Barack Obama is either stupid, ignorant, or an absolutely pathetic liar (or all three)

By Jeff Emanuel Posted in | | | | Comments (114) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

CY did a great job with this story here. I have just the following to add:

Barack Obama is, quite simply, doing at least one of three things here (and, with credit to Lileks, I fully expect the Left to shut up and reverently honor my acting out of the highest form of patriotism with regard to Mr. Obama and dissenting against him):

(1) He is lying his ArmaniGucci pants off, on purpose.

(2) He is blowing smoke out his fourth point of contact just to be able to appease his base more

(3) He is so mind-blowingly ignorant of the military and its status in the GWOT that he either heard this story and believed it, or thought that nobody less mind-numbingly vacuous and stupid than him would see through it.

Though these options are not mutually exclusive, the two parts of option (3) are the least exclusive of all.

The spinning after the fact makes all the difference in the world to this story, too.

Obama originally said:

They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief.

Now, in the AP factcheck (never thought I'd be stringing those two words together without a "that never happened" tacked onto the end), the story says:

The captain said, however, that the unit did not go after the Taliban for the purpose of getting their weapons, but sometimes used those weapons when some were captured.

The former -- Obama's original, so-stupid-and-false-that-it's-almost-impossible-to-respond-to story -- is absolutely ridiculous, and is (in keeping with the options listed above) either a bold-faced lie, a made-up story that the teller didn't expected to be called on (and, given that the Left's knowledge of the different types and uses of cannabis typically tends to be vastly superior to its knowledge of anything military or warfare-related, why would he ever expect to be questioned or caught?), or (and this likely goes along with the above two options) a sign of a frightening level of military ignorance on the part of a common citizen -- LET ALONE on the part of a SITTING UNITED STATES SENATOR.

The second version? Believable, for some obvious reasons. See this picture? That's me -- as a journalist, not as an operator -- firing an AK-47 on the shooting range at Patrol Base Olson in Samarra, Iraq. The AK-47 is one of several in the Company Arms Room there. They are not taken out on missions (or, if they ever are, it is because a replacement part is needed in a pinch, and a resupply convoy might not be scheduled to come until later that day or perhaps the next), but are novelty/"cool-guy" weapons taken as the spoils of battle, which are cleaned and taken care of by the Company's soldiers and are fired, for fun, familiarity, and proficiency -- on the Patrol Base firing range. This is a normal activity for combat units.

Now, can anybody here spot the difference between the Obama debate story and the revised, AP-written one? That's right -- the absolute-crap, made-up-to-get-attention, show-of-unbelivable-ignorance Obamariginal story tells of those events in the context of President Bush and SecDef Gates so underequipping soldiers that they have to go capture enemy weapons to fight (no word on how they would do that if they aren't able to be armed themselves due to a lack of supplies -- guess we really do have a force of Rambos in the conventional Army); the AP story makes clear that what this really was was units taking "war trophies" they had earned in combat, and using them for various purposes outside of their official duties, which they performed while using standard-issue, in-stock, plentifully-supplied American weapons, and occasionally using them as spot-replacements for broken gear (imagine that, gear getting broken in war!) while awaiting a regularly-scheduled resupply.

The lying has gotten beyond ridiculous here. It's time for Obama the Messiah-in-Waiting to stop breaking the 9th Commandment, or to officially declare that in the religion for which he serves as Godhead, we can all disregard fact and truth in the name of spinning a good yarn.

After all, it's "for the greater good" -- and it's all about compromise.

« Question and answer time: the Wes Clark thing.Comments (50) | To answer Bob (and Glenn's) question...Comments (21) »
Barack Obama is either stupid, ignorant, or an absolutely pathetic liar (or all three) 114 Comments (0 topical, 114 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

Obama wasn't lying. He believed the "truthiness" of the tale, then spun it to appear as if it was still going on.

It's much worse than mere lying. That's understandable. Rather, he's ignorant of the issue at hand: war and peace.

This is ignorance on a galactic scale.

"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill

From ABC's Jake Tapper:

Also in Afghanistan they had issues getting parts for their MK-19s and their 50-cals. Getting parts or ammunition for their standard rifles was not a problem.

"It was very difficult to get any parts in theater," he says, "because parts are prioritized to the theater where they were needed most -- so they were going to Iraq not Afghanistan."

"The purpose of going after the Taliban was not to get their weapons," he said, but on occasion they used Taliban weapons. Sometimes AK-47s, and they also mounted a Soviet-model DShK (or "Dishka") on one of their humvees instead of their 50 cal.

I think you've got a problem with either the soldier or Jake Tapper. But Obama's story checks out here, though perhaps you have a semantic quibble over whether the weapon-grabbing motive is implied in "capturing."

They did have enough of a certain kind of weapon (specifically the ammunition), that was because of prioritization toward Iraq, so they captured some replacements and used them instead. That appears to be, via Tapper, the soldier's story. It's very different from your "trophy" interpretation -- which is based on your experiences in "prioritized" Iraq, right? -- and pretty darn close to Obama's version.

(-2.75, -4.92)

longer rules a nation and hasn't since 2001. On a side note, the Crypts don't rule LA.

Obama NEVER praises the noble mission of America in Afghanistan or anywhere on Earth outside his campaign. Rather, he and the dem party characterize the US military as "our kids" as victims of President Bush.

We don't hire Presidents to relate anecdotes whose purpose is to make America look bad.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer

But let's be honest here, if the Taliban hadn't been aiding Al Queda and if September 11th never happened we would not have sent our troops there to overthrow the Taliban.

We did it because it was in our best interest. Whether the mission of America in Afghanistan is noble is debatable. There can be a distinction between America's interests and the soldiers' sacrifice.

Several factors make our mission in Afghanistan noble, most if not all of which requires one to recognize absolute truth, good and evil in a substantive sense.

America is good.
The Taliban were and are bad.
The Taliban did and do target innocent life intentionally to achieve a political purpose.

So, you miss the point when you speak of interests, without addressing the interests of whom.

moral relativism sucks
It sucks that one could suggest that the nobility of our mission in Afghanistan is debatable.

Young man, I pray you will resist the University's mission to make a fool of you.

It is not a rule that you not be wise before age 40.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer

The hubris is astounding in your comment.

"America is good"

Was America good when it allowed slavery?

You speak of an absolute truth, absolute is perfection and yet you claim man is capable of creating or achieving perfection? That position is laughable.

Oh yeah, they have and do everyday. Verdict for the USA.

see also

is v was
now v then
west 1st civilization to end slavery on moral grounds v Taliban defined now by enslavement of whole population

Sorry for all the words. Please, speak, You are my best witness.


Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer

I see depending on the time in history America can be either good or bad, America during slavery = bad, America after slavery = good. sounds awful relative to me, nothing absolute about that.

Absolute truth = perfection and no person or nation is going to be capable of that.

Have you supported every single military campaign the US has launched in its entire history? Yes or no.

I actually am in full support of Afghanistan, so that is something we probably agree on. I am merely saying the nobility of America's actions are debateable.

Your still free to answer the earlier question.

I don't think you read my previous comment. I fully support the military actions in Afghanistan and believe it to be noble.

I do believe however that not all actions undertaken by the US are noble. You seem to believe the contrary with the absolute truth position.

Can you answer my above question or not?

As i stated before I believe Afghanistan to be a noble cause.

But one might argue that we only toppled the Taliban because after September 11th their harboring Al Queda was a threat to us our goal was to elliminate that threat and to many of us here in the US we view that to be a noble cause.

Someone else might not have seen them as a continued threat and because someone needed to be punished for September 11th, they were the easiest target. They'd say that we were not there for the people but only as a political move to hit someone fast and after we achieved that we did not care anymore. That would be self serving and maybe not considered a noble cause.

But this isn't really about Afghanistan, this is about your position that America is good because it is backed by "absolute truth". Your flawed logic prevents you from answering my very simple question. Can you give me an answer?

I would be up for it later. If we say yes, you will talk about sick Indians or maybe the war with Mexico. I will tell you clearly that our troops, in all conflicts, have had my respect. But if you want a general answer to your question, yes, I can think of no major US war that I would have protested or thought to be inherently wrong. Of course bad things happen in all wars, that is why it is war.


Molon Labe!

I would agree that the troops in all conflicts have my respect as well and they have fought nobly I am not arguing that at all. I am saying that America, its politics and motivations in using those troops, is not always noble.


Molon Labe!

E Pluribus Unum
In God We Trust

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer

...he reaffirms and strengthens it:

Redeploy American Troops to Afghanistan. Barack Obama will deploy at least an additional two brigades (7,000 personnel) of rested, trained American troops to Afghanistan to reinforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO’s efforts to fight the Taliban.

Strengthen NATO’s Hand in Afghanistan. NATO currently has 39,000 troops in Afghanistan. However, the force is short-staffed according to requirements laid down by NATO commanders. At the same time, some countries contributing forces are imposing restrictions on where their troops can operate, tying the hands of commanders on the ground. In particular, France and Germany have been unwilling to commit troops to areas where the fighting is heaviest. As president, Obama will work with European allies to end these burdensome restrictions and strengthen NATO as a fighting force...

Train and Equip the Afghan Army and Police. [...] Barack Obama will strengthen the training and equipping of the Afghan army and police and increase Afghan participation in U.S. and NATO missions, so that there is more of an Afghan face on security.

Increase Non-Military Aid to Afghanistan by $1 billion. [...] This aid would fund reconstruction, police and army training, embassy operations, and local projects including efforts to impact the lives of ordinary Afghans and to give farmers alternatives to growing opium poppies. The aid would also be tied to better performance by the Afghan national government, including anti-corruption initiatives and efforts to extend the rule of law across the country.

Now, I'm sure there's plenty of debate over this plan. For instance, the idea the France and Germany will end their restrictions is far-fetched. But, I don't see how you can say he doesn't (going so far as to say "NEVER") praise the mission in Afghanistan when he wants to send additional brigades. In fact, a large portion of his criticism of the Iraq War is founded in his belief that the Afghanistan War was indeed noble and necessary. But mostly my post was concentrating on Jeff's post and not the wider political scene.

(-2.75, -4.92)

yeah right, if we surrender in Iraq, it will not exactly be shock and awe to the Taliban. And if you think France and Germany are going to listen to this newbie Obama, heh.


Molon Labe!

our enemies that we won't fight unless we can beat them in 2 weeks.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer

Show me ONE link where he EVER uses the word NOBLE re ANY USA military mission. Leftists like him reserve that word for "community" organizing or protests in Berkeley.

He says he wants to send all able bodied Americans thru the Khyber Pass on a Charge of the Light Brigade redux to find one man so we can give him Miranda rights and release him if an OJ jury nullifies history, but he, and all Dem but Joe

Never affirm the nobility of the US military.

No, they want to "protect"? the military. Our "kids".

I guess they want to hide the military in the Yuka and let them be the last to die at the hands of the Taliban and their ilk.

Don't try and fool me bubba. I have been awake and past puberty since 1972 and was a dem activist and official from 1980-1998. I know the aggression inviting weakness of the dems, and know that Obama would leave in 72 hours if any occupied land didn't resemble Connecticut that soon, lest his approval poll ratings suffer from a body bag in Delaware.

Nothing defines the post JFK dem party more than weakness on defense, hence, the ad hominem attacks.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer

and as you well know, and imply, the left thinks our troops are victims and people with no other opportunities. This is why they always talk about how most of our troops are poor and minorities (false), because in Demo World, this must be so, why else would one join?

We know better, we know our troops are the best of us, we know they are noble warriors who have are undying respect and pride.


Molon Labe!

a leftist speak of the troops as "our kids" and how they want to "protect" the troops (via "standing up").

The millions that we have liberated from tyranny are invisible to them.

I HATE the democratic party.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer


Molon Labe!

the left to live in the greatest nation in the history of Earth, and not appreciate the miracle and love this country. I cannot fathom such decadence. It would be akin to being alienated from God.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer

Sorry Jeff, you just don't get it. According to the Tapper article, Jake also says:

"I find that Obama's anecdote checks out...I might suggest those on the blogosphere upset about this story would be better suited directing their ire at those responsible for this problem, which is certainly not new. That is, if they actually care about the men and women bravely serving our country at home and abroad."

See, Jeff? You're not allowed to question His Obama-ness. If you do....well, you just don't care about the men and women bravely serving our country. Who cares if he knows what he's talking about? He Shall Not Be Questioned!

Ugh. I think I'm going to be seriously ill for the next nine months. If Barack happens to win the election, I'll have to extend that sickness for at least four more years.

It really doesn't matter how well-sourced or well-written your article is, the media will NEVER question Obama, nor will they ALLOW him to be questioned. It's absolutely disgusting. In any case, thank you for the insight from someone who is not well-schooled in these matters. I appreciate the time and effort, but I'm afraid it's all for naught as the MSM will provide unyielding cover for their Messiah.

I'd like them to dig further into BO's past, and how he was raised. His mother was an avowed atheist. She married a man from Kenya, who disappeared when the child was two. Then she went and married a man from Indonesia, and relocated there.

Next, his pastor and confidant said 9/11 was retribution for America's racist past.

Lastly, his wife claims that, until now, she's never been proud of her country.

Let's start connecting some dots here.

But I don't like what they're saying about you.

"Time and the bell have buried the day, the black cloud carries the sun away."
T.S Eliot, Four Quartets.

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

is debatable, refuses to make the case for ignobility, yet demands that his challenger pass judgment on scores of other American missions.

indy2008 is not an honorable commenter

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer

Do tell. I'd have to say most Americans agree, which is precisely why Bush's approval rating is approaching an historically low percentage.

Whatever initial popular support this administration may have had over the war, it was squandered due to the perceived lack of competence in pursuing a goal with continually evolving justifications and shifting goalposts.

It was about "staying the course" until the 2006 midterm GOP losses, when the course changed. This raised the possibility that if this administration had paid heed to early well-researched studies on occupation logistics, hundreds of American kids that are dead now that would not be otherwise.

You can whine about it all you want, but you're not going to win on this issue.

2nd off these men and women resigned in record numbers after having been to Iraq sometimes twice....these men and women love their job....this President is their boss...Obama is nothing more than a leftist wack job spouting the same bogus crap about our military that they always do.

I question not only Obama's patriotism I question his wife's patriotism. America has always been noble, not all American's owned slaves and those who did not fought and died to end slavery and by the way the party that fought to keep slavery was the Democrat Party, that old bastion of white supremacy party.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

It took you multiple comments to finally admit that America's mission in Afghanistan is noble. You lie and say you said it earlier, but all your comments are memorialized, and so, you lied.

Congrats on finally being shamed into admitting the obvious.

Pitiful leftist. We now seek to shame you into admitting more obvious truths, like

BUT one might argue that we ONLY toppled Hirohito due to the little incident at Pearl harbour.

See? Does this analogy make you see how foolish is your "only."?
If not, then look in the mirror and say hello to Fool.

Also, let me introduce the word deterrence to your vocabulary.

So, after 9/11 Afghanistan was the easiest target?


How about Canada?

Wouldn't Canada have been easier? Or Hatii?

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer

I never stated Afghanistan wasn't a noble act, I merely said that it is debateble, meaning people can debate the nature of nobility in the act. Show me a quote where I state Afghanistan in not noble.

You still can't answer a simple yes or no question. Doc answered. Its not really hard, unless of course you are stating America is good based on absolute truth. So go ahead and answer already and stop changing the topic, its tiring.

Dodging the question til the very end. All the signs of a great debater.

No doubt you supported president Clinton's Operation Allied Force. You know, to stop ethnic cleansing, genocide and all that.

You did, didn't you?

Thats a great statement but its not an answer to the question. Yes or no?

If you answer "yes" than you'll have to explain your support for military campaigns like Operation Allied Force and tell us how noble you think Clinton was for doing so. Keep in mind this is not about the troops this is about the motivations for the military campaign not its performance.

But this is not about any real specific military conflict. It is about your belief that America is always "good" based on some absolute truth and the enemy is always "bad". Your ever so eloquent statement that "moral relativism sucks" leads me to think that you some how equate all of America's actions, especially the military ones, as being based on some moral absolute. That means that you trust Congress, you know the ones with the power to declare war, to determine moral absolutes and in your opinion they have been right every single time.

Your position is a joke.

accepting the answer. If you really wanted to discuss various conflicts, such as Operation Allied Force (which I supported), then you would not be acting like a classic troll. This is not Daily Kos, we will not play into your game. Feel free to respond, but I will not feed you.


Molon Labe!

This wasn't really about any specific military campaign, although the discussion started because of Afghanistan. This was about GC's belief that America is always good and its military campaigns always noble based on some absolute truth, moral absolutism perhaps.

I find his position with that reasoning to be flawed. The question was about support, not about outcome, those are two different factors, one can support a position yet still be unhappy with the outcome or vice versa.

(our means the USA) mission in Afghanistan is debatable.

See my first comment

Then yours

"That" is what "this" is about.

I appreciate that you conceded your country's mission is noble in less than 2 hours. Better than most hate America libs.

I have nothing but contempt (if over 30) and/or pity (if under 30) for any American that does
not understand the concepts of good and evil and world history enough to recognize the obvious goodness of the US.

Your persistent efforts to tear down America is contemptible. Good Americans make it possible for punks to do so in comfort.

Mike "Gamecock" DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

don't you realize that everything is relative -- Communism, for instance had nothing but noble intentions -- even if the results were somewhat flawed. One man's good is another man's atrocity. Who are we to be judgmental?


This post has been brought to by Thorazyne and other psychotropic drugs -- better living through chemistry

Mike "Gamecock" DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Play nice. This is a moderator speaking.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Not addressed to me, but I wonder if you've become lost in the blogosphere and can't find our way home.

"It is about your belief that America is always "good" based on some absolute truth and the enemy is always "bad". Your ever so eloquent statement that "moral relativism sucks" leads me to think that you some how equate all of America's actions, especially the military ones, as being based on some moral absolute."

Speaking only for myself, I find it odd that any American would think that America isn't "always 'good.'" It makes no sense to believe that we're "bad." And, by definition, that would make our enemies "always 'bad.'" They are enemies, after all.

That is NOT to say that our actions are always right and never wrong.

As to those actions being based on a "moral absolute," they SHOULD always be based on the "absolute" idea that they have to benefit the American people first and foremost. Benefitting
others at our expense has no place in the equation. Again, the actions taken might turn out to be wrong, as in ineffective or even counterproductive, but their aim should be to benefit us.

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.

It seems most commentors believe that as long as an action is done for the benefit of the American people than it is a just and noble cause. Does that sound like a fair assesment?

American wars ?

Otherwise you arguing over nothing.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

How about the Indian Wars, Seminole Wars, the Mexican-American War, one might argue half of America was unjust in the Civil War.

I am sure you can justify any war really. I am only suggesting that our motivations for war are not always noble, politicians will give noble reasons and history might record it as such but that might not always be the sole prupose. Our own self interst doen not inherntly make the act noble.

I'll state again too that the performance of our troops is always worthy of respect.

you know D*** well you were talking about THIS war and THIS president -- and so you are now just being a disingenuous troll!


This post has been brought to by Thorazyne and other psychotropic drugs -- better living through chemistry

He is about as Indy Howard Dean. His technique is transparent in the extreme. In short he does very good work making lefty trolls look bad.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

You would be wrong.

The Mexican American war ? I am sorry care to try again? Are you saying that Texas did not have the right to join the Union ? Or are you saying we did not have the right to accept her in ? Or do you feel the correct border was the Nueces ?

Civil war, you can argue indefinitely. The obvious fact though is the part that would be considered wrong by your viewpoint was not part of America at the time.

And please pray tell, elaborate on the Indian wars. Are you saying that overall they were unjust ? Or was the scope of the victories too much for you ?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I wonder why the US would apologize? Can't be that we were in the wrong now could it?

"CAPITOL HILL (AP) - A formal apology to American Indians for years of government mistreatment and abuse is included in an Indian health care bill expected to pass the Senate later this month.

Senator Sam Brownback has been pushing the resolution for the past four years. He says he hopes the measure "helps heal the wounds that have divided America for too long." The Kansas Republican says relations between the federal government and the tribes have been marked by "broken treaties, mistreatment and dishonorable dealings."

The resolution specifically notes that the federal government forced Indians off tribal lands and stole tribal assets among other "official depredations."

BTW are they now apologizing to themselves ?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Um...No. Indians maintain their own sovereign Nations within the boundaries of the US. So this is the US apologizing to a sovereign people for its policies and actions. Apologize usually come when someone admits they are in the wrong or acted morally wrong. So Indian Wars = morally wrong. Got it?

I know it is tough to admit being wrong but it suits you. Have a great day.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

You really need to let the Native Americans know that they can't vote and aren't citizens.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

is a point system for the salient use of the word "beclown"

I just love it!

This post has been brought to by Thorazyne and other psychotropic drugs -- better living through chemistry

(and couldn't do so multiple times, and late (as in after the polls closed and the Democrats needed more votes), and possibly late (as in deceased)) John Thune would hold both Senate seats in South Dakota :D

Now you're just making outlandish extrapolations for no real purpose as far as I can see.

For on last time, the discussion was about whether or not the motives for America entering into any particular military campain can be morally debatable. Not the troops performace mind you but the motivations, which include politics and National interests and all sorts of things. Everyone who has chimmed in seems to feel every single military campaign the US has undertaken has been morally in the right and therefor "good" Some have attributed this to an absolute truth or moral absolutism with America = good and any opposition = evil.

That position, although simplistic, is fine to take but it means that both Congress and the Commander in Chief have an infallibility in determining good and evil as they are the only ones who have the ability to declare war and use military force. If the Democrat controlled Congress or the President decided tomorrow to invade Canada and use all nuclear options to liberate Quebec, they would be absolute morally right to do so. You are granting Congress the ability to define good and evil. Period. That form of logic I can not accept.

It means that you supported fully President Clinton in his moral reasons for Operation Allied Shield and not once questioned that it was to divert attention from his sex scandal. You would have been in complete support of Clinton's continuation of Operation Restore Hope and opposed with every fiber of your being the Congressional Republicans pressure for him to withdraw the troops without completing their mission.

I don't believe Congress or the President is infallibile, in decissions of war or anything else. I believe thay can act morally but are equaly capable of acting immoral and so America's motivations for war are debatable.

But signifying nothing.

So much effort on your part.

Let me correct you. Everyone here understood you wanted to turn this into a discussion of if at anytime during our history somewhere someplace an American acted with an impure motive.

With some fair confidence everyone, I say everyone, understood where you were coming from. We, again I take a liberty, have a pretty good idea about your attempt to hang any baggage that might be found in attic of history on this war.

Nobody fell for it.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

No fury here. Maybe you just needed to vent.

I think you missed the point of the original disagreement that I had with GC. It was about claiming America has an absolute truth or moral behind every military action it takes.

That is a debatable position.

Mike "Gamecock" DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Can we go any thinner?

_The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher._

And perhaps you should read up on the Mexican-American War some more. Texas was part of Mexico, American settlers were illegaly crossing the border and settling there, Mexico out of good faith and probably poor border security allowed a few but then it got out of control. The US offered to buy Texas, Mexico refussed and then the situation degraded into war. Doesn't sound just to me.

That wanted to join the Union.

It seems in your case a child was left behind.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Not at the time of the illegal settling by Americans, who do you think pushed for independant nation status, the Mexicans living there? It was Americans who had illegaly settled in Mexico territory.

Please read and study the history of the US you'll learn a lot and be worthy of debate.

The "Illegal settling by Americans" was done by grants made by the Mexican government.

Can you get anything correct on the topic ?

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

_I almost said "finest" moment, but it really was one of the most amazing displays of projection of force up 'til that time. If you want to read a good historical fiction book about the war, check out Jeff Shaara's "Gone For Soldiers".

I am not at all saying we were wrong to fight the war, but we did kind of take advantage of Mexico when we had her down. Yes, it was about the Texas border, but after we took Mexico city, we bagged California, New Mexico, etc in the bargain. Of course I am glad we did it, but the war was not quite as noble as say WW2 :). OTOH, the troops and generals were just as noble.


Molon Labe!

we have to consider the mores of the era. The history of the world is imperialism -- win a war --take what land you have won. Only TODAY do we look down upon our own history as though it were some anomaly in world history.

of our endeavors are exact copies of themselves. Actually the Mexican War was not simply keeping land we captured. We took the enemies capital and "convinced" them to give us California, and the future New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada. Considering the wealth of California alone, it was a big loss for Mexico and a big win for us.

I know you are not saying I am looking down on us, because that would be just stupid. :)


Molon Labe!

and expanding on your own comment.


Molon Labe!

The beginning though ?

I can certainly understand why at the end. We offered a reasonable settlement to avoid the war and were quite ticked we had to go to war in the first place.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

"Speaking only for myself, I find it odd that any American would think that America isn't "always 'good.'" It makes no sense to believe that we're "bad.""

More proof that people go bat**** when we discuss the war. We have heavily progressive taxation. Is that "good?" We have gay marriage in several states. Is that good? Quite a few of the Indians we exterminated were innocent. That wasn't good. Oh, abortion. Abortion lowers crime and reduces the number of Democratic voters, so it must be fantastic.

If we ever enter a war where we're obviously in the wrong, I'll switch sides gladly.

Please indicate your understanding of this in your next post.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

My reluctance to ban you merely for your essential cowardice in not insulting me to my face will not protect you if you decide to play any games with this. You will state that you understand that we do not permit gay-baiting, you will state that you will not do that in the future, and then you will in fact not do that in the future.


The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I didn't even think of that when I posted. Duly noted.

Ironically, I'm in favor of legalised gay marriage, which I've mentioned on my blog, but I thought in my lack-of-critical-thinking that it would be a good example of controversy. However I can see why what I said doesn't belong at Red State. My apologies.

What part of this wasn't clear?

"That is NOT to say that our actions are always right and never wrong."

Perhaps I needed to italicize "actions."

I could even go on about the futility of trying to assign the concepts of "good" and "bad" at the national level, for any nation.

If you like to ponder situational ethics, ponder this: The President's Constitutionally prescribed oath of office reads, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

What course should a President take when faced with a situation that requires him to break a law in order to preserve the existence of the United States? Don't overlook the fact that without the US, there would be no Constitution. In fact, to some extent the Constitution and the United States are one and the same, especially within the context of the Oath.

One man's bat****iness, offered for your consideration, in The Twilight Zone.

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.

We had the noble purpose of preventing another world war. We as usual had a Europe unable to do what was needed to defend themselves.

If you can argue that stopping an ongoing genocide was a bad idea, that says more about you than the people you are challenging.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

This is what you stated up thread regarding the war in Afghanistan: We did it because it was in our best interest. Whether the mission of America in Afghanistan is noble is debatable.

US policy should first have centered on whether or not our presence in Afghanistan, or Iraq, for that matter, was in our best interest. The same applies to Kosovo.

Once the decision was made to go to war then politics should take a back seat (or "stop at the water's edge")and give way to a desire for victory.

The Democrats, who own the majority in the US Senate and House provide hope, aid and comfort for an enemy that knows their path to victory does not take them through the battlefield against the world's greatest power.

Whether or not a war is "noble" or just is immaterial to a soldier who is performing his duty to his country.

For your information, I supported the Clinton Administration's actions in Kosovo once the decision was made to pursue these actions. "Politics end at the water's edge".

Our country has not always made the best decisions even though the decisions may have been in our best (or self) interest at the time. But, overall, I believe that we have done much to rectify mistakes from our past. Few other countries have done likewise. Most importantly, we have done this as free people.

SNERDLEY: There is absolutely nothing authentic about Barack Obama or his wife, for that matter. We've seen it all before. There is absolutely nothing here that we haven't seen before. They are phonies. For those of you brothers and sisters in the EIB hood, they're frontin,' man. That's it. And for our Hispanic brothers and sisters, no es verdad, muy malo.

RUSH: Thank you, Mr. Snerdley, the Official Criticizer of Barack Obama here at the EIB Network. But I must respectfully disagree with our Obama criticizer on one point. I think that there is a new idea. I've actually thought about this. It doesn't take away from Mr. Snerdley's criticism of Obama as a phony or inauthentic, but there is a new idea, and it's been running around, it's actually not new, but it's become almost an official stamp of the Democrat Party and the American left. And that is the concept that America is bad and failed, that Americans just can't cut it, that we need help from government, and we need help from illegal immigrants. Look at the Obamas. They are hugely successful. They are black. They are spreading the idea, though, that black people can't make it in America. Not only that, they're spreading the idea that nobody can make it in America, and that is the new idea. If you Democrats want to claim that you have a new idea, then you can steal this from me because it's yours already. The new idea is that no one can make it in America.

Now, this has always been one of their underpinnings, one of the foundational building blocks of their ideology but now they're out in the open with it, now they're saying it out loud, now their presidential candidate, a black man and his wife who have made it and are hugely successful, are telling everybody else they can't. Where did they learn this attitude? They learned this attitude at their Ivy League skrools, they learned it in their hate-America church. They think -- and they might be right -- that they are the first generation with this attitude. Do you think Mr. and Mrs. Obama want a better life for their kids than they had for themselves? They're like all normal parents, wouldn't you think? But do you think they're telling their own kids, you can't make it in this country? "What do you mean, Daddy, we see you running for president, what do you mean?" "No, son, you can't make it, you can't make it. Tell 'em, Michelle, they can't make it, can't make it. That's right, boys, you can't make it, not in America. Girls, girls, you can't, especially you girls and you're black, especially you can't make it in America." "But Mommy, but Mommy --" "No, listen to me! This country is failed, it's over, you can't make it unless, of course, Daddy gets to be president."

Last night, Barack Obama, as his silver-tongued beliefs were flowing out of his magical mouth, saying he believed in hard work and American values. You know, the old-fashioned ones. But when you really listen, you can see that his projected policies prove that he's lying, as he did not believe that. He believes in massive protective government in all aspects of our lives like every other liberal does because you're incompetent, you can't overcome the obstacles in life, you can't get past those people at Wal-Mart that are going to cheat you. You certainly can't get past those people at Exxon that are going to cheat you. You cannot get past all of those people at the five and dime and at the Kwik Shop, they're going to cheat you. And of course, you can't get past those rich people. The only people that are going to treat you right, the only people gonna care about you will be people in government, massive protective government in all aspects of our lives, because Barack Obama does not believe in us or this country or American exceptionalism, and that, ladies and gentlemen, is the new idea that Barack Obama and the whole Democrat Party are peddling.

Mike "Gamecock" DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

though some of it comes from beery conversations that my soldier son maybe shouldn't have had with me.

It is not uncommon for the "Taliban" to have heavier weapons than a US rifle squad would normally have. They have all sorts of ex-Soviet and Iranian stuff.

The "Taliban" doesn't know how to use those weapons very well.

American soldiers like to take those weapons from them and play with them. They appear to take them with relative ease.

American soldiers are contemptuous of the "Taliban" as a fighting force.

American soldiers like "cool stuff" and will pick up and use whatever their commanders will let them.

Unfortunately, and unlike WWII, soldiers can't send cool stuff home, 'cause I'd really, really like to have some of the stuff that my son had to leave behind.

And just to be fair and balanced, there is no question that there are supply difficulties at forward bases in Afghanistan; I sent lots of "care packages" of stuff that I would have thought the military should provide. That said, the USPS could get a $8.65 Priority Mail package from Alaska to Afghanistan in less than a week usually.

In Vino Veritas

discharged three years ago. I wasn't combat arms, just a Signal Corps geek, but I did participate in field exercises in infantry tactics b/c, as my commanders always stressed, "we are soldiers first and foremost."

First, Obama made it sound as if this was happening now, when in fact it happened in 2003. He claims that it was easier to get weapons and ammo from the Taliban than from their own supply units. I call b.s. I served during the height of combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan at Fort Gordon, Georgia and on all our exercises we had plenty of ammo. Even Signal Corps units in Georgia had ammo to waste, so I imagine that combat units in combat operations had all the ammo they needed.

Second, Obama says the platoon was divided up with one section going to Iraq and the other to Afghanistan. Platoon sizes vary. I remember standing in formation and looking at the four platoons that made up my company. Each varied in size, from twenty to nearly fifty (for some reason the 1st platoon which was administrative was always bloated). My platoon would vary in size from twenty to thirty or so soldiers depending on training, family leave, outprocessing, etc. For combat each squad of a platoon fulfill a particular duty, from heavy fire to indirect fire to fire support, etc. They don't just divide you up for the hell of it. When a platoon is transported everyone goes, that can go, b/c you trained together, you worked together, you have unit cohesion. There were three to four squads with, for us, six to eight soldiers in each squad. Each squad had a squad leader who answered to the platoon sergeant. Each squad was equipped with rifles and one M249. Each squad a particular mission or scope of work, all acting as one within the platoon. Again, the platoon is the smallest.

Third, this Army Captain said he wasn't sure where some of his troops went and this bothers me. A platoon leader, that is what you call the Lt. in command of a platoon, should always know where his troops are at all times. If he doesn't know this then he is either lying about the whole thing, or is a negligent, incompetent leader, and I've had a few of the latter.

Finally, in regards to transportation issues I find another "fact" of this story hard to believe. Again, I was not in a combat unit, but was combat support in charge of satellite communications for combat/non-combat operations. My platoon numbered, typically, thirty or so soldiers. We had six HMMWV, two of which contained satellite shelters, two of which contained satellite dishes, and two which were for misc. purposes. We also had two LMTVs, which contained larger satellite shelters, and two MTVs, which were for misc. purposes. That is just for the satellite guys. The radio guys and switch guys had their own HMMWVs. We probably had a total of fifteen HMMWVs and five to six heavier duty vehicles, LMTVs and MTVs.

And, we were stateside and had all the vehicles, weapons, ammo that we needed. I understand that supply logistics being what they are that problems arise, but I find it hard to believe that a combat support platoon stateside had an abundance of materials when a combat unit had such shortages that demanded that they scrounge for enemy weapons.

In short, just reading the "explanation," which I still find hard to believe, Obama is lying, and what is sad is that he is so uninformed about simple military issues that he probably doesn't even know he is lying. Anyway, sorry for being longwinded, just wanted to get this out there.

"Glory is not a conceit. It is not a decoration for valor. Glory belongs to the act of being constant to something greater than yourself, to a cause, to your principles, to the people on whom you rely and who rely on you in return."-Senator McCain

If this is the best "dirt" you can get on Obama, we are in serious trouble. Oh my aching head.

This is dissecting his ignorance concerning military matters by using his own "story" that he broadcast to the nation. Of course such outlandish claims are going to be investigated being that it deals with servicemembers in combat and blames the Bush administration for supposed shortages in ammo, weapons, and other combat gear. Take an aspirin, genius.

"Glory is not a conceit. It is not a decoration for valor. Glory belongs to the act of being constant to something greater than yourself, to a cause, to your principles, to the people on whom you rely and who rely on you in return."-Senator McCain

You are quite right, it's not dirt.

Just really "thin beer", as they say. I don't see the average Joe getting too riled up about it. The Blogosphere, that's another story (obviously!)

but he has a track record of saying profoundly stupid and uninformed things on a lot of subjects and skating. Do you really think that if this was the case that no trooper, or their parents, would have complained to Congress by now and generated a hearing or investigation? Of course not.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

"Barack Obama is either stupid, ignorant, or an absolutely pathetic liar (or all three)"

I tend to think the first two, rather than the third. I am saying this as a conservative who likes Obama (meaning - although I would never vote for such a naive liberal, I have heard that he is a nice guy). When I saw this in the debate, I actually held my breath and felt my heart skip a beat, as this was so obviously a bogus and easily disproved story. Only Obama could have said something so stupid.

Does anyone know if Hillary is using this against him? She would be smart - even in a Democratic primary - to do so.

This is also why I am not as afraid of Obama as is many others on this website. He has been making similar silly mistakes since the beginning of this campaign. This is only the latest. It will also not be his last.

but he certainly sounds like someone who doesn't know squat about the military. I'm voting for Stupid and Ignorant.

Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

as a lawyer, Barack understands that the law treats reckless disregard for the truth the same as an outright lie.

Mike "Gamecock" DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

the law treats reckless disregard for the truth the same as an outright lie?

Is divorce law different from regular law?

This post has been brought to by Thorazyne and other psychotropic drugs -- better living through chemistry

feminists and those that fear them.

Mike "Gamecock" DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

...though not clear whether as adovocate or as target.

And Rightly So!

...though not clear whether as adovocate or as target.

And Rightly So!

insignificant number of my kind.

Mike "Gamecock" DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson


Molon Labe!

A better way of saying it would be Barack Obama is absolutely wrong but he did not understand what he was talking about. I honestly don't think he was being mendacious here, he simply did not understand what he was talking about and the information he was given.

I think the best and most succinct rebuttal to Obama's comments, and Jack Tapper's "support" of them, is from Jack Kelly:

ABC's Jake Tapper tracked down Sen. Obama's captain, who was a lieutenant in the summer of 2003 when his unit was sent to Afghanistan. His unit was understrength (though it was reinforced a couple of months after its arrival in theater). But the captain complained of a shortage of ammo for his heavy machine guns and grenade launchers while training at Fort Drum before deployment, not in Afghanistan. This is a rather different story from the one Sen. Obama told, and a fishy one, because infantry platoons in the 10th Mountain Division are not normally assigned heavy machine guns or Mark 19 grenade launchers.

Again, in fairness, I do not think Obama was lying. But the problem is, he really does not understand what he is talking about. I think Jack Kelly says that best, too:

Even though he's a member of Congress, Sen. Obama seems to be unaware that it is Congress, not the president, which funds the military. If Sen. Obama thinks the military is inadequately supplied, he should take it up with his Democratic colleagues, who routinely cut the president's defense budget requests.


Sen. Obama should restrict himself to talking about "hope" and "change." Whenever he stumbles into matters of substance, he demonstrates his unfitness for the job he seeks.

I must agree; this is just further illustration why Barack Obama is not yet qualified to be commander-in-chief.

You can find the full article here:

By the way, can someone please show me how to properly imbed link?

To embed links see here

Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.

Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)

©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service