Where is the Left’s Uproar Over Obama’s Secret Warmongering Drone Policy? (“Oliver North made daily headlines and was forced to resign under President Reagan because of the executive branch’s unilateral foreign policy of selling arms to Iran and sending the proceeds to Nicaraguan contras. Obama is not facing the same kind of scrutiny.”)

Where is the Left’s Uproar Over Obama’s Secret Warmongering Drone Policy?

 

Townhall.com ^ | February 11, 2013 | Rachel Alexander

 

Posted on Monday, February 11, 2013 9:26:40 AM by Kaslin

 

mussobama (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

 

 

 

Who would have guessed that one of the most warmongering presidents would be a liberal Democrat who was awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize?

 

Obama has gotten away with a secret escalating drone war because the left and their fifth column in the media have mostly turned a blind eye, just like they have with Obama’s expanded ground war in Afghanistan, not wanting to criticize a fellow leftist in power.

 

 

 

 

 

Obama is not the pacifist he pretends to be. The executive branch’s escalating drone strike program has been taking place in secret now for over 10 years, all ostensibly justified by a war on terror that began on 9/11.

 

(Gunny G: See What “The Folks” Are Saying About…) ~ Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal says military-style guns don’t belong on the streets of America

Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal called for “serious” gun control measures on Tuesday, saying the weapons used by his troops in Afghanistan don’t belong on the streets of America. McChrystal said the M4 Carbine he often carried in the military held a .223 caliber round capable of doing “devastating” damage to a human body.

Brigadier General Stanley McChrystal, US Army (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“It’s designed to do that, and that’s what our soldiers ought to carry,” McChrystal said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Tuesday morning.

“I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America.”

Petraeus and the Fierce Struggles for Imperial Power by Jack D. Douglas (“No one who is not at the heart of these vast, conspiratorial struggles for power at the top of the U.S. can have any clear idea of where they are now headed. I doubt the conspirators really do, though anyone sky high on Hubris may think he knows and can make whatever he wants happen.”)

EXCERPT!!!!!

…..The top U.S. military people in the Army and Navy and many officers and grunts at all levels are clearly extremely angry at the political leaders who are largely fighting each other to a state of near paralysis. The Army brass and to a lesser extent the Navy brass have in recent years been largely making the decisions about the wars and potential wars. I have argued, for example, since Bush 2 and his Neo-Con conspirators began strangling Iran that the military brass has been quietly opposing such a vast war that could produce a global implosion, that this has continued for the most part in opposition to the Obama conspirators and Israelis conspirators who keep tightening the nooses around Iran. [For one thing,

I cannot imagine the Navy admirals have become so incompetent that they would actually support having their most vital ships in the Persian Gulf pond with vast Russian-Chinese, top-grade missiles and much else within striking range from the vast nation of Iran.] I think they have mostly been appalled by Obama’s flip-flops in the Middle East and his support of utopian schemes like “Democracy in Syria” which are producing vast chaos and possible armageddon at the middle of all that oil and gas and vast populations.

These subterranean struggles broke out into the open when Gen. Petraeus‘ subordinate in Afghanistan, Gen. McChrystal, went along quietly with his top staff officers openly making fun of political leaders around Obama which got into Rolling Stone. I believed then and believe now that those officers were just expressing the secret views of almost all competent officers from the field to Petraeus at Central Command and that they directed their contemptuous spoofing at Biden only to avoid directly showing contempt for the Emperor. Biden is actually knowledgeable about foreign affairs, while Obama knows very little and entered the White House very ignorant.

I think the officers, especially those top brass in Afghanistan, have gotten more furiously opposed to the politicians recently as the politicians moved quietly behind the scenes to try to get a Fig Leaf Agreement with the Taliban and other major guerrilla groups of Afpak so the U.S. can withdraw behind the fig leaf to avoid looking like losers right away and deserters of the totally corrupt and incompetent Karzai regime the U.S. imposed by corruption on the Afghans. This would make Obama et al. popular at home and allow them to deal with bigger, more deadly crises at home, but it would make the “All In” brass the “Losers,” very much like Westmoreland et al. were hung out to dry and swing in the winds in Vietnam by LBJ, Nixon et al. [N.B. I totally support getting out--and never getting ALL IN anywhere. But I can understand how the brass and so many lower officers and grunts and their families feel--betrayed.]

Petraeus has been one of the top, secret opponents of the politicians, in my estimate the “top dog” of what has been emerging slowly as the Real U.S. government behind the political front in Washington.

Dangerous Game: Rise and Fall of David Petraeus…By Peter Farmer….. (“But why did Petraeus agree to serve under Obama in the first place…”)

…..There are many unanswered questions about the scandal.

English: Official photograph of General David H. Petraeus (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Was Petraeus’ affair with Paula Broadwell simply a matter of chance, or was he the victim of a carefully-orchestrated takedown by party or parties unknown? Did the White House set up Petraeus as a way of neutralizing a would-be political opponent? Is Petraeus being punished for failing to toe the administration line on Benghazi?

Press TV: Why Else Did the CIA Spymaster Resign? | Veterans Today

“The real issue is dealing with political uncertainty, the difference from what is publicly said, what is publicly seen and what actually exists.”

Is our Republic being ‘rearranged’?

by Gordon Duff and Press TV

The United States is undergoing a political maelstrom that, in many ways, parallels what is currently going on in China.

Though the election ended days ago, a significant victory for Obama, perceived by most as a repudiation of American support for Netanyahu, the real issues are far more sinister.

Powerful forces within the government are reacting, not just to threats of civil war, assassination and domestic terrorism. There is a vast and well-orchestrated clandestine effort to centralize power behind the presidency, preparation likely to lead to an expansion in executive power. All competing factions, Pentagon, State Department, CIA and courts face disembowelment by the Obama administration.

Does this represent a change in American policy, both domestic and foreign, or is this a consolidation at the behest of the unseen ruling elites many claim controlled both candidates, Obama and Romney, equally?

Today, General David Petraeus resigned as CIA director sighting “poor judgment” in his personal life, an “extramarital affair” as the reason. No one believes him.

Obama’s War: US Soldiers Are Told They Are Fighting For The Afghan People, Not For The US (“What Obama is really doing in Afghanistan is treasonous.”)

An American hero, Colonel Harry Tunnell IV, Commander of the 5th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, documented the truth about the war in Afghanistan.

 

GyGRet (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

 

What Obama is really doing in Afghanistan is treasonous.Dated August 20, 2010, a letter was written to John McHugh, Secretary of the Army, signed by Colonel Harry Tunnell IV.

 

In the letter, four significant factors about military operations in Afghanistan were revealed…………..

 

RPREVOLU (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

 

Prison Planet.com » Former Afghanistan Commander Calls for Conscription

Stanley McChrystal, the former commander in occupied Afghanistan, wants to bring back forced conscription. He believes sending 18 year olds into warzones designed by the global elite will “instill a sense of shared civic duty among young Americans,” the AFP reports.

Former Afghanistan Commander Calls for Conscription 54494303McChrystal admitted that a decade of war has all but chewed up and spit out the so-called volunteer army, which is in fact a last ditch effort at job training and government benefits by millions of economically disenfranchised Americans. It has also served to vent the frustration of patriotic but deluded Americans conditioned by incessant war propaganda following the attacks of September 11, 2001, allegedly committed by a database, al-Qaeda.

Why Is General McChrystal Teaching an Off-the-Record Course at Yale? – National – The Atlantic

In 1951, American conservative William F. Buckley published God and Man at Yale. In his book, Buckley slammed Yale’s faculty for turning American liberal ideology into a religion and force-feeding it to Yale’s unsuspecting student body.

William F. Buckley, Jr. attends the second inauguration of President Ronald Reagan. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

By the late 1960s, the left-leaning ideological mindset that Buckley criticized no doubt encouraged the widespread opposition at Yale to the Vietnam Conflict –opposition that turned out to be justified by the facts on the ground in Vietnam. During those days, any notion that an American four-star general involved in the Vietnam debacle, someone like General William C. Westmoreland, should teach a course on leadership at Yale would have been dismissed out of hand as utterly ridiculous.

Fast-forward to 2012 and reality has been turned on its head. Enter retired four-star Army General Stanley McChrystal. McChrystal, who formerly led special operations forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and later became a senior American commander in Afghanistan, now teaches a class at Yale’s Grand Strategy Program, where he integrates his military experience with his studies on leadership.

Admission: Journalists are Liberals Not Interested in Facts and Truth

Image via Wikipedia

Polk Award-Winning Rolling Stone writer Michael Hastings made a startling set of admissions on CSPAN, recently. Not only did he admit that most “journalists” are liberals, but he implied that they really aren’t interested in just reporting the facts of stories. Instead, he said, they are filled with a liberal “moralistic righteousness” and their goal is to “afflict” those they disagree with.

In the discussion, Hastings laid out how he sees his work as a journalist. “I think any journalist worth his salt often has a real moralistic kind of righteousness to them somewhere in their soul… and we talk in grand terms about ourselves, you know, afflicting the powerful and comforting the afflicted,” he told the CSPAN host.

Not much “objectivity” going on there, is there?

In the video segment featured by Townhall, Hastings is initially asked about his “prestigious” Polk Award and this discussion led CSPAN’s Brain Lamb to ask Hastings about the ideological mindset of Polk Award winners. This brought Hastings to his admission.

Of course, if one has to explain how “prestigious” an award is, one should suspect it ain’t that prestigious! Prestige is something that others should assign to you, not something you should assign to yourself.

Prison Planet.com » War Criminals and 9/11 Opportunist Exposed on Vandalized Billboard

Political taggers have struck in Austin, Texas. On Thursday night they painted messages on a billboard in South Austin. The sign is an advert for a motivational seminar to be held this week at the Austin Convention Center.

Infowars and Alex Jones are not responsible for the defacing and we do not condone such acts. We were tipped off to the graffiti last night.

War Criminals and 9/11 Opportunist Exposed on Vandalized Billboard austinbillboard

Sultan Knish a blog by Daniel Greenfield ~ The Plot To Destroy The US Military

In two generations we have gone from General Patton telling his troops to grease their tanks with the enemy’s guts to an extensive purge of Navy command officers over a series of raunchy video skits. Slowly but surely we are turning the greatest armed forces into the world, into the most politically correct disarmed forces the world has ever seen.

The USS Enterprise crackdown, like the firing of General McChrystal and the push to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell“, completely ignore military realities for political objectives. A political military is also a useless military. Stalin‘s purges of the Russian Army‘s commanders left the Soviet Union completely unprepared for the Nazi attack. And the US military is being shaped along the same lines into a political military overseen by men whose chief credential is that they share the same politics as the politicians whom they serve.

A congressional report now says that the US military has too many white males at the top. Women are being kept out of the highest ranks because they lack combat experience. The report calls on the military leadership to “better reflect the racial, ethnic and gender mix of American society”. Which is code for affirmative action. If we didn’t have enough incompetents at the top, we can look forward to an affirmative action military in which the generals will be there because of the color of their skin or their gender, not because they’re the best at what they do.

via Sultan Knish a blog by Daniel Greenfield.

Call Me Crazy And Off My Meds…

….but I just can’t trust Chairman Obama’s motives for his UNCONSTITUTIONAL attack on Libya.

Before we continue, Let me be, as our Kenyan President likes to say, “perfectly clear”: Moammar Qadaffi is a lump of excrement. He has been a state sponsor of terror who has taken American lives. The 1986 disco bombing and the Lockerbie bombing in 1988.

If anyone deserves to die, it’s this piece of filth. When Qadaffi Duck is out of power, the world will breathe a small sigh of relief.However, this article is not about Qadaffi.

This article is about another Islamic dictator, Barack Hussein Obama.Chairman Obama has given us no reason whatsoever not to doubt his motives or trust his judgement in this matter.

After all in no particular order : •Didn’t Obama’s Department of Injustice sue the state of Arizona for having the gall to defend itself against the Mexican Trickle Invasion and refuse to send troops to the southern border, yet he rushed to send troops to Haiti and Libya ? •

Didn’t Chairman Obama turn his back on the only genuine democracy movement in the Middle East, Iran’s Green Revolution ? Didn’t he say he didn’t want to be seen as “meddling” ? •Didn’t Chairman Obama sit on his hands while General Stanley McChrystal damn near begged for additional troops in Afghanistan, yet he rushed troops to Haiti and Libya ? •

Didn’t Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, hand 900 million dollars to Hamas ? •Didn’t Chairman Obama call Egypt’s new military dictatorship a “democracy” ? •Didn’t Chairman Obama ask the UN’s permission instead of Congress’ permission to attack Libya ? •Aren’t many of these so-called Libyan “freedom fighters” al-Qaeda operatives ?

 

Even the HuffingtonandPuffington Post admits it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/19/extremists-among-libya-rebels_n_837894.html

Given our Dear Leader’s 2+2=5 logic, is it really a stretch to question Chairman Obama’s motives in this matter ?

God help us all.

via Call Me Crazy And Off My Meds….

The Plot to Destroy the US Military

In two generations we have gone from General Patton telling his troops to grease their tanks with the enemy’s guts to an extensive purge of Navy command officers over a series of raunchy video skits. Slowly but surely we are turning the greatest armed forces into the world, into the most politically correct disarmed forces the world has ever seen.

The USS Enterprise crackdown, like the firing of General McChrystal and the push to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, completely ignore military realities for political objectives. A political military is also a useless military. Stalin’s purges of the Russian Army’s commanders left the Soviet Union completely unprepared for the Nazi attack. And the US military is being shaped along the same lines into a political military overseen by men whose chief credential is that they share the same politics as the politicians whom they serve.Congressional report: US military has too many white males at the topA congressional report now says that the US military has too many white males at the top. Women are being kept out of the highest ranks because they lack combat experience.

The report calls on the military leadership to “better reflect the racial, ethnic and gender mix of American society”. Which is code for affirmative action. If we didn’t have enough incompetents at the top, we can look forward to an affirmative action military in which the generals will be there because of the color of their skin or their gender, not because they’re the best at what they do.The mandate that every civic institution has to reflect the multicultural politics of the liberal elites reflects their determination to impose their vision on the country by hijacking its institutions.

And every institution touched by their vision has become functionally useless, incapable of performing even their simplest tasks, but always needing more money. America’s great cities have become sinkholes. The Postal Service is on the verge of extinction. And now it’s the military’s turn.

via The Plot to Destroy the US Military.

Over the Horizon: Warning Signs in U.S. Civil-Military Relations [Shades of "Oathkeepers?"]

In June, Rolling Stone helped bring down Gen. Stanley McChrystal by publishing “The Runaway General,” a Michael Hastings article depicting McChrystal’s staff as contemptuous of civilian authority. Last month, Bob Woodward‘s “Obama’s Wars” suggested that the uniformed military had boxed President Barack Obama into an escalation of the Afghanistan War. In tandem, the publications re-awakened concerns about the health of civil-military relations in the United States.

Although the military has not directly challenged civilian authority, some observers worried that contempt in the ranks and the effort to control policy in Afghanistan could spell trouble for civilian supremacy.

Dwight Was Right | MichaelMoore.com

It matters not whom we elect.

The Pentagon and the military contractors call the shots.

The title “Commander in Chief” is ceremonial, like “Employee of the Month” at your local Burger King.

Everything you need to know can be found in just two paragraphs from Obama’s War. Here’s the scene:

Obama is meeting with his National Security Council staff on the Saturday after Thanksgiving last year. He’s getting ready to give a big speech announcing his new strategy for Afghanistan.

Except…the strategy isn’t set yet. The military has presented him with just one option: escalation. But at the last minute, Obama tells everyone, hold up — the door to a plan for withdrawal isn’t closed.The brass isn’t having it: “Mr. President,” [Army Col. John Tien] said, “I don’t see how you can defy your military chain here. We kind of are where we are. Because if you tell General McChrystal, ‘I got your assessment, got your resource constructs, but I’ve chosen to do something else,’ you’re going to probably have to replace him.

You can’t tell him, ‘Just do it my way, thanks for your hard work.’ And then where does that stop?” The colonel did not have to elaborate. His implication was that not only McChrystal but the entire military high command might go in an unprecedented toppling — Gates; Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and Gen. David H. Petraeus, then head of U.S. Central Command. Perhaps no president could weather that, especially a 48-year-old with four years in the U.S. Senate and 10 months as commander in chief.

Obama’s aide’s squeals of delight for Gen. firing

WASHINGTON —

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs was delighted by the humiliating downfall of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, according to a new book by Bob Woodward.

“Like a pig in s- – -” is how Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell described it to others.”

Obama’s Wars” chronicles widespread infighting during the Obama administration‘s first 19 months, especially regarding the decision to send 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan.

One of the people adamantly opposed to the decision was Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who was concerned that it would imperil President Obama’s aggressive domestic agenda.

“Nothing would make Rahm happier than if I said no to the 30,000 . . . Rahm would tell me it’d be much easier to do what I want to do by saying no,” Obama told Woodward in a sitdown interview, according to Politico.com.

Excerpt

Why Bob Woodward’s New book is a stunner and why John Bolton went off Video

It starts with the front page story from the Washington Post which talks about Bob Woodward’s new book, Obama’s Wars. The book quite literally is a stark reality check for the American people on who their Commander-in-Chief is and how he thinks.

The first bombshell that people are talking about is this comment directly from Obama to Woodward:“We can absorb a terrorist attack. We’ll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger.”Nice…but it gets worse…

Check this. This might explain why Director of Intel Blair was run out of his position. He told the truth and Rahm accused him of scapegoating the issue!During a daily intelligence briefing in May 2009, Mr. Blair [former Director of Intelligence] warned the president that radicals with American and European passports were being trained in Pakistan to attack their homelands. Mr. Emanuel afterward chastised him, saying, “You’re just trying to put this on us so it’s not your fault.”

Mr. Blair also skirmished with Mr. Brennan about a report on the failed airliner terrorist attack on Dec. 25. Mr. Obama later forced Mr. Blair out.Another interesting thing about the book is that it covers last summer/fall when Obama took FOREVER to figure out his Afghanistan strategy even though McChrystal’s needs were clear as day. As it turns out, Obama could care less about the mission being a success and cared only about his exit strategy.Predictable of course. He is the man we always knew.

IT’s just amazing to read somebody who was actually there to tell the story. Woodward’s book explains how the military commanders were pressured to carry out their strategic goals in what they called an “unrealisitic time frame” and without the proper number of troops that were requested to finish the job successfully.

Battle-scarred judge says Lakin decision ignores Constitution

The military judge who curiously noted without explanation that uncovering evidence about President Obama’s birth records could prove “embarrassing” and denied an officer the right to obtain potentially exculpatory evidence in a court-martial simply has forgotten the Constitution, the supreme rule of the United States.So says Judge Roy Moore, who battled the politically correct climate as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court a decade ago and ultimately was removed from office by a state panel that refused to review the constitutionality of a federal court order.

SNIP

“Lt. Col. Lakin has every right to question the lawfulness of the orders of the commander in chief. He’s not only the commander in chief, he dictates the whole war effort, as shown by the recent firing of [Gen. Stanley McChrystal],” Moore said.It doesn’t matter, he said, that orders come from a colonel, or a general or even the Pentagon.

Excerpt