Kevin Dayhoff - Soundtrack Division of Old Silent Movies - www.kevindayhoff.net - Runner, writer, artist, fire and police chaplain. The mindless ramblings of a runner, journalist, and artist: National and International politics. For community see www.kevindayhoff.org. For art, writing and travel see www.kevindayhoff.com
Journalist @baltimoresun writer artist runner #amwriting Chaplain PIO #partylikeajournalist
Journalist @baltimoresun writer artist runner #amwriting Md Troopers Assoc #20 & Westminster Md Fire Dept Chaplain PIO #partylikeajournalist
MRC Alert: Sheehan More Consistent Than Media: She Protests Bush and Obama, Media Only Bush
Tracking Liberal Media Bias Since 1996 Monday August 31, 2009 @ 11:22 AM EDT
1. Sheehan More Consistent Than Media: She Protests Bush and Obama, Media Only Bush On a Sunday evening in August four summers ago the NBC Nightly News devoted its "In Depth" segment to how Cindy Sheehan was "single-handedly bringing the Iraq debate to Mr. Bush’s doorstep" with her protest in Crawford, Texas. But Sunday night this year, after Sheehan departed Martha's Vineyard without earning any network media coverage as President Barack Obama's wrapped up his vacation there, NBC's Ron Allen began a story: "Hours before President Obama's vacation ended, he treated his girls to ice cream and candy - the kind of family time the President said he had in mind for the week on Martha's Vineyard. A chance, friends say, to renew himself." A week ago, a MRC Media Reality Check asked: "Will Nets Note Sheehan's Anti-Obama Protest? Media Embraced Cindy Sheehan's Anti-Bush Push in 2005; ABC Anchor Now Says: 'Enough Already.'" The answer: No.
2. Newsweek's Jonathan Alter: Rush Limbaugh Is the 'Great Blowhard of Our Time' Newsweek columnist and editor Jonathan Alter appeared on Friday’s Hardball and slammed Rush Limbaugh as the "great blowhard of our time." Host Chris Matthews prompted the quote when he discussed how Limbaugh had criticized him on his radio show for calling Barack Obama the "last brother" of the Kennedy clan. Referring to Ted Kennedy's death, Matthews snarled, "What is the matter with these people? Can't they take a week off, Jonathan? Just take a week off. It's a funeral."
3. Totenberg: Kennedy a 'Truly Shakespearean Figure' Redeemed by 'Greatness' In full swoon for the late Senator Ted Kennedy, NPR's Nina Totenberg fondly recalled his "greatness" in doing "enormous things" for "millions and millions." She predicted on the weekly Inside Washington aired Friday night: "I think he'll be remembered as a truly Shakespearean figure: tragic, flawed; who in the end achieved redemption through greatness - both in his personal life and in his professional life, and did enormous things for millions and millions of people."
4. Huff-Po Wonders If Mary Jo Kopechne Would 'Feel It Was Worth It' Writing at the Huffington Post, Discover magazine deputy web editor Melissa Lafsky, who formerly worked on the New York Times's Freakonomics blog, wondered about the drowned Mary Jo Kopechne's reaction to Ted Kennedy's life and career: "Who knows - maybe she'd feel it was worth it."
5. NYT Editor Finds Kennedy's Flaw: He Helped Reagan Win Presidency Appearing on MSNBC’s New York Times Edition on Friday, the paper’s ‘Week in Review’ editor, Sam Tanenhaus, lamented one of Ted Kennedy’s flaws: "There’s a further paradox to this, which is we sometimes forget, I mean, all of the wonderful things being said about this extraordinary figure Edward Kennedy, that he was partly accountable for Ronald Reagan’s ascendency."
6. Andrea Mitchell Gratuitously Drags Up '88 Debate Slam During Quayle Interview MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell on Friday used an interview with Dan Quayle to gratuitously highlight Lloyd Bentsen's famous 1988 slam, "You're no Jack Kennedy." Although Quayle appeared on "Andrea Mitchell Reports" to share his reflections on the passing of Ted Kennedy, the cable anchor sniped, "One of your toughest moments was during the debate with Lloyd Benson when you compared yourself to John F. Kennedy..."
7. CNN Sees Dangers In Obama's Deficit: 'Taxes That Would Make a Scandinavian Revolt' Amid all of the tributes to Ted Kennedy's lengthy career of expanding the scope of government and its cost to taxpayers, CNN's American Morning on Friday dug up a six-week old op-ed from the Tax Policy Center's Len Burman warning that massive trillion-dollar deficits are a catastrophe that could lead to the end of the U.S. as a great power "or even a mediocre one." Burman: "Taxes would rise to levels that would make a Scandinavian revolt. And the government would not be able to provide anything but the most basic public services....The social safety net would evaporate."
A daily compilation edited by Brent H. Baker, CyberAlert items are drawn from daily BiasAlert posts and distributed by the Media Research Center's News Analysis Division, the leader since 1987 in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias.
20090831 MRC Alert Sheehan More Consistent Than Media 20070413 SheehanDonkeyTooSmall
Obama’s flip-flops for combat boots Kevin E. Dayhoff When President Barack Obama took office, even the most politically unengaged citizen knew huge changes were afoot in the look and feel of the American presidency and our nation’s future. For those who voted according to a particular candidate’s national defense outlook, who knew that our new president would wear flip-flops for combat boots.
Thank you, Jeff Roy Meachum He brought the muffins. Jeff Holtzinger showed up for coffee Tuesday morning with a Dunkin' Donuts bag in hand. We sat down at the old farm table to drink our New Orleans' coffee and chicory. It was a standing invitation; he called Friday to say he would accept.
The Bride of Frankenstein’s Corsage Tom McLaughlin Gunung Gading National Park, Borneo Island – I could tell you a lie and say I hacked my way through the jungle to see the largest flower on the planet. I could write that I slept in a hammock fighting off vipers, leeches and hordes of mosquitoes just to witness the flower before it faded into a rumpled mass.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009 "That" Subject Again Roy Meachum Most readers know that I wrote a column for the Frederick News-Post for over 20 years. During that time the publisher and editor was George Delaplaine. Judge Edward Delaplaine was his uncle, an author and prolific reader of catholic tastes, but there was one subject that turned him off.
Why They Hate Us Nick Diaz Well, okay, not all the non-motorcycle people hate us – it just seems that way some of the time, and has for the 40 years of my experience. So, why is that?
Monday, May 25, 2009 The Art of Political Prevarication Richard B. Weldon Jr. Here's a hypothetical: A major politician holds a news conference on a very sensitive topic – the use of enhanced interrogation tactics to elicit information from enemy combatants and terrorists. In the course of the press event, a reporter asks this nationally known public figure a specific question about whether or not they were officially briefed on this subject while the tactics were actively being employed.
Toward a Workable Hair Care System Steven R. Berryman Government economists, in conjunction with the Obama Administration, have now decided we must tackle the struggling hair care industry immediately, even if this requires full nationalization of assets, as it is “too big to fail.”
Friday, May 22, 2009 Vice President Emeritus Roy Meachum A considerable portion of the American public seems curious that ex-Vice President Dick Cheney developed into the Great Defender of the recent administration. I am not. During the eight years George W. Bush sat in the Oval Office Mr. Cheney ran the nation, especially in financial and foreign affairs.
Squirreling Away – Part 2 Joan McIntyre Yesterday I started this conversation about how elitist I believe our Frederick County Board of Education and the administration of Frederick County Public Schools have become. Today, I continue in that same vein with the hopes of stirring your emotions to do something. To put your foot down and scream “Enough is Enough.”
Decoration Day Tom McLaughlin Even when he was deep into his Alzheimer’s state, Dad always seemed to know when it was Memorial Day – Decoration Day, as he called it. I guess it might have been the war movies that showed constantly on the television that clued him in, or maybe he just knew.
Thursday, May 21, 2009 Squirreling Away – Part 1 Joan McIntyre The Board of Education seems to have "found" a $4.1 million surplus from the current year. It saved so much money from conserving things such as electricity, by turning off the lights, that we now have an excess. They are having a little trouble remembering to whom the money actually belongs.
Needed: A Different Approach for Change Chris Cavey Rolling up to the 2010 election it seems the predominate theme within our state is a continued desire for change. Is it a philosophical change, or a broad-brushed wholesale changing of the "professional," long-term politicians, who, regardless of party, are perceived as sharing the blame for the current political and economic situation?
The Cradle of True Leadership Farrell Keough I enjoy a number of talk radio shows from our local ones to Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin. Of course, these national shows have a strong leaning towards conservatism. I am okay with that.
Entertaining Entertainment Roy Meachum Somehow entertainment became a negative word in the theatre. Maryland Ensemble Theatre could change that. "And the World Goes Round" makes a case for evenings that are entertaining, not uplifting, carrying messages or making the world a better place.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009 Pause to Remember and Honor Kevin E. Dayhoff Next Monday is Memorial Day. It is a day when we should come together as a community and take a break from the rancid political bickering in Washington, which passes as national leadership today, and reflect on the men and women in uniform who are serving our country in the darkest corners of the world.
A Review – “Design for Living" Roy Meachum Once upon a time, as all good stories begin, Alfred Lunt and Lynn Fontanne epitomized theatrical royalty and this was in the era when the Barrymores were the first family of the stage. Noel Coward's chief claim to that company was that he was a kind of industry jester.
Alfred Wallace and Me – Part 3 Tom McLaughlin Kampung Santubong, Sarawak, Malaysia – Alfred Wallace’s second and most famous Law of Natural Selection “suddenly flashed upon him” (his words) in February, 1858. With the monsoon season beginning to taper off, he suffered from malaria induced fevers.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009 Where's Jennifer? Roy Meachum Kathleen Kennedy Townsend and I did not agree; her political strategists said she could win the governor's race by concentrating her efforts (and expenditures) after Labor Day. She tried, and had her head handed over by Republican Bob Ehrlich.
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly… Michael Kurtianyk A day doesn’t go by that I’m not asked: “How’s the real estate market? Any good news?” I’m here to say that we’re seeing increases in the number of properties going under contract this spring.
Monday, May 18, 2009 Death by Technology Dependence Steven R. Berryman How do civilizations die? How do cultures die? How do people die?
This is for my friends in the sandbox in the line of fire
This is for the soldiers…
ThisIsForTheSoldiers.org (by Lizzy Palmer)
This rocks. Since once again this Memorial Day I have friends over in the sandbox in the line of fire, this is for them…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TB0jigYknwM
1.5 million people have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. They risk their lives every day to defend you. Now you can really show your support, whether you are for or against the war.
Please visit ThisIsForTheSoldiers.org. http://thisisforthesoldiers.org/ Tour footage courtesy of USO: http://www.uso.org/ Music by Drowning Pool: http://www.drowningpool.com/
********NOTE******** This video was made by, 15 year-old, Lizzy Palmer. As a veteran of the United States Armed Forces, who has friends in the line of fire, I felt compelled to share this with you. People, like Lizzy, give me faith in the youth of America and the world. Please check out her channel: http://www.youtube.com/FlutieCutie
I have chosen to Re-post this, on my channel, to bring attention to this worthy cause. Videos, like this, can make a difference. Videos, like this, are what is good about YouTube. Please rate, fav, comment, and share, on this, and/or the original:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsfwNT... I want as many people, as possible, to be made aware of this orginization. Thanks for your time. -Allen
***** Remember Me
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ervaMPt4Ha0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UW1toLy_FMQ
20090524 SDOSM ThisIsForTheSoldiersorg by Lizzy Palmer
Remarks of President Barack Obama – Responsibly Ending the War in Iraq
Remarks of President Barack Obama – As Prepared for Delivery
Responsibly Ending the War in Iraq
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
Friday, February 27, 2009
Good morning Marines. Good morning Camp Lejeune. Good morning Jacksonville. Thank you for that outstanding welcome. I want to thank Lieutenant General Hejlik for hosting me here today.
I also want to acknowledge all of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. That includes the Camp Lejeune Marines now serving with – or soon joining – the Second Marine Expeditionary Force in Iraq; those with Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force in Afghanistan; and those among the 8,000 Marines who are preparing to deploy to Afghanistan. We have you in our prayers. We pay tribute to your service. We thank you and your families for all that you do for America. And I want all of you to know that there is no higher honor or greater responsibility than serving as your Commander-in-Chief.
I also want to take this opportunity to acknowledge Ryan Crocker, who recently completed his service as our Ambassador to Iraq. Throughout his career, Ryan always took on the toughest assignments. He is an example of the very best that this nation has to offer, and we owe him a great debt of gratitude. He carried on his work with an extraordinary degree of cooperation with two of our finest Generals – General David Petraeus, and General Ray Odierno – who will be critical in carrying forward the strategy that I will outline today.
Next month will mark the sixth anniversary of the war in Iraq. By any measure, this has already been a long war. For the men and women of America’s armed forces – and for your families – this war has been one of the most extraordinary chapters of service in the history of our nation. You have endured tour after tour after tour of duty. You have known the dangers of combat and the lonely distance of loved ones. You have fought against tyranny and disorder. You have bled for your best friends and for unknown Iraqis. And you have borne an enormous burden for your fellow citizens, while extending a precious opportunity to the people of Iraq. Under tough circumstances, the men and women of the United States military have served with honor, and succeeded beyond any expectation.
Today, I have come to speak to you about how the war in Iraq will end.
To understand where we need to go in Iraq, it is important for the American people to understand where we now stand. Thanks in great measure to your service, the situation in Iraq has improved. Violence has been reduced substantially from the horrific sectarian killing of 2006 and 2007. Al Qaeda in Iraq has been dealt a serious blow by our troops and Iraq’s Security Forces, and through our partnership with Sunni Arabs. The capacity of Iraq’s Security Forces has improved, and Iraq’s leaders have taken steps toward political accommodation. The relative peace and strong participation in January’s provincial elections sent a powerful message to the world about how far Iraqis have come in pursuing their aspirations through a peaceful political process.
But let there be no doubt: Iraq is not yet secure, and there will be difficult days ahead. Violence will continue to be a part of life in Iraq. Too many fundamental political questions about Iraq’s future remain unresolved. Too many Iraqis are still displaced or destitute. Declining oil revenues will put an added strain on a government that has had difficulty delivering basic services. Not all of Iraq’s neighbors are contributing to its security. Some are working at times to undermine it. And even as Iraq’s government is on a surer footing, it is not yet a full partner – politically and economically – in the region, or with the international community
In short, today there is a renewed cause for hope in Iraq, but that hope rests upon an emerging foundation.
On my first full day in office, I directed my national security team to undertake a comprehensive review of our strategy in Iraq to determine the best way to strengthen that foundation, while strengthening American national security. I have listened to my Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and commanders on the ground. We have acted with careful consideration of events on the ground; with respect for the security agreements between the United States and Iraq; and with a critical recognition that the long-term solution in Iraq must be political – not military. Because the most important decisions that have to be made about Iraq’s future must now be made by Iraqis.
We have also taken into account the simple reality that America can no longer afford to see Iraq in isolation from other priorities: we face the challenge of refocusing on Afghanistan and Pakistan; of relieving the burden on our military; and of rebuilding our struggling economy – and these are challenges that we will meet.
Today, I can announce that our review is complete, and that the United States will pursue a new strategy to end the war in Iraq through a transition to full Iraqi responsibility.
This strategy is grounded in a clear and achievable goal shared by the Iraqi people and the American people: an Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant. To achieve that goal, we will work to promote an Iraqi government that is just, representative, and accountable, and that provides neither support nor safe-haven to terrorists. We will help Iraq build new ties of trade and commerce with the world. And we will forge a partnership with the people and government of Iraq that contributes to the peace and security of the region.
What we will not do is let the pursuit of the perfect stand in the way of achievable goals. We cannot rid Iraq of all who oppose America or sympathize with our adversaries. We cannot police Iraq’s streets until they are completely safe, nor stay until Iraq’s union is perfected. We cannot sustain indefinitely a commitment that has put a strain on our military, and will cost the American people nearly a trillion dollars. America’s men and women in uniform have fought block by block, province by province, year after year, to give the Iraqis this chance to choose a better future. Now, we must ask the Iraqi people to seize it.
The first part of this strategy is therefore the responsible removal of our combat brigades from Iraq.
As a candidate for President, I made clear my support for a timeline of 16 months to carry out this drawdown, while pledging to consult closely with our military commanders upon taking office to ensure that we preserve the gains we’ve made and protect our troops. Those consultations are now complete, and I have chosen a timeline that will remove our combat brigades over the next 18 months.
Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.
As we carry out this drawdown, my highest priority will be the safety and security of our troops and civilians in Iraq. We will proceed carefully, and I will consult closely with my military commanders on the ground and with the Iraqi government. There will surely be difficult periods and tactical adjustments. But our enemies should be left with no doubt: this plan gives our military the forces and the flexibility they need to support our Iraqi partners, and to succeed.
After we remove our combat brigades, our mission will change from combat to supporting the Iraqi government and its Security Forces as they take the absolute lead in securing their country. As I have long said, we will retain a transitional force to carry out three distinct functions: training, equipping, and advising Iraqi Security Forces as long as they remain non-sectarian; conducting targeted counter-terrorism missions; and protecting our ongoing civilian and military efforts within Iraq. Initially, this force will likely be made up of 35-50,000 U.S. troops.
Through this period of transition, we will carry out further redeployments. And under the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government, I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. We will complete this transition to Iraqi responsibility, and we will bring our troops home with the honor that they have earned.
As we responsibly remove our combat brigades, we will pursue the second part of our strategy: sustained diplomacy on behalf of a more peaceful and prosperous Iraq.
The drawdown of our military should send a clear signal that Iraq’s future is now its own responsibility. The long-term success of the Iraqi nation will depend upon decisions made by Iraq’s leaders and the fortitude of the Iraqi people. Iraq is a sovereign country with legitimate institutions; America cannot – and should not – take their place. However, a strong political, diplomatic, and civilian effort on our part can advance progress and help lay a foundation for lasting peace and security.
This effort will be led by our new Ambassador to Iraq – Chris Hill. From his time in the Peace Corps, to his work in Kosovo and Korea, Ambassador Hill has been tested, and he has shown the pragmatism and skill that we need right now. He will be supported by the courageous and capable work of so many American diplomats and aid workers who are serving in Iraq.
Going forward, we can make a difference on several fronts. We will work with the United Nations to support national elections, while helping Iraqis improve local government. We can serve as an honest broker in pursuit of fair and durable agreements on issues that have divided Iraq’s leaders. And just as we will support Iraq’s Security Forces, we will help Iraqi institutions strengthen their capacity to protect the rule of law, confront corruption, and deliver basic services.
Diplomacy and assistance is also required to help the millions of displaced Iraqis. These men, women and children are a living consequence of this war and a challenge to stability in the region, and they must become a part of Iraq’s reconciliation and recovery. America has a strategic interest – and a moral responsibility – to act. In the coming months, my administration will provide more assistance and take steps to increase international support for countries already hosting refugees; we’ll cooperate with others to resettle Iraqis facing great personal risk; and we will work with the Iraqi government over time to resettle refugees and displaced Iraqis within Iraq – because there are few more powerful indicators of lasting peace than displaced citizens returning home.
Now, before I go any further, I want to take a moment to speak directly to the people of Iraq.
You are a great nation, rooted in the cradle of civilization. You are joined together by enduring accomplishments, and a history that connects you as surely as the two rivers carved into your land. In years past, you have persevered through tyranny and terror; through personal insecurity and sectarian violence. And instead of giving in to the forces of disunion, you stepped back from a descent into civil war, and showed a proud resilience that deserves respect.
Our nations have known difficult times together. But ours is a bond forged by shared bloodshed, and countless friendships among our people. We Americans have offered our most precious resource – our young men and women – to work with you to rebuild what was destroyed by despotism; to root out our common enemies; and to seek peace and prosperity for our children and grandchildren, and for yours.
There are those who will try to prevent that future for Iraq – who will insist that Iraq’s differences cannot be reconciled without more killing. They represent the forces that destroy nations and lead only to despair, and they will test our will in the months and years to come. America, too, has known these forces. We endured the pain of Civil War, and bitter divisions of region and race. But hostility and hatred are no match for justice; they offer no pathway to peace; and they must not stand between the people of Iraq and a future of reconciliation and hope.
So to the Iraqi people, let me be clear about America’s intentions. The United States pursues no claim on your territory or your resources. We respect your sovereignty and the tremendous sacrifices you have made for your country. We seek a full transition to Iraqi responsibility for the security of your country. And going forward, we can build a lasting relationship founded upon mutual interests and mutual respect as Iraq takes its rightful place in the community of nations.
That leads me to the third part of our strategy –comprehensive American engagement across the region.
The future of Iraq is inseparable from the future of the broader Middle East, so we must work with our friends and partners to establish a new framework that advances Iraq’s security and the region’s. It is time for Iraq to be a full partner in a regional dialogue, and for Iraq’s neighbors to establish productive and normalized relations with Iraq. And going forward, the United States will pursue principled and sustained engagement with all of the nations in the region, and that will include Iran and Syria.
This reflects a fundamental truth: we can no longer deal with regional challenges in isolation – we need a smarter, more sustainable and comprehensive approach. That is why we are renewing our diplomacy, while relieving the burden on our military. That is why we are refocusing on al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing a strategy to use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon; and actively seeking a lasting peace between Israel and the Arab world. And that is why we have named three of America’s most accomplished diplomats – George Mitchell, Dennis Ross and Richard Holbrooke – to support Secretary Clinton and me as we carry forward this agenda.
Every nation and every group must know – whether you wish America good or ill – that the end of the war in Iraq will enable a new era of American leadership and engagement in the Middle East. And that era has just begun.
Finally, I want to be very clear that my strategy for ending the war in Iraq does not end with military plans or diplomatic agendas – it endures through our commitment to uphold our sacred trust with every man and woman who has served in Iraq.
You make up a fraction of the American population, but in an age when so many people and institutions have acted irresponsibly, you did the opposite – you volunteered to bear the heaviest burden. And for you and for your families, the war does not end when you come home. It lives on in memories of your fellow soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who gave their lives. It endures in the wound that is slow to heal, the disability that isn’t going away, the dream that wakes you at night, or the stiffening in your spine when a car backfires down the street.
You and your families have done your duty – now a grateful nation must do ours. That is why I am increasing the number of soldiers and Marines, so that we lessen the burden on those who are serving. And that is why I have committed to expanding our system of veterans health care to serve more patients, and to provide better care in more places. We will continue building new wounded warrior facilities across America, and invest in new ways of identifying and treating the signature wounds of this war: Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury, as well as other combat injuries.
We also know that service does not end with the person wearing the uniform. In her visits with military families across the country, my wife Michelle has learned firsthand about the unique burden that your families endure every day. I want you to know this: military families are a top priority for Michelle and me, and they will be a top priority for my administration. We’ll raise military pay, and continue providing quality child-care, job-training for spouses, and expanded counseling and outreach to families that have known the separation and stress of war. We will also heed the lesson of history – that those who fight in battle can form the backbone of our middle class – by implementing a 21st century GI Bill to help our veterans live their dreams.
As a nation, we have had our share of debates about the war in Iraq. It has, at times, divided us as a people. To this very day, there are some Americans who want to stay in Iraq longer, and some who want to leave faster. But there should be no disagreement on what the men and women of our military have achieved.
And so I want to be very clear: We sent our troops to Iraq to do away with Saddam Hussein’s regime – and you got the job done. We kept our troops in Iraq to help establish a sovereign government – and you got the job done. And we will leave the Iraqi people with a hard-earned opportunity to live a better life – that is your achievement; that is the prospect that you have made possible.
There are many lessons to be learned from what we’ve experienced. We have learned that America must go to war with clearly defined goals, which is why I’ve ordered a review of our policy in Afghanistan. We have learned that we must always weigh the costs of action, and communicate those costs candidly to the American people, which is why I’ve put Iraq and Afghanistan into my budget. We have learned that in the 21st century, we must use all elements of American power to achieve our objectives, which is why I am committed to building our civilian national security capacity so that the burden is not continually pushed on to our military. We have learned that our political leaders must pursue the broad and bipartisan support that our national security policies depend upon, which is why I will consult with Congress and in carrying out my plans. And we have learned the importance of working closely with friends and allies, which is why we are launching a new era of engagement in the world.
The starting point for our policies must always be the safety of the American people. I know that you – the men and women of the finest fighting force in the history of the world – can meet any challenge, and defeat any foe. And as long as I am your Commander-in-Chief, I promise you that I will only send you into harm’s way when it is absolutely necessary, and provide you with the equipment and support you need to get the job done. That is the most important lesson of all – for the consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable.
You know because you have seen those sacrifices. You have lived them. And we all honor them.
"Semper Fidelis" – it means always being faithful to Corps, and to country, and to the memory of fallen comrades like Corporal Jonathan Yale and Lance Corporal Jordan Haerter. These young men enlisted in a time of war, knowing they would face great danger. They came here, to Camp Lejeune, as they trained for their mission. And last April, they were standing guard in Anbar. In an age when suicide is a weapon, they were suddenly faced with an oncoming truck filled with explosives. These two Marines stood their ground. These two Marines opened fire. And these two Marines stopped that truck. When the thousands of pounds of explosives detonated, they had saved fifty Marines and Iraqi police who would have been in the truck’s path, but Corporal Yale and Lance Corporal Haerter lost their own lives. Jonathan was 21. Jordan was 19.
In the town where Jordan Haerter was from, a bridge was dedicated in his name. One Marine who traveled to the ceremony said: "We flew here from all over the country to pay tribute to our friend Jordan, who risked his life to save us. We wouldn’t be here without him."
America’s time in Iraq is filled with stories of men and women like this. Their names are written into bridges and town squares. They are etched into stones at Arlington, and in quiet places of rest across our land. They are spoken in schools and on city blocks. They live on in the memories of those who wear your uniform, in the hearts of those they loved, and in the freedom of the nation they served.
Each American who has served in Iraq has their own story. Each of you has your own story. And that story is now a part of the history of the United States of America – a nation that exists only because free men and women have bled for it from the beaches of Normandy to the deserts of Anbar; from the mountains of Korea to the streets of Kandahar. You teach us that the price of freedom is great. Your sacrifice should challenge all of us – every single American – to ask what we can do to be better citizens.
There will be more danger in the months ahead. We will face new tests and unforeseen trials. But thanks to the sacrifices of those who have served, we have forged hard-earned progress, we are leaving Iraq to its people, and we have begun the work of ending this war.
Thank you, God Bless you, and God Bless the United States of America. Semper Fi.
20090227 Obama remarks at Lejeune Ending the War in Iraq
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-of-President-Barack-Obama-Responsibly-Ending-the-War-in-Iraq/
Kevin Dayhoff www.kevindayhoff.net http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/
Iraq War Showdown: Bill Kristol Agrees to Debate Matt Damon After Actor’s “Idiot” Slam
Posted By Andrew Breitbart On January 26, 2009 @ 9:04 am In Celebrity News, Entertainment, Featured Story, News, Politics, Reviews, Uncategorized, Video 196 Comments On Sunday afternoon [1] Weekly Standard editor and [2] New York Times columnist Bill Kristol — in an email exchange with Big Hollywood — agreed to debate Matt Damon on his Hollywood home turf after being informed the 38-year old actor [3] ridiculed Kristol in an interview in the Miami Herald.
“He’s an idiot — he wrote that we should be grateful to George Bush because he won the Iraq war. We! Won! The! War!”
As the sponsor of the event, Big Hollywood is offering $100,000 to Damon (or to the charity or carbon credit of his choice) to publicly debate Kristol at a mutually agreed upon time, date and venue.
No Pardon For Libby Bush uses clemency powers sparingly to the end by Michael Isikoff Jan 19, 2009 Newsweek Web Exclusive www.newsweek.com/id/180448 In a move that has keenly disappointed some of his strongest conservative allies, President Bush has decided not to pardon Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, for his 2007 conviction in the CIA leak case, two White House officials said Monday.
On Bush's last full day as president, Bush did commute the sentence of two former Border Patrol agents—Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos—for shooting a Mexican drug dealer and then lying about it. But White House press spokesman Tony Fratto told NEWSWEEK "you should not expect any more" pardons and commutations from Bush before he leaves office Tuesday. Another senior official, who requested anonymity discussing sensitive matters, confirmed that no more pardons would be granted.
[…]
But the decision not to pardon Libby stunned some longtime Bush backers who had been quietly making the case for the former vice presidential aide in recent weeks. A number of Libby's allies had raised the issue with White House officials, arguing that as a loyal aide who played a key role in shaping Bush's foreign policy during the president's first term, including the decision to invade Iraq, Libby deserved to have the stain of his felony conviction erased from the record. In the only public sign of the lobbying campaign, The Wall Street Journal published an editorial strongly urging Libby's pardon.
[…]
The rejection of Libby's bid is consistent with Bush's overall stingy record when it comes to using presidential pardon powers. In part as a reaction to Bill Clinton's last-minute pardon spree, including the especially controversial one granted to fugitive financier Marc Rich, Bush has issued far fewer pardons than any president in modern history, according to clemency scholars.
It is an enigma. From what I have read in-depth, Mr. Libby’s only crime was to mess-up on recalling the chronology of events. As it was discovered, Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was the leaker of Valerie Plame Wilson's identity and the source for both Bob Woodward and Bob Novak.
Another account does reveal: “However, Mr. Novak has confirmed that President Bush's chief political strategist, Karl Rove, confirmed the information and was the second source cited in the column.
Mr. Armitage is/was not a political partisan. He just made a mistake. According to one published account: “But Newsweek reports Armitage didn't know Plame's employment was classified.”
Reportedly, Secretary Armitage told CBS Evening News: “I feel terrible… Every day, I think, I let down the president. I let down the secretary of state. I let down my department, my family, and I also let down Mr. and Mrs. Wilson.”
Apparently there was quite a bit of bad blood between Mr. Libby and the special counsel investigating the leak, Patrick Fitzgerald and Fitzgerald took an opportunity to even the score.
It was a political prosecution… Made worse by the hypocrisy that we know as partisan politics in Washington.
Libby should have never been prosecuted and President George W. Bush ought to have pardoned him.
Kevin Dayhoff www.kevindayhoff.net http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/
To which Doug Ross asks the question that is on many of our minds, “Funny - I didn't see this headline in the American press. Iraqi news serviceAswat Al-Iraq(viaGateway Punditand Larwyn)”
[…]
In concert with this hidden report,Ace calls attention to an AP article, which wonders why the successes in Iraq are generating scant attention in the U.S.
By Michael D. Shear Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, May 28, 2008; A01
Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan writes in a new memoir that the Iraq war was sold to the American people with a sophisticated "political propaganda campaign" led by President Bush and aimed at "manipulating sources of public opinion" and "downplaying the major reason for going to war."
McClellan includes the charges in a 341-page book, "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception," that delivers a harsh look at the White House and the man he served for close to a decade. He describes Bush as demonstrating a "lack of inquisitiveness," says the White House operated in "permanent campaign" mode, and admits to having been deceived by some in the president's inner circle about the leak of a CIA operative's name.
The book, coming from a man who was a tight-lipped defender of administration aides and policy, is certain to give fuel to critics of the administration, and McClellan has harsh words for many of his past colleagues. He accuses former White House adviser Karl Rove of misleading him about his role in the CIA case. He describes Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as being deft at deflecting blame, and he calls Vice President Cheney "the magic man" who steered policy behind the scenes while leaving no fingerprints.
McClellan stops short of saying that Bush purposely lied about his reasons for invading Iraq, writing that he and his subordinates were not "employing out-and-out deception" to make their case for war in 2002.
But in a chapter titled "Selling the War," he alleges that the administration repeatedly shaded the truth and that Bush "managed the crisis in a way that almost guaranteed that the use of force would become the only feasible option."
The following is a letter from Counselor to the President Ed Gillespie to NBC News President Steve Capus:
Steve Capus President, NBC News 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, N.Y.10112
Mr. Capus:
This e-mail is to formally request that NBC Nightly News and The Today Show air for their viewers President Bush's actual answer to correspondent Richard Engel's question about Iran policy and "appeasement," rather than the deceptively edited version of the President's answer that was aired last night on the Nightly News and this morning on The Today Show.
In the interview, Engel asked the President: "You said that negotiating with Iran is pointless, and then you went further. You said that it was appeasement. Were you referring to Senator Barack Obama?"
The President responded: "You know, my policies haven't changed, but evidently the political calendar has. People need to read the speech. You didn't get it exactly right, either. What I said was is that we need to take the words of people seriously. And when, you know, a leader of Iran says that they want to destroy Israel, you've got to take those words seriously. And if you don't take them seriously, then it harkens back to a day when we didn't take other words seriously. It was fitting that I talked about not taking the words of Adolf Hitler seriously on the floor of the Knesset. But I also talked about the need to defend Israel, the need to not negotiate with the likes of al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas. And the need to make sure Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon."
This answer makes clear: (1). The President's remarks before the Knesset were not different from past policy statements, but are now being looked at through a political prism, (2). Corrects the inaccurate premise of Engel's question by putting the "appeasement" line in the proper context of taking the words of leaders seriously, not "negotiating with Iran," (3). Restates the U.S.'s long-standing policy positions against negotiating with al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas, and not allowing Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon.
Engel's immediate follow-up question was, "Repeatedly you've talked about Iran and that you don't want to see Iran develop a nuclear weapon. How far away do you think Iran is from developing a nuclear capability?"
The President replied, "You know, Richard, I don't want to speculate – and there's a lot of speculation. But one thing is for certain – we need to prevent them from learning how to enrich uranium. And I have made it clear to the Iranians that there is a seat at the table for them if they would verifiably suspend their enrichment. And if not, we'll continue to rally the world to isolate them."
This response reiterates another long-standing policy, which is that if Iran verifiably suspends its uranium enrichment program the U.S. government would engage in talks with the Iranian government.
NBC's selective editing of the President's response is clearly intended to give viewers the impression that he agreed with Engel's characterization of his remarks when he explicitly challenged it. Furthermore, omitted the references to al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas and ignored the clarifying point in the President's follow-up response that U.S. policy is to require Iran to suspend its nuclear enrichment program before coming to the table, not that "negotiating with Iran is pointless" and amounts to "appeasement."
This deceitful editing to further a media-manufactured storyline is utterly misleading and irresponsible and I hereby request in the interest of fairness and accuracy that the network air the President's responses to both initial questions in full on the two programs that used the excerpts.
As long as I am making this formal request, please allow me to take this opportunity to ask if your network has reconsidered its position that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war, especially in light of the fact that the unity government in Baghdad recently rooted out illegal, extremist groups in Basra and reclaimed the port there for the people of Iraq, among other significant signs of progress.
On November 27, 2006, NBC News made a decision to no longer just cover the news in Iraq, but to make an analytical and editorial judgment that Iraq was in a civil war. As you know, both the United States government and the Government of Iraq disputed your account at that time. As Matt Lauer said that morning on The Today Show: "We should mention, we didn't just wake up on a Monday morning and say, 'Let's call this a civil war.' This took careful deliberation.'"
I noticed that around September of 2007, your network quietly stopped referring to conditions in Iraq as a "civil war." Is it still NBC News's carefully deliberated opinion that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war? If not, will the network publicly declare that the civil war has ended, or that it was wrong to declare it in the first place?
Lastly, when the Commerce Department on April 30 released the GDP numbers for the first quarter of 2007, Brian Williams reported it this way: "If you go by the government number, the figure that came out today stops just short of the official declaration of a recession."
The GDP estimate was a positive 0.6% for the first quarter. Slow growth, but growth nonetheless. This followed a slow but growing fourth quarter in 2007. Consequently, even if the first quarter GDP estimate had been negative, it still would not have signaled a recession – neither by the unofficial rule-of-thumb of two consecutive quarters of negative growth, nor the more robust definition by the National Bureau of Economic Research (the group that officially marks the beginnings and ends of business cycles).
Furthermore, never in our nation's history have we characterized economic conditions as a "recession" with unemployment so low – in fact, when this rate of unemployment was eventually reached in the 1990s, it was hailed as the sign of a strong economy. This rate of unemployment is lower than the average of the past three decades.
Are there numbers besides the "government number" to go by? Is there reason to believe "the government number" is suspect? How does the release of positive economic growth for two consecutive quarters, albeit limited, stop "just short of the official declaration of a recession"?
Mr. Capus, I'm sure you don't want people to conclude that there is really no distinction between the "news" as reported on NBC and the "opinion" as reported on MSNBC, despite the increasing blurring of those lines. I welcome your response to this letter, and hope it is one that reassures your broadcast network's viewers that blatantly partisan talk show hosts like Christopher Matthews and Keith Olbermann at MSNBC don't hold editorial sway over the NBC network news division.
Sincerely, Ed Gillespie Counselor to the President
To View The Edited Version Of NBC News' Interview, Click Here
To View The Full Interview Of The President, Click Here
As the White House talked up conflict with Iran, the head of U.S. Central Command, William "Fox" Fallon, talked it down. Now he has resigned.
Peter Yang photo
1.
If, in the dying light of the Bush administration, we go to war with Iran, it'll all come down to one man. If we do not go to war with Iran, it'll come down to the same man. He is that rarest of creatures in the Bush universe: the good cop on Iran, and a man of strategic brilliance. His name is William Fallon, although all of his friends call him "Fox," which was his fighter-pilot call sign decades ago. Forty years into a military career that has seen this admiral rule over America's two most important combatant commands, Pacific Command and now United States Central Command, it's impossible to make this guy -- as he likes to say -- "nervous in the service." Past American governments have used saber rattling as a useful tactic to get some bad actor on the world stage to fall in line. This government hasn't mastered that kind of subtlety. When Dick Cheney has rattled his saber, it has generally meant that he intends to use it. And in spite of recent war spasms aimed at Iran from this sclerotic administration, Fallon is in no hurry to pick up any campaign medals for Iran. And therein lies the rub for the hard-liners led by Cheney. Army General David Petraeus, commanding America's forces in Iraq, may say, "You cannot win in Iraq solely in Iraq," but Fox Fallon is Petraeus's boss, and he is the commander of United States Central Command, and Fallon doesn't extend Petraeus's logic to mean war against Iran.
So while Admiral Fallon's boss, President George W. Bush, regularly trash-talks his way to World War III and his administration casually casts Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as this century's Hitler (a crown it has awarded once before, to deadly effect), it's left to Fallon -- and apparently Fallon alone -- to argue that, as he told Al Jazeera last fall: "This constant drumbeat of conflict...is not helpful and not useful. I expect that there will be no war, and that is what we ought to be working for. We ought to try to do our utmost to create different conditions."
What America needs, Fallon says, is a "combination of strength and willingness to engage."
Those are fighting words to your average neocon -- not to mention your average supporter of Israel, a good many of whom in Washington seem never to have served a minute in uniform. But utter those words for print and you can easily find yourself defending your indifference to "nuclear holocaust."
How does Fallon get away with so brazenly challenging his commander in chief?
The answer is that he might not get away with it for much longer. President Bush is not accustomed to a subordinate who speaks his mind as freely as Fallon does, and the president may have had enough.
No doubt his resignation was toasted by many in the military that evening.
Secretary Gates was, as usual, rather forthcoming as to the resignation stating Admiral Fallon’s reasons involved the controversies that have resulted from the recent, March 11, 2008, article in Esquire magazine: “The Man Between War and Peace,” by Thomas P.M. Barnett.
Gee – ya think?
Others in the military will quietly tell ya Admiral Fallon got confused and thought it was his job to set military and foreign policy instead of implementing it.
He did everything possible to undermine his bosses, Secretary of Defense Gates and President George W. Bush; and cut the knees out from under General David Petraeus.All the while, he overlooked several aspects of his job, such as was reported in the Washington Times - “Warriors welcome Fallon's resignation” by Sara Carter, March 13, 2008:
“Current and former military officials welcomed the resignation of Navy Adm. William J. Fallon, the top U.S. military commander in the Middle East, saying he failed to prevent foreign fighters and munitions from entering Iraq.”
To be certain, not to be overlooked is the fact that Admiral Fallon has led a storied career in the military and that we should all appreciate -and thank him for his service.
Nevertheless, we can wish him the best of luck in his retirement, which is, by many accounts, long overdue.Maybe now he can be a military analyst for Katie Couric or the New York Times – or Code Pink.He’ll fit in quite comfortably.
The abrupt resignation of Adm. William Fallon as the head of Central Command almost got lost amid the breaking news of Barack Obama's victory in the Mississippi primary and Eliot Spitzer's resignation as governor of New York. But it's a much more consequential development -- in the foreign and military policy of the Bush administration in its final year in office and in the relations between civilian commanders and military officers in the long run of American history.
Though everyone involved denies it, Fallon was kicked out for insubordination, or something very close to it. His conduct became impossible to overlook after the publication of a jauntily written article in Esquire by Thomas P.M. Barnett, author of "The Pentagon's New Map."
Barnett paints Fallon as a seasoned officer who coolly and wisely has been frustrating George W. Bush's desire to invade Iran. He points out that Fallon opposed the surge in Iraq ordered by Bush in January 2007 and that he has tried to rein in Gen. David Petraeus, whose leadership of the surge has produced such impressive results. He seems to take it for granted that readers will applaud Fallon for opposing a move that converted likely defeat to a high chance of success.
Fallon also made it plain that he wants to withdraw troops from Iraq, as soon as possible -- even though Defense Secretary Robert Gates has approved Petraeus' request for a pause after currently scheduled troop withdrawals end in July.
Fallon is not the first subordinate to work openly to undercut the commander in chief…
By Sara Carter - Current and former military officials welcomed the resignation of Navy Adm. William J. Fallon, the top U.S. military commander in the Middle East, saying he failed to prevent foreign fighters and munitions from entering Iraq.
They said "there was no misperception" regarding Adm. Fallon's "non-warrior" approach to handling foreign involvement in the region.
"The fact is that [Central Command] had the external responsibility to protect our troops in Iraq from the outside and under Fallon they failed to do it," said retired Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, a military analyst. "We have done nothing to protect our soldiers from external threats in Iraq."
Others said Adm. Fallon was pushed to resign.
"No matter what [Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates] said [Tuesday], we know for a fact Admiral Fallon was fired," said a former senior Defense official who works closely with military officials in the region. "We have kids — soldiers — getting killed because Iran, Syria and other foreign fighters are coming across the border into Iraq, and yet Fallon was unwilling to do anything to hold [those nations] accountable."
Adm. Fallon announced his retirement Tuesday, saying he had no substantial disagreements with the White House on the Middle East but that the "disconnect between my views and the president's policy objectives" had become a distraction.
Presenter: Secretary of Defense Robert M. GatesMarch 11, 2008
DoD News Briefing with Secretary Robert Gates from the Pentagon
SEC. GATES: Good afternoon.
Admiral William Fallon is, at this moment, issuing a statement announcing that he has asked my approval to step down, from his current duties as commander of U.S. Central Command, and retire. Admiral Fallon advised me of his decision early this morning. He told me that, quote, "The current embarrassing situation, public perception of differences between my views and administration policy, and the distraction this causes from the mission make this the right thing to do," unquote.
I have approved Admiral Fallon's request, to retire, with reluctance and regret. Effective March 31st, Lieutenant General Martin Dempsey, deputy commander of U.S. Central Command, will serve as acting commander. He will serve in that capacity until such time as permanent relief can be nominated and confirmed.
Admiral Fallon has served his nation well throughout a distinguished military career for over 40 years, first in the Navy and then at the helm of two of the most important and dynamic operational commands, Pacific and Central Command. Fox Fallon has led our nation and hundreds of thousands of men and women in uniform with conviction, strategic vision, integrity and courage.
Admiral Fallon fought bravely in the skies over Vietnam, commanded an air wing during Desert Storm and then went on to lead at the highest levels of the U.S. armed forces. As commander of CENTCOM, he has managed, with skill and diplomacy, the mounting challenges across the broader Middle East and has kept foremost in mind the need to protect our vital national security interests in the region.
Fox Fallon has dedicated his life to the preservation of the freedoms we in this nation enjoy today, and all Americans should be deeply grateful for his dedication. On behalf of the Department of Defense and the nation, I thank him for his years of selfless service.
Admiral Fallon reached this difficult decision entirely on his own. I believe it was the right thing to do even though I do not believe there are, in fact, significant differences between his views and administration policy.
