Obama Disrespects the Troops
Jul 24, 2008 Political
The right has been waiting for Barack Obama to screw up during his whirlwind campaign tour overseas and his campaign has been holding its breath hoping that he makes it through without a major gaffe. He has made a few but they have been largely ignored by the media. However, it looks like a gaffe that cannot be ignored came when Obama announced that he was changing his plans and would not be visiting wounded soldiers in Germany. There is one thing a person who wants to be president should never do and that is dis the troops. Soldiers expect their leaders to keep their word so this does not sit well for the guy who wants to lead them. This is the lame excuse for the dis:
During his trip as part of the CODEL to Afghanistan and Iraq, Senator Obama visited the combat support hospital in the Green Zone in Baghdad and had a number of other visits with the troops. For the second part of his trip, the senator wanted to visit the men and women at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center to express his gratitude for their service and sacrifice. The senator decided out of respect for these servicemen and women that it would be inappropriate to make a stop to visit troops at a U.S. military facility as part of a trip funded by the campaign. Weekly Standard Blog
First of all, it is never a bad thing to visit the troops regardless of who is paying for the trip. Second of all, was only this part of the trip paid for by the campaign? If not then how does he explain visiting troops in the war zone and at the Combat Support Hospital? Also, if Obama is campaigning in America and decides he wants to visit with the troops at Walter Reed, will he not go because his campaign is footing the bill? This is an extremely poor excuse for not visiting the troops because he can go there and visit without campaigning.
Now don’t get me wrong, the troops are probably relieved they do not have to tolerate this snob who has no idea what military service is. However, it is an honor to meet a member of Congress and if he says he is going to visit, he should. Personally, if I were a patient I would tell the staff that he is, under no circumstances, to be allowed in my room. I would let them know if he visited me it would be embarrassing for him and the hospital. I imagine most of the troops felt he was just using them as a campaign prop anyway (even if he did not actively campaign) and are happy he is not coming but one thing they hate is when people break their word. Obama does a lot of that (like lying about what committee he is on and how he voted).
Earlier this year Obama said that he needed to gain the trust of the troops. Breaking his word is not a real good way to do that. At the time he probably felt he needed their votes but since his Democratic buddies in Congress have worked to keep the military vote from counting, Obama probably does not feel he needs to be bothered with them again. Perhaps it is because the troops watch Fox News. There is no chance in hell that Obama will get the military vote. If he gets 10% he will be lucky.
A possible explanation:
NRO reports that Obama changed plans at the last minute when a campaign staffer was informed he would be denied access. Congressional staffers may accompany but there are rules about campaign visits and what rules they must follow. Obama lacked the guts to leave the staffer behind and go visit the troops. Is this the kind of leadership he wants to show the troops? This also begs the question, did this staffer (or any others) accompany him to his visits with the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq?
My suggestion to my military comrades out there, if offered the opportunity to meet with the guy, just decline. Better yet, say you will and then cancel at the last minute. If they force you to visit with him, bring a basketball. He likes when soldiers hand him one and the media instantly drools when he makes a shot outside the paint. That should provide lots of entertainment.
Barack Obama is not fit to lead the fine men and women who serve in our armed forces. Let’s see to it that he never gets the chance.
UPDATE 1:
Blackfive has a post about how Obama actually treated the troops. It is very enlightening.
UPDATE 2:
The Obama sent out an email soliciting donations. The email was about his speech in Berlin, you know, the one that was not a political speech. Anyone with brains knew what that speech was (why would his campaign pay for that part of the trip if it were not for the political campaign) and they are trying to make money off it. Jake Tapper has the story including the Obama camp’s attempt to say that this was not a solicitation for money (despite the big DONATE button that leads to a donation page).
Tags: brush off, disrespect, fox news, Military, Obama, wounded soldiers
The Fuhrer Speaks in Germany
Jul 24, 2008 Political
The Fuhrer, Barack Obama, spoke in Berlin to a crowd of people who interrupted his speech nearly 30 times with applause as he described ways to make America weaker and to spend more of her money on Socialism. The Fuhrer drew applause for expressing a desire to rid the world of nuclear weapons because the uneducated believe that, like with gun control, everyone will disarm. He drew applause for committing to spending our money on the global economy and on the hoax of global warming. The Fuhrer was in full swing and though he said it was not a campaign speech it was.
He started off by playing the race card. He told everyone that he did not look like the other Americans who had spoken there. He also intertwined memories of John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan in his speech so as to be on considered on the same level as they. He mentioned change, and hope as well as other catch phrases from his campaign like “this is our time.” For a Congressional fact finding mission this sure sounded like a campaign speech. I do not remember a fact finding mission ever having a speech of this magnitude in it so if it looks like a duck…
This was well staged to make Obama look like he has the credentials to run this country and that he is loved in Europe. We are supposed to come away thinking that Obama can unite the world and his speech addressed the global aspects of the world. He sounded like a one world order kind of guy. Obama mentioned how America was there for the Berlin airlift and how we got that wall removed. It is likely that these events would never have happened if Obama had been president at those moments in history because they were provocative and Obama wants to talk not provoke.
The interesting thing to me is that he came off looking like another speaker that drew large German crowds who interrupted him with applause. That speaker also talked about new world order and his party even has the word Socialist in it.
I was not impressed with the speech. It was a campaign speech designed to make a political hack with little experience look presidential. You can put lipstick on a pig but it is still a pig.
Is Obama Bi or Not?
Jul 24, 2008 Political
Bilingual, that is.
On July 11th of this year Barack Obama told people at a Town Hall meeting in Dayton Ohio that he did not speak a foreign language and that he was embarrassed by that.
“I don’t speak a foreign language. It’s embarrassing!” Barack Obama exclaimed today at town hall meeting here. Obama, who often touts his time growing up overseas, made the confession while speaking about the importance of teaching foreign languages in schools. [emphasis added] CBS News
As Barack Obama prepares to give his campaign speech in Germany he has been taking questions from reporters. One asked him if his speech would be in German and this was the response:
“My German is not real good,” he said. “I can speak Bahasi Indonesian but I don’t think…there would be a lot of appeal to that.” [emphasis added] ABC Political Punch
So now the question is, which time was he lying. Was he lying at the Town Hall meeting in order to defuse the tense environment surrounding his statement that parents should be ensuring their children learn Spanish (not any foreign language but Spanish) or was he lying when he answered the question in Germany.
The over arching question is, why would he lie about it in the first place? What is the motivation behind his very different answers?
Obama definitely has a problem with the truth. I wonder if any of the fawning media accompanying him will ask him about the contradiction…
Get real, they are too busy having tingles up their legs.
Obama; Wrong Then and Befuddled Now
Jul 23, 2008 Political
Barack Hussein Obama absolutely opposed the surge of troops into Iraq. This is an undeniable truth and his own words on the subject depict not only a man who opposed the surge but told us that he believed it would have the opposite effect. He said it would cause more violence, not less. Doug Ross documents Obama’s position on the surge:
- Barack Obama, Jan. 2007: “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraqis going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”
- Democrat Barack Obama, Jan 2007: “I don’t think the president’s [surge] strategy is going to work.”
- Democrat Barack Obama, Jul. 2007: “My assessment is that the surge has not worked.”
- Democrat Barack Obama, Oct. 2007: “[The surge is a] complete failure… Iraq’s leaders are not reconciling. They are not achieving political benchmarks.”
There is no doubt that Obama opposed the surge, thought it would not work and declared it a failure. So what does the presumptive Democratic nominee do when confronted with the fact that the surge has been a success despite the defeatist attitude of him and his fellow Democrats? He refuses to admit he was wrong and then says that, knowing what he knows now, he still would not have supported it. Then, just to show how really out of touch he is, he advocates for a surge in Afghanistan. In other words, he wants us to do in Afghanistan what worked in Iraq but which he opposed and would still oppose were it presented today. Or would he since he is supporting it now but in another country? Confused yet?
We should have seen this coming since Obama told us six months ago that success was based on Democrats being elected to the majority:
What we have to do is to begin a phased redeployment to send a clear signal to the Iraqi government that we are not going to be there in perpetuity. Now, it will — we should be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. I welcome the genuine reductions of violence that have taken place, although I would point out that much of that violence has been reduced because there was an agreement with tribes in Anbar province — Sunni tribes — who started to see, after the Democrats were elected in 2006, you know what, the Americans may be leaving soon, and we are going to be left very vulnerable to the Shi’as. We should start negotiating now. That’s how you change behavior.
And that’s why I will send a clear signal to the Iraqi government. They will have ample time to get their act together, to actually pass an oil law, which has been — they’ve been talking about now for years. [emphasis added] Flopping Aces
So, which is it Senator? Were the troops the reason for the decreased violence or was this brought about because Democrats were elected to the majority? Why do you want to put more troops in Afghanistan (to emulate the strategy in Iraq) if you opposed it as wrong then and still would not support it today?
Obama is busy trying to appease everyone in order to get elected. He needs to appeal to the left wing moonbats who oppose any military action and want an immediate withdraw. He needs to appeal to people who want victory as the exit strategy so he can pick up those votes and he needs to appear as if he knew what he was talking about all along so that people will not think he is inexperienced or a flip-flopper.
If he admits he was wrong about the surge then his base will think he abandoned them. He will suffer a reverse of Hillary’s fate. She refused to admit her vote for the war was wrong and she lost support. If he admits that the surge was the right thing to do he will lose support as well.
The problem is, he was wrong. He was wrong about it all and now he is being called on it. The Gateway Pundit has video of an interview with Katie Couric of CBS and Obama comes off as smug and uninformed. Obama’s position is that the surge worked but it was bad strategy. In the interview, he makes a weak attempt at deflecting to how money could have been used to do other things. It is quite pathetic.
Here is an idea. Pick a position and stick with it. If you are wrong then have the testicular fortitude to say that your initial assessment was wrong and move on from there.
The problem is, Obama is trying to be everything to everyone and in the end it will be his undoing. As the next 15 weeks move on more Americans will see that Obama really lacks the experience to lead us in these perilous times.
Obama had better get it right because if he is elected and then takes actions that cause us to lose the war it will alienate a lot of this country. Americans, all real Americans, can’t stand the thought of losing. Obama’s plan is to lose and if we had followed his desires we would be doing just that.
I just wish that the Democrats had as much desire for our country to win the war as they do to win elections.
Others:
Stop the ACLU | Hot Air | Marc Ambinder | Jake Trapper | Commentary Magazine | Brutally Honest
Tags: defeat, inexperience, katie couric, McCain, Obama, surge, triumph, war
Sign of the Times, Drudge Unburies the News
Jul 21, 2008 Political
Last week Barack Obama had a piece published in the terrorist daily brief known as the New York Times. Senator John McCain sent the NYT his response to the Obama piece and it was promptly rejected by the NYT Editorial Board. In an email exchange, David Shipley (who served in the Clinton Administration), told Michael Goldfarb of McCain’s campaign, that they would like to work with the Senator to get the piece published but had to reject it at this time. Then, a few suggestions were offered to make it more Times friendly:
Dear Mr. Goldfarb,
Thank you for sending me Senator McCain’s essay.
I’d be very eager to publish the senator on the Op-Ed page.
However, I’m not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written. I’d be pleased, though, to look at another draft. Let me suggest an approach.
The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans.
It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory — with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And it would need to describe the senator’s Afghanistan strategy, spelling out
how it meshes with his Iraq plan.I am going to be out of the office next week. If you decide to re-work the draft, please be in touch with Mary Duenwald, the Op-Ed deputy. …
Again, thank you for taking the time to send me the Senator’s draft. I really hope we can find a way to bring this to a happy resolution.
Sincerely,
David Shipley NYT
Assuming Shipley really wants to publish something from McCain rather than bury his article (and without Drudge this might have been buried forever) we need to look at what he expects. Shipley wants McCain to refine his piece so that it mirrors Obama’s. One might think he meant that it should follow the same format and he certainly outlined it that way by indicating that it should explain how McCain defines victory, troop levels, and timetables for measuring success. That might be a reasonable request in the liberal world.
The problem is, it is more likely that Shipley really wants McCain to mirror Obama’s plan for defeat. Nowhere in Obama’s piece did the young Senator define victory. Nowhere did he discuss troop levels and nowhere did he describe a timetable for success. Obama states he will remove all of our troops (leaving a small contingent) within 16 months. Let me reiterate, OBAMA DID NOT DISCUSS WHAT VICTORY WOULD BE. He is vested in defeat and this is why the NYT had no problem publishing his article. Obama’s piece discussed his plan in vague terms and left it open to revision depending on the situation on the ground.
Obama says that he would redeploy our troops and that he would be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. This is the same mantra he has been saying for over a year. In all reality, most of the stuff in his piece is from his stump speeches. The NYT might be accurate that the piece appeared before a particular Obama speech but the content has been part of his speeches for quite some time. Therefore, contrary to Shipley’s claims, the Obama piece did not offer new information.
The 16 month withdraw and leaving troops behind are not new plans. The only thing that is recent is that Obama would now like to have a surge in Afghanistan. He wants to put more troops in Afghanistan despite his objections to doing that in Iraq and despite his assertions that the surge has not worked. He gave credit to the troops but he was quick to point out that Iraq’s government has not held up its end of the bargain. Senator Obama is criticizing the Iraqi government for being slow when our own government has been non existent this year (and for many years). Nothing substantive has been accomplished by our do absolutely nothing Congress and we are not fighting a war on our soil.
The New York Times has demonstrated its liberal bias just as the major broadcast media did when it decided to follow Obama all over the world. When McCain made trips to the war zones, did all the anchors follow him around? It is obvious that the Times does not want to print McCain’s piece because it runs contrary to their opinions and it paints Obama in a poor light because it points out that Obama has never mentioned victory. The reality is that the Times will print any liberal tripe sent to it by left wing celebrities and Democrats in Congress. This is their definition of unbiased reporting. The amazing thing is that liberals who mock Fox for its Fair and Balanced slogan look at the Times as acting fairly.
Is it any wonder that the Times’ circulation is down and that the once great paper is being run into the ground? While I won’t lose any sleep if they go belly up, a lot of people will be out of jobs if they do not right that ship. The last thing we need is one more thing for them to blame on George Bush.
In any event, the McCain Op-Ed was printed in full on Drudge. At least we can count on Drudge to publish things.
Tags: drudge, liberal bias, McCain, new york times, Obama
Loading ...
Loading... 
