Survivors recall collision of US, Australian ships during Vietnam War – Stripes – Independent U.S. military news from Iraq, Afghanistan and bases worldwide

On a calm, moonlit night 43 years ago in the South China Sea, Tom Anthony was a young radar man asleep in his metal bunk on the USS Frank E. Evans.

He was jarred awake after 3 a.m. by the horrendous sound of an Australian aircraft carrier crashing into the side of the destroyer.

The collision sent Anthony and shipmates scrambling through the dark as water poured into the compartment. As the ship rolled — the bow section would sink in three to five minutes — he reached a ceiling latch and looked back on a sight that would be seared into his mind forever.


“I saw the water rising real quick and I could see the suction,” said Anthony, now 65, who lives in Mansfield. “And I saw some guys being sucked back down.”

Decades later, that memory still reddens his eyes with tears. It is the sort of haunting image that brings Anthony and other survivors of the disaster that killed 74 U.S. sailors together each year for a reunion of the USS Frank E. Evans (DD 754).

via Survivors recall collision of US, Australian ships during Vietnam War – Stripes – Independent U.S. military news from Iraq, Afghanistan and bases worldwide.

US military deaths in Afghanistan hit 2,000 after 11 years of war – Yahoo! News

KABUL – U.S. military deaths in the Afghan war have reached 2,000, a cold reminder of the human cost of an 11-year-old conflict that now garners little public interest at home as the United States prepares to withdraw most of its combat forces by the end of 2014.

The toll has climbed steadily in recent months with a spate of attacks by Afghan army and police — supposed allies — against American and NATO troops. That has raised troubling questions about whether countries in the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan will achieve their aim of helping the government in Kabul and its forces stand on their own after most foreign troops depart in little more than two years.

On Sunday, a U.S. official confirmed the latest death, saying that an international service member killed in an apparent insider attack by Afghan forces in the east of the country late Saturday was American. A civilian contractor with NATO and at least two Afghan soldiers also died in the attack, according to a coalition statement and Afghan provincial officials. The U.S. official spoke on condition of anonymity because the nationality of those killed had not been formally released. Names of the dead are usually released after their families or next-of-kin are notified, a process that can take several days. The nationality of the civilian was also not disclosed.

In addition to the 2,000 Americans killed since the Afghan war began on Oct. 7, 2001, at least 1,190 more coalition troops from other countries have also died, according to, an independent organization that tracks the deaths.

According to the Afghanistan index kept by the Washington-based research centre Brookings Institution, about 40 per cent of the American deaths were caused by improvised explosive devices. The majority of those were after 2009, when President Barack Obama ordered a surge that sent in 33,000 additional troops to combat heightened Taliban activity. The surge brought the total number of American troops to 101,000, the peak for the entire war.

via US military deaths in Afghanistan hit 2,000 after 11 years of war – Yahoo! News.

Video: Preview of Univision’s “bombshell” report on Fast & Furious « Hot Air

The Obama administration clearly hoped that the Department of Justice’s Inspector General report on Operation Fast and Furious would be the last word on the scandal. which has been tied to hundreds of deaths in Mexico and the murders of two American law-enforcement officials. However, a new report from Univision to be broadcast tomorrow, previewed here by ABC News, may put the issue back on the front pages. One source called Univision’s findings the “holy grail” that Congressional investigators have been seeking:


Often lost amid the rancor in Washington are the stories of dozens of people killed by guns that flowed south as part of the undercover operation, and later slipped out of view from U.S. officials. Univision’s Investigative Unit (Univision Investiga) has identified massacres committed using guns from the ATF operation, including the killing of 16 young people attending a party in a residential area of Ciudad Juárez in January of 2010.

via Video: Preview of Univision’s “bombshell” report on Fast & Furious « Hot Air.

Is Obama and Clinton funding terrorism?

There have been several hint recently that Barrack Hussein Obama has changed the overall policy of the U.S as far as funding of terrorists goes.
First there was fast and furious where Obama armed the terrorists / cartels in Mexico to advance his anti gun stance in the U.S. This also led to the death of Brian Terry.
In Libya he apparently funded Al Qaeda terrorists to takeover the country and kill Momar, then he allowed the terrorists to keep the weapons he was providing them. These weapons were then used in terrorist attacks against the U.S. ambassador and intelligence staff who were working covertly to destroy the weapons. I think the closer we look we will find that Obama favors those who are against the U.S.
Finally Obama and Clinton ushered in the “Arab Spring”. This has resulted in a rise of Muslim fundamentalism spreading throughout the region and resulting in terrorist attacks angainst our embassies worldwide while at the same time appearing to abandon our closest allie Israel.
Now they want to fund Egypt after their fundimentalist President claimed he will not play by the rules of the U.S.
There are dark days coming, very dark, caused on purpose by Barrack Hussein Obama.
He represents a “Clear and present danger to our freedom here in America.


Excerpted from World Net Daily: Israel Science and Technology, the national database and directory of science and technology-related websites in Israel, has published an article asserting the long-form birth certificate released by the White House is a forged document.

The website was created by a former science adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel Hanukoglu, Ph.D.

Hanukoglu, an award-winning researcher, is a professor of biochemistry and molecular biology in the Department of Molecular Biology at Ariel University Center of Samaria in Ariel, Israel.

The professor established the first version of his website during his tenure as Netanyahu’s science adviser.


Another big Supreme Court term kicks off Monday – News –

WASHINGTON (AP) — When last we saw the chief justice of the United States on the bench, John Roberts was joining with the Supreme Court’s liberals in an unlikely lineup that upheld President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul.

Progressives applauded Roberts’ statesmanship. Conservatives uttered cries of betrayal.

Now, the Supreme Court is embarking on a new term beginning Monday that could be as consequential as the last one, with the prospect for major rulings about affirmative action, gay marriage and voting rights.

Many people on both the left and right expect Roberts to return to the fold and side with the conservative justices in the new term’s big cases. If they’re right, the spotlight will be back on Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose vote typically is decisive in cases that otherwise split the court’s liberals and conservatives.

But Roberts will be watched closely, following his health care vote, for fresh signs that he’s becoming less ideologically predictable.

It may be that the dramatic health care decision presages ‘‘some shift in his tenure as chief justice,’’ said Steve Shapiro, the American Civil Liberties Union’s national legal director. ‘‘Or does it give him cover to continue to pursue a conservative agenda?’’

The first piece of evidence could be in the court’s consideration of the University of Texas’ already limited use of race to help fill its incoming freshman classes, which comes before the court Oct. 10. The outcome could further limit or even end the use of racial preferences in college admissions.

Roberts has expressed contempt for the use of race in drawing legislative districts, calling it ‘‘a sordid business, this divvying us up by race,’’ and in assigning students to public schools, saying that ‘‘the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.’’

The written arguments submitted by both sides in the Texas case leave little doubt that Kennedy, not Roberts, holds the prized vote. The challengers of the Texas program and the university itself cite Kennedy’s prior writings on affirmative action a combined 50 times.

The court also is expected to confront gay marriage in some form. Several cases seek to guarantee federal benefits for legally married same-sex couples. A provision of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act deprives same-sex couples of a range of federal benefits available to heterosexual couples.

Several federal courts have agreed that the provision of the law is unconstitutional, a situation that practically ensures that the high court will step in.

A separate appeal asks the justices to sustain California’s Proposition 8, the amendment to the state constitution that outlawed gay marriage in the nation’s largest state. Federal courts in California have struck down the amendment.

Once again, many legal analysts expect Roberts essentially to be against gay marriage. ‘‘The outcome clearly turns on how Anthony Kennedy votes,’’ said Georgetown University law professor Michael Seidman.

The justices may not even consider whether to hear the gay marriage issue until November.

via Another big Supreme Court term kicks off Monday – News –

Benghazi-Gate Timeline: What the White House Knew & The Lies Told When They Knew It

Late yesterday afternoon, in an obvious attempt to rescue President Obama from what could and should be a brutal round of Sunday shows examining the cover up the White House is currently engaged in with respect to the sacking of our consulate in Libya, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) released a statement revising its assessment of the attack. It is now the official position of the American intelligence community that what happened in Benghazi was a pre-planned terrorist attack.

The statement comes from Shawn Turner, director of public affairs for National Intelligence — the office that speaks for the intelligence community as a whole:

As we learned more about the attack, we revised our initial assessment to reflect new information indicating that it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists. It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attack, and if extremist group leaders directed their members to participate.

This is not news. In the last few days, the White House and State Department have both made statements saying exactly that.

This, however, is news and should be read carefully:

In the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo. We provided that initial assessment to Executive Branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly and provide updates as they became available. Throughout our investigation we continued to emphasize that information gathered was preliminary and evolving.

There’s no question that what we have here is the DNI (Obama appointee James Clapper) attempting to fall on his sword and to put an end to the drumbeat of scandal coming mostly from Republicans and right-of-center media. What’s been exposed just weeks before a presidential election, is the fact that in the aftermath of the Benghazi attack, the White House and State Department knowingly misled and lied to the American people about what they knew and when they knew it.

But what the DNI statement is really meant to do is muddy the waters.

via Benghazi-Gate Timeline: What the White House Knew & The Lies Told When They Knew It.

Obama Gets 9 More Military Planes for Campaign

The only references to this story I’m finding thus far are at partisan sites. But this isn’t a partisan issue or a matter of President Obama doing anything untoward. Even the Caller story notes, several paragraphs in, “The Air Force allocated extra aircraft to support President George W. Bush when he was running for re-election in 2004.”

On the one hand, this does seem an unseemly practice. The taxpayer shouldn’t be expected to bear these extraordinary cost of the president’s re-election campaign. And that’s doubly true of various administration officials being ferried around on military planes; at least the president is in the chain of command. On the other hand, I’m not sure what to do about it, at least in the case of the president and his family. While we’ve gone overboard in creating a security wall around the First Family, we’ve had enough presidential assassination attempts–too many of them successful–in our history to pretend that there aren’t legitimate concerns.

As a matter of propriety, presidents ought not go on campaign junkets on the taxpayer. As a matter of practicality, pretty much anything a first term president does–particularly in the last year of that term–is political, so drawing the line is next to impossible. Still, it’s hard to justify flying various officials, along with their entourages and limos, around the country in military transport planes.

via Obama Gets 9 More Military Planes for Campaign.