Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

Archive for the ‘military’ Category


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 6, 2010

It was sixty-six years ago today.

D-Day New York Times

D-Day LA Times


D-Day 2

D-Day 3


D-Day 5

D-Day 6


Posted in military | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 31, 2010




Posted in military | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on November 25, 2009

From the “You’ve Got To Be Goddamn Kidding Me” file…

The cuckoo clock that is my transforming nation seems to be tolling its bell louder all the time – and I damn well don’t like it.

What the hell is happening to my country?

Whether it is the Commander-in-Chief’s modus operandi of weakening his own country through apologetic confessionals, or his determination to close a perfectly functioning terrorist detention facility so that America’s enemies will love her more, or his incapacity to come to a decision concerning his “war of necessity” in Afghanistan, or his conferring of Constitutional rights on enemy combatants who waged war on America, or his Army Chief of Staff who said that diversity among the troops is more vital than protecting innocent lives, or a media so raped of its ability to be objective by political correctness that it could not (or would not) call the Ft. Hood mass murder an Islamist terrorist attack, this country is on a dangerous path.

This reality manifests itself in what seems like a perpetual advance of negative stories from the mainstream media about the United States military. Ever since the New York Times turned military misconduct at Abu Grahib into the most deplorable and unspeakable human abuses ever committed, there has hardly been a positive word to be found about those who defend America, save for in the conservative media.

For a time, it even became fashionable among elected anti-Bushies to speak ill of this nation’s defenders. Recall that Senator Dick Durbin compared American treatment of prisoners at Abu Grahib to the Nazis and Pol Pot. Recall that Senator Ted Kennedy declared the Saddam Hussein torture chambers re-opened under new American management. Recall Congressman John Murtha called American Marines cold-blooded murderers.

Isn’t it curious how everyone seems to get the benefit of the doubt except the fighting men and women of the American military?

At one time, Congressional Medal of Honor winners would secure the front pages of newspapers across the country. Stories of valor and courage on the battle field were, in a long ago and far away age, headline makers. These were America’s heroes, cherished and revered. It was understood that a nation incapable – or unwilling – to pay tribute to its fighting men could never be worthy of the liberty it enjoyed.

These days, America’s warriors are regularly portrayed as broken and confused, weak and frightened. Tales about rising suicide rates and substance abuse among soldiers make up a good portion of the stories published about America’s military. Exposes on exhausted fighting men, declining morale, and misbehaving soldiers take up far more space than successes on the battle field.

It is sickening.

This disturbing anti-military trend – this ongoing impulse among the politically correct and the cowardly to cast America’s heroes in a negative light – is, sadly, gaining ghoulish momentum.

Last evening, the story of three Navy SEALS being brought up on assault charges in the case of the capture of Ahmed Hashim Abed – one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq – made my stomach turn. For those unaware, Abed was the ringleader behind the murder of four Blackwater USA security agents back in 2004. You’ll recall the grisly details of how the four were ambushed, murdered, and their bodies burned and dragged through the streets of Fallujah. Two of them were even hanged off a Euphrates River bridge for a photo op.

In September of this year, Navy SEALS captured the murderous vermin. Such a momentous and heroic event should have made headlines across the country, but the likelihood that even twenty percent of America knew about it is a generous estimate.

Now, three of those heroes – SO-2 Matthew McCabe, SO-2 Jonathan Keefe and SO-1 Julio Huertas – are facing court martial.


Because of a bloody lip.

Rowan Scarborough at Fox News writes:

The three, all members of the Navy’s elite commando unit, have refused non-judicial punishment — called an admiral’s mast — and have requested a trial by court-martial.

Ahmed Hashim Abed, whom the military code-named “Objective Amber,” told investigators he was punched by his captors — and he had the bloody lip to prove it.

Now, instead of being lauded for bringing to justice a high-value target, three of the SEAL commandos, all enlisted, face assault charges and have retained lawyers.

The poor little terrorist, responsible for the brutal murders of four men transporting supplies for a catering company (of all things), is apparently now having to deal with the terrifying memory of a bloody lip, not to mention the post-traumatic stress associated with the scar. Indeed, a bloody lip it may not be as appalling (or tortuous) as having Christina Aguilera music blaring, or having smoke blown in one’s face, or having the thermostat cranked low (or any of the other horrifying abuses some of Gitmo detainees were made to suffer through), but it is bad enough to have three of America’s most courageous fighting men ready to be arraigned on December 7th, with a court martial to follow in January.

United States Central Command declined to discuss the detainee, but a legal source told that the detainee was turned over to Iraqi authorities, to whom he made the abuse complaints. He was then returned to American custody. The SEAL leader reported the charge up the chain of command, and an investigation ensued.

What the Fort Hood massacre did was shine a much needed light on the twisted mentality that seems to be prevalent among the higher echelons of the American military these days (as well as government) – namely, a now lethal strain of political correctness that places more of an importance on showing the world that America is not anti-Muslim than in protecting the United States of America.

But this new predilection for convincing everyone that America really is a good nation full of good people, sensitive to Islam, is exasperating and wrong-headed. Much of the world, despite leftist cacklings to the contrary, wants to see a strong America. They look to America for leadership. They look to America to do what’s right. And when America is quick to accuse its own defenders of abusing terrorists in a time of war, with innocent lives hanging in the balance, in desperate and dangerous situations that are not even conceivable to most, for something as insignificant as a bloody lip, it not only creates international uneasiness, it emboldens the enemies of freedom everywhere.

Indeed, there may be more to come of this story, but I’m inclined to think not.

Hence, the court martial instead of the non-judical punishment (NJP) of an admiral’s mast.

The three accused Navy SEALS want their story told. They want all of the details of this heroic operation out in the open.

Good for them.

Still, questions come to mind …

How on earth can three American heroes be facing a court martial for giving a piece of walking fecal matter a bloody lip? Would it really take three of the most well-trained fighting men in the American military to do it? Wouldn’t one have been sufficient to the task? Even in his sleep? And who’s to say the “bloody lip” didn’t happen during Abed’s take down? Adrenalin does tend to run high in combat situations.


I thought we were in this thing to win.

If so, why the hell does it seem that there is so much effort, so much determination from so many sectors, to keep our side from doing their jobs?

For what it’s worth, I am with you one-hundred percent, Navy Seals.


wordpress statistics

Posted in Iraq, military, Moral Clarity, Political Correctness, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on November 15, 2009

Obama Our LeaderRemember how critical it was that Congress pass the Stimulus Bill? Remember how vital it was for the country’s well-being? Remember how its passage was essential to preserve America’s very existence? There wasn’t a moment to waste. It was so urgent, by golly, that there wouldn’t even enough time for anyone to sit down read the thing. Action had to be taken as soon as humanly possible, lest disaster strike. The United States, after all, was on the brink of complete and utter collapse.

Remember how quickly President Obama announced that he’d be shutting down the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba after taking the Oath of Office? His inaugural waffle hadn’t even gotten cold yet before he was telling the world that the splendidly effective, incredibly efficient, perfectly secure terrorist prison would have to be shut down. Mind you, Obama had no alternate plan for the terrorists, nor was he ever able to convey a coherent reason for closing the facility. Nonetheless, he acted swiftly.

Remember when the President said, in regard to the threat of global warming, that “the science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear”? Remember how he explained that “few challenges facing America — and the world – are more urgent than combating climate change”? Without a shred of evidence anywhere to support the hysterical belief that increasing CO2 levels are killing the Earth – and with thousands and thousands of years of evidence showing that climate does, in fact, change of its own accord – Obama didn’t spare a second beginning his full frontal assult on “climate change.”

He can be an impulsive bugger at times.

Obama wasted no time in facilitating the government takeover of auto makers. He didn’t hesitate to put the kibosh on the Eastern European missile defense shield. He thought nothing of saying that a recession was the wrong time for corporate profits. He was (and still is) quick to apologize for his own nation on foreign soil. Without a moment’s dithering, he was postive he couldn’t be sure when human life begins, yet knew enough to err on the side of killing the unborn. He was quick to condemn the Cambridge Massachusetts Police Department for “stupidly” handling the arrest of his race-obsessed friend, Professor Henry Louis Gates, without knowing the facts. He has instinctively rolled over for Iran, while alienating America’s allies.

And let us not forget ObamaCare.

Obama DRIn the mere blink of an eye he is prepared to create the most astronomicaly crippling debt this, or any other, nation has ever seen. Without as much as a batting eyelash, he is more than ready to saddle generation after generation with tax burdens unheard of in American history. Without breaking a sweat, he is eager to expand the federal government to levels that would have garnered a tip of the hat from FDR.

And yet …

When it comes to the war in Afghanistan – the fight he called the “war of necessity” – he just can’t seem to figure it out. Despite months and months to come up with a plan of action for what he said repeatedly was the central front in the fight against Al Qaeda, he just doesn’t know. Despite recommendations from the best military minds in the world, he just can’t seem find it in himself to do much of anything but wait. With American soldiers in harm’s way waiting for their Commander-in-Chief to finally act the part, President Obama says he wants to take it slow and come up with the best solution. So far, he’s rejected all proposed plans up to this point.

What the hell?

Afghanistan was Obama’s easy call, remember? This was the fight that America needed to be focused on all along, right? This was the “good war,” wasn’t it?

And yet, less than two weeks away from Thanksgiving, still nothing.

These things can’t be rushed, he says.

Anyway, enjoy Asia, Mr. President.

How many trips does that make since January?

wordpress statistics

Posted in Global Warming, health care, Junk Science, Liberalism, military, Obama Bonehead, politics, stimulus bill, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on November 10, 2009

Obama Fort Hood

Posted in military, Picture of the Day | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on November 10, 2009

From the “Words Mean Things” file.

General George Casey, Chief of Staff of the United States Army, made the following statement on Sunday in regard to the Fort Hood terrorist attack:

Speculation could potentially heighten backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers and what happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here. It’s not just about Muslims, we have a very diverse army, we have very diverse society and that gives us all strength. But again we need to be very careful about that.

george caseyIf necessary, take a moment to read it again – particularly the  phrase, “What happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here.”

There can be no mincing words here. It is a despicable thing for an officer in the United States Army to say.

Call what happened at Fort Hood terrorism (as I do). Call it an act of war. Call it what you will. But with all due respect to General Casey and his honorable service to this nation, he is dead wrong on all accounts – and an embarrassment.

To begin with, calling the mass murders at Fort Hood, Texas a “tragedy,” as I wrote late last week, is a profound disservice to the thirteen dead and twenty-nine wounded. Indeed, it is an insult to the memory of the fallen. As a “tragedy,” the act becomes more random, more arbitrary, more illogical. As a “tragedy,” blame effectively shifts from being squarely on the shoulders of the murderer to being attributable, at least in part, to outside forces beyond his control; it gives evil enough room to wriggle off the hook.

The fact is …It was not an act of chance. It was not an accident. It was perfectly logical in its lethal perversity. It was a deliberate, pre-meditated act of evil, fuelled by a dangerous ideology.

But more imprtant than Casey’s mislabelling of this terrorist act as a “tragedy,” is his disturbing take on diversity in the military.

Again the quote:

What happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here.

Common sense demands that the general must have misspoken, because no officer in the United States military can truly believe such a thing.

General Casey is saying that a little less diversity in the military is worse than having innocent soldiers killed.

He’ll take dead soldiers over shrinking diversification.

To him, slain military personnel are more acceptible than decreasing varieties of ethnicities and skin tones in the service.

How could anyone in their right mind honestly believe that?

What the hell kind of thinking is that?


First of all, diversity means that everyone – regardless of skin color, ethnicity, sex or religion – is held to the same standard; and it is clear from the abundance of reports that have come out since the shooting spree on Thursday that the killer, Hasan, was not treated as any non-Muslim would have been had he or she been involved in highly questionable activities.

The man tried to contact Al-Qaeda, for heaven’s sake – and we knew about it.

Political correctness planted the seeds of murder that took place at Fort Hood last week.

Second, diversity is not where the strength of the military – or America herself – lies. The United States does not thrive because of its diversity.

It is absolute nonsense.

Indeed, America is comprised of a diverse population, but it is the singularity of America’s value system – what she stands for – that epitomizes her real strength.

Check your money, General Casey.

E Pluribus Unum.

wordpress statistics

Posted in military, Moral Clarity, terrorism | Tagged: , , , | 3 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on November 10, 2009

It was 234 years ago today.

Marines 5

Marines 1

Marines 3

Marines 4

Posted in military | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on November 9, 2009

FBI Arrests

Daniel Patrick Boyd

Remember Daniel Patrick Boyd? You may recall he was the North Carolina contractor who, along with a group of others (including two sons), was planning a “violent jihad,” which included an attack on the Quantico Marine Base. He was a Muslim convert who was also involved in planning a series of terror attacks internationally.

If his name doesn’t ring a bell, don’t feel too bad. He wasn’t an angry Christian targeting an abortion clinic, so the story had a shelf life of maybe eighteen seconds.

How about the name Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad? If not (which is quite likely), perhaps you will recall the incident associated with him. In June of this year he shot up a Little Rock, Arkansas recruiting office, killing an American soldier. Afterwards, he claimed he was justified because of what Americans were doing to Muslims in the Middle East.

Since he wasn’t an angry American white man setting off a bomb somewhere, the chances that this story would snag more than a day’s worth of coverage was slim-to-none.

Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad

Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad

Remember the story of the Bronx, New York terror plot – the one where four home grown Muslim terrorists planned on shooting down military planes and were arrested as they planted what they thought were bombs at two synagogues? How long did that story stick around with the mainstream media?

Since there was no way to cloak the role of Islam in that particular terrorist scheme, it isn’t surprising that after a day or two, it became a page twenty-five afterthought, lest the Muslim community be insulted or provoked.

Certainly many will recollect the Fort Dix terror plot. That should have been, by anyone’s measure, a huge story – particularly when three Muslim immigrant brothers, Dritan, Shain and Eljvir Duka, were convicted of planning an al-Qaida-inspired attack meant to kill hundreds of American soldiers on the New Jersey military installation.

It wasn’t.

It went away in short order as newspapers filled with stories of how screwed up Afghanistan was thanks to George W. Bush.

Ask anyone with even an elementary knowledge of current events to recall any of these domestic terror plots and, more likely than not, you won’t elicit many responses.

Sadly, they’re buried way below the fold of America’s collective consciousness.

But now, with thirteen people dead and twenty-nine injured at Fort Hood, Texas – and every indication in the world that the murderer, Nidal Malik Hasan, acted as a radical Islamic terrorist – the morally weak, fainthearted American media (in conjunction with the American Leftocracy) cannot sweep the details of this horrific incident away under the rug as they would like. Thus, as long as the news cycle demands that this story be covered, they will continue to avoid the obvious as long as humanly possible – that radical Islam almost certainly played the defining role in the Fort Hood mass murder.

Fox News’ Geraldo Rivera, for example, went as far as saying that, for all we know, it could have been a bad headache that made the terrorist, Hassan, kill.

Yes, he really said that.

And no, he doesn’t believe that for a second.

However, Rivera is one the overwhelming majority of journalists who live in a world where clarity is routinely sacrificed for being inoffensive.

(I wonder how many throbbing-headed individuals in human history have actually resorted to mass murder. I’ve found that, generally speaking, bad headaches are debilitating).

On his radio program today, Dennis Prager played a clip from MSNBC’s show Hardball that aired Friday, where host Chris Matthews introduced a segment with Nihad Awad from the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) this way:

Welcome back to Hardball. The investigation into that massacre at Fort Hood yesterday is still ongoing and it’s unclear if religion was a factor in this shooting.

What motivated this killing yesterday? And we may not know that ever.


So, in light of every stitch of evidence available to him, in light of every report pointing in that direction, Mr. Matthews believes we may never ever know what motivated these murders?

I guess this Hasan is a real puzzle.

If everything that is known right now about Hasan – including the fact that, for years, he has been making anti-American comments in public; that he has openly professed to being pro-terrorist; that he has posted commentary online in support of suicide bombings; that he has incontestable ties to radical Islam; that he has likely had contact with terrorists; that he has been heard to say on numerous occasions that he is a Muslim first and an American second; that he was heard to shout “Allahu Akbar!” (God Is Great) before slaughtering innocents – is not enough to suggest that religion might have been some sort of factor in what happened at Fort Hood, what exactly would be?

What other “clues” would need to be in place for the murderer, Hasan, to be seen by the gutless American media as an Islamic terrorist?

A t-shirt?

Even Anwar Aulaqi – the radical imam, now in Yemen, who preached at the Virginia mosque where Hasan was known to have attended – posted the following at his website:

Nidal Hassan is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people.

Obviously, Aulaqi believes that Hasan’s shooting spree had something to do with religion. Why else would he praise Hasan if this was not a terrorist attack in the name of Islam? When, pray tell, will Chris Matthews criticize Aulaqi for jumping to conclusions?

Somehow, in the flummoxed brains of the American leftist, to accept the reality that there are radical Muslims who commit atrocities such as the Fort Hood massacre – and do so in the name of Islam – is to say that all Muslims are terrorists. It’s how they think. It’s a charge the Left makes against conservatives regularly – that we on the right believe all Muslims are terrorists. But no one on my side of the aisle has ever said it, nor do we believe it. It isn’t an issue. Rather it is they on the Left who avoid the topic all together in fear of offending Muslims, even when the Qur’an is slapping them repeatedly across the chops.

Of course, lefties often go on and on about white racism in America – especially where the opposition of Barack Obama’s policies are concerned – but never once have any fear of offending all whites, or lumping all Caucasians together.

Funny how that works.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Evil, Islam, Liberalism, Media, military, Political Correctness, religion, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on November 9, 2009

There are reports that Nidal Malik Hasan, the man who murdered thirteen at Fort Hood, Texas last week, attended the same Virginia mosque as two of the 9/11 hijackers in 2001. This would have happened during the period when a radical imam, Anwar Aulaqi, was preaching at the Dar al Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Va.

According to an Associated Press story:

Aulaqi told the FBI in 2001 that, before he moved to Virginia in early 2001, he met with 9/11 hijacker Nawaf al-Hazmi several times in San Diego. Al-Hazmi was at the time living with Khalid al-Mihdhar, another hijacker. Al-Hazmi and another hijacker, Hani Hanjour, attended the Dar al Hijrah mosque in Virginia in early April 2001. In his FBI interview, Aulaqi denied ever meeting with al-Hazmi and Hanjour while in Virginia.

Of course, it is imperative that the American public continue to refrain from jumping to any conclusions.

There may be other factors to contend with that the rest of us may be missing. Perhaps he was bullied as a child. Maybe he adored his mother and hated his father. It could be that he wasn’t allowed to have a Big Wheel as a boy. Maybe the other kids wouldn’t let him play in any reindeer games.

Regardless, we need to relax and let the facts come out.

While Hasan’s ties to the Virginia mosque are obviously of tremendous relevance – and as all the details surrounding the Fort Hood terrorist attack become known – it is the Associated Press article itself that draws my attention.

To begin with, the article’s opening sentence is profoundly troubling:

The alleged Fort Hood shooter apparently attended the same Virginia mosque as two Sept. 11 hijackers in 2001, at a time when a radical imam preached there.

The “alleged” shooter?

So, it is possible that the individual who shot thirteen people dead and injured twenty-nine was not Nidal Malik Hasan? It could have been someone else?

And what about Sergeant Kimberly Munley, the officer who took down the killer, Hasan?

If Hasan is “alleged,” I hope Munley is being held in jail until it can be confirmed who the “shooter” actually was. Or did she “allegedly” shoot Hasan? Or did she shoot someone else? And if so, was that shooting “alleged?”

And are the dead “alleged” until the shooter can actually be confirmed?

Is the entire incident “alleged?”

(And does this shirt make me look fat?)

The article’s next line is equally troubling:

Whether the Fort Hood shooter associated with the hijackers is something the FBI will probably look into, according to a law enforcement official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing.

The FBI will “probably” look into whether or not the terrorist, Hasan, had any associations with the 9/11 hijackers who attended the same mosque as he??


Given that I am obviously a novice when it comes to criminal investigations, law enforcement and matters of national security, wouldn’t it nonetheless seem to be an automatic to look into it?

Maybe I watch too much television.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Evil, Islam, military, Political Correctness, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on November 6, 2009

our presidentIt hasn’t exactly been all fruit cups and Cool Whip for our President in recent times. In the name of rescuing America from it’s Bushtopian past, Barack Obama has managed to pass some exorbitant spending bills through Congress – which you will recall were earmark-free  (except for all the earmarks). But other than saving billions and billions of jobs through his Spendulous Bill, nothing else really seems to be falling into place for him. Whereas at one time, he sent shivers up the legs of the adoring masses, he now seems to be sending shivers down the spines of concerned, liberty-loving Americans.

His “What The Hell Happened?” check list is ever-growing.

Despite Democrat control of both houses of Congress, he’s just not getting the needed love regarding two of his biggest domestic initiatives: government-run health care and anti-global warming legislation.

Despite assurances that the era of Bush is dead, he’s failing to command too much respect from America’s adversaries either, although the President seems determined to perfect the art of perpetual negotiation until such a time that Iranian nuclear bombs can do all the talking.

Of course, Tuesday’s Election Day results – which according to Democrats meant nothing except for Bill Owens victory in the New York-23 race – weren’t exactly a big wet kiss on the lips of liberalism either.

But can there be anything more disheartening, more dejecting, than having a long time bed fellow stab you in the back? Can there be anything so painful as having an old buddy take a machete to your jugular?

Et tu, media?

NBC Chicago, not exactly a bastion of conservative discourse, posted an article by Robert A. George in which he ripped the President for the way he handled himself yesterday in front of the nation after the Fort Hood massacre.

He writes:

President Obama didn’t wait long after Tuesday’s devastating elections to give critics another reason to question his leadership, but this time the subject matter was more grim than a pair of governorships.

After news broke out of the shooting at the Fort Hood Army post in Texas, the nation watched in horror as the toll of dead and injured climbed. The White House was notified immediately and by late afternoon, word went out that the president would speak about the incident prior to a previously scheduled appearance. At about 5 p.m., cable stations went to the president. The situation called for not only his trademark eloquence, but also grace and perspective.

But instead of a somber chief executive offering reassuring words and expressions of sympathy and compassion, viewers saw a wildly disconnected and inappropriately light president making introductory remarks. At the event, a Tribal Nations Conference hosted by the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Indian affairs, the president thanked various staffers and offered a “shout-out” to “Dr. Joe Medicine Crow — that Congressional Medal of Honor winner.” Three minutes in, the president spoke about the shooting, in measured and appropriate terms.

Dr. Joe Medicine Crow, incidentally, did not win the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Even his teleprompters are turning against him.

Did the president’s team not realize what sort of image they were presenting to the country at this moment? The disconnect between what Americans at home knew had been going on — and the initial words coming out of their president’s mouth was jolting, if not disturbing.

If the president’s communications apparatus can’t inform — and protect — their boss during tense moments when the country needs to see a focused commander-in-chief and a compassionate head of state, it has disastrous consequences for that president’s party and supporters.

Bloggers are calling it Obama’s “My Pet Goat” moment – a reference to George W. Bush and they way he reacted (or didn’t react) on the morning of September 11, 2001 after hearing news of the terrorist attacks in New York. (Keep in mind that from the time the second plane hit the South Tower of the World Trace Center to the time he addressed the nation, only 26 minutes had passed. The Pentagon hadn’t even been hit yet).

One Pro-Bam blogger at the great Say Anything blog, who goes by the name of Sparkie Arbuckle, sarcastically wrote:

(Obama’s) too calm under pressure. It’s inappropriate. Why not flip out more, cry, wail, and beat himself out of sympathy?

Liberals are cute when they think they’ve seized upon a brilliant point.

It would have been appropriate – and presidential – to have the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces step up to the podium, with the entire nation watching, and act like the matter of thirteen dead Americans held a little more relevance than offering “shout-outs” to a Congressional Medal of Honor winner (who, by the way, didn’t even win that medal). It would have been the right thing to do to forego the three minutes of self-absorbed “I-love-to-hear-my-own-voice” ishkabibble and immediately acknowledge the deaths of American service people at the hand of a cold-blooded killer on American soil. It would have made sense to see the President of the United States put some of that fabled articulacy and poise to work when it was needed most.

However, this is Barack Obama – a disengaged, detached messiah who is still having a difficult time understanding why his mere presence doesn’t ease the pain.

And by the way …

bush and the pet goatThe amount of time President Bush spent in that classroom after Andy Carr leaned over and told him about the second plane was actually five minutes, not seven, as is regularly peddled by the left. (It’s hard to give the anti-Bushees too much credence when simple, easy-to-verify facts like this are missed). President Bush’s Press Secretary Ari Fleischer was standing in the back of the classroom holding up a pad of paper on which he had written “Don’t say anything yet.” A look at the video tape from that morning shows the President acknowledging Fleischer. One can also see from watching the uncut video tape that once he knew about the second plane, the President’s focus had all but shifted from the school children to the situation at hand. (Incidentally, the children were reading to him, not the other way around – another little detail that is regularly missed by the anti-Bush brigades). He became contemplative, clearly collecting his thoughts. Above all, he did not panic. He did not leap out of his chair. He did not react hastily. He was out the door in just a few minutes and addressing the nation within twenty minutes. He behaved in a most Presidential manner. No one thought any different at the time.

As the school teacher Sandra Kay Daniels recalls:

I was very pleased with the way it was handled – that he took a few moments to gather himself. It wasn’t this gigantic amount of time … I didn’t vote for him, but on that day, at that moment in time, I very easily could have. That was the first time I could think of, in his short tenure in office, where he looked Presidential to me. He made a good decision to stop and think and respond rather than react to the terrorism. If terrorism is supposed to strike terror in the hearts of men, you didn’t see it on him at that point in time.

And the actual name of the book is “The Pet Goat” … not “My Pet Goat.

The title only became relevant when liberals began reconstructing history – and they couldn’t even get that right.

Pesky details.

wordpress statistics

Posted in military, Obama Bonehead | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 28, 2009

obama crybabyPresident Barack Obama needs to grow up, quit all the whining, stop blaming every conceivable ill that exists in America on the other side, and at least try to appear as if leadership of some kind is attainable. It’s time for this colossal do-nothing President to get up off his backside and finally own his Presidency. Someone with some balls needs to pick up Mr. Obama, turn him over, flip the switch from “campaign” to “President,” inform him that he is now more than nine months into his term, and demand that he stop behaving like a prepubescent kickball team captain and finally act like a man accountable.

Democrats have the White House and both houses of Congresses (Lord helps us), and if there has ever been a more disengaged, sedentary, lackluster, bumbling, stumbling collection of stammering political lummoxes than the crew in charge right now, I’m not aware of it. And although the campaign is long over (calendar-wise), and the blame-Bush-for-everything window has long been hammered shut, the President is still trying to squeeze through.

The fact is, it’s too late for that now.

It now belongs to the Anointed One.

It is all his.

This is, after all, the real world – where enemies exist, lives hang in the balance and actions must speak louder than words. This is not a hacky-sack bull session among campus marxists-in-waiting and capitalism-sucks dope smokers. This is not Wednesday afternoon Mahjongg, or one of President Obama’s studly White House basketball games, or one of his twenty-nine thousand rounds of golf. This is reality … and the reality is, this is a nation at war, with troops in harm’s way, facing an enemy hell-bent on destroying this country and all it stands for, led by a holding-pattern President who needs to pull out his thumbs and actually lead. Unfortunately, America’s top Keystone Cop has done little more than show those who are under his command that they are, at best, secondary to such pressing matters as global warming, curbing CEO salaries, destroying private insurance companies and doing all he can to make sure Chicago hosts the 500 meter freestyle event.

How dare this President fiddle with five irons and lay his egotistical charms on the Olympic gods while America’s bravest wait for some kind of word from the mountain top as to what their mission in Afghanistan is. While Obama’s White House is busy brown-shirting their way into a war against the Fox News Channel – and he continues to distinguish his administration with Mao enthusiasts, 9/11-truthers, tax evaders, race-baiters and unaccountable czars – American troops are quite literally stranded in a strategic limbo wondering what the hell their Commander-in-Chief is waiting for.

On Monday, for instance, the President commented that after “long years of drift,” he was finally going to get America’s Afghanistan policy correct.

In response, Charles Krauthammer, of the Fox News Channel, on yesterday’s Special Report, said:

I want to point out one thing about what Obama had said, what he talked about: “the long years of drift.” There is something truly disgusting about the way he cannot refrain from attacking Bush when he’s being defensive about himself. I mean, it’s beyond disgraceful here. He won election a year ago. He became the Commander-In-Chief two months later. He announced his own strategy – not the Bush strategy, his strategy – six months ago, and it wasn’t off-handed. It was a major address with the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State standing with him, and now he’s still taking about “the drift” in the Bush years.

What’s happening today is not a result of the “drift in Bush years,” so-called. It’s because of the drift in his years. It’s because of the flaws in his own strategy, which is what he is re-examining. He has every right as Commander-in-Chief to re-examine his own strategy, but he ought to be honest, forthright and courageous enough as the President to simply say, “I’m rethinking the strategy I adopted six months ago, and not, once again, childlike attack his predecessor. 

Spot on.

Also on Monday, the President of the United States, speaking to a military audience in Jacksonville, familiarly took leave of his backbone and once again proved why national security cannot be trusted to liberals and other children. With his nation at war, and troops already on the battlefield, he forever etched his name in the annals of great American war leaders, saying, “I will never rush the solemn decision of sending you into harm’s way. I won’t risk your lives unless it is absolutely necessary.”

Is he kidding?

It’s been seven months.

This is the President of the United States, the most powerful man on the face of the earth, addressing members of the American military, the greatest fighting force the world has ever known, and the message he manages to convey – the words of inspiration he musters for those who have pledged their lives to defend this country – is he “won’t risk” lives “unless it is absolutely necessary.”

What about those who are at this moment in harm’s way, Mr. President? What about those who are already risking everything so that you (and the rest of us) can hit the links, or arrange pick-up games at the White House, or use fatty oils to fry up their latkes? What about the troops who are now fighting America’s enemies in a war that, not too long ago, you called a war of necessity?

Is it no longer a war of necessity?

Is the President aware that the words he speaks are actually heard and ingested outside of the friendly confines of his own mind? Including those who are currently serving in Afghanistan?

ObamaPattonI humbly ask … Is it at all posibble for the man who won a whopping 52.7% of the popular vote last November – the man who proclaimed incontrovertibly that victory was the only option in Afghanistan – to stop blaming his own inability to chew gum and q-tip his ears at the same time on George W. Bush?

Yes, yes, we know … Along with all of his other atrocities, Bush probably took great delight in kicking little puppies, thought nothing of cutting in front of little old ladies at the Post Office, and stole coins from the blind pencil guy on the street.

Regardless, Barack Obama is in charge today. This is his ship. Nine damn months is long enough.

Man up.

The President, of course, employs the same “it-was-him-not-me” approach when dealing with domestic issues (e.g., unemployment, health care, growing deficits, etc.) Note that as he attempts to “tackle” the myriad of challenges facing the United States – and defend his all-too important legacy-in-progress – everything always comes down to doing all he can to try and deal with the incalculable disasters he inherited from George W. Bush.

It wasn’t him, he cries.

Eight years of bad policies just can’t be undone like that, he explains.

Things will get worse before they get better, he promises.

It’s not easy, he says.

Blah, blah, blah.

Proclaiming that America’s problems still boil down to the preponderance of pervasive blunders and destructive policies perpetrated and implemented by George W. Bush, he figures, will have the citizenry nodding and sighing in agreement, as if to say, “We understand, Bam. We’re with you. Just get to it when you can.”

Forget the fact that Obama already sees his role as a rebuilder and transformer. It is his charge (in his own mind) to reconstruct this nation from the ruins of the more than two centuries of social injustice, run-away capitalism, and international bullying that preceded him. He first has to salvage what he can from the calamitous reign of George W. Bush, then he can beat down the Founding Fathers.

Someone – anyone – who is more concerned with the well-being of the United States than whether or not they will continue to have access to the messianic inner circle needs to shake some damn sense into the man who cannot let go of the blame-Bush-for-everything game plan that got him the job. This incessant cry-baby approach – the victimization mentality of “it-isn’t-my-fault-because-this-is-what-was-handed-to-me” – must come to a screeching halt immediately.

Enough is enough.

Own it.


wordpress statistics

Posted in Foreign Policy, Liberalism, military, national security, Obama Bonehead, politics, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on July 21, 2009

Ralph Peters

Ralph Peters

Private 1st Class Bowe Bergdahl went missing on June 30th in the Paktika province of Afghanistan. Since then, a video of the captured American soldier pleading for his life and calling for American troops to withdraw from the region has been posted on a Taliban website. The paratrooper, surrounded by his captors, also expressed a desire to learn more about Islam and commented on the low morale of the American soldiers there.

Officials from the US military called the video pure propaganda and vowed to find him.

Over the weekend, on the Fox News Channel, anchor Julie Banderas was interviewing military analyst Lt. Colonel Ralph Peters (retired). He is a regular contributor to the network, a frequent guest on radio talk shows (including the Michael Medved Show) and a columnist to boot.

I have consistently found Peters to be informative, well-spoken and an insightful thinker on matters related to the war against Islamo-fascism.

However, while speaking to Banderas about the Bergdahl matter, he raised more than his share of eyebrows by suggesting that if it should come out that Private Bergdahl walked away from his post while at war, the Taliban should be permitted to execute him.

From Fox News, the exchange went like this:

Julie Banderas

Julie Banderas

Banderas: Apparently Bergdahl was captured while he walked away from his US base camp. Many people are e-mailing me and asking, “How can a soldier walk off from a base on his own? Wouldn’t there always be another soldier with him? Would he be partnered with another person?” What can you tell us about that?

Peters: I want to stress first of all that we must wait until all the facts are in to make a final judgment. But nobody in the military that I’ve heard is defending this guy. He is an apparent deserter. Reports are, indeed, that he abandoned his buddies, abandoned his post and walked off. We’ll see what the ultimate truth of it is. But if he did – if he’s a deserter in wartime – as one of my old platoon sergeants used to say, “He is in beaucoup deep kimchi.”

Now, there’s another problem, Julie. On that video, he is collaborating with the enemy. Under duress or not – that’s really not relevant – he’s making accusations about the behavior of the military in Afghanistan that are unfounded, saying there are no rules. He’s lying about how he was captured, saying he lagged behind a patrol. Julie, I’ll tell you, any 11-Bravo infantryman will tell you that’s not how it works. In a war zone, any soldier is aware of where all his buddies are. If it’s a night patrol, you’re sure aware of where the guy in front of you, behind you is. So, we know this private is a liar. We’re not sure if he’s a deserter. But the media needs to hit the pause button and portray this guy as a hero.

Banderas: Wow. Obviously, I don’t want to speculate here.

She went on to say how the Fox News Channel will not air the video, lest that network appease the Taliban.

Peters: The best bet getting him back is tipsters, surveillance, special operations. For right now, I think he’s okay. They’re not going to kill him right away, if at all, because he has tremendous propaganda value. He’s making anti-American statements. He wants to investigate Islam, blah, blah, blah … Now look, Julie. I want to be clear. If, when the facts are in, we find out that through some convoluted chain of events, he really was captured by the Taliban, I’m with him. But, if he walked away from his post and his buddies in wartime… I don’t care how hard it sounds, as far as I’m concerned, the Taliban can save us a lot of legal hassles and legal bills.

Banderas (somewhat stunned): All right Lt. Colonel Ralph Peters, thank you very very much … Regardless of what the situation is, we don’t want to see any US soldier in harm’s way and we hope this guy gets out of there safely. He’s an American. He’s one of ours.

Peters: Julie, think about his buddies. Think about his buddies.

Banderas (still perplexed): Yeah .. and, of course, everyone who is over there …

Despite the tedious caterwauling and hollers coming from some left-wing bloggers over his appearance on Fox – calling him a right-wing “psycho” (among other clever leftocrat lingo) – Peters is not a gun-happy war-loving crackpot, nor is he a particularly controversial pundit. He has shown himself to be, through his writing and TV appearances, quite reasonable and articulate.

He is unquestionably a patriot.

However, for a member of the United States military – retired or not – to call for or advocate the killing of an American soldier by the enemy, even if that soldier did abandon his wartime post, is nothing short of outrageous. At the very least, it is undignified and unbecoming – particularly coming from a man with Peters’ resume. It also goes against the very standards that the heroes who defend this nation fight for.

If Private Bergdahl did abandon his fellow soldiers and country, he must be allowed to face a court-martial. He must be permitted to stand up against his accusers and defend himself. Such a detestable and cowardice act (should it be proven) must be afforded the scrutiny and judgment it rightly deserves. And if it should come out that the worst-case scenario is, indeed, a reality – that he actually defected to the enemy – then he should be tried for treason by the nation he betrayed and given the appropriate punishment.

I have no argument with Peters’ contempt at the prospect of an American soldier running away from his brethren-in-arms in a time of war.

But it can never be acceptable for an officer of the United States military to openly call for an enemy of his own country to administer any justice on an American soldier.

Posted in military, Uncategorized, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 25, 2009


Posted in military | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 18, 2009

Score one for America’s military heroes.

Score one for doing the right thing.

The White House has decided that it will not pursue a plan that would have forced private insurance companies to pay for the care of wounded veterans. The responsibility of caring for Americas’ wounded warriors will stay where it rightly belongs – with the government who sent them to war.

Posted this afternoon at the American Legion website:

The leader of the nation’s largest veterans organization applauded President Obama for dropping his plan to bill private insurance companies for the treatment of military veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities and injuries.

“We are glad that President Obama listened to the strong objections raised by The American Legion and veterans everywhere about this unfair plan,” said National Commander David K Rehbein of The American Legion. “We thank the administration for its proposed increase in the VA budget and we are always available to assist by providing guidance to ensure a veterans health care system that is worthy of the heroes that use it.”

Following a meeting this afternoon with The American Legion and other veterans service organizations, the White House announced that it will no longer considering billing insurance companies or veterans for their service-connected disabilities.

That the President finally got it right deserves praise. That he, or anyone lese, would even consider such an abhorrent plan as reasonable to begin with …

Well, at least he did the right thing.

Posted in military | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 17, 2009

americanlegionRecall that on Inauguration Day, the newly elected President of the United States, to the great dismay and disgust of those of us with a clue, asserted that America’s security “emanates from the justness of our cause.” This is the type of confused cognition that can only come from the mouth of someone who has no regard, gratitude or comprehension of what the armed forces of the United States provide for this country. It is as insulting as it is asinine, and conclusively denotative of why liberals cannot, in any way, be trusted with the security of the United States of America.

It is thus no surprise that the Obama administration would pursue the ignoble initiative of forcing private insurance companies to foot the bill for the treatment of wounded veterans, effectively pawning off that which is the undeniable moral obligation of the federal government onto the private sector. The idea that wounded servicemen and women would be forced to find a way to pay for their own treatment in order to save the government a few bucks is unconscionable. At a time when trillions of taxpayer dollars are being shoved into the most egregious, useless, unnecessary pig-meat projects in existence, to have the care of America’s wounded warriors treated as a matter of mere budgetary concern is an abomination.

For those who honor and revere the men and women who serve, it is a gross indignity to know that protecting the endangered Hawaiian monk seal, or monitoring coral reefs, takes precedence over the care of this nation’s military personnel.

Last week, as this story was gaining some national exposure, Adam Levine at CNN wrote:

Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki confirmed Tuesday that the Obama administration is considering a controversial plan to make veterans pay for treatment of service-related injuries with private insurance.

But the proposal would be “dead on arrival” if it’s sent to Congress, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, said.

Murray used that blunt terminology when she told Shinseki that the idea would not be acceptable and would be rejected if formally proposed. Her remarks came during a hearing before the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs about the 2010 budget.

No official proposal to create such a program has been announced publicly, but veterans groups wrote a pre-emptive letter last week to President Obama voicing their opposition to the idea after hearing the plan was under consideration.

(The words “and darling of the anti-war Left” should have followed the opening words “Veterans Affairs Secretary.”)

Yesterday, Ed Morrisey, at the great Hot Air blog, wrote:

The Obama administration explains that it wants private insurers who sell coverage to vets to pay their fair share, but there are two things wrong with that argument. First, the United States has a moral obligation to provide treatment for those wounded in the service of their country. That’s a commitment we make to the people who enlist in military, and should not get outsourced.

Second, vets with service-related injuries and illnesses can only get third-party insurance because insurers know the US will cover all service-related medical treatment through the VA. If the government reneges on that commitment, it will put insurers on the hook for veterans already enrolled — but it will make it a lot harder for the next set of veterans to get insured. It will also raise costs to the rest of the insured by those companies, when the burden should fall on all Americans equally.

Morrisey was commenting on what is being reported as a fairly disturbing meeting between Commander David K. Rehbein, head of The American Legion, and The Messiah, that took place yesterday.

According to a story published at the American Legion website last evening called “Don’t Bill Our Heroes” :

The leader of the nation’s largest veterans organization says he is “deeply disappointed and concerned” after a meeting with President Obama today to discuss a proposal to force private insurance companies to pay for the treatment of military veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities and injuries. The Obama administration recently revealed a plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in such cases.

“It became apparent during our discussion today that the President intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan,” said Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion. “He says he is looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it.”

The Commander, clearly angered as he emerged from the session said, “This reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate ‘ to care for him who shall have borne the battle’ given that the United States government sent members of the armed forces into harm’s way, and not private insurance companies. I say again that The American Legion does not and will not support any plan that seeks to bill a veteran for treatment of a service connected disability at the very agency that was created to treat the unique need of America’s veterans!”

Here comes that old Clinton feeling again – the derision and disdain emanating from the top for the United States military is once again on full display, only this time with the Obamacratic regime. Who but those who harbor contempt for the military would pursue such a disgraceful policy?

A nation that does not care for those warriors who have sacrificed themselves in her defense cannot survive the vacuity of its immorality – nor does it deserve to.


Posted in Ethics, Liberalism, military, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on November 10, 2008

Getting It Done For 233 YearsGettin’ it done for 223 years!

Posted in military | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on November 10, 2008

Today is the 233rd birthday of the United States Marine Corps. In a nation embarrassingly quick to celebrate the most hollow among us, lavish unmerited honor on the most undeserving and commemorate the most trivial milestones, I’d like to take just a moment to honor the very bravest defenders of freedom the world has ever known.

Ted Nugent has written his own tribute, published today at

From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, all across America and in Iraq, Afghanistan and wherever America is being defended, the world’s most exclusive gun club is the celebrating its 233 birthday today.

Born in a roughneck Philadelphia bar in 1775 on a dare to surpass standard warrior excellence, the United States Marines Corps has distinguished itself over its history as the finest military force the world has ever seen. Do not point the US Marines Corps at anything you do not wish conquer. They are the pointy end of America’s spear.

They not only fight for America, but for each other. This is the definition of ‘espirit de corps”.

When we get older, it’s natural to think about whether we’ve actually done something worthwhile. This is not the case for the leatherneck men and women of the mighty US Marine Corps.

President Reagan said it best: “Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don’t have that problem.”

Semper Fi.

God Bless America.

Posted in military | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »