TRUMP ANNOUNCES USA WILL RESUME WAR IN AFGHANISTAN (DEAR GOD, LET US PRAY FOR ALL US MILITARY TROOPS)

TRUMP ANNOUNCES USA WILL RESUME WAR IN AFGHANISTAN:

DEAR GOD HELP US.

PLEASE PRAY FOR OUR U.S. MILITARY TROOPS.


Sources: MSN, RT, Youtube


*****Trump Sets U.S. Strategy for Afghan War


President Trump put forward on Monday a long-awaited strategy for resolving the nearly 16-year-old conflict in Afghanistan, but he failed to specify either the number of troops that would be committed, or the conditions by which he would judge the success of their mission there.

In a nationally televised prime-time speech to troops at Fort Myer, Va., Mr. Trump said there would be no “blank check” for the American presence in Afghanistan. But in announcing his plan, Mr. Trump embraced deepened American involvement in a military mission that has bedeviled his predecessors and that he once called futile.

“My original instinct was to pull out, and historically I like following my instincts,” Mr. Trump said. “But all my life, I’ve heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the Oval Office — in other words, when you’re president of the United States. So I studied Afghanistan in great detail and from every conceivable angle.”

Mr. Trump campaigned for president promising to extricate the United States from foreign conflicts, and many of the steps that he announced Monday have been proposed by previous administrations.

He portrayed the strategy as a stark break with the Obama administration, arguing that while his predecessor set artificial timetables for American involvement in Afghanistan, his strategy would be a comprehensive, conditions-based regional approach that would aim for a political solution there. Part of the plan is to deploy more American troops to Afghanistan to continue to train Afghan forces there, with the goal of persuading the Taliban — which have recently gained substantial ground in the war — that they could not win on the battlefield.

“The consequences of a rapid exit are both predictable and unacceptable,” Mr. Trump said. “A hasty withdrawal would create a vacuum that terrorists, including ISIS and Al Qaeda, would hastily fill.”

Mr. Trump said that the United States would put significant new pressure on Pakistan to crack down on the terrorist sanctuaries that line its border with Afghanistan. His comments could open a turbulent new chapter in relations with Pakistan, which has veered since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks from being an ally in the fight against terrorism to a haven in which Osama bin Laden hid out until he was killed in 2011.

By refusing to place a number on troops or to specify benchmarks for success, Mr. Trump was in essence shielding himself for potential backlash from his political base and from the American public, which has grown weary of the war.

The president heaped contempt on his predecessor’s strategy, promising that he would avoid President Barack Obama’s mistakes. But in substance, Mr. Trump’s strategy was not all that different, relying on a mix of conventional military force and diplomatic pressure on Pakistan. One administration official conceded that there was to be no major change in the mix of American forces operating in Afghanistan, and that the priorities would remain training Afghan forces and conducting counterterrorism operations.

Mr. Trump spoke of launching an intensive diplomatic and economic initiative, but he does so from a position of acute weakness at the State Department, which has yet to place an ambassador in Kabul, Afghanistan’s capital, and scrapped the office of the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

An estimated 8,400 American troops are currently stationed in Afghanistan, most assigned to an approximately 13,000-strong international force that is training and advising the Afghan military. About 2,000 American troops are tasked with carrying out counterterrorism missions along with Afghan forces against groups like the Islamic State’s affiliate.

In recent days, Trump administration aides hinted that the president’s strategy would include new steps to pressure neighboring Pakistan to shut down the sanctuaries there for the Taliban and other militants, a goal Republican and Democratic administrations have pursued for years with little success.

Trump administration officials have also suggested that continued American military involvement and economic assistance in Afghanistan would be contingent on steps by the country’s leaders in Kabul to rein in rampant corruption — another Western aspiration that has repeatedly been dashed in the country, parts of which have been largely lawless for decades.

The move comes with steep risks for Mr. Trump, potentially increasing American troops without yielding many military gains in a conflict that has proved intractable. Still, United States military and intelligence officials have argued that doing nothing in Afghanistan, where the Taliban are increasingly gaining ground, is not an option. In February, Gen. John W. Nicholson, the commander of the American-led international force in Afghanistan, told Congress that the United States and its NATO allies were facing a “stalemate.”

There were potential political perils for Mr. Trump, as well. At least two Republicans who challenged Mr. Trump last year for the presidential nomination issued statements hours before his speech to oppose extending the war in Afghanistan in any way.

“Sixteen years and the lives of over 2,000 American heroes are more than enough of a price to have paid to eradicate a terrorist sanctuary,” Gov. John Kasich, Republican of Ohio, who has positioned himself as a possible primary race candidate in four years, said in a statement. “America cannot afford to make an open-ended commitment of further lives and treasure to the improbable proposition of building a cohesive nation in Afghanistan.”

Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, flatly opposed a troop increase. “The mission in Afghanistan has lost its purpose, and I think it is a terrible idea to send any more troops into that war,” he said in a statement.

The Afghanistan strategy was a consequential moment after a tumultuous week for Mr. Trump, whose response to racially charged violence in Charlottesville, Va., raised questions about his ability to shoulder the responsibilities of a president. Having missed an opportunity to calm the tensions after that unrest, he faced the challenging task of marshaling public support for a potentially bloody military mission.

Mr. Trump used the beginning of his speech to offer the message of unity and national healing that he was criticized for failing to communicate after the Charlottesville violence, saying Americans should live the example of those who put aside racial, ethnic and religious differences to serve together on behalf of the nation.

“We cannot remain a force for peace in the world if we are not at peace with each other,” Mr. Trump said. “Let us make a simple promise to the men and women we ask to fight in our name, that when they return home from battle, they will find a country that has renewed the sacred bonds of love and loyalty that unite us together as one.”

Mr. Trump had said little about Afghanistan, either since taking office or during his presidential bid, although his “America First” campaign message envisioned a turn away from foreign military intervention and a refocusing on addressing challenges at home.

As a private citizen, he was actively hostile to American involvement in Afghanistan, dwelling on the high cost of the lengthy conflict and suggesting there was no way for the United States to succeed. In a 2012 post on Twitter, Mr. Trump questioned why American forces continued to train Afghans, writing, “Afghanistan is a complete waste. Time to come home!”

The president’s ambivalence about the mission in Afghanistan was on display in June, when he outsourced to the Pentagon the task of announcing that he had granted Mr. Mattis authority to send 3,900 troops to the war, but said nothing about it himself. On Monday, by contrast, Mr. Trump announced his new strategy with great fanfare, choosing a military backdrop and the attention-grabbing format of a presidential address to sketch out for the first time how he saw the mission.

In announcing his plan, Mr. Trump became the third consecutive American president to be confounded by the conflict in Afghanistan, now the longest military operation in the history of the United States.

Mr. Obama, who campaigned for president pledging to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, eventually agreed to send tens of thousands more troops to carry out an ambitious and expensive counterinsurgency mission that involved trying to win over Afghans by building roads, bridges, schools and a well-functioning government.

Mr. Trump’s decision was expected to be a victory of sorts for Mr. Mattis and Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, the national security adviser, who had argued of dire consequences if the United States did not act quickly to stabilize Afghanistan. The Pentagon had long pointed to the return of extremists in Iraq shortly after the American military withdrew forces after that eight-year war, and warned that any advances in Afghanistan could similarly be lost without a stable troop presence.

The strategy was announced the week after Mr. Trump dismissed his chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, who had argued forcefully against sending more troops. Mr. Bannon had warned doing so would be a slippery slope toward nation-building, and agitated for alternatives, including using private contractors instead of American forces.

As such, the strategy raised new political perils for the president as it risks alienating core supporters who are leery of United States’ involvement in faraway conflicts, and disdainful of spending taxpayer dollars on things that do not directly benefit Americans.
In the hours before Mr. Trump’s speech, Breitbart News, the conservative news site to which Mr. Bannon returned after his departure from the White House, published several articles critical of the president’s anticipated announcement, one of them suggesting that he was proposing “an extension of the failed status quo.”

VETERANS vs FORCED PSYCH EVALUATIONS (DOMESTIC VIOLENCE & SUICIDE PREVENTION)

@Veterans

VETERANS vs FORCED PSYCH EVALUATIONS (DOMESTIC VIOLENCE & SUICIDE PREVENTION):

WHAT ARE PRES OBAMA & CONGRESS DOING TO CURB DOMESTIC VIOLENCE STATISTICS AMONG US MILITARY VETS?

Sources: Daily Beast, Do Something, Military Times,  Youtube

~ Highlights:

Each day more than 22 US Military Vets commit acts of Suicide.

There is also a growing epidemic of Domestic Violence in the homes of US Military Vets.

If Vets lose a close family member (Son or Daughter) to SUICIDE, why aren't they required by the VA Dept of Veterans Affairs to attend Mental Health Counseling within 72 hours of the occurrence?

Why aren't Vets and Retired US Military Soldiers required to forgo annual Psychiatric Evaluations (Mental Health Check-ups) to continue receiving their Pension Checks and other VA Benefits?

Why is it that State VA Hospitals don't work together to prevent US Military Vets from avoiding required Mental Health Check-ups when those Vets re-locate to a new state?

WAR Is Hell!

The effects of WAR on the Human Mind is often long term Mental Hell and Pain.

Our Vets need Prayer but many of our Vets also need Mental Health Counseling.

Why does it appear as if America's leaders have forsaken our dedicated, Honorable, hardworking US Military troops?

God Forbid.

******  11 Facts About the Mental Health of Our Troops

1. Depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (aka PTSD, an anxiety disorder that follows experiencing a traumatic event) are the most common mental health problems faced by returning troops.
2. The most common symptoms of PTSD include: difficulty concentrating, lack of interest/apathy, feelings of detachment, loss of appetite, hypervigilance, exaggerated startle response, and sleep disturbances (lack of sleep, oversleeping.
3. Post-traumatic stress disorder is diagnosed after several weeks of continued symptoms.
4. In about 11 to 20% of veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom) have been diagnosed with PTSD. Create a support board so your friends can show leave messages of encouragement for troops suffering from PTSD and other illnesses. Sign up for Support Board.
5. 30% of soldiers develop mental problems within 3 to 4 months of being home.

6. 55% of women and 38% of men report being victim to sexual harassment while serving in the military
7. Because there are more men than women in the military, more than half of all veterans experiencing military sexual trauma (MST) are men.
8. An estimated 20% of returning Iraq and Afghanistan veterans turn to heavy drinking or drugs once they return to the US.
9. Between 10 and 20% of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have suffered a traumatic brain injury (TBI). Possible consequences of this internal injury include anger, suicidal thoughts, and changes in personality.
10. In 2010, an average of 22 veterans committed suicide every day. The group with the highest number of suicides was men ages 50 to 59.
11. Some groups of people, including African-Americans and Hispanics, may be more likely than whites to develop PTSD.

CHUCK HAGEL RESIGNS: DEAR GOD WHAT ABOUT THE U.S. TROOPS IN AFGHANISTAN?? (FERGUSON VERDICT)

CHUCK HAGEL RESIGNS: DEAR GOD WHAT ABOUT THE U.S. TROOPS IN AFGHANISTAN??

IS HAGEL'S RESIGNATION BEING USED TO DEFLECT FROM FERGUSON VERDICT??

#justiceforMikeBrown


Effective today the U.S. Secretary of Defense CHUCK HAGEL has Resigned.

This news comes immediately after Pres OBAMA signed a New Agreement with AFGHANISTAN to keep U.S. Troops in that region longer than expected.

This news also comes on the heels of a very Shaky Nuclear Bomb Deal with IRAN.

And last but certainly not least, this news comes as ISIS continues to wreak Havoc in IRAQ, while Beheading U.S. Citizens and CHRISTIANS.

According to earlier LEAKS from the WASHINGTON POST, reports of HAGEL submitting his Official Resignation actually occurred back in September 2014.

Has anyone other than myself notice how Pres OBAMA stands in very close proximity of each member of his Administration and GLARES at them as they deliver their Public Resignations??

This includes JAY CARNEY, KATHLEEN SEBELLIUS AND ERIC HOLDER.

Has anyone other than myself also noticed how Media reports of HAGEL'S Resignation is now drowning out what's going on in FERGUSON, Missouri as it relates to the Murder of MICHAEL BROWN and Officer DARREN WILSON'S Indictment or Dismissal of Charges?

HAGEL'S Resignation could be a Media and Federal Gov't Ploy used to Deflect a Grand Jury Verdict of Dismissing all Charges against DARREN WILSON, and using U.S. Military Troops to Murder more Hurting, Oppressive BLACK People in FERGUSON.

Is this a Coincidence??

I think NOT!

Considering what happened to Ambassador CHRISTOPHER STEVENS at BENGHAZI in 2012, news of HAGEL'S Resignation is Bad News!

Is it possible CHRISTOPHER STEVENS was preparing to Resign too when he was MURDERED by AL QAEDA on September 11, 2012??

Will HAGEL be replaced by another U.S. Military Veteran who understands what it means to Serve their country as a Member of the U.S.Armed Forces, or by a Civilian who has NO Knowledge of what it really means to ever Serve in COMBAT while protecting the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA??

I don't know but GOD knows.

In fact GOD knows the Whole TRUTH about EVERYTHING and Nothing but the TRUTH!

I will continue to Trust in GOD and PRAY Psalms 91 & Isaiah 54:17 constantly over U.S. Troops currently serving all over the Globe.

I will continue to PRAY for the people of FERGUSON and for MICHAEL BROWN'S grieving Family.

"For He shall give His Angels charge over you,
To keep you in all your ways."

"No weapon formed against you shall prosper,
And every tongue which rises against you in judgment
You shall condemn.
This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord,
And their righteousness is from Me,
Says the Lord."


Article Sources: ABC News; Bloomberg News; CNN; NY Times; Washington Post; Youtube

ARTICLE: "Hagel Submits Resignation as Defense Chief Under Pressure"

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel handed in his resignation on Monday, the first cabinet-level casualty of the collapse of President Obama’s Democratic majority in the Senate and the struggles of his national security team to respond to an onslaught of global crises.

In announcing Mr. Hagel’s resignation from the State Dining Room on Monday, the president, flanked by Mr. Hagel and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., called Mr. Hagel critical to ushering the military “through a significant period of transition” and lauded “a young Army sergeant from Vietnam who rose to serve as America’s 24th secretary of defense.”

Mr. Obama called Mr. Hagel “no ordinary secretary of defense,” adding that he had “been in the dirt” of combat like no other defense chief. He said that Mr. Hagel would remain in the job until his successor is confirmed by the Senate.

Administration officials said that Mr. Obama made the decision to remove Mr. Hagel, the sole Republican on his national security team, last Friday after a series of meetings between the two men over the past two weeks.

The officials characterized the decision as a recognition that the threat from the militant group Islamic State will require different skills from those that Mr. Hagel, who often struggled to articulate a clear viewpoint and was widely viewed as a passive defense secretary, was brought in to employ.

Mr. Hagel, a combat veteran who was skeptical about the Iraq war, came in to manage the Afghanistan combat withdrawal and the shrinking Pentagon budget in the era of budget sequestrations.

Now, however, the American military is back on a war footing, although it is a modified one. Some 3,000 American troops are being deployed in Iraq to help the Iraqi military fight the Sunni militants of the Islamic State, even as the administration struggles to come up with, and articulate, a coherent strategy to defeat the group in both Iraq and Syria.

“The next couple of years will demand a different kind of focus,” one administration official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. He insisted that Mr. Hagel was not fired, saying that the defense secretary initiated discussions about his future two weeks ago with the president, and that the two men mutually agreed that it was time for him to leave.

But Mr. Hagel’s aides had maintained in recent weeks that he expected to serve the full four years as defense secretary. His removal appears to be an effort by the White House to show that it is sensitive to critics who have pointed to stumbles in the government’s early response to several national security issues, including the Ebola crisis and the threat posed by the Islamic State.

Even before the announcement of Mr. Hagel’s removal, Obama officials were speculating on his possible replacement. At the top of the list were Michèle A. Flournoy, a former under secretary of defense, and Ashton B. Carter, a former deputy secretary of defense.

Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island and a former officer with the Army’s 82nd Airborne, was also considered to be a contender, but a spokesman said that the senator was not in the running. “Senator Reed loves his job and does not wish to be considered for secretary of defense or any other cabinet post,” the spokesman said.

Mr. Hagel, a respected former senator who struck a friendship with Mr. Obama when they were both critics of the Iraq war from positions on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has nonetheless had trouble penetrating the tight team of former campaign aides and advisers who form Mr. Obama’s closely knit set of loyalists. Senior administration officials have characterized him as quiet during cabinet meetings; Mr. Hagel’s defenders said that he waited until he was alone with the president before sharing his views, the better to avoid leaks.

Whatever the case, Mr. Hagel struggled to fit in with Mr. Obama’s close circle and was viewed as never gaining traction in the administration after a bruising confirmation fight among his old Senate colleagues, during which he was criticized for seeming tentative in his responses to sharp questions.

He never really shed that pall after arriving at the Pentagon, and in the past few months he has largely ceded the stage to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, who officials said initially won the confidence of Mr. Obama with his recommendation of military action against the Islamic State.

In Mr. Hagel’s less than two years on the job, his detractors said he struggled to inspire confidence at the Pentagon in the manner of his predecessors, especially Robert M. Gates. But several of Mr. Obama’s top advisers over the past few months have also acknowledged privately that the president did not want another high-profile defense secretary in the mold of Mr. Gates, who went on to write a memoir of his years with Mr. Obama in which he sharply criticized the president. Mr. Hagel, they said, in many ways was exactly the kind of defense secretary whom the president, after battling the military during his first term, wanted.

Mr. Hagel, for his part, spent his time on the job largely carrying out Mr. Obama’s stated wishes on matters like bringing back American troops from Afghanistan and trimming the Pentagon budget, with little pushback. He did manage to inspire loyalty among enlisted soldiers and often seemed at his most confident when talking to troops or sharing wartime experiences as a Vietnam veteran.

But Mr. Hagel has often had problems articulating his thoughts — or administration policy — in an effective manner, and has sometimes left reporters struggling to describe what he has said in news conferences. In his side-by-side appearances with both General Dempsey and Secretary of State John Kerry, Mr. Hagel, a decorated Vietnam veteran and the first former enlisted combat soldier to be defense secretary, has often been upstaged.

He raised the ire of the White House in August as the administration was ramping up its strategy to fight the Islamic State, directly contradicting the president, who months before had likened the Sunni militant group to a junior varsity basketball squad. Mr. Hagel, facing reporters in his now-familiar role next to General Dempsey, called the Islamic State an “imminent threat to every interest we have,” adding, “This is beyond anything that we’ve seen.”

White House officials later said they viewed those comments as unhelpful, although the administration still appears to be struggling to define just how large is the threat posed by the Islamic State.



ARTICLE: "Defense Secretary Hagel, Under Pressure, Submits Resignation"

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel submitted his resignation Monday, bowing to pressure from the White House to step down after less than two years in the job in what could portend a broader shake-up among President Obama’s national security team.

Hagel resigned after holding a series of discussions with Obama and other White House officials in recent weeks. A senior defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Obama and Hagel “both determined that it was time for new leadership at the Pentagon.”

Hagel will remain as defense secretary until Obama can pick a replacement, who must also be confirmed by the Senate. Possible contenders include Michele Flournoy and Ashton Carter, former high-ranking defense officials during Obama’s first term who were passed over for the top job in favor of Hagel two years ago.

Obama formally announced the resignation in a late-morning appearance at the White House. Flanked by Vice President Biden, he praised Hagel’s service, listed a series of accomplishments and said he appreciated Hagel’s role as an adviser who has “always given it to me straight.”

Hagel, in brief remarks, said that serving as defense secretary “has been the greatest privilege of my life.” But neither he nor Obama gave a reason for the resignation.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who is slated to take over as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee in January, said that Hagel “was frustrated with aspects of the administration’s national security policy and decision-making process,” citing “excessive micro-management” on the part of the White House.

McCain noted that Hagel’s predecessors as defense secretary — Robert M. Gates and Leon E. Panetta — had both likewise complained in their memoirs about excessive political interference from White House aides. “Ultimately, the President needs to realize that the real source of his current failures on national security more often lie with his Administration’s misguided policies and the role played by his White House in devising and implementing them,” he said.

When Obama nominated Hagel in January 2013, the president was intent on limiting defense spending, winding down the war in Afghanistan and keeping the military out of conflicts in the Middle East. He made clear that he was picking the decorated Vietnam War combat veteran in large part because Hagel understood “that sending young Americans to fight and bleed in the dirt and mud, that’s something we only do when it’s absolutely necessary.”

Since then, however, Obama has reluctantly been dragged back into the Middle East, signing deployment orders to send as many as 2,900 troops to Iraq to serve as advisers in the fight against the Islamic State.

Hagel has been a quiet figure in that debate as the administration has struggled to articulate a strategy for defeating Islamic State and stabilizing Iraq and Syria, largely ceding the stage to other figures such as Secretary of State John F. Kerry and Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Rumors had intensified this month that Hagel’s time was short, though the former Republican senator from Nebraska has insisted in recent interviews that he was planning to stay at the Pentagon. The resignation was first reported by The New York Times.

A senior administration official, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said Obama initiated discussions with Hagel about leaving in October — shortly before the mid-term congressional elections that saw the president’s party take a beating.

Hagel never quite recovered from a stumbling performance during his confirmation process that led the Senate to approve his nomination by a narrow 58-41 vote in February 2013. The margin was exceptionally narrow, especially given the fact that he had served two terms in the Senate. Only four GOP senators voted for their fellow Republican.

Hagel served in the Senate with Obama and the two bonded during overseas trips, where both were leading critics of the Iraq war during the administration of former President George W. Bush.

Unlike Panetta and Gates, Hagel in public was generally accepting of the White House’s push to keep a lid on defense spending, which had soared after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

He was most visible in supporting Obama’s strategic “pivot” to Asia, taking numerous trips to visit allies in that part of the world. But his time spent in Asia came at the expense of making his presence felt in the Middle East and Afghanistan, which continued to dominate the national security agenda despite the White House’s desire to wind down U.S. military involvement in the region.

This month, for instance, Hagel was scheduled to travel to Burma and Vietnam, where Pentagon officials were eager to make a show of his return to the country where he fought the Viet Cong as a young infantryman and was badly wounded in battle, twice.

He was forced to postpone the visit three weeks ago, a decision that the Pentagon attributed to “new and significant demands being placed” on his schedule, including a congressional hearing on the war against the Islamic State. At the time, Hagel’s aides denied the decision was a sign that he had fallen out of favor with the White House, insisting that he looked forward to rescheduling the visit.

Hagel was known to have had a tense relationship with Obama’s national security adviser, Susan Rice, but defense officials said he tried to develop close ties with White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough. Hagel and McDonough met once a week, in addition to Hagel’s weekly one-on-one meetings with Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry.

Defense officials described Hagel as much more focused more on policy - his reform initiatives and the Pentagon budget - than on military operations in places like Iraq and Syria. His hands-off approach to battlefield operations is a sharp contrast to some earlier secretaries, such as Donald Rumsfeld.

That may have contributed to a view among some senior uniformed leaders of Hagel as a lackluster leader. One defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said many in the military saw the Nebraskan as “a perfectly acceptable but certainly not exciting” manager.

ROBERT GATES: Former U.S. Defense Secretary Slams Pres OBAMA'S Foreign Policy Agenda (OUCH!)

#ROBERTGATES


Former U.S. Secretary of Defense ROBERTS GATES has written a Scathing Memoir about Pres OBAMA'S Real Foreign Policy Agenda.

It's NOT pretty Folks!

In his Memoir GATES even reveals how Pres OBAMA really felt about the AFGHANISTAN Surge. He did NOT Support it.




ARTICLE: "Bi-partisan Critic Turns His Gaze Toward Obama"

In His New Memoir, Robert M. Gates, the Former Defense Secretary, Offers a Critique of the President.


After ordering a troop increase in Afghanistan, President Obama eventually lost faith in the strategy, his doubts fed by White House advisers who continually brought him negative news reports suggesting it was failing, according to his former defense secretary Robert M. Gates.

In a new memoir, Mr. Gates, a Republican holdover from the Bush administration who served for two years under Mr. Obama, praises the president as a rigorous thinker who frequently made decisions “opposed by his political advisers or that would be unpopular with his fellow Democrats.” But Mr. Gates says that by 2011, Mr. Obama began criticizing — sometimes emotionally — the way his policy in Afghanistan was playing out.

At a pivotal meeting in the situation room in March 2011, called to discuss the withdrawal timetable, Mr. Obama opened with a blast of frustration — expressing doubts about Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander he had chosen, and questioning whether he could do business with the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai.

“As I sat there, I thought: The president doesn’t trust his commander, can’t stand Karzai, doesn’t believe in his own strategy and doesn’t consider the war to be his,” Mr. Gates wrote. “For him, it’s all about getting out.”

“Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War” is the first book describing the Obama administration’s policy deliberations written from inside the cabinet. Mr. Gates offers 600 pages of detailed history of his personal wars with Congress, the Pentagon bureaucracy and, in particular, Mr. Obama’s White House staff. He wrote that the “controlling nature” of the staff “took micromanagement and operational meddling to a new level.”

Mr. Obama’s decision to retain Mr. Gates at the Pentagon gave his national security team a respected professional and veteran of decades at the center of American foreign policy — and offered a bipartisan aura. But it was not long before Mr. Obama’s inner circle tired of the defense secretary they initially praised as “Yoda” — a reference to the wise, aged Jedi master in the “Star Wars” films — and he of them.

Mr. Gates describes his running policy battles within Mr. Obama’s inner circle, among them Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.; Tom Donilon, who served as national security adviser; and Douglas E. Lute, the Army lieutenant general who managed Afghan policy issues at the time.

Mr. Gates calls Mr. Biden “a man of integrity,” but questions his judgment. “I think he has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades,” Mr. Gates writes. He has high praise for Hillary Rodham Clinton, who served as secretary of state when he was at the Pentagon and was a frequent ally on national security issues.

But Mr. Gates does say that, in defending her support for the Afghan surge, she confided that her opposition to Mr. Bush’s Iraq surge when she was in the Senate and a presidential candidate “had been political,” since she was facing Mr. Obama, then an antiwar senator, in the Iowa primary. In the same conversation, Mr. Obama “conceded vaguely that opposition to the Iraq surge had been political,” Mr. Gates recalls. “To hear the two of them making these admissions, and in front of me, was as surprising as it was dismaying.”

Mr. Gates discloses that he almost quit in September 2009 after a dispute-filled meeting to assess the way ahead in Afghanistan, including the number of troops that were needed. “I was deeply uneasy with the Obama White House’s lack of appreciation — from the top down — of the uncertainties and unpredictability of war,” he recalls. “I came closer to resigning that day than at any other time in my tenure.”

Caitlin Hayden, the National Security Council spokeswoman, released a statement late Tuesday saying that “deliberations over our policy on Afghanistan have been widely reported on over the years, and it is well known that the president has been committed to achieving the mission of disrupting, dismantling and defeating Al Qaeda, while also ensuring that we have a clear plan for winding down the war, which will end this year.”

In response to Mr. Gates’s comments on Mr. Biden, she said, “President Obama relies on his good counsel every day.”

Mr. Gates is a bipartisan critic of the two presidents he served as defense secretary. He holds the George W. Bush administration responsible for misguided policy that squandered the early victories in Afghanistan and Iraq, although he credits Mr. Bush with ordering a troop surge in Iraq that averted collapse of the mission.

And he says that only he and Mr. Bush’s second secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, pressed forcefully to close the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, with little result.

Mr. Gates does not spare himself from criticism. He describes how he came to feel “an overwhelming sense of personal responsibility” for the troops he ordered into combat, which left him misty-eyed when discussing their sacrifices — and perhaps clouded his judgment when coldhearted national security interests were at stake.

Mr. Gates acknowledges that he initially opposed sending Special Operations forces to attack a housing compound in Pakistan where Osama bin Laden was believed to be hiding. Mr. Gates writes that Mr. Obama’s approval for the Navy SEAL mission, despite strong doubts that Bin Laden was even there, was “one of the most courageous decisions I had ever witnessed in the White House.”

In his final chapter, Mr. Gates makes clear his verdict on the president’s overall Afghan strategy: “I believe Obama was right in each of these decisions.”

Mr. Gates reveals the depth of Mr. Obama’s concerns over leaks of classified information to news outlets, writing that within his first month in office, the new president said he wanted a criminal investigation into disclosures by The New York Times on covert action intended to sabotage Iran’s suspected effort to develop nuclear weapons.

Mr. Gates, too, ordered a campaign to stamp out unauthorized disclosures, but grew rankled when White House officials always blamed the Pentagon for leaks. “Only the president would acknowledge to me he had problems with leaks in his own shop,” Mr. Gates writes.

Mr. Gates, who began public service as an Air Force intelligence officer, tells of emotional meetings with troops in combat, with those who suffered horrific wounds and with their families.

He writes that he is to be buried in Arlington Cemetery’s Section 60, the final home for many killed in Afghanistan and Iraq. “The greatest honor possible would be to rest among my heroes for all eternity,” Mr. Gates writes in closing his memoir.


Sources: AP, CBS News, CNN, NY Times, Youtube

Afghanistan Becomes U.S. Ally; American Troops Still Slated To Exit In 2014

U.S. Grants Special Ally Status to Afghans, Easing Fears of Abandonment

The United States declared Afghanistan a major, non-NATO ally on Saturday, with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton personally delivering the news of Afghanistan’s entry into a club that includes Israel, Japan, Pakistan and other close Asian and Middle Eastern allies.

The move, announced as Mrs. Clinton stood with President Hamid Karzai amid the rose beds and towering trees on the grounds of the presidential palace here, was part of a broad strategic partnership deal signed by the United States and Afghanistan in May, she said. The pact went into effect last week.

“Please know that the United States will be your friend,” she told Mr. Karzai. “We are not even imagining abandoning Afghanistan. Quite the opposite. We are building a partnership with Afghanistan that will endure far into the future.”

The designation by the United States grants a country special privileges, like access to American military training and excess military supplies, Mrs. Clinton said.

In a separate statement, the State Department said Afghanistan would also be able to obtain loans of equipment from the United States and financing for leasing equipment. The agreement does not, however, “entail any security commitment” by the United States to Afghanistan, the State Department said.

Iraq was never given the status of a major ally, and American troops withdrew last year.

Afghanistan’s designation as a formal ally was the latest in a series of recent American moves that have eased — though not erased — Afghan fears of being abandoned at the end of NATO’s combat mission in 2014.

The moves also appear to have already yielded one dividend for the United States: Mr. Karzai has not recently lashed out at his backers, as he has in the past, at one point calling Americans “demons.”

On Saturday, he welcomed Mrs. Clinton, calling her “my old American friend” in his remarks. “We appreciate your concern and good will toward Afghanistan,” he said.

Later, as Mrs. Clinton said she was sorry to have to leave so soon, Mr. Karzai offered what he said was an old saying in Persian: “When a friend is alive, they will meet again.”

American and Afghan officials say they now must turn to working out a deal that would keep a residual American force here to continue training Afghan soldiers and tracking down insurgents after 2014. Talks on the arrangement have not yet begun, American officials say. Estimates of the number of troops that could stay vary from as little as 10,000 to as many as 25,000 or 30,000.

But Mrs. Clinton reiterated on Saturday that Washington did envision keeping American troops in Afghanistan, where they would provide the kind of air power and surveillance capabilities needed to give Afghan forces an edge over the Taliban.

“This is the kind of relationship that we think will be especially beneficial as we do the transition and as we plan for the post-2014 presence,” she said. “It will open the door to Afghanistan’s military to have a greater capability and a broader kind of relationship with the United States and especially the United States military.”

Mrs. Clinton made a short stop in Kabul en route to Tokyo, where an international conference will be held to raise money to support the Afghan government after 2014. At the American Embassy, she praised the work done by civilians in the war. State Department officials said that her remarks were intended to rebut what many in the State Department consider unfair criticism of their work in Afghanistan, where they have often been portrayed as not carrying their weight compared with the military.

But American soldiers and civilians alike have faced one common struggle: assuaging Afghan fears of abandonment. Many here fear that the country is headed toward a repeat of the early 1990s, when the fall of the Soviet-backed government, coupled with an American pullback from the region, left Afghanistan mired in a brutal civil war.

The Taliban grew out of the chaos, and they quickly took over much of the country.

Along with reassuring Afghans, Mrs. Clinton made clear that she was also sending a message to the Taliban.

The alliance and other American commitments to Afghanistan “should make clear to the Taliban that they cannot wait us out,” she said, according to a copy of her prepared remarks. “They can renounce international terrorism and commit to an Afghan peace process, or they will face the increasingly capable Afghan national security forces, backed by the United States.”

At the same time, Washington remains committed to the stalled Afghan peace process, she said. The insurgents suspended talks in March — halting negotiations before they really began — over delays in a proposed prisoner swap that would have the United States release five Taliban prisoners from Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, in exchange for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the only American soldier known to be held by the insurgents.

Designating Afghanistan an ally, however, has the potential to raise awkward issues for the United States. There is Afghanistan’s hot-and-cold relationship with Pakistan, also an ally, and the possibility the two neighbors could have a falling-out, especially if Afghan officials believe in the years after 2014 that their Pakistani counterparts continue to aid the Taliban.

Afghanistan, one of the 10 poorest countries in the world, is also the least developed of America’s major, non-NATO allies by a wide margin. Other allies — like South Korea, Argentina, Australia and Thailand — are far more capable of defending themselves and policing their own territory; Afghanistan is capable of doing that now and for the foreseeable future only with ample American help.


View Larger Map


Sources: AP, CBS News, CNN, NY Times, Youtube, Google Maps

Obama Has No Military Experience; Romney Has No Experience; Does It Still Matter?

Does Military Service still matter for the Presidency?

In every Presidential election since 1992, the candidate with the less distinguished military résumé has triumphed.

Bill Clinton defeated war heroes George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole; National Guard pilot George W. Bush beat Vietnam veterans Al Gore and John Kerry; and Barack Obama was decisively elected over John McCain, who had displayed extraordinary valor during years of captivity as a Navy pilot in North Vietnam.

In 2012, we won’t have the chance to test this trend: For the first time in modern American history, neither major candidate for the presidency has any military experience.

This is a dramatic change. The crucible of combat not only created these United States but has also given us many of our most successful presidents.

Our first president, and still the greatest of all Americans, was a general before he was elected; George Washington’s leadership of the Continental Army proved that he could handle the challenges of a newborn nation. William Henry Harrison’s short presidency was based in no small part on his victory over the Shawnee Indians at the Battle of Tippecanoe; with Vice President John Tyler, he won on the slogan “Tippecanoe and Tyler, too.” The presidency of Ulysses S. Grant, though marked by scandal,would never have been but for his steady generalship in America’s bloodiest conflict.

Harry Trumancame to prominence as the commander of a National Guard artillery battery in the First World War in France; his performance in combat powered his rise to the Oval Office. Service in World War II gave the nation not just Dwight D. Eisenhower but also John F. Kennedy, whose heroism as a PT boat skipper in the Pacific was a counterpoint to Eisenhower’s leadership of a great alliance in Europe.

Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush all served in uniform during World War II, while Jimmy Carter, too young for that conflict, graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy and served aboard nuclear submarines during the Cold War.

But today, the connection between service in war and election to the highest office in the land has been severed.

How we got here is difficult to ascertain. The sample size of presidential elections is small, and military service is far from the only factor that voters consider. Yet the 2012 White House hopefuls reflect a broader truth: Even in a country waging what seems to be a forever war, military service is increasingly limited to a small swath of volunteers, widely admired but little known.

Early in our nation’s history, Americans fought to claim a continent both from its native inhabitants and from foreign powers that coveted its riches. Fighting for the country was a regular part of the American experience, and excellence in that service was one way to demonstrate leadership to the nation.

The pool of citizens who were veterans was broadened by the draft during the Civil War and both World Wars, increasing the number of political candidates with military service and the connection voters felt to contenders with whom they had shared the experience of combat. Everyone respected those who had served — and perhaps even looked down a bit on those who had not been a part of America’s battles.

That relationship broke down during the Vietnam War, when not all segments of society were called upon to fight. When Johnson chose not to mobilize the National Guard for combat duty, it became a refuge for the sons of the elite who were avoiding war. James Fallows has written, movingly and guiltily, of how the most privileged Americans found ways to avoid the draft, sending the less fortunate to war in their place.

The long conflict in Southeast Asia tore the United States in two, destroying an effective consensus about the use of American power abroad. The soldier became the symbol of an unpopular war. Presidential candidates who had answered the nation’s call struggled to connect with voters who often hated the war that had helped form them.

Gore played down his service in Vietnam during his bid for the White House, while Kerry’s service became a liability; although he was one of a few candidates to have been wounded in combat, he was “swift boated” by opponents who questioned some details of his service.

No American veteran of any earlier war, let alone another recipient of several Purple Heart medals, would have been treated this way.

But this black mark on America’s treatment of its veterans is fading. In the wake of Vietnam, the country chose to meet its national security needs with a force composed entirely of professionals who had volunteered for duty. This force has proved enormously capable — triumphing in Desert Storm, easily defeating both the Taliban rulers and Saddam Hussein’s army, and demonstrating adaptability when performing counterinsurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan.

No one who has served in today’s military would countenance a return to the draft and a force composed at least in part of Americans compelled to serve. The small size of the military relative to the population — well under 1 percent — makes broadening the service base both unnecessary and unlikely.

But there are costs to this all-volunteer military that are not immediately apparent, even on this weekend dedicated to remembering its sacrifices. The disconnect between those who give the orders and those who have no choice but to follow them has never been wider; all Americans salute the same flag, but only a few carry it forward against enemy fire.

The military has become a caste apart from the nation it protects, with many of its fighters the sons and daughters of military leaders — a family business that asks much of a few. Service academy alumni journals are full of photos of multi-generational family reunions in combat zones, while most of us do no more to support the troops than stand, remove our caps and cheer when they present the national colors before a baseball game.

Now, nearly 30 years into this experiment with an all-volunteer force, and more than a decade into America’s longest war, the nation will elect a president who has not known the tender courtesies of a drill sergeant at oh-dark-thirty in the morning. Military service is not the only way to demonstrate dedication to country or capability for high office, of course; Franklin Delano Roosevelt was one of our greatest presidents despite never wearing a uniform, although his appointment as assistant secretary of the Navy gave him a useful perspective on the military he would lead with such distinction.

Both President Obama and Mitt Romney have demonstrated impressive leadership in government, education and business. Obama’s bona fides as commander in chief are clear; he has shown his resolve in the pursuit of Osama bin Laden and the effective dismantling of al-Qaeda during his administration. The first lady’s dedication to military families, worn down after years of war, is exemplary.

Still, the choice to take the nation to war is the most important decision a president can make. A commander in chief who has actually served on the battlefield has peerless personal experience and can make that decision with greater empathy.

And after this election, there will be a new generation waiting to enter the political arena, veterans of a tough decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unlike those who fought in Vietnam, the veterans of these wars have been embraced by an American public that supports the troops, even if they oppose the conflicts in which they fought.

The admiration offered to today’s veterans bodes well for the prospects of future political candidates who have known firsthand the burden of carrying out the orders of the president abroad.

Wars have given the United States many of its most important political leaders, and we can expect those who have led this country’s sons and daughters in the sands of Anbar province and the mountains of the Hindu Kush to turn their sights to the highest office in the land in years to come.

When they do, these veterans will lead the nation back to its foundations. Forged in war, they will work to build a better peace.


Sources: AP, CBS News, Washington Post, Youtube

Obama Announces 2013 U.S. Troop Withdrawal At NATO Summit (Videos)

NATO accepts Obama timetable to end war in Afghanistan by 2014

NATO leaders signed off Monday on President Barack Obama's exit strategy from Afghanistan that calls for an end to combat operations next year and the withdrawal of the U.S.-led international military force by the end of 2014.

Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told reporters at the conclusion of a two-day summit of the alliance leaders that the plan calls for handing over security responsibilities to Afghan forces in 2013, then withdrawing foreign forces the following year.

After that, a new and different NATO mission will advise, train and assist the expected 350,000-strong Afghanistan force, Rasmussen said.

The second day of their two-day summit focused on Afghanistan, with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and the heads of other countries contributing to the U.S.-led International Security Assistance Force also in attendance.

Obama wanted NATO to commit to long-range support for Afghanistan, and Rasmussen said the alliance would support Afghan forces after the combat mission ends.

"Today we reaffirmed our strong commitment to support their training, equipping, financing and capability development in the years to come," Rasmussen said, adding it will be a "new mission with a new role for NATO," not "ISAF with a different name."

Rasmussen confirmed that some NATO members have agreed to contribute money for the $4 billion a year needed to help fund the Afghanistan security forces after the NATO mission ends, but said the summit was never intended to secure that funding.

While the Afghanistan force is expected to number 350,000 in 2014, Rasmussen said the size would likely decrease in future years depending on the security situation on the ground and other factors.

He also said he expected an agreement soon for Pakistan to reopen its border with Afghanistan to military shipments of departing NATO forces, which would resolve a sticky issue in planning the withdrawal of foreign forces.

"So far, the closure of the transit routes has not had a major impact on our operations," Rasmussen said, but added the transit routes were very important and that he expected their reopening "in the very near future."

Pakistan closed the ground routes after a NATO airstrike in November killed two dozen of its soldiers. NATO insists the incident was an accident. Obama offered his condolences but refused to apologize.

The United States and Pakistan have not come to an agreement on the price of opening the supply lines, according to senior administration officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

Without a deal, the officials said Obama would not meet with President Asif Ali Zardari at the summit. However, Obama and Zardari had a brief conversation Monday morning on the sidelines of the NATO session, according to two administration officials.

When asked about turning over security responsibility to Afghan forces next year, Rasmussen denied it was an acceleration of the transition, saying the plan all along was to withdraw troops in 2014 after shifting the lead security role to Afghan forces.

"It has been within our road map right from the outset," he said.
Protesters conducted more peaceful demonstrations such as sit-ins Monday after clashes with police on Sunday, the first day of the summit.

Earlier Monday, Obama told the dozens of heads of state in attendance that the goal is to "responsibly bring this war to an end" in the next 19 months.

He cited a recent strategic partnership agreement he signed with Karzai as a step toward ensuring that "as Afghans stand up, they will not stand alone."

Obama made clear Sunday as the summit opened that he expects the NATO nations and their strategic partners to agree to the withdrawal plan, while assuring Karzai that the 28-nation NATO would not abandon the country.

"Just as we have sacrificed together for our common security, we will stand together united in our determination to complete this mission," Obama said at the start of the summit .

Obama and Karzai, who met a day ahead of Monday's NATO talks on Afghanistan, both agreed that the end of the war was close.

Following their meeting, Obama said the transition of the NATO-led force from a combat role to one of support of Afghan forces paints "a vision post-2014 in which we have ended our combat role, the Afghan war as we understand it is over."

Karzai reiterated his commitment to the timetable, "so that Afghanistan is no longer a burden on the shoulder of our friends in the international community, on the shoulders of the United States and our other allies.

"Afghanistan, indeed, Mr. President, as you very rightly put it, is looking forward to an end to this war, and a transformational decade," he said.

Under Obama's plan, reminiscent of the Iraq withdrawal, security for Afghanistan would transition to Afghan forces by the middle of next year. NATO troops would then remain in training and advisory role to help beef up Afghan forces until their withdrawal at the end of 2014, followed by the new mission to train, advise and assist the Afghan forces.

A small contingent of British forces could remain after NATO forces leave in 2014, a senior British official said.

A senior U.S. official said the United Kingdom may keep some troops in Afghanistan post-2014 for counterterrorism purposes. Both officials requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.

"I don't want to understate the challenge that we have ahead of us. The Taliban is a resilient and capable opponent," Marine Gen. John Allen, commander of ISAF troops, said Sunday.

"We fully expect that combat is going to continue" as troops are gradually withdrawn over the next 2 ½ years."

As expected, France's new president, Francois Hollande, announced the withdrawal of French combat troops from Afghanistan by year's end. As part of ISAF, French trainers will remain.

A Taliban spokesman called on NATO nations to follow France's lead.

"We call upon all the other NATO member countries to avoid working for the political interests of American officials and answer the call of your own people by immediately removing all your troops from Afghanistan," Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid said in a statement.



View Larger Map


Sources: CBS News, CNN, Google Maps

G8 Summit Shuts Out Israel; OCCUPY Protesters Oppose Protecting RICH; Iran To Nuke Israel; NO PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

WHY VOTE?

JOBS, PROTECTING THE RICH, GLOBAL ECONOMICS, HUMAN RIGHTS (VOTING), REAL SYSTEMIC REFORM & PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST!

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE 2012 G8 SUMMIT MEETING:

Due to Occupy Protesters & other Organizations rallying against Global Leaders attending the 2012 G8 Summit, the Meeting was moved to Camp David for Pres. Obama's Safety.

Occupy Protesters are protesting the 2012 G8 SUMMIT because they are tired of Global Leaders doing what THEY want versus what's Best for THE PEOPLE.

The Middle Class & Poor are Fighting Back against the G8 because the Global Financial System Is FOREVER Rigged To ONLY PROTECT The Rich & Very Rich!

At the Annual G8 Summit Meetings Our Global Leaders come together to Gamble Away more of Our Freedom on Risky Financial Plans & Ideas with the use of Taxpayers' MONEY!

In other words it does NOT matter what the People Want or Need, Global Leaders are going to FORCE their Bitter Pill Financial Decisions down our throats anyway.

Even in America its all about PROTECTING THE RICH, But Make the Poor Suffer, while continuing to PROTECT THE RICH!

Now Please Don't Get It Twisted!

I have absolutely NOTHING at all against people who are Financially Successful.

Every Human Being on Planet Earth Should Have Equal Opportunities To Achieve Some Level Of Financial Success As Mark Zuckerberg Did!

If NOT Billionaires, Then Millionaires Or Just Extremely Comfortable.

In fact I Admire & Applaud ALL People who became Financially Successful via Innovation & Hard Work.

Please Understand that I am NOT one of those American Citizens who Opposes Wealth because I am NOT one of those Individuals.

I LIKE MONEY OK!

I'm just saying that our World's Financial System, including the United States, is Currently NOT Set up to allow Middle Class & Low Income People to Achieve the Same Level of Upward Mobility & Success as that of Most Wealthy People.

Thus the Annual G8 Summit Meeting is NOT about Global Economics, Human Rights, Voting Rights, JOBS, REAL Financial Reform, REAL Systemic Reform or PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

Its actually just more of the SAME Status Quo Stuff.

CONTINUING TO PROTECT THE RICH WHILE MAKING THE POOR PAY MORE!

Let’s be REAL for just a moment shall we?

The Global Financial System Is FOREVER Rigged To ONLY Protect The Rich & Very Rich!

More than likely that's the way it will ALWAYS be until Jesus returns!

So much for the Good of Common, Everyday People.

So Why VOTE?

Why do we even continue to VOTE if what WE Need is Never Considered in Local & Global Political Decisions which Affect us?

My VOTE may NOT make a significant mathematical difference in the outcome of an Election or Primary but I will continue to VOTE anyway.

And…..

Parents must instill in their Youth the Importance Of Expressing Our Individual Voices Via The Democratic Process Of VOTING.

i.e., THE DEMOCRACY PROJECT!

Isn't that why the Process of Political Democracy was established?

Why VOTE?

Because as an African-American citizen living in America, I recognize the Blood & Sacrifice My Ancestors & BLACK Leaders of yesterday made so that I could walk into a 21st Century Exit Poll Booth and LEGALLY Cast my Ballot to Elect Politicians. Even Politicians who LIE to ME!

Nevertheless We Must Continue To VOTE & Elect Leaders, even if only for Symbolic Reasons.

Because Voting is the ONLY Way Our Voices will be Heard right?

Wait a minute!

Were any of YOU who Voted in the 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 Elections & Primaries Invited to Attend the 2012 G8 Summit World Meeting?

I Wasn't!

And why wasn't Israel invited to the 2012 G8 Summit?

I thought NATO has an Alliance with Israel.

Am I wrong?

So why wasn't Israel invited to attend this year's G8 Summit Meeting where Global Financial Plans & Global Peace Talks are discussed?

Because its quite apparent Israel is most likely being Set Up to allow Iran take the First Hit with a Nuke Bomb.

Yes some World Leaders STILL Want to Secretly Protect Iran.

Yes there are also some World Leaders who STILL Want to see Israel wiped Off the Face of Planet Earth!

I Pray I'm Wrong about this Foreign Policy theory Because GOD Almighty Has Vowed To NEVER Allow Israel To Be Destroyed by Anyone or Anything.

Perhaps Our Global Leaders Should Either Read The Holy Bible Or Ask God Directly Via Prayer What HIS Plans Are For Israel's Future.

I Can Tell You That It Mostly Does NOT Include Israel's Destruction.

PRAY FOR PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST!

PROTECT OUR VOTING RIGHTS!

WE MUST NOT CONTINUE TO JUST KEEP PROTECTING RICH PEOPLE ONLY, WHILE MAKING THE POOR PAY FOR THE RICH!

THERE MUST BE REAL REFORM FOR EVERYONE INCLUDING THE RICH & THE VERY RICH!

OCCUPY UNTIL REAL CHANGE OCCURS FOR EVERYONE!

WHY VOTE?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Attack on Chicago police stations, Obama office were planned, prosecutors say


Three anti-NATO protesters charged with terrorism conspiracy planned to attack four Chicago police stations, the local campaign headquarters for President Barack Obama and the home of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, prosecutors alleged in court documents Saturday.

While friends of the three men insisted they were just operating a home brewery, prosecutors stated that police found a gun that fires mortar rounds, swords, a hunting bow, ninja-like throwing stars and knives with brass knuckle handles.
The beer operation, prosecutors added, was used to fill bottles with gasoline that would later be thrown as Molotov cocktails.

The three were being held on charges of conspiracy to commit terrorism, possession of an explosive or incendiary device and providing material support.
The men were identified as 20-year-old Brian Church, of Ft. Lauderdale, Fla.; 24-year-old Jared Chase, of Keene, N.H.; and 24-year-old Brent Vincent Betterly, of Oakland Park, Mass.

Defense attorneys told a judge on Saturday that undercover police were the ones who brought the Molotov cocktails, and that their clients were entrapped, the Associated Press reported.

Bond of $1.5 million was set for each defendant.

Michael Deutsch, one of their attorneys, later told reporters outside the courtroom that it was all a setup. Two informants "ingratiated themselves" with the three men and "this was all their idea," he insisted.

But Chicago Police Supt. Garry McCarthy told reporters "the evidence speaks for itself" about what he called an "imminent threat."

"They were making the bombs ... (and had) directions on how to implement this," added Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez.

Sarah Gelsomino, another attorney for the men, earlier said they were "absolutely in shock and have no idea where these charges are coming from."

"The National Lawyers Guild deplores the charges against Occupy activists in the strongest degree," Gelsomino said in a statement decrying the charges.

Six others initially arrested have been released. They were all detained in a raid Wednesday on a home in Bridgeport on Chicago's South Side, NBCChicago.com reported.
Beer or bombs?

But the group of protesters said what police thought was suspicious was actually a home beer-brewing operation.

“We were handcuffed to a bench and our legs were shackled together. We were not told what was happening,” one of those detained but later released, Darrin Ammussek, told NBCChicago.com.

“I believe very strongly in non-violence, and if I had seen anything that even resembled any plans or anything like that, we wouldn’t have been there," he added.

He claimed that during 18 hours in custody, police never told him why he was arrested, read him his rights or allowed him to make a phone call, The Associated Press reported. He said he remained handcuffed to a bench, even after asking to use a restroom.

"There were guards walking by making statements into the door along the lines of 'hippie,' 'communist," 'pinko,'" a tired-looking Ammussek told reporters just after his release.

NBCChicago.com said the National Lawyers Guild had threatened legal action if the detained protesters were not released or charged by Friday night.

“They came in with guns drawn and broke into a unit that was not housing protesters in order to get into another unit in the building that was housing protesters,” said the guild's Kris Hermes.

Security has been high throughout the city in preparation for the summit, where delegations from about 60 countries, including 50 heads of state, will discuss the war in Afghanistan and European missile defense.

Among the pre-NATO protests planned for Saturday was a march on the home of Mayor Emanuel. The big show will be on Sunday, the start of the two-day NATO summit, when thousands of protesters are expected to march 2½ miles from a band shell on Lake Michigan to the McCormick Place convention center, where delegates will be meeting.


On Friday, Chicago police on bicycles and foot tailed activists through the streets of the city, but ignored taunts and went out of their way to make as few arrests as possible. Protesters made a lot of noise and tried to evade police, but otherwise were relatively uneventful.

In all, police said there was a single arrest on a charge of aggravated battery of a police officer. Another man was briefly taken into custody, but he was released a short time later after being questioned by police, a department spokesman said.

Also, officers were seen trying to arrest a man who scaled a bridge tower and pulled down part of a NATO banner. Earlier, police handcuffed a man at the end of a noisy but largely peaceful rally organized by the nation's largest nurses union.

From the police side of the protest line, it went largely how Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy envisioned it earlier this month when he said, "We're not going to lock somebody up for dropping a banana peel."

Michael Olstewski, 22, a recent music school graduate who came to Chicago from Atlanta, one of hundreds of protesters who took to the streets on Friday for a spontaneous march, said protesters may be waiting to make a big statement.

He said he didn't do anything to get arrested Friday, "but later in the week ... If I feel it's strategic and a powerful statement" he would provoke police into arresting him.




NATO: Alliance partner Israel not invited to Chicago summit, chief denies any Turkey link

Israel will not be invited to NATO’s May 20-21 summit in Chicago, the alliance’s top official said Friday. But he denied that alliance member Turkey had blocked Israel’s participation.

Instead, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said the reason is because Israel does not participate in NATO’s main military missions.

News reports have claimed that Turkey blocked Israel’s participation because of the raid in 2010 by Israeli troops on ships heading to Gaza in which eight Turks and a Turkish-American died.

NATO has a system of partnerships with dozens of nations across the globe such as the Mediterranean Dialogue, a NATO outreach program with seven friendly nations, including Israel.

In the past, partner nations did not usually attend the alliance’s summits. But Fogh Rasmussen said 13 would do so this time.

“At the Lisbon summit (in 2010), we made clear that we would enhance dialogue and cooperation with partner nations ... because in today’s world security challenges know no borders, and no country or alliance can deal with most of them on their own,” he told journalists.

Two other members of the Mediterranean group, Jordan and Morocco, are among them. But Fogh Rasmussen said Israel is not because it does not participate in missions in Afghanistan and Kosovo.

“Israel has not been invited to attend the summit because Israel is neither a participant in ISAF nor in KFOR ... no one has blocked an invitation because it’s not been an issue,” Fogh Rasmussen said. ISAF and KFOR are acronyms for coalition forces in Afghanistan and Kosovo.

Earlier this year, Turkey scuttled a plan to include an Israeli warship in a NATO-run flotilla patrolling the Mediterranean.

In the past, Israeli warships and air force jets have joined in some NATO exercises, but Israel’s participation in the naval operation would the first time its armed forces have taken part in one of the alliance’s military operations.

Representatives of about 60 nations and international organizations will attend the Chicago conference. Partner nations include include Sweden, Switzerland, Qatar, Georgia, Australia and New Zealand.

Representatives of Russia and several Central Asian states also have been invited to discuss the war in Afghanistan — the summit’s main focus — “because they provide important transit arrangements to the benefit of our operation,” Fogh Rasmussen said.

The alliance has repeatedly said it is prepared to enhance practical cooperation with all partner nations in the region, including Israel. But some members have opposed past attempts to forge closer cooperation with the Jewish state, saying that could hurt the alliance’s relations with other Muslim countries, including Afghanistan, which remains NATO’s top operational priority.


View Larger Map


Sources: AP, Huffington Post, MSNBC, Russia Today, Washington Post, Youtube, Google Maps