Tag Archives: Taliban

Could Benghazi have been a Bergdahl Gambit that Went South?

indexOriginally posted at American Thinker

President Obama has been trying to close Gitmo for years, which means finding a way – any way – to free the terrorists from that prison.  Regrettably for Obama, try as he might, he has been unable to obtain Congressional approval to release Gitmo detainees back onto the battlefield to recommence the murder, mayhem, and destruction.

Thus far, the United States Congress thinks it is in the best interest of the American people to keep highly dangerous Taliban fighters locked up for as long as possible.  Barack “I won” Obama thinks otherwise.

That’s why founding member of the Taliban Khair Ulla Said Wali Khairkhwa, who had close ties with Osama bin Laden, and Mohammad Nabi Omari, member of a joint al-Qaeda/Taliban cell and called “one of the most significant former Taliban leaders detained,” along with deputy chief of Taliban intelligence Abdul Haq Wasiq are now roaming free on the streets of Qatar.

Joining that trio are Mohammad Fazi, thought to be the Taliban’s “army chief of staff,” and senior military commander Mullah Norullah Noori, both of whom were present when CIA paramilitary officer Johnny Micheal Spann was killed during the 2001 Mazar-e Sharif prison riot.

All five are classified as a “high risk” to the United States. That’s why, based on those credentials, it’s easy to see why Congress had been reluctant to make a deal with the devil that is the Taliban.

But at this juncture none of that matters, because thanks to Barack Obama’s majestic magnanimity, five jihadists are now free to wage war again on Americans worldwide.

In the past, Barack Obama has repeatedly proven that he believes he is above the law, which is why he took the Gitmo matter into his own hands and circumvented the rule requiring him to notify Congress 30 days prior for approval before releasing prisoners.  By ignoring the National Defense Authorization Act that he himself signed into law, the “rogue” president belittled Congress and again showed total disrespect for the authority of the U.S. Constitution.

What’s distressing is that in this case the commander-in-chief found a man who may possibly be a traitor to assist in his clandestine endeavor to accomplish what Congressional obstacles had thus far prevented.  That assistant was Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was allegedly fed up with being identified as an American and defending America’s interests in Afghanistan.

From the looks of things, Bergdahl may have been attracted to the Taliban even before he walked off his base.  Yet Barack Obama was willing to portray a deserter and possible traitor as an honorable POW and use that as cover to spring five mass-murdering Taliban operatives from Gitmo.

This Bergdahl “rescue” is such a tangle of provable lies it must inspire a certain amount of conjecture, such as: Could the president’s desire to free Gitmo prisoners explain what went down 20 months ago in Benghazi?

Sorry to have to say it, but with such a conniving, deceitful administration, if a Taliban sympathizer/Army deserter was used as the bargaining chip to free five high-level Taliban fighters, is it that farfetched to imagine that the kidnapping of an American ambassador presented the president with the perfect opportunity to swap either the Gitmo Five or some other equally dangerous individual(s)?

Moreover, after observing the president’s dishonesty in the Bergdahl affair, it’s not that much of a stretch to believe that if Obama couldn’t get Congress to agree to swap Bergdahl in early 2012, he might have manipulated the volatile Benghazi situation in hopes that a kidnapped American diplomat would eliminate Congressional objections to a high-level prisoner swap.

If the theory is accurate and Obama calculated to delay trying to save Stevens with the goal of a hostage swap, how could things have gone so terribly wrong?

Granted, dealing with terrorists is a risky endeavor to undertake, regardless of the circumstances. However, the president has proven repeatedly that forethought is not one of his strong suits.  Thus, it probably never occurred to Obama that when working with jihadists the effort could backfire with catastrophic results.

Guesswork aside, what is certain is that according to former regional security officer Eric Nordstrom, after repeated requests for additional security were denied, he was so frustrated in his efforts to protect the American ambassador he said that dealing with the State Department felt like “The Taliban [was] on the inside of the building.” If the hesitation to respond was purposeful when the inevitable finally did happen, it certainly could explain why an American ambassador had been left so poorly defended.

It could also shed light on the initial “stand down” order that was given during the attack; the bizarre rationale behind the White House’s decision to concoct the lie about the video; and why the president’s whereabouts on the night of September 11th, 2012 are still among the Obama administration’s best-kept secrets.

A calculated effort to thwart a speedy rescue in order to orchestrate a potential hostage exchange might also explain why Hillary and Obama were still perpetrating the video lie as the flag-covered coffins carrying the remains of Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty were rolled off the cargo plane at Andrews Air Force Base.

Even for a man anxious to empty out Gitmo, four dead Americans would certainly put the kibosh on trying a prisoner swap a second time; so maybe it was shell shock that caused Obama to wait almost two years to give Bergdahl a go without Congressional approval.

Either way, if any of this speculation is even remotely close to true, it certainly would make more understandable all the obfuscation and mystery in the aftermath of that fateful night.

But more importantly, after a frustrating two-year-long probe that has accomplished nothing but Obama administration stonewalling, if the unscrupulous tactics behind the Bergdahl/Gitmo charade are ever fully disclosed, maybe America will get outraged enough to demand to know what really happened in Benghazi.

President Obama’s Exceptionally Productive Week

obama-sweatingOriginally posted at American Thinker

In the midst of America grappling with the reality that veterans are safer on the battlefield than on a VA hospital waiting list, on Memorial Day, Barack Obama, lover of all things military, flew to Kabul to surprise our U.S. servicemen and women.

After Obama arrived at the troop rally at Bagram air base, Afghani President Hamid Karzai, who in 2008 pinned a medal on George W. Bush’s chest at the presidential palace in Kabul, sent word that because it was such short notice he would not be meeting with the U.S. president.

Looking spiffy in a brown bomber jacket festooned with American flags, the guy who effectively barred veterans from entering the WWII Memorial during the sequester promised the troops that their well-being was of the utmost concern:  “We’re going to stay strong by taking care of our wounded warriors and our veterans. Because helping our wounded warriors and veterans heal isn’t just a promise, it’s a sacred obligation.”

To announce the impromptu drop-in, a press aide with the Obama administration — with exactly the level of competence you would expect — somehow forgot to remove the name of the top CIA operative in Afghanistan from the list of attendees provided to the media, putting the station chief’s life at risk.

So while Obama dazzled our servicemen and women with his awesomeness, his administration simultaneously ‘damaged intelligence operations’ and identified the person working undercover to thwart the Taliban’s plans to resume training al Qaeda.

A few days later Obama shared his vision to withdraw all 9,800 troops from Afghanistan and get those guys and gals home and onto a VA waiting list by the end of 2014, as well as by 2016 drawing down every service member remaining in the soon-to-be Taliban-repossessed country.

And if that weren’t enough action for one week, without notifying Congress and eager to get a soldier with a shady past released, the Obama administration suddenly thought it was a great time to make a ‘share the wealth’ exchange. America got back  U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, rumored to have spent five years teaching the Taliban bomb-making techniques and infantry tactics, and the Taliban got back five senior leaders from Guantanamo Bay.

Meanwhile, Iranian/American pastor Saeed Abedini sits in an Iranian prison where he’s being intermittently beaten for wanting to establish a Christian orphanage and Marine Reservist Andrew Tahmooressi remains shackled to a bed in Mexico after making a wrong turn into Tijuana with lawful guns in his truck.

Clearly, in Barack Obama’s “sacred obligation” economy, when it comes to exchanging prisoners, the value of Bowe Bergdahl outweighs the value of two men falsely imprisoned, one a Christian pastor, father, and husband, the other a dedicated veteran of two tours of duty in Afghanistan.

Barack Obama has not yet called Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto to appeal for Tahmooressi’s release. That’s likely because the president has been so focused on freeing Taliban terrorists and bringing home a purported Taliban sympathizer that he just can’t spare the time.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard P. McKeon (R-CA) and ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee James M. Inhofe (R-OK) issued a joint statement pointing out that because of the 5-for-1 trade-off, “Our terrorist adversaries now have a strong incentive to capture Americans. That incentive will put our forces in Afghanistan and around the world at even greater risk.”

Oh well!

Then, to add still more intrigue to the week of exciting events, Robert Bergdahl, Bowe’s dad, who enjoys passing along pro-Taliban anti-American “invader” tweets for Taliban spokesperson Abdulqahar Balkhi and whose Twitter feed is an odd mix of anti-American and anti-war sentiments, Bible verses, strange quotes, and hippie-dippy tree-hugging weirdness, took it upon himself to celebrate his son’s release by sending a Tweet to the spokesman for his son’s captors.  

The Tweet read: “@ABalkhi I am still working to free all Guantanamo prisoners. God will repay for the death of every Afghan child, Ameen [sic].” The Tweet was quickly deleted, but not before being captured on the Twitchy feed.

Bergdahl the elder’s correspondence with the Taliban’s spokesperson certainly coincides with Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s alleged sentiments prior to his ‘capture.’ According to emails quoted in Rolling Stone magazine, Bowe told his parents he was “ashamed to even be American,” and that he was disgusted with the U.S. mission in Afghanistan and with the Army.

And all this drama happened the very same week Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki stepped down and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney decided to pass the baton to a more energetic lackey.

So there goes Obama, breaking the law — again — by refusing to give Congress the required 30-day notice before rescuing the soldier son of a man who appears to be Taliban-sympathetic — a soldier son who said, “The horror that is America is disgusting” and dreamt of walking to Pakistan.

To wrap up this extremely productive week, Barack Obama managed to see to it that America-hating Bowe Bergdahl was exchanged for some of the most dangerous Taliban commanders in U.S. custody. Thanks to the president, the Gitmo Five are now free to make their way west, where they can board a Greyhound bus from Mexico to Arizona, illegally join the U.S. military, or even make history next September 11th.

Kabul or Just Plain Bull?

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Barack Obama flew all the way to Afghanistan to surprise the troops, sign a pact with President Hamid Karzai, have his picture taken giving a speech at Bagram Air Base with flag-draped armored military vehicles as a backdrop, and give himself a ‘We’ve got me in the house’ shout-out. Only God knows how much it cost the American taxpayer, not counting staff and security, to fuel up AF1 and fly 14,000 miles roundtrip to Kabul. At approximately $181,757 per AF1 hour, flying to Afghanistan for what amounted to a campaign speech tallied up to cost much more than if Obama stayed home and just used his $1.1 million dollar 2012 campaign bus, “Ground Force One.”

Once in Afghanistan, the President stopped just short of donning a fashionable Hamid Karzai-style Karakul hat and bomber jacket with his Nobel Peace Prize medal dangling from a ribbon around his neck.  Speaking from the bowels of a war zone in Kabul, international peacemaker/part-time poet Barack Obama regaled war-weary Americans with lofty images of “sunlight glistening off soaring new towers in downtown Manhattan,” and the “light of a new day on the horizon” in Afghanistan.

To some, traveling 14 hours one way to review his successes may seem a bit much.  However, the mysterious middle-of-the night trip provided the perfect milieu for Obama to read his victory list before taking the first of many planned victory laps.

According to the President, his Afghan victories include “devastat[ing] al Qaeda’s leadership, taking out over 20 of their top 30 leaders,” and of course that ‘gutsy move’ when, one year ago, he allegedly remained on the golf course to avoid being blamed if the bin Laden assassination, carried out by Navy SEAL Special Forces, somehow went awry.

Therefore, on the anniversary of ridding the world of Osama, without mentioning the specifics of his future objectives Obama felt it was appropriate to fly to Afghanistan to reassure the people of America that the goal he “set to defeat al Qaeda, and deny it a chance to rebuild – is within reach.”

Emerging from between two armored vehicles, Obama approached the podium and spoke aggressively about how he and his Administration have successfully curtailed the “Taliban’s momentum.”  Evidently, when not in discussions with the Muslim Brotherhood from Egypt, Obama took time to be in “direct discussions” with Islamic militants from Afghanistan, which is how he successfully impeded the Taliban’s momentum.

With a huge notch on his imaginary gun belt, tough-talking Barack Obama declared that “We have made it clear that the [Taliban] can be a part of this future if they break with al Qaeda, renounce violence, and abide by Afghan laws.”

On the next campaign stop, someone should hold up a cue card to remind the President that asking Taliban fighters to renounce violence and adhere to Afghani law would be like asking the Muslim Parliament to place US foreign aid to Egypt ahead of their affection for the newly proposed “Farewell Intercourse” law.

Nevertheless, at least for the length of the President’s live broadcast from Afghanistan, wary Americans were able to relax knowing that “Many members of the Taliban – from foot soldiers to leaders – have indicated an interest in reconciliation.”

Unfortunately, the Taliban’s ” interest in reconciliation” must have been short-lived because less than two hours after Barack Obama headed home from his multimillion dollar campaign stop, militant suicide bombers bid him adieu by disguising themselves as women and blowing up a foreigners’ housing complex in Kabul, killing seven people.

So what happened to the successful negotiations Obama cited in his Bagram Air Base speech?  Well, it’s likely the Taliban, who regularly stone women and hang 10-year-old boys for allegedly spying, changed their minds.

Either way, when it comes to the war in Afghanistan it does seem that Obama is unofficially keeping score. Yet, despite tooting his own zurna, there is one success he keeps forgetting to mention. If election-year one-upmanship is Obama’s goal, he should at least share that when it comes to the question of who racked up the highest number of American body bags and flag-draped coffins in Afghanistan, he’s the hands-down winner.

Obviously, President Obama wants full credit for accomplishments that far exceed President Bush’s. Therefore, besides stomping all over eight years of GW’s foundational work that made killing Osama bin Laden possible, it should also be mentioned that in just “39 months in office, 69 percent of the U.S. military fatalities in the more than 10-year-old war in Afghanistan …occurred on [President Obama’s] watch.”

Comparing who’s done more, according to icasualties.org  there were approximately 1,234 U.S. military personnel mortalities related to Operation Enduring Freedom from January 20, 2009, when Obama took office, until December 31, 2011. Less than half that number of military deaths occurred in Afghanistan from 2001 through 2009 when George W. Bush was in charge.

While eager to share his successes at a podium at Bagram, somehow Barack Obama left the war-torn country without mentioning that one of his most notable presidential accomplishments since 2009, when compared with GW Bush’s last three years in office, is ownership of a whopping 233% growth in U.S. military fatalities.

How about that for a banner to unfurl at the next self-exalting Barack Obama-sponsored campaign event or inevitable “ticker-tape parade?’

And so, it seems that besides burning up expensive jet fuel by flying to Kabul, in anticipation of the 2012 election Barack Obama hopes to begin repackaging himself as a great wartime leader.

Most importantly, while in Afghanistan and on behalf of America’s dead war heroes, part of the President’s speech requested that Americans assist him in creating “a nation worthy” of those who gave their lives in fighting a decade-long war. Barack Obama’s chosen method to accomplish that goal?  Grant him another four years to rebuild a country whose three-year list of domestic catastrophes, much like the U.S. military’s mounting body count in Afghanistan, has also grown by 233%.

Heartbreak Amongst Heroes

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Lest we forget, on May 2, 2011, al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was shot dead, and rightly so. After performing a flawless covert exercise, Navy SEALs Team 6 left the scene, taking with them Osama Bin Laden’s body. The SEALs treated the terrorist’s corpse with respect, giving him a Muslim ceremony and burying his body at sea.

When Barack Obama met the DevGru SEAL operators who made Operation Neptune Spear successful, the President noted that the men “looked less young and fearsome than he expected, and more like guys working at Home Depot.”

To assure that the identities of the unit who led the operations remained confidential, security precautions were put in place and “despite the numerous news reports that named the SEALs, none of the anonymous briefers from the CIA and Pentagon would confirm it.”

Notwithstanding being unable to get any of the facts straight about the raid itself, in an effort to take preventive measures the President and his team, including counter-terrorism Chief John Brennan, attempted to be cautious about revealing which units accomplished the daring feat, referring to special operation Navy SEALs only as “a small team of Americans.”

In the days following the raid, in a coordinated effort to make a weak Obama look like a strong wartime president, members of Congress who were briefed on the operation, in conjunction with a very confused White House press office and other unnamed officials, slowly leaked conflicting tactical details about the raid on bin Laden’s Abbottabad compound.

Then there’s Joe Biden.  Joe either didn’t get the confidentiality memo, or if he did, didn’t bother to read it. Either way, America can always count on Joe to say the wrong thing.

Benjamin Franklin once said: “Remember not only to say the right thing in the right place, but far more difficult still, to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting moment.”

As Barack Obama was doing his Obama killed Osama/take out the “B” replace it with an “S” victory lap, Joe Biden, who used to just provide comic relief, proved himself to be downright hazardous to classified information.  The Vice President must have been so caught up in the thrilling enthusiasm of the “tempting moment” that once again he spoke without engaging his brain.

The night after bin Laden was killed, at a dinner at Washington’s Ritz Carlton Hotel to mark the 50th anniversary of the Atlantic Council, Joe Biden said the following:

Let me briefly acknowledge tonight’s distinguished honorees.  Admiral James Stavridis is a, is the real deal.  He can tell you more about and understands the incredible, the phenomenal, the just almost unbelievable capacity of his Navy SEALs and what they did last Sunday.

Folks, I’d be remiss also if I didn’t say an extra word about the incredible events, extraordinary events of this past Sunday.  As Vice President of the United States, as an American, I was in absolute awe of the capacity and dedication of the entire team, both the intelligence community, the CIA, the SEALs.  It just was extraordinary.

Little did America know that while Barack Obama was practically being showered with confetti in a virtual ticker-tape parade overseen by the left, the soldiers who carried out the operation were unintentionally being offered up as a sacrifice on the altar of Barack Obama’s bid for re-election.

A few weeks later, amongst friends at Marine Corps base Camp Lejeune, Defense Secretary Robert Gates admitted that although the agreement on the way bin Laden was eliminated was to keep all aspects of the operation classified, those close to Obama, including Vice President of the United States, didn’t stick to the agreement.

After the leaks went public, a deeply concerned Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said the following:

Frankly, a week ago Sunday, in the Situation Room, we all agreed that we would not release any operational details from the effort to take out bin Laden. That all fell apart on Monday, the next day.

We are very concerned about the security of our families – of your families and our troops, and also these elite units that are engaged in things like that. And without getting into any details… I would tell you that when I met with the team… they expressed a concern about that, and particularly with respect to their families.

A month later, the man who admitted during his tenure that he wept nightly while writing condolence letters to fallen heroes, retired.

Now, three short months later in Eastern Afghanistan, that which former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates feared would happen did happen when “A military helicopter was shot down in eastern Afghanistan, killing 31 US special operation troops, most of them from the elite Navy SEALs unit that killed al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, along with seven Afghan commandos.”

Although none of the soldiers who perished are believed to have taken part in the bin Laden raid, the fallen are from the same band of brothers. Gone indeed are the “family” members whose safety the SEALs expressed concern over to then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

While the horrific loss may be a coincidental casualty of war, it is also a symbolic message from the brutal Taliban and an act of revenge by terrorists who failed to reciprocate with the same measure of respect afforded the deceased Osama Bin Laden, leaving bodies of dead American soldiers “strewn at the scene.”

Rest assured, Robert Gates is weeping tonight. The former Secretary of Defense maintained that troop safety was his number one priority. However, Gates had no power to save Navy SEAL Team 6 from Taliban terrorist rocket fire launched skyward in the remote hills of Afghanistan.

Contributing to the tragedy is the reality that loose-lipped political operatives with a lackadaisical attitude have to live with the question as to whether top secret information leaked in haste led the Taliban to exclusively concentrate its focus on retaliating against the soldiers who took down Osama bin Laden.

Expert at placing blame, it’s highly unlikely the President will assign himself and his administration the same level of responsibility for being at the helm for “the worst single day loss of life for the US led coalition in Afghanistan since the war began in 2001” as he did the self-congratulatory kudos when bin Laden’s corpse was dumped at sea.

So later this week, right around the time Barack Obama is being feted at his $71,600 per couple fundraiser in New York, somewhere in America flag-draped coffins of heroes lost in a national tragedy will be unloaded from a military cargo plane and returned to fatherless children, grieving widows, inconsolable parents and a sad, but grateful nation.

America’s Anti-Animus President

The past few months have been quite a season of hope and change for America’s gay community. Barack Obama has a new openly gay social secretary, Jeremy Bernard, marriage is no longer narrowly defined as being between a man and a woman, and in the Middle East, when not dodging mortar fire the troops on the battlefield will now be mandated to participate in gay sensitivity training sessions.

Couple that with Sundance Film Festival indie lesbian family/sperm donor-Dad favorite “The Kids are Alright” being nominated for four academy awards, and not since “Brokeback Mountain” has Queer Nation risen to such heights in America.

The President of the United States, who first opposed gay marriage, then prayerfully “grappled” with the concept, finally agreed with the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science’s choice of a potential Oscar winner and reversed his puritanical view on same-sex nuptials.

Barack Obama, on an extended sabbatical from teaching constitutional law, sided with Massachusetts Federal District Judge Joseph Tauro that DOMA, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, is unconstitutional and discriminatory.

In an effort to undermine the God-ordained one-man/one-woman institution and further deconstruct the fabric of American society, Obama felt inclined to cross the great divide and side with Carson Kressley. In doing so, Barack personally laid the axe to the root of traditional marriage and time-honored convention.

Speaking on behalf of the President, Attorney General Eric Holder said that between 2008 and 2011 America’s nouveau-centrist President has “concluded that the administration cannot defend the federal law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.”  According to Holder, President Obama had an epiphany and realized:

[T]he congressional debate during passage of the Defense of Marriage Act ‘contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships – precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the (Constitution’s) Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against.

In the run-up to the 2012 election the decision to redefine marriage appears to be Barack’s attempt at buttressing the liberal base, a move some conservative pundits believe is an “inexplicable political error.” Yet, Barack has survived many such miscalculations. Does anyone remember the decision to have Khalid Sheikh Mohammed tried in a U.S. civilian court?

Thus, to reinforce a recent shift to the center, Barack Obama yielded to the romantic notions of 2% of the population, disregarded the consensus of the 98% who supply the societal glue that holds the nation together and, in the form of a policy change sent a belated wedding card to Mrs. and Mrs. Ellen and Portia DeGeneres.

A President who put his hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution now feels he has the authority to decide what is and what is not constitutional. This is a problem because now, any American who clings to the outmoded idea that marriage has distinct gender roles, or who disapproves of the gay/lesbian lifestyle based on moral or religious convictions is “guilty” of what the President calls “stereotype-based thinking and animus.”

Weakening the sanctity of marriage obviously wasn’t enough iconoclasm for Barack the Centrist. About the same time that Obama gave new Dads Anderson Cooper and Ben Maisani the go-ahead to tie the knot, he also issued an edict that Pentagon officials waste no time in launching an “extensive force-wide program to ease the process of integrating open homosexuals into the ranks, including into close-knit fighting units.”

In other words American combat forces in Afghanistan, in between fending off Taliban attackers “armed with AK-47s, rocket-propelled grenades, mortars and explosives vests,” must now spend time in a war zone learning how to agreeably share a foxhole with Nathan Lane.

Army Command Sgt. Maj. Marvin Hill, the top enlisted man in Afghanistan and an outspoken proponent of ending the ban on gays serving openly in the military, said that “the sessions on respecting gays’ rights will go right down to the forward operating bases, where troops fight Taliban militants.”  According to the Sgt. Major, the plan is to “execute that training right …on the battlefield.” No unit will be exempted.

Even though 37 US soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan in less than two months and despite his enthusiasm about bisexual recruits Sgt. Hill seems unsure whether touchy-feely get-along-with-a-gay sessions will distract combat forces, which would put the lives of fighting men and women in danger. Referring to gay sensitivity sessions in a war zone, Hill said “We hope that it will have little impact on … combat and security operations.”

While “hope” continues to “spring eternal,” Elaine Donnelly, head of the Center for Military Readiness, said “it is ridiculous to train combat Army soldiers and Marines as they engage in daily combat with tenacious insurgents.”

Likely to be accused of animus-filled insubordination and lack of proper prioritization techniques, Ms. Donnelly said: “It’s absurd because the military has more important things to think about in that dangerous part of the world. For the administration to say this is more important …shows flawed priorities at best. It is ridiculous.”

Word to the wise, Ms. Donnelly – Sgt. Hill has issued a severe warning: “If there are people who cannot deal with the change, then they’re going to have to do what’s best for their troops and best for the organization and best for the military service and exit the military service, so that we can move forward – if that’s the way that we have to go.”

So there you have it.  Barack Obama’s idea of “Hope and change” rears its head again. On the military front, personnel on the battlefield hope that searching for IEDS with RuPaul has “little impact on their combat and security operations.” And change means that in the heat of battle, exhibiting sensitivity to gay soldiers takes precedence over staying alive, and determines whether a soldier will be forced to leave the military or not.

On the domestic front, Barry delivered hope to gay America by changing his mind on both traditional marriage and the sexual orientation of his social secretary. In Barack’s mind, he has brought true hope and lasting change by identifying the constitutional error in the “prejudicial, spiteful” and “malevolently ill-willed” thinking that traditionalists exhibit by rejecting same sex marriage.

Barack Obama’s revitalized pro-gay agenda, be it on the bloody battlefield of Afghanistan or in wedding chapels across the nation, introduces a new level of concern about a nation who puts gay politics before the security of combat troops and the time-honored institution of traditional marriage.  While gay America mistakenly believes “The Kids are Alright,” the remainder of the nation wonders whether the country will ever recover from the damage done by a misguided President’s progressive vision for America.

Snips and Snails in Sarwan Qala – American Thinker – June 12, 2010

Originally posted at American Thinker

“What are little boys made of? Snips and snails, and puppy dogs tails.”  That 19th century nursery rhyme fills the reader with visions of dirty faces, backwards baseball caps, toothless grins and pockets loaded down with snips, snails and tails. The poem encapsulates the immense source of pleasure a little boy can bring to the world just by being a boy.

Fresh out of first grade, seven-year-olds can tell time, are beginning to read, can perform a respectable somersault and are more aware of the world around them.  In America, boys are fitted with helmets before learning to ride a two-wheeler, love to go to the batting range to practice hitting sliders and are expert at playing Animal Crossing on Nintendo DS.

Seven-year-old boys may act tough, but are known to fret and can be fearful especially at night. According to child development experts, boys of seven are “often afraid of the dark [and] a flashlight by the bed is a great comfort.” Around that age, little boys “like to be tucked in,” read a story and still “take a favorite toy to bed.”

With that in mind, one can only imagine the terror a small boy experienced after being “abducted from the village of Heratiyan” in the Sarwan Qala area of Afghanistan. Coddled in a womb of safety, American children couldn’t even fathom the frenzied horror of being held against their will and then publicly executed at the hands of Taliban soldiers.

A favorite toy for boys in the seven-year-old age group is the Ultimate Spy Watch.  Youngsters can pretend to “keep intruders and other spies in the dark about missions and secrets, while decoding messages and keeping a careful watch on enemies.”  Tragically, the little boy kidnapped from a remote village by Taliban militants wasn’t wearing a spy watch or playing pretend when accused of being a mole, tried by a mock tribunal and “found guilty of working for the government.”

Probably still sweaty from playing tag on a dusty Afghan playground the tyke, unsure of what was wrong, was dragged kicking and screaming to a neighboring village to stand trial for the crime of colluding with President Hamid Karzai’s government.

The biggest worry American boys struggle with is the decision over what color fluorescent lacrosse socks to wear and whether or not to get a buzz cut for the summer.  The level of fear gripping the heart and mind of any person being held captive by Taliban soldiers, let alone seven-year-old child, is hard to envision and even more excruciating to comprehend.

Confused and terrified did the child weep hysterically for his mother?  Pushed forward by the butt of a gun, where was he held?  How long did the frail frame of a child quiver in fright before the trial took place?

Was the boy beaten, kicked and abused by turbaned Taliban soldiers cursing in Pashto through yards of black fabric? Face swollen and muddied from dirt and tears, did the child drift and doze curled up in the corner of a mud-walled room, on a grimy floor littered with empty shell casings?

In America seven-year-olds spooked by the dark can depend on Moon in My Room to ease boyish fears.  In Afghanistan, the first grader likely spent the night twitching and sobbing.  In the morning, roused from fitful slumber, tousled hair and rubbing eyes swollen shut the drowsy child was probably shoved roughly toward a sun-drenched, open-air court jammed with chanting terrorists adorned in bullet belts and armed with AK-47 assault rifles.

How did it feel for a kid, whose only cheers should be those heard from the side lines of a sporting event, to see an angry crowd screaming in support of garroting him from the branch of a tree?  What words filled his little ears, as he was condemned to die?  Did the boy even understand what was happening or was he searching desperately for the face of his parents in the mob?

Reports said, “The child was publicly hanged in the Taliban stronghold of Helmand province.”  Did soldiers put the cord around his slender neck and drag him to his death? Did they blindfold him or torture him with the noose before choking off his young life?

A typical seven-year-old boy is about sixty pounds; before strangling him to death did Taliban soldiers consider his weight?  Were skinny, underdeveloped legs that should be kicking a soccer ball around a field allowed to thrash uncontrollably until the last breath of life was gone from his tiny body?

This nameless child was not the first to be hung for spying for government and NATO-led troops in Afghanistan and rest assured the little lad won’t be the last. Taliban insurgents have “vowed to intensify activities this year.”

While carefree boys climbed trees and skinned knees all over the United State of America, thousands of miles away in Afghanistan Taliban insurgents fulfilled a solemn pledge by, “hanging up the [lifeless] body of the child on a tree.”

President Hamid Karzai reacted to the execution expressing something barbaric savages apparently are unaware of,  “A seven-year-old boy cannot be a spy.  A seven-year-old boy cannot be anything but a seven-year-old boy, and therefore hanging or shooting to kill a seven-year-old boy…is a crime against humanity.”

Boys can be boys everywhere except Sarwan Qala where, prior to committing crimes against humanity militants dutifully empty any remnant of snips and snails from the pockets of all seven-year-old boys slated to be put to death by the Taliban.

%d bloggers like this: