Will General Petraeus Honor the Parents of Those Who Serve, and Tell the Truth?

| Comments (1)

Imagine you have a son or a daughter in the military.  Some reading this don’t have to imagine, but I want us all to place ourselves in the shoes of the parent whose child makes the ultimate sacrifice to defend the United States with his or her life if necessary.  This can be a difficult, though noble, prospect for mom and dad.  But you, as a parent, find comfort in our traditions and our heritage, trusting that the life of your child will be honored by those in command.

Then you learn that those in command are not quite as engaged as you had expected.  You learn of their distractions.  Four Americans are dead and stories begin to seep through the crevices of what is fed to us by the White House and its conspiratorial media cohorts.  Stories of cries for help that are denied.  Stories of courage and a defiance of orders to rescue those crying for help.  Stories of painted targets and backup that never comes.  And, worse yet, stories of political agendas.

And then come the stories of commanders — commanders of armed forces and intelligence agents — assigned the duty of protecting the lives of Americans in harm’s way and the treacherous missions they are assigned.  Commanders mandated to remain focused on the strategy, the chaos, the Plans B, and, yes, on those traditions that have provided the backbone of our armed forces since bands of colonial farmers wrested control of this land from skilled soldiers in red more than two centuries ago.  The stories continue to flow, now including in their casts of characters besotted FBI agents (with or without shirts); buxom, self-indulgent socialites; and so-called journalists with affinities for men in uniform (and, of course, so-called journalists equally smitten with a spindly commander-in-chief draped in Armani).

And you, the parent, you are left to wonder if this same sloppy lack of attention has extended, as well, to the battlefields that comprise our current-day theaters of war.  Those commanders entrusted with your child’s safety and proper cover, were they instead tweeting those buxom socialites, leaking the nation’s security secrets to journalists in exchange for affection, and engaging themselves in the personal lives of relatives of their extramarital crushes?  In this new and twisted America, I would say such suspicions would be justified as we see the institutions we once revered as so stable, so solid, so American, crumble before our very eyes.

I think of one such parent, Charles Woods, father of slain Navy Seal Tyrone Woods, who was lost this last September, the truth about his son’s death now clouded in a fog of lies swirling around the highest levels of the government.  While most of us can only imagine Mr. Woods’ pain, we must also wonder what must he be thinking now after very publicly shaming the president and his secretary-of-state for their treatment of his son and the coverup that followed his death.  Mr. Woods must now endure tales of disgraceful behavior on the part of leaders of a military to which his son dedicated his life.  He hears a president refusing to answer questions or even address the need for truth.  He witnesses that president continue to cling to the story that an internet video is to blame for the death of four Americans.  And he listens as that president berates with artificial outrage those who would question the logic of sending a UN ambassador to speak for an event that, according to the president himself, she “had nothing to do with.”

Yet tomorrow investigators are set to hear testimony from someone who, though distracted, was ostensibly on duty that night in Benghazi.  Tomorrow, behind closed doors, newly resigned CIA Director, General David Petraeus, will be testifying about the deaths of the four Americans we lost that night.

Seems encouraging, but we’ll see.  Given all that has occurred in this country over the last four years, I will not be surprised by whatever we learn from David Petraeus, a man who boasts 40 years of experience in the U.S. military, much of that as a commander of men and women, trusted by those men and women to do what’s right by them.  Will this man, a war hero, now potentially infected like so many others by a newly re-elected administration with transformation and destruction in its sites, will this man throw away his respected career, his reputation, his accomplishments, the very core of his being, for a lie?  Though I pray he offers up the truth we already know, living as we are in this new and twisted America, I will not be surprised if the lie and those who support it emerge victorious.

Waiting for Left-Wing Apologies to General Petraeus

| Comments (2)

Well, two days have passed since Commander-in-Chief Obama dismissed General Stanley McChrystal and handed control of the Afghanistan theater of the war on terror over to General David Petraeus. Two days, and I have yet to hear an apology from Obama or Hillary or any of their kindred left-wing spirits in Congress, who just months ago referred to General Petraeus as a failure as Commander of the war in Iraq, and joined forces with those who would refer to him gleefully and oh-so-cleverly as General “Betray-us.”

While I am waiting for this apology (and not holding my breath), I imagine what I presume the scene  might have been two days ago in the editorial offices of Rolling Stone. I imagine the staffers, editors and writers gathered around an office television, hanging on the every golden word of their beloved Obama. As soon as they hear that magical announcement — ding, dong, McChrystal is gone — deafening cheers, joyous high-fives and leaps into the air erupt in response, all-out celebration for the death blow they have so successfully dealt the U.S. military.

But then, one in their midst, his eyes and ears still directed toward the tube, calls for them to cease and desist in their revelry. Face ashen and drawn, he calls their attention back to their beloved O. They watch in silence. In shock. They can’t believe what they are hearing. David what? The Betrayer in Afghanistan? No! The celebration has ended as suddenly as it began. And this time, whether they and their fearless leader in the White House care to acknowledge it or not, their nemesis, the U.S. military, won’t be so easily taken down.

In fact, at this very moment rumors are flying that General Petraeus agreed to take over in Afghaniston only on condition that he can alter the notorious rules of engagement that have severely curtailed our warriors’ abilities to carry out their missions and to protect themselves on the ground. I’m sure these rumors have not escaped those Rolling Stone staffers, who, should the rumors prove to be true, fear they won’t have another cause for celebration any time soon.

General McChrystal’s Dismissal and a Failing President’s Panic

| Comments (4)
So General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of our U.S. troops in Afghanistan, is summoned to the White House to explain comments critical of the Obama administration in Rolling Stone Magazine. The military hit piece insinuates that the General and his inner circle are not all that pleased with Obama and his minions (even though he, the General, allegedly voted for Obama). General McChrystal is summarily dismissed by Commander-in-Chief Obama, a man unworthy even to lick the combat boots of this American hero, who for decades has upheld his Constitutional oath to protect this nation from all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

And I say, thank you, General McChrystal. Perhaps by your own design, you find yourself playing a key role in this flagging President’s pathetic effort to suggest he is a leader in a time when his incompetence is being showcased in circus-like clarity to America and the world. Perhaps you and your staff were insubordinate in even considering (for whatever reason) speaking with Rolling Stone, but you are no fool, Sir, and I am confident you knew exactly what you were doing.

For months I have ranted that our military cannot possibly respect this man they are forced to regard as their Commander-in-Chief. Perhaps this recent event, then, is a message, a sign sent to us from our troops, reassuring us that despite their mandated courtesy, the military at large does not in any way respect or trust this radical left-wing administration and the man at their helm.

We have seen glimmers of this, particularly in the less-than-boisterous response our military tends to offer the President when he enters a room. This occurred most recently, when the light applause that greeted Obama for his West Point commencement address forced him to delete a reference to overwhelming cheers from his telepromptered speech. It’s downright laughable to imagine that this anti-war, anti-military “community organizer,” who surrounds himself only with like-minded sixties throwbacks (“wimps,” their critics in Rolling Stone called them) would somehow believe that the greatest military force in the world would follow them blindly in their efforts to bring our great nation to her knees.

Nevertheless, Obama today justified his dismissal of a man so blatantly his superior in a phony, hawkish speech, insisting, without any shred of authenticity, that he values debate among his team and that he reveres the greatness of America and her military. If he says it, he figures once again, we will believe.  And, once again, he is wrong. In fact, early response to his latest phony speech indicates that far too many Americans for Obama’s comfort are once again viewing him, his words and his actions as wrong, ineffectual and dangerous.

 Obama has told us, as well, that General David Petraeus will be taking the reins in Afghanistan. In his phony-hawk speech Obama sang General Petraeus’ praises, apparently hoping we’ll forget those halcyon days when he counted himself among the tyrants in our government who referred to this American hero as General “Betrayus” and treated him with abject disrespect when he testified before Congress about our troops’ success in Iraq. But we won’t forget, Mr. Obama. Ever. And you can bet that despite whatever you discussed today, General Petraeus hasn’t forgotten either.

The bottom line here is that this is simply another wrench thrown into Obama’s ongoing troubles that seem to be spiraling out of control by the day. And, as with all the pathetic, face-saving, panic-driven decisions he makes, he will soon be reminded yet again that there are consequences to his unique blend of thuggery and ineptitude.

Though Barack Obama attempted to appear strong and decisive to the masses today (his expression revealing another truth), his decision unleashed a man of true leadership and heroism who can squish him like a bug, both literally and with his now-liberated freedom of speech. The General has street cred among us “regular Americans” that the current occupant of the White House will never have. Despite General McChrystal’s alleged vote for Obama – which, frankly, I find the most shocking element of this entire story – I have a feeling the General  will do much in the months ahead to make amends for a vote that helped to sentence our nation to Obama’s twisted dominion.

In the meantime, as we await the fallout of General McChrystal’s dismissal and a failing President’s panic, my prayers remain with our troops in Afghanistan. Once again they find themselves pawns in an insidious game of wonton D.C. decisions that place political aspirations and posturing above their safety, their security, and their dedication to protecting our United States. May God be with them. May God be with us all.