Posts filed under 'Military'
The Wall Street Journal Reports…
The Obama camp said they canceled the event after the Pentagon ruled it was a campaign event, and needed to be funded from the senator’s election kitty.“Senator Obama did not want to have a trip to see our wounded warriors perceived as a campaign event when his visit was to show his appreciation for our troops and decided instead not to go,” Obama advisor, retired Gen. Scott Gration, said in a statement.
How about visiting the troops without the media tagging along, then it wouldn’t look like a campaign event. Senator Obama is spending $5 on advertising during the Olympics, but won’t visit wounded soldiers on his campaign’s dime? Apparently, it’s more important for him to have the media take pictures of him at the Ritz Carlton gym lifting weights, than to take a moment leave the press behind and talk to the people who defend this country.
NBC and Hot Air are now confirming that Obama did not visit the troops because press would not be allowed to also attend.
Why Obama snubbed the troops: no photo op allowed
MSNBC First ReadObama No Cameras Then No Troops
Tags: media attention, media darling, Military, no cameras, no media, troops, wounded soldiers, wounded troops
July 27th, 2008
The back and forth between the McCain and Obama camps about negotiations between the future president and the leaders of foreign dictatorships, such as Ahmadinejad in Iran and Castro in Cuba, addresses a real substantive difference in foreign for these two candidates. This clip from the CNN YouTube debate answers the question if Senator Obama will meet with dictators in the first year of his presidency.
Senator Obama has also stated that he wouldn’t require pre-conditions before negotiating with these dictators, but later stated that there would be preparations. There are several troubling things about this. First, as Senator Clinton pointed out in the debate, a president shouldn’t guarantee a meeting in their first year as they could be used as a pawn for propaganda purposes. Second, the comparisons between Iran and the Soviet Union are weak. The situations are very different, and not recognizing that is deeply troubling. Third, citing that ‘preparations’ but not ‘pre-conditions’ are needed for a presidential meeting is political tap dancing. What does that mean? Most everything in life requires preparation. He’s either trying to back out of a policy that even Democrats agree is foolish, or he’s still believes in this policy and is instead trying to push the question aside.
The Obama campaign instead of clarifying its own position has muddled the issue by attacking Senator McCain. First, Senator McCain was accused of saying that he would meet with Hamas without pre-conditions. This was proven untrue. The statement from Senator McCain said that since Hamas was elected by the Palestinians that they would have to be ‘dealt with’ as the leader of that government. That was not a promise of negotiations. Second, they accused Senator McCain of supporting normalization in relations with Cuba. However, Senator McCain stated that this was to happen only if Cuba took steps to embrace Democracy (a pre-condition). Finally, throughout this back and forth examples have been given where the U.S. government engages in diplomacy at lower levels of government. This however, is not the issue. Senator McCain’s point wasn’t that there should be no diplomatic relations; it was that the President of the United States should not be guaranteeing meetings without preconditions. Senator Obama has stated that Senator McCain’s views are naïve and that one shouldn’t be afraid to meet with foreign leaders. This may be what really shows how ‘in the weeds’ Senator Obama is in regards foreign policy. Numerous people from both sides of the isle have noted how foolish Senator Obama’s diplomacy policy is; yet he still accuses Senator McCain of naiveté. Now there may be some criticisms that the Obama campaign will be able to make stick to Senator McCain, but it’s hard to believe that calling him scared and naïve will ring true with anyone.
Tags: Ahmadinejad, candidate, Clinton, Democrats, dictators, foreign policy, Hamas, Iran, mccain, Obama, president, Senator Obama
May 21st, 2008
John McCain today issued the following statement:
“After Senator Obama’s own advisors and supporters backtracked from his stated desire to hold summit meetings with the leaders of the world’s worst regimes, Senator Obama himself has begun to reinterpret his stand. He now claims that some ‘fear’ to ‘negotiate’ with the likes of Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who has called Israel a ’stinking corpse’ or Ayatollah Khamenei, who called Israel a ‘cancerous tumor.’ I have news for Senator Obama: I have met some very bad people before in my life. It is not fear that drives my opposition to unconditional meetings with Ahmadinejad, Khamenei, Kim Jong Il, and Raul Castro; rather it is my clear understanding that such a course will fail to eliminate the threat posed by these rogue regimes. I don’t fear to negotiate. Instead I have the knowledge and experience to understand the dangerous consequences of a naive approach to Presidential summits based entirely on emotion.
“The question before the American people is which candidate is best able to secure the peace for the next generation of Americans, a peace that will keep our nation safe, prosperous and free. Senator Obama’s desire to meet unconditionally in his first year at the presidential level with Iranian leaders is reckless, and demonstrates poor judgment that will make the world more dangerous. With respect to Cuba, it is not America that needs to make unilateral concessions to the Castros — a ‘gesture of good faith’ as Senator Obama said yesterday — it is the Castro brothers who must allow the freedom they have so long denied to the Cuban people. Free the political prisoners, open the media, allow people to worship, schedule free and fair elections, and the United States will be happy to meet and talk. Until then, we cannot compromise our principles.
“Senator Obama has consistently offered his judgment on Iraq, and he has been consistently wrong. He said that General Petraeus’ new strategy would not reduce sectarian violence, but would worsen it. He was wrong. He said the dynamics in Iraq would not change as a result of the ’surge.’ He was wrong. One year ago, he voted to cut off all funds for our forces fighting extremists in Iraq. He was wrong. Sectarian violence has been dramatically reduced, Sunnis in Anbar province and throughout Iraq are cooperating in fighting al Qaeda in Iraq, and Shi’ite extremist militias no longer control Basra — the Maliki government and its forces do. British and Iraqi forces now move freely in areas that were controlled by Iranian-backed militias. The fight against al Qaeda in Mosul is succeeding in further weakening that deadly terrorist group, and many key leaders have been killed or captured. As General Petraeus said last month, ‘As we combat AQI we must r emember that doing so not only reduces a major source of instability in Iraq, it also weakens an organization that Al Qaeda’s senior leaders view as a tool to spread its influence and foment regional instability.’ Iraqi forces have moved unopposed into Sadr City, a development the New York Times characterized today as a ‘dramatic turnaround’ as the government of Prime Minister Maliki ‘advanced its goal of establishing sovereignty and curtailing the powers of the militias.’
“We continue to face challenges in Iraq, and we have a lot of work ahead. Yet the American people must ask whether we are more or less likely to succeed there if Senator Obama has his way. Each of these positive developments in Iraq is the direct result of the new strategy that Senator Obama opposed. Senator Obama consistently predicted the new strategy would fail, and at every step events have demonstrated his judgment was consistently wrong. He now says that he intends to withdraw combat troops from Iraq — one to two brigades per month until they are all removed — regardless of the conditions in Iraq, irrespective of the consequences for our national security, and despite the best advice of our commanders on the ground. He is wrong again, and the American people deserve a President who has the strength, judgment and experience to keep our country safe and secure.”
May 21st, 2008
Thanks for that pearl of wisdom, Senator Tom Harkin
Frankly, I was under the impression that in a time of a war, a military mind might be a good thing. Silly me, its dangerous.
Harkin goes on to tell us John McCain’s true sins. He comes from a military family.
“it’s one thing to have been drafted and served, but another thing when you come from generations of military people and that’s just how you’re steeped, how you’ve learned, how you’ve grown up.”
I don’t understand why, exactly generations of service to your country is now a bad thing, but I guess it is.
The whole thing seems kind of strange coming from Harkin, a man who spent several years in the Navy himself, but I guess the Democratic Party’s strategy this year is going to be demonizing military service, so Harkin is towing the line, even if it makes no sense. Can someone tell me what this even means?
“But now McCain is running for a higher office. He’s running for commander in chief, and our Constitution says that should be a civilian,” Harkin said. “And in some ways, I think it would be nice if that commander in chief had some military background, but I don’t know if they need a whole lot.”
Harkin should go back to riling Howard Dean up and ranting and raving at funerals. He has nothing of value to add to this election.
Tags: mccain, Military, tom harkin
May 17th, 2008
In yesterday’s blogger call Senator McCain was questioned about his speech outlining his goals for 2013, President Bush’s remarks about appeasement, and Senator Obama’s position on negotiating with Iran. Senator McCain discussed how he would embrace bipartisanship as he has done throughout his career. He talked of working on issues that both sides of the isle can come to an agreement on, and stated that he would most likely have Democrats in his cabinet. When questioned about President Bush’s remarks about appeasement, he said he took the President at his word that the comments weren’t about Senator Obama. He definitively stated his opposition to the president directly talking to Iran. He laid out what Iran would have to do before talks were even considered, such as renouncing their desire to ‘wipe Israel off the map’, stop their nuclear ambitions, abandon sending arms into Iraq, and stop supporting of Hezbollah. He was clearly disturbed by the idea of negotiating with someone who recently called Israel a “stinking corpse”, and questioned what could possibly be said that would result in anything positive. One questioner noted that Senator Obama’s campaign had made different statements about his willingness to talk with Iran than Senator Obama had and asked Senator McCain about these discrepancies. Senator McCain also noted that Senator Obama had stated in Ohio that he would unilaterally renegotiate the NAFTA and then stated he supported free trade in North Carolina, and was troubled by the inconsistencies and contradictions of Senator Obama and his campaign. Finally, Senator McCain was challenged on his speech’s prediction that their would be a significant reduction of troops in Iraq by 2013 being asked if that wasn’t a timeline for withdrawal which he has vehemently opposes. Senator McCain answered that troop levels would be dictated by conditions on the ground, and that the reduction of troops is a realistic goal but not the queue to the enemy as to when troops would leave that a timetable would be.
First Published at Purple People Vote Independent Blog
Tags: 2013, bipartisanship, blogger call, Bush, conference call, Iran, mccain, mccain questions, Obama
May 16th, 2008
Well, no.
But if The Leader of the New Hope is going to at least be consistent with his lies and distortions, I expect a riveting speech on how Colin Kahl promises an endless war.
The theme of the Obama campaign seems to be that the candidate will give his speeches and present a world of hope and change and unicorns and rainbows. Then his advisers will either point out privately that Obama has no idea what he’s doing, or assure people that Barack is lying to the American people. Again.
But remember folks, Barack represents hope and change and new politics.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Tags: Barack Obama, hope, iraq, iraq war, John McCain, mccain, politics
April 4th, 2008
For someone that is allegedly a blatant opportunist, Roxana Tiron at The Hill has an article discussing how John McCain refuses to use Jimmy and Jack McCain’s military service for political gain. One of the more common attacks on the current Bush Administration is that the prominent members of the Administration have not served in the military and do not have children that serve.
That is not a line of attack that the Democrats can use this November (although, with Obama and Dean’s disdain for the facts, they might try) on John McCain. However, Senator McCain does not want to use his children as political pawns in this election, not does he want to endanger them and the men that serve with them.
“He feels very uncomfortable. He does not want Jimmy and his comrades to be put at any risk,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), McCain’s closest ally and friend in the Senate.
“I know that John McCain is very proud of his son’s service and he talked to me about it many times, but he is certainly not going to exploit it for political purposes,” Collins said.
So no, Mr. Dean, John McCain is not a blatant opportunist. If you are so desperate to find someone worthy of that tag, perhaps you should look in the mirror.
Tags: Democrats, election, Howard Dean, iraq, Jack McCain, Jimmy McCain, John McCain, mccain, Obama
April 3rd, 2008
The Fact Checker at Washington Post has finally weighed in on The Leader of the New Politics’ repeated distortions of John McCain’s comments on the Iraq War.
At one time or another, both Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton have said that the presumptive Republican nominee is willing to fight a 100-year war in Iraq. When challenged about this claim on Monday, Obama referred journalists to the YouTube version of the Derry Townhall meeting. But the YouTube clip does not back up his case.
The Pinocchio Test
A more honest line of attack for the Democrats against McCain would be his support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, whether or not he has a clear strategy for winning the war, and the feasibility of a long-term occupation of a Muslim country by the United States. Instead of attacking him on these grounds, they have twisted his words, by claiming that he “wants” to fight a 100-year war.
I’ve said it before, but for the Candidate of Hope and the New Politics, Barack Obama certainly resorts to old style political deception an awful lot.
UPDATE, by Matt Margolis: Lots of others are also calling out Obama for distorting McCain’s words.
The New York Times:
He offered those as possible timelines, but only hypothetically, to make his points that terrorism had rendered the region unstable and that he would support a continued troop presence if warranted. But the timetables, flippantly tossed out, have been condensed into sound bites by his Democratic opponents, turned into fund-raising appeals and mashed into YouTube parodies.
Many of the sound bites mischaracterize and distort what was said in Mr. McCain’s six-minute exchange on Jan. 3
The Associated Press
No, John McCain is not proposing a 100-year war in Iraq.
The future Republican presidential nominee and the Democrats vying to run against him in the fall are engaged in a debate of sorts over how long U.S. troops should stay in Iraq and under what circumstances.
That’s a genuine point of contention. But Hillary Rodham Clinton and especially Barack Obama have distilled McCain’s position into sound bite oversimplifications, suggesting he foresees a war without end in anyone’s lifetime.
FactCheck.org had debunked this back in February, but that hasnt’ stopped Obama or Hillary from deliberately lying for their own political means.
Tags: Barack Obama, candidate, Democrats, Hillary Clinton, iraq, iraq war, John McCain, liberal lies, Obama, politics
April 2nd, 2008
Older Posts
