Retired Command and Flag Staff Remain Quiet on Iran Deal

Editor’s Note – Many recent retirees from our military remain on the sidelines concerning the Iran Deal but the following article does not address the opinions of longer term retirees who have been very vocal in their opposition.

Of the many retired generals, admirals, and other command staff, several stand out in stark opposition to how the Obama administration began the process of talking to Iran, then the lengthy negotiation process, and the resulting agreement now in the hands of Congress.

Some include the founder of SUA, MG Paul Vallely, US Army (Ret.), Kitchen Cabinet member and co-founder of the Citizen’s Commission on Benghazi, Adm. Ace Lyons, USN (Ret.), and close friend and former Congressman, Lt. Col. Allen West, US Army (Ret.).

StupIranRally2

In fact, last July, MG Vallely, Adm. Lyons, and Lt. Col. West gave speeches in opposition at the “Stop Iran Rally” in Times Square. Many other notable people joined them in a bi-partisan manner including more active and former politicians and world leaders.

We applaud recent retiree Army Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn for his stance in opposition, and like the article below explains, the Obama administration attempted to down play those in opposition by pushing a cadre of others to support his efforts by signing a letter to that extent.

We saw that move as yet another attempt at skewing the picture for the public and displaying the politicization of the military. If certain other retirees wish to remain silent, so be it, but far more oppose the deal than support it, of that we are certain.

We are also pleased that NY Senator, Chuck Schumer for standing in opposition and invite you to join him as another rally is planned to take place at the office his fellow NY Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand on September first. Kill the deal!

Retired brass avoid firm positions on Iranian nuke deal

By Andrew Tilghman, Staff Writer – Military Times

Many of the most prominent retired U.S. military officers are opting against expressing any firm public endorsement of or opposition to the controversial Iran nuclear deal.

“I have not yet taken a position,” retired Army Gen. David Petraeus said in a recent interview.SchumerIranDeal

“I recognize the benefits, significant benefits in rolling back the Iranian nuclear program for a 10- to 15-year period,” said Petraeus, the former commanding general of the U.S. war in Iraq who later also oversaw U.S. military strategy across the Middle East as the head of U.S. Central Command.

“But I also recognize that these have to be weighed against the downsides of an agreement in terms of additional resources going to [Iran’s] proxy elements that are causing problems in the region and beyond,” Petraeus said.

As the debate about the Iranian nuclear deal grows increasingly politicized, partisan advocates are eager to seize on any strong views from respected military officers. Yet very few military officers are weighing in with public views on the deal. If and when they do, they avoid making sweeping conclusions.

“I would debunk the idea that the deal is it — and you either like it or you hate it, or it’s good or it’s bad. That is a bunch of nonsense,” retired Adm. William Fallon, another former CENTCOM commander, told a room of national security professionals at a think tank event in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 4

The deal struck in July between Iran and the U.S. and other Western countries is a 159-page document that would essentially limit Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon in exchange for lifting the financial and oil sanctions that have constrained the Iranian economy.

Retired Marine Gen. James Mattis declined a Military Times request to talk about the Iran nuclear deal. (Photo: Staff)
Retired Marine Gen. James Mattis declined a Military Times request to talk about the Iran nuclear deal. (Photo: Staff)

Congress will vote in September to potentially block President Obama’s authority to lift the sanctions, which would effectively kill the long-sought deal.

For now Obama appears to have enough support to weather the stiff opposition and retain the authority to execute the deal. But as many Republicans and some Democrats line up to oppose him, the outcome is uncertain.

The White House touted an Aug. 11 letter from three dozen retired generals and admirals offering firm support for the deal and urging Congress not to kill it.

The letter’s signatories include retired Marine Corps Gen. James “Hoss” Cartwright, who oversaw the Pentagon’s nuclear force as head of U.S. Strategic Command, and retired Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Hoar, who headed CENTCOM from 1991 to 1994.

Yet many national security watchers noted numerous names missing from that list, including Marine Corps Gen. James Jones, who served as Obama’s national security adviser during his first term. Jones did not return Military Times’ request for an interview about the nuclear deal.

In fact, none of the CENTCOM chiefs or Joint Staff chairmen from the past 20 years signed the letter.

“I noticed that very few of them are the most senior people,” said Prof. Richard Kohn, who teaches military history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Kohn said the controversial issue is far too politicized.

“The overwhelming majority of retired senior officers recognize they should avoid partisanship and even the appearance of partisanship because it lowers respect among the American people for the loyalty and nonpartisanship of the military profession,” Kohn said in an interview.

Letters like the one signed by the 36 generals and admirals can “give the impression to many people who are not well-informed about the military profession that they are speaking for a large number of retired military or for the military itself.

It looks like a military intervention in politics.”

Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn
Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn

Very few retired military officers have publicly opposed the nuclear deal. Army Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn has criticized it.

And a newly created group called Veterans against the Deal is distributing a video highlighting Iran’s link to hundreds of catastrophic attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq.

The new agreement could empower the anti-American regime, they say.

The Obama administration’s handling of its Iran policy was reportedly a source of tension between the White House and former CENTCOM Commander Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis.

For years he expressed hawkish views about Iran, but Mattis, who retired in 2013, declined a Military Times request to talk about the deal.

Fallon described the deal as a diplomatic breakthrough with Iran and said he believes the U.S. should press ahead with the agreement and bring the appropriate skepticism to the implementation process.

“In my mind it comes down to basically a choice: Do we continue the stalemate (between the U.S. and Iran) with the likelihood that sooner or later a mistake of some magnitude is going to be made. I witnessed several errors in judgment during my time out in the region that could have quite easily escalated into something ugly in terms of military action.

“My perusal of history is that sooner or later virtually every impasse, every stonewalled negotiation, every ‘us-against-them’ reaches a point where there is some sort of dialogue initiated to try to move forward and change the future from the past. I think that is what we really have going on here.”

“In my mind it’s pretty much of a no-brainer; we ought to take the next step and see if we can get this thing implemented. And try to move forward — no illusions either side trusts the other. … It’s all going to be about how it’s implemented,” Fallon said.

Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, a former CENTCOM commander, recently suggested a similar wait-and-see approach.

“The agreement cannot be judged as good or bad on its own,” said Zinni in an interview with the Virginia Gazette newspaper. “Like all agreements, the judgment will come based on how it is implemented. The quality of the inspections and verification will be key as will Iran’s degree of cooperation. If Iran cooperates and begins to agree to open talks on other issues, the agreement will have been a success.”

Some retired officers are offering views behind closed doors in an effort to aid policymakers facing a complex issue.

Petraeus has worked closely with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and its Iran Study Group, a team of former top government officials who helped examine and clarify the technical details of the legal agreement.

StopIranRally3

He said the Obama “administration has engaged us and has addressed some of the reservations that we have expressed. And that dialogue is continuing.”

“Clearly there are benefits from the Iranian nuclear deal in terms of eliminating the 20 percent enriched uranium, reducing the low enriched uranium stockpile by some 95 percent, eliminating the plutonium path to a bomb, reducing significantly the number of centrifuges and providing for increased inspections as well as some other clear benefits,” he said.

Petraeus said he was reassured by one aspect of the deal that clarifies nuclear-related sanctions will be lifted on Iran, but those sanctions imposed for terrorist activity, specifically targeting Qassem Suleimani, the notorious commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s Quds force, can remain intact.

Nevertheless, Petraeus said, “There should be no question that some of the $100 billion, $150 billion in assets that Iran will receive — currently frozen assets — when the sanctions are lifted, some of that will go to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Quds Force and undoubtedly to Iranian-supported elements such as Lebanese Hezbollah, various Shia militias in Iraq, the Houthi forces in Yemen, and Bashar al-Asad’s regime in Syria, and possibly Hamas.”

“The single biggest issue really is assurance, assurance that Iran will not be allowed to enrich weapons-grade uranium.”

West – 'Make Your Blood Boil', Lt. Cmdr. White to be Charged

Editor’s Note – Obama and his appointees so loathe the military; that is plain to see; no need to point out the many ways in which that has been proven, but what is about to happen is as Allen West said – ‘blood boiling’ and enough to make one ‘dog fighting mad’!

To those of us with family and friends on active duty around the globe, what the Navy is about to do to Lt. Commander Timothy White, a Sailor who is reportedly responsible for preventing further mayhem in Chattanooga, is about to have his career ended, for defending himself and his fellow warriors.

Their brave acts saved many lives.  Since our military is currently unarmed on U.S. bases and recruiting stations, there’s no telling just how many dead military personnel we might have today if these two brave heroes didn’t shoot back.

But now, under the Obama Administration, the Navy has been ordered to do the most despicable of things to this Navy Commander.  They can’t also do it to the Marine since he died in the gunfight. (Federalistpapers)

Why? Because those leading our men and women in uniform are puppets of an administration hellbent on tearing America down to her very knees. How best to do that? Eviscerate our military; make it unbearable for all but the toadies of the left. “Transformation complete,” mission accomplished!

What’s happening to this heroic Navy officer from the Chattanooga shooting will make your blood BOIL

By Allen West – Allenbwest.com

I never like to be reactionary and follow anything that may just be hyperbole or conspiracy theory. That’s why I held off on addressing this issue until I got confirmation — which came Friday afternoon via text message.navy-hero-charges2

There are things which make you just upset, like the liberal progressive left and media accomplices’ rage over the shooting of a lion in Africa but abject disregard and disdain reference Planned Parenthood dismembering babies and selling their body parts.

But this story has me dog fighting mad and seriously pissed off.

As reported ten days ago by Western Journalism,

A Navy officer and Marine reportedly returned fire at the shooter who killed five service members in Chattanooga, Tenn., even though current policy does not permit military members to carry firearms on facilities such as those where the attack occurred.

The cold-blooded assault killed four Marines and one active-duty Navy reservist. The center’s commanding officer, Lt. Cmdr. Timothy White, used his personal firearm to engage the shooter during the attack, according to sources quoted in the Navy Times. A report from The Washington Post said that one of the Marines killed in the shooting might have been carrying a 9 mm Glock and possibly returned fire on the shooter.

At the time, Western Journalism wrote,

Lt. Cmdr. White could face disciplinary action for violating policy about possessing a weapon on the facility that was supposedly a gun-free zone. The investigation into the attack is ongoing, and authorities will not know if White or the Marine hit the shooter until an autopsy and a ballistics report have been completed.

Ladies and gents, resulting from the text message I received yesterday, I can confirm that the United States Navy is bringing charges against Lt. Cmdr Timothy White for illegally discharging a firearm on federal property.

The text message asked if it would be possible for Lt.Cmdr White to reach out to me. To wit I replied, affirmative.

What kind of freaking idiots are in charge of our Armed Forces — pardon me, our “unArmed Forces”? What would they prefer that Abdulazeez had been able to kill all the Marines and Sailors at the Naval Support Reserve Center?

Let me draw an interesting contrast: Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus is more concerned about lifting the ban on transgendered Sailors.

President Barack Obama meets with Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus in the Oval Office, June 17, 2010.  (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza) This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House.
President Barack Obama meets with Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus in the Oval Office, June 17, 2010. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Mabus has a problem in that for the first time since 2007 the US Navy will not have a Carrier Battle Group operating in the Persian Gulf.

But this knucklehead has no problem with the Navy seeking to destroy the career of a Sailor, a commander of an installation, returning fire against an Islamic jihadist attack.

I do not care if it was his personal weapon, he deserves a medal for facing the enemy.

Folks, this has become the Obama military that will not implement policies for our men and women in uniform to be protected — but will punish them if they do protect themselves.

What ever happened to the Navy of John Paul Jones, Farragut, Halsey, and Nimitz? What has happened in our America where we believe that our men and women in uniform — especially the commanders — are just targets for these damn Islamic jihadists?

Can you imagine the message this sends to ISIS and all the enemies of America? We are going to end his career and court-martial a man who drew his sidearm to protect his command, and the assigned Sailors and Marines.

What is the difference between Lt. Cmdr White and the reserve officer in Moore, Oklahoma who went to his vehicle and armed himself to prevent a second woman from being beheaded? Is it that we expect less from our uniformed warriors? Are they just supposed to sit and be butchered, gunned down, until local law enforcement come along?lt-cmdr-white

Let’s be very clear here, I can attest that there are many reserve and National Guard troops who are carrying concealed during their drill periods…why? Because they are lions, not sheep, like the imbeciles who are making the decision to punish Lt. Cmdr White.

Doggone, what does it take? Here we have a known [deserter] Bowe Bergdahl, out getting picked up smoking marijuana, or at a house growing marijuana. According to Susan Rice, he served with honor and distinction. The real men of honor such as Army 1LT Clint Lorance, and now it seems Lt. Cmdr White, are forced into jail.

Ponder this, Obama will pardon drug dealers, but men who fight the enemy are imprisoned? Now, can someone, any one of you inane characterless liberal progressive trolls explain that to me?

Explain it to us that you would rather have had more Sailors and Marines die than for this Navy Commander to draw his personal weapon in defense of his command. That’s what the Naval Support Center was for Lt. Cmdr White — his responsibility to defend, protect.

Here we have a president and secretary of state sitting down with a sworn enemy in Iran who holds four Americans hostage, and we’re going to bring charges against an American Naval Commander who returned fire against the enemy.

This is indeed FUBAR!

Here’s what needs to happen. Flood the phone of SecNav Ray Mabus and SecDef Carter and ask them whose side they’re. Demand the charges being brought against Lt.Cmdr White be immediately dropped. If those charges are not dropped, I will personally lead the charge to have Carter and Mabus removed from their positions.

America, this cannot be tolerated and must not be allowed to stand. I guess the life of an African lion means more to these liberal progressives than one of our brave Sailors.

It is beyond belief that the Navy would embark upon this folly — they could simply issue a “local letter of reprimand” that would not enter into Lt. Cmdr White’s permanent personnel file — then immediately pin a medal upon his chest and fast track him for promotion to Commander.

White exemplifies the highest and finest of character and tradition of the US Navy. Those who would bring charges against him are indeed cowards and need be exposed.

Lieutenant Commander Timothy White, I await your call, and I will not rest until these charges against you have been dropped. You stay strong. You showed that you are Steadfast and Loyal. And we will not allow you to be abandoned to the perfumed princes of the Pentagon…and the White House. America shall rally to your cause!

This is just another in the long line of reasons why we must NEVER allow a progressive socialist to be commander-in-chief.

Progressive – the re-branding of Communism/Scocialism

Editor’s Note – Progressives – the re-branding of Communists. Plain and simple, and we all know it. Changing names is the tactic of those who wish to hide something. They want to hide it because it is that nefarious and they know it. At SUA, we like to remind people that when Lemmings jump off the cliff, they are progressing from one place to another – where are we progressing?

The “Progressive” brand — for what does it stand?

Posted by  at Legal Insurrection

Allen West appears with Soledad O'Brien on CNN

Yesterday we learned that Representative Allen West (R-FL) was disinvited from an NAACP fundraiser in his home state of Florida. Last week, West had commented that “I believe there’s about 78 to 81 members of the Democratic Party that are members of the Communist Party.”

West, who came under fire for his controversial comments, responded by penning a piece inThe Hill:

My colleagues in the Congressional Progressive Caucus have taken umbrage with my equation of their ideals with those of communists. Why? Why shouldn’t we have this discussion? What part of their agenda are they trying to hide?

We must be able to openly discuss how our fundamental freedoms are being slowly chipped away by an over-reaching nanny state that has bit by bit slipped its tentacles into every aspect of our lives, from the types of light bulbs we can use to the size of our toilet tanks.

In a follow-up interview with TheStreetTV, West commented that “…when you look at the history of the Communist Party, when it came to the United States of America, back at the turn of the century, they rebranded themselves and called themselves ‘Progressives’”:

Allen West Interview:

In response, elements of the Left from Rep. Barney Frank to Rolling Stone Magazine and the Progressive Caucus wrote off his comments as “McCarthyite” and worse than McCarthy.Soledad O’Brien–the CNN host who notably fumbled over the definition of Critical Race Theoryapplied her now-signature sarcastic style to her coverage.

Does West’s assertion that today’s Progressive brand is simply an evolution of yesterday’s Communist label hold up? It helps to take a look at the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

The Progressive Caucus includes Democratic party luminaries like Rep. Charlie Rangel, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Rep. Jared Polis, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., and Rep. Danny Davis. The Progressive Caucus also shares several board members in common with Progressive Democrats of America (PDAmerica), which has explicitly stated its support for Occupy Wall Street becoming a permanent encampment.

Progressive Caucus member Schakowsky, profiled in 2011 on Progressive.org, has repeatedly come under fire from her Jewish constituents for her connection with the Progressive Caucus and the Progressive Democrats of America, which supported the Hamas-led flotilla into Gaza. The Progressive brand supports this action against Israel, and for a member of the Caucus it is difficult to walk the line between defending Israel and being affiliated with Hamas’s flotilla.

Danny Davis, who sits on the House Homeland Security Committee, was recently exposed receiving a lifetime achievement award from the Communist Party USA headquarters in Chicago. This is the same congressman whom President Barack Obama had introduced by saying “he shares our values.”

While Allen West’s assertion may have been met with derision and some uneasiness on both the Left and the Right, his questions as to the origins of the Progressive brand and whether members of the Progressive Caucus share values with communism is worth exploring.

West writes:

When I was studying for my two master’s degrees in political science at Kansas State University and at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff Officer College, the very best professors were those who would begin each lecture with a challenging assertion. It engaged discussion and analysis, and was the best way to uncover the essence of the particular subject of the day.

Time for some due diligence.