Voting 'Present' on Afghanistan

President Obama’s speech Tuesday night has been widely dismissed and panned in a rare display of bipartisanship.  Democrats (or Liberals, if you prefer) are not happy because he promised to send more troops and deepen the war effort.  Republicans (or as they’re sometimes known, Conservatives) are not happy because he didn’t send enough troops, set a deadline for withdrawal, and didn’t seem truly committed to The Cause.

 

Our President, who we remember from a year ago being swept into office amidst universal acclimation, love, hope, and nearly God-like adoration, managed to tick off just about everyone in the country in one speech.  Truth be told, by initial reports, a lot of folks around the world may not be too pleased either.

 

So, how did Mr. Obama, after nearly three full months of careful, ponderous debate… considering every possible option… have managed to blow it?   What’s particularly surprising is that he did it in a way that should have surprised… no one.  Mr. Obama has previously shown a predilection for avoiding conflict, decisiveness, and wading bravely in front of a movement.  As much as the previous White House occupant was mocked for his self-declaration, there was truly little doubt that he was a ‘decider’.  Mr. Obama, on the other hand, in his Illinois legislature days showed a favored choice of not voting more liberal or conservative, but just… Present.  The Safe alternative.

 

I have little doubt that the previous three months consisted of the President desperately wishing for this particular choice to pass him by.  He’d have given Michele’s right arm if he thought it might have helped matters.  Anything but make THIS decision.  Essentially, it came down to:  Should he aggressively advance the war, giving General McChrystal everything he asked for and needed to win, OR should he follow what he’d suggested for Iraq and begin the return home of our troops?

 

It was a decision fraught with consequences.  With his popularity, and political cache declining, his marketability and power in Washington is steeply dissipating.  This is currently evidenced by a Health Care bill which, once promised to be done by August, may be lucky to be completed before Christmas, and even then, it won’t be pretty.  He would risk annoying a major constituency in some way no matter what he chose.  Here he was, the most powerful man in America, able to fire CEOs, win Nobel Peace Prizes based on 12 days of work experience, and he’d been reduced to damned-if-he-did-and-damned-if-he-didn’t.

 

It’s ironical isn’t it that the President, who as a candidate had mocked his opponent as not being ready for the crisis 3 am phone call, was now wilting in the face of just such a decision?  Even more so when that former opponent, now his Secretary of State, was speaking far more decisively and clearly about the decision ahead.

 

So, what did Mr. Obama do (besides hope for a sudden change in the situation)?  He did what he often does, try to please everyone.  He didn’t vote Yay for war or Nay – bring them home.  He voted Present.  Do both, yet neither.

 

And pleased no one.  Not one person.  There’s something to be said for being decisive, after all.

Governor Sanford: 'But Everyone ELSE is Doing it!'

Governor Sanford is now complaining that his political enemies and the media are operating under "selective outrage". His issue is that while he may certainly have broken state law by travelling at higher than authorized levels of service or used public planes for private purposes, he shouldn't be expected to resign because other governors did it, too.

Sanford's petulant behavior should sound familiar to parents everywhere. "But, Mommmmm (or Dadddddddd - don't forget the appropriate level of whining), Susie gets to do ____________, why can't I?"

Ok, Governor Sanford, let's review. 1) You are supposed to set the example. 2) Since you campaigned on a higher level of ethics, then your example must be even further above reproach.

But, let's take this one step further. Governor, I'd like to illustrate to you the utter fragility of the position you've taken. Next conversation you have with Jenny, tell her that she's operating under 'selective outrage' and that multitudes of husbands throughout history have had affairs, and she shouldn't be so worked up. Let us know how that works out for you?

It is not what others have or have not done in the past. Any lawyer will tell you that a person is judged on their actions, and theirs alone. And your actions... well, Governor, it's long past time for you to go.


One last thought - those whose actions are above rapproach do not tend to complain about how they're being judged.

Misplaced Values

Tomorrow is the 40th anniverary of the first moon landing.

A search for "moonwalker" reveals Michael Jackson.

And perhaps the fact that a dance move that makes you look like you're walking forwards while in fact you're moving backwards is the best analogy for where we stand today.

We may feel we're moving forward, and a cursory glance may not prove otherwise, yet... are we?

There are currently only nine people, or roughly .00000001% of the world's population, alive who've walked on another world. Their average age is 77. How long before we start adding to their numbers instead of blithely letting their number dwindle?

Perhaps that's the saddest countdown of all right now, as it drops to zero? And then, when it does reach zero, we will have successfully restored our world to it's pre-1969 state - one, where no one knows what it's like to have walked on another world.

And that is not progress.

America Unprotected

It's been quite awhile since the Democrats refused to let the FISA renewal bill to even come to a vote in the US House of Representatives. This after the Senate reached a compromise, and in spite of the anti-American philosphy involved in preventing a vote - as we encourage peoples the world over to exercise an opportunity to vote.

America has been left unprotected. And the Democrats, led by Speaker of the House Representative Nancy Pelosi, are either not listening or don't seem interested.

It's time for them to hear us. Hear our concern. We need to get their attention.

I encourage everyone to go out and buy (it's good for the economy, and a worthy use of your stimulus check as there's a decent chance this will still be an issue when the checks are cut) a condom. One single condom (if you buy a multi-pack, enjoy the rest however you like - I hear they make great water balloons).

Mail the condom, along with a note reading, "Protect America!" to:

Office of the Speaker
H-232, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515


Remember, when you don't use protection, it's like your country has been with every other country.

A Chilling Way to Start Your Day

Once upon a time, the United States lived in mortal fear of the Soviet Union.

Nowadays, most look back upon the stories of what it was like back then as... nostalgia. The new youth certainly don't recall what it was like. Or how close to the edge, we often all lived.

When you study the past, you learn how the pendulum often swung back and forth between positions of strength for the US and for the SU.

Prior to 1981, following the Presidency of Jimmy Carter, and the drawdown of the post-Viet Nam era, the US military was not up to... snuff. President Reagan rapidly changed all that, and made quite a difference in the way the pendulum was swinging.

Prior to that, the following was certainly possible:




Certainly, we can all understand if people have the reaction, "But that was never possible." No? I've written in the past over the need for us to be prepared. Part of that requirement is to try to imagine that, which to us, is unimaginable.

In World War 2, we were surprised when the Japanese developed suicide weapons. It shocked and horrified us. They would willingly fly their planes into targets!

In this war, we're surprised when the Islamic fascists developed suicide weapons. It shocked and horrified us. They would willingly fly our planes into targets!

We often cannot fathom those who do not think like us. Whether it's Right vs Left, Conservative vs Liberal, Middle East vs West... Them vs Us.

Planning for your own destruction isn't exactly a joyous, fun activity. There are more exciting things to do, to be sure. However, it IS a necessary one. You must try to imagine what others will do, so you might prepare to prevent it.

Is this a big leap? Look at your house. Many of you plan for burglars. Perhaps they'd creep around in the dark - so you add motion-detector floodlights. Maybe they'll try to sneak into a window, so you make the windows harder to open. And if all else fails, we throw in alarms. And there's steps we take when we're away: stop the mail, ask the police to drive by, set lights to random timers...

WE PLAN.

Well, collectively, this is our house. We must plan. We must dream the unthinkable. And remember that the most likely attack will be the one we didn't dream.

Hope for the best, but plan for the worst.

Who knows when the next sunny, clear day will arrive... when the world changes again?

Ron Paul

Ron Paul. IF someone recognizes the name, they tend to fall into one of two camps - those who see him as the Second Coming or those who see him as the Republican answer to Dennis Kucinich.

For the most part... I agree with Ron Paul. He sums up many of my Libertarian leanings. I also notice how easy it is to demagogue him, primarily (no pun intended) due to his views on the Iraq Theater - of which I disagree with him.

In order to expose him a bit to my loyal (and rare) readership, I thought I'd include some of the interviews Mr. Paul recently had with John Stossel (another Libertarian of whom I'm fond).

Ron Paul Interview with John Stossel

And then there's this:

My Interview with Ron Paul

By John Stossel

Over the last few months, I've received hundreds of e-mails from people asking me to interview Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, so I did.

It's refreshing to interview a politician who doesn't mince words. It's even more refreshing to interview one who understands the benefits of limited government.

Here, then, is the first in a series of columns on my talk with Ron Paul. Some of Paul's answers are shortened.

What should government do?

Ron Paul: Protect our freedoms. Have a strong national defense. Look at and take care of our borders. Have a sound currency. That was the responsibility of the federal government, not to run our lives and run everything in the economy and extend the interstate-commerce clause and the general-welfare clause to do anything they want to do.

So defense, the military, police forces enforce contracts, and that's about it?

That's it. We would have a court system to enforce contracts, and when people do harm to others, when they take property or injure property, or pollute a neighbor's air, I think there's a role for government to protect our environment through private-property rights.

So keep us safe, enforce contracts, run the courts, pollution rules and otherwise butt out? Leave us alone?

Basically that, which would mean if I'm elected, I should immediately take a pay cut. You know, because I wouldn't have so much to do.

The Department of Education. You'd get rid of it?

Yes. We don't need it.

How will people get educated?

We might get better education. The evidence shows, since the 1950s, since the federal government's gotten involved, the quality of education has gone down, and the cost has gone up.

The federal government should have no role?

There's no authority for it, and . they've proved themselves inefficient. The one city they're totally in charge of is Washington, D.C. Thirteen thousand dollars a year per student. They have more guns, more drugs, more violence. So there's no evidence that the government can do a very good job.

The Department of Energy.

We don't need a Department of Energy. It serves the interests of big business.

Other cabinet departments? Department of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development. You'd get rid of all of them?

Yeah. Of course, that's not on the immediate agenda, but they're unnecessary, and we should think about what kind of a country we would have without these departments, and I think we would have a better country, and all those problems that they're supposed to solve, I think, would be lessened.

The Commerce Department? We don't need the Commerce Department to have commerce?

No, absolutely not.

Homeland Security. Isn't that a role for the federal government?

Not really, not the way that's designed. That's the biggest bureaucracy of them all. There are some parts that are OK. You know, they put the Coast Guard in there, and they put FEMA in there, and everybody's bunched together. And I think it was failure of government on 9/11, not the fact that we didn't have the Department of Homeland Security and . a national ID card, and this constant surveillance and loss of our privacy.

Failure of government how?

We spent $40 billion on intelligence gathering, and it didn't prevent (the 9/11 attacks) from happening. But the government was in charge of the airlines. FAA, they were supposed to inspect the people as they went on, and you weren't supposed to resist any takeovers, and (passengers and pilots) weren't allowed to have a gun. Maybe if you and I had the airlines, we might have said, "Hey, you know, we want to protect our passengers. Maybe we should have a stronger door on there, maybe we ought to give our pilots a gun." So 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

So government creates too many rules, and the wrong ones?

That basically it. Most of the time well-intentioned -- but good intentions will not solve our problems.

And...

Ron Paul is the only Republican presidential candidate saying we should get our troops out of Iraq -- now. Here's more of my edited interview with the congressman.

Some people say that if we don't attack the enemy there, they'll attack us here.

Ron Paul: I think the opposite is true. The radicals were able to use our bases in Saudi Arabia and the bombing of Iraq (from 1991 to 2001) as a reason to come over here. If China were to do the same thing to us, and they had troops in our land, We would resent it. We'd probably do some shooting.

s this case not different? Religious fanatics hate us and want to kill us because of our culture.

I don't think that's true. It is not Muslim fanaticism that is the culprit. The litmus test is whether we are actually occupying a territory. In the case of Saudi Arabia, that was holy land.

Many say the surge in Iraq is succeeding, that we're at a turning point now, and we are creating a model of democracy in a part of the world that hasn't seen that.

That's the propaganda. I don't happen to believe that.

And if in most of Iraq, some religious fanatic comes to power and has money to buy nuclear weapons, we should just leave him alone?

The Soviets had the technology. They were 90 miles off our shore, and they had nuclear weapons there. But we were able to talk to them. We took our missiles out of Turkey. They took the missiles out of Cuba. We should be talking to people like this. It's the lack of diplomacy that is the greatest threat, not the weapons themselves.

You say we shouldn't be the world's policemen. Isn't it our responsibility to help others?

It's OK for us to personally help other people. But to go around the world and spread democracy -- goodness, no -- too many unintended consequences. It usually requires force. I think we should only do those things under the prescribed conditions of the Constitution.

Is war ever justifiable?

Sure. If you're attacked, you have a right and an obligation to defend (your) country. I do not believe there is ever a moral justification to start the war.

So in World War II, we were justified?

Sure.

How about going into Afghanistan after Sept. 11?

I voted for that authority to go after those responsible for 9/11.

The Korean War?

Totally unjustified.

Kosovo?

Absolutely unjustified.

Vietnam?

A horror.

The first Iraq war? Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. He might have invaded the next country, and the next.

I bet Israel would have done something about it, and I bet Saudi Arabia maybe would have talked to Israel. I think if it would have been left to the region, they might have taken care of Saddam Hussein in 1990 and we wouldn't have the problems we have today.

What if there's genocide and terrible suffering in a country?

It's a tragedy, and we can have a moral statement, but you can't use force of arms to invade other countries to make them better people. Our job is to make us a better people.

You'd pull American troops out of Korea, Germany, the Middle East, everywhere?

I would. Under the Constitution, we don't have the authority to just put troops in foreign countries willy-nilly when we're not at war.

If North Korea invades South Korea, we should just leave it alone?

Sure, but it's not going to happen. South Korea's about 10 times more powerful than North Korea.

If China invaded Taiwan?

That's a border war, and they should deal with it.

If Canada invades Montana?

I think that might be a little bit different. Montana probably could take care of it, but we'd probably help them out from Washington if that happened.

That's a role for the federal government?

Oh, sure.

Moving along...

U.S. congressional representative and Republican presidential contender Ron Paul has been called "Dr. No" because he repeatedly votes against legislation he believes gives government too much power. If it's not in the Constitution, he says, the federal government has no business doing it. He even votes against appropriations to his constituents. Here's Part 3 of my edited interview with Rep. Paul.

Your district is subject to floods, but you vote against FEMA. Why?

Ron Paul: Because I think FEMA helps create the flood problems. (Without subsidies,) if it's risky on the Gulf Coast to build there, the insurance prices will go up. If (they're) too high, nobody will build there, or they'll build there with full risk. Flood comes, wind blows your house away, you don't get reimbursed. So there might be (only) modest building in those areas. But if the government subsidizes the insurance, saying, "If you build there, don't sweat it, we're going to bail you out," more people move into the flood-prone areas. Then who are the people that have to bail you out? Somebody that lives out in the desert. It's unfair, it's not good economics. You create more problems, more houses get flooded, and it becomes a general problem rather than an individual problem. We have undermined is the principle of measuring risk. Then people do things that they wouldn't have otherwise done.

You also say, "no farm subsidies."

No, I can't quite find (the farm-subsidy program) in the Constitution.

Don't we need farm subsidies to make sure we have food?

It is totally unnecessary. I think (subsidies) push the prices of food up, and maybe (that) makes it more difficult for poor people to buy food. If there's a subsidy, it means the taxpayer was taxed to pay a huge corporate farmer. So it hasn't helped the people. And why should we assume that the farmers wouldn't be productive? They're hard working people. I never voted for farm subsidies, and I represent a farm district.

They forgive you for that?

The farmers will support me, but not the (farm lobby) organizations.

Most crops don't have subsidies. Yet we have plenty of (unsubsidized) peaches and plums.

When I go to the grocery store, I always marvel: Isn't it wonderful how we can see so much fresh produce there, and the prices aren't regulated? It was a fallacious argument back in the '30s that the Depression came from free markets and therefore we had to have a safety net. We gave up on believing in freedom and understanding how the market works.

You talk about freedom and tyranny. I seldom hear politicians use those words.

Those are our only two choices. We've had a grand experiment in this country, where we emphasize freedom. The Constitution was designed to protect individual liberty, to restrain the government. But we have forgotten that. Now we have an interpretation that means that we spy on the American people, encroach on their privacy, take care of them, run the "nanny state" -- and then we have secrecy in government. So we have it reversed. People say, "Ron, you want to go back to the dark ages of this strict interpretation of the Constitution." Well, I want to go back to the Constitution, but I don't consider it the dark ages. I think the dark ages the days were when all you had was tyranny. Freedom is new. Tyranny is old.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are enough? We don't need 55,000 pages of tax code?

Isn't that fantastic? Truth is simple. The more complex (government) is, the more leery we ought to be of what they're doing. When they say we have to solve the problems of 9/11 (by passing) the Patriot Act, that's complex. Four hundred pages, and they dump it on us an hour before we vote. You can read the Constitution and understand it, but you cannot read and understand hardly any of the legislation being passed.

And lastly...

You want a 700-mile fence between our border and Mexico?

Ron Paul: Not really. There was an immigration bill that had a fence (requirement) in it, but it was to attack amnesty. I don't like amnesty. So I voted for that bill, but I didn't like the fence. I don't think the fence can solve a problem. I find it rather offensive.

What should we do?

Get rid of the subsidies. (If) you subsidize illegal immigration, you get more of it.

Get rid of welfare?

All the welfare benefits.

Including government-paid health care?

Absolutely.

So what should a hospital do if an illegal immigrant shows up for treatment?

Be charitable, but have no mandates by the federal government. Catholics want to help a lot of these people. I'm not for (punishing anyone who wants to help voluntarily). But we wouldn't have so many (illegals) if they didn't know they were going to get amnesty. If you promise them amnesty -- medical care, free education, automatic citizenship, food stamps, and Social Security -- you're going to get more (illegal immigration). I think we could be much more generous with our immigration. (But) we don't need to reward people who get in front of the line.

We should be more generous in our legal immigration policy?

(Without the welfare state) it would be a non-issue. Today it's a big issue because people are hurting; they can't keep up with paying their bills. They see (illegals) using food stamps, in the emergency rooms, demanding bilingual education in the schools. The costs are going up.

So get rid of all those programs? Every one?

I would. Get rid of the incentives and work toward a real solution.

You oppose "birthright citizenship," which says that the child of an illegal immigrant who gives birth in America is a U.S. citizen. But that right to citizenship is in the Constitution, isn't it?

There's confusion on interpreting the 14th Amendment. It says that if you're under the jurisdiction of the United States, you have a right to citizenship if you're born here. But it's a little bit confusing. If you step over the border and you're illegal, are you really under the jurisdiction? There's a question on that, and I want to clarify it. I don't like to reward people who sneak in for that purpose and get on the welfare rolls.

What about the millions who are here illegally already? Should we deport them?

I don't think anybody could find them. Nobody even knows how many there are. But if they come for welfare benefits and you know they're illegal, (you should) deny them the benefits. If they commit a crime, send them home. Today in many cities, you're not even allowed to ask them their immigrant status. Policemen tell me they can't ask that question to find out if they're illegal. It's politically incorrect to ask a person his immigrant status because that would (be like saying), "If you've broken the law, maybe you ought to go home."

How do you see immigration in the future?

If we have a healthy economy, we would probably have a lot of people coming back and forth working in this country. There was a time when (immigrants did that). That was when they didn't expect to get easy amnesty.

So, these are some of his views. Something to think about. For more, please go to his Website. Remember, when it's your turn to vote, educate yourself... and vote for whom you believe in. It's the only way to make your beliefs truly known.

(Many thanks to the transcripts from Real Clear Politics.)

Have We Lost Our Imagination?

(Crossposted from A Storm In Afghanistan.)

When was the last time we had an endeavor that captured our attention?

Truthfully, less than a month ago. The New England Patriots (a professional football team in the NFL, for those not familiar) had the first undefeated season in NFL history.

Ok, it wasn't the first. It was the second. The first being the 1972 Miami Dolphins (who coincidentally came very close to having an unvictorious season this year). The Patriots were notable because this was the first sixteen game undefeated season. The 1972 Dolphins having not played sixteen games in their regular season, but fourteen. Of course, there were also two playoff games, and the Super Bowl... giving them seventeen winning games. Which, as you can see, is different than the sixteen games... or something like that.

Anywho, it was a big deal. The game was broadcast on three different networks. This was to ensure that everyone in America would have the opportunity to witness history being made.

So... before that?

Olympics?

World Cup?

America's Cup?

Presidential Elections? Nah, those sadly define apathy.

Surely there's been something...



Anyone?


Perhaps it's our quest to cure Cancer. AIDS? World Hunger? (Nope, those concerts quickly came and went in the eighties.)

Would you believe that what seems to capture our attention these days isn't success? It's failure.

Britney Spears is losing her mind, career, kids... tune in now to watch the latest. Baseball's steroid scandal. The failing of our schools. The salivating of the continuous death count of the Iraq Theater. Murders. Abductions. Virginia Tech. Even the fallacy (yes, I wrote fallacy) of Global
Warming predicates itself upon the humans failure by destroying the world, environment, children's self-esteem, and ________ insert your own item there.

What do we have to enlighten and motivate our youth?

What can we do to excite them?

Where can we find Hope for their future?

Something... um... dare I dream... positive?


In the 1960s, there was the Space Race. Space has now become a mundanity that excites few. And who can blame them? The Space Shuttle, which we are risk averse to launch after two losses over a seventeen year period, has the perception of being no more than a high-tech pick-up truck. We have the International Space Station, where a continuous human presence has been maintained for over seven years, is quickly becoming an irrelavancy to be checked off of the checklist than to be exalted. We'd once dreamed of it having seven (or more) scientists living and working aboard it using many different laboratories. It's reduced to three with fewer labs, and having taken forever to complete. It's final assembly will be the satisfaction of just finally finishing the race, not by trying to win it.

Our space program is quickly stalling out... the Shuttle is already doomed to no more flights after 2010, whether the replacement program - Constellation - is ready or not. And that continues to be scaled back, redesigned, and set up for failure much in the way the Shuttle was prior to its launch in 1981 (yes, folks, twenty-SIX years ago).

This nation... we need to find a focus. A Positive focus.

Yes, personally, I would like it to be a space focus. A new, fruitful expedition of meaningfulness.

However, we need something. Something that will light the fire of the mind of our next generations.

What do you suggest?

And just a thought, but what do our leaders suggest? Or, our potential future leaders?

Don't know? Let's ask them. And not take a shrug, or a nice form letter, as an answer.

There is more to LIFE than just marking time and waiting for the next event to come to us. It's to be savored, and to be created - We can do it. If we want to, that is.

It's time to lead us to our future, it's waiting for us.

Leadership 101

Heard about this from my Colonel... and he's right. An excellent exmaple of leadership.

Just in case you didn't see it on the evening news...

2/9/2007 - TRAVIS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. -- An injured Marine received an
unexpected upgrade in his flight home from Iraq here Feb. 8.

Marine Lance Cpl. Steven Eastburn from the Marine Corps Air Station Kaneohe,
Hawaii, was on his way home to be with his family during his recovery. One
of his stops along the way was at the David Grant USAF Medical Center's
Aeromedical Staging Facility.

Unbeknownst to him, at the same time he was awaiting his flight, Gen. Peter
Pace, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, was landing at Travis for a quick
"gas and go" en route to Hawaii.

When General Pace learned a fellow Marine was on his way home after being
injured in Iraq, he didn't hesitate.

"When I greeted General Pace and Mrs. Pace on the flight line one of the
things I mentioned was that we currently had a Marine that was wounded in
Iraq waiting transportation in our aeromedical staging facility," said Col
Steve Arquiette, 60th Air Mobility Wing Commander. "The next words out of
his mouth were 'let's go' and we were off."

Arriving at the DGMC, the general went straight for the Marine's room and
knocked on the door.

"Hey, Marine! Are you up for a visitor?" he shouted. When the Marine
responded with a hearty, "Yes, Sir," he didn't have a clue who he was
responding to.

"Corporal Eastburn was in shock to say the least," said Col. Arquiette.
"General Pace found out the corporal was going to Hawaii as well and said,
'You're coming with me, we'll go home together.'"

The general's flight was delayed for a short period of time as medical
personnel gathered Corporal Eastburn's belongings, checked him out of the
hospital and prepared him for the flight home, but the general didn't mind
one bit.

"Delaying the flight to take a wounded warrior home was the right thing to
do," the general said. "If I can get him home five or six hours earlier to
see his family, I'm going to do it."

The general's generous offer was not lost on the staff at the DGMC.

"While it was amazing experience for me to meet the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, I think it was more of a highlight for the patient," said
Staff Sgt. Darwin Diaz, 60th Aerospace Medicine Squadron Aeromedical
operations technician. "Not everyone gets offered a ride home by the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff."

"I was very impressed by his attitude toward the wounded Marine," said
Senior Master Sgt. Scott Williams, 60th AMDS. "He was more concerned about
the injured Marine than he was about all the prestige his position gives
him."

General Pace departed the base with Corporal Eastburn commending Team
Travis' assistance.

"This was a much more productive stop than I ever would have expected," he
said. "In a very short amount of time, you all went above and beyond to
support my request."

Hooah!