Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Kill Team - Another Double Standard
Why can't we get this right Democrats. We whined and whined about impeach Bush, etc. Now it is our turn and do we cry for Obama's impeachment over the Kill Team photos? Not a word. That is hypocrisy at its finest. How can we be taken seriously when we refuse to own up? Shame on us, the democratic party. Rumsfeld on 'kill team' photos: 'Much worse' than Abu Ghraib http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/mar/29/video-rumsfeld-kill-team-photos-worse-abu-ghraib/ Rolling Stone published horrific photos reportedly taken by members of the U.S. Military who allegedly were part of what is being called the "Kill Team." These individuals have been described by the Army, according to Rolling Stone, as a "rogue unit" operating completely on its own, "without the knowledge of its superiors.” Rolling Stone's Mark Boal reports: Indeed, it would have been hard not to know about the murders, given that the soldiers of 3rd Platoon took scores of photographs chronicling their kills and their time in Afghanistan. The photos, obtained by Rolling Stone, portray a front-line culture among U.S. troops in which killing Afghan civilians is less a reason for concern than a cause for celebration. "Most people within the unit disliked the Afghan people, whether it was the Afghan National Police, the Afghan National Army or locals," one soldier explained to investigators. "Everyone would say they're savages." One photo shows a hand missing a finger. Another depicts a severed head being maneuvered with a stick, and still more show bloody body parts, blown-apart legs, mutilated torsos. Several show dead Afghans, lying on the ground or on Stryker vehicles, with no weapons in view. In an interview with the Washington Times on Tuesday, Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of Defense for President George W. Bush, gave his thoughts on the recent Afghanistan "kill team" photos and described the alleged incident as "much worse" than the photos taken of U.S. soldiers posing with detainees and putting the prisoners in humiliating positions at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison. TWT: What are your thoughts on the latest kill team photos out of Afghanistan? DONALD RUMSFELD: If they're the ones that I'm thinking of it's where some... there are some allegations that some soldiers killed some people. You know, I feel such a responsibility as an American that when people are in our custody, we treat them properly. It is always heartbreaking when we see that there are allegations and photographs or suggestions that people have mismanaged that process. And of course the courts will decide in this case. But it is interesting, in the case of Abhu Ghraib, that it was such an important press event and nobody was killed. And in this case, it looks like there are allegations that some people were actually killed. TWT: How does this stack up against the Abu Ghraib photos, for example? RUMSFELD: The situation, of course, is much worse if someone dies, but it's a sad thing. It's unfortunate. The overwhelming majority of men and women in uniform are professional. They handle themselves well. They treat people properly in our custody. And no question but that they are punished in the event that the courts and the military commissions under the uniform code of military justice decide that they've done something wrong. They get punished. Following the release of the Abu Ghraib photos between 2004 and 2006, eleven soldiers were all convicted on a number of charges in a court martial, dishonorably discharged and sent to prison. However, numerous left wing web sites like Move On and Antiwar.com, media outlets, and politicians on various levels, like both Democratic California Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, called for not only President Bush to fire Mr. Rumsfeld but also called for Congress to impeach Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Abu Ghraib. Even Senator John McCain, Arizona Republican, spoke out against Secretary Rumsfeld in 2004 (h/t Media Research Center) Mr. Rumsfeld finally resigned from his post as Defense Secretary in 2006 after President Bush refused to accept his resignation two times before. While President Obama's Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a hold over from the Bush administration, was never a big favorite among liberals since the beginning of Mr. Obama's term, nevertheless. Compared to the calls for a Bush impeachment and a Rumsfeld firing over Abu Ghraib, few (if any) major media or politicians are currently calling for Secretary Gates' resignation or firing and an impeachment of President Obama over the alleged crimes of the Afghanistan "Kill Team." In fact, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, Ohio Democrat, known for calling on Congress to impeach President Bush, recently pulled away from his call on Congress to impeach President Obama over U.S. airstrikes over Libya, Capitol Hill Blue reported on Tuesday.Secretary Rumsfeld steered clear of making any suggestions about whether or not his successor, Robert Gates, should resign. TWT: You spend a lot of time in your book talking about the Abu Ghraib photos and you offered your resignation to President Bush and he didn't accept it. I believe the quote in the book was: "Don, sometimes heads have to roll over this." Do you think that Sec. Gates should resign immediately over this? RUMSFELD: I'm not going to give anyone else any advice over this. I don't know the facts well I know. I know what I felt and I wrote about it in my book, my memoir:Known and Unknown. Finally, Mr. Rumsfeld gave the Washington Times insight on what he thinks the biggest threat to the United States is presently. TWT:What do you think the biggest threat to the country is? RUMSFELD: I think the biggest problem we face is our intelligence. The weapons are so lethal today, that simply intelligence has to be able to teach us and help us understand the kinds of surprises that could ever occur. It's a big world. It's a complicated world. There are people out there determined to kill innocent men women and children...particularly Americans. The need to improve our intelligence gathering capability is the single most critical thing.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Obama's Abu Ghraib - No one is Talking About It
Oh my How Words Come Back to Haunt Us. It is a sad day when everything Obama says is hypocritical. Can we no longer trust anyone? How can he say one thing and do the other? We are losing all faith in the Democratic Party. "Yes we can" has turned into "I speak with forked tong."
Obama’s Abu Ghraib: The Stuff Hits the Fan
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2011/03/21/breaking-obamas-abu-ghraib-the-stuff-hits-the-fan/
When the Abu Ghraib scandal broke in 2003, the mainstream media and liberal blogosphere couldn’t find enough column inches to express adequately their shock and revulsion. The New York Times alone published 56 stories on the hideous revelation that members of the U.S. Army Reserve had tortured prisoners of war and posed for “trophy pictures”—inexcusable acts that the Times placed squarely at the feet of then-president George W. Bush.
Nor could left-leaning sources conceal their delight when President-elect Barack Obama boldly proclaimed:
[U]nder my administration the United States does not torture. We will abide by the Geneva Conventions. We will uphold our highest ideals.
What a difference a president makes. Until you flash forward to today’s bombshell, dropped by the British newspaper The Guardian, noting that members of a self-styled U.S. Army “kill team” posed for photos not with tortured prisoners but with corpses. Of civilians. Whom they had killed.
Obama’s Abu Ghraib: The Stuff Hits the Fan
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2011/03/21/breaking-obamas-abu-ghraib-the-stuff-hits-the-fan/
When the Abu Ghraib scandal broke in 2003, the mainstream media and liberal blogosphere couldn’t find enough column inches to express adequately their shock and revulsion. The New York Times alone published 56 stories on the hideous revelation that members of the U.S. Army Reserve had tortured prisoners of war and posed for “trophy pictures”—inexcusable acts that the Times placed squarely at the feet of then-president George W. Bush.
Nor could left-leaning sources conceal their delight when President-elect Barack Obama boldly proclaimed:
[U]nder my administration the United States does not torture. We will abide by the Geneva Conventions. We will uphold our highest ideals.
What a difference a president makes. Until you flash forward to today’s bombshell, dropped by the British newspaper The Guardian, noting that members of a self-styled U.S. Army “kill team” posed for photos not with tortured prisoners but with corpses. Of civilians. Whom they had killed.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Peace Peace Revoked
Take Obama's Peace Prize
http://www.skynews.com.au/world/article.aspx?id=592071&vId=
Bolivian President Evo Morales has called for US President Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize to be revoked following his decision to attack Libya.
'Two years ago we heard that President Barack Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize, but is he defending peace in the world now, or isn't he instead fomenting violence?' Morales told reporters, days after Obama ordered the bombing of Libya military targets as part of an UN-approved effort to protect civilians.
'How is it possible to give the Nobel Peace Prize to someone who has launched an invasion, a bombing? It's a violation, an assault, an aggression,' said Morales, one of Latin America's most left-leaning leaders and a vocal critic of the United States.
'Obama is the leader of group of thugs who led an assault and an invasion - and that has nothing to do with defending human rights,' he declared.
Obama receive the prize in December 2009, less than a year after taking office.
In his acceptance speech in Oslo, Obama referred to himself as 'the commander-in-chief of a nation in the midst of two wars' and said armed conflict was at times necessary.
Obama gave his $US1.4 million ($A1.4 million) Nobel Peace Prize award money to 10 charities, including groups working on Haiti relief and supporting military families.
http://www.skynews.com.au/world/article.aspx?id=592071&vId=
Bolivian President Evo Morales has called for US President Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize to be revoked following his decision to attack Libya.
'Two years ago we heard that President Barack Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize, but is he defending peace in the world now, or isn't he instead fomenting violence?' Morales told reporters, days after Obama ordered the bombing of Libya military targets as part of an UN-approved effort to protect civilians.
'How is it possible to give the Nobel Peace Prize to someone who has launched an invasion, a bombing? It's a violation, an assault, an aggression,' said Morales, one of Latin America's most left-leaning leaders and a vocal critic of the United States.
'Obama is the leader of group of thugs who led an assault and an invasion - and that has nothing to do with defending human rights,' he declared.
Obama receive the prize in December 2009, less than a year after taking office.
In his acceptance speech in Oslo, Obama referred to himself as 'the commander-in-chief of a nation in the midst of two wars' and said armed conflict was at times necessary.
Obama gave his $US1.4 million ($A1.4 million) Nobel Peace Prize award money to 10 charities, including groups working on Haiti relief and supporting military families.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Worst President Ever?
BARACK OBAMA: THE WEAKEST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY?
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/235196/Barack-Obama-The-Weakest-President-in-history-
Friday March 18,2011 By Anna Pukas
INEFFECTUAL, invisible, unable to honour pledges and now blamed for letting Gaddafi off the hook. Why Obama’s gone from ‘Yes we can’ to ‘Er, maybe we shouldn’t’...
Let us cast our minds back to those remarkable days in November 2008 when the son of a Kenyan goatherd was elected to the White House. It was a bright new dawn – even brighter than the coming of the Kennedys and their new Camelot. JFK may be considered as being from an ethnic and religious minority – Irish and Catholic – but he was still very rich and very white. Barack Obama, by contrast, was a true breakthrough president. The world would change because obviously America had changed.
Obama’s campaign slogan was mesmerisingly simple and brimming with self-belief: “Yes we can.” His presidency, however, is turning out to be more about “no we won’t.” Even more worryingly, it seems to be very much about: “Maybe we can… do what, exactly?“ The world feels like a dangerous place when leaders are seen to lack certitude but the only thing President Obama seems decisive about is his indecision. What should the US do about Libya? What should the US do about the Middle East in general? What about the country’s crippling debts? What is the US going to do about Afghanistan, about Iran?
What is President Obama doing about anything? The most alarming answer – your guess is as good as mine – is also, frankly, the most accurate one. What the President is not doing is being clear, resolute and pro-active, which is surely a big part of his job description. This is what he has to say about the popular uprising in Libya: “Gaddafi must go.” At least, that was his position on March 3.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/235196/Barack-Obama-The-Weakest-President-in-history-
Friday March 18,2011 By Anna Pukas
INEFFECTUAL, invisible, unable to honour pledges and now blamed for letting Gaddafi off the hook. Why Obama’s gone from ‘Yes we can’ to ‘Er, maybe we shouldn’t’...
Let us cast our minds back to those remarkable days in November 2008 when the son of a Kenyan goatherd was elected to the White House. It was a bright new dawn – even brighter than the coming of the Kennedys and their new Camelot. JFK may be considered as being from an ethnic and religious minority – Irish and Catholic – but he was still very rich and very white. Barack Obama, by contrast, was a true breakthrough president. The world would change because obviously America had changed.
Obama’s campaign slogan was mesmerisingly simple and brimming with self-belief: “Yes we can.” His presidency, however, is turning out to be more about “no we won’t.” Even more worryingly, it seems to be very much about: “Maybe we can… do what, exactly?“ The world feels like a dangerous place when leaders are seen to lack certitude but the only thing President Obama seems decisive about is his indecision. What should the US do about Libya? What should the US do about the Middle East in general? What about the country’s crippling debts? What is the US going to do about Afghanistan, about Iran?
What is President Obama doing about anything? The most alarming answer – your guess is as good as mine – is also, frankly, the most accurate one. What the President is not doing is being clear, resolute and pro-active, which is surely a big part of his job description. This is what he has to say about the popular uprising in Libya: “Gaddafi must go.” At least, that was his position on March 3.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)