JONATHAN TURLEY
BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
Professor Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. He has written over three dozen academic articles that have appeared in a variety of leading law journals at Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Northwestern, University of Chicago, and other schools.
After a stint at Tulane Law School, Professor Turley joined the George Washington faculty in 1990 and, in 1998, was given the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law, the youngest chaired professor in the school’s history. In addition to his extensive publications, Professor Turley has served as counsel in some of the most notable cases in the last two decades including the representation of whistleblowers, military personnel, judges, members of Congress, and a wide range of other clients. He is also one of the few attorneys to successfully challenge both a federal and a state law — leading to courts striking down the federal Elizabeth Morgan law as well as the state criminalization of cohabitation.
In 2010, Professor Turley represented Judge G. Thomas Porteous in his impeachment trial. After a trial before the Senate, Professor Turley (on December 7, 2010) argued both the motions and gave the final argument to all 100 U.S. Senators from the well of the Senate floor — only the 14th time in history of the country that such a trial of a judge has reached the Senate floor. Judge Porteous was convicted of four articles of impeachments, including the acceptance of $2000 from an attorney and using a false name on a bankruptcy filing.
In 2011, Professor Turley filed a challenge to the Libyan War on behalf of ten members of Congress, including Representatives Roscoe Bartlett (R., Md); Dan Burton (R., Ind.); Mike Capuano (D., Mass.); Howard Coble (R., N.C.); John Conyers (D., Mich.); John J. Duncan (R., Tenn.); Tim Johnson (R., Ill.); Walter Jones (R., N.C.); Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio); and Ron Paul (R., Tx). The lawsuit was before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
In November 2014, Turley agreed to serve as lead counsel to the United States House of Representatives in its constitutional challenge to changes ordered by President Obama to the Affordable Care Act. The litigation was approved by the House of Representatives to seek judicial review of the claims under the separation of powers. On May 12, 2016, the federal court handed down a historic victory for the House and ruled that the Obama Administration violated the separation of powers in ordering billions to be paid to insurance companies without an appropriation of Congress.
Other cases include his representation of the Area 51 workers at a secret air base in Nevada; the nuclear couriers at Oak Ridge, Tennessee; the Rocky Flats grand jury in Colorado; Dr. Eric Foretich, the husband in the famous Elizabeth Morgan custody controversy; and four former United States Attorneys General during the Clinton impeachment litigation. In the Foretich case, Turley succeeded recently in reversing a trial court and striking down a federal statute through a rare “bill of attainder” challenge. Professor Turley has also served as counsel in a variety of national security cases, including espionage cases like that of Jim Nicholson, the highest ranking CIA officer ever accused of espionage. Turley also served as lead defense counsel in the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia. Turley also served as defense counsel in the case of Dr. Tom Butler, who is faced criminal charges dealing with the importation and handling of thirty vials of plague in Texas. He also served as counsel to Larry Hanauer, the House Intelligence Committee staffer accused of leaking a classified Presidential National Intelligence Estimate to the New York Times. (Hanauer was cleared of all allegations).
Among his current cases, Professor Turley represents Dr. Ali Al-Timimi, who was convicted in Virginia in 2005 of violent speech against the United States. In 2020, the federal court found that there merit in the challenges raised by Professor Turley and his co-counsel Tom Huff. Accordingly, the judge ordered his release to protect him from Covit-19 while the Court prepared a decision on the challenges. Pursuant to a court order, Dr. Al-Timimi was released from the Supermax in Colorado and the two drove across the country so that he could be placed into home confinement. He also represented Dr. Sami Al-Arian, who was accused of being the American leader of a terrorist organization while he was a university professor in Florida. Turley represented Dr. Al-Arian for eight years, much of which was in a determined defense against an indictment for criminal contempt. The case centered on the alleged violation of a plea bargain by the Justice Department after Dr. Al-Arian was largely exonerated of terrorism charges in Tampa, Florida. On June 27, 2014, all charges were dropped against Dr. Al-Arian. He also represented pilots approaching or over the age of 60 in their challenge to the mandatory retirement age of the FAA. He also represented David Murphee Faulk, the whistleblower who disclosed abuses in the surveillance operations at NSA’s Fort Gordon facility in Georgia.
Professor Turley also agreed to serve as lead counsel representing the Brown family from the TLC “Sister Wives, a reality show on plural marriage or polygamy. On December 13, 2013, the federal court in Utah struck down the criminalization of polygamy — the first such decision in history — on free exercise and due process grounds. On September 26, 2014, the court also ruled in favor of the Browns under Section 1983 — giving them a clean sweep on all of the statutory and constitutional claims. In April 2015, a panel reversed the decision on standing grounds and that decision is now on appeal.
Professor Turley was also lead counsel in the World Bank protest case stemming from the mass arrest of people in 2002 by the federal and district governments during demonstrations of the IMF and World Bank. Turley and his co-lead counsel Dan Schwartz (and the law firm of Bryan Cave) were the first to file and represented student journalists arrested without probable cause. In April 2015, after 13 years of intense litigation, the case was settled for $2.8 million, including $115,000 for each arrestee — a record damage award in a case of this kind and over twice the amount of prior damages for individual protesters. The case also exposed government destruction and withholding of evidence as well as the admitted mass arrest of hundreds of people without probable cause.
Professor Turley also served as the legal expert in the review of polygamy laws in the British of Columbia (Canada) Supreme Court. In the latter case, he argued for the decriminalization of plural union and conjugal unions. In 2012, Turley also represented the makers of “Five Wives Vodka” (Ogden’s Own Distillery) in challenging an effective ban on the product in Idaho after officials declared the product to be offensive to Mormons. After opposing to the ban on free speech and other grounds, the state of Idaho issued a letter apologizing for public statements made by officials and lifting the ban on sale for “Five Wives Vodka.”
Turley has served as a consultant on homeland security and constitutional issues, including the Florida House of Representatives. He also served as the consultant to the Puerto Rico House of Representatives on the impeachment of Gov. Aníbal Acevedo Vilá.
Professor Turley is a frequent witness before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues as well as tort reform legislation. That testimony includes the confirmation hearings of Attorney General nominees Loretta Lynch and William Barr as well as Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch. Professor Turley is also a nationally recognized legal commentator. Professor Turley was ranked as 38th in the top 100 most cited “public intellectuals” in the recent study by Judge Richard Posner. Turley was also found to be the second most cited law professor in the country. He has been repeatedly ranked in the nation’s top 500 lawyers in annual surveys (including in the latest rankings by LawDragon) – one of only a handful of academics. In prior years, he was ranked as one of the nation’s top ten lawyers in military law cases as well as one of the top 40 lawyers under 40. He was also selected in the last five years as one of the 100 top Irish lawyers in the world. In 2016, he was ranked as one of the 100 most famous (past and present) law professors.
Professor Turley is one of only two academics to testify at both the Clinton and Trump impeachment hearings. In December 2019, Professor Turley was called as the one Republican witness in the House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearings. He appeared with three Democratic witnesses. Professor Turley disagreed with this fellow witnesses in opposing the proposed articles of impeachments on bribery, extortion, campaign finance violations or obstruction of justice. He argued that these alleged impeachable acts were at odds with controlling definitions of those crimes and that Congress has historically looked to the criminal code and cases for guidance on such allegations. The committee ultimately rejected those articles and adopted the only two articles that Professor Turley said could be legitimately advanced: abuse of power, obstruction of Congress. Chairman Jerrold Nadler even ended the hearing by quoting his position on abuse of power. However, Turley opposed impeachment on this record as incomplete and insufficient for submission to the Senate. He argued for the House to wait and complete the record by seeking to compel key witnesses like former National Security Adviser John Bolton. His testimony was later relied upon in the impeachment floor debate by various House members and he was cited by both the White House and House managers in their arguments before the United States Senate in the Trump impeachment trial, including videotaped remarks played at the trial.
Professor Turley’s articles on legal and policy issues appear regularly in national publications with hundreds of articles in such newspapers as the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal. He is a columnist for USA Today and writes regularly for the Washington Post. In 2005, Turley was given the Columnist of the Year award for Single-Issue Advocacy for his columns on civil liberties by the Aspen Institute and the Week Magazine. Professor Turley also appears regularly as a legal expert on all of the major television networks. Since the 1990s, he has worked under contract as the on-air Legal Analyst for NBC News, CBS News, BBC and Fox News. Professor Turley has been a repeated guest on Sunday talk shows with over two-dozen appearances on Meet the Press, ABC This Week, Face the Nation, and Fox Sunday. Professor Turley has taught courses on constitutional law, constitutional criminal law, environmental law, litigation, and torts. He is the founder and executive director of the Project for Older Prisoners (POPS). His work with older prisoners has been honored in various states, including his selection as the 2011 recipient of the Dr. Mary Ann Quaranta Elder Justice Award at Fordham University.
His award-winning blog is routinely ranked as one of the most popular legal blogs by AVVO. His blog was selected as the top News/Analysis site in 2013, the top Legal Opinion Blog in 2011 as well as prior selections as the top Law Professor Blog and Legal Theory Blog. It was also ranked in the top 20 constitutional law blog in 2018. It has been regularly ranked by the ABA Journal in the top 100 blogs in the world. In 2012, Turley has selected as one of the top 20 legal experts on Twitter by Business Insider. In 2013, the ABA Journal inducted the Turley Blog into its Hall of Fame.
Professor Turley received his B.A. at the University of Chicago and his J.D. at Northwestern. In 2008, he was given an honorary Doctorate of Law from John Marshall Law School for his contributions to civil liberties and the public interest.
For further information: Mr. Seth Tate – 202-994-0537
Icon made by DinosoftLabs from Flaticon
Did the same person that told you that Islam had a Prophet in 1300 AD tell you about the story above, and was Santa Claus driving the bulldozer?
July 27, 2008
Another day in Arafatistan
An Israeli operation in Hebron has resulted in the death of the terrorist mastermind of the suicide attack on Dimona earlier this year. Carl in Israel has posted a good round-up. The Jerusalem Post reports:
The IDF said that in a joint Border Police and Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) operation the forces surrounded a house where 25-year-old Shihab Na’atsha, a Hamas explosives engineer, was hiding. The IDF said Na’atsha had assembled the bomb belt used in the Dimona attack on February 4 that killed 73-year-old Lubov Razdolskaya and wounded 40 other people….
Troops surrounded the house in Hebron early Sunday morning and exchanged fire with Na’atsha, calling on him to exit the building. Once he refused to surrender and after hours of gunfire, the IDF bulldozed the house. His body was later removed from the rubble.
The IDF added that during the heavy exchanges of fire, troops heard explosions from inside the house, presumably from bombs stored inside. Two additional terror suspects were apprehended during the operation.
Na’atsha and his ammo dump somehow went undetected by the “security forces” of the Palestinian Authority, only to be discovered by Israelis in an operation of the kind that Secretary Rice finds to visit indignity on Palestinian Arabs.
GO ISRAEL! GOD IS WITH YOU & AMERICA!
For anybody wanting to know what an insane asylum looks like, I invite them to the JT blog site. There are now 5 rock solid left wing lunatics posting here and one that seems to have lost his way.
zakimer: you do realize you are posting back and forth with a couple of people on medication don’t you? mary leon & mespo come here to post when they have gone two days without their medications.
The problem with Obama winning is that he may actually turn the US economy around and get the troops out of the Middle East just as Clinton did after Reagan’s senile spending spree almost bankrupted America. If not for Clinton, Bush Jr. wouldn’t have had the funds for this fiasco.
So unless Obama is followed by the likes of Edwards, Webb indefinitely, sooner or later another Bush or McCain will come around and threaten the world all over again. It is better to eliminate the threat permanently. The US will still be around, like Russia or Britain, but not able to set up puppet-dictator regimes/satellites/colonies respectively all over the world.
zakimar:
It may be true that McCain will keep this “Project for the New American Century” going for a few more years, but he cannot succeed either.
Unfortunately, the first thing McCain will do if he is elected president is invade Iran. Iran is at least 3 times larger than Iraq and has at least 3 times more people than Iraq.
How are we ever going to get the money to fight wars in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan? Only Great Britain and a few other countries will even help us with the “war on terror” and if we elect McCain I know that we will lose more and more allies that would help us if we ever came under attack again. McCain = 4 more years of Bush!
How many more Thousands of people will have to die for a “Project”?
No, zakimar, I don’t believe you want to see this occur. If it does, then the United States of America will cease to be a country with a Constitution and balance of powers and will become a country of the small minority of the rich and super rich and the rest of us their low paid slaves. I pray to God we NEVER see that happen here in the United States of America!
I know about a guy who wanted to start a Project that would last one thousand years too, but his Reich only lasted 12 years (1933 to 1945). If McCain wins, I think the New American Century will last 12 years as well – 2001 to 2013, RIP.
zakimar:
Well, it is your decision to vote for whoever you want, but I know that there will be NO way I would ever vote for John McCain.
Have you ever heard of the “Project for the New American Century”? It is a Neo-Con agenda dedicated to the idea that the United States is the last ’empire’ on earth and therefore the rest of the world must follow the US ideas; whether it be military or spiritual. The main author of this agenda is William Kristol. Unfortunately his official website is closed–and there is a message to contact the Accounts office (he’s a millionaire but he can’t pay the bill for this website?)–but you can find the archives if you ‘google’ or ‘yahoo’ it.
This “Project” is nothing more than the US taking over all the world by way of military force. It was approved by (amongst other signers) Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Jeb Bush (W’s brother). I’m sure that McCain is a card carrying member of this “Project” and will follow its agenda until he either bankrupts the US or he invades Iran and so many of our US soldiers are killed that we Demand he bring them back home.
It will be a ‘lose-lose’ situation if McCain gets elected.
If Obama gets elected we will have the chance to get out of Iraq and to go after the al-Quaida that are in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This will be a major undertaking, but THIS is where the killers of September 11th are based, they are NOT based in Iraq; but their members in Iraq sure have recruited enough people to follow their ways and kill our soldiers. The “surge” is a failure, too, because there is no way the US can stay in Iraq and force democracy on Iraq. We have to let Iraq decide what they want to do with their own country’s future; whether it is Democracy or tribal leadership. The reports that come out every six months from the generals on the ground are always going to say that Iraq is ‘improving’ but it will NEVER say that Iraq has successfully become a democracy, or that the US can ‘finally’ leave Iraq. This was W’s goal–stay in Iraq, get their oil, then invade Iran for their oil–no matter how many people have to die. His “Project” was to start the global domination by the US in the Middle East, but he has lost. He is so stubborn he will Never admit to this defeat, and he will never care about the US soldiers who have died for his “Project”, but he has others who are willing to keep his “Project” going–namely McCain.
If McCain was the only candidate, I would sit home and not vote on Election Day. But he’s not the only candidate, and I would rather vote for Obama any day of the week, than to vote for another 4 years of ‘Bush’ and his “Project for the New American Century”.
martha h:
You must be very special indeed to speak for– and presumptively with –your god. Tell me who’ll win the World Series this year?
zakimer: just in case you don’t get my post:
Eventually, GOD will forgive those that have attacked the United States of America which is his gift to the world of freedom and hope.
Personally I hope God is very slow to forgive those that have been trying to destroy it, but the God of Abraham is a forgiving GOD.
zakimer: God Forgives; America remembers……………..
From a previous posting of mine.
I’m really torn about whether to hate or love Bush Jr. On the one hand, he is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Iraqis but on the other hand he has done more to end the reign of the American Empire than anybody including Reagan.
I’m also torn on Obama vs. McCain for the same reason as above. On the one hand, Obama like Clinton could turn the Republican deficit into a surplus and perhaps get a settlement for Palestine and Israel. On the other hand eight more years of Bush – I mean McCain and a war with Iran which is four times larger and has more than double the population of Iraq and has many more sophisticated weapons could very well be what bankrupts the US, demoralizes what is left of the armed forces and leaves them unable to dominate the world.
Unfortunately, I’m going to have to go with McCain because more Iraqis died under Clinton than under Bush. Clinton deprived Iraq of food and medicine with his sanctions and over 500 000 children died (see WHO, IRC) and when Albright was asked if the USA was justified in killing half a million children, she said “yes”.
For all of us non-American citizens, go to McCain’s website and donate money. When asked for a Zip Code, just pick almost any random five digit number – I went with 85050 (Phoenix, Arizona) but I’m sure 90210 would work just as well.
I feel sorry for all the Iranians and US soldiers who will die under McCain and I pray that God will take my explanation on Judgment Day, that I was doing it for the good of the world in the long term and I would encourage all those that donate to also donate to the International Red Crescent/Red Cross after the war to help the orphaned children and maybe some money for all the disabled soldiers that make it back alive. God Bless and please forgive me.
Thanks Mary Leon for your insight, but I’m afraid I have to agree with both you and the whackjob whose name I can’t speak. I am truly sorry for the reprehensible thing that I have done, but read my following message and I hope everyone will understand – and forgive me.
zakimer:
Yep, martha is our resident kook.
She cuts and pastes her neo-con crap here and I cut and paste it and send it to a few liberals friends, who read what the right-wing is up to. She must be paid by the RNC or some group to troll here; but she is the one that is going to pay for her loyalty to the resident traitor in the White House by being guilty of supporting Bush’s illegal invasion of Iraq and the deaths of thousands of our soldiers and Iraqi citizens. She and her kind will have to answer to God why they supported deliberate MURDER.
She wants God to bless Bush; but God is NOT going to bless Bush–rather God is going to allow Bush to use his free will until Everyone, even martha realizes that these past 7+ years Bush’s main goal was to turn our country into the country of “have and have mores” and the rest of us into their slaves. Bush HATES the US Constitution and the Balance of Powers and he’s done all he can (with the traitorous help of 99.9% of Republicans and a few chicken Democrats) to destroy our way of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Bush thinks he’s won the Project for the New American Century Neo-Con agenda; but he has LOST the respect of most of the people in the US and the world. Does anyone think that McCain would not do the same stuff for the next 4 years? He’s just another “Bush” in disguise.
Thanks be to Keith Olbermann’s show and Mr. Turley’s appearances on it–giving us the FACTS about the US Constitution and the FACTS that Bush is committing crimes against us and against the people of Iraq…
GOD BLESS GW BUSH.
Bushs is showing those that would kill us we won’t stand and wait for them. We will TAKE THE WAR TO THEM!
GOD BLESS GW BUSH!
right zaky old buddy bud budy????>>>>>>>>
zakimer:
God Bless GW Bush and all he is doing…………
There is one obvious neo-con, zionist, republican wackjob that feels she has to post on this blog and I have to waste time scrolling past her propaganda to read the views of intelligent people, but unfortunately that’s her right. But what does half of her nonsense have to do in this “Bio” section?
Any guesses as to whom I’m referring?
Dr. Turley, keep up the good work and I’m glad to see that you don’t ban people of her ilk like Fox bans intelligent people.
July 25, 2008
McCain Hits Hard
Before a military audience in Denver today, John McCain launched his strongest attack yet against Barack Obama. The attack was devastating because it is true. Here are some excerpts; McCain began by recalling the beginning of the surge:
Senator Obama and I also faced a decision, which amounted to a real-time test for a future commander-in-chief. America passed that test. I believe my judgment passed that test. And I believe Senator Obama’s failed.
We both knew the politically safe choice was to support some form of retreat. All the polls said the “surge” was unpopular. Many pundits, experts and policymakers opposed it and advocated withdrawing our troops and accepting the consequences. I chose to support the new counterinsurgency strategy backed by additional troops — which I had advocated since 2003, after my first trip to Iraq. Many observers said my position would end my hopes of becoming president. I said I would rather lose a campaign than see America lose a war. My choice was not smart politics. It didn’t test well in focus groups. It ignored all the polls. It also didn’t matter. The country I love had one final chance to succeed in Iraq. The new strategy was it. So I supported it. Today, the effects of the new strategy are obvious. The surge has succeeded, and we are, at long last, finally winning this war.
Senator Obama made a different choice. He not only opposed the new strategy, but actually tried to prevent us from implementing it. He didn’t just advocate defeat, he tried to legislate it. When his efforts failed, he continued to predict the failure of our troops. As our soldiers and Marines prepared to move into Baghdad neighborhoods and Anbari villages, Senator Obama predicted that their efforts would make the sectarian violence in Iraq worse, not better.
And as our troops took the fight to the enemy, Senator Obama tried to cut off funding for them. He was one of only 14 senators to vote against the emergency funding in May 2007 that supported our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. …
Three weeks after Senator Obama voted to deny funding for our troops in the field, General Ray Odierno launched the first major combat operations of the surge. Senator Obama declared defeat one month later: “My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now.” His assessment was popular at the time. But it couldn’t have been more wrong.
By November 2007, the success of the surge was becoming apparent. Attacks on Coalition forces had dropped almost 60 percent from pre-surge levels. American casualties had fallen by more than half. Iraqi civilian deaths had fallen by more than two-thirds. But Senator Obama ignored the new and encouraging reality. “Not only have we not seen improvements,” he said, “but we’re actually worsening, potentially, a situation there.”
If Senator Obama had prevailed, American forces would have had to retreat under fire. The Iraqi Army would have collapsed. Civilian casualties would have increased dramatically. Al Qaeda would have killed the Sunni sheikhs who had begun to cooperate with us, and the “Sunni Awakening” would have been strangled at birth. Al Qaeda fighters would have safe havens, from where they could train Iraqis and foreigners, and turn Iraq into a base for launching attacks on Americans elsewhere. Civil war, genocide and wider conflict would have been likely.
Above all, America would have been humiliated and weakened. Our military, strained by years of sacrifice, would have suffered a demoralizing defeat. Our enemies around the globe would have been emboldened. …
Senator Obama told the American people what he thought you wanted to hear. I told you the truth.
Fortunately, Senator Obama failed, not our military. We rejected the audacity of hopelessness, and we were right. Violence in Iraq fell to such low levels for such a long time that Senator Obama, detecting the success he never believed possible, falsely claimed that he had always predicted it. … In Iraq, we are no longer on the doorstep of defeat, but on the road to victory.
Senator Obama said this week that even knowing what he knows today that he still would have opposed the surge. In retrospect, given the opportunity to choose between failure and success, he chooses failure. I cannot conceive of a Commander in Chief making that choice.
That recitation of Obama’s conduct is entirely factual. In this case, the facts are nuclear.
Why Obama snubbed the troops: no photo op allowed
posted at 7:21 am on July 25, 2008
The skinny on the abrupt cancellation of Barack Obama’s visit to Landstuhl and Ramstein yesterday. The campaign tried to excuse it by claiming that it wouldn’t be appropriate to visit while on a campaign-funded portion of his trip, but that wasn’t the real problem. When Obama found out he couldn’t use the visit as a photo op, he canceled:
One military official who was working on the Obama visit said because political candidates are prohibited from using military installations as campaign backdrops, Obama’s representatives were told, “he could only bring two or three of his Senate staff member, no campaign officials or workers.” In addition, “Obama could not bring any media. Only military photographers would be permitted to record Obama’s visit.”
The official said “We didn’t know why” the request to visit the wounded troops was withdrawn. “He (Obama) was more than welcome. We were all ready for him.”
In fact, those same rules applied for the CODEL trip to Iraq and Afghanistan. They serve to keep politicians from exploiting military facilities for political reasons, and to ensure that all visitors get treated fairly. Andrea Mitchell, also of NBC, complained of this very issue during the earlier visits with the troops when she told Chris Matthews that the media couldn’t get access to Obama when visiting troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This makes the decision track very clear. Obama and his team set up the visits to military installations before going overseas. After seeing how the media got excluded in Iraq and Afghanistan, they decided it wasn’t worth traveling to Ramstein and Landstuhl to visit the severely wounded troops because they couldn’t bring the campaign and get the photo ops they wanted. Instead, Obama went shopping in Berlin.
That’s certainly a revealing set of priorities for a man who wants to lead these troops as Commander in Chief.
EMAILS FROM AFGANISTAN:
I had a first hand view of Barrack Obama’s “fact finding” mission, when he passed through this base.
While I can’t name it, it’s one of the largest air bases in the region, with up to 8000 troops (depending on influxes and transients in mobilization/demobilization status), mostly Airmen and Soldiers, but some Marines, Sailors, Koreans, Japanese, Aussies, Brits, US Civil Service, contractors including KBR, Blackwater and Halliburton, among others in the news. The overwhelming majority of all of these are professional, courteous and disciplined.
Problems are rare. Casualties are also rare. This base has a large hospital for evacuation—twenty plus beds. I have yet to see a casualty in one, though I am told there are about three evacuations a week through this region, of which two on average are things like sports injuries, vehicle accidents or duty related falls and such. You can tell from the news that the war is going well. The ghouls are now focusing on Afghanistan, since there is no blood to type with here.
When his plane arrived (also containing Senators Reed and Hagel, but the news has hardly mentioned them), there was a “ramp freeze.” This means if you are on the flight line, and not directly involved with the event in question, you stay where you are and don’t move. For a combat flight arriving or departing, this takes about ten minutes, and involves the active runway and crossing taxiways only. For Obama’s flight, this took 90 minutes, during which time a variety of military missions came grinding to a halt. Obviously, this visit was important, right?
95% of base wanted nothing to do with him. I have met three troops who support him, and literally hundreds who regard him as a buffoon, a charlatan, a hindrance to their mission or a flat out enemy of progress. Even when the rumors were publicly admitted, almost no one left their duty sections to try to see him, unless they were officers whose presence was officially required.
Mister Obama’s motorcade drove up from the flight line and entered the dining hall toward the end of lunch time. Diners were chased out and told to make other arrangements for food, in the middle of the duty day.
Now, there are close to 8000 troops on the base and its nearby satellites. No one came up from the Army side (except perhaps a few ranking officers). The airbase resumed operation, once he cleared the flightline, as if nothing had happened. The dining hall holds about 300 people and was not full. The troops did not want to meet him and the feeling was apparently mutual. In attendance, besides the Official Entourage, were the base’s senior officers, some support personnel, and a very few carefully vetted supporters who’d made special arrangements. No photos were allowed. No question and answer with the troops. No real acknowledgment that the troops existed.
Obama left around 1530, during the Muslim Call to Prayer. Within 48 hours he was in Afghanistan. It takes most troops longer than that to in-process and get cleared on safety, threats, policies and such. Yet he somehow made a strategic summary by not talking to anyone and not seeing anything.
Twenty-four hours after that, he was in Kuwait, back here, and then home, so fast we didn’t even know he arrived the second time at this base.
I can’t imagine any officer of the few he met told him anything other than what they tell the troops, and what their own leadership at the Pentagon tell them—we’re winning. Our troops are stomping the guts out of the insurgency. The surge worked and is working. If the insurgents have to divert to Afghanistan, it means they can’t fight in Iraq anymore. We should not change the rules and retreat with the enemy on the ropes as we did in Vietnam. We should finish kicking their teeth in. The Iraqi government now controls 10 of 18 provinces, with US assistance in the rest. Let us win the war. 90% of the troops I know, even those opposed to the war, say that is the way to win. Victory comes from winning, not from “change.” In fact, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is on record as opposing Obama’s strategic theory.
Since he obviously knew in advance that’s what they’d tell him, and since he didn’t care to talk to the troops (we’re told by the Left that the troops are horrified, shocked, forced to commit atrocities with tears in their eyes, distraught, burned out, fed up with losing, etc) and find out how they feel, and was barely in country long enough to need a shower and a change of clothes, we can only call this for what it is.
In comparison, I’ve seen four star generals and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on this base. They each held an all ranks call, met with and briefed the personnel, and took questions on every subject from tour length to uniform design to rules of engagement to weapon choice to long term policy, from the newest airmen to the senior NCO with TEN 120-180 day tours since Sep 11. It’s very clear they want to know what the troops think, and to keep them informed of events. It’s equally clear mister Obama does not.
Obama clearly doesn’t care about the troops, doesn’t care about America, doesn’t care about anything except hearing his own voice and the chance to sit at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue…From where he’ll bring us the proven Democratic wartime leadership of Bosnia and the Balkans (US forces still there), Somalia (US forces prevailed despite being ill equipped by executive order, and taking heavy casualties), Haiti (what were we doing there again?), Desert One (oops?), Vietnam (where we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory), Korea (still there), WWI, and the fluke success of WWII won by such wonderful liberal notions as concentration camps for Japanese Americans, nukes, FBI investigations of waitresses who dated soldiers in case they were “morally corrupt” and the (valid) occupation of and continued presence in Italy, Japan and Germany for 60 years, which they are conveniently pretending won’t happen with Iraq.
That’s not “change.” That’s “failure we can do without.”
Hello everyone,
As you know I am not a very political person. I just wanted to pass along that Senator Obama came to Bagram Afghanistan for about an hour on his visit to “The War Zone”. I wanted to share with you what happened. He got off the plan[sic] and got into a bullet proof vehicle, got to the area to meet with the Major General (2 Star) who is the commander here at Bagram. As the Soldiers where lined up to shake his hand he blew them off and didn’t say a word as he went into the conference room to meet the General. As he finished, the vehicles took him to the ClamShell (pretty much a big top tent that military personnel can play basketball or work out in with weights) so he could take his publicity pictures playing basketball. He again shunned the opportunity to talk to Soldiers to thank them for their service. So really he was just here to make a showing for the American’s back home that he is their candidate for President. I think that if you are going to make an effort to come all the way over here you would thank those that are providing the freedom that they are providing for you. I swear we got more thanks from the NBA Basketball Players or the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders than from one of the Senators, who wants to be the President of the United States. I just don’t understand how anyone would want him to be our Commander-and-Chief. It was almost that he was scared to be around those that provide the freedom for him and our great country.
If this is blunt and to the point I am sorry but I wanted you all to know what kind of caliber of person he really is. What you see in the news is all fake.