REJECTS ALL ADVICE FROM MILITARY ADVISORS REGARDING AFGHANISTAN WAR & LEAKS CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS TO DEFEND HIS NON-DECISION
by John Charlton
(Nov. 12, 2009) — MSNBC reported shortly after midnight, that Barack Hussein Obama has rejected all the advice given him by his military advisors of first rank, those generals on the ground in Afghanistan and those at the Pentagon.
Instead, he will delay sending more troops to solve a problem which is only growing increasingly precarious with his alteration of the “rules of engagement” earlier this year. In that policy he expressly layed down that U.S. Troops were not to fire if fired upon!
Then, rather than sending reinforcements to quell an insurgency emboldened by his show of weakness, he has attempted to remove Hamid Karzai, a strong Bush supporter, from office by urging him to accept a run-off election; one which never happened, or was needed, since the runner-up willingly withdrew his candidacy.
The report that Obama has rejected the advice of his commanders in the field, comes as news of a leak of alleged top-secret cables from the U.S. Ambassador in Afghanistan, and former Army General, Karl Eikenberry. This leak is clearly designed to bolster Obama’s indefensible position, that the war can be better solved by questioning the legitimacy of the elected Afghan government, and turning the war over to the ill prepared Afghan government. That is was given to the same news agency which reported about Obama’s rejection of advice, shows that the leak was made on orders from the White House.
The leak claims that Eikenberry is so disatisfied with the questions of legitimacy of President Karzai, that the U.S. should hold off reinforcing its positions to defend the fledgling democracy — which if that is true, Eikenberry is a singular idiot, who would let the house burn down with all its inhabitants simply because he does not like the politics of the father of the house! Whats mean spirited politics!
But Obama, who has no legal authority to be Commander-in-chief, because the U.S. Constitution expressly forbids a non-natural-born citizen from holding the office, is playing “hit and run” politics with American lives.
“Hit” on the ability of the military to defend against Islamic radicals — the Taliban and al-Qaeda forces — “and” set down goals of how to pull out from the war, before it is finish — or how to “run.”
Obama has once again shown the truth that he will stand by Muslims when pushed to the wall. He certainly does not stand for America or with our troops in the field, who are dying daily without a valid chain of command.
His decision favors only one thing: the death of more U.S. military, and the advance of radical Islam.
As a teacher and martial arts instructor, I once recommended military service without reservation to the many young people. Since Obama, the Usurper-in-Chief, has taken over via a bloodless coup d’etat, however, I have ceased doing so. I now tell people of military service age to avoid joining at all costs. That recommendation will not change if and until our military again has a legitimate, lawful commander-in-chief. No decent, patriotic American should die or be maimed for life fighting Obama’s illegal wars to benefit America’s enemies.
” Eikenberry is so disatisfied with the questions of legitimacy of President Karzai . . .”–that’s really rich, considering all the questions of legitimacy about “President” Obama.
Afghanistan has no monopoly on illegitmate office holding. Indeed, our own U.S. team is the winner in that department. Obama and Pelosi should share the honors for a Nobel Prize in Election Fraud.
why shouldn’t obama reject their advice
after all, obama and axelrod know more about running a war than the military
go to a typical democratic web site and you’ll find people who actually believe that
Continental Congress ’09
http://givemeliberty.org/
Questions to be addressed:
1) Are our elected officials obligated to respond to proper Petitions for Redress of violations of the Constitution?
2) Do the People have the Power of Enforcement when their elected officials refuse to respond to such Petitions?
3) Did the federal judiciary abuse the doctrine of stare decisis and Plaintiffs’ Due Process Rights in deciding We The People v. U.S.?
4) What actions must the states and/or federal government take to end violations of the First Amendment’s Accountability Clause?