PDA

View Full Version : JCS Chair, Spec Ops, Condemn Anti Obama Groups



DiabloViejo
08-22-2012, 10:30 PM
<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Joint Chiefs Chairman, Special Ops Officers Condemn ‘Shameful’ Anti-Obama Groups</span>
By Ben Armbruster on Aug 22, 2012 at 10:14 am
ThinkProgress.com (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/08/22/725291/dempsey-special-ops-anti-obama-groups/)

The country’s top military officer condemned (http://news.yahoo.com/top-us-general-blasts-ex-officers-attacking-obama-230325628.html) members of swift boat groups that have cropped up this election season attacking President Obama on national security grounds. Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey would not comment on the substance of the groups’ attacks but told reporters on a plane back to the U.S. from Afghanistan that they’re “not useful”:
“And one of the things that marks us as a profession in a democracy, in our form of democracy, that’s most important is that we remain apolitical.

“That’s how we maintain our bond and trust with the American people,” the general said.

A group of former intelligence and special operations officers called “OPSEC” released a video last week accusing Obama of jeopardizing sensitive information in taking credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden. The lead spokesperson for that group, as Foreign Policy reported yesterday, “has a long record of questioning the president’s birthplace and religion, and calling him names like ‘Commander-in-Chief Hussein Mao-bama,’ trumpeting conspiracy theories, and insulting Muslims.”

Another group attacking Obama called “Special Operations Speaks” or SOS, pledges to remove the president from office because of “what they see as unforgivably security leaks by President Obama and his team.” The leader of that group — which actually featured the current special operations commander calling Obama a “fantastic” commander-in-chief — admitted that he does not believe Obama was born in the United States.

But Dempsey isn’t the only one criticizing the groups. The AP reports today that other special ops officers “say the activist veterans are breaking a sacred military creed: respect for the commander in chief”:

“This is an unprofessional, shameful action on the part of the operators that appear in the video, period,” U.S. Army Special Forces Maj. Fernando Lujan wrote on his Facebook page, to a chorus of approval from colleagues.

A Green Beret who returned last year from Afghanistan, Lujan says that attaching the title of special operator with any political campaign is “in violation of everything we’ve been taught, and the opposite of what we should be doing, which is being quiet professionals.” [...]

“They have a good point. I wish there was better OPSEC (operational security), and fewer leaks,” said retired Navy SEAL Capt. Rick Woolard, who commanded several SEAL units. “But I would prefer that SEALs and other special operators would sit down and shut the hell up.”

Obama said he doesn’t pay much attention to the attacks. “I don’t take these folks too seriously,” the president said. “One of their members is a birther who denies I was born here, despite evidence to the contrary. You’ve got another who was a tea party candidate in a recent election. This kind of stuff springs up before election time.”

Gayle in MD
08-22-2012, 11:01 PM
This President is THE most polished and dignified president of my lifetime.

Grace, poise, personable and polished, both in front of the camera, under scrutiny, and in his personal life, as well.

The Republicans have no bottom. Right when you think they can't get any lower, they go down another hundred fathoms.

G.

DiabloViejo
08-22-2012, 11:13 PM
If any of the members of the new swift boat groups are active duty, they would do well to remember Article 88 of the UCMJ--

Article 88 of The Uniform Code Of Military Justice (UCMJ):

“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Elements.

(1) That the accused was a commissioned officer of the United States armed forces;

(2) That the accused used certain words against an official or legislature named in the article;

(3) That by an act of the accused these words came to the knowledge of a person other than the accused; and

(4) That the words used were contemptuous, either in themselves or by virtue of the circumstances under which they were used. Note: If the words were against a Governor or legislature, add the following element

(5) That the accused was then present in the State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession of the Governor or legislature concerned.

And here is the explanation.

Explanation.

The official or legislature against whom the words are used must be occupying one of the offices or be one of the legislatures named in Article 88 at the time of the offense. Neither “Congress” nor “legislature” includes its members individually. “Governor” does not include “lieutenant governor.” It is immaterial whether the words are used against the official in an official or private capacity. If not personally contemptuous, adverse criticism of one of the officials or legislatures named in the article in the course of a political discussion, even though emphatically expressed, may not be charged as a violation of the article.

Similarly, expressions of opinion made in a purely private conversation should not ordinarily be charged. Giving broad circulation to a written publication containing contemptuous words of the kind made punishable by this article, or the utterance of contemptuous words of this kind in the presence of military subordinates, aggravates the offense. The truth or falsity of the statements is immaterial.

eg8r
08-23-2012, 07:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A group of former intelligence and special operations officers called “OPSEC” released a video last week accusing Obama of jeopardizing sensitive information in taking credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden. The lead spokesperson for that group, as Foreign Policy reported yesterday, “has a long record of questioning the president’s birthplace and religion, and calling him names like ‘Commander-in-Chief Hussein Mao-bama,’ trumpeting conspiracy theories, and insulting Muslims.”</div></div>So a group of officers are all saying the same thing in agreement with each other yet all the author can talk about is what one man in the group has said or done. Hmm, seems pretty weak.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But Dempsey isn’t the only one criticizing the groups. The AP reports today that other special ops officers “say the activist veterans are breaking a sacred military creed: respect for the commander in chief”:</div></div>LOL, and here the author tells us about more special ops officers that are not discounting anything the previous guys are saying, these new officers are just saying you should not disrepect the commander in chief. So to sum it up, spec ops officers speak out against Obama and his actions and other officers say they really shouldn't do that. No one is saying the first group of officers are wrong in what they say, just that they are wrong in actually saying it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A Green Beret who returned last year from Afghanistan, Lujan says that attaching the title of special operator with any political campaign is “in violation of everything we’ve been taught, and the opposite of what we should be doing, which is being quiet professionals.” [...]</div></div>Hold up, now the author decides to clarify this even a little more...The actual violation has nothing to do with respect but the actual use of their real title, special operator.


eg8r

Qtec
08-24-2012, 01:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> So to sum it up, spec ops officers speak out against Obama and his actions and other officers say they really shouldn't do that. No one is saying the first group of officers are wrong in what they say, just that they are wrong in actually saying it. </div></div>

What are they saying then? Lets take their claims one by one.

Give me one claim.

You do realise that when Obama gave the order to send in troops, his whole political career and losing the next election was on the line?

He could have just dropped a bomb on the place and he would be safe!

Q

eg8r
08-24-2012, 07:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What are they saying then? Lets take their claims one by one.

Give me one claim.</div></div>What are you going to do with the claim? If you need them then diablow will help you out since he is the one that started the thread.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
08-24-2012, 09:06 AM
Some headlines I've seen already today suggest these incredibly irresponsible, disgusting RW Swiftboaters may be in a heap of trouble!

The worst one being the one who exposed the name of the Special Op Navy Seal who shot bin Laden!

Exposing the identities of a fellow special ops member, endangering his life and those in his family, is such an incredibly repulsive act!

If that isn't officially TREASON, it should be deemed as Treason!

And he's doing it to fill his own pockets and sell a book!

Typical Republican. Factor money in the equasion, and honor of any kind goes straight out the wondow.

I hope they Court Marshall him! Just goes to show us how ignorant and common these irrational Birthers and Tea Party people really are!

This is outrageous!

They don't call Republicans The Party Of Stupid, for nothing!

G.