friday. It said wreckage of the craft was strewn at the scene. A senior U.S. administration official in Washington said the craft was apparently shot down by insurgents. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the crash is still being investigated.
NATO confirmed the overnight crash took place and that there "was enemy activity in the area." But it said it was still investigating the cause and conducting a recovery operation at the site. It did not release details or casualty figures.
"We are in the process of accessing the facts," said U.S. Air Force Capt. Justin Brockhoff, a NATO spokesman.
One current and one former U.S. official said that the dead included more than 20 Navy SEALs from SEAL Team Six, the unit that carried out the raid in Pakistan in May that killed bin Laden. They were being flown by acrew of the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment. Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because families are still being notified.
President Barack Obama mourned the deaths of the American troops, saying in a statement that the crash serves as a reminder of the "extraordinary sacrifices" being made by the U.S. military and its families. He said he also mourned "the Afghans who died alongside our troops."
The death toll would surpass the worst single day loss of life for the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan since the war began in 2001 -- the June 28, 2005 downing of a military helicopter in eastern Kunar province. In that incident, 16 Navy SEALs and Army special operations troops were killed when their craft was shot down while on a mission to rescue four SEALs under attack by the Taliban. Three of the SEALs being rescued were also killed and the fourth wounded. It was the highest one-day death toll for the Navy Special Warfare personnel since World War II.
With its steep mountain ranges, providing shelter for militants armed with rocket-propelled grenade launchers, eastern Afghanistan is hazardous terrain for military aircraft. Large, slow-moving air transport carriers like the CH-47 Chinook are particularly vulnerable, often forced to ease their way through sheer valleys where insurgents can achieve more level lines of fire from mountainsides.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Saturday gave the first public word of the new crash, saying in a statement that "a NATO helicopter crashed last night in Wardak province" and that 31 American special operations troops were killed. He expressed his condolences to President Barack Obama.
The helicopter was a twin-rotor Chinook, said an official at NATO headquarters in Brussels. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said he was receiving his information from an Afghan officer in Kabul.
The crash took place in the Sayd Abad district of Wardak province, said a provincial government spokesman, Shahidullah Shahid. The volatile region borders the province of Kabul where the Afghan capital is located and is known for its strong Taliban presence.
Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid said in a statement that Taliban fighters downed the helicopter during a "heavy raid" in Sayd Abad. He said NATO attacked a house in Sayd Abad where insurgent fighters were gathering Friday night. During the battle, the fighters shot down the helicopter, killing 31 Americans and seven Afghans, he said, adding that eight insurgents were killed in the fight.
There have been at least 17 coalition and Afghan aircraft crashes in Afghanistan this year.
Most of the crashes were attributed to pilot errors, weather conditions or mechanical failures.
However, the coalition has confirmed that at least one CH-47F Chinook helicopter was hit by a rocket propelled grenade on July 25. Two coalition crew members were injured in that attack.
Meanwhile, in the southern Helmand province, an Afghan government official said Saturday that NATO troops attacked a house and inadvertently killed eight members of a family, including women and children.
NATO said that Taliban fighters fired rocket propelled grenades and small arms fire at coalition troops during a patrol Friday in the Nad Ali district.
"Coalition forces responded with small arms fire and as the incident continued, an air strike was employed against the insurgent position," said Brockhoff. He added that NATO sent a delegation to meet with local leaders and investigate the incident.
Nad Ali district police chief Shadi Khan said civilians died in the bombardment but that it was unknown how many insurgents were killed.
Helmand, a Taliban stronghold, is the deadliest province in Afghanistan for international troops.
NATO has come under harsh criticism in the past for accidentally killing civilians during operations against suspected insurgents. However, civilian death tallies by the United Nations show the insurgency is responsible for most war casualties involving noncombatants.
In south Afghanistan, NATO said two coalition service member were killed, one on Friday and another on Saturday. The international alliance did not release further details.
With the casualties from the helicopter crash, the deaths bring to 365 the number of coalition troops killed this year in Afghanistan and 42 this month.
This was the largest single loss of life ever for SEAL Team Six.
The Associated Press has learned that more than 20 Navy SEALs from the unit that killed Osama bin Laden were among those lost in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan.
For anyone who questions what really happened to Bin Laden and what happened in that reported raid… the witness list is getting thin! (Bit my bit posts, photos and accounts related to these events are vanishing from the web… soon they will vanish, or be re-written with nobody to verify them, for posterity!)
“Just because something is a conspiracy does not mean it isn’t true!” …Rubicon
Update from Fox News… It has been confirmed that the helicopter carrying the Navy Seals plus 7 Afghans was shot down with an RGB. Curiously neither the Taliban nor any Al-Qaeda groups have taken credit? Odd??
My condolences to the families of the 31 Navy Seals that had their lives taken from them in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan. My prayers go out to everyone who them loved them all.
I sent this out today, it has the advertisers addresses listed at the bottom, if anyone wants to also send something.
Dear MSNBC "Hardball" Advertisers:
As a patriotic American citizen, it becomes at times necessary to take positive action to individually do what one can; in order to help support America's troops, who fastidiously guard our God-given and constitutional rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.
In recent days, certain statements have been broadcast by Chris Matthews, the host of MSNBC's "Hardball;" a program of which each of you is an advertiser. As advertisers during that particular program, you constructively support the content of whatever he says, willingly or not.
During the aftermath of the Muslim extremist terrorist attack by Major Hasan, Chris Matthews defended Major Hasan's contact with an al Qaeda recruiter in Yemen. Matthews posed the rhetorical question, "That's not a crime to call al Qaeda, is it? Is It?" We wonder if Major Hasan was calling to say, "Hi," which does not seem to be a crime. But that's not the point, is it?
Then, Matthews made a new comment following President Obama's speech at West Point, a comment even more disgusting than the one above. Although Matthews later speculated that "maybe he used the wrong words," his new comment was reprehensible enough to trigger action by this citizen. Frankly, both comments were anti-American, and despicable. For millions, they caused revulsion and physical nausea. We seriously doubt that you want those thoughts and feelings associated with your products and services.
Although we would fight to the death to support Matthews right to free speech, if necessary; of course that does not mean that the content of his speech is worthy of support, by anyone, including you. It is the duty of American citizens to tolerate offensive speech, in order to keep secure the right to free speech. Matthews has the right to say whatever he wants, but the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee a megaphone. And you, advertisers, are paying for his megaphone. Not a problem, if you agree with him. That is what we want to know.
Perhaps it was naive to think that MSNBC would have taken action, following such comments. And while redemption is always possible, there are no empty words of apology that would be convincing. Matthews' comments lay bare his deep-seated contempt for the military -- the same military that protects his right to make such comments.
Without action that shows a sincere attempt to change one's ways, any apology truly rings hollow; and in this case, is obviously, gratingly political. It reminds us of that scene in "Saving Private Ryan," where the German soldier starts trying to sing "The Star Spangled Banner," to save his skin. Later, after he is let-go; he is again found on enemy lines, trying to kill Americans again. Matthews' gut-wrenching (and startlingly revealing) statement regarding Presdident Obama's speech at West Point is as follows: “I saw if not resentment, skepticism. I didn’t see a lot of warmth in that crowd out there, uh, the president chose to address tonight. And I think that is interesting. He went to maybe the enemy camp tonight to make his case.”
Apparently the West Point speech by President Obama did not cause a tingle to go up Matthews' leg.
Advertisers, West Point is NOT the enemy camp. And there are no good reasons for a U.S. Army Major to place telephone calls to al Qaeda recruiters, whether a crime, or not. And supporting such viewpoints with advertising dollars is likely not your intent, but here we are, with your ads continuing to run during his program. We think you should pull the ads immediately, but of course, that is your decision.
Perhaps it is literally impossible to stop the broadcast of commercials in one day, but as a citizen and as a consumer; it is impossible to continue to support the purchase of your products and services, if you continue to support Chris Matthews and "Hardball" with your advertising. Believe me, we are DVR recording the program to see who continues to support this program and this host, and to help us decide where our dollars are best spent.
May God guide you in your future advertising decisions, may He bless the national treasure that is West Point and our military, and may God continue to bless the United States of America.
President Obama is not a Wartime President, is not a Pro- America President and is not an inspirational President to the American People or America’s Troops… No Matter How Often the Lame Stream Tries to Tell Us What a Great Speaker He Is!
There was not enthusiasm, no determination, no anger, no inspiration in Obama’s speech to the cadets at West Point and to the American People. Per Germany’s Der Spiegel the cadets present at Obama’s speech were coached yesterday to respond to his speech enthusiastically! (and still were luke warm).
And, did you know that General McCrystal actually asked Obama for 40 to 60 thousand troops; stressing that 40,000 would be a bare minimum if we wanted to win?!? What did he give him?? 30 to 35,000 almost 4 months later?
Can more U.S. troops in Afghanistan really convert Afghans into an effective fighting force? Will allies answer the call to do more? Is Pakistan truly prepared to take on the extremists who pose the greatest threat?
President Barack Obama said yes in his speech Tuesday laying out his plan to pour 30,000 more troops into the Afghan war, then begin pulling out in 18 months.
The prospects, though, at least judging by recent history, are mixed. A look at some of his claims and how they compare with the reality on the ground: READ MORE...
Reason 4,298 we despise liberals. Listen to Biden and Obama; idiots, hypocrites and total morons. This video is just more evidence of that.
NOTE ABOUT WEST POINT SPEECH- Can this annoying con artist of a President please expand his vocabulary? 'The status quo is unsustainable! Derisive, Dismissive, Insidious, Incredulous.'
Dude, 'shut up already.' Someone please yank the plug on that teleprompter so he can go back to being the 'real' Obama. The 'stuttering' Marxist 'community organizer' who doesn't like America or it's history.
Google 'The status quo is unsustainable Obama' and look how many times he says it. Israel, health care, Afghanistan, Israeli-Palestinian, the economy, the environment.
The reason we call Obama supporters 'idiots' is because they actually think this guy is a genius because he uses 'played out' phrases, when they can't see that Obama is conning the shit out of them. They should feel like idiots for not paying attention to WHAT he is saying instead of HOW he says it.
------------
Fox: No Mention of 'Victory'? Click Here for Speech Analysis
President Obama, in a speech Tuesday that could define the rest of his presidency, laid out his plan to quickly send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan to revive the struggling war effort while setting a preliminary timeline for withdrawal -- aiming to start handing over security roles to Afghan forces by July 2011.
"The status quo is unsustainable," Obama said as he outlined his case for a three-part strategy: more troops to bolster the military effort, a "civilian surge" to improve living conditions in the country and an increased focus on the United States' partnership with Pakistan.
The much-anticipated strategy decision is one of the most significant foreign policy moves of Obama's early presidency, and the White House is hoping the plan will achieve the tough task of appeasing the military, a war-weary public and the anti-war left. Read more here.
Within 24 hours of the leak of the Afghanistan assessment to The Washington Post, General Stanley McChrystal's team fired its second shot across the bow of the Obama administration. According to McClatchy, military officers close to General McChrystal said he is prepared to resign if he isn't given sufficient resources (read "troops") to implement a change of direction in Afghanistan:
Adding to the frustration, according to officials in Kabul and Washington, are White House and Pentagon directives made over the last six weeks that Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, not submit his request for as many as 45,000 additional troops because the administration isn't ready for it.
In the last two weeks, top administration leaders have suggested that more American troops will be sent to Afghanistan, and then called that suggestion "premature." Earlier this month, Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that "time is not on our side"; on Thursday, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates urged the public "to take a deep breath."
In Kabul, some members of McChrystal's staff said they don't understand why Obama called Afghanistan a "war of necessity" but still hasn't given them the resources they need to turn things around quickly.
Three officers at the Pentagon and in Kabul told McClatchy that the McChrystal they know would resign before he'd stand behind a faltering policy that he thought would endanger his forces or the strategy.
"Yes, he'll be a good soldier, but he will only go so far," a senior official in Kabul said. "He'll hold his ground. He's not going to bend to political pressure."
On Thursday, Gates danced around the question of when the administration would be ready to receive McChrystal's request, which was completed in late August. "We're working through the process by which we want that submitted," he said.
The entire process followed by the military in implementing a change of course in Afghanistan is far different, and bizarrely so, from the process it followed in changing strategy in Iraq.
For Afghanistan, the process to decide on a course change began in March of this year, when Bruce Reidel was tasked to assess the situation. This produced the much-heralded yet vague "AfPak" assessment. Then, in May, General David McKiernan was fired and replaced by General McChrystal, who took command in June. General McChrystal's assessment hit President Obama's desk at the end of August, almost three months after he took command. And yet now in the last half of September, the decision on additional forces has yet to be submitted to the administration.
Contrast this with Iraq in the fall of 2006. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was fired just one day after the elections in early November. The Keane-Kagan plan for Iraq was submitted to President Bush shortly afterward, and encompassed both the assessment of the situation and the recommended course of action, including the recommended number of troops to be deployed to deal with the situation. General David Petraeus replaced General George Casey in early February 2007, and hit the ground running; the surge strategy was in place, troops were being mustered to deploy to Iraq, and commanders on the ground were preparing for and executing the new orders. The first of the surge units began to arrive in Iraq only weeks later, in March.
Today, the military is perceiving that the administration is punting the question of a troop increase in Afghanistan, and the military is even questioning the administration's commitment to succeed in Afghanistan. The leaking of the assessment and the report that McChrystal would resign if he is not given what is needed to succeed constitute some very public pushback against the administration's waffling on Afghanistan.
Is a fractured elbow keeping Hillary out of the limelight, or are there more sinister forces at work?
Diplomatic hot spots are popping up everywhere, in spite of President Obama's "adopt an evil-doer" doctrine. We have real-live crises in Honduras, North Korea and Iran; things are dicey in Afghanistan, China is ever problematic and Mexico is a mess. Not to worry: the administration is on top of things. Joe Biden is trying to make Iraq's leaders play nice in their sandbox, President Obama is becoming the Russians' new BFF, Richard Holbrooke has been meeting with G8 foreign ministers in Trieste, and George Mitchell convened recently with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's last gig was...installing Jose Villarreal as the Commissioner for the 2010 Shanghai World Expo? Boy, has she been had.
Is a fractured elbow keeping Hillary out of the limelight, or are there more sinister forces at work? Could her virtual disappearance have anything to do with sky-high approval ratings -- ratings suggesting that Americans might favor Clinton over Obama in future scuffles?
Barack Obama, who campaigned as new to the whole partisan, "inside the Beltway" world of politics, is a fast learner. His cunning elimination of Hillary Clinton as a political threat will be a case study someday in the Handbook of Power Politics. Tapping her to be part of his administration was of course brilliant; she can't snipe from the sidelines, and she, moreover, will carry the president's baggage, at least in the realm of foreign policy. Placing in front of her several showy envoys to cover the big tasks was clever too. But recently, Obama has dug the hole even deeper.
Not only has Clinton been off center stage, some of her most visible moments of late have spotlighted her carrying out the world's most thankless assignment -- criticizing Israel. First she lectured our allies about treating Palestinians poorly and then she ramped up the pressure about its disputed settlements. Not one to mince words, she translated President Obama's gentle reproof into a harsh ultimatum, insisting he meant "not some settlements, not outposts, not 'natural growth' exceptions" -- in short NO settlements.
Think about delegating a New York State politician to chastise Israel and its leaders. Short of sending toddlers to undermine the siege of Moscow, it's hard to come up with a more daunting mission. If she continues as the heavy in this new relationship with Israel, Hillary Clinton can kiss goodbye to any future ambitions that rely on her raising money in the Jewish community -- or that is, almost any ambitions at all. Overcoming initial hostility due to her memorable smooching with the wife of Yassir Arafat, Clinton worked hard to woo the well-heeled Jewish vote. She succeeded. In the primaries, according to CBS News, she garnered 54% of the Jewish vote, compared to only 43% for Barack Obama. (Of course, it may have been the "Hussein" that threw Jewish voters off.) For President Obama, separating Hillary Clinton from the nipple of Jewish generosity is an insurance policy.
Why would Obama need to undermine Hillary Clinton? For starters, the public is beginning to warm to our Secretary of State as never before. In May, her polling topped Obama's. Clinton had a 71% approval rating, compared to 65% for the president. That's the kind of comparison that could furrow a brow or two.
Moreover, it is entirely conceivable that our ambitious young president could run into trouble. He has undertaken one gigantic initiative after another, potentially undermining the economic recovery. As investors have assessed soaring budget deficits, they have demanded higher returns on Treasuries. Rising interest rates have eliminated one powerful balm for consumers -- mortgage refinancing. Higher taxes are inevitable, and will further pressure any rebound in spending. Unemployment numbers are dreadful, businesses are apprehensive, unions are demanding payback for their support and our trading partners are grumpy about rising protectionism. It's not a pretty picture.
Though Obama has tried to make Congress the fall guy should healthcare prove disastrous or cap-and-trade disruptive, Americans are not so dumb. They know where this whirlwind of change is coming from, and they are increasingly uneasy. Should our Afghanistan adventures prove as punishing for our GIs as they have for every other power enticed into that miserable landscape, should GM come back to the people's feeding trough, should Chavez et al continue to make the president look foolish, Americans may seek relief -- and they may spell it HILLARY.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) accused President Obama of embarking on a "tour of apology" around the globe at the expense of America's national security.
"It's not because America hasn't made mistakes — we have," the former Republican presidential contender said, explaining his criticism, "but because America's mistakes are overwhelmed by what America has meant to the hopes and aspirations of people throughout the world."
Romney noted an interview Obama gave on Arabic television, in which the president said the U.S. had dictated to the world. A British newspaper, he said, had declared Obama the president who had been the most critical of his own country while on foreign soil.
"That would be a most unfortunate distinction at any time," Romney said. "But it is particularly so today. With all that is transpiring in the world, in Iran, North Korea, Georgia, Somalia, Iraq, Pakistan [and] Afghanistan, this is the time for strength and confidence, not for apologizing to America's critics."
Kicking off the conservative Heritage Foundation's "Protect America" month, Romney addressed a largely friendly crowd as he continues to explore a repeat bid for the White House. Romney allies insist the governor is undecided about a second run and is not even thinking about it, but behind the scenes the former Massachusetts governor is building a foundation that could launch an encore bid.
Like most governors, Romney found himself lacking in foreign affairs credentials during his White House bid. In establishing himself as a deep thinker on national security and foreign policy, Romney sought to fill a key gap.
He highlighted missile defense, a program that has dragged on for more than two decades without reaching completion. President Obama has said he does not support continuing the program.
"Rarely in history has any program had the promise to do more good or spare more suffering than a system of missile defense," Romney said. "Backing away from missile defense and depleting the defense budget to fund new social programs, particularly in the face of global turmoil, would put America and Americans at risk."
Romney also called for an increase of at least $50 billion in the Defense Department's modernization budget, to be used to improve the nation's nuclear arsenal and to upgrade the military's tracked vehicles and tanks.
Romney advocated for a more aggressive stance toward international threats, especially North Korea. He called diplomatic negotiations a ploy that has allowed the rogue nation to build up its nuclear capabilities.
"Action — strong, bold action coming from a position of strength and determination — is the only effective deterrent," Romney said, calling for "regime-crippling" sanctions for North Korea. During his presidential race, Romney drew heavily on his experience as a businessman, and on the day General Motors filed for bankruptcy, he said he had called for those steps to be taken. "It is, by the way, a course I recommended a number of months ago," Romney said of GM's filings. "As a boy from Detroit, I'm still saddened by that."
Following the end of his presidential race, in February of last year, Romney has spent the past year campaigning for Republican candidates around the country. Over the last week he has campaigned with Virginia Republican gubernatorial nominee Bob McDonnell and with Chris Christie, who faces a primary on Tuesday in the New Jersey governor's race.
The former Massachusetts governor has also kept a loyal following of staffers close at hand. Several former top staffers and supporters, including ex-Sen. Jim Talent (R-Mo.) and Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), attended the speech.
Romney, who remains active in the so-called invisible primary in advance of a potential 2012 bid, appearing with fellow Republicans around the country and taking a turn on "Fox News Sunday" this weekend, will again raise his profile early next year with the scheduled release of a new book.
The governor has signed on with St. Martin's Press for the volume, scheduled to be released in early 2010.
Jets from the Navy's Flight Demonstration Squadron, the Blue Angels, fly over graduation and commissioning ceremonies Friday at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis in an aerial salute to the 1,036 members of the class of 2009.
By a coincidence of the calendar, our military academies hold their annual graduation ceremonies on or about Memorial Day weekend. The juxtaposition is especially poignant if you visit a service academy on graduation weekend.
Hundreds of our young, all of them models of American youth, count down the few remaining hours of four years of prodigious effort. They are fit, intelligent, polite, highly motivated and full of life. They are embarking on careers of service to the nation. All voluntarily chose this path, fully realizing the dangers involved in pursuing a military vocation. It is sobering to see them in the bloom of youth while knowing that most will be sent overseas, where they will place their lives at risk to preserve our freedoms.
Memorial Day has a special poignancy for a nation at war. Every week, more Americans make the supreme sacrifice. Air Force 1st Lt. Roslyn L. Schulte, 25, graduated from the Air Force Academy in 2006 with academic and military honors. She deployed to Afghanistan in February 2009 to help train the Afghan National Army in her specialty of military intelligence. Lt. Schulte died on May 20 near Kabul, Afghanistan, of wounds sustained from an improvised explosive device. She was the first female Air Force Academy graduate killed by an enemy combatant.
Americans fall in locations with exotic names, in countries that a decade ago few predicted would be host to thousands of American troops. Marine Sgt. James R. McIlvaine, 26, of Olney and Staff Sgt. Mark A. Wojciechowski, 25, of Cincinnati, fell during combat operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq, on April 30. The next day, Army Sgt. James D. Pirtle, 21, of Colorado Springs and Specialist Ryan C. King, 22, of Dallas, Ga., gave the last full measure of devotion near the village of Nishagam, in Konar province, Afghanistan. Al Anbar and Konar may not be household names, but previous generations had never heard of Guadalcanal or Bastogne before they became eternally linked with America's martial legend. Likewise St. Mihiel or Antietam, or any other locales whose names resonate with sacrifices made in freedom's cause.
Few Americans are touched personally by the ongoing conflicts overseas. The vast majority have no direct contact with the war in any form, much less knowing someone who fell. They enjoy freedoms hard won and preserved by people they have, for the most part, never met; they are as unaware of the deaths of these people as they were of their lives. Nevertheless, for every name there is a story of dreams, of duty, of a life cut short. Staff Sgt. Leroy O. Webster, 28, of Sioux Falls, S.D.; Petty Officer 2nd Class Tyler J. Trahan, 22, of East Freetown, Mass.; and Staff Sgt. Esau I. De la Pena-Hernandez, 25, of La Puente, Calif., all gave their lives within the past few weeks to preserve our freedoms.
A society as blessed as ours - its people safe even while at war, prosperous even amidst economic crisis - needs to be reminded that such blessings come at a cost. Memorial Day is a time to remember, but it is more than that. Good men and women go off to war on our behalf, and some do not return. On Memorial Day, we observe more than the fact that people died, but also how their deaths came to pass, and in what cause. We commemorate not just their sacrifice, but the context that gives meaning to both the fate they suffered and the lives they led. We recognize the commitment to selfless service that brought them to a fateful day in an out-of-the-way place they had never heard of before they died there. Memorial Day is not simply about remembering our fallen; it is a day when we should fully and properly express our gratitude. Remember them, honor them and thank them. We owe them more than we know.
Source: The Washington Times, LLC – Reprinted from Facebook
The day before Richard Holbrooke arrived in Kabul, eight suicide bombers and gunmen attacked the Justice and Education ministries, killing 26 and wounding 57.
Kabul was paralyzed, as the Taliban displayed an ability to wreak havoc within a hundred yards of the presidential palace.
The assault came as President Obama is both conducting a strategic review and deciding how many additional U.S. troops to send.
Earlier, there was talk of 30,000, bringing the U.S. total to 63,000. Now, there are reports Obama may commit no more than the three brigades promised in 2008, and only one brigade now.
Clearly, the United States is checking its hole card. Can we draw to a winning hand? Or is this hand an inevitable loser -- and we must cut our losses and cede the pot? No longer, anywhere, is there talk of "victory."
Nor is the diplomatic news good.
Last week, Kyrgyzstan gave us six months to vacate Manas, the air base used to resupply U.S. forces. A week before, guerrillas blew up a bridge in the Khyber, cutting the 1,000-mile supply line from Karachi to Kabul. Before that, guerrillas bombed U.S. truck parks in Pakistan.
While in Pakistan, Holbrooke was told by all to whom he spoke that, while U.S. Predator strikes may be killing Taliban and al-Qaida, the deaths among tribal peoples are turning Pakistan against us.
What would winning Afghanistan for democracy profit us, if the price were losing a nuclear-armed Pakistan to Islamism?
The expulsion from Manas, after Kyrgyzstan received a reported $2 billion in aid from Moscow, raises a question.
Is Russia restarting "The Great Game" she played against Victoria's Empire in Central Asia, which ended in 1907 with a British-Russian entente, dividing Iran into spheres of influence, with both sides agreeing to keep hands off Afghanistan?
As Russia has as great an interest in preventing an Islamist Kabul, and has assisted NATO's resupply of its forces, why would Moscow seek to expel us from a base vital to the war effort?
Does Russia simply seek to be recognized by the United States as the hegemon of Central Asia, the sole great power that decides who can and who cannot use former Soviet bases?
For if Manas is closed and the Karachi-Khyber-Kabul supply line is compromised or cut, Obama would seem to have but three options.
First would be to go back, hat-in-hand, to Islam Karimov, the Uzbek ruler charged with grave human rights violations, and ask him to reopen the Karshi-Khanabad (K2) air base, from which we were expelled in 2005. And what would be Karimov's asking price?
Second is the Russia option. If Moscow now holds the whip hand in the old Soviet republics, what is Moscow's price to let us remain in Manas or use other Soviet bases over which it wields veto power?
The answer is obvious. Neither Georgia nor Ukraine is to be brought into NATO. The independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, won in the August war with Georgia, is not to be challenged. The U.S anti-missile missiles planned for Poland are not to be deployed.
In turn, Russia will cancel any missile deployment in Kaliningrad, recommits to the terms of all conventional forces agreements in Europe and assist in the effort in Afghanistan. Russia rejoins the West, and the West stays off Russia's front porch.
Be not surprised if the Russians come trolling before an overextended American empire an end to the Great Game in Central Asia like the one the ministers of Nicholas II offered the ministers of Edward VII.
And the third option? It is Iran.
Before 9-11, Iran was more hostile to the anti-Shia Taliban than we, and it has no desire to see them return. Indeed, Tehran was a supporter of the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as both were ruled by mortal enemies.
The long way for U.S. and NATO war materiel to reach Kabul via Iran would be through a Turkey-Kurdistan-Iran supply line. The shorter would be from Iranian ports straight into Afghanistan.
Price of an entente? An end to the 30-year U.S.-Iranian cold war and a strategic bargain whereby Iran is allowed to develop peaceful nuclear power, under supervision, the United States lifts its embargo, and regime change is left to the Iranian people.
President Ahmadinejad, no fool, and facing an uncertain election this year, is already signaling interest in negotiations with Obama.
A complication. How would "Bibi" Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman regard a U.S.-Iran rapprochement -- to prevent a Taliban triumph in Kabul?
Yet, if the Taliban's enemies in Russia, Iran, Pakistan and Central Asia will not assist us, this war cannot end well. And if they will not help, Obama should cut America's losses, come home and let their neighbors deal with a triumphant Taliban.
WASHINGTON -- President George W. Bush will announce Tuesday a gradual redeployment of U.S. military personnel from Iraq to increasingly violent Afghanistan, with as many as 4,500 new troops slated to deploy to Afghanistan by January.
The additional forces will be charged with defeating the resurgent Taliban and protecting the Afghan populace. The troop increases in Afghanistan will be accompanied by the withdrawal of approximately 8,000 military personnel from Iraq by February. Additional troops may leave Iraq in early 2009 if "the progress in Iraq continues to hold," according to an advance copy of a speech Mr. Bush will deliver at Washington, D.C.'s Fort McNair Tuesday morning.
The planned changes represent an attempt to preserve Iraq's recent gains while freeing up modest numbers of additional forces for Afghanistan. Senior U.S. commanders in Afghanistan have said they need at least three additional combat brigades, or 10,500 to 12,000 more troops. The plan being announced by Mr. Bush would meet less than half of that request.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino told reporters Monday that Mr. Bush hoped to "cement" Iraq's gains while finding more troops for Afghanistan.
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Mr. Bush's decision was an endorsement of a recommendation late last week from Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
In Iraq and Afghanistan the changing dynamics in the two war zones are a cause of concern -- and sometimes sharp disagreements -- for senior American commanders. Iraq's once-unrelenting violence has subsided markedly in recent months, with the numbers of attacks now down to levels not seen since 2004. In August, 23 U.S. troops died in Iraq, one of the lowest monthly tallies since the 2003 invasion.
In Afghanistan, Taliban militants have stepped up their attacks on American and NATO forces across the country. In mid-August, insurgents killed 10 French paratroopers in a single incident. More U.S. troops now die in Afghanistan than in Iraq.
Military officials have been divided about how to respond to the shifting dynamics in Iraq and Afghanistan. Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, initially wanted to keep the level of troops in Iraq -- now at 146,000 -- steady until next summer, according to military officials in Baghdad. Military commanders at the Pentagon favored withdrawing as many as three brigades in coming months to free up more personnel for Afghanistan, Pentagon officials said.
A Pentagon official said that the final compromise reflected the consensus views of Adm. Mullen; Gen. Petraeus; Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, who will assume command in Iraq later this month; Gen. David McKiernan, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan; and Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, the head of Central Command, which oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
As detailed in Mr. Bush's prepared remarks, roughly 3,400 "combat support forces" -- aviation personnel, bomb-disposal experts and engineers -- will leave Iraq in coming months. A Marine battalion now serving in Anbar Province, once Iraq's deadliest place and now one of its most stable, will withdraw in November. An Army combat brigade of about 3,500 soldiers will withdraw in February.
Over roughly the same time period, troop levels in Afghanistan will move higher. Mr. Bush will announce plans to shift a Marine battalion slated to deploy to Iraq in November over to Afghanistan instead. In January, an additional Army brigade will deploy there.
![clip_image001[5]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5IzXOzDo7oVEmlIMPUmNc6Tn_lxs-fytfwRWmTaIpTZbSi7EpqJWuxUco5nd0qQ5lyJjkNeXy8NxHNv2ejcnutL4lfDvg2FcxoRzBPw5xgBoKZl28OCbWoWf2imqkwJqRy1-vVZNNEohg/s1600-h/clip_image001%25255B5%25255D%25255B3%25255D.jpg "clip_image001[5]")
![clip_image002[6]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhEv-iDE56zi794o1z85zkMD7ZvTLrh4YAgrLWg9A6vgnrRbF_n4nuHl8_Dc57q3zIUdrBDRLG6mi8pq0Hs_yVP0JRuPSQUkAR7eio_Yof7t4KTtmS8LlGStvPyQbYYQHmniPK_ViV6Dpge/s1600-h/clip_image002%25255B6%25255D%25255B3%25255D.jpg "clip_image002[6]")
Saturday, August 6th, 2011 Fox news released the alert early in the day that 
by Patrick J. Buchanan ![[George Bush]](http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/HC-GG773_Bush_20060320154127.gif)
![[Fight for Iraq]](http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/it_iraqmap10292002120526.gif){kind=small}
