NorthCom Operations Chief Addresses ‘Republican Assembly’ Events To Push Pro-Iraq War Message
NorthCom Operations Chief Addresses ‘Republican Assembly’ Events To Push Pro-Iraq War Message
The Tulsa World reports today that Col. Robert P. “Powl” Smith, the chief of operations for the Standing Joint Force Headquarters, U.S. Northern Command, spoke in Tulsa, Oklahoma, yesterday about the Iraq war, advocating that the American public follow the President and stay in Iraq. “We’re there. We’re in the fight, and it’s one we can’t afford to lose. We can’t let the patient die,” Smith said.
While Smith — an active duty soldier — is certainly entitled to his opinions on the war, his choice of venue raises some concerns. Yesterday, he spoke at multiple events sponsored by the Tulsa County Republican Party:
Col. Robert P. “Powl” Smith, a Tulsa native, Iraq veteran and brother of former state Rep. Hopper Smith, will speak twice Tuesday about Iraq and the war on terrorism.
Smith will address the Tulsa County Republican Women at 11:30 a.m. at the Holiday Inn Select.
Smith will address the Tulsa Republican Assembly at 6 p.m. at Johnnie’s Charcoal Grill.
The Hatch Act explicitly prohibits partisan campaign activities by federal employees, whether civilian or military. But “Powl” Smith has a history of making partisan contributions.
In September 2004, just before a major election and while serving in Baghdad, Smith wrote in the Weekly Standard that “we cannot now afford” to leave Iraq. Four weeks before the election, he penned another Weekly Standard column, arguing “the violence in Iraq has a purpose: to influence America’s presidential election“:
In the same way that al Qaeda changed the outcome of the Spanish elections last March with a single catastrophic bombing in Madrid, the enemies of a free Iraq are increasing the tempo of attacks in order to feed the media, and therefore the American people, a steady diet of blood and carnage in order to convince us that “it just isn’t worth it.”
Smith’s writing resembles that of Gen. Petraeus, who also penned an op-ed before the 2004 election that pushed a pro-war message. The case of Col. Smith begs the question: How many military officials are discreetly acting as partisan PR flacks for the Iraq war?
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
116 Responses to “NorthCom Operations Chief Addresses ‘Republican Assembly’ Events To Push Pro-Iraq War Message”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Would you have felt better if he had spoken at Democratically sponsored events?
October 10th, 2007 at 1:56 pmJason,
Uh.....no.
October 10th, 2007 at 1:59 pmHe's free to speak to whom he wants on whatever subject he wants (within the guidelines of the Hatch Act).
The concern lies in that he may be perceived as speaking for the military rather then as a private individual.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:00 pmOh boy! My first time: IOKIYAR!!!!!!
YAY!!!!
October 10th, 2007 at 2:01 pmWould you have felt better if he had spoken at Democratically sponsored events?
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — October 10, 2007 @ 1:56 pm
Of course the best Hendler can do is put up a straw man. Good job, Jason. After all, you wouldn't want to upset our expectations of you.
Pathetic.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:01 pmHaving served I can tell you this sort of thing did not happen in the past. But with this administration and their compulsion to make everything political it's commonplace, unfortunately.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:02 pmAren't military officers supposed to be non-political? I read that somewhere.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:02 pmSince he's only a Colonel, can we criticize him? Or are Colonels off-limits too?
October 10th, 2007 at 2:04 pmTulsa (oil money and Oral Roberts--what a potent mix!) has got to be perhaps the reddest place in America. This doesn't surprise me.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:05 pmYAY!!!!
Comment by Leftside Annie
LOL
Feels good, doesn't it?
October 10th, 2007 at 2:05 pmWe can’t let the patient die,†Smith said.
Then why'd the fu(k did you blow him up to begin with??? Eh? Colonel Klunk?
October 10th, 2007 at 2:06 pmThis guy could be a poster child for the Hazards of Genetic Engineering.
He's got a few reptile genes in there somewhere...
October 10th, 2007 at 2:07 pm.
Career Members of the military stumping for war... Imagine that.
America has elected a Fire Chief who's instilled his minions which go around insisting that it is important to have fires so as to give our boys/girls some work to accomplish. Has America ever thought to ask of itself, why is the Fire Chief insisting on more fire? I mean, it is important to have a well trained fire crew with all the up to date equipment, but really, to insist on more fires so as to keep the firefighters in the line of duty, a duty that has seen many of them perish, is asinine. What community would ever feel safe where their local Fire Chief suggested that they need more fire.
But America has and more, America will get because the minions are safer with that Fire Chief in Office. This way, at least they too, get paid.
.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:07 pmJMH, I wonder if you have anymore predictions for us. Those are SO much fun. And, have you figured out which universities are "ivy-league"? And, have you learned what "sexual harassment" is, yet? And, I'm SO looking forward to your next "urban heat" argument. Tell us some more funny stories, Uncle Jason.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:10 pm"We can’t let the patient die,†Smith said.
The Death of a Thousand Cuts.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:10 pmCan't let the victim die to soon, spoils all the fun and the guns and the airplanes and the ammo...
Reply to Comment #1 by Jason Himler. Jason I know that you are a militaristic idiot who has never served a day in the military, but my friend this guy is wrong. His job as a soldier is to do his duty and keep his opinions to himself, until asked by someone in authority above him. I don't care if he believes in this war or not, but speaking out for it is an attempt to curry favor with Republicans. If he spoke out against this war, his career would over. But since he's for it, he's a great American, right.
You see that's what's wrong with Republicans, they can't stand the heat. I'm an 11 year veteran and I never ever spoke about our countries policy, because I had the right to vote and that's how I expressed my opinion. This Colonel is trying to make General and probably will under this war mongoring administration. What people like you don't understand is, this war is costing us billions of dollars and when it's all over, we're not going to have one red cent of income from it to spend on anything.
My friend wars only enrich the rich and poor fools like you stay the same. If you haven't noticed most if not all of the former General who support the war are working for defense contractors and companies who are making millions and billions off this war. Look and Blackwater, they went from and 200,000 company to a billion dollar company in five years. You tell me that Iran won't be in charge of Iraq when we leave and I'll eat your hat and mine. That's because we foolishly went in and help to set up a Shiite government which is more closely aligned with Iran than us, although we've given them billions of dollars and lost 4000 troops. Jason you are such a fool. Why can't you stop reading Republican talking points and think for yourself?
October 10th, 2007 at 2:12 pmPaging Leftside Annie! Another clean-up on aisle 14!
October 10th, 2007 at 2:12 pmIt's less of a smear campaign, than objecting to yet another passenger on the bus who, along with everyone else, agrees we are going the wrong way, but won't turn around.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:14 pmWe can’t let the patient die,†Smith said.
Then why’d the fu(k did you blow him up to begin with??? Eh? Colonel Klunk?
Comment by RUCerious — October 10, 2007 @ 2:06 pm
Funny, the credo of the medical profession is first do no harm. I think it is clear that we are harming Iraq by our very presence there.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:15 pmWe can’t let the patient die,†Smith said.
Only if the patient is a child that would benefit from SCHIP, then the patient can die. Otherwise, let's just keep fighting this war until their are no "patients" left to fight.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:15 pmOh boy! My first time: IOKIYAR!!!!!!
YAY!!!!
Comment by Leftside Annie — October 10, 2007 @ 2:01 pm
Congratulations!
October 10th, 2007 at 2:16 pmThe honorable colonel is making himself the fool for backing this unwinnable, unconscionable war.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:16 pmWhen the Bush regime is gone, his politics are going to haunt the rest of his very brief military career.
That's the problem with playing in politics. shit changes.
IOKIYAR!!!!!
IOKIYAR!!!!!
IOKIYAR!!!!!
IOKIYAR!!!!!
IOKIYAR!!!!!
YAY!!!
Oh, I could really get to like this!!! ;o)
October 10th, 2007 at 2:16 pmWhy do the Repukian Fascist Scum like war so much? Oh, forgot, War Profitting is big on their agenda.
Next he'll get the memo about nuking Iran, then it's the "Wheel of Destruction" what country do you want to make the Evil Doers this month.
Man I hate Repukian War Mongers.
Buck Fush
October 10th, 2007 at 2:19 pmWhat on earth does "IOKIYAR" mean?
October 10th, 2007 at 2:19 pmWe can’t let the patient die,†Smith said.
The patient is on life support and there is no brain activity. Do the right thing, Smith.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:19 pmHere we go again with the left wing loons starting another smear campaign to make an honorable soldier appear to be a criminal because they happen to disagree with his stance on the war. Typical.
Comment by Tampachessdon — October 10, 2007 @ 2:11 pm
No, here we go again with the Repulican Party helping a member of the military VIOLATE the law, just as Rove & Co. helped the head of GSA violate the law.
Ever hear of the Hatch Act? It's sponsor is a Republican.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:20 pmSo why are these people allowed to violate the Hatch act at will? Why isn't anyone doing something about it?
Aren’t military officers supposed to be non-political? I read that somewhere.
Comment by RUCerious
Absolutely, it is highly frowned upon. That's why I was amazed that Betrayus was allowed to interject himself into the 2004 election without any repercussions. But, then, that's the Bush theme, politicize everything as long as the politics falls on his side of the aisle.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:21 pmRUCerious - you must be referring to "elections have consequences" and Col. Smith's career may end with the 2008 election.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:23 pmOooooh socialism, that's a scary word.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:24 pmIOKIYAR - It's OK if you are Republican.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:24 pm30,
Got it, thanks.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:25 pmyeah, what does IOKIYAR mean?
October 10th, 2007 at 2:26 pmHere we go again with the left wing loons starting another smear campaign to make an honorable soldier appear to be a criminal because they happen to disagree with his stance on the war. Typical.
Comment by Tampachessdon
If one breaks the law, they are then a criminal. He broke the Hatch act, which is a law, so ergo he is a criminal. This has nothing to do with disagreeing with his stance, and has everything to do with the behavior he is exhibiting, which happens to be criminal.
I would criticize an active duty soldier who agreed with my stance for the same reason. The progressives don't selectively decide what law to honor and what law is OK to break. That's pretty much a Republican trait.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:26 pm32,
See 30
October 10th, 2007 at 2:27 pmIs Powl, while speaking out for the war, appearing at these events while in uniform?
IIRC, another soldier is facing a possible 2nd courts marshal for speaking out against the war.
I guess free speech is only free for some, while the others have to pay for it dearly.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:28 pmSadly, his troops are the only remedy for such actions. They will take care of him in the field so that he can lead not one more to their deaths.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:28 pmActually the Hatch Act doesn't cover military personnel. However, DoD Directive 1344.10 definitely does. This guy's in violation of that directive. Anyone in violation is subject to disciplinary or adverse administrative action as per Service regulations.
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/html/134410.htm
October 10th, 2007 at 2:28 pmThis is more of a case of IOKIYAD, or for this site, IOKIYASL (it’s o.k. if you’re a socialist loon).
Comment by Tampachessdon
IOKIYARWL (It's OK if you are a Right Wing Loon). I like that one. Sorry Right Wing Loon, it isn't the progressives who selectively decide what laws they will follow and what laws they will break. That one belongs to your side of the aisle.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:28 pmComment by Tampachessdon — October 10, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
More treason from the right. they never stop to consider the law, or the country, only their political fortunes. 70% of Americans hate Bush and Republicans, they must be trying hard to get it to 90%.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:30 pm39,
See 37
October 10th, 2007 at 2:31 pmGot it?
Comment by Tampachessdon — October 10, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
Nice parsing, you guys have become esperts at ignoring the relevant facts, you must be proud to be such good liars. Practice makes perfect.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:31 pmI'd rather be an vibrant left wing loon than an extinct right wing dodo.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:32 pmBetter blue than through.
Better left than bereft.
I’ll give you that one. Left Wing Loons are not selective in what laws they will break. They typically break them all.
Comment by Tampachessdon — October 10, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
again with the lies, with no proof or links. You're ahead in the rightwing lawbreaker sweepstakes by about 50 to 1 at this point, almost as ambarrassing as the number of Republicans who haven's served vs. Dems who have. Facts are very friendly to the left, lies are the right's only coin.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:33 pmSo tell me, TCD - why were the reichers all up in arms about the soldier who attended a peace march in uniform (didn't he even get a dishonorable discharge...?) - if all that stuff's A-OK...?
Oh...what? Because it was an ANTI-WAR event...?
Oh, I see.
It's peachy as long as the event is PRO-war...?
That's different.
/sarc off
October 10th, 2007 at 2:33 pmMilitary officers who are Republican tools are "REAL" soldiers. No one has "filled their heads with lies". - Rush Limpbaughs
October 10th, 2007 at 2:34 pmWould you have felt better if he had spoken at Democratically sponsored events? Comment by Jason M. Hendler
Would you? The fact is here, dear readers, that Bush said our troops should not be used for nation building.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:34 pmWe are not in Iraq to occupy, we are Referees in a power struggle.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:35 pm49,
Ohhh, you are so clever.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:35 pmFederal Law (Titles 10, 2, and 18, United States Code), Department of Defense (DOD) Directives, and specific military regulations strictly limit a military active duty person's participation in partisan political activities.
For example, members of the U. S. military cannot speak before a partisan political gathering of any kind, including any gathering that promotes a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:36 pmStart flagging tampachessdon, guys I just did.
The use of the phrase, "left wing loons" is abusive when directed at all the posters here.
Let the flagging commence!!!
October 10th, 2007 at 2:37 pmEnough for now. Those of us on the Right actually have to work. The rest of you can go on chatting and waiting on your government “entitlements†to arrive in the snail mail.
Comment by Tampachessdon — October 10, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
Funny how many of these losers are on the second shift. Maybe all the same sockpuppet generator? they are all equally stupid, that's a given.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:37 pmI’ll give you that one. Left Wing Loons are not selective in what laws they will break. They typically break them all.
Comment by Tampachessdon
Okay Tampon Don, what law have I broke? Have I been arrested for foot tapping in a stall, for pulling a (R) Bob Allen and trying to get an undercover cop to allow me to felate him for 20 bucks? Am I Delay? Or Abramoff? Did I hire a Hooker?
Pray tell o wise group thinker!
October 10th, 2007 at 2:37 pmDon,
Yeah, but thats just a law, right?
October 10th, 2007 at 2:37 pmW-right is W-rong when killing is saving, caring is denying, lying is integrity, conserving is destroying, and Bush is President.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:38 pmActually the Hatch Act doesn’t cover military personnel. However, DoD Directive 1344.10 definitely does. This guy’s in violation of that directive. Anyone in violation is subject to disciplinary or adverse administrative action as per Service regulations.
http://www.dtic.mil/ whs/ directives/ corres/ html/ 134410.htm
Comment by impeachcheneythenbush — October 10, 2007 @ 2:28 pm
You are correct, sir
But it seems the military is being selective as to which regulations it enforces lately, for example outed Gay Porn star Matt Sanchez has not been discharged under the "Don't ask, Don't tell" rules while many others have, but Matt Sanchez is or was the darling of the Repukes until he was outed.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:38 pmComment by Don in Texas — October 10, 2007 @ 2:36 pm
They mean while in uniform I believe Don.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:39 pmLefty,
Sockpuppet generator?! Too damn funny!
October 10th, 2007 at 2:39 pmFor example, members of the U. S. military cannot speak before a partisan political gathering of any kind, including any gathering that promotes a partisan political party, candidate, or cause. -DIT
So when Bush, the CIC, makes partisan appearances he breaks the law?
October 10th, 2007 at 2:40 pmReally, aside from the fact this guy is in violation of American law who gives a shit what he says. Maybe some of those Tulsa County Republican Women will actually buck up and enlist.
Don't just sit there listening to the law-dodging colonel, go join the military and fight for Iraq. You're not the coward Republicans we know you are, are you?
October 10th, 2007 at 2:41 pmBut really, I have to get back to work now.
Comment by Tampachessdon — October 10, 2007 @ 2:37 pm
Yeah, that Bush ballwashing must be hard work.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:41 pmAs I remember it, a few months ago, a *NON*-active duty guardsman was censured for participating in an anti-war rally - even though he wasn't active duty, was Guard, and had removed the identifiable patches from his uniform (so it was basically what anyone could have gotten from the local army/navy store.
Now, an active duty military commander is speaking to partisan groups in support of the war - which in itself is against the law whether or not he was in uniform. As a bonus, does anyone know if he was in uniform ?
Where is the cry from the "Right" about his actions ?
October 10th, 2007 at 2:43 pmWell, TCD, if I wanted to think like you, I'd have to get all smoked up first.
Pass the bong!
October 10th, 2007 at 2:44 pmSeems like a sad commentary on the what the war in Iraq, when you have to get colonels to prop up the party line. I guess there aren't enough generals left to push the propaganda.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:44 pmThanks for the clarification on that MapleStreet - and my question to TCD *still* stands.
It's OK if it's a PRO-war event...?
October 10th, 2007 at 2:46 pmW-right is W-rong when killing is saving, caring is denying, lying is integrity, conserving is destroying..
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian
Its the Mandeville way. =)
Tha Fable of the Bees.
We cant have a virtuous hive of peaces, a peaceful order, because thats not profitable, for the Bees, we need a hive of Bees that have many vices and are evil!
October 10th, 2007 at 2:48 pmActually the Hatch Act doesn’t cover military personnel.
Comment by impeachcheneythenbush — October 10, 2007 @ 2:28 pm
You're absolutely right. My bad. Only the civillian employees of DoD are covered by the Hatch Act.
And you are also right about the military Service regulations.
Thanks for the correction.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:49 pmSo when Bush, the CIC, makes partisan appearances he breaks the law?
Comment by Xisithrus — October 10, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
No, he proves the "law of averages" which states that eventually everything moves toward the mean. Since our country has had a large number of exceedingly bright, charismatic, emotionally sound leaders we were due for a village idiot with the emotional stability of a pogo stick to pull the mean back toward average.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:50 pmOK, now that I have eliminated the possibility that you are merely upset about this Col. speaking at Republican events, I understand what your gripe is.
I don't know what the policy is for military personnel making public statements, but my sense of it is that they aren't allowed to publicly criticize or complain about them. They are allowed to publicly support it, but can't be forced to publicly support it. They are also allowed to resign in protest, and publicly state their protest after resignation, short of giving up classified information.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:52 pmThe military oath says thes guys are to uphold the constitution and to protect it, that said, the Congress has not declared this a war. This is a UN/US police action to discover WMD and to enforce said UN resolutions.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:52 pmIs he a real soldier or a phoney soldier?
October 10th, 2007 at 2:54 pm"...we were due for a village idiot with the emotional stability of a pogo stick to pull the mean back toward average."
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian
Good one!
America sure took a bad hop, didn't it?
October 10th, 2007 at 2:55 pmThey mean while in uniform I believe Don.
Comment by Xisithrus — October 10, 2007 @ 2:39 pm
DoD Directive 1344.10, Enclosure 3, Section 3 "Examples of Prohibited Political Activities", paragraph 3.8:"...a member on active duty shal not "Speak before a partisan political gathering, including any gathering that promotes a partisan political party, candidate or cause."
Speech "before a partisan political gathering" is prohibited whether or not the service member is wearing a uniform.
It is patently clear that Col. Smith violated this Department of Defense directive by speaking before two Republican groups in Tulsa yesterday regardless of the content of his remarks.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:56 pmI don’t know what the policy is for military personnel making public statements, -JMH
Dont let that stop you from making misinformed posts...it never has before.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:57 pmSo when Bush, the CIC, makes partisan appearances he breaks the law?
Comment by Xisithrus — October 10, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
Obviously not. The president is a constitutional officer and as Commander-in-Chief is not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
However, he is subject to impeachment, trial, conviction, removal from office, indictment, trial, conviction and imprisonment for crimes against the United States.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:59 pmDont let that stop you from making misinformed posts…it never has before.
Comment by Xisithrus — October 10, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
JMH has probably watched too many war movies and got hung up on the "I don't know, but I've been told" part of the marching chant.
October 10th, 2007 at 3:02 pmThose of us on the Right actually have to work.
translation...
The alarm on the fries has been going off for three minutes...
October 10th, 2007 at 3:03 pmI’ll give you that one. Left Wing Loons are not selective in what laws they will break. They typically break them all.
Comment by Tampachessdon
Wow, talk about projection. Let's all give Right Wing Loon Tampachessdon a big hand for being the biggest projectionist around. He supports the administration that has broken more laws than all other administrations combined and he calls the progressives the law breakers.
I'd ask him what laws the progressives have broken, but I am sure what he would come up with would be laughable like all his posts.
October 10th, 2007 at 3:03 pmThe president is a constitutional officer
By this I am thinking because he is not rank and file but appointed by the constitution to his position?
October 10th, 2007 at 3:03 pmHendler, now that you KNOW the rules, how do you feel about the good colonel's violation of said rules???
October 10th, 2007 at 3:04 pmFirst -
I did predict that the Dem Congress would hurt a Dem's chance at being elected President in 2008, but admit that I cheated by watching Raum Emanuel et al drag their feet, while nutrooters worked so hard in 2006 - that was a big tip off.
October 10th, 2007 at 3:05 pmSecond -
Yes, looked up Ivy League on wikipedia, and realized that comparing my alma mater to an Ivy League school is actually an insult, so I commit henceforth to refer to Stanford University as "top ranked" - feel better?
October 10th, 2007 at 3:06 pmI don’t know what the policy is for military personnel making public statements, -JMH
Dont let that stop you from making misinformed posts…it never has before.
Comment by Xisithrus — October 10, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
Oh, and Jason. The DoD directives have now been posted TWICE on this thread. Try reading them, so you have some clue what you are talking about.
October 10th, 2007 at 3:06 pmNo, the president is not "appointed by the constitution." He is elected to office by the Electoral College under the authority of the Constitution -- the sovereign act of the people (in whom all political power inheres).
In George W. Bush's case, of course he was appointed to office by five political hacks in black robes on December 12, 2000 -- the darkest day in America's political history.
October 10th, 2007 at 3:06 pmFourth -
Higher temperatures occurring in urban heat islands are generated by the CONSUMPTION of power, NOT pollution / green house gases - it is a fact that you can learn by studying thermodynamics, as I have.
October 10th, 2007 at 3:07 pm“I don’t know, but I’ve been told†part of the marching chant.
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian
Indubitedly.
October 10th, 2007 at 3:08 pmTP is deleting my response to sexual harassment, so clearly, you children can't take the full force of my response - keep hiding behind TP skirts.
October 10th, 2007 at 3:09 pmPoor Jason, can't even count from one to four without forgetting something...
October 10th, 2007 at 3:10 pmHigher temperatures occurring in urban heat islands are generated by the CONSUMPTION of power -JMH
That power being consumed is solar power and most of that is not consumed by mankind but by the things he builds. Nevertheless mankind is affecting the weather because mankind builds these things, not nature!
October 10th, 2007 at 3:11 pmSure Jason, blame it on TP... sheez
October 10th, 2007 at 3:11 pmThe alarm on the fries has been going off for three minutes…
Comment by RUCerious
Or "Oh shit, I stepped in it now, time to leave before they cremate me."
October 10th, 2007 at 3:12 pmI did predict that the Dem Congress would hurt a Dem’s chance at being elected President in 2008
No, Jason, you predicted that the Republicans would actually trounce the Democrats in the 2006 election.
looked up Ivy League on wikipedia, and realized that comparing my alma mater to an Ivy League school is actually an insult, so I commit henceforth to refer to Stanford University as “top ranked†- feel better?
You had to look it up? I don't feel any better or any worse. I only find your posting nonsense hilarious.
BTW, I noticed that you skipped my references to your other previous posting trends. Not that I really care about your response.
October 10th, 2007 at 3:12 pmTP is deleting my response to sexual harassment, so clearly, you children can’t take the full force of my response - keep hiding behind TP skirts.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler
I didn't tell TP to do anything to stop your posts its likely because they are off topic.
October 10th, 2007 at 3:12 pmUhh Jason, you also predicted that the republicans would not only keep a majority in congress in 2006, but gain seats. I don't think you should be predicting anything muchacho.
October 10th, 2007 at 3:13 pmHere we go again with the left wing loons starting another smear campaign to make an honorable soldier appear to be a criminal because they happen to disagree with his stance on the war. Typical.
Comment by Tampachessdon — October 10, 2007 @ 2:11 pm
Wrong. I fully support the rights of our soldiers to speak out with their opinions, whether I agree with those opinions or not. What is being challenged here is that Smith is addressing partisan groups, which gets into a Hatch Act issue. I would object just as much if he was addressing groups of Democrats.
I have no problem with Smith vocally supporting the war, just as I have no problem with seven soldiers from the 82nd Airborne writing an op-ed piece about their observations. But how would you feel if the 82nd Airborne soldiers spoke at a fundraiser for Democrats? That crosses the Hatch Act line, as does Smith leading pep rallies for the Republicans.
Even so, I'd like to make an observation. Smith talking to Republican groups is obviously preaching to the choir. Yet this choir seems to be defecting in droves, if poll numbers are any indication. Is it Smith's own idea to go out and "sell" the war to the Republican base, or is he being encouraged to do so by higher-ups?
October 10th, 2007 at 3:16 pmNo, the president is not “appointed by the constitution.†He is elected to office by the Electoral College under the authority of the Constitution.
I meant appointed to the office of CIC. Forgive my improper use of the correct vernacular. =P
October 10th, 2007 at 3:17 pmYes, looked up Ivy League on wikipedia, and realized that comparing my alma mater to an Ivy League school is actually an insult, so I commit henceforth to refer to Stanford University as “top ranked†- feel better?
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — October 10, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
Sure JayJay, you went to Stanford and I'm the freakin' Queen of England. You went to Standford and didn't know what the Ivy League was. The rest of us aren't as dumb as you community college boy.
October 10th, 2007 at 3:19 pm#91, Shayne,
Read it and weep, graduated with MSEE in January, 2001 - Stanford Alumni Association #514421.
October 10th, 2007 at 3:22 pmSure JayJay, you went to Stanford and I’m the freakin’ Queen of England. You went to Standford and didn’t know what the Ivy League was. The rest of us aren’t as dumb as you community college boy.
Comment by Shayne
If Jason went to Stanford he must know Jake, since Jake went to Stanford too.
BTW Jason, did I tell you that I graduated first in my class at Stanford Law School?
October 10th, 2007 at 3:23 pm#83, Xis,
Yes, sun loading of concrete, glass and metal is an additional factor, but look at how many kilo, even mega, watts of power cities consume each day in electricity, natural gas, fuel oils, etc., and you will understand that the heat dissipated in the comsumption of this power results in temperature increases in the surrounding environment.
October 10th, 2007 at 3:25 pmand realized that comparing my alma mater to an Ivy League school is actually an insult, -Jason
And it took you, a top-ranked, this long to notice?
Elites, whatever that really means, are getting sillier everyday
October 10th, 2007 at 3:26 pm#93, bilbo,
If you did graduate from Stanford, and are a member of Stanford's alumni association, then you can easily look me up.
If your claim of graduating first in your class at Stanford Law is true, then congratulations, that is quite an accomplishment.
October 10th, 2007 at 3:27 pmA college education is not a prerequisite for knowing someone is bulsh!tting.
October 10th, 2007 at 3:29 pmAbout AQ in madrid. Yahoo reported this:
October 10th, 2007 at 3:37 pm"Madrid Bombings Show No al-Qaida Ties" and angus reid reported this: "Spaniards Have Doubts About Madrid Bombings"...
wow did Jason just get the boot?
October 10th, 2007 at 3:37 pmlooks like all his inane posts are gone now.
Where can I get one of those flashy al-Qaida ties everyone's talking about.
My local haberdashery doesn't carry them.
October 10th, 2007 at 3:39 pmYou can only get them at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib
October 10th, 2007 at 3:46 pmA college education is not a prerequisite for knowing someone is bulsh!tting. Comment by Nevar
Must be why I know Jason is FOS. =P
October 10th, 2007 at 3:47 pmYou know, i was just thinking, we should have Sodiku [Abbvu] puzzles made from three letter abbreviatiions such as BFF.
EnnyHooo, how can one be fro prolonging a UN resolution? Should not the UN be brought back to review this, now, at this point, seeing as they helped to empower it?
October 10th, 2007 at 3:49 pmGee... what happened to tampchessdon??? All his comments got deleted.
October 10th, 2007 at 4:47 pmYes, looked up Ivy League on wikipedia, and realized that comparing my alma mater to an Ivy League school is actually an insult, so I commit henceforth to refer to Stanford University as “top ranked†- feel better? Comment by Jason M. Hendler — October 10, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
You claim to have attended Stanford, and you didn't know what an "Ivy League University" was? Then you dare insult the Ivy League? Wow, you really do intend on making yourself look bad, don't you? Well, you're succeeding!
October 10th, 2007 at 5:24 pmTP is deleting my response to sexual harassment, so clearly, you children can’t take the full force of my response - keep hiding behind TP skirts. Comment by Jason M. Hendler
You make a sexist, misogynistic post, complaining about being misrepresented as such - wow! What a bunch of whiny little things you wingnuts are!
While we're on the topic of hiding behind skirts, did you take yours off before you went to the airport mens room? Don't want them throwing you out of there based on gender confusion!
October 10th, 2007 at 5:26 pmComment by Godfather2 — October 10, 2007 @ 5:19 pm
Do you have no respect for the law, neocon?
October 10th, 2007 at 5:32 pmDon in Texas; I agree. Democracy was hijacked in 2000 by party hacks in black robes.. The WORST decision by SCOTUS since the Dred Scott case.
October 10th, 2007 at 6:16 pmIt seems pretty simple. Its a violation of the Hatch Act, you know when and where he is scheduled to speak. Go, wait and arrest him. Take MP's if necessary.
October 10th, 2007 at 8:26 pmMy step-brother is an avid participant in liberal politics and blogs and pointed out this site to me. I don’t normally blog, or read blogs, but I read through your comments and felt the need to provide some information which you can digest as you see fit.
October 17th, 2007 at 11:50 pmFirst off, your information source, the Tulsa World article, was incomplete in its reporting on the event. Like any media source, the World is constrained by space, and had a large local vote to report on that day; my presentation was pretty insignificant in comparison. But you were unaware of that, and based your comments on what you read, and made a lot of assumptions from that reading.
I was asked to speak to these two groups by my Mother, a Republican. I myself am not registered or affiliated with any political party or group. (I am a member of Trout Unlimited, however.) For two years after I returned from Iraq, I demurred to her request for me to speak – until it became a dying wish. She passed away last Saturday, 4 days after. I respected her request by giving a standard Department of Defense public presentation on the United States strategy for the “Long War,†aka, the War on Terrorism. It is a strategic military perspective on the war, not a partisan political perspective. If you are interested in reading it, you can find it located at this URL: http://www.msstate.edu/dept/isss/2006/Sullivan_Long_War_Brief_v2.pdf
It is an information briefing designed to explain to taxpayers what their military is doing and why – it is not directed by the Administration. I was not part of some concerted effort to use military members to convince Americans to support the war. This briefing provides the military rationale for defeating Al Qaeda’s aims in Iraq and elsewhere – that is how “victory is definedâ€, as one person asked. You may not agree with the rationale, you may not agree with the intelligence assessments that lead to the operational and strategic rationale. You may have little information, expertise or experience in military matters, but you have a right to your opinion.
Some of you are concerned that I may have violated the Hatch Act or a DOD Directive by providing this presentation speaking to a club based on a political party. It should now be obvious that I was providing a DOD-approved public presentation, not supporting a partisan cause or candidate.
I must admit that I was flattered by the comparison to GEN Petreaus, who is an honorable, intelligent, non-partisan, extremely conscientious, public servant trying to do his sworn duty – unlike many of his detractors, he is an expert at what he does. The fact that he now believes we can successfully train and assist the Iraqis to reach a level at which they can defend their embryonic, unstable democracy should be a relief to every American; both that the Iraqis could have a genuine, functioning democracy and that our military strategy can and is working, and is thereby defeating Al Qaeda’s aims – the “real†enemy, as some of you noted. To the “11-year veteran†who thinks I gave this presentation to “make General,†you will be pleased to note that after 26 years of under-paid, but personally meaningful service to this nation, I am retiring soon.
I was astonished at some of the vitriol and name-calling, much directed at me, a person none of you know, based on an article that was superficial at best and largely uninformative. I expected to find mature adults conducting a reasoned discussion of important issues. My mistake.