The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008


National Security

Obama to Visit Pentagon on Wednesday

By Michael A. Fletcher
President Obama is scheduled to visit the Pentagon tomorrow afternoon, where he is to meet with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other military leaders about his plans to withdraw combat troops from Iraq while beefing up the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan.

Obama has called for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months, a mission he conveyed to military leaders during a White House meeting last Wednesday, one day after taking office. Meanwhile, U.S. military commanders in Afghanistan have called for 30,000 more U.S. troops to be sent there to help stabilize a situation that Obama has described as "perilous."

The visit to the Pentagon will be Obama's first since taking office. The president made the State Department his first Cabinet department stop last Thursday, underscoring his administration's stated intention of emphasizing diplomacy in foreign relations.

"That process that started at the beginning of this administration continues tomorrow at the Pentagon," said White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. "I think they'll talk about a number of issues. Obviously, one of them will be Iraq and Afghanistan."

Posted at 5:37 PM ET on Jan 27, 2009  | Category:  National Security
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in | Digg This
Previous: Jill Biden Returns to the Classroom | Next: Biden to Attend Munich Security Conference

Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Please email us to report offensive comments.

It would be great if Mr. Obama would ask Mr. Gates to submit an FY10 budget for DOD in the $400 to $450 Billion dollar range. The savings could be used to pay down the national debt or finance other important domestic or international priorities.

Posted by: pest07 | January 28, 2009 7:29 PM

How odd, that of all the posts so far, the one from "thatsnuts" is the only one from someone who isn't actually nuts.

Posted by: WaitingForGodot | January 28, 2009 12:41 PM

LOL!!! I don't have legal standing. Don't worry, though, because those with proper standing will get to the Supreme Court.

Posted by: JakeD | January 28, 2009 10:39 AM

"Seriously, you Obamaniacs think me asking a reasonable, Constitutionally-relevant question is worse than scrivener's "radiation weapon" posts?

Posted by: JakeD"

No Jake, Scrivner is definitely worse. I just wish you would just take all this to the Supreme Court and see if they agree. Otherwise your beginning to resemble a quote from MacBeth.

Posted by: Thatsnuts | January 28, 2009 7:58 AM

Seriously, you Obamaniacs think me asking a reasonable, Constitutionally-relevant question is worse than scrivener's "radiation weapon" posts?

Posted by: JakeD | January 28, 2009 5:42 AM

President Obama:


The controversy over former Raytheon executive William Lynn's nomination as deputy defense secretary has yet to center on what should be the main objection...

...the fact that his former employer is a major producer of RADIATION WEAPONRY (a/k/a "directed energy weapons") capable of inflicting silent, potentially lethal injury and of inducing illnesses and ailments ranging from aneurysms, strokes and heart attacks to eye/vision damage and cancer.

This radiation weaponry has been, and continues to be, widely deployed among units of the military, intelligence and law enforcement, on the federal and local levels.

This weaponry arguably poses a GREATER risk to humanity than nuclear weapons, since their wide availability virtually guarantees that they will be misused.

And there is evidence that such misuse already is happening -- perhaps with the knowledge of some government officials.

Imagine if rogue forces used radiation weaponry to silently degrade and slowly destroy their POLITICAL enemies. Perhaps they already have.

If Lynn makes it to the hearings stage, Congress should question him closely on the deployment of radiation weaponry among law enforcement agencies that deal with the general public.

And world leaders must address this question: Is radiation weaponry "WMD" that should be BANNED as inhumane under ANY circumstances?

Here is some source material:


Posted by: scrivener50 | January 27, 2009 9:04 PM

Good. Begin by increasing the size of US Military by at least 10x
for starters which will deter future attacks of other countries.

Posted by: blakesouthwood | January 27, 2009 8:27 PM

a coup de femmes supported by ubervisionaires
on board should take over the pentagon in 2009.
jawdropping madness of its inhabitants
mostly bullies who never grew up
want to send infected by us pakistan to the
stone ages in dejavu war games of horrific deaths and abject torture.
Only mothers know the meaning of bullets
in back of childrens heads.
they/we should be in command.
The new administration does not seem to have problems moving beyond obsolete patriarchal genocidal wars + avaricious larcenies.
look what they left behind.
no shame?

Posted by: manittou | January 27, 2009 6:54 PM

The most likely scenario is that Obama was not born in Hawaii -- although there are other legal arguments as well -- I just hope that finally someone convinces Biden (and a majority of the Cabinet) that Obama is not legally qualified to even be President. I have posted many times the links to evidence that he was not born in Hawaii. There is also evidence by HIS OWN GRANDMOTHER (I can't even keep straight all of his half-brothers and sisters) that Obama was born in what is now Kenya. The Constitution, of course, requires the President to be a "natural born" citizen, regardless of electoral or popular vote.

So, given those circumstances it is REASONABLE to at least have some suspicion about his legal qualifications for the position of Commander-in-Chief.

Further, Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 at the time allowed for registration of birth in Hawaii of any child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child’s birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence. In addition, between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, the law specified that if you were born outside of the United States and only one of your parents was a citizen, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least 10 years, at least 5 of which were after the age of 16.


“Short-form by declaration” fraud is therefore a plausible explanation that seems to fit the known facts. If Obama was born in Kenya, and if his mother simply traveled back to Hawaii with him shortly thereafter, and falsely declared his birth (including the newspaper announcements), then she alone broke the law, without the assistance of any co-conspirators. He may not even know the truth -- although given his own legal actions, I doubt that -- the original LONG FORM vault record in Hawaii, if it exists, has not been examined, and Obama has refused to allow it to be examined. The Government of Hawaii has stated that the “Certificate of Live Birth” (which appeared on Obama’s website) is valid, and it may be valid, if it was produced from short-form database records. However, if the short form records were fraudulently established by declaration, in the absence of a long-form witness of live birth, then a fraud has been perpetrated.

Posted by: JakeD | January 27, 2009 5:45 PM

Military commanders should ignore any and all illegal order(s) withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.

Posted by: JakeD | January 27, 2009 5:44 PM

Obama is not legally President of the United States.

Posted by: JakeD | January 27, 2009 5:43 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.


© 2009 The Washington Post Company