I'm sure folks get tired of my drivel, but this Bergdahl thing is most bothersome. I read (for hours) the Uniform Code of Military Justice and have copied here certain components. Basically it reads that if a soldier leaves his post during wartime activities he is automatically considered a deserter Simple AWOL is not an option. ( Even if he returns voluntarily, he is a deserter and must stand trial). Paperwork is to be completed and he becomes wanted and subject to arrest by most legal authorities. He is arrested and held in military custody until a Court Martial (not a Summary Court Martial) decides his guilt or innocence - there is no provision to wait and hear the deserter's story before charging him as this administration is doing. Much the same as in civilian criminal law, if several people claim to be eyewitnesses to a crime and identify the culprit, he is arrested and charged with the crime, held until bailed out (the military doesn't have that)
or until trial. The guilt must be proven at that point ( pretty easy with
multiple credible witnesses).
The law doesn't wait to hear his side of the story before arrest. PERIOD!!
Hussein and his administration have spun this mess and usurped the authority of the military in an effort to cover their idiocy. Sadder each day, the antics of this treasonous administration.
From the UCMJ:
If the intent of the absence was to "shirk important duty," such as a combat deployment, then the "intent to remain away permanently" to support a charge of desertion is not necessary. However, Such services as drill, target practice, maneuvers, and practice marches are not ordinarily "important duty." "Important duty" may include such duty as hazardous duty, duty in a combat zone, certain ship deployments, etc. Whether a duty is hazardous or a service is important depends upon the circumstances of the particular case, and is a question of fact for the court-martial to decide. (My note – says goes to Court Martial as the only place for facts. Elsewhere it is stated if one leaves their post during combat, AWOL is no longer considered, it automatically rises to desertion
Sunday, September 28, 2014
Hillary
Hillary is showing her true colors. She is blasting the Supreme Court decision allowing closely held (meaning privately owned) corporations to opt out of the Hussein mandate that contraceptive devices must be provided to female employees. She claims the court has gotten onto a "slippery slope". First, not all contraception is included in the ruling. The ruling is specific to four means of contraception, which can be effectively used after a pregnancy has begun and can be construed as a form of abortion. Secondly, the ruling simply affirmed a part of the Constitution upholding the freedom of religion as the owners of the company have strong feelings about abortion. The ruling did not say the female workers could not use contraception nor even that they cannot have an abortion - it simply allows the employer, acting on their religious beliefs, to avoid paying for those things.
As an allegedly responsible, highly visible woman in this country, why doesn't Hillary suggest some level of abstinence to her minions rather than loudly objecting to the lack of a law providing contraception? It would certainly seem reasonable that a woman could provide her own contraception using anything from a crossed leg procedure to purchasing her own pills out of her own pocket. To go so far as to say that the prevention of pregnancy is a necessary protection of a woman's health is an awfully long reach.
Taking a step further in the whole mess, what are the rights of a company that is required to provide contraception? Suppose the company does pay for the pills or devices and yet a female employee becomes pregnant. The employer's insurance must now pay for both the birth costs and provide a paid leave for the employee and then offer health insurance to the child until age 26. Would it be fair to argue that the employer offered the contraception with their insurance and the employee simply refused to avail herself of same and allowed herself to become pregnant? Why, then would the company's insurance be required to pay for her refusal to use that which is provided? Should there be a limit on the number of times an employee could become pregnant despite the availability of employee provided contraception? If a company can provide that an employee can be terminated for using certain drugs the employer deems harmful, could it not be reasonably argued that an employee be terminated for failing to use certain drugs provided by that employer? Talk about a "slippery slope".
If an employer has to provide insurance to cover, for example, flu shots, should the employee be required to receive that shot? What if an employee opts to forego that inoculation, gets the flu and then infects numerous other employees who miss work and cost a company a great deal of absenteeism? Is there any recourse for the company?
It is a frightful thing to think Hillary is the current front runner for the next presidential election. Hopefully, her true ignorance of the Constitution and the foundations of this Nation, through her outspoken tongue wagging, will doom her chances and she can go on being a "broke" grandmother.
As an allegedly responsible, highly visible woman in this country, why doesn't Hillary suggest some level of abstinence to her minions rather than loudly objecting to the lack of a law providing contraception? It would certainly seem reasonable that a woman could provide her own contraception using anything from a crossed leg procedure to purchasing her own pills out of her own pocket. To go so far as to say that the prevention of pregnancy is a necessary protection of a woman's health is an awfully long reach.
Taking a step further in the whole mess, what are the rights of a company that is required to provide contraception? Suppose the company does pay for the pills or devices and yet a female employee becomes pregnant. The employer's insurance must now pay for both the birth costs and provide a paid leave for the employee and then offer health insurance to the child until age 26. Would it be fair to argue that the employer offered the contraception with their insurance and the employee simply refused to avail herself of same and allowed herself to become pregnant? Why, then would the company's insurance be required to pay for her refusal to use that which is provided? Should there be a limit on the number of times an employee could become pregnant despite the availability of employee provided contraception? If a company can provide that an employee can be terminated for using certain drugs the employer deems harmful, could it not be reasonably argued that an employee be terminated for failing to use certain drugs provided by that employer? Talk about a "slippery slope".
If an employer has to provide insurance to cover, for example, flu shots, should the employee be required to receive that shot? What if an employee opts to forego that inoculation, gets the flu and then infects numerous other employees who miss work and cost a company a great deal of absenteeism? Is there any recourse for the company?
It is a frightful thing to think Hillary is the current front runner for the next presidential election. Hopefully, her true ignorance of the Constitution and the foundations of this Nation, through her outspoken tongue wagging, will doom her chances and she can go on being a "broke" grandmother.
Wednesday, December 25, 2013
More on Phil Robertson of Duck Dynast
Now the fine "reverend" Jackson has weighed in on the Phil Roberstson of Duck Dynasty debacle. 'Ole Jesse says Phil's statements are more offensive than was the driver of the bus on which Rosa Parks rode. Any place to stick his inflammatory rascist nose seems to give him a pulpit from which to preach. He would claim I'm a rascist bigot because I treat both my "black" animals like dogs! (They are dogs - black and never heard of Africa). How in the world did he get the title reverend, and even more amazing is the fact he gets so much press coverage whenever he wants it. I wonder if he'll be allowed to "preach" in his son's prison? Great example of a family there.
I happen to have a mixed race granchild whom I dearly love. None of her lineage in the past century leads to anywhere close to Africa and at least five generations back on her mother's side come from Tennessee and Kentucky. Will she be called a Tentucky American? Doubtful, as there are no organizations to promote anything other than "African Americans"- with virtually no ties to the continent of Africa. (By the way, how many Africans are named Hussein like our pres?)
Somehow, some way, there has to be a WASP with the ability to speak beyond political correctness and be heard within the media and not silenced by the castigation of the organized minorities. Someone who, unlike the supposed "reverend", has actually read and believes in the Bible. Someone in whom people who believe in the future of our Nation and hope our Constitution might rule can look up to as a leader. I really would like to have a viable, reasonable organization to which I could make donations of both time and money. IMHO, there isn't one right now and that is sad.
I happen to have a mixed race granchild whom I dearly love. None of her lineage in the past century leads to anywhere close to Africa and at least five generations back on her mother's side come from Tennessee and Kentucky. Will she be called a Tentucky American? Doubtful, as there are no organizations to promote anything other than "African Americans"- with virtually no ties to the continent of Africa. (By the way, how many Africans are named Hussein like our pres?)
Somehow, some way, there has to be a WASP with the ability to speak beyond political correctness and be heard within the media and not silenced by the castigation of the organized minorities. Someone who, unlike the supposed "reverend", has actually read and believes in the Bible. Someone in whom people who believe in the future of our Nation and hope our Constitution might rule can look up to as a leader. I really would like to have a viable, reasonable organization to which I could make donations of both time and money. IMHO, there isn't one right now and that is sad.
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Mixed Emotions
Another day of mixed emotions.
On the one hand, advancing age means that I might not have to survive long enough to see the country I love destroyed from within. On the other hand, given the blessing of youth I might exist long enough to participate in a revolution that surely will come about as the “government”, from the presidency to the lowest courts, strives to overturn the way of life envisioned by our forefathers and guaranteed by our Constitution.
In June of this year, the Colorado Attorney General’s office filed a discrimination complaint against a bakery shop owner. Not against a Wal-Mart nor an Exxon nor a General Motors with great visibility, this complaint was filed against a sole proprietorship and it was initiated by the beloved ACLU. The bakery shop owner had refused to supply a cake for the wedding ceremony of a “gay” couple. He offered them birthday cakes, holiday cakes or any other sort of cake, just not one for celebrating the union of homosexuals who had been married in Massachusetts. He did so on the premise his religious beliefs prohibited him from participating in something he considered contrary to the teachings of the Bible (That happens to be a book that has been around for a long time representing little or no value to judges and elected officials).
At a hearing in December, an administrative law judge ruled that, in fact, his refusal to bake a wedding cake was an act of discrimination and issued a cease and desist order. Despite the fact Colorado law does not even allow same sex marriages, the judge says the baker must comply with the wishes of someone he does not want to serve because it is discriminatory. His personal religious beliefs are to be disregarded as, obviously, of much less importance than the rights of a “gay” couple to demand a cake from his shop. It is expected that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission will “certify” the judge’s order.
Wow! That CCRC is similar to the Civil Rights Commissions existing in many states and in the federal government. Those commissions have tremendous enforcement powers, in some cases without specified limitations, and are unknown to nearly all Americans. Combined with their close allies in the ACLU, the commissions have unbridled power to force upon individuals, groups, organizations and companies the beliefs of the members of those commissions irrespective of the Constitution and the true intent of the rights provided therein.
On the one hand, advancing age means that I might not have to survive long enough to see the country I love destroyed from within. On the other hand, given the blessing of youth I might exist long enough to participate in a revolution that surely will come about as the “government”, from the presidency to the lowest courts, strives to overturn the way of life envisioned by our forefathers and guaranteed by our Constitution.
In June of this year, the Colorado Attorney General’s office filed a discrimination complaint against a bakery shop owner. Not against a Wal-Mart nor an Exxon nor a General Motors with great visibility, this complaint was filed against a sole proprietorship and it was initiated by the beloved ACLU. The bakery shop owner had refused to supply a cake for the wedding ceremony of a “gay” couple. He offered them birthday cakes, holiday cakes or any other sort of cake, just not one for celebrating the union of homosexuals who had been married in Massachusetts. He did so on the premise his religious beliefs prohibited him from participating in something he considered contrary to the teachings of the Bible (That happens to be a book that has been around for a long time representing little or no value to judges and elected officials).
At a hearing in December, an administrative law judge ruled that, in fact, his refusal to bake a wedding cake was an act of discrimination and issued a cease and desist order. Despite the fact Colorado law does not even allow same sex marriages, the judge says the baker must comply with the wishes of someone he does not want to serve because it is discriminatory. His personal religious beliefs are to be disregarded as, obviously, of much less importance than the rights of a “gay” couple to demand a cake from his shop. It is expected that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission will “certify” the judge’s order.
Wow! That CCRC is similar to the Civil Rights Commissions existing in many states and in the federal government. Those commissions have tremendous enforcement powers, in some cases without specified limitations, and are unknown to nearly all Americans. Combined with their close allies in the ACLU, the commissions have unbridled power to force upon individuals, groups, organizations and companies the beliefs of the members of those commissions irrespective of the Constitution and the true intent of the rights provided therein.
Friday, July 5, 2013
Fourth of July
4th of July
What a wonderful day it is as a holiday from work and a time for general celebration. There are more hot dogs consumed in America on this day than any other and, obviously, more fireworks exploded than on any other day. Thank goodness for a free country which can use it's own Declaration of Independence as a reason to gather family and friends for boating, swimming, eating, drinking, games, and all manner of pleasant and joyful experiences.
Just as any holiday, there is a foundation for the day and a reason the holiday exists. Most folks recognize that the 4th of July is a celebration of the independence of the United States from Britain, but few know how it came about and follow the real instruction for the celebration.
In fact, John Adams, the first Vice President and second President of these United States and one of the Founding Fathers of this Nation and a contributor to the drafting of the Declaration of Independence wrote a letter to his wife. In his letter he stated:
"It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews (means horseshoes), Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more."
Wow! With a letter he set in motion the prescription for July 4th celebrations lasting well over 200 years. We Americans have followed his instructions in almost every way.
When did the Acts of Devotion to God Almighty fall by the wayside? How could a leader of government utter such words without being as ostracized as Paula Deen?
Simple. Contrary to decisions and mandates of modern day judges, courts and politicians the idea of a devotion to God was ever present within the minds of the Founders and references to God and Father are found in practically all documents having to do with the beginnings of this Nation. A Nation founded in the name of Democracy, wherein the majority rules. Yet, our courts have ruled that prayer is not allowed in schools and at games, the Pledge of Allegiance is banned, anyone can marry anyone, small children claiming to be "transgender" can use the bathrooms of the opposite sex, small groups can desecrate the burial of a fallen soldier, atheists can display their beliefs on public property and, most importantly, references to God are disallowed in public places.
Just yesterday, a newscaster lauded the fact this country was founded as a secular nation. Where and how have people come up with that idea? "In God We Trust" has appeared on U.S. money since 1864 and became, with very little opposition, the official motto of the United States under President Eisenhower. Taken out of context, correspondence from Thomas Jefferson discussing a separation of church and state has been used as misguided, and twisted grounds for claiming religious expression of the one to whom the founders gave credit and constantly prayed is unconstitutional. The constitution followed the Declaration of Independence. It did not take away anything from the declaration The Declaration contains five references to God, especially "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor".
This is a Nation founded under God and its majority should be as willing to fight for that belief as for freedom.
What a wonderful day it is as a holiday from work and a time for general celebration. There are more hot dogs consumed in America on this day than any other and, obviously, more fireworks exploded than on any other day. Thank goodness for a free country which can use it's own Declaration of Independence as a reason to gather family and friends for boating, swimming, eating, drinking, games, and all manner of pleasant and joyful experiences.
Just as any holiday, there is a foundation for the day and a reason the holiday exists. Most folks recognize that the 4th of July is a celebration of the independence of the United States from Britain, but few know how it came about and follow the real instruction for the celebration.
In fact, John Adams, the first Vice President and second President of these United States and one of the Founding Fathers of this Nation and a contributor to the drafting of the Declaration of Independence wrote a letter to his wife. In his letter he stated:
"It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews (means horseshoes), Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more."
Wow! With a letter he set in motion the prescription for July 4th celebrations lasting well over 200 years. We Americans have followed his instructions in almost every way.
When did the Acts of Devotion to God Almighty fall by the wayside? How could a leader of government utter such words without being as ostracized as Paula Deen?
Simple. Contrary to decisions and mandates of modern day judges, courts and politicians the idea of a devotion to God was ever present within the minds of the Founders and references to God and Father are found in practically all documents having to do with the beginnings of this Nation. A Nation founded in the name of Democracy, wherein the majority rules. Yet, our courts have ruled that prayer is not allowed in schools and at games, the Pledge of Allegiance is banned, anyone can marry anyone, small children claiming to be "transgender" can use the bathrooms of the opposite sex, small groups can desecrate the burial of a fallen soldier, atheists can display their beliefs on public property and, most importantly, references to God are disallowed in public places.
Just yesterday, a newscaster lauded the fact this country was founded as a secular nation. Where and how have people come up with that idea? "In God We Trust" has appeared on U.S. money since 1864 and became, with very little opposition, the official motto of the United States under President Eisenhower. Taken out of context, correspondence from Thomas Jefferson discussing a separation of church and state has been used as misguided, and twisted grounds for claiming religious expression of the one to whom the founders gave credit and constantly prayed is unconstitutional. The constitution followed the Declaration of Independence. It did not take away anything from the declaration The Declaration contains five references to God, especially "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor".
This is a Nation founded under God and its majority should be as willing to fight for that belief as for freedom.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Life
How strange it is to speak with contemporaries (persons of the same age) and find that virtually all agree we are not nearly as old as our predecessors of the same age. Sadly, when we compare pictures, we realize we are them! Age is a cruel thing when it comes to our physical appearance and abilities. It is, however, rather kind to our temperament and our patience and our overall ability to see life for what it is. The idea of living forever is somewhat diminished by seeing the frailty of life and the potential for ending with so little a thing as a blocked artery, an accident, or a tiny tumor. These bodies we were given simply do not support the "live forever" ideals we possessed as younger persons. We become both introspective and retrospective at once. We look back at experiences and situations with almost blinded fond memories- easily erasing pains and tribulations-and recalling the good and pleasant experiences at any given point in life. Even without alzheimers or other forms of dementia we are able to recall past times shrouded in a fog blinded to the moments of discord and unpleasantries. What a welcome thing that is as compared to spending one's life consumed with bitterness and regret for things past- most often things over which we had no control. Just as feeling a certain level of joy looking at pictures from our past, we can close our eyes, remember, and once again enjoy the moments or times when life was as we hoped and imagined. We have all been,at times, within our own minds, both on top of the world and as downtrodden as anyone who ever lived. Yet, as we age, we realize that many of the things that plagued our minds were of no importance in the true scope of life. We have fretted, worried, and stressed over so many things in our lives that ultimately become trivial, that we look back and wonder how we might have dwelt on such insignificant circumstances.
We do age. We do get older just as generations before us have done and this life will end just as it has for millions of people. We are blessed with the ability to remember and what a blessed thing that is.
We do age. We do get older just as generations before us have done and this life will end just as it has for millions of people. We are blessed with the ability to remember and what a blessed thing that is.
Saturday, December 22, 2012
I Love This Country
I love this country – these United States of America. I was able to serve in both the Army and the Air Force. My time spent in those organizations was not always pleasant, but despite any adversities and ideological differences there was an underlying patriotism within me that, if necessary, I would sacrifice so much as my own life to preserve the freedoms, principles and morals so dear to the population of this Nation.
What now? How might we define any principles and morals upheld by our very own government? Sure, we can attend the churches of our choice, we can have open conversations with friends and acquaintances about our personal values, but political correctness seems to obstruct the free expression of feelings by anyone in or seeking public office. Special interest groups have so amassed themselves with their outspoken agendas that politicians are afraid to speak whatever they might truly stand for or believe.
How can a country with the foundations of this one have allowed a select few to prevent prayer in schools, invocations at ballgames and even the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in school? We send young men and women into foreign countries to defend the fundamentals of democracy, yet the very country for which they battle has turned from a democratic society to one frequently governed by a court system. Yes, there are provisions for our Congress to overturn decisions made by our courts that are totally contrary to the foundation of our Nation's beliefs; however, the positions of the two parties supposedly representing the people are so polarized that they refuse to work together to accomplish anything of substance for the good of all.
It appears that a quote attributed to Joseph Stalin was prophetic in its pronouncement of collapse from within. "America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within".
Just how might someone with great wisdom define "the Republic for which it stands" as stated in the Pledge of Allegiance? For what do we stand? Shall we increase the amounts taken from those who are determined to educate themselves and work hard and give more to those who choose to allow the "government" to provide for them? As we are forced to remove any references to God from public places along with tributes representative of faith from public locations because they are "offensive" to a tiny minority, shall we not have to ultimately destroy our churches to pacify those same malcontents? Is it to be incumbent upon our society to give privilege to those who classify themselves as minority – whether defined as race, sexual preference, or gender? Shall we allow a federal government, whose powers are specifically limited in our constitution, to determine what freedoms we may exert and to control every facet of our lives despite the fact we have the alleged power to vote?
I truly wish and pray there would come a resounding groundswell of enthusiasm to find individuals willing to espouse their true feelings, willing to run for public office and actually able to succeed in becoming elected. Stalin's predictions can be overcome. I hope that within my lifetime the ground begins to quiver from other than a quake!
What now? How might we define any principles and morals upheld by our very own government? Sure, we can attend the churches of our choice, we can have open conversations with friends and acquaintances about our personal values, but political correctness seems to obstruct the free expression of feelings by anyone in or seeking public office. Special interest groups have so amassed themselves with their outspoken agendas that politicians are afraid to speak whatever they might truly stand for or believe.
How can a country with the foundations of this one have allowed a select few to prevent prayer in schools, invocations at ballgames and even the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in school? We send young men and women into foreign countries to defend the fundamentals of democracy, yet the very country for which they battle has turned from a democratic society to one frequently governed by a court system. Yes, there are provisions for our Congress to overturn decisions made by our courts that are totally contrary to the foundation of our Nation's beliefs; however, the positions of the two parties supposedly representing the people are so polarized that they refuse to work together to accomplish anything of substance for the good of all.
It appears that a quote attributed to Joseph Stalin was prophetic in its pronouncement of collapse from within. "America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within".
Just how might someone with great wisdom define "the Republic for which it stands" as stated in the Pledge of Allegiance? For what do we stand? Shall we increase the amounts taken from those who are determined to educate themselves and work hard and give more to those who choose to allow the "government" to provide for them? As we are forced to remove any references to God from public places along with tributes representative of faith from public locations because they are "offensive" to a tiny minority, shall we not have to ultimately destroy our churches to pacify those same malcontents? Is it to be incumbent upon our society to give privilege to those who classify themselves as minority – whether defined as race, sexual preference, or gender? Shall we allow a federal government, whose powers are specifically limited in our constitution, to determine what freedoms we may exert and to control every facet of our lives despite the fact we have the alleged power to vote?
I truly wish and pray there would come a resounding groundswell of enthusiasm to find individuals willing to espouse their true feelings, willing to run for public office and actually able to succeed in becoming elected. Stalin's predictions can be overcome. I hope that within my lifetime the ground begins to quiver from other than a quake!
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Worthless time
The effort is probably no longer worth it. The state of the union, meaning what once was a great nation, stinks. The people have allowed elected idiots and appointed judges to destroy every value upon which this country was founded. The complete lack of respect for God, the total loss of moral values and the absence of good sense is attributable to our elected officials who care for nothing but their re-election and their power. Shame on them for allowing the greatest society in history to fail. Certainly an "F" would be the grade given to virtually every facet of our federal government and by far the majority of state and local governments. Just as a student has failed a course in school, sometimes lessons are learned and a passing grade might later be earned. Unfortunately, I don't see anyone studying their lessons. I see blame for all ills in this country being leveled by all elected officials at their opposition party. Occasionally someone will make the statement "I accept resonsibility for....". Define that. Does change come about or does the responsible party receive punishment? Nothing but empty words. Federal judges, appointed for life, have far exceeded any boundary imaginable in their ridiculous interpretations of our constitution. The constitution is very well written and easily understandable and needs no interpretation - it says what it says - and for judges to broaden the meanings of what is written was never imagined by the founders. The federal government is empowered to do certain things- everything else is reserved for the states and simply because a judge determines otherwise is absolutely unconstitutional. BUT, when rulings are taken to appellate courts or sometimes even to the supreme court, the judges are unwilling to genuinely use the exact wording of the constitution and discard rulings made by lower courts far beyond their intended reach. Are you kidding me - one or two people can file a lawsuit removing prayer and the pledge of allegiance from schools and some idiotic judges grant the wishes of a miniscule minority above the desires of the vast population? The supreme court judges, sitting under Godly wording, uphold the removal of God from public places - who do they really think they are? Easy answer, they believe themselves the true deity and abuse their powers beyond imagination. Like I say - an earned "F" in every category. Until the people of this nation realize the ruiness course on which it is headed and wipe out the elected politicians and replace them with genuine people, an "F" is the best that can ever be expected and the consequences more dire than imaginable.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Petraeus Resignation
General David Petraeus did a fine job as a general. He did what he was supposed to do as a lifelong soldier. His predecessors did the very same thing when they were in charge of a "war". He led the surge in Iraq and became widely known for his leadership no matter what the eventual outcome of the military's efforts might be.
The only other "wars" we have been involved in without a declaration of war were in Korea and Vietnam. The wars of: 1812, Mexican-American, Spanish-American, WWI, and WWII were declared wars done in accordance with the constitution. Since WWII, our armed interventions, or police actions, or freedom movements, or whatever our military sojourns into foreign countries might be called, have been authorized by the use of the "War Powers Act". The constitution states that only the Congress has the power to levy wars, but does not limit how that might be accomplished - the intent was quite clear, but the brilliant Washington minds found a way to pass that power to the President with the War Powers Act and then in 1973 a "joint resolution of Congress". These empowered the President to act without further consent from the elected officials and blast away at will.
I'm really digressing into another subject, but shall return to Petraeus in a short.
Generals are supposed to win, but to win they have to wage war-that is the ultimate test of their dedication and leadership. How many peacetime generals have found their way into headlines, or news broadcasts, or can be remembered by the average person? In Korea, over 33,000 Americans died at a cost (in 1950's dollars) of over 54 billion. Vietnam left us with over 58,000 dead Americans and an expense (in 60's and 70's dollars) of over 111 billion dollars. How about the results-lives and dollars well spent? Please define the winners. Now, the Iraq "war" has cost some 4500 American lives along with over 30,000 seriously wounded with a price tag over a trillion dollars. Have the generals won? Has America won? The names of generals MacArthur, Westmoreland and Patraeus became famous as a result of those wars. Oh yeah, Bush, the one whose Presidential powers were used to start the Iraq "war" let us know we had won in Iraq in 2003 with his "Mission Accomplished" speech. All this leads to another blog subject such as, should Patton have marched onward, should Truman have allowed MacArthur to continue on his way, did Secretary of Defense McNamara lie and should Cheney have been believed about WMD's in Iraq? Who should control wars, generals or politicians?
General Petraeus did the same thing in Iraq as General Westmoreland in Vietnam. He asked for more troops. He was essentially the coach and he did what he was tasked to do and he did what generals want to do. The difference between a general and a football coach is the coach can't send 45 men onto the field against a team of 11 no matter who they might try to convince. Generals, with the support of the President, can win the battle. The war, however, seems to never end. Petraeus received more troops and he received great notoriety. He retired from the Army and was appointed head of the CIA. Now we begin to venture into some unknown territory. Is the CIA an intelligence organization or another branch of our military? Why would a general, accustomed to doing what generals do, lead something that is designed to provide intelligence? Once again, a subject for another writing.
All this leads to the subject of the resignation. The published reason is that the general had an extra-marital affair with his biographer. That's no doubt true, but how would that lead to some ultra-moral decision that he must resign? Certainly, there is no precedent for that even at the presidential level. Could it be that the attack in Benghazi, which left 4 Americans, including an Ambassador, dead might find a tainted trail leading to the CIA? Our President, in response to the attack, upheld the first story given the world by our government that the cause of the attack was the production of a movie offensive to Muslims. He said, "We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, but there is absolutely no justification for this type of senseless violence-none!". Now, either the President was involved in attempting to mislead the world or the President himself had been misled. What is the primary source of the "intelligence"? The CIA. Either way, there lies a host of questions about the organization under the leadership of Petraeus and numerous inquiries are underway to find out both what the CIA knew and what involvement the CIA has/had in Libya. History, whether it is learned quickly or decades from now, will surely show that just as McNamara lied about Vietnam and Colin Powell was misled into telling the world about the non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, there is a story about the CIA and Libya that will become an embarrassment to our country. So, just as any wise general would do when he realizes an unstoppable missile is on its way to his location, he ducks and runs. Smart military strategy.
The whole point of this diatribe is simple. Somewhere, really high up in the anointed city, there is a truth that the outsiders, the American people, are not supposed to learn. The anointed ones, in their city of vast wisdom too complex for plain folks to understand, will spin this like a top.
The only other "wars" we have been involved in without a declaration of war were in Korea and Vietnam. The wars of: 1812, Mexican-American, Spanish-American, WWI, and WWII were declared wars done in accordance with the constitution. Since WWII, our armed interventions, or police actions, or freedom movements, or whatever our military sojourns into foreign countries might be called, have been authorized by the use of the "War Powers Act". The constitution states that only the Congress has the power to levy wars, but does not limit how that might be accomplished - the intent was quite clear, but the brilliant Washington minds found a way to pass that power to the President with the War Powers Act and then in 1973 a "joint resolution of Congress". These empowered the President to act without further consent from the elected officials and blast away at will.
I'm really digressing into another subject, but shall return to Petraeus in a short.
Generals are supposed to win, but to win they have to wage war-that is the ultimate test of their dedication and leadership. How many peacetime generals have found their way into headlines, or news broadcasts, or can be remembered by the average person? In Korea, over 33,000 Americans died at a cost (in 1950's dollars) of over 54 billion. Vietnam left us with over 58,000 dead Americans and an expense (in 60's and 70's dollars) of over 111 billion dollars. How about the results-lives and dollars well spent? Please define the winners. Now, the Iraq "war" has cost some 4500 American lives along with over 30,000 seriously wounded with a price tag over a trillion dollars. Have the generals won? Has America won? The names of generals MacArthur, Westmoreland and Patraeus became famous as a result of those wars. Oh yeah, Bush, the one whose Presidential powers were used to start the Iraq "war" let us know we had won in Iraq in 2003 with his "Mission Accomplished" speech. All this leads to another blog subject such as, should Patton have marched onward, should Truman have allowed MacArthur to continue on his way, did Secretary of Defense McNamara lie and should Cheney have been believed about WMD's in Iraq? Who should control wars, generals or politicians?
General Petraeus did the same thing in Iraq as General Westmoreland in Vietnam. He asked for more troops. He was essentially the coach and he did what he was tasked to do and he did what generals want to do. The difference between a general and a football coach is the coach can't send 45 men onto the field against a team of 11 no matter who they might try to convince. Generals, with the support of the President, can win the battle. The war, however, seems to never end. Petraeus received more troops and he received great notoriety. He retired from the Army and was appointed head of the CIA. Now we begin to venture into some unknown territory. Is the CIA an intelligence organization or another branch of our military? Why would a general, accustomed to doing what generals do, lead something that is designed to provide intelligence? Once again, a subject for another writing.
All this leads to the subject of the resignation. The published reason is that the general had an extra-marital affair with his biographer. That's no doubt true, but how would that lead to some ultra-moral decision that he must resign? Certainly, there is no precedent for that even at the presidential level. Could it be that the attack in Benghazi, which left 4 Americans, including an Ambassador, dead might find a tainted trail leading to the CIA? Our President, in response to the attack, upheld the first story given the world by our government that the cause of the attack was the production of a movie offensive to Muslims. He said, "We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, but there is absolutely no justification for this type of senseless violence-none!". Now, either the President was involved in attempting to mislead the world or the President himself had been misled. What is the primary source of the "intelligence"? The CIA. Either way, there lies a host of questions about the organization under the leadership of Petraeus and numerous inquiries are underway to find out both what the CIA knew and what involvement the CIA has/had in Libya. History, whether it is learned quickly or decades from now, will surely show that just as McNamara lied about Vietnam and Colin Powell was misled into telling the world about the non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, there is a story about the CIA and Libya that will become an embarrassment to our country. So, just as any wise general would do when he realizes an unstoppable missile is on its way to his location, he ducks and runs. Smart military strategy.
The whole point of this diatribe is simple. Somewhere, really high up in the anointed city, there is a truth that the outsiders, the American people, are not supposed to learn. The anointed ones, in their city of vast wisdom too complex for plain folks to understand, will spin this like a top.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)