Tankerbabe sent me some more pictures last night, so I thought I’d post some of the less embarrassing here. She also pointed me to Gun Nutt’s Photobucket if this isn’t enough for you.
Jimbo and Concretebob get ready for infiltrating the moonbats’ ranks
Behind the magic of This Ain’t Hell videos;
Another angle from across the street;
The first Car Bomb;
Tankerbabe and her kids
And these two classics;
Setting up for the next Car Bomb
It’s fitting that I was with some young paratroopers at midnight last night with Uncle Jimbo, both of us old paratroopers. One of my co-bloggers here, COB6, is also a member of that elite club which requires that you obey the law of gravity. But here’s the history of why today is considered “our” day;
Late yesterday afternoon I got an email from Blackfive‘s Uncle Jimbo inviting me to Walter Reed for the weekly Friday night FReep and, of course, I accepted. As soon as I got there, Jimbo started getting mischievous and went down to the Code Pink/union thug area and tried to join them with the above pictured sign, explaining that he only wants peace…just like them. But Bruce Wolfe, the union thug who has responsibility for manning the space (since it’s hardly on Code Pink’s radar these days) was having none of it.
Since no one is paying attention their outrageous blather about their mythical exploits in Iraq, Veterans for Peace and Iraq Veterans Against the War have decided that they’ll just complain about anything. An article last month in Sir! No Sir! (the same rocket scientists who think that Robin and I are one and the same are now ConLaw experts) decries a local Army commander’s publishing pictures of DWI arrestees on his post;
One of the bedrock principles of our criminal justice system is the presumption of innocence. This means that when someone is accused of a crime he or she has the right to try to prove their innocence by challenging the prosecutor’s evidence and offering their own witnesses and/or evidence to rebut the charges before a jury of their peers.
Commanding General Michael Oates has undermined this fundamental right by publishing the photographs and identities of Ft Drum soldiers who’ve been arrested for drunk driving in the four most recent issues of the base newspaper, “The Blizzard.” The paper has carried photos and news notes about each Drum soldier who’s been arrested for drinking while driving. Oates has told reporters that he is doing this to combat a growing tendency among soldiers to drink and drive. He apparently believes that by humiliating those accused of drunk driving others will be deterred from this behaviour [sic]. He also hasn’t stated whether the newspaper will publish retractions or apologies for those soldiers who are eventually acquitted of DWI charges or have their convictions overturned on appeal.
Well, when you put it like that…but wait. Don’t thousands of local papers across the country do the same thing in their “police blotter” features? Like my hometown paper, the Wayne County Times, coincidently in a county near Fort Drum, which, in the paper edition publishes pictures of the suspects in all of their inebriated, disheveled glory. So this commander is doing nothing that other communities have done to combat this dangerous behavior. So what’s the beef?
Members of the Iraq Veterans Against War (IVAW) at Ft Drum noted that many of the 48 soldiers who had their photos printed in the first Blizzard story, had returned from Iraq combat last November with the Second Brigade. “When you return to the base after a month or so of leave, that’s when PTSD often starts to kick in,” commented Sp/4 Eli Wright.
[…]
Citizen Soldier attorneys have been researching the possiblity of a federal lawsuit to challenge Oates’ policy as an unconstitutional abridgment of due process rights. They are also discussing the problem with the New York State Civil Liberties Union, based in Syracuse.
Ahh, now I see…it’s an affirmative action and employment drive for local attorneys. The Left is always demanding that soldiers be treated as civilians in matters like fraternization, but not when it’s used as a crime deterrent. This is just the VFP and IVAW trying to undermine the order and discipline of the military.
The article says “many of the 48 soldiers” who were included in the first publication of the blotter report had just returned from Iraq. It’s been my experience that “many” in the IVAW actually means “few”. If there were indeed “many” we’d have seen a real number, but since there weren’t enough to be convincing of their argument, we don’t get to see an actual count. How about praise for the hundreds of others who returned from Iraq and didn’t drink and drive? Now that’s “many”.
The VFP and IVAW claim that they’re only concerned with the mental health of the troops, that the rise in alcoholism is a symptom of their PTSD. Well, I’m no medical professional, so I have no opinion on that subject. What I do know, after living in the Fort Drum community during and after my military service is that alcoholism has always been a problem at the remote post located near Canada (where the drinking age is 18) and where were these activists when Fort Drum deployed 50% of it’s population every day for the Clinton years – when every soldier on that post was either deployed or preparing to deploy for the entire time I lived there (from 1992 until 1999)?
Fort Drum is sorely in need of better medical facilities, but that need has been there since the post became an active post in 1985 – where have these “advocates” been for the last 23 years?
All I’m asking for is consistency.
In the mad rush among the media to ignore the success in Iraq, you may have missed this. Since Barack Obama went to Iraq and declared that he had personally defeated our enemies there and made it safe for US troops to wander about freely, the press is only interested in reporting sporadically on the infrequent deaths of our troops there. Since the media has largely ignored the truth from Iraq, and the significance of our resolve in Iraq, Vets For Freedom has sent eight Iraq War veterans “Back to Iraq“.
Pete Hegseth, David Bellavia, Joel Arends, Erik Swabb, Kate Norley, Shawn Bryan, Daniel Bell, and Ben Hayden wrote a joint mission statement in the Washington Times last week explaining their reasons for going to Iraq;
We will each return to the cities where we served previously, providing a direct before-and-after assessment from the ground. Places like Ramadi, Baqubah, Samarra, and Baghdad, last experienced at the height of violence, will get a fresh look from experienced eyes.
We will assess the depths and sustainability of recent gains, and plan to objectively ask the tough questions – of Americans and Iraqis alike – about the future of America’s involvement in Iraq.
[…]
America’s veterans, their families and those still serving deserve honest answers to these difficult and complex questions. We intend to do our utmost to provide them.
The initial dispatches have been coming in from those eight intrepid veterans and, if you’re truly interested in what American determination can accomplish, read each and every one.
Folks have been emailing me the story about Obama foregoing a visit with troops recovering from their injuries at the Landstuhl medical facility in Germany.
Sen. Barack Obama scrapped plans to visit wounded members of the armed forces in Germany as part of his overseas trip, a decision his spokesman said was made because the Democratic presidential candidate thought it would be inappropriate on a campaign-funded journey.
Of course he did. There was no winning way to look at it from the stand point of a political campaign. Either he took cameras with him or he did the reverent thing and forbid the media to follow him. Why would he waste his time doing something he couldn’t make into a photo-op? And if he let cameras in, he’d be accused of using the wounded as props (I’d have been the first to say it), and why would he want a photo op with someone who’d draw the viewers attention away from the Messiah.
From a political standpoint, there was no up side. And we all know that Barack Obama doesn’t deviate from the politically expedient decision. AFP points out why he couldn’t make the visit;
Pentagon officials said the restrictions were in keeping with Defense Department guidelines aimed at avoiding the appearance of military support for any particular candidate.
“Because his visit is official only, Senator Obama may not be accompanied by members of his campaign staff,” a Pentagon memo seen by AFP said. “He may only be accompanied by one member of his Senate staff, and the appropriate number of security personnel.”
Only one handler with him? What if one of the troops asked him a question about the surge and Obama’s failure to support it? Who would be there to whisper the answer in his ears? Rush would have had another 2 minutes of “uh” to add to his unscripted Obama tape.
Nope, there was no up side for the politically adept Obama…no up side except for the troops he would have had to make a personal sacrifice to visit. I guess that was asking too much of the messiah.
UPDATED: Zero Ponsdorf emailed a link to a Free Republic article by Kristinn (a local FReeper whom I’ve met a few times) that pulls together a bunch of articles and sources;
This explanation by the Pentagon that Obama’s plane would be allowed to land and his staff and press taken care of leaves a big question as to what was so objectionable that Obama cancelled.
It couldn’t be the media restriction as some have speculated. Obama visited wounded troops at Walter Reed Army Medical Center last month without the press. He visited troops in Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq without the media. The military released official photos of the war zone visits, the only exception being of Obama’s visit to a military hospital in the Green Zone in Baghdad.
Read the rest.
Rurik emailed me this link from Blackfive who posts a letter from a captain in Afghanistan. Here’s an excerpt;
As the Soldiers where lined up to shake his hand, he blew them off and didn’t say a word as he went into the conference room to meet the General. As he finished, the vehicles took him to the ClamShell (pretty much a big top tent that military personnel can play basketball or work out in with weights) so he could take his publicity pictures playing basketball. He again shunned the opportunity to talk to Soldiers to thank them for their service.
Obama is uncomfortable around the troops because he knows that, as a bloc, he doesn’t have their vote. He won’t waste his time trying to earn their voteso Obama will focus his energies where he has a better chance – among the independents in the US, the folks he’s playing to in the media. So screw the troops – they’re just props for his campaign’s backdrop.
Obama is mainly still playing to his anti-war base and that base has been busy bashing the troops. Pat Dollard documented a spitting incident here and here for posterity. The military is undermining their efforts to defeat Republicans by actually winning the war instead of sacrificing themselves for the Democrat cause.
Yeah, I throw IVAW into that mix. Look at the piece TSO did this morning from Sleeping Gas Montalvan. Mantalvan finally decided that his “testimony” at Winter Soldier wasn’t at all damning, so now he’s changed it and tried to spice it up for media consumption and it still falls apart under a cursory examination.
So things are going to get worse for the troops before it gets better. Either way the election goes, they’ll end up with the shitty end of the stick.
Meet Reagan Sullivan on left, one of the masterminds of the noted think tank that is IVAW.
Reagan Sullivan [Iraq Veterans Against The War]
Branch: United States Army (USA) [Ed: Canon Cocker]
Home: New Mexico
I served 3 years in the ARNG, 3 years active duty. Spent one year in Iraq (OIF1).
I had resolved last week not to do anymore posts on IVAW, but sometimes they just make it necessary. I’m going to repost his post from IVAW under Fair Use, and sprinkle in my comments.