Further showing his unfitness to be Commander in Chief (by the way, Democrats, that’s a big part of being President), Barack Obama today further disparaged us. In what seems to be a toss-away line buried in a story about his spats with fellow surrenderists his Democratic rivals for that party’s nomination, he has this to say about troop levels in Iraq:
“…that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there.”
Perhaps I’m splitting hairs, but his use of the present tense here (“which is causing…”) certainly makes it sound like he’s accusing the military of “air-raiding villiages and killing civilians”. Does he have any idea what’s going on over there?
Or does it depend on the definition of the word “is“?
-Nick (ColoradoPatriot)
Gee, we just convicted Marines of killing civilians, supposedly on orders by their superiors which occured not too long ago.
you keep looking for mis statements out of context and judging obama on a half a sentence…. romney will keep taking his comments totally out of context for the sake of a one liner like a standup comedian…. instead of judging the republican candidates….and in november of ’08 you will all be scratching your heads….which is becoming more and more inevitable
and in november of ‘08 you will all be scratching your heads
Not really. It won’t be hard to figure out the colossal, McGovern-like, utter destruction of the democrats. They’ve been sowing the seeds of their defeat for years now. They tell us every day how badly they want to lose.
There’ll be nothing to figure out.
You Repbs love to say stop being PC…while I suggest you stop being PC on the issue of the military! Why should they get a free pass on criticism when they do something wrong. And for you kool aid drinkers…that is only fair and honest…here is some more non PC stuff for ya…reinstate the draft so I and all you conservative war mongers who love to send other peoples children off to die…can go yourselves! Of course, then you guys will be proud to be gay screaming to high heaven how you cannot serve your country because of DADT…well in the non PC world we will abolish that too. Cause solved…now get to packing!
while I suggest you stop being PC on the issue of the military!
Who’s being PC?
Why should they get a free pass on criticism when they do something wrong.
Name ONE person who has given them a free pass when they’ve done something wrong. I mean really wrong and not some liberal douchebag, team-killing fcuktard allegation of wrongdoing. When they’re wrong (like Kerry, Murtha, Beauchamps etc.) we hold them accountable.
And for you kool aid drinkers
Who? You?
that is only fair and honest
Here’s fair and honest for ya: You wouldn’t know “fair and honest” if it came up and bit you on the arse.
here is some more non PC stuff for ya…reinstate the draft
What’s PC or not about that?
so I and all you conservative war mongers who love to send other peoples children off to die…can go yourselves!
1. What’s stopping you from volunteering? Like all the others, just grab your sack (if you have one) and sign up.
2. Considering WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam and all the U.S. casualties involved, I’d say that the liberals are the “war mongers who love to send other people’s children off to die”. It would only be “fair and honest”, right? I mean, did Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy etc. semd their children to war? I don’t think so. And how many of those presidents led on the battlefield as you tampon suckers demand of Bush????
Of course, then you guys will be proud to be gay screaming to high heaven how you cannot serve your country because of DADT
Ummmm….That would be you squirming to find a way to weasel out of duty. Don’t project your miserable shenanigans on any of us. As for myself, if I were drafted, I would proudly serve. I would not play victiim and hide behind excuses. I’d also be willing to bet my pay that any of the other guys here would as well. However, to be “fair and honest”, chances are slim that I would be drafted due to my occupation of defending the U.S. at home. Can you say the same?
well in the non PC world we will abolish that too.
That’s odd. It was a “PC world” that gave us DADT in the first place.
Cause solved…now get to packing!
Ready to follow your lead. Grab your sack and get going!
BTW, are you admitting here and now that the whole “vote for Bush and you’ll be drafted” line was nothing more than BS started by worthless liberals to scare the populace? Yes or no? I mean, you only want to be “fair and honest”, right?
<b>Correction:</b>
Replace “miserable shenanigans” with purple-plectic hate and cowardice.
[GP Ed. Note – This comment was edited due to violation of community terms of conduct.]
In the rightist mind, pointing out that strategic blunders have consequences has become denigration. No wonder modern day republicans can’t win wars! By closing their eyes to mistakes, they can’t quickly adapt and thus we all lose.
This post has become Reason #5064 to NOT trust republicans to lead our country during a time of war.
#8: So, gil, still holding out hope that the Beauchamp stories are true.
Did I say “hope?” I meant “insane delusion.”
Must be using John “Lurch” Kerry’s ‘Ghoul’s Guide for Demagogues’. This guy has the most glimmering veneer and I think that’s all.
V, remember, the Beauchamp stories *are* true. True in showing that Beauchamp is as much of a pretentious, morally empty psychopath as Beauchamp (the “viewpoint character” of his stories) depicts himself as being.
Even TNR admits that Beauchamp’s depraved abuse of a terribly disfigured woman, if she existed and if he really did it, happened in Kuwait – before Beauchamp reached Iraq. So, by Beauchamp’s and TNR’s own account, Beauchamp is an asshole with terrible parenting. And one got in with the other 160,000 good guys in Iraq, as must, unfortunately, happen in any war. There’s your truth.
Reasonable people will accept that civilian casualties are unfortunate consequences of war, and the problem is exacerbated because in the war against Islamic Fascists, we face an enemy that turns our own decency against us by using women and children as human shields (as the Israelis have known for a long-time.)
But, throwing out the “killing civilians” line is just red-meat for the military-hating left… also known as the Democrat Activist Base.
#12 ILC: Add to that, the fact that TNR has removed the “Shock Troops” stories from its website, the fact that Beauchamp reportedly signed a repudiation of his stories, the fact that the expert TNR contacted to verify the Bradley running over dogs story has retracted his corroboration and now says that is not possible, and the fact the Beauchamp is now known to have lied about the military cutting off his contact with his editors… and frankly, you can see why people like gil… who so badly wanted to believe our soldiers are murderers and psychopaths… feel so let down. The evidence that supported their delusions has been exposed as a tissue of lies. That’s gotta hurt. So, there’s nothing left for them but to make blind, hate-filled attacks on those who do respect the military.
Also, the charges being dropped against the Haditha defendants can’t be good for the military-hating left (Democrat Activist Base.)
#13 – V, you just hit on the true depravity of Obama’s line.
It’s not we who are thoughtlessly or aggressively “killing civilians, causing enormous pressure over there”. It’s… umm… al Qaeda.
Once more, a Left politician showed his depraved sense of moral equivalence and his America-hating, misplaced blame for the badness bad “over there”.
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run – Web Reconnaissance for 08/14/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
Well, let’s not forget Obama is such a hopeless dimwit he said he would call the President of Canada to renegotiate NAFTA. And if that doesn’t work, he could call the President of England, or maybe the Emperor of Italy, or the Mayor of Sweden.
#17 – The “president of Canada???”
Had it been a Republican who uttered this infamous line, it would have been front-page news. But since it is B. Hussein Obama, he gets a pass.
Bias? What MSM bias?
Regards,
Peter H.
This post has become Reason #5064 to NOT trust republicans to lead our country during a time of war.
Well what in God’s name are the reasons to trust liberals to lead our country during a time of war?
We’ve had liberals lying about our soldiers for political gain,
*lie about our progress for political gain,
*call our soldiers stupid for political gain,
*call our soldiers terrorists for political gain,
*declare our defeat multiple times for political gain,
*leak calssified security information for political gain,
*violate the Constitution for political gain,
*claim that they have a mandate to end the war for political gain (even though they won’t actually do anything about it),
*squeal “quagmire” even before we have boots in-country for political gain,
*won’t do a damn thing to praise our soldier’s successes,
*share sound bites with the enemy for political gain etc. etc. etc.
I could go on and I’m sure others could add to it, but I’m hoping you’re smart enough to get the picture.
Here’s your chance. Convince me that liberals who violate the Constitution and lie should be trusted.
V & ILC – are the 5 soldiers who corroborated his account also liars? – Maybe they are, I don’t know. But it sure is screwy that they would corroborate things if they hated him so much.
It’s a headscratcher….
TGC –
Nice list of wacko talking points.
To answer your question:
“Convince me that liberals…[your typical insane rambling]… can be trusted”
Lets look at what dems have consistently called for: 1. More troops BEFORE Iraq spun out of control (not after) 2. Focus on the political situation in Iraq BEFORE it spun out of control (not after)
(exactly what should have been done)
What does the trusted Right do? Lets see:
Silence generals who disagree with them, followed by Hemmin’ and Hawin’, – claim victory – followed by more dithering’, – disparage those who dissent – hesitate some more, wait and see, – Slander those who suggest change – stay the course, vilify some more, THAN react.
Now why should we trust the bumbling right?
No one has actually seen these five imaginary friends of Beauchamp, but we have TNR pulling the stories off its website, the retraction of one of the corroborators, an admission that the disfigured woman incident was a lie, Beauchamp’s blog admitting that he was out to juice his writing career, an army investigation that found no evidence, Beauchamp lying to his editors about inaccessibility, and possibly a signed confession by Beauchamp that none of the events were true.
And despite all this evidence, gil still clings to his hope that the stories are true, so he can go on hating the military. It’s become, rather sad, actually. Like Baghdad Bob claiming that Saddam was on the verge of victory right up to the point where Marines escorted him out of the studio.
V & ILC – are the 5 soldiers who corroborated his account also liars? – Maybe they are, I don’t know.
Sorry, but that involves making the assumption that they exist in the first place.
And, since TNR won’t release their names, that becomes even more highly unlikely.
Of course, we know the typical response of the conspiracy nut: “Well, they can’t release their names because the military would punish them, blah blah blah.”
Then you have no evidence and no case, and Beauchamp remains a liar and a slanderer.
As for your rest, it can be summed up neatly: you were for it before you were against it, and now you’re for it again, until the political winds change, at which point you’ll be against it.
What should be made obvious to anyone, gil, is that your decision is driven, not by what happens on the ground, but your anti-Bush hatred. As we’ve seen with Beauchamp, you make up stories to support whatever expediency you need at the moment.
#20 – gil, first of all – You don’t even know what the 5 soldiers have allegedly “corroborated”. I asked you the other day… You didn’t know.
I’m quite ready to believe that they corroborated that there is a country called Iraq, that they are in it, that Scott Thomas Beauchamp is in it, etc.
Next, gil: Let’s hand the microphone over to Richard Peters of Iraq Veterans Against the War, shall we? That’s right. Read that again. Richard Peters of Iraq Veterans *Against* the War.
As quoted by Confederate Yankee:
‘[Beauchamp’s] mass libel offends or should offend everyone who supports our soldiers, even those who are against the war. Several weeks ago… I [Confederate Yankee] suggested that a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War who was based at FOB Falcon from Nov. 2005 to Nov. 2006 named Richard Peters might be in a position to tell us if he has heard or of witnessed these or similar stories while at the base.
‘After reading Beauchamp’s “Shock Troops,” and hearing of the various debunkings of Beauchamp’s claims, IVAW member Peters responded via email:
Reality 1,998,701… gil 0.
V, just for the record, it looks like TNR has some of Thomas’ stuff back up.
P.S. Please let me double-underscore Confederate Yankee’s latest summation of the Beauchamp matter, which I just linked above.
His total summary of the known facts – and why it should matter, even (or especially) to people who are against the war – is, again, devastating to both TNR and Beauchamp.
#24: Is it the stuff about cutting his wrist and letting it bleed out in “soulpatterns and mindthoughts?”
Since his journalism thing doesn’t seem to be working, maybe there’s a future for Beauchamp in writing Scientology manuals.
The Incomparable VDH weighs in:
.
Why, indeed?
I think that Obama was talking about Afghanistan and not about Iraq.
If so that’s not a trivial error.
But neither is what Obama said a trivial error. Should we stop being PC about the military? Hm, Dave? Well, that would require some accurate facts (as opposed to the usual sorts of “facts”). Someone following, even slightly, events in Afghanistan reads what Obama said and thinks, “Huh?”
And while it’s insulting to realize that Obama is implying that our soldiers would follow orders that amounted to “just air-raiding villages and killing civilians” it’s also factually misleading. It’s not being “PC” to be offended for our military when what Obama describes as our policy there is “just” dropping bombs on villages full of civilians growing poppies. In fact, it’s almost not insulting at all in the same way as someone with no credibility whatsoever making a statement isn’t insulting, just stupid.
A person does have to wonder why Obama can’t say that he’s going to send more troops to Afghanistan and undertake more agressive operations there without making one of these really stupid statements.
And those defending him should be clear that what he’s been saying is that he would be *more* aggressive internationally than George W. Bush.
Look, I am not saying STB’s writings are falsehoods, or truths.
Maybe they are, maybe they are not. All I know TNR got collaboration from “five other members of Beauchamp’s company”
The weekly standard has 1 source.
Both are anonymous and therefore both equally credible.
Until some of those military reports comes out, we will not know either way.
And lets remember through speculation Confederate Yankee’s turned himself and the whole right wing blogosphere into raving fools over Jamil Hussein.
Perhaps this is why he is so desperate to try again.
You go, Baghdad Gil. Your denial of reality continues to amuse all of us.
As I said: ******WHAT****** did TNR get “collaboration” [sic; gil’s Freudian slip] on? Do you even know?
Nope. You do not.
There is quite a bit of evidence that some of Beauchamp’s tales physically could not have happened, unless Iraq occupies an alternate dimension where the laws of physics are different. On the other hand, there is evidence that Iraq real and Beauchamp is there. I’m certain TNR found soldiers to “collaborate” that.
Who are the TNR’s alleged “five soldiers”? Oh, forget it… let’s just look at: what questions did TNR pose to them? and what were their answers? TNR won’t say.
Note that no law is stopping TNR. TNR isn’t under a law of Congress that forbids them from even so much as releasing the *questions* they posed. The Army is.
My, what a difference a week makes. Maybe by 2009, more lefties will admit the Mapes-Rather documents were forgeries.
P.S. in hopes of making this so obvious, even gil might get it:
When TNR claims 5 soldiers have “corroborated”: no, those soldiers don’t have to be liars. Only TNR does.
Or at least, highly misleading. And TNR is indeed. They have been caught in some outright lies in this matter… plus many more statements that bear a rather Clinton-esque (shall we say?) relationship to the truth.
“…that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there.”
It is the word “just” upon which the rest of the phrase hangs. “Just” refers to the lack of power (because of the champagne leftists we have in our country) which minimizes our capabilities for accurate targeting, hence our military is restricted to doing the least effective job and elicit the most hand-wringing by those who don’t know any better.
gil masters the liberal technique of “bait & switch” yet again….
Let’s get back to the core point: A potential Commander In Chief automatically assumes that our US military are killing not protecting civilians… and that their mission is not to kill terrorists, but to carpetbomb neighborhoods.
Back on topic we go………
19: So, how much longer are we gonna to have to live with these racist panderings about Barack Obama’s name? “Gee, his name sounds funny, so let’s not use his first name, and just Huessin and Obama together so it sounds like Saddam and Bin Laden mixed together” I find it pretty laughable that only conservatives who are filled with hate use the name “b. hussein obama” and quick google search shows that this nomenclature is often used when trying to associate him as a terrorist/dictator/both. I noticed that the charming Ann Coulter’s dissemination of misinformation appears near the top of the google search.
Unfortunately, Kevin, that is his name.
Contrast that with the Democrat Party’s use of “Uncle Tom” and “Oreo” as a name for Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, and Michael Steele, or “Aunt Jemima” and “Pouty Brown Sugar” for Condi Rice, or “house slave” for all of the above, and I think you’ll find your outrage to be more than a little misplaced.
Every day, we learn more about who Obama really is. Today, we learn one of his key foreign policy advisers describes terrorists fighting the United States as “self-sacrificing Davids taking up slingshots against a rich, flaccid, hypocritical Goliath.”
Don’t hold back, BO, tell us how you *really* feel.
Let’s get back on topic… nice try again, Kevin.
…actually, the part of the quote from Obama that I found to be so blatant in its ignorance wasn’t even the “killing civilians” part. It’s that he seems to think we’re “air-raiding villiages”.
If he’s been paying attention, we’ve not been doing these things for years, since we toppled Hussein. There may be a couple from time to time, but to suggest it’s our current RoE to air-raid villiages shows how out-of-touch he is with what we’re really doing over there. He’s got a lot of ideas, but I’ve got 5-year old nephews and neices who aren’t running for President with ideas. Has he been there yet?
Look.It is a given that the lefist liberal Democrat view of America and the military is that we are wrong unless proven innocent. Unless the military is handing out food, then they must be killing innocents. Their world view is so twisted it isn’t worth arguing over anymore. Few leftists by the way would argue with the above unless there was an election at stake. And “moderate” votes at stake.
#36 Hum some people aren’t using Sen Obama’s correct name? Interesting. How many times has the Presidents critics called him “shrub”. Actually, it was Mary Jo Kopechne’s friend Sen Kennedy around happy hour, who I believe first called Sen Obama, Osama.
Guys… Obama was talking about Afghanistan, not Iraq, so Hussein doesn’t come into it at all. He’s talking about needing more troops in Afghanistan. He’s talking about the poppy harvest in Afghanistan.
You’d think that one of you defending Obama would have pointed this out instead of leaving it to someone who thinks that Obama is an idiot trying to sound tough and riding on his anti-war vote to give him a pass for suggesting unilateral invasions of Pakistan.
And we should please note that his idea for Pakistan was “just air-raiding villages”. Drop a bomb or two.
#36
Wait, who was it who called him Osama Obama? Who was it who called him “my baby’s daddy”? Who is it that keeps wringing their hands about whether he’s “black enough”?
Thank you. You may now shove your “racist” rant sideways.
BTW, I think it goes without saying that Obama is done. The rest is entertainment as he wanders in vain for a thought.
#43
It doesn’t make any difference, really, where he was referring to. The fact of the matter is that he’s done, but too damn arrogant to know it.
I agree with the conclusion, but I still think getting details right matters. 😉
#40: CP Thanks for pointing out. The ignorance of politicians with regard to military matters is something that, if we had a media that wasn’t hopelessly braindead, might be a topic of discussion.
My fantasy: During a presidential debate, a questioner shows pictures of various military aircraft, ships, and weapons and challenges the candidates to identify them. Then, shows pictures of soldiers in uniform and challenges candidates to identify their rank and service.
John McCain and Duncan Hunter would do fine. Everybody else… toast. (The Democrats once put a picture of a Canadian soldier on their website to illustrate their commitment to American veterans.)
Synova:
You may be right about Afghanistan…the article I link is not totally clear. Do you have a better link to more context?
Thanks
Nick
Protein Wisdom and QandO both quoted context as Afghanistan. Captains Quarters has a link to The Corner with a video clip.
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/011339.php
As I said in #16: Obama desperately needs to remember that it is not we who are thoughtlessly or aggressively “killing civilians, causing enormous pressure over there”. It’s… al Qaeda. Whom we are fighting in both places (Afghanistan and Iraq).
BTW, “Hussein” is a common name in the Arab-speaking world and I take Peter’s (correct) use of it in #19 as a general “dhimmitude” allusion. Not as Iraq.
[Comment deleted for violating community terms of conduct.]
Synova:
Thanks for the clarification; it definitely does seem, from that link that he was referring to Afghanistan, where it is more often we engage in air-raids.
Nevertheless, he is definitely helping to feed the enemy’s propaganda that a) air-raids are our primary method of attack (not true), and, b) more perniciously, somehow our goal of those tactics is to kill civilians.
…same narrative, different day…
Dave:
We’ll have you…you’re more than welcome. Just agree that something’s more important to you than yourself, play by the rules, and you can come along with me, put on the same uniform I wear (well, you’ll have to start off with a lower rank), and fight alongside me.
That is, if you can consider service to your Country to be more important to you than yourself.
Okay, didn’t think so.
#46
That may be, Synova. However, no matter how you polish a turd, it’s still a turd.
Sorta ORA: Does anybody else get the sneaking suspicion that Obama’s just the kind of guy who would launch “Wing Attack Plan R”?
[Comment deleted for violating community terms of conduct.]
Why do you think I am so important as not to want to serve, I would galdy serve…draft me and you and you and esp you! I say draft all people who want and or wanted this war sooo much. You need to put up or shut up. And talk about being babies….I think big strapping soldiers can take a little verbal abuse! They don’t need a bunch of chickenhawks to defend them! And I love the way my comment was deleted because I said a word for oral sex..bad me…but some guy called me an arse an its fine.
This would be the same AP that’s pimping photos of unfired bullets that were ‘shot’ into her house? And their ‘international sources’ are as unnamed as Scott Beauchamp’s accounts. Al Jazzera maybe?
At the same time, under the Geneva conventions, if a force moves into a non-military target and commences to attack from that target, it becomes a military target. So under that international law everyone likes citing, if we kill civilians because the Taliban/terrorists are using that village as a base of operations, any civilian deaths are on their heads, not ours.
Speaking of dumb propaganda only stupid liberal journalists fall for, who can tell me what’s wrong with this picture?
#50 – Thanks, ILC.
Regards,
Peter H.
#56 – Dave, I think you are missing the point here. The military is not a block party to which you just drop in; they actually have standards to which prospective recruits must measure up.
A military recruiter called into our local talk-radio program to remind listeners that the military is, in fact, an exclusive club. The recruiter estimated that only 1 out of 5 prospective recruits qualify for military service. (For those of you who went to public school, that means only 20%.)
So why are 80% of recruits rejected? Most are either physically-challenged, intellectually-challenged or morally-challenged. Or in the case of most Dhimmicrats, all three.
For libtards to make the argument that conservatives should enlist if they support the war is ludicrous. They demand that every person who supports the war join the military or send their children. If they don’t, according to the libtards, they’re hypocrites.
Is every person that wears an AIDS ribbon, but doesn’t go to Africa (as Laura and Jenna Bush did) to help children with HIV/AIDS a hypocrite? Are vice presidents and celebrities that travel in private jets and SUVs while lecturing the little people on the proper amount of toilet paper also hypocrites?
(Crickets chirping.)
I rest my case.
Regards,
Peter H.
It is hard to believe that leftards are clinging to an argument that was debunked years ago. If you follow through on the chickenhawk argument, then you can’t support law enforcement unless you become a cop, you can’t support public education unless you’re a teacher … and so on.
It’s a comment on the idiocy of people making the chickenhawk argument that they can’t see how stupid and flawed their argument is. It’s a dumb slur, used by dumb people.
“It’s a dumb slur, used by dumb people.”
V, in one brilliant stroke, you have just spelled out the DNC modus operandi. It is government by the libtards, of the libtards, for the libtards.
Regards,
Peter H.
And also, as I usually point out, since these selfsame leftists making the “chickenhawk” charge allegedly support our troops and military actions against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, why haven’t they enlisted to fight there?
Two reasons — they’re either hypocrites, or they’re lying when they claim to support those. Either way, they lose.
And Dave, you don’t have to wait for an engraved invitation. Go down and volunteer to fight in Afghanistan. In fact, given Barack “Dr. Strangelove” Obama’s exhortation that we should invade and bomb Pakistan, you and your fellow Democrats should be running to your training camps.
Like I always say, if you don’t stand behind our troops, please feel free to stand in front of them.
Lock and load! 😉
Regards,
Peter H.
Have these people ever heard of the concept of a “volunteer military”? Ever since Nixon abolished the draft, that is what we have had. It is extremely unlikely to change any time soon.