The White House Public Relations Disaster

This morning, I received an essay via email from an author named Wes Pruden. He has written an awesome article entitled The insult to the American soldier.

When I reached his blog Pruden & Politics, I found out that you need to register in order to read the articles there.

Anyway, since I received this particular article via email and the email gave permission to share it with others, I decided to post the article in it's entirety here at Talk Wisdom.

~ Christine
*******

The insult to the American soldier


By Wesley Pruden




“Can’t anybody here play this game?”


The president, revealing himself to be Barack Obungle, has done what nobody else could have done, not even the spectacularly hapless original New York Mets, who drove Casey Stengel to his famous cry of terminal frustration.


The White House converted a picture-perfect military operation into a public-relations disaster that will be cited as what not to do and how not to do it in flackery textbooks for a hundred years. Days after the raid on Osama bin Laden’s “mansion” they still can’t get the “fact pattern,” in the language of the White House, even close to straight.


Even that ubiquitous photograph of the president, the secretary of state and assorted minions bravely watching the operation in “real time” looks now to have been a “photo-op” taken after the fact. This is the scene that the goofy John Brennan, the president’s anti-terrorism chief, described as one of unbearable tension endured heroically by the magnificent minions. Hillary seemed to be clutching her throat, choking back terror as she watched the raid unfold, but now Leon Panetta, the chief of the CIA, reveals that 24 minutes of the 40-minute video were “blacked out” by some kind of electronic malfunction. Maybe she was only wishing she had ordered pepperoni with extra cheese when the president sent out for pizza.


Can anyone imagine FDR and his generals canceling D-Day because an invasion might infuriate the Germans?


What a roller coaster ride: Osama bin Laden engaged the Seals in a firefight. Well, no, actually, it turns out he didn’t. But he did seize a woman, probably one of his wives, to use as a human shield. Uh, well, actually he didn’t do that, either. But he was armed, we know that for sure. Ummm, no, not really. OK, but we’re positive that woman was killed. Uh, not exactly. But we definitely, positively, absolutely know that Osama is dead. We have the photographs to prove it and the public can see them. Er, no, not quite. The president has them but you can’t see them. Everybody will just have to take his word for it.

That won’t happen, either. There was a time when everybody took a president’s word for everything. But nobody trusts the government on anything any more. Lies have withered public patience. Too bad, Mr. President, but you’ll have to show us the death certificate. No reasonable man can doubt that Osama is dead, dead, dead, but we’re talking now about the Middle East.

You might think the president would have rehearsed his minions in a story, even if concocted, so everybody would tell it like it is. The White House finally shut up with the explanation that “the fact pattern” is still being evaluated. It’s only now dawning on the president that he has done everything possible to guarantee an enduring worldwide harangue over whether Osama is in fact dead, how he was killed, whether dumping the body in the sea was wise, whether how he died violated the decencies of international custom, and whether burial traditions of Shariah law were followed before Osama became the ultimate fish dinner.

Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard law professor and one of the most distinguished criminal lawyers in the land, says “burying his body at sea constituted the willful destruction of evidence.” The doubts that will be contrived by Muslim red-hots would have been prevented if Osama’s body had been subjected to the usual forensic testing, extensive examination of entrance and exit wounds, and paraffin testing for gunpowder residue. “Dead bodies,” he writes in an essay in the Wall Street Journal, “often talk more loudly, clearly and unambiguously than live witnesses.” He notes that when a Muslim or a Jew is murdered in the United States “religious considerations do not trump civil circumstances.”

But the real offense of the Washington wimpery is pushing a weakling’s canard against the military, asserting that the photograph can’t be shown because it would make Muslim terrorists cross at us. But surely the Army and the Navy can take care of themselves; soldiers, sailors and Marines aren’t Campfire Girls. Can anyone imagine FDR and his generals canceling D-Day because an invasion might infuriate the Germans? Or that a Muslim terrorist will now salute an American soldier in Afghanistan and put down his rifle and grenade launcher, telling him “we really appreciate your president’s keeping that ugly photograph to himself.”

Americans come from Mars, so the witticism goes, and Europeans are from Venus. But that doesn’t include this president and his bungling minions. They’re weepy refugees from Pluto.

Hat Tip:

Prudent Politics.com via email.

*******
I ask once again.  Is it any wonder why the American public is very busy searching for the truth on the Internet about what actually happened that day?  Three cheers for the Navy SEALS who did a magnificent job! Can't say the same about how the White House handled the aftermath.

Thanking Our Troops In The Cause For Freedom

This video of former President George W. Bush and former First Lady Laura Bush welcoming our troops home brought tears to my eyes - for so many reasons. For one thing, respect, honor and trust were in style. Thank you to our brave returning soldiers! And, thank you Mr. and Mrs. GW Bush, for pleasantly surprising our brave soldiers upon their return. They valiantly served our country to liberate the Iraqis from tyranny and oppression! Thank you ALL for keeping America safe and the place where FREEDOM RINGS!



Hat Tip:

ResistNet.com

[Note: Viewing of video might be better at ResistNet.com link above.]

The Statue

DO YOU KNOW
WHAT THIS IS? WHERE THIS
IS?

This statue
currently stands outside
the Iraqi palace,



Now home to the 4th Infantry
division.

It will
eventually
be shipped home

And put in the
memorial
museum in Fort Hood , TX

The statue
was
created by
an Iraqi
artist named Kalat,
who for years was
forced by
Saddam Hussein to make the many hundreds
of bronze busts
of Saddam that dotted Baghdad .

Kalat was
so
grateful for the Americans liberation of his country;

He
melted 3 of the heads of the fallen
Saddam and made the statue as a
memorial to the American soldiers

and their
fallen
warriors.

Kalat
worked on this
memorial night and day for several months.

To the left of
the
kneeling soldier is a small Iraqi girl giving the soldier comfort
as he mourns the
loss of his comrade in arms.

Do you
know why we
don't hear about this in the news?

Because it
is heart
warming
and
praise worthy...

The media
avoids it
because it does not have the shock effect.

But
we
can do something about it.

We
can
pass this along to as many people as we can in honor of all our
brave
military who are making a difference.

And
please pass this
on!

Hat Tip: Susan Reinhardt via email

Thank A Vet Today

In honor of Veteran's Day, I thought that I would pass along a link to a wonderful organization called Operation Gratitude .

We have much to be thankful for in this nation. And, we owe our freedom to all of the Veterans who have fought for that freedom ever since we became a nation. I salute each and every one of you. Thank you - for all you have done for the United States of America!

One of my favorite photos is this one of a soldier with a young Iraqi boy, standing on his boot.



Here are some letters from the website:

To Operation Gratitude:
My husband was feeling very down yesterday when I spoke to him. Today when he called me on the computer, his whole attitude had changed. He was smiling ear to ear. He had received a box from Operation Gratitude. He had to show me everything that was sent to him. He loved everything. He had decorations hanging up in his room for the Fourth of July and he had a teddy bear sitting on his bed. You turned his whole day around. Just a few little things that reminded him of home and let him know that there were people who cared brought him great joy. I am so grateful for your support.
Army Wife, C.P.

Dear Operation Gratitude,
I'm the wife of a deployed soldier. When I spoke to him today he said his entire unit each individually received a package from your organization. I wanted to thank you for supporting my husband and his unit. You definitely brought cheer and a morale boost to each of them. This unit is a transportation unit and therefore are doing convoys on the dangerous roads of Iraq on a daily basis. They have encountered many imminent threats and my husband's vehicle alone has taken 4 direct hits. This kind of ongoing stress and fatigue can be a huge drain on our troops' morale. However, it is people like your volunteers who reach out to them and remind them that they are not forgotten. Your support gives them a taste of home and comfort that is priceless. Although we back here can't bring them home safe in body, that's their buddies' job, we can assist them in arriving home healthy in mind and spirit. You and your volunteers have contributed greatly to that mission through the packages you sent. I know you may not hear back from most of them, so I thought I would give you a little personal insight into what your efforts have accomplished. You have touched the lives of Heroes who are willing to place themselves in harms way and leave their families behind because they know that this country is full of good people who embrace and treasure the freedom they fight for. May God bless your efforts. Thank you for not only thinking of our troops but going that extra step to let them know you do. From a grateful and touched heart.
R.U., Proud Wife of a US Soldier.

HT: Operation Gratitude.com

Freedom Is Worth It

Dear Mr. Obama -
A video of an Iraq veteran is YouTube's most watched election video, generating 11 million views.

Update: Apparently, my YouTube account has been cancelled and I am banned from the site! This video is no longer available.


Dear Mr. Obama Video

Iraq War Strategy Vindicated

During the last three weeks of Election 2008, John McCain ought to bring these facts up on the campaign trail!

October 16, 2008
McCain's War Story
By Adam G. Mersereau


A broad consensus is forming -- encompassing the likes of Bill O'Reilly and Whoopi Goldberg -- that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake regardless of the outcome. Senator McCain has defended the Surge, but not the Iraq War. He is missing a chance to reveal the naïveté of his opponent.


Everyone knows that the Bush Administration made some avoidable mistakes early in the Iraq war. However, after the bold troop surge and the change of strategy designed by General Petraeus, victory is in sight. But no one is celebrating. .


Senator Barack Obama fuels the growing consensus by referring to the Iraq war as a "dumb war." In the first presidential debate, when Obama confronted Senator John McCain on his early support for the Iraq war, McCain changed the subject. In their second debate, Obama attacked the wisdom of the war even harder, and McCain conspicuously avoided the issue. No doubt McCain feels Obama's "dumb war" narrative tightening around his neck like a noose.


But McCain should not hide from the true story of the war in Iraq. Far from being a "dumb war," underneath our mistakes in Iraq lay several strokes of strategic genius. The American people-especially those who have made great personal sacrifices-deserve to hear again the compelling reasons why we invaded Iraq, and how a victory in Iraq could vindicate their sacrifices.


Choosing the Battlefield


It is a basic principle of warfare that a commander must never allow his enemy to select the terrain on which he fights. The attacks of 11 September 2001 were designed for the primary purpose of drawing the United States into Afghanistan, which is Al Qaeda's preferred kill-zone. Al Qaeda helped defeat the Soviet Union there. When the Soviet Union subsequently collapsed, Al Qaeda leaders were convinced they had discovered a formula for destroying infidel super-powers: draw them into the God-forsaken moonscape of Afghanistan to fight a protracted war. Al Qaeda knew it would require a spectacular provocation to lure the U.S. military into Afghanistan. Hence 9/11.


Rather than fall for Al Qaeda's "rope-a-dope" ploy, the Bush administration's war planners examined the global situation. Just as America did not charge headlong into Japan after the attack on Pearl Harbor, we would not launch a massive invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11. Sure, we could have staged a massive invasion of Afghanistan, but to what end? A large-scale war there would cost many lives and untold resources but would render almost no strategic advantage against the global network of terrorists and their state sponsors.


Instead, President Bush would send a small force to Afghanistan to disperse the Taliban and work with NATO to disrupt Al Qaeda and police the border with Pakistan. To engage the enemy head-on, he would select a battlefield better suited to our strategy.


Iraq - the Obvious Choice


The biggest threat to America was -- and still is -- another 9/11 style attack incorporating nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Even before 9/11, Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a beehive of terrorists and WMD activity. Saddam funded Palestinian terrorism. He gave safe haven to notorious terrorists. He hosted bases for six different terrorist groups. His own "Fedayeen Saddam" was operating training camps in Iraq for terrorists from all over the Middle East.


Just prior to 9/11, a Washington think-tank concluded that the most lethal threat to the United States would come from a biological or chemical attack. Biological and chemical weapons were Saddam's forte. One of the few living humans to have actually deployed chemical weapons on a large scale, Saddam was known to possess large stockpiles of them (inspectors inventoried them after the first Gulf War) but refused to provide evidence of their disposal. He had vigorous anthrax and smallpox programs, and he maintained dual-use facilities that could be converted within mere weeks to biological and chemical weapons factories. And yes, he maintained a skeleton nuclear weapons program, ready to be reconstituted as soon as he could beat U.N. sanctions and inspections with help from Russia and France.


All of this made a good case for regime change before 9/11, which is why regime change was the stated goal of the Clinton Administration and Congress before George W. Bush was elected. Every known method to contain Iraq had been tried and had failed: weapons inspections, economic sanctions, U.N. resolutions, and targeted strikes. Editors of the Washington Post and New York Times warned that containment was not working. Military action against Iraq was publicly espoused to varying degrees by Democrats Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy, Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore and others.


Although these Democrats were among the first to call for retreat when the war became difficult, their pre-9/11 assessment of the Iraqi threat was correct. After 9/11, leaders of both major parties were all the more devoted to "connecting the dots" between terrorist groups and WMD. For anyone paying attention, Iraq was covered with dots.


In addition, the Bush team knew an invasion of Iraq would bring the terrorists to a battlefield on which an American victory could change the entire course of the global war on terror. If a stable representative government could be established there, the entire dynamics of the region could be altered for the better. We would have a new ally that shares a passable boarder with Iran. Perhaps a new Iraq would even give rise to the one antidote for the spreading disease of militant Islam: a Muslim nation willing to fight against Muslim extremists. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq had the infrastructure, resources, and political history to make such a vision possible.


When Barack Obama quips that Al Qaeda was not in Iraq prior to our invasion, he shows his naïveté. The influx of Al Qaeda into Iraq did not discredit the Bush plan, it vindicated it. Further vindication came when in 2005 Ayman al-Zawahiri deemed Iraq the "place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era." We had refused to take the bait in Afghanistan. Instead, we selected a battleground that could yield results beyond mere retribution. We had a lot to learn about our chosen battlefield and would make fateful errors, but ultimately our military would learn to fight well in Iraq.


The Surge


The small-force strategy that routed the Taliban did not work in Iraq. It actually prolonged the Iraq war and gave credibility to Bush's critics. When things got bad, Obama and others clamored for the U.S. to withdraw. Biden argued for a partition of Iraq that would have yielded disaster. But when President Bush teamed with Senator McCain to support a troop "surge" coupled with the new Petraeus strategy, they delivered a devastating blow to our enemies in Iraq and elsewhere. At a moment of fierce political opposition and great military risk, Bush and McCain committed our nation to victory. We showed the terrorists that despite the calls for surrender coming from the left, some Americans had not lost their nerve.


To discredit the success of the surge, Barack Obama cites the Anbar Awakening as the real turning point in the war. But again he fails to understand a fundamental truth of warfare. The surge and the Awakening were symbiotic. The surge allowed us to consolidate the gains resulting from the Awakening, and vice versa. This is the kind of "luck" that often follows in warfare when commanders make bold, well-reasoned decisions.


To prove his mettle after calling for retreat, Obama now argues for a troop surge of his own, this time in Afghanistan. Apparently, it was dumb to invade Iraq but it's smart to expand the war in Afghanistan. What is his strategy? What is his definition of victory? What if our allies balk? He should answer these questions before Election Day.


Senator Obama presents himself as a new kind of diplomat, saying he would open presidential talks with enemies like Iran. Ironically, if Iran's leaders agree to speak with a future American president, it will only be because President Bush has placed them under tremendous pressure. Obama fails to understand that before the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, we could not engage Iran from a position of strength. There was no way the U.S. could transport a land army to Iran. The only threat we could muster was air strikes which, when used alone, are often counterproductive. The mullahs knew they were nearly untouchable. As a result of decisions now mocked by Obama, however, the next American President will have real bargaining power. Added to the NATO force on Iran's eastern border, America may soon have on Iran's western border an ally and a long-term military presence.


A dumb war? Rest assured, the leaders of Iran and other Muslim nations see the strategic wisdom of the Iraq war. McCain should tell the story as it ought to the be told.


A former officer in the United States Marine Corps, Adam G. Mersereau studied the basics of warfare at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia in the early 1990's. He left the Marine Corps in 1995 at the rank of Captain. He is now an attorney in Atlanta, Georgia.


HT: American Thinker: McCain's War Story

*******

P.S. Back in 2004, I saved an article entitled, "The Military Brilliance of the Iraq War." Thought some might like to read, compare and contrast what Craig R. Smith wrote back then with what former United States Marine Corps officer Adam G. Mersereau wrote in his article today.

Powerful Video, Humble Patriot

Musician John Ondrasik of Five For Fighting.

See Michele Malkin's article.

I hope that bloggers will spread this video around the Internet this weekend.

Excerpt:

Where did his sense of patriotism come from?

“I have no family members who are in the military and not a lot of friends who’ve joined the military. Frankly, to me, it’s just common sense. In our business, we make a living off liberty and freedom of speech. The world my children are going to grow up in, their opportunity, their lives, their safety, are dependent on folks like our soldiers and their families. It’s common sense to me. They provide us with everything that we take for granted a lot in this country. You know, that “Freedom Never Cries” video, I think the message of that video, at least for me, is that look, freedom is not free. There is a price that is paid for freedom and we have to constantly acknowledge that. If we accept that freedom is free and that it’s no big deal, I think we’re in trouble. And I do think there is some of that mentality pervasive not only in the United States, but in Europe as well.”

The author of the song also has much to say about Hollywood; including this paragraph:

“People across the world are seeing films being made about troops that disparage them, and they’re going to think, ‘Hey, if they’re saying that about themselves, it has to be true.’ And I wouldn’t be so bothered about it if there were the counterarguments–you know, films basically showing the good side. You don’t see that, and it’s frustrating. I think it’s to our detriment. And I think we pay a price for that…I think people do take our troops for granted. They take our freedom for granted. I don’t think we have the clarity we need as a country going forward.”

Thank you, Mr. Ondrasik. You are a great American. Thank you for being willing to use your musical talent to counter those in our country, and elsewhere, who (unfortunately) make a career out of disparaging our country and our brave troops.

HT: Michelle Malkin

Historic Meeting

More than anyone else out there in media-land, Joel C. Rosenberg has kept me highly informed about the goings-on in the Middle East. I truly appreciate the email alerts that this busy, and productive man sends out to his blog subscribers.

In Joel's recent email, he asks the question, "Why isn't Jalal Talabani on the cover of Time?"

You can go to his blog, view the historic photo, and read Historic Handshake: Iraqi President actually greets Israel's Defense Minister.

I wonder how much coverage this meeting is getting (or, will get) in the MSM?? I have not been viewing T.V. news as much as in the past, so I cannot be sure whether or not this truly historic meeting is getting the coverage that it deserves.

My guess? It is not getting much coverage. Perhaps it might get a passing mention on the liberal stations, but nothing more. Why? Probably because of all of the good news coming out of Iraq and how that would make our brave military men and women fighting in Iraq and President Bush and his administration look good.

Can't have that now, can we? /sarcasm

Joel writes:

In short, Jalal Talabani should be a household name in the U.S. for the convictions he holds, the risks he takes, and the success he is achieving, bit by bit, day by day, week by week. And yet he receives almost no serious press coverage in the U.S. or Europe.

One would think that such a man as Talabani should get credit and press coverage for all that he is doing. But the chance that our brave military and the Bush Administration might get some credit for the successes we have achieved during the Iraq war might be too much for those MSM liberals like tingly-legged Chris Matthews who owns a creepy, messiah-like worship of Obama!

Can't have that now, can we?

What's more, the meeting was arranged by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. It was a small but historic moment that took place yesterday at a conference just outside of Athens, Greece. Talabani's office downplayed its significance to the Iraqi press so as not to stir up more trouble inside their troubled country. But the truth is, it was significant. The last President of Iraq -- Saddam Hussein -- vowed to incinerate half of Israel with chemical weapons....and went on to launch 39 ballistic missiles at the Jewish State during the first Gulf War. Clearly, Talabani is cut from wholly different cloth. And thank God. Worth watching, to say the least.

Certainly worth watching...AND REPORTING! But will the MSM report this success and it's significance? Probably not. Why? Because it might make the Bush Administration look good.

Can't have that now, can we?

P.S. What would Obama say?

"Just words?"

What would his wife say?

"For the first (no, second) time in my adult life, I am proud of my country?"

Yeah right...I won't hold my breath to ever hear that again from Michelle...

HT: Joel C. Rosenberg Blog

*******

Update @ 9:24 a.m. PT

Just did a search and could not find an American website reporting this historic event until page 4! Even then, it was on Digg!

No wonder I hadn't heard of it before Joel's email!

Heroes of D-Day

To Quote Ronald Reagan…

“We are here to mark that day in history when the allied armies joined in battle to reclaim this continent to liberty. For four long years, much of Europe had been under a terrible shadow. Free nations had fallen, Jews cried out in the camps and millions cried out for liberation. Europe was enslaved and the world prayed for it’s rescue. Here in Normandy, the rescue began, at dawn on the morning of the 6th of June 1944, here the allies stood and fought against tyranny in a giant undertaking unparalleled in human history. These are the champions who helped free a continent and these are the heroes who helped end a war. ”

Watch this video and remember these HEROES of FREEDOM!

D-Day, June 6, 1944

HT: Infidels Are Cool

D-Day: Where The West Held Together

This certainly is a week of historical military significance. As Scylla and Charybdis pointed out in their detailed post yesterday, there are at least 5 historical military anniversaries during the week of June 4-7.

Excerpt:

The first week of June is crammed full of historic military anniversaries. We commemorate the Allied D-Day assault against the Nazis on the beaches of Normandy, France, on June 6, 1944. The Israeli-Arab 6-Day War began on June 5, 1967. Israeli jet pilots destroyed Saddam Hussein’s Osirak nuclear reactor on June 7, 1981. The Marshall Plan was introduced as a Cold War defense, on June 5, 1947.

Yet a US Navy battle this same week, just 6 months after Pearl Harbor and a full 2 years before D-Day, goes largely unnoticed, lost down the memory hole; yet it certainly represents "the greatest naval victory in history” and perhaps the pivotal event in world military history since the Battle of Little Round Top at Gettysburg in July 1863.

It is the Battle of Midway, which, like Gettysburg, occurred over a three-day period, June 4-6, 1942.

Doug Powers over at The Powers That Be has provided a detailed post with links in remembrance of D-Day. Thanks Doug! Saved me a lot of typing, my friend!

I agree with Doug that President Ronald Reagan's speech on the 40th Anniversary of D-Day stands out as one of the best, ever!

As Doug pointed out in his blogpost, the words and attitudes of that era seem to be, unfortunately, lost upon the liberal left in this country.

Doug writes:

There’s no better way to help us remember than with the speech that Ronald Reagan spoke to D-Day veterans on June 6th, 1984, on the 40th anniversary of the invasion — a speech that contained these words:

You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One’s country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it’s the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man. All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny, and you knew the people of your countries were behind you.

More poignant words from the speech:

Here, in this place where the West held together, let us make a vow to our dead. Let us show them by our actions that we understand what they died for. Let our actions say to them the words for which Matthew Ridgway listened: "I will not fail thee nor forsake thee.''

Strengthened by their courage, heartened by their value [valor], and borne by their memory, let us continue to stand for the ideals for which they lived and died.

Thank you very much, and God bless you all.

HT: The Powers That Be

Scylla and Charybdis

Reagan Foundation.org

Trackback URL: http://haloscan.com/tb/douggells/1684