BigGameHunt.net Hunting Forums

[Whelland]

Barack Obama has never held a single Senate hearing on Afghanistan. He hasn't been to Iraq in years. He voted against funding for our troops. He voted against the successful surge in Iraq and through his arrogance, fails to admit it was the right thing to do. Now, he made time to go to the gym, but cancelled a visit with wounded troops and blamed it on the Pentagon. Apparently the Pentagon told him he was allowed to go, but wouldn't allow him to bring cameras. Obviously, he thinks more of a photo opportunity than he does the wounded troops.

I guess a whirlwind tour can justify these things to some people. However, he can't just stand in Germany and suggest terrorist torture to the cheers and delight of the Europeans and think it will make everything OK. He even decided upon his plan for the middle east before he went. That just shows arrogance and an unwillingness to learn from what is really going on there.

[jfrench]

Truly sad. Where did you get the info? Paper or tv? I didn't catch it. I hope this gets blasted all over the media, but most likely will not.

[Whelland]

I actually got the information from several sources. I also watched his speech in Germany. You do have to give the guy credit for being charismatic, along with his ability to speak in public.

[expatriate]

Maybe I missed it, but in all the press coverage of Obama's middle east tour, I don't recall a single photo of him shaking hands with anyone in the military. I may be wrong, but I just got an email from someone purportedly at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan that complained about his visit and how he blew off handshakes and shunned opportunities to actually meet with any troops (other than to be seen playing basketball with troops there). I can't guarantee its authenticity, but it sure sounds genuine based on his description of Bagram's layout and security.

[SoCoKHntr]

Whelland wrote: I actually got the information from several sources. I also watched his speech in Germany. You do have to give the guy credit for being charismatic, along with his ability to speak in public.

It's a TV Mcain commercial. I saw it last night on TV and it's script is exactly like Whellands first post. The only word for this is negative campaign propaganda meant to work on people who easily get an emotional rise out of it.

"Oh my, Oh dear, that evil lib disrespected the troops,". It's really pretty desperate when you have to resort to appealing to emotions to try to win an election.

[SoCoKHntr]

expatriate wrote: Maybe I missed it, but in all the press coverage of Obama's middle east tour, I don't recall a single photo of him shaking hands with anyone in the military. I may be wrong, but I just got an email from someone purportedly at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan that complained about his visit and how he blew off handshakes and shunned opportunities to actually meet with any troops (other than to be seen playing basketball with troops there). I can't guarantee its authenticity, but it sure sounds genuine based on his description of Bagram's layout and security.

Yup, I'm sure it's 100% legit, why it's gotta be, after all he's one of them thar evil libs so he must truly hate the troops. A guy who's second cousins, uncles, sisters, brother in law sent me an email on it. Good enough for me.

[SoCoKHntr]

And Expat, before you post it I am pretty sure your next response will be "how dare you, that happens to be from a person who is an E-8 and who I know personally and is fighting for your freedom,".

My point is assertions like that are whether true or not are really pretty thin. I am sure there are many troops who feel exactly like you do about Obama and someone may thought what you posted. But, there may be a surprising number of troops who really like Obama and will be voting for him as well. In fact I saw coverage of him with troops in Iraq and it seemed like they were pretty fond of him.

Again, I thought your post was more grounded in propaganda then truth.

[Whelland]

Now, now SoCo. I admit to seeing the McCain commercial, but there were other things I wrote as well. The script isn't EXACTLY like my 1st post. I also double checked it through other sources before posting. The information is factual, and I watched his Germany speach in it's entirety.

The fact is that BHO was scheduled to visit wounded soldiers. However, he cancelled on them and blamed the Pentagon for not allowing him in. The Pentagon then responded with a factual report that stated, BHO was allowed to go, but wasn't allowed to make it a campaign visit or photo op. Now he's putting yet another spin on it. Plain and simple, he cancelled on the wounded troops, because he couldn't make a grandiose opportunity to promote himself out of it.

I did see some coverage of BHO with some of the troops in his whirlwind tour of photo ops. I'm sure there are also some troops that will vote for him. However, I also know that my son is there right now and he will be voting for McCain, as well as all of his friends. They feel that BHO lacks the experience that McCain brings to the table. With that being said, all of the military folks I speak with will be voting for McCain.

Maybe you should prove some of the facts incorrect.

Did Barack Obama ever hold a Senate hearing on Afghanistan? Nothing I could find.

How many times has he been to Iraq and what was the time lapse between visits?

Did he vote for or against funding for our troops? Looks to me like he voted against it.

Did he vote against the successful surge in Iraq? Looks to me like he did.

Has he failed to admit that the surge was the right thing to do? I've been watching this pretty close, but to my knowledge he hasn't admitted to being wrong yet.

Did he make time to go to the gym, but cancel a visit with wounded troops and then blame it on the Pentagon? See above.

Did BHO stand in Germany and suggest terrorist torture to the cheers and delight of the Europeans? He certainly did in the speech I watched.....or maybe you missed that part.......or maybe you just chose to ignore it.

Did he decide upon his plan for the middle east before he went? I watched him do it....but maybe you missed that too.

It is not appealing to emotion when it's factual.

[SoCoKHntr]

Rovian smear tactics at play. The following is from Seth Colter Walls: entitled Welcome Home Troop Hater, and pretty much sums up my views on this latest TV commercial:

"John McCain is welcoming Barack Obama back to America with a hard right cross.

The message of the Republican's new attack ad that debuted Saturday both perfects and makes more harsh a theme that his campaign has been developing for weeks: specifically, that the Illinois Democrat does not care about American troops. Drawing from Obama's one tactical misstep during his week-long trip abroad -- a canceled visit with wounded troops in Germany, the cause of which was a debate with the Pentagon over political propriety -- the McCain campaign nevertheless believes they have a useful new plot point at their disposal.



When viewed alongside the 900 days that elapsed between visits to Iraq, and his symbolic vote against one round of funding for the war, the McCain camp now hopes the canceled visit in Germany provides a three-act structure to their dramatic imagining of a conflict between Obama and the troops.

Of course, in one particular aspect, McCain's playwrights have resorted to wholesale fiction in order to craft their narrative. However complicated the issue of Obama's canceled troop visit has become, no one -- not the campaign, and not the Pentagon -- has cited a prohibition on "bring[ing] cameras" along with Obama as a reason for the trip's scuttling.

In another distortion that could be viewed as funny were it no so manipulative, McCain's video editor selected footage of Obama sinking a three-point shot to represent time spent at the gym instead of with troops. Of course, that footage was taken in Kuwait, not Germany, at an event for ... troops.

"John McCain is an honorable man who is running an increasingly dishonorable campaign," said Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor in an email to reporters Saturday evening, adding: "Senator McCain knows full well that Senator Obama strongly supports and honors our troops, which is what makes this attack so disingenuous. Senator Obama was honored to meet with our men and women in uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan this week and has visited wounded soldiers at Walter Reed numerous times. This politicization of our soldiers is exactly what Senator Obama sought to avoid, and it's not worthy of Senator McCain or the 'civil' campaign he claimed he would run."

The Obama campaign also sent along an excerpt from the Congressional Record meant to embarrass McCain for his present tactics. In a floor speech from May 2007, the Arizona Republican said:

"How can we possibly find honor in using the fate of our servicemen to score political advantage in Washington? There is no pride to be had in such efforts. We are at war, a hard and challenging war, and we do no service for the best of us-those who fight and risk all on our behalf-by playing politics with their service."
In June, McCain apologized for using the image of Gen. David Petraeus in a political mailer, saying that politicization of the military would "not happen again" in his campaign.

Still, it appears that there's something of a pattern to the recent ads coming out of McCain's campaign. Compare the latest to another from last week, entitled "Troop Funding":



Is it a coincidence that such consistency of message on a blunt force topic like support for troops comes in the first month after Karl Rove protégé Steve Schmidt took over the day-to-day reins of McCain's campaign? If so, look for much more of this between now and November.

Script For "Troops" (TV :30)
Anncr: Barack Obama never held a single Senate hearing on Afghanistan.
He hadn't been to Iraq in years.
He voted against funding our troops.
And now, he made time to go to the gym, but cancelled a visit with wounded troops.
Seems the Pentagon wouldn't allow him to bring cameras.
John McCain is always there for our troops.
McCain. Country first.
John McCain: I'm John McCain and I approve this message.


UPDATE: Rhode Island Democrat Sen. Jack Reed responds to McCain's ad:

I was with Senator Obama last week as we met privately with troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Senator Obama listened to their concerns and expressed his gratitude for their service without press or fanfare. He cares for our troops deeply and has worked hard to give them not only the resources they need, but also honor their service with a clearly defined mission and by providing them with the support they have earned when they come home. And just as Senator McCain's support of President Bush's veto of funding for our troops doesn't mean he does not support them, neither does Senator Obama's insistence that we not give George Bush a blank check. "

[Whelland]

SoCo,

I should have known better than to expect a line item response refuting the facts. You have yet to do so from several posts.

The facts still remain facts. Even if you don't like the way it was put out. Along with the quote from a democrat and a piece written by a liberal from the liberal media, that didn't like it either. I'm not real suprised there.

I will be doing more research regarding Barack Obama's voting record, positions past and present, previous quotes compared to what he is saying now, and refuting them with facts along with a full analysis.

No matter what rhetoical spin or twist you decide to put on them, they are still facts.

[SoCoKHntr]

Also regarding the Surge Jason Linkins reports on this very question asked to Obama by the following reporter:

"At the Unity Conference in Chicago this morning, Barack Obama, for the 365,292nd time, was asked if he felt he needed to admit that the "Surge" worked, and by extension, that McCain is awesome and the Bush administration brilliant. Because the "Surge," a thin sliver of military tactic that lasted a few months and is now over, is the ONE THING about the ENTIRE IRAQ WAR that the press is trying to get their head around. (Exhibit A: Katie Couric)

Here's the question, as asked by Time magazine's Romesh Ratnesar:

RATNESAR: Senator, I want to ask you about a subject you've had to address repeatedly on this trip, which is the situation in Iraq and the question whether the surge has helped improve conditions there. During the primaries, you criticized Senator Clinton for failing to say that her vote authorizing the war was a mistake. Now we have commanders on the ground pretty much saying that the surge succeeded, and yet you've said that if you had to do it all over again, you still would have voted against the surge. We're not going to ask you to change your position here.

OBAMA: You're not going to ask me, but go ahead.
RATNESAR: I would like to know whether you feel that after the last five years, haven't we learned that a commander in chief needs to be willing to acknowledge mistakes or errors in judgment when circumstances change?


So Obama should admit the "surge" has worked because the commanders on the ground say so? The funny thing about those commanders on the ground -- the Bush administration sure had to fire or otherwise hound out of their jobs a WHOLE LOT OF COMMANDERS before we were left with the ones who deploy nothing more than SURGE LOGIC (TM) and knee-jerk reactions whenever they are asked to summarize the strategic situation in Iraq.

And that's the irony of SURGE LOGIC - it actually thrives so long as the conditions include the commander-in-chief never being willing to acknowledge mistakes when circumstances change.

Anyway, Obama's response was this:

You know, I have to say, it is fascinating to me the to hear you guys reemphasize this over and over again. I have not heard yet somebody ask John McCain whether his vote to go into Iraq was a mistake. i haven't, during the entire week that we were having this conversation. And so the question is, what are the strategic judgments that have to be made in order to make America safe? I strongly believe that going into Iraq was a disaster, strategically. It distracted us from finishing the job in Afghanistan. I have acknowledged, repeatedly, in every one of these interviews that the fact that we put more troops in there helped to quell the violence. i've been saying that all week. The question is whether or not my position in suggesting that we need to begin a phased withdrawal, we should have begun it earlier, whether that position that I took was a mistake, and I do not believe it was, because I continue to believe that the only way for us to stabilize the situation in Iraq -- I believed it then, and I believe it now -- is for the parties to arrive at a set of political accommodations."


Seriously Whelland, step into the shoes of your average Iraqi for a moment. How would you feel if a country invaded your home occupied it for seven years and during this time the warfare killed most if not all of your family and they suddenly pumped some more troops in to restore order after most of the people had been killed or left and told you after losing your family how successful the operation had been. Would you be falling over yourself to thank them?

Remember this the Surge took place after two years of daily killings between Shites and Sunnis where hundreds were killed each day. Literally whole neighborhoods were killed or the inhabitants left. Under these conditions by pumping in 30,000 more troops it's not exactly beyond the scope of reason violence will go down.

Would have been nice if Rummsfeld had thought like that in the first place and he and Bush hadn't fired the Generals who advised more boots on the ground in the first place.

[SoCoKHntr]

Whelland wrote: SoCo,

I should have known better than to expect a line item response refuting the facts. You have yet to do so from several posts.

The facts still remain facts. Even if you don't like the way it was put out. Along with the quote from a democrat and a piece written by a liberal from the liberal media, that didn't like it either. I'm not real suprised there.

I will be doing more research regarding Barack Obama's voting record, positions past and present, previous quotes compared to what he is saying now, and refuting them with facts along with a full analysis.

No matter what rhetoical spin or twist you decide to put on them, they are still facts.

Your info comes from repub sources and pundits and you will just be repeating questionable info from sources like hannity, rush, savage, coulter, and others. But hey, knock yourself out on that valuable research with 'full' analysis.

[Whelland]

SoCo,

While I certainly don't disagree that the surge should have taken place before it did, it's easy to look at it now in hindsight and say, "shoulda, woulda, coulda."

As far as feeling sorry for those poor, innocent people that were trying to kill our soldiers........not gonna happen. You're putting a spin on it like we went in to wipe them all out and didn't care who we killed. Furthermore, if I was subjected to a tyrannical government, and someone came in to overthrow it, I would certainly be grateful. Then again, with our 2nd ammendment right, it's something we don't have to worry about yet.

Obama did put a nice little spin on the whole thing with his special, rhetorical touch, but I'm not buying what he's shoveling. The fact still remains that he voted against the surge and fails to state the obvious.

[SoCoKHntr]

Whelland wrote:
As far as feeling sorry for those poor, innocent people that were trying to kill our soldiers........not gonna happen. You're putting a spin on it like we went in to wipe them all out and didn't care who we killed. Furthermore, if I was subjected to a tyrannical government, and someone came in to overthrow it, I would certainly be grateful. Then again, with our 2nd ammendment right, it's something we don't have to worry about yet.
.

It's not about feeling sorry for someone, although I do feel sorry for the woman and children and always will and don't care what I'm labeled for that.

It's really about logic and common sense. If those people really had the same values you do and should be grateful about their Tyrannical Gov. being overthrown, then why weren't we greeted with flowers as liberators and why have we been fighting an insurgency for the last seven years?

[SoCoKHntr]

Whelland, my conservative pal here is a little list from some 'research' I've done. Please refute each bullet point as you have asked me to do with your list. Hurry, we'll see who gets done first.


"May 2006: McCain voted against an amendment that would provide $20 million to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for health care facilities.

April 2006: McCain was one of only 13 Senators to vote against $430,000,000 for the VA for Medical Services for outpatient care and treatment for veterans.

March 2006: McCain voted against increasing Veterans medical services funding by $1.5 billion in FY 2007 to be paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes.

March 2004: Again McCain voted against creating a reserve fund to allow for an increase in Veterans' medical care by $1.8 billion by eliminating abusive tax loopholes.

October 2003: McCain voted to table an amendment for an additional $322,000,000 for safety equipment for United States forces in Iraq.

April 2003: McCain urged other Senate members to table a vote (which never passed) to provide more than $1 billion for Guard and Reserve equipment in Iraq related to a shortage of helmets, tents, bullet-proof inserts, and tactical vests.

August 2001: McCain voted against increasing the amount available for medical care for veterans by $650,000,000."

http://www.veteransforcommonse.....cleid/9559


Whelland, my dear friend does this really seem like care for our troops?