Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Be Clear on What McCrystal really said in the Rolling Stones Article

Have you read the Rolling Stones article? or Have you just heard talking heads, news stories, Obama administration response, McCrystal's apology, Brit Hume's outrage, Rush's defense, and Gibb's response that McCrystal was questionably not "capable and mature enough" to be general over Afghanistan?

Try to think for yourself, is McCrystal the victim of journalist hype? If you read the article notice magazine’s editors that call the White House “wimps”, and it is the author that uses almost every f-word in the piece, gratuitously, gratingly, and not while quoting anyone. The only f-word used by someone else is a Brit saying how much some people love McChrystal’s habit of showing up on patrol.

To make it easier to skim I made all content spoken by McCrystal or what advisor's thought and in red what article author Hasting claims in a hearsay manner without source or quote...just Hastings own personal ideas/impressions are. (Is this what journalism is?)

I know, if you are like most, you don't like to read or probably will never read the WHOLE article. I read the whole article, and so should you if you want to talk about it. So read the whole article if you really want to make up your mind about McCrystal's guilt.Rolling Stone Article

Well, here is the first page. Really try to, at least, read it...the other 5 pages have no quotes by McCrystal about Obama that I saw and really made McCrystal out to be a wild, cold, military-killing-driven man now General of Afghanistan.

Let's be clear on what IS in the Rolling Stones Article. Here is page one of a 6 page online article titled, "The Runaway General":
The general stands and looks around the suite that his traveling staff of 10 has converted into a full-scale operations center. The tables are crowded with silver Panasonic Toughbooks, and blue cables crisscross the hotel's thick carpet, hooked up to satellite dishes to provide encrypted phone and e-mail communications.

Dressed in off-the-rack civilian casual – blue tie, button-down shirt, dress slacks – McChrystal is way out of his comfort zone.

Paris, as one of his advisers says, is the "most anti-McChrystal city you can imagine." The general hates fancy restaurants, rejecting any place with candles on the tables as too "Gucci."

He prefers Bud Light Lime (his favorite beer) to Bordeaux, Talladega Nights (his favorite movie) to Jean-Luc Godard. Besides, the public eye has never been a place where McChrystal felt comfortable: Before President Obama put him in charge of the war in Afghanistan, he spent five years running the Pentagon's most secretive black ops.

"What's the update on the Kandahar bombing?" McChrystal asks Flynn. The city has been rocked by two massive car bombs in the past day alone, calling into question the general's assurances that he can wrest it from the Taliban.

"We have two KIAs, but that hasn't been confirmed," Flynn says.

McChrystal takes a final look around the suite. At 55, he is gaunt and lean, not unlike an older version of Christian Bale in Rescue Dawn. His slate-blue eyes have the unsettling ability to drill down when they lock on you. If you've fucked up or disappointed him, they can destroy your soul without the need for him to raise his voice.

"I'd rather have my ass kicked by a roomful of people than go out to this dinner," McChrystal says.

He pauses a beat.

"Unfortunately," he adds, "no one in this room could do it."

With that, he's out the door.

"Who's he going to dinner with?" I ask one of his aides.

"Some French minister," the aide tells me. "It's fucking gay."

The next morning, McChrystal and his team gather to prepare for a speech he is giving at the École Militaire, a French military academy. The general prides himself on being sharper and ballsier than anyone else, but his brashness comes with a price: Although McChrystal has been in charge of the war for only a year, in that short time he has managed to piss off almost everyone with a stake in the conflict.

Last fall, during the question-and-answer session following a speech he gave in London, McChrystal dismissed the counterterrorism strategy being advocated by Vice President Joe Biden as "shortsighted," saying it would lead to a state of "Chaos-istan."

The remarks earned him a smackdown from the president himself, who summoned the general to a terse private meeting aboard Air Force One. The message to McChrystal seemed clear: Shut the fuck up, and keep a lower profile.

Now, flipping through printout cards of his speech in Paris, McChrystal wonders aloud what Biden question he might get today, and how he should respond. "I never know what's going to pop out until I'm up there, that's the problem," he says. Then, unable to help themselves, he and his staff imagine the general dismissing the vice president with a good one-liner.

"Are you asking about Vice President Biden?" McChrystal says with a laugh. "Who's that?"

"Biden?" suggests a top adviser. "Did you say: Bite Me?"

When Barack Obama entered the Oval Office, he immediately set out to deliver on his most important campaign promise on foreign policy: to refocus the war in Afghanistan on what led us to invade in the first place. "I want the American people to understand," he announced in March 2009. "We have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan." He ordered another 21,000 troops to Kabul, the largest increase since the war began in 2001.

Taking the advice of both the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he also fired Gen. David McKiernan – then the U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan – and replaced him with a man he didn't know and had met only briefly: Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

It was the first time a top general had been relieved from duty during wartime in more than 50 years, since Harry Truman fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur at the height of the Korean War.

Even though he had voted for Obama, McChrystal and his new commander in chief failed from the outset to connect. The general first encountered Obama a week after he took office, when the president met with a dozen senior military officials in a room at the Pentagon known as the Tank.

According to sources familiar with the meeting, McChrystal thought Obama looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" by the roomful of military brass. Their first one-on-one meeting took place in the Oval Office four months later, after McChrystal got the Afghanistan job, and it didn't go much better.

"It was a 10-minute photo op," says an adviser to McChrystal. "Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was. Here's the guy who's going to run his fucking war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed."
So this is what we are to be so mad about --
  • That someone said McCrystal thought Obama looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" by the roomful of military brass.
  • McCrystal's advisor said, "It was a 10-minute photo op," says an adviser to McChrystal. "Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was. Here's the guy who's going to run his fucking war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed."
  • McCrystal said about Biden: Last fall, during the question-and-answer session following a speech he gave in London, McChrystal dismissed the counterterrorism strategy being advocated by Vice President Joe Biden as "shortsighted," saying it would lead to a state of "Chaos-istan." The remarks earned him a smackdown from the president himself, who summoned the general to a terse private meeting aboard Air Force One. The message to McChrystal seemed clear: Shut the fuck up, and keep a lower profile
Hastings makes things seem worse by interspersing his own editorial commentary and including lots of damning quotes from people outside McChrystal’s team.

Hasting is best known for his memoir book he wrote after his girlfriend died in a suicide bombing on the streets of Iraq. He is not a very prolific or highly experienced professional journalist. I noted a lot in red because without a direct name quoted, it is hearsay. I have watched too much Judge Judy! I writer can put his thoughts and impression in an article if he can back it up with solid facts, not un-named advisor, someone, an aide, a person in the room.... come on now... PLEASE, just the facts, Reporter Hasting, just the facts.

So you read and make the call. What was the horrible statement made by McCrystal about the President and his administration? Help me please because I didn't find it. If you read the whole story and find the quote I missed , please put it in the comments.

And McCrystal says a lot and much is negatively recorded by the writer who is a freelance, want-a-be-famous author, Hasting said about McCrystal in the article.

I don't know McCrystal, but what I have read of him - he is a career special ops, on the ground professional, get-the-job-done soldier. He doesn't seem like a General that would throw his soliders under the bus. The quotes of his inner team seem to state that he is one of them in the war field, he can still be seen fighting side by side with infantry, and he is known as a leader that would die for his men.

He doesn't seem like a political man, a snow-job, gentler-kinder, beat-around-the-bush, kind of leader. He is a WYSIWYG type of guy. You get to know him - the good, the bad, and the ugly... because he isn't a fake... and doesn't pretends one way for one group and another way for his closest inner group.

I don't know if he is a good general, but he clearly is brave, courageous and willing to get dirty in life and death situations to serve our country in the military. I don't think he asked to be the General of this conflict. He was picked by our President. And there is no way Obama can blame this one on Bush, but wonders never cease so I am sure they are figuring out a way....

Read for yourself, think for yourself, don't believe what you are being told....

This is my total opinion - but if McCrystal really was putting his career on the chopping block, to save the lives of military men and women caught in a war strategy without a victory plan trying to win, to get our military home. Nation building never, NEVER, works... we can throw billions of dollars and thousands of American military lives, it will never gain our trust to the citizens of Afghanistan.

If our military on the ground are telling their general that they have their hands tied, they have to be too concerned about relationships and civilian protection instead of cleaning out the Taliban..... I say "Game Over"! Bring our volunteer men and women in uniform home, don't play political games with their lives.

Monday, June 21, 2010

AZ is being Held Hostage by Immigrants

Obama is holding AZ hostage. We need to remove the gates around the whitehouse and have open borders to the Presidents front door, back door, windows and family. If Obama feels other citizens in this country do not deserve to the Federal Protection of security, why should we grant security to any border, airport, or person in this country, including all federal employees and their families.

When does the President's unwillingness to protect USA citizens become criminal and an impeachable offense? I do not know so I ask. We all need to be asking questions, and listening to as much news - first hand speaking, writing as possible.

These two post are not mine.

One belongs to Nicholas Contompasis
San Francisco Bay Area, California, United States
A Founding Father of the American Tea Party.
On June 18, 2010, Arizona Republican Senator Jon Kyl told the audience at a North Tempe Tea Party town hall meeting that during a private, one-on-one meeting with President Obama in the Oval Office, the President told him, regarding securing the southern border with Mexico, "The problem is, . . . if we secure the border, then you all won't have any reason to support 'comprehensive immigration reform.'" [Audible gasps were heard throughout the audience.] Sen. Kyl continued, "In other words, they're holding it hostage. They don't want to secure the border unless and until it is combined with 'comprehensive immigration reform.'"
This is why the law suit against Arizona is just plain bullshit and Senator Kyl has spilled the beans on the Obama agenda. This also means that the L.A. school teacher’s field trip to Arizona to protest the Arizona law is more bullshit and manipulation of our school kids aimed at a political agenda. This means that any deaths, robberies and kidnappings in the state of Arizona are now on Obama’s hands. That’s right, the blood of every person killed by an illegal alien in Arizona is now on Obama’s hands.
Obama is bullshit, Holder is bullshit and they must be charged for murder and conspiring to destroy the people and State of Arizona, now!


Then second belongs to
SheriffJoeSupporter On June 18, 2010, Arizona Republican Senator Jon Kyl told the audience at a North Tempe Tea Party town hall meeting that during a private, one-on-one meeting with President Obama in the Oval Office, the President told him, regarding securing the southern border with Mexico, "The problem is, . . . if we secure the border, then you all won't have any reason to support 'comprehensive immigration reform.'" [Audible gasps were heard throughout the audience.] Sen. Kyl continued, "In other words, they're holding it hostage. They don't want to secure the border unless and until it is combined with 'comprehensive immigration reform.'"

Sen. Kyl also said he reminded President Obama that the President and the Congress has an obligation, a duty, to secure the border.

What should we as Americans do? How do we help AZ?

Friday, June 11, 2010

The Observable World Speaks For Itself

Can you see the tree? Do you see the leaves? Oh, look, not all trees have identical leaves. Some are so big, others are little. Some are soft, others are hard. Look closely at a leaf...any leaf will do...what do you see? Do you see a pattern of lines, so you see symmetry? Touch each leaf on one tree, feel them. Hold them up close to your eyes. Do the look alike? Is there something consistent about the leaves of a specific type of tree? Go ahead, have fun, collect some if you wish. Press them into a book or copy their design in a journal. Draw your own conclusions. Observe for yourself. Can you think of a theory - a statement that is consistent and common among all you have collect? This is the beginning steps of becoming a scientist - it is simple to do and quite fun.

While this seems like a simple elementary school lesson plan, I think it should be part of every level of study in general science or even biology or botany. Science classes need to spend more time exploring and observing then reading, memorizing and lecturing textbook facts. Not that there isn't a place for reading science textbooks but every topic that can be explored should be to enrich and provide first hand discovery. If something is scientific it is observable and it can be duplicated over and over.

So today, I have had the pleasure of a continuing conversation per my dear friends facebook page with a Mr. Thomas Root, an evolutionist, and Dr. Jay Wile, a creation scientist. To my delight I have been able to talk with both of these men through the facebook thread and highly enjoyed and learned so much in one day.

This is my latest and hopefully my concluding comment to the thread:

I also believed once in evolution and old earth. I even accepted the "fact" that God Himself could have used the process of evolution to create everything and that the Biblical stories were mere stories, even while thinking I was believing in ... God of the Bible.

I have learned so much from being open to reading and studying and questioning. It seems if you don't begin with a "faith" to cling to and find evidence to support your "faith" that you are more likely to honestly observe facts, result, data, etc. for truly what the outcome may be. And without ignoring results, data, research that doesn't fit your worldview, one is able to discover truthful facts instead of repeated stories.

I think some people think if you repeat a story long enough it become reality... but that is merely wishful thinking, or robotic non-thinking.

I find the cell, dna, micro-science studies being done today to be quite enlightening. I had an opportunity to speak with a genetic scientist at CMI and was blown away with some of the ground-breaking discoveries being uncovered that support intelligent design overwhelmingly.

I think being simple-minded is not the same as ignorant, but to be able to observe with one's senses as a child exploring his backyard ... to slowly watch, listen, touch, smell and even for fun draw what you see .... can be such a wonderful way to begin a study of science.

Nature around the world (I have been to several continents) has never ceased to amaze me at how it so beautifully points to an incredibly creative and orderly Designer. To look with one's eyes at a creek in the bush of Africa or a creek winding through bare desert land, is totally consuming for me and can take hours to slowly observe the beauty of the design, variety, and complexity of the smallest of things.

I dare say never once has an evolutionist laid under the stars on bare ground and taken in the perfect design of the night sky and still come to the conclusion that the essence of our universe was one mere accident after another, one mutation after another, one explosion after another until everything fell into a symphony of perfect harmony.

Mr. Thomas Root, why not forget all you have been taught or think you know and just as a simple child go out into the world to discover for yourself .... and then come back and report what YOU observed... first hand, eye-witness. And may I honestly say, enjoy the pleasure of creation all around you.


Please join in with your comments or experience.

Is Evolution Science or is it Philosophy?

What's New? It seems I have stepped into yet another intriguing volley - this time between Dr Jay Wile and Thomas Root on a facebook page. And it seems it is often on Amanda Read's page!

This is the latest comment by a gentlemen named Thomas Root on the facebook page of Amanda Read: Amanda's Facebook page
So correct me if I'm misrepresenting you, but a summary of your argument seems to be that:

"The theory of evolution is not science because it's not falsifiable. It's not falsifiable because every time contradictory evidence is presented, the theory has been modified to suit the new evidence."

Is ... See More that more or less correct? Because it seems like modifying the theory when new evidence is present is *exactly* how science works and how faith doesn't work.

On the other hand, your view of creationism is that it is science despite the fact that it incorporates a *whale* of an "unknown process" (which you say can't be part of the refinement of ). Or do you claim to know the process by which your God created the universe?

While we're at it, here are some questions I've never had a creationist adequately answer. Mind taking a crack at them?
What predictions can creationism make without presuming to know the mind of the creator?
When did the flood happen and how old is the earth (please provide evidence, not just claims)?
And being so timid about sharing my thoughts this is my reply:

Seems Thomas Root, it would do you good to read the Book of Job in the Bible. God challenged him with such questions. It might help you to see the response he finally got from God.

I will let Dr. Wile speak for himself but even as a elementary certified teacher, tutor and mom I get the fact that a hypothesis is present by an inquiring mind scientist.

Scientist in a quest to understand nature, the world around him, and even bigger questions... sets forth a path of research to test his hunch. If the research fails then his hypothesis is false and he must begin again with a few options 1) repeating the research to see if the first one had error, 2) restating the hypothesis and coming up with a new angle of research/investigation, or 3) ditching his original hypothesis and coming up with a new possible explanation.

Once a hypothesis/theory has been proven false. It is forever false and must begin the scientific process again. It is quite elementary.

Nothing is ever proved by science, because the theory or even something elevated to fact/law due to repeated experimentation that verifies the statement is always one research/experiment away from being false. True Scientist build off of the facts of the previous scientist and don't cling to theories that have been shown to be false by one or more scientific experiments that can be effectively reproduced over and over.

One successful experiment that seems to show a hypothesis to be truthful begs for more experimentation insure its validity, at least up to the observable knowledge that we have at this point and time.

Newton's law of gravity started once as a thought. It was tested not only by Newton but scientist after scientist and continues to be open to new hypothesis and experimentation. If any one experiment (that can be repeated for validity) shows the law of gravity is really not what science has perceived it to be all these years, it would no longer be a scientific law or truth.

Very few scientific ideas ever make it to law, because it must be verifiable through umpteen experiments and hold up to all scrutiny.

Any theory that is clung to as empirical truth/ absolute fact is indeed no longer science but ideology and would be better served in another field of study such as philosophy. Truly evolution and Darwinian assumptions fall much more gracefully into a philosophical study, just as Socrates, Aristotle, Confucius, Mother Teresa, Gandhi, and many more creative thinkers that are highly respected.

The plan truth that many professors of so-called science doesn't want to admit is that evolution is not truly scientific - it can not hold up to valid research and testing. These proponents would better serve humanity if they moved to the correct department of education and left true science to the inquiring, investigative, open-minded Scientist that truly set up scientific theory investigations to learn and challenge the status quo.

So yes, evolution has repeated been proven false by many observations and experimentation on the level of macro-mutation. While micro-mutations and adaptations due exist this does not quantify all volumes of beliefs in evolution to be truth. Evolution is a philosophical belief that is much closer to a religious doctrine, and should be studied as such, and therefore removed from science textbooks and departments ... if only left as a small by-note of how it led many people astray thinking they were scientist but in fact they were philosophers caught trying to defend a theory that had already been found false on so many levels.

Dr. Wile might have a greater insight or explanation than I because I am only a layperson and not a scientist. I am a student of learning, nothing more and nothing less.

Monday, June 7, 2010

I want to apply for Helen Thomas Position!

Where do I go to apply for the empty Helen Thomas Position? I am a fireball that will keep every President's feet to the fire of truth. I would love to spar words with know-nothing Gibbs. We need intelligent, inquisitive, courageous investigative journalist. I want to apply for white house press core job. Does anyone know where I can get an application? And would anyone be willing to write me a letter of recommendation.



Not that I am over-confident but can I also have her prime front row seat?

It is high time independent thinkers get front row in the white house press room so we can ask the real questions everyone wants answered and not stop at dumb answers like "I need to check", "it is in the memo released", "we are coming out with a plan", "we are looking into it", "I haven't read that yet", "no one informed me..."

Give me a break! Gibbs needs to PREPARE for his meeting with the press core and be ready to give honest answers (ha ha) I know that is a laugh but we need to keep pressing forward and never "uncle" to this lying foolishness being garbled and dribbled out as answers to the press.

The Press Core needs to get a backbone, stand ground, and know their facts so they can ask pertinent questions instead of "soft volleys"!

When Gibbs enters the Press room he should feel like he entered the den of hungry truth seeking reporters.