Veterans group to Obama: ‘Heroes Don’t Spike the Football’ [VIDEO]

Politicians of both parties "spike the ball". It's what they do. I don't like it. I think it's tasteless and crude. But calling Obama out for it is nothing more than partisan grandstanding.

It's the SEALS, Members of the DOD, Veterans and even Arianna Huffigton herself that's calling him out. Nothing partisan about it at all. He made the choice to go in front of the cameras and toot his own horn without giving any due credit until the backlash began.

He managed to piss off everyone except for his leg-humping, rim-jobbing 18$ of rabid followers.

The statement made by the Veteran's group mentioned in this poll IS partisan. That's all I was talking about.

As you mentioned, he's getting a lot of flak for his ad. I have said before and I will say again, I think it was tasteless and poorly conceived.

"He made the choice to go in front of the cameras and toot his own horn without giving any due credit until the backlash began."

That's BS. He gave credit to others no less than five times in his original speech. He's never once said he was responsible for the success of the mission, only that he's the one that pulled the trigger on ordering it, which is true.

Listen to how many times he says "I". Read my response to 'proud progressive' below to see how NON partisan the feelings have been.

It's always about him, always has been and always will be until we rid ourselves of this abject failure. The dumbass knew about the compound in Oct. of 2010 and waited to move on it.
He even dithered and dicked around for 16 hours after everyone had told him everything was in place and wanted to go in.
By the time he got done 'sleeping on it' the weather had turned for the worse and they had to wait an additional day, further compromising the success of the mission.
That is something that is well documented and will be part of his legacy of ruin.

If it's well documented, kindly supply a link for it. I'd love to read about it.

"Listen to how many times he says "I"."

I'm more interested in how many times he says "I did it all" or "I'm the one who raided the compound" or "I found Bin Laden." All of those things would be false. He expressly said that the credit for the raid should go to the SEALs and the intelligence community. All he's said about himself is that he made the final call to send them in. Which he did.

You have to go outside the mainstream U.S. media and search.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne...

You do realize that the Daily Mail is a tabloid, right? And a right-leaning one at that.

I read the stories anyway. You're making accusations based on a single unnamed "insider". That's not enough.

Let me be clear... as time passes and more information comes out you MAY be proven right. It's possible. But as of now your argument is not convincing and certainly doesn't constitute "fact".

The only people who are allowed to go on record are Vets, not those currently affiliated with DOD. Look what happened to the Marine who opened a fb page to vent frustration on his own time.

Mark my words, once that crack in the facade appears, it wont take long for his entire world to come crumbling down and people will be lining up and signing like canaries to broker immunity and avoid prosecution themselves.

The 0bozo admin. will make Watergate seem like a $25 parking ticket.

"The only people who are allowed to go on record are Vets, not those currently affiliated with DOD."

Yeah, I understand that. But the unnamed source was supposedly a White House "insider". That doesn't necessarily imply a DoD employee.

"Look what happened to the Marine who opened a fb page to vent frustration on his own time."

Well, that's what happens when you slam your CiC while on active duty. I hated Clinton, but I never would've said anything publicly against him while I was in the Corps.

"Mark my words, once that crack in the facade appears, it wont take long for his entire world to come crumbling down and people will be lining up and signing like canaries to broker immunity and avoid prosecution themselves."

IF you're right, then maybe that will happen. You haven't convinced me (nor would you have convinced any rational human being) that you're right yet.

Those articles said senior military figures and intelligence officials, not WH insiders.
Regardless, they can't say a word on the record.

Being a former jar-head and someone who still works with many branches of the military, I fully understand the rules under UCMJ and making derogatory remarks about the CIC.
Fact is, this guy was NOT in public, not displaying any uniform in pictures etc. and the ONLY reason they went after him was pure politics.
I've heard people talking all kinds of smack out in public, out of uniform while not on duty and have never heard of one being discharged over it.
What kind of force would we have had in Vietnam if that were the case? People would have been getting bounced right & left on purpose.
As I said, purely political.

I'm not here to 'convince' anyone, merely to pass on some of the things that don't get touched on in the lame stream media and people are welcome to check into it themselves..... or, keep swallowing what they hear and refuse to do any research.

"Fact is, this guy was NOT in public"

Facebook is as public as it gets, Devil Dog.

"I've heard people talking all kinds of smack out in public, out of uniform while not on duty and have never heard of one being discharged over it."

Have you ever heard those Marines talking about refusing to obey orders? That's why Stein was discharged.

[The Marine Corps has said that it decided to take administrative action after Stein declared on Facebook that he would not follow unlawful orders from Obama.

California federal Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Alpine, a former Marine, wrote a letter to Stein's commanding officer stating the sergeant should not face dismissal for an opinion shared by "a majority of Marines." Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Vista, also has expressed support for Stein.

Stein said his statement about Obama was part of an online debate about NATO allowing U.S. troops to be tried for the Quran burnings in Afghanistan. In that context, he said, he was stating that he would not follow orders from the president if those orders included detaining U.S. citizens, disarming them or doing anything else that he believes would violate their constitutional rights.]

Show me where he committed any violation what =soever, especially the fact that he was talking about a hypothetical scenario that hadn't even occurred?

And I noticed you didn't address the example of Vietnam.
How many enlistees have you heard of being discharged for speaking out against Johnson and Nixon before he ended the draft, and stating that they refused to go overseas or follow an unlawful order?
How many of them were discharged vs being tossed in the brig and stand trial for desertion?

The Marine Corps gave him a chance to change. They warned him. He refused.

He got what he deserved. I don't know why the unit you served with was so different than mine, but his discharge is something entirely consistent with what I would have expected to get had I done the same thing when I was in.

How can someone be charged with disobeying a hypothetical order that didn't exist? Did you miss the context is which the statements were made?

Obviously, the Judge/Magistrate wanted it to go away as quickly as possible because he denied the defense request for time to properly prepare their case.

I worked with CID & NIS (now called NCIS)

"How can someone be charged with disobeying a hypothetical order that didn't exist?"

You can't say that you won't follow orders. You know that, Marine.

It's a legal issue, not a moral one.
In this case, the 'law' was on his side, the politics weren't .
He got railroaded.
They used the catch-all article 134 (the "general article") of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). This section states that "all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces" shall be tried by court martial and punished at the discretion of that court. The general article also covers offences which bring discredit upon the armed forces and "crimes and offenses not capital".

It was a discretionary call, considering he had not violated the letter of "military personnel in uniform cannot sponsor a political club; participate in any TV or radio program or group discussion that advocates for or against a political party, candidate or cause; or speak at any event promoting a political movement. Commissioned officers also may not use contemptuous words against senior officials, including the defense secretary or the president."

An appeal in Federal court has already been filed to 'stay' the decision and it will go all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. This is far from over, although I doubt it will be headline news until 2013 and beyond.

We'll see.

Arianna Huffington is a turncoat

Because she calls out BS when she smells it?

No because she was a Republican conservative, then a liberal Democrat and then an Independent. Whatever suits her at the time, she can't be counted upon.

Ever heard of a conservative Democrat? (Blue dog) They're out there and that's where she was in the 90's.
Sure, you can find articles calling her a Republican because people toss around labels.

Careful. Aren't you doing now what you accuse right wingers of doing? Namely accusing someone of lack of patriotism for disagreeing with you?

You're better than that, Kuda. We can disagree with someone without labeling them traitors, can't we?

My point is Huffington was a Republican, then an Independent, then...you get my meaning? I didn't mean traitor in the patriotic sense.

She was never a Republican. She cut her teeth at FOX as a contributing commentator for the left-leaning viewpoint back in the 90s'.

Huffington was a conservative Reagan Republican.

Then I misunderstood your post.

Even so, since when are people not allowed to change their minds in life? I imagine Ms. Huffington is still a Liberal, but she disagrees with how President Obama is portraying the Bin Laden raid and/or categorizing Romney. I do too, for that matter.

When you see the error of your ways, you can change your mind. That's allowed.

I'd argue that she did just that. When she came to America she was pretty much a died in the wool Republican. As time has gone on, she's drifted leftward.

You RWNJ's forgot who 'spiked the ball'? If it was OK for dubya, spiking the ball with an outright lie "Mission Accomplished", why can't Obama spike the ball with a truth? What a bunch of hypocritical lemmings.

Since you mentioned "TRUTH"...... the banner was placed on the U.S.S. Lincoln by the crew of the ship because they were done with their assignment, their mission had been completed and they were returning to port.

Bush landed on the carrier and never once said those words in the address he later gave to those present. He stated that major combat operations in Iraq were over, which they were after the fall of Baghdad and we were no longer flying sorties, bombing raids and full deployment of heavy artillery battalions on the ground.

The Iraqi Army and Republican Guard had fled the area and the battle with non-uniformed insurgents began.

Jeez, talk about spin! Major operations in Iraq were over? Tell that to all the troops and innocent civilians who were slaughtered.


And Rumsfeld stated that statement 'mission accomplished' was in the original speech but Rumsfeld cut it out. The White House later conceded that they actually hung the banner. And what was with the jet thing? Pure dramatics!

Fact is, Bush never made the statement nor was he aware of any banner that was going to be there when he arrived. That was solely on the part of communications between the WH press team and those on the carrier.
Bush had nothing to do with it and didn't stand before the world repeating " I - I - I - I "

And yes, you OBVIOUSLY have no idea of what major combat operations are compared to fighting guerrilla type urban warfare.

Fact is, the banner was ordered by the White House. And who was in charge of the WH? Care to take a guess?

Oh GAWD, you are a stump.
By all means, keep leg-humpin' the myth and try to compare the two instances.
Historians will put both in their rightfully earned spot which is not going to be favorable to 0bozo, along with all the pending scandals and corruption that has already been uncovered.

What more can I say? The two sides are as comparable as good vs evil and evil is Bush Cheney. You refuse to believe the truth. Pitiful.

How many attacks were even attempted on U.S. soil or any of our embassies after Clinton and before 0bozo? ..... One
There was a barrage during Clinton and 0bozo is damn lucky his record isn't worse than it is.
Sad thing is, it all could have been avoided. A good read that not even Clinton himself can dispute. I'm surprised he can even show his face on the commercial. What a blatant hypocrite.

That "one" was pretty horrific and here was his reaction:

Obviously, you need to read that book and understand WHY, that "one" even happened in the first place. Clinton gave up numerous opportunities to have OBL handed to him on a silver platter or take him out before he fled into the FATA. He should have been dead or incarcerated in 1996... 1998, take your pick.

What exactly did you expect Bush to do? That was after he was told a second plane had flown into the towers. Up until that point there was no indication that it was anything more than an accident. And even then, who knew both towers would collapse?

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, especially when poeple are politicizing ex-post facto.

He knew he was on a live feed and people would have freaked had he jumped up and ran out of the room.
He kept his bearing, knowing he was 2,000 miles away, the aides did their job to prepare for him to exit and get to safety. He wanted to fly back to DC, the SS said "no dice".

I'm curious as to what you peeps think would have been the 'perfect' reaction? Firefighters and police on the scene were dumbfounded for quite a while. I imagine there was a freight train running though his head at the moment, scouring 100 different scenarios at once.

All comes down that Right Wing groups and the TP'rs just can't stand this President being successful at anything. I remember the tragic and fatal attempt to rescue the hostages held in Iran and it was ALL President Carter's fault for that outcome. In fact that helped seal the deal for Reagan's election, but let there be a success on another democrat president's watch and the pettiness and nit picking begin. Go figure.

Sir dick-cheese stepped in his own pile (once again) and will be paying for this for a very long tome.
People are just a bit disgusted with the " I - I - I - I " and his taking credit for others accomplishments...... albeit he has none of his own to crow about.