From a McCain campaign press release:
U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign today released its latest television ad entitled "Troops." The ad highlights Barack Obama's record of not calling a single oversight hearing on NATO's mission in Afghanistan, not visiting in Iraq for over 900 days, not supporting our troops when he voted against critical funding in 2007 and not visiting our wounded troops in Germany when he made time to go to the gym but cancelled trips to Ramstein and Landstuhl. The ad will air in key states.
Barack Obama: No he can't.
Technorati tags:
Obama 
politics 
Barack Obama 
Election 
Democrats 
Germany 
Deutschland 
Iraq 
العراق 
Yes we can 
Afghanistan 
افغانستان 
McCain 
John McCain 
Republican 
military 
war on terror
13 comments:
John, I understand why a rival campaign would skirt facts like this in order to avoid talking about real issues that impact our nation's future. And I also understand why you, as someone who opposes Sen. Obama's campaign for president, would promote such a thing.
But, facts are facts no matter how much spinning you do....
- re oversight: The full committee held the hearings. At least Obama attended those hearings. McCain's been AWOL from the Senate on both votes and hearings for much longer.
- re 900 days: Obama just came back from Iraq and besides, while McCain went this past March after wrapping up the nomination we all remember the time McCain went before that (last year) when he toured a bomb-rattled Baghdadi market in protective gear with mechanized and helo support and pronounced the market and Baghdad "safe" ... several people were killed in that same market days later. You don't have to visit the place to be honest about the events there (and vice versa, apparently)
- re support: McCain criticized the recent GI Bill as "too generous" and then was too chicken to actually vote his apparent conscience (which would mean a "no" vote against the troops). He's also spoken and voted against other measures designed to protect and benefit our GIs including against up-armor, against medical care, against pay benefits and more.
- finally, on the Landstuhl brouhaha: the Pentagon pulled the plug on Obama's visit at the last minute. Military brass approved the visit, knowing his campaign staff would be with him, in mid-July. The original plan had always clearly stated that the press would remain on the parked plane on the tarmc -- the campaign didn't want press in the hospital with Obama. The Pentagon mysteriously and suddenly changed its mind just two days before the scheduled visit to declare that this visit would be considered a campaign stop which was never the intent.
Obama did visit wounded troops in the Middle East, sans press, and also regularly visits Walter Reed and other hospitals here in the US.
The Pentagon's sudden change is unfortunately in line with Sec. of State Rice's well-publicized memo to State Dept staff declaring that they should not help the Obama campaign in any way (despite the fact they're US citizens).
And, bizarrely, the McCain ad uses footage of Obama shooting hoops with troops stationed in Kuwait... so how can they say he didn't visit troops?
Maybe McCain should stick to the Cheese Aisle and the Fudge Haus because he's clearly not getting his facts straight.
Facts: Obama didn't vist Iraq for 900 days. Until last week, he'd never been to Afghanistan. He never called a meeting of Afghanistan as chairman of the European subcommittee. Iraq is safter now because of the surge that your guy still opposes.
John McCain said, about Landstuhl and Ramstein, "It is never inappropriate for a US Senator to visit troops." Obama could've done that w/o Katie and gang.
As is always the case when Obama gets in trouble--Rev. Wright, Rezko, etc., his evolving explanations, audaciously put forth not by the senator, but Robt Gibbs or Bill Burton, further undercut the campaign's credibility.
McCain supported the surge before Bush did. Obama still opposes it.
I'm happy to see that McCain campaign is so obviously grasping at straws to find something negative to say about Obama.
Obama's overseas trip was a huge success, showing that if anyone cares about restoring the U.S.'s image across the world - Obama is the way to go.
Here's a straw - Obama supports failure in Education and Abortion - no that is a set of planks on DNC Party Platform.
Obama embraces his rejection of the Surge and he no more can disown Abortion than he can supporting more failure in Education!
He is a wunderkind!
http://hickeysite.blogspot.com/2008/07/john-mccain-school-choice-fights.html
Right Pat. As for anon, most Americans don't care what the rest of the world thinks about us. I care a little--but I would never let it effect the way I vote.
The Dems said the same thing in 2004--look where it got them.
Rube tries to respond: "John McCain said, about Landstuhl and Ramstein, "It is never inappropriate for a US Senator to visit troops." Obama could've done that w/o Katie and gang."
...Did you not read what I wrote?
Obama always had planned to visit without the media. That was the point. The media was going to be kept elsewhere, away from the hospital, just like they were when Obama visited wounded soldiers in Iraq.
Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel is now condemning this ad it's so bad and false.
Let's get real for a second. No one - not McCain or Obama - supports any kind of failure. We may have different opinions about how to achieve success, but no one is out there hoping to fail. When you say such things, you come across as "lunatic fringe."
That being said, what is it about his education platforms that bothers you?
John, you're not most Americans, believe it or not. We are unforunately in a position where we need support from many countries to win battles abroad. For example, when multiple countries can impose sanctions on countries like Iran and/or N. Korea, it allows us the option to achieve our goals of stopping their nuclear weapon proliferation without having to invade violently. Not saying sanctions always work - it's just an example.
If there's one lesson we learned from the disaster in Iraq, it's that we can't fight battles on our own.
Once again, it's back to the evolving explanations...If, God forbid, Obama wins--get ready for four years of these.
From Jim Geraghty's Campaign Spot:
The campaign plane was permitted to land, the Pentagon now adds. So there wasn't an issue of transportation.
Obama himself now tells the press that the entire controversy was over whether one adviser, Gration, would be permitted to join Obama. (Remember who told you this first.)
NBC says Gration was the one telling reporters that the Pentagon scrubbed the visit.
Looks like my source was right. The visit's cancellation comes down to one adviser's disagreement with a Pentagon rule. I wonder if Obama feels like he's being well-served by retired Major General Jonathan S. Gration.
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTU2YjIyYjA1NGIzZjgwN2JlNjY1YTNjNWI2YjhjMWQ=
Tomorrow there will be a different explanation.
Obama doesn't openly support failure, but his idea, not phrased that way, is to lose in Iraq to win in Afghanistan. Imagine if FDR fought WWII that way.
2nd anon...I've been to 42 of our 50 states....I live in the Midwest, I'm an hour from "flyover country." Trust me...most Americans don't care what the rest of the world thinks about us.
Keep pushing that line...or have the Guardian, a left-wing UK paper, did in 2004, and have Brits send e-mails to Ohio voters encouraging them to vote for John Kerry.
That worked real well--for the GOP.
Chuck Hagel...is he a Republican?
Good thing he's not running for reelection--he'd lose.
Does he even live in the state he represents?
http://www.starherald.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18446772&BRD=484&PAG=461&dept_id=553252&rfi=6
John,
What "different explanation"?
The campaign plane always had been allowed to land.
The media always was to be kept away from the wounded troops.
What changed at the last minute was that campaign staff was notified they would not be allowed. Ret. Maj. General Gration is considered campaign staff.
Even Pentagon Spokesman Geoff Morrell said: "Sen. Obama is more than welcome to visit Landstuhl or any other military hospital around the world. ... But he has to do so, just as any other senator has to do so, in his official capacity. It is not acceptable to do so as a candidate."
Yet, the Pentagon knew in mid-July when they approved the visit to Landstuhl and Ramstein that this would be during the campaign portion of the trip. (Sen. Obama visited a military hospital in the Green Zone in Iraq during the Congressional delegation portion of the trip.)
--
Your point about FDR is so far off-base I'm surprised you even wrote it.
We had a draft in WWII and a large contingent of allies around the globe both sending troops and money to support the fight against the Axis (and Republicans back then were ardently opposed to FDR and involvement in WWII; they wanted to stay neutral)...
On Afghanistan, we do not have a draft and our allies (in the form of NATO) have proven unwilling to assist the Bush Administration as much as our nation needs them to.
On Iraq, we do not have a draft and our allies (in the form of the "Coalition of the Willing") haven't amounted to much. Most have now pulled out, even Britain is significantly drawing down and they always had the "safer" parts of the war zone as it was (not that any portion of a battle theater is exactly "safe").
Your point about FDR is comparing an apple to an orange and I should think a fellow as smart as you would realize it.
As Sen. Obama has said, diverting so many troops and so much funding from the fight against al Qaida to fight in Iraq has been doubly costly as the "forgotten war" in Afghanistan is allowed to fester. We have no more troops to send and our current level of debt spending is utterly unsustainable and anathema to those of us who believe in fiscal responsibility.
(China and Saudi Arabia are providing credit for our wars currently; on the backs of our children and grandchildren -- is that what you really want to continue?)
Sen. Obama has said it is the duty of the Commander in Chief to weigh the options -- nothing more, nothing less. Given that both Sunnis and Shiites were standing down before the surge (despite McCain's recent memory lapse) forcing the Iraqi government's hand to ensure they trained their own troops to take over for us may indeed have made the entire surge unnecessary. That is precisely Obama's point and it has been since he introduced his 16-month plan as legislation in 2007.
Besides, if Pres. Bush had not been so belligerent he might have been able to convince more nations to send their troops and/or funds to assist the Iraq and/or Afghanistan wars, also making a surge in US troops unecessary.
--
As for Chuck Hagel, I was waiting to see how it would take for partisans to drop him like a rock. The Republican Party left him, not the other way around.
He's held true to his principles and is getting stoned by GOP partisans for it.
Did you see my latest post, the "chaos" one? Evolving explanations, or in this case contradicting ones.
By the way, if Obama's Jan. 2007 16 month withdrawal proposal was passed--we'd be out of there now, Iraq would be enmeshed in a civil war--and Obama wouldn't be able to visit there.
John...
You need to try reading more. In my post, to which you just responded, I noted there is no inconsistency in the statements.
I also noted that the Shiites and Sunnis were putting down arms months before the "surge" was even announced. Sen. Obama's plan didn't call for a vacuum to be created. Rather, it called for Iraqis to step up to the plate so that our GIs could go where they were needed -- home for National Guardsman and reservists and abroad for active-duty personnel.
Why are you ignoring this? Are you incapable of comprehending anything other than what the McCain campaign publishes as talking points, no matter how nonsensical they are?
I'm posting this link to several of your posts on the topic John because it bears repeating: The McCain campaign (finally) admits their ad is false and they lied.
Post a Comment