Speaking Truth To Power
I got a thrill up my leg when the opportunity to blog on TAH arose.
Jonn, thanks for the warm and fuzzy feeling 🙂
Now lets get to it, shall we:
At a recent Tea Party in Philly, I had the opportunity to interview a retired Air Force veteran.
“I’m more afraid of this President, than I am the VietCong and Al Qaeda, cause this guy is in my White House.“
Talk about speaking truth to power!
Well, I’m afraid too.
Considering the recent revelation by DHS suggesting returning veterans have an increased risk of joining terrorist organization. Today we learn of Obama’s plan to release photos from ongoing investigations:
The photos, taken from Air Force and Army criminal investigations, apparently are not as shocking as the photographs from the Abu Ghraib investigation that became a lasting symbol of U.S. mistakes in Iraq.
COB6 did a remarkable job of detailing this transparent witch-hunt by the Obama administration in an earlier post. It is clear that the soon to be released photos will be presented out of context for maximum shock value. Just as the Justice Department memos were cherry picked, so will these photos. If you believe that ALL the photos and supporting documents will be released, ask yourself this question: When has this administration acted faithfully on the principle of transparency?
I want to make mention of a recent study that provides empirical data suggesting an “emboldenment effect“ by terrorists in the wake of negative news. As much as I am concerned with this additional risk placed on the troops, I have full faith in their professionalism and superior training. The population that is truly at risk are civilians, like my good self. This administration had broadcast to the world that it believes its returning soldiers are more dangerous than the foe they fought. Now this Democrat led administration is hell bent on crippling our intel capability and propagating the stereotype of an American soldier as an inhumane torturer of the innocent. This is a green light for terrorists to attack with impunity. When they do attack, recent history reveals their targets are civilians going about their daily routine, just like the victims in Madrid and London.
Category: Politics
What the h@!! is up with that “uniform?” Did he put his ribbons on in the dark? A ball cap with service dress over a t-shirt? Was he wearing speedos for pants?
Get him a spoon! He’s a soup sandwhich!
Skye…
You are right. This admin is crippling the capability we have to be effective in more ways than I can count. We SHOULD BE VERY Scared.
I am going to have to agree with HM2, because I thought you could not wear military uniforms to political rallies. Even if you could, why mix and match? If this was at a anti-war protest we would be ripping him apart over the non-authorized items.
Thanks Spork:
He’s retired so it doesn’t really apply. But, I hear a lot of that sork of stuff about the anti-war crowd and figured what’s good for the goose.
I appreciate his point of view. I think he’s dead wrong, but he’s got a right to believe it and I’m happy to see people in the street for something.
Doc, Out.
I am not sure about that, I mean if I do a full 20 and retire I would feel that I would not have to wear my awards and such to know what I did in my service.
To me it is using military service to somehow validate a view that may be totally unrelated to anything military.
Spork at WS2 & the EaglesUP Muster were several retired military that wore their uniform/ribbons in proper order. Don’t you never let no one, nobody make you feel ashamed of displaying your accomplishments in the military.
Welcome aboard, Skye. Now about that thrill you’re feeling running up your leg?
sweeper out!
Well what about the rules that are in place to keep the military politically neutral? Becuase there is a segment every day or so that talks about it on AFN.
The thing with GOE was that there were a variety of military dress not entirely unlike the anti-war crowd. I saw ribbons/medals on field uniforms. And I saw mix and match dress.
My point was that if this had been “one of us” and not “one of you,” that’s all you would have heard. What’s good for the goose…