Nope. Nothing there.
Excuse my French for a moment... but...
No emotion seen. President Obama is simply reading from a necessary teleprompter.
George Bush cared about our men and women in uniform and you heard his passion in these kinds of speeches.
The Great Orator - in - Chief is simply doing what he must do as "commander in chief".
No emotion. Nothing. President Obama, folks: The least respectful "commander in chief" in U.S. history.
I don't believe his sincerity for one second.
Glad I'm not the only one who feels this way!
Dead on! Obama is destroying and disrespecting the military, making us look weak and putting American security at risk!
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for the Washington Times.
President Obama’s stewardship of the national security portfolio to date amounts to a wrecking operation, a set of policies he must understand will not only weaken the United States but embolden our foes. After all, the Communist agitator Saul Alinsky, a formative influence in Mr. Obama’s early years as a “community organizer,” made Rule Number One in his 1971 book Rules for Radicals: “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.”
According to this logic, the various steps Barack Obama is taking with respect to the armed forces, the foreign battlefields in which they are engaged, our allies as well as our adversaries will not only diminish our power. They will encourage our enemies to perceive us as less powerful – with ominous implications. Consider some illustrative examples:
The Obama administration is cutting the defense budget by 10%. The result will be to preclude much, if not virtually all, of the modernization that will be required to prepare the U.S. military to contend with tomorrow’s wars. Most of what the Pentagon spends goes to fixed – and growing – personnel-related costs (pay, bonuses, health care, etc.) and operations. As a result, at Obama funding levels, there will not be much available even to “reset” today’s forces by refurbishing the equipment they have been using up in present conflicts.
The President is on a path to denuclearizing the United States by refusing to modernize the arsenal or even to fund fully the steps necessary to assure the viability of the weapons we have. He hopes to dress up this act of unilateral disarmament by seeking to resume arms control negotiations with Russia, as though such throw-backs to the old Cold War and its bipolar power structure apply today – let alone that there are grounds for believing the Kremlin will adhere to new treaties any better than the previous ones it systematically violated.
For good measure, Mr. Obama is mounting a frontal assault on the armed forces themselves. The President plans to repeal the law prohibiting homosexuals from serving in the military. It is absolutely predictable that significant numbers of servicemen and women – including many of the most experienced commissioned and non-commissioned officers – will retire rather than serve in conditions of forced intimacy with individuals who may find them sexually attractive. The effect will be to break the all-volunteer force.
Then there are the Obama initiatives in Iraq and Afghanistan. The President’s adoption of a deadline for withdrawing most U.S. forces from the former and his signaling that – despite a near-term 17,000 troop “surge” – he is preparing to turn the latter over to the oxymoronic-dubbed “moderate” Taliban are conveying unmistakable messages to friends and foes alike: Under Barack Obama, it is better to be a foe of America than one of its friends.
This message is, of course, being strongly reinforced by the treatment he is doling out to nations in each category.
Friends like the Poles and Czechs have been left in the lurch as the Obama administration intimates that the United States now thinks Europe does not need after all to be defended against Iranian nuclear-armed missile threats. Not since Jimmy Carter abandoned the NATO deployment of so-called “neutron bombs” has a President conveyed such a devastating message of weakness and irresolution in the face of hostile threats to our European alliance partners.
Other allies have not fared much better. Israel is on notice that its security interests are going to be sacrificed to the Obama administration’s pursuit of a Palestinian state – even one ruled by a terrorist organization like Hamas (or, for that matter, Fatah) committed to Israel’s destruction. Britain has been told it neither deserves nor has a “special” relationship with the United States.
Meanwhile virtually every enemy of the United States is the object of assiduous cultivation and overtures for rapprochement by the Obama administration. It will reward IranSyria can expect the Golan Heights and removal from the terrorism list even as it pursues nuclear arms, renews its overtly colonial hold on Lebanon, supports the terrorists of Hezbollah and helps its abiding master, Iran, destabilize Iraq. for “going nuclear” with normalized relations.
As mentioned above, Russia gets to be treated like a superpower again while it arms Iran, inserts bombers and naval units into our hemisphere, wields its energy leverage against our friends in Europe, Ukraine and Georgia and squeezes our supply lines into Afghanisan. There are no repercussions for China as it makes a mockery of the administration’s beloved Law of the Sea Treaty by threatening an unarmed U.S. naval vessel in its Exclusive Economic Zone.
Last but hardly least, a “respectful” Obama administration seems keen to embrace those in the Muslim Brotherhood and like-minded Islamist organizations who seek to impose the toxic theo-political-legal program authoritative Islam calls Shariah on distant populations – and insinuate it into our country.
Can there be any doubt what America’s adversaries make of all this? Great grief will come our way if they conclude, as Alinsky surely would, that our power is waning, and that they can exercise theirs with impunity against our interests – and those of whatever friends we have left.
***
Ouch! That's gonna leave a mark!
Look, I understand Secretary Gates' theory of leaving this up to military families.
However, I simply do not trust the Liberals and the media; they will without a doubt exploit the photos of our fallen heroes.
Perhaps Gates does not see this as "politically motivated", but I assure him that the Left and the media will indeed make this political.
They will disgrace our military and offend military families as they advance their political agenda. They simply do not support our military.
From The Washington Post:
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates announced today he is lifting a 1991 ban on news coverage of the return of the remains of fallen service members to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware and will let families decide whether to allow coverage.
The controversial ban on photography and other media coverage of the solemn return of flag-draped coffins -- upheld by both Republican and Democratic administrations -- has generated lawsuits as well as conflicting emotions on the part of military families.
"After receiving input from a number of sources, including all of the military services and the organizations representing military families, I have decided that the decision regarding media coverage of the dignified transfer process at Dover should be made by those most directly affected: on an individual basis by the families of the fallen," Gates told reporters at a briefing at the Pentagon this afternoon. "We ought not presume to make that decision in their place."
Gates said he is asking a group of advisers to come up with a plan on how to implement the new policy.
He said that Pentagon officials had been in touch with groups that represent military families about the policy change and that "the reaction we got from the organizations associated with the families strongly reinforced the decision of where I was headed."
Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, applauded the decision, according to the Associated Press. "The sight of flag-draped coffins is, and should be, a sobering reminder to all Americans of the ultimate sacrifice our troops have made and the high price of our freedom," he said.
But Meghan Tisinger, a spokeswoman for Families United, a military family group, said, "This is a complete disregard for the will of America's military families and the need for their privacy during this solemn moment," AP reported.Gates, who said he pushed for this change in policy last year after joining the Bush administration, said he did not see the ban as being politically motivated, especially since it was started so long ago.
"As far as I'm concerned," he said, "that's ancient history, and I'm not going to try and figure out the motives."
“The Pentagon faces a $100 billion annual shortfall in its procurement and modernization accounts,” warns Kim Holmes, Heritage’s vice president for defense and foreign policy studies. “The question facing Mr. Obama is not whether to trim a few expensive and unnecessary weapons systems, but whether he is willing to forgo America’s military edge by skipping or delaying construction of the next generation of modern weapons.”
Specially trained troops, updated equipment and “smart” weaponry to counter tomorrow’s threats are both necessary and a relative bargain for taxpayers, their children and grandchildren, Heritage analysts conclude. The crushing burden comes from the rapidly escalating cost of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits.
As a percentage of the economy, this chart from heritage shows, the government is spending more than twice as much for the three major entitlement programs as for the military — even before 77 million baby boomers retire in great numbers. In coming decades, the cost of entitlements will leap from 8.4 percent to 18.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Without reform, our well-intentioned promises will require raising taxes by the equivalent of $12,072 per household or eliminating every other program— including defense, transportation, housing and education.
“Spiraling manpower costs and modernization demands are growing at an unprecedented rate, with many ships, planes and tanks older than their crews,” Heritage national security expert James Carafano writes. “Detroit got into trouble because of bad businesses practices. The armed forces are in trouble because Washington under-funded the military in the 1990s and shrunk it too much to cope with the threats of the post-Cold War world.”
Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) recently predicted a new round of defense cuts. Others believe that keeping our military edge, as Heritage’s Baker Spring and Mackenzie Eaglen outline in a new paper, requires spending the equivalent of at least 4 percent of GDP on defense for five years or more. Those members of Congress seek to put that commitment into law.
“The recession may make meeting a 4 percent commitment politically more difficult,” Holmes notes, “but only because we have not yet had an honest debate about where most government spending has been going.”
More change you can throw out the window. CRAAP you can believe in.
CIA Chief Nominee Leon Panetta has taken money from Bailed-out Banks (violates Obama's bogus salary cap mandate) AND taken cash from national security interests (violates Obama's BS ethics executive order)
This is transparency? This is change? Why do these Obama nominee's skeletons conveniently only come to light on the eve of their hearings? (Because the PrObama media allowed it to be so.)WASHINGTON — Leon E. Panetta, the White House nominee to take over the Central Intelligence Agency, earned more than $1 million last year serving on corporate boards, consulting and delivering speeches, including some given to imploding banks at the height of the financial crisis.
Merrill Lynch gave Mr. Panetta $56,000 for two speeches in 2008, and Wachovia paid his standard fee of $28,000 for an appearance last October, according to financial disclosure forms Mr. Panetta submitted to the Office of Government Ethics.
Both financial institutions are now owned by other banks. Mr. Panetta, who will appear Thursday before the Senate Intelligence Committee for his confirmation hearing, also received a $28,000 speaking fee last September from the Carlyle Group, a private equity firm that owns a number of companies doing business with the Pentagon and other national security agencies.
The finances of President Obama’s aides are under particular scrutiny after two White House nominees had to withdraw this week amid revelations that they had failed to pay income tax.
Tommy Vietor, a White House spokesman, said Mr. Panetta had no similar tax problems and had not had to pay any back taxes since being tapped by the White House to lead the C.I.A.
“We anticipate that tomorrow’s hearing will focus on the substance of Mr. Panetta’s views about how to strengthen our intelligence gathering and keep our nation safe, as all of Mr. Panetta’s income and investments have been thoroughly reviewed by the Office of Government Ethics,” Mr. Vietor said.
This is not good. Not good at all. The Russians and Iranians are taunting Obama. They are calling his bluff. Seriously. Pay attention.
We're screwed.
MOSCOW —
In a setback to the escalating U.S. military efforts in Afghanistan , the president of Kyrgyzstan said Tuesday that his government will shut down the American air base in his country.
U.S. officials say that the Manas Air Base is vital to plans to send an additional 30,000 American troops to Afghanistan , a linchpin of President Barack Obama's efforts to pacify the country.
The announcement by President Kurmanbek Bakiyev came in Moscow , not in his own capital, and shortly after the Russian government reportedly agreed to lend Kyrgyzstan $2 billion , write off $180 million in debt and add another $150 million in aid. Although the Russian government didn't release a statement about the decision, the timing and place of the announcement indicated that the Kremlin had been involved.
The Russian government has been pushing to restore its clout in the former Soviet sphere of influence — despite deep economic problems at home — a trend that most analysts say will make Obama's dealings with Russia delicate at best.
US attempts to supply coalition troops fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan were in danger of suffering a major setback today after Kyrgyzstan signalled it was considering shutting down a key US military base.
The central Asian republic is contemplating closing down the US military facility near its capital Bishkek. The Manas airbase - home to 1,000 US army personnel since 2001 - is a key staging post for coalition forces fighting in nearby Afghanistan.
Both US and Nato commanders have expressed dismay at the possible closure. It comes at a time when Nato is desperately trying to expand its supply routes to Afghanistan via the northern countries of central Asia following a series of devastating attacks on truck convoys from Pakistan.
Russia has been pressuring Kyrgyzstan to evict the Americans, amid unease in Russia's military at the US's growing footprint in central Asia, an area Moscow regards as its backyard. The Kyrgyz president Kurmanbek Bakiyev was today in Moscow holding talks with Russia's president Dmitry Medvedev.
At least he is doing what he promised. (Hat Tip: Gateway Pundit)
"I'm the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning. And as president I will end it. Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems. And I will institute an independent "Defense Priorities Board" to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending. Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals."
--Barack Obama 22 October 22, 2007
The Times Online reported today that Barack Obama will cut America's nuclear arsenal by 80% and renege on the promised missile defense systems for our allies in Europe:
President Obama will convene the most ambitious arms reduction talks with Russia for a generation, aiming to slash each country’s stockpile of nuclear weapons by 80 per cent.
The radical treaty would cut the number of nuclear warheads to 1,000 each, The Times has learnt. Key to the initiative is a review of the Bush Administration’s plan for a US missile defence shield in Eastern Europe, a project fiercely opposed by Moscow. Mr Obama is to establish a non-proliferation office at the White House to oversee the talks, expected to be headed by Gary Samore, a non-proliferation negotiator in the Clinton Administration.
The talks will be driven by Hillary Clinton’s State Department. No final decision on the defence shield has been taken by Mr Obama. Yet merely delaying the placement of US missiles in Poland and a radar station in the Czech Republic — which if deployed would cost the US $4 billion annually — removes what has been a major impediment to Russian co-operation on arms reduction.
"I, Barack Hussein Obama do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Fox News broke this story Friday Night:
“Interference of the State, the belief in the omnipotence of the State: that is a reaction to market failures,” Mr Putin said in his keynote address at the opening of the four-day meeting. “There is a temptation to expand direct interference of state in economy. In the Soviet Union that became an absolute. We paid a very dear price for that.”
