Shocking! Bank of America disses American hero and U.S. flag?

They got their taxpayer-funded bailout, but they can't show respect for a fallen Marine?

A South Carolina Bank of America branch is drawing criticism Thursday after an employee reportedly ordered the removal of American flags placed to honor a fallen Marine over fears that people would be offended.
The Palmetto Scoop received one eyewitness email claiming that the branch manager at Bank of America’s Gaffney branch at 1602 West Floyd Baker Blvd. “told a citizen who was preparing the route for a U.S. Marine killed in action in Afghanistan by placing small American flags along the roadway that the flags might upset some of her customers.”
Said the outraged tipster, “[The branch manager] took them down and made the citizen go in to get them if she didn’t want them thrown away.”
The flags were part of the funeral procession of Lance Corporal Christopher Fowlkes, 20, who died last week after an explosion in Afghanistan’s Helmand province.

More on this shocking scandal at Political Byline.

UPDATE: The cowardly swine are finally forced to 'fess up about that crooked Merrill swindle:

Facing mounting pressure from multiple investigations, Bank of America’s board has voted to reveal the legal advice that the bank received late last year in its merger with Merrill Lynch.

Another relevant headline:

Obama quietly deploying 13,000 more US troops to Afghanistan

Yeah, and his corporate patrons at Bank of America are quietly trying to prevent citizens from honoring the sacrifice of U.S. Marines. What a bunch of creeps. It's like the Second Coming of LBJ.

If Davenport's analysis holds true, the US effort in Afghanistan may be saved

by Smitty

Kenneth G. Davenport has an interesting take on Nobel Committee's motives, emphasis mine:

But it is really more than just about Obama's willingness to talk. Rather, there is something more strategic involved: an attempt to restrict Obama's range of decisions in the critical reassessment of the U.S. commitment to Afghanistan. According to Valle, the Nobel Committee reached its decision on the Obama award at their final meeting on October 5. It was thus no secret that the Obama Administration was in the midst of a full scale review of General Stanley McChrystal's request for 40,000 additional U.S. soldiers in an expansion of the U.S. mission. Nor was it a secret that Vice President Joe Biden and others in the Administration were openly lobbying for a change in U.S. strategy that would dramatically reduce the American footprint in Afghanistan in favor of a targeted "offshore" force that would be used for surgical strikes against terrorist targets. The Nobel Committee clearly also knows that in the wake of an all-out focus on health care reform, the Obama Administration has let public support for the Afghan war drift; the latest polling shows that less than half of America supports the war that Obama himself once called "necessary" for America's long-term security. The Norwegians know that Obama is wavering on Afghanistan, and that the Peace Prize could be an effective leverage point in convincing him to radically reduce – or even end – the U.S. war there.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee understands that awarding Obama the Peace Prize will appeal to the President's own image as a transformational figure, and will serve to heighten the already stratospheric confidence he has in his ability to alter the status quo ante. Obama's own belief in the power of his words is well known. Now, with the Nobel Prize in hand, he has a validation that Europe also sees him as The One. The net effect of this will put Obama in a tough position as he addresses America’s security concerns in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and elsewhere. With little more than a press release, the Nobel Committee has achieved what Europe has been trying to do for a generation: it has handcuffed the American president with the imprimatur of "Peacemaker", narrowing the options for unilateral action in the process. For the peaceniks of Europe, awarding Obama the Nobel was a true masterstroke of preventive medicine.

All this is true, Kenneth, but the Obama brain does have another hemisphere beside the crypto-Marxist nitwit: the Chicago-style gangster. How many others have been tossed under the bus already? Does the Nobel Committee bethink itself a different case?

Below the Obama cranium is the suit. In the back of the suit is a slit. Into the slit goes the hand of the real decision makers. That's whose opinion is more important on Afghanistan.

Update: (2256)
The excellent Power Line has a related post that bears inclusion.

Professor Paul Rahe writes:

Next to no one has responded to the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama with anything but disbelief, followed by embarrassed laughter and dismay.

There is, however, at least one exception to the rule -- Steven Clemons who directs the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation -- and his argument, such as it is, deserves, I think, attention. For, better than anything else that I have read, it echoes and fully articulates the presumption (and that is the appropriate word) underpinning the Obama endeavor as a whole.

That was just the intro. Rahe then posts Clemons's laughable statement, and then manages to maintain enough academic detachment to analyze it briefly.

Define 'lewd and deviant'

Kind of hard not to smile at this Project on Government Oversight report complaining about misconduct by civilian guards at ths U.S. embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan:

The report highlighted occasions when guards brought women believed to be prostitutes into Camp Sullivan and videotaped themselves drinking and partially undressed. It also outlined communications problems among the guards, many of whom don't speak English and have trouble understanding orders from their U.S. supervisors.
"The lewd and deviant behavior of approximately 30 supervisors and guards has resulted in complete distrust of leadership and a breakdown of the chain of command, compromising security," POGO said in a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton . . .

Yeah, because we know that Hillary Clinton would never tolerate "lewd and deviant behavior." If the guards lose their State Department jobs, maybe they can get jobs in Hyannis Port.

Hey, did any of those guards drive an Oldsmobile off a bridge?

Your C-130 Awaits, Mr. Will: Let The Jalalabad Intellectual Airdrop Begin!

Remember my strategic plan to deploy him?

"The Air Force should load George Will and David Brooks into a C-130 and airdrop them, sans parachute, on a Taliban position in Afghanistan. They're useless as intellectuals, but perhaps they'll do some good as ordnance."
-- Robert Stacy McCain, Nov. 10, 2008

And I said it again, on Nov. 16: Airdrop him on Jalalabad. But did the geniuses who run the conservative movement listen to me? No.

So now we have Will joining the cut-and-run brigade, urging us to abandon the one war that even Nancy Pelosi agrees was worth fighting. And everybody's suddenly shocked -- shocked! -- to discover Will's intellectual uselessness. The esteemed Jules Crittenden:

This George Will column, “Why Are We Still In Afghanistan” . . . can be summed up quickly: War’s hard. Vietnam was hard, and also impossible, Afghanistan’s harder and more impossible. Abandon now. Cruise missile counterterrorism policy, please.

Such eminent conservative intellectuals as Rich Lowry, Peter Wehner and Fred Kagan -- at least two of whom I'm eyeing as candidates to become our Nagasaki weapon if the George Freaking Will Hiroshima Bomb doesn't terrify the Taliban into unconditional surrender -- also claim to have discovered the intellectual unsoundness of GFW. And speaking of top-drawer pointy-heads, here's my good buddy Bill Kristol:

Will is not calling on the United States to accept a moderate degree of success in Afghanistan, and simply to stop short of some overly ambitious goal. Will is urging retreat, and accepting defeat.

Well said, Mr. Kristol! As I told you the first time we met, that afternoon in front of AEI's offices, my wife has always liked you. It's that smile.

"He just seems like such a nice man," Mrs. Other McCain says. And the fact you never joined the anti-Palin crowd is a big point in your favor, which is why -- despite your failure to anticipate the catastrophic disaster of the Maverick candidacy -- I have never proposed loading you onto a C-130 bound for the front lines outside Kandahar.

Our elite conservative intellectuals are a precious strategic resource and they must be deployed judiciously. If we squander our advantage -- how many GOP pundits does the Taliban have, huh? -- by airdropping these commentators willy-nilly in so-called "pinpoint strikes," the shock-and-awe impact will be wasted.

So first George Freaking Will and then David Brooks, just to let the enemy know we mean business, and then . . .

Well, I'm not going to outline my entire strategic plan here on the Internet, where Taliban intelligence operatives might read it. But you can't win a war through air power alone, and trust me, I've got the entire combined-operations strategy mapped out. I probably won't be tipping our hand too much merely by mentioning the part that involves a remote-control C4 explosive belt, a burqa and Maureen Dowd but . . .

We have not yet begun to fight!

It's David Brooks fisking day!

"What I Did On My Free Trip to Afganistan":

Wardak Province, Afghanistan
You drive up to the forward operating base in Wardak Province in an armored Humvee, with the machine-gunner sticking up through the roof and his butt swinging on a little perch just by your head. Outside there's a scraggly downtown, with ragamuffin Afghan children, almost no old people (the median life expectancy is 45) and dust everywhere. The dust of Afghanistan piles up in front of the storefronts and covers the ruins of the buildings destroyed during the Soviet period, or during the civil war or during some lost conflict from centuries past.

The second-person pronouns ("you," "your") are wrong. You are not in Afghanistan, he is. But such quibbles aside, Brooks's ability as a reporter -- his ability to describe -- have never been in dispute. One could complain about the "scraggly" and "ragamuffin," but the genuine objection to Brooksianism involves his opinions, which are invariably wrong. So let's cut to the chase and quote his concluding paragraph:

When you put more boots on the ground, you not only augment your army’s firing power, you give it the capacity to experiment. A few years ago, the good guys had only vague ideas about how to win this war. Now they’re much smarter.

Which, coming from David Brooks, can only mean that the situation in Afghanistan is rapidly descending into chaos and disaster. Give generously today!

P.S.: I've got some reporting of my own to do today, so Frequent Commenter Smitty is in charge.

How to write an Obama lede

OK, as previously established, there are two 'pool' reporters accompanying Obama to Afghanistan, so that all the press accounts are cribbing from the same notebook. Everything else is just spin. Now, let's look at the ledes of the stories.

Washington Post (just the facts, ma'am):

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama arrived in Afghanistan Saturday, according to a campaign spokesman, the first stop on a weeklong foreign tour that will take him to seven countries, including Iraq.

CNN (dressing it up a bit):

Sen. Barack Obama made his first visit to Afghanistan on Saturday before he embarks on his tour of the Middle East and Europe aimed at bolstering his foreign policy credentials.

Chicago Tribune (dressing it up more):

Sen. Barack Obama landed in war-torn Afghanistan early Saturday, his campaign confirmed, starting a weeklong effort to look presidential on the world stage while boosting his standing back home.

AP (more costumes than an opera):

Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama started a campaign-season tour of combat zones and foreign capitals, visiting with U.S. forces in Kuwait and then Afghanistan - the scene of a war he says deserves more attention and more troops.

How nice of the Associated Press to make sure Obama's campaign message got into the first paragraph of their neutral, objective story.

UPDATE: No word in this first pool report as to whether Obama is being accompanied to Afghanistan by his chief foreign policy adviser, Winnie the Pooh.

UPDATE II: The first pool report did not mention rumors that, upon touching down in Kabul, Obama was greeted by crowds of enthusiastic Afghans shouting "Yes, We Can!" Nor did the report confirm that, in a special session early Saturday morning, the Afghan parliament unanimously voted to rename their country "Obamastan."

UPDATE III: The Associated Press gives us this Obama fashion update:

Obama, dressed in light khaki colored trousers and a checkered shirt with his sleeves rolled up, and others in the delegation received a briefing inside the U.S. base in Jalalabad from the Afghan provincial governor of Nangarhar.

A checkered shirt! Hard-hitting news!

Obama in Afghanistan

New York Times:

Mr. Obama touched down in Kabul about 11:45 a.m. [local time], according to a pool report released by his aides. In addition to attending briefings with military leaders, he hoped to meet with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan before flying to Iraq later in the weekend.
His trip was cloaked in secrecy, which advisers said was due to security concerns set forth by the Secret Service. His whereabouts have been unknown since he departed Chicago. He left Andrews Air Force Base near Washington on Thursday afternoon, according to a pool report, and turned up in Afghanistan on Saturday.

(Alas, Katie Couric reduced to 'pool' duty!)

Mr. Obama’s arrival opened a weeklong foreign trip that includes visits to Iraq and two other stops in the Middle East as well as appearances in three European capitals. . . .
The international trip by Mr. Obama is intended to counter Republican criticism . . . that he has too little experience in foreign affairs to serve as a world leader.

Note that word "intended" -- the New York Times report presumes to know the intent of Team Obama. There should be an attribution in that sentence, someone saying that this is their intent: "according to campaign strategists," or some such thing.

While the New York Times was teaching its reporters to read minds, perhaps it could have taught them to tell the truth, i.e., this foreign trip is a huge publicity stunt, not a "fact-finding" tour. And it's also a gigantic gamble by Team Obama, since any gaffe committed by Obama abroad will underline his unreadiness for the job of Commander-in-Chief.

Bon voyage, Obama!

UPDATE: By the way, Hopey "hopes to meet with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan" -- let's reference the famous "5Ws and an H" of journalism for a moment, shall we? Who is Hamid Karzai and when did he become president? What event precipitated his installation as president, and who was the American president whose administration supported Karzai? How would Obama's policy in Afghanistan differ from the Bush administration's? Most importantly, where was Obama when U.S. troops were liberating Afghanistan, and why are none of these questions being asked by the New York Times?

Damn. They can read minds, but they can't do basic reporting.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin notes the first entry in the "Obama World Tour" T-shirt design competition:

Of Drudge and duty

Reaction to the Drudge Report's revelation that Prince Harry was serving in Afghanistan (the prince has now been withdrawn) includes some unusual discussion of "journalism ethics" -- with quotation marks that are quite necessary, I think.

Of course, Prince Harry's willingness to serve his country is entirely admirable, and the fact that the Drudge scoop led to Harry's withdrawal is to be lamented. Still, I can't go along with this suggestion from my friend Jeff Quinton of the Inside Charm City blog:

Since Drudge really isn’t that necessary anymore for news, and his scoops are few and far between anymore, why not drop Drudge? Remove his link from your website, de-link him from your blog and don’t link to him.

No. And not because I endorse what Drudge did. Rather, I think whatever blame there is in this matter must fall on Drudge's source. The sources were presumably parties to the agreement that kept details of the prince's deployment out of the news for three months.

It was the sources who broke the agreement. Drudge was never part of that agreement. Someone had a duty to keep this quiet, but that someone was not Matt Drudge.

Who leaked it to Drudge, and why? That's an interesting question, though I doubt we'll ever know the answer. I've never known Drudge to burn a source. But if you're looking for someone to blame in this affair, you need to ask yourself who that source might have been, and why they told Drudge.

Truth is a journalist's ultimate defense. When I was starting out in this business more than 20 years ago, my editors would tell me, "As long as you've got your facts straight, they can't touch you." For all the talk about how the New Media revolution has changed everything in the news business, that Old School rule still holds.

Of course, a smart journalist quickly figures out that he needs to earn his sources' trust, and that the ability to keep a secret -- making sure what's off the record stays off the record -- is essential to building a relationship of trust with those sources.

Drudge is no dummy. Reverse-engineering this Prince Harry story, I would bet that Drudge's source was someone in the British press corp who was eager to report on Prince Harry's Afghan adventure, but who was constrained by the agreement to keep his deployment secret. Therefore, the source tipped Drudge in order to blow away the agreement.

That's just a guess and, like I said, we'll probably never know the facts. But I still say that it is the source, and not Drudge, who bears the responsibility for this leak.

Linked at Newsbusters and Memeorandum -- thanks!