UPDATE:
It appears that ABC News’ Political Punch Blog has tried to confirm this story, and is claiming that Sen Obama’s story is true (though not told directly to him, but through a staffer). Readers are encouraged to not only read the ABC News comments, but the comments to the contrary posted here at Flopping Aces. They can be informative regardless of political orientation. -Scott
END UPDATE
Me thinks this little blurb will come back to bite Obama in the ass. Just my guess:
OBAMA: You know, I’ve heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon — supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon. Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq.
And as a consequence, they didn’t have enough ammunition, they didn’t have enough Humvees. 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.
First of all, and correct me if I’m wrong on this Chris (seeing as how I’ve been out for 18 years) but the military rarely splits a platoon across theaters, maybe companies but platoons? Nope…..Secondly, Captains don’t lead platoons, they lead companies. Thirdly, on the weapons thing it may very well because the AK is just a damn good desert weapon that rarely jams PLUS having a weapon that sounds like the enemies and doesn’t sound like one of our M16’s is probably a pretty good tactic. They may be grabbing the AK’s but I’m doubting its because they are not getting supplied. Fourth, if they are so underequipped how in the hell are they able to capture all these weapons in the first place? Just going up and asking the Taliban for em?
I’m gonna call shenanigans (codeword for he is lying through his teeth) on these charges by Obama.
Oh, and one last note. It’s Congress that gives the money to the Military Senator Obama….not the Commander in Chief.
UPDATE
Great comments left by Chris and Caelestis who is in Iraq right now. Caelestis:
Now as far as personnel there is a thing called cross leveling where people that are not deploying are brought into a unit so that the unit can deploy with full strength. I know I just watched it happen in Hawaii with the 2nd SBCT 25th ID (I’ll explain what all those capitalized letters mean later Mr. Obama)….What you are describing doesn’t happen Mr. Obama because if it did happen, there would be an 0-6 and an 0-5 and a bunch of 0-4’s and especially one extremely pissed off 0-3 who would have screamed loud enough that even the NY Times could have heard them over your droning speeches to notice…..A Brigade commander that let something like this happen would have lost total respect and honor from every officer in his brigade,
and Chris:
Now as for weapons. No kidding we use the enemy’s when we can. The same is true for the initial invasion of Iraq. Ammunition is always a sought commodity, but there was no shortage of transports getting it to Afghanistan. HOWEVER, in the midst of a fire fight, ammo runs low and many Soldiers/Marines know how to use the AK series (AKM/AK-74 and SVD). Since a majority of US Military Members are gun owners/shooters and many are NRA members, we tend to learn all we can about weapons and teach those who are not hunters/shooters in our ranks. A light infantry unit can only carry so much ammo on extended missions. Air resupply is not always available while in combat (helicopters draw enemy fire for some reason) and ground resupply is not always able to get up the goat trails that comprise Afghanistan.
UPDATE II
I see the lefty reporter Jack Tapper from ABC has wrote a piece refuting this post. Apparently he talked to the man in question and we find out that this all happened 5 years ago. For the rest I will use Chris as my source seeing as how he is a active duty Major in the Army:
No corraborating evidence besides allegedly talking to the (former?) officer? Further more, no mention that M2s, MK-19s, and HMMWVs are not part of the 10th MOUNTAIN Division’s standard MTOE at Rifle Co level in 2003. They are light infantry… LIGHT means they walk. M2s and MK-19s were reserved for higher level weapons platoons, not rifle platoons, and those were man-packed. This means the weapons are taken apart and moved.
On the parts issue, with the influx of heavier weapons, the units probably did have trouble at first taking care of the “new” heavy guns. The M2 is not in production any more and all parts come from rebuilds or stocks. They also need more specialized tools and care than an M4/M16/M240/M249. The M2HB I had on my M1A1 was manufactured in 1943 for instance and in 1997 would have been down a long time if damaged due to lack of funding. This person said they had no problems with the organic weapons they had, but with weapons which the Army added from experience in theater.
Then we have the Pentagon refuting Tapper’s anonymous “Captain”:
The Pentagon on Friday cast doubt on an account of military equipment shortages mentioned by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama during a debate with rival Hillary Clinton.
During the face-to-face encounter on Thursday evening, Obama said he had heard from an Army captain whose unit had served in Afghanistan without enough ammunition or vehicles.
Obama said it was easier for the troops to capture weapons from Taliban militants than it was “to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief,” President George W. Bush.
“I find that account pretty hard to imagine,” Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters.
“Despite the stress that we readily acknowledge on the force, one of the things that we do is make sure that all of our units and service members that are going into harm’s way are properly trained, equipped and with the leadership to be successful,” he said.
Whitman’s remarks were unusual as the Pentagon often declines to talk about comments from political campaigns.
Of course with the “Captain” remaining anonymous its hard to come right out and say the man is lying since the Pentagon doesn’t have the particulars such as the dates, units, and other important info. With him remaining in the shadows its easier for Barack and his pal Tapper to just say “believe us” because well, just because. Which leads to this great rundown from Scott:
Some guy told some staffer who told Obama who couldn’t even repeat the story accurately. That’s the reality, the truth, and the facts.
UPDATE III
Remember Obama said this:
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.
According to Tapper and his anonymous “Captain:
“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.
Which jives with what all of us bloggers were saying last night. They were getting those weapons because they are good desert fighting steel. NOT because of a lack of weapon supplies which is the opposite of what Obama was alleging.
Allah links to the AP with this which should be pointed out:
Obama said the platoon was supposed to have 39 soldiers. A platoon does not have to consist of 39, but can have between 16 to 40 soldiers, according to standard Army unit organization. It is also commanded by a lieutenant and not a captain.
Finally Vets for Freedom just issued this press release:
Vets for Freedom questions the recent comments by Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill) in the Democratic debate last night, in which he stated that American troops were “capturing Taliban weapons because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than get equipped by our current Commander in Chief”.
“Yet again Senator Obama has demonstrated the loose grip he holds on the reality of these conflicts,” said Vets for Freedom State Captain, and Afghanistan Army veteran Daniel Bell. “Senator Obama’s comments are insulting not only to those who have served and are still serving in Afghanistan but to all who serve in the armed forces. I can attest from my first hand experience that these comments are incredulous and that we were supplied all the tools necessary to complete our missions.”
He continued “His statements last night assert that he lacks the necessary knowledge to make serious judgments on military matters, that he is prone to dangerous exaggeration, and that he is grossly unaware of the facts on the ground. I call on other veterans of Afghanistan to respond to these ridiculous allegations and to remind Senator Obama that it is the sacrifice of those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan that allows him to so freely speak in this manner.”
But I guess the main point of this whole thing should be the fact that Democrats, especially Democrats like Obama, wanted to cut funding to the troops and run like cowards from the fight but now want to use lack of equipment as some sort of attack against a war they wanted to defund anyway…..and THATS why they should be elected!
Yeah….
The part that the Messiah can’t spin away is that this is another case of the US military adapting and overcoming. It’s been going on since our inception; adaptibility has survived Presidents and wars, and is just as strong as ever. So while he votes against our funding, then talks of how the CiC can’t get us adequate equipment, talking out of both sides of his mouth so hard he’s coming in in Stereo, those of us in uniform just laugh, find what works, and keep going.
UPDATE IV
No one says it like Ace:
Tapper thinks his job is done if he merely talks to a guy making these claims; but perhaps he should actually do some actual reporting and find out if our army is being denied key ammunition in training.
The left has a habit of claiming victory when some small detail is corroborated. Obama fucking claimed our troops HAD TO — not chose to on occasion — capture the very weapons with which they were expected to fight the enemy.
Tapper gets a guy claiming “Yeah, once we took a captured Soviet heavy machine gun and used it on a truck.”
Then they say, “Ah-ha! You owe Obama an apology! He was Right!”
They did the exact same thing with Beauchamp.
Beauchamp claims that a guy picks up a child’s skull from a mass grave and dances around his fellow soldiers while wearing the skull as a fucking yarmulke.
One soldier says, “We found some bones, they looked like animal bones but maybe they were human.”
The left claims: Ah-ha! TNR had it exactly right! Apologize!
Really? What about that fucking shit you mentioned about wearing the child’s skull as a yarmulke while dancing around your commanding officer like Pennywise the clown?
Same thing here, it seems. Obama spins out a ludicrous exaggeration, some claims are found to support (if you credit the claim) a much more plausible version of the claims he made, which are as far from the original as the lightning bug is from the lightning, and… we’re wrong, we need to apologize.
Okay, whatever.
See author page
Obama voted against funding the troops because he wants to war to be over, and it was mainly a symbolic vote because there’s a very small chance they’d actually LOSE funding. Also, you think it’s Congress’ fault that they didn’t have body armor at first? Or that there isn’t enough ammo? Get real. Unitary executive for the lose.
Also, who do you think APPOINTS the people who work in the Pentagon? What are they going to do? Say OH YEAH, THE PRESIDENT IS A STUPID IDIOT. No, but you guys are.
Oliver North is standing in for Sean Hannity tonight on Hannity and Colmes and they are covering this story. What’s interesting is that the news media is FINALLY starting to fact check what Obama has been saying to these mesmerized cult followers of his.
There may be more to this story than what has been presented in defense of Obama by Jake Tapper. The biggest factoid which hit me was that this story was supposed to have taken place YEARS ago. But Obama is presenting it without that context… HIGHLY MISLEADING TO SAY THE LEAST!
P.S. Ron Weasley: Aren’t you past internet curfew at Hogwarts?
you call the Fox news channel NEWS? lol
“you call the Fox news channel NEWS?”
OK… so now we know you’re a loon and we can ignore anything else you have to say…
NBC is reporting that the person was an Army Captain a West Point Grad. One of his platoons was at 39 soldiers when sent to Afghanistan only 24 were available. The ammo shortage was during training. The weapon that was missing/replaced was a turret mounted gun.
AS I have said before proper analysis can only be done with an absence of emotion.
And you call the NY Slimes news??? At least Faux News puts both sides of the debate on, unlike most of the MSM.
Nice argument Mike…very typically conservative. Something right out of O’Reilly’s stupid mouth actually…
John Ryan,
That analysis and more was made dozens of posts above. We made it again and again here and others on their sites which were all spammed by leftists.
Wow Fox news has you eating out of their hand man, putting “both sides of the debate on” is really just a way to APPEAR fair and balanced, but have you actually WATCHED some of those debates? They’re jokes.
You can parse the weapons claim but that’s not important. What is definitive and more important is that troops were pulled from Afghanistan to Iraq while they were hunting for Al-Queda. Nobody in their right mind can say getting Saddam was worth losing a shot at Bin Laden. Saddam wasn’t going anywhere. He had no place to hide. He could wait his turn.
“I guess obama didn’t follow all of Alanski’s direction. And to think I thought he was a Socialist. How bad of me. He was a centrist all along.”
Alinsky was a Poseur. He even had a cartoony Russian name. He has no legacy. Obama has embraced all the Market Solutions. e’ll even keep troops in Iraq. There are a couple of tough guys in Europe and Canada who actually got the job done. None in the US. Obama is a non entity as far as left wing policy goes.
“You can parse the weapons claim but that’s not important. What is definitive and more important is that troops were pulled from Afghanistan to Iraq while they were hunting for Al-Queda. Nobody in their right mind can say getting Saddam was worth losing a shot at Bin Laden. Saddam wasn’t going anywhere. He had no place to hide. He could wait his turn.”
They were never committed in any great number in the first place. Not so much pulled out, but with held. Afghanistan is not a target rich environment. Dost Mohammad’s biography would be a good model. Turn former enemies into allies. The Afghans only want fresh supplies of modern weapons to murder each other with.
Weasley: You’re not a serious individual. Go back to Daily Kos and leave this discussion to the adults.
“er…well anyway, the occupation of Afganistan is all about Bin Laden. ”
Sure Dan, and the occupation of Iraq is all about getting Saddam? Nah. It’s more like UN1483 sec 1-4 which mandates that the US stay in Iraq until it’s secure and stable.
btw, loved JT’s post. That was great! UBL was gone 15 months before the invasion of Iraq, but somehow he escaped because of the “shifting of forces” for an event that took place 15 months later? Yeah, right. Get a history book, please.
BTW, Senator Warner has written Sen Obama asking for details and clarification on the matter for a hearing to be held in regards to his comments at the debate. Gonna get interesting.
are you ever right about anything?
g,
If you are referring to our trolls… No, they are not. Well versed in their spoon fed left wing propaganda and hate, but rarely, if ever correct about anything.
If you are referring to the writers here. Yes, we make every attempt to be correct on a story or correct it if not. Considering we have to use the decidedly left biased and unreliable news media as our primary source, this becomes difficult.
Part of CJ’s post at A Soldier’s Perspective:
The ABC blog didn’t prove anything. This is a story from 2003! Why would Obama bring it up as if it were current? Because he’s deceitful. The lefltists are on a full frontal assualt to protect their Messiah. They’re acting like religious zealots whose God has been made into a cartoon.
This is such an easy concept. Obama “mispoke” if you want to call it that, but when the military community is outraged we have a right to be heard.
Flopping Aces – “easier for Barack and his pal Tapper to just say “believe us” because well, just because”
George Bush – “I think he dispersed them. I think he is so adapted at deceiving the civilized world for a long period of time that it’s going to take a while for the troops to unravel. But I firmly believe he had weapons of mass destruction. I know he used them at one time.”
This is different how?
Good one, Sherlock. That was the moneyquote of all moneyquotes. You sure stuck it to us good.
Bill Sherlock,
Because we did find evidence in Iraq that they had been dispersed and sent out of country.
See the difference?
Uh-oh….now you’ve gone and done it, Chris.
Link to story? My mind remains open, but it must be a credible news source.
“but it must be a credible news source.” which automatically eliminates all MSM sources.
Bill,
Too Easy. In fact, within this post I wrote while deployed in Iraq and reposted on FA are several links.
Come on Bill… You really don’t want to deny that Saddam had WMD do you? Read the Duelfer Report!
Or just look at this photo:
Getting back to the ‘Stan, and away from WMD in Iraq.
BS has been called on Obama’s single source for information on US Army supplies in theater.
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2008/02/twweeeetttt-fla.html
All the drive by trolls that have found their way here, prove the importance of this matter. When your web site is plagued with trolls you can rest assured that the story hit a nerve. Theresa thank you for your YEARS of service and know that the trolls can not take away your honor or dignity. Flopping aces has arrived. Proved by the number of dead head trolls who strolled by to leave their vile. Congratulation guys you are there. Please keep up the good honest work.
On the subj. of Obama’s comments on the “depleted platoon”, I am embarrassed and annoyed by the absolute ignorance and emotional drama queens that occupy this blog space. To pick apart Obama’s comments and twist them into a spiraling negative facade, is a talent that resides in the very media you and I watch, and plagues the weak minded to leaving emotional statements as most of, before this one, all of you have. When the sense to see that Mr. Barrack was defending the well-being of the U.S. military has left us, it is a sad day indeed.
Now….with that being said, lets get to the reality of things that are absent, sadly within some of our troops that posted here, in most peoples knowledge.
YOUR commander & chief requests and sets the AMOUNT of funds that CONGRESS does “control”, or what I like to say, spreads thin to cover all necessary items needed in the war. As it was so elequently put, congress does divy out the funds, but when you have a set amount, you do the best with what you have.
Obama’s vote against funding the war: please tell me you guys arent this stupid??….a vote against funding was a vote to STOP the war, (please do not branch off into WHY you think we need to be in IRAQ, thats another debate) to the typical feeble minds that obviously flock here, it would SEEM that Obama was being hypocritical, losing a legislation voting, does not mean that you want the army/marines to be ill-equipped, cmon people….since the war is proceeding anyways, Obama was simply pointing the fact of INSUFFICIENT funding that essentially comes from george w.
I can only hope that at least some of you will research yourself and have the capacity to realize whats really happening.
Scrap- Has Obama voted to fully fund the Defense budget?
I am not talking about the War supplementals which he voted against, but the regular Defense budget, the one which provides the ammo for stateside training.
FYI – Funding comes from Congress, not the President.
Scrap- Congress can gave the Defense Dept MORE money than the President requests.
So, if Obama thinks the Army is underfunded, He should have worked to get the Army more funding.
“Mr. Barrack was defending the well-being of the U.S. military” I’ve been around the US Military for over fifty years. I can not imagine any current Democrat Senator who would defend the well being of the U.S. military. We’re depending on Aircraft that were on duty when I entered the USAF in 1956 to defend our nation.
“The B-52 has been an enforcer of U.S. policy since joining the service in 1955. Now it’s the oldest combat plane in the force. The H models in service today first flew in 1960 and 1961. It’s the grandfather of the strategic bomber force — a Cold War relic.”
Check the votes for defense spending, see if there is a single one where Democrats, such as John Kerry, or Sen Obama voted to support the U.S. Military. Sen Obama, IMO, would be willing to turn the defense of this country over to the Nation of Islam, before he would spend a dime to support the U.S. Military.
I don’t think the guy actually commanded a _rifle platoon_ at all. I think he was in one of the Cav units in the 10th. That would explain a lot. Cav troopers taken from one unit slated to go to Afghanistan to guard forward bases and put into the Cav unit sent to Iraq which was going into a real firefight.
And I still don’t know how you mount a dishka on a Humvee without tearing apart the gun turret.
Scrap said” “Mr. Barrack was defending the well-being of the U.S. military”
That’s why he voted against the very support, weapons and ammunition he is now complaining about?
And Scrap: Please point to me where Obama said that the incident he is referring to took place in 2003?
When viewing the video of his statement I got the FALSE IMPRESSION that this was a CURRENT problem.
Perhaps now you understand why Obama’s statement raised so many red flags?
Senator Obama is already bringing people from both sides to work together and he’s not even President yet.
Warner to Obama: Bring Me Your Captain
By Leslie Wayne
One of the dramatic moments in Thursday’s Democratic debate came when Senator Barack Obama — in making the case that Iraq was the wrong place to launch a war — cited an Army captain in Afghanistan who told him of a rifle platoon that lacked manpower, ammunition and Humvees. As Mr. Obama recounted, the soldiers looked for captured Taliban weapons as it was easier to be armed that way than “to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief.”
Conservatives pounced on the story, questioning its authenticity. Senator John Warner of Virginia, the ranking Republican and former chairman of the Armed Services Committee who has endorsed Senator John McCain, wrote to Mr. Obama on Friday seeking more details. Senator Warner wants to find out of the story is true — and, if so, who might be responsible for any lapses. He said that he will also raise the issue with Army Secretary Peter Geren and Army Chief of Staff William Casey when they testify next week before his committee.
In the letter, which begins “Dear Barack,” Senator Warner said that the incident most likely occurred while he was chairman of the committee, whose members also include Senator John McCain and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.
“There are specific military regulations governing the use by U.S. forces of weapons other than of U.S. manufacture, and, likewise, regulations covering the deployment into combat zones of military units at manning levels below optimum level,” said Mr. Warner.
To establish accountability within the military chain of command, Mr. Warner is asking Mr. Obama to provide more facts about the incident cited in the debate — the dates, the unit involved and the name of the captain and other military personnel who provided the information to Mr. Obama.
“As you well know, we in Congress, under our Constitution, have explicit duties to provide for the welfare of the men and women in our armed forces and members of their families,’ said Mr. Warner. “We have no higher calling.”
Earlier in the day, reacting to the criticism from conservative bloggers, the Obama campaign made the Army captain available to ABC News. The news organization reported that it interviewed the captain — which it declined to name — and concluded: “He backs up Obama’s story.”
The Obama campaign issued a statement about Senator’s Warner’s request late yesterday: “Senator Obama is glad that this issue is getting the attention it deserves, and looks forward to working on a bipartisan basis to ensure that our troops have the training and resources they need.”
Urban Rev: I’m going to repeat this, because apparently you and your buds that are so proud of Obama fail to understand the point:
Please point to me where Obama said that the incident he is referring to took place in 2003?
When viewing the video of his statement I got the FALSE IMPRESSION that this was a CURRENT problem.”
And are you proud that Obama voted against funding for the troops???
The Xerox’d sloganeering and empty rhetoric you folks have swallowed like Kool Aid at the May Day parade is getting a bit stale.
At some point you’re going to have to come up with some substance.
Meanwhile, I say again: Obama is giving the MISLEADING impression that the story he recounts is recent.
Focus on that word “MISLEADING.” Is that the “change” you folks want?
“Earlier in the day, reacting to the criticism from conservative bloggers, the Obama campaign made the Army captain available to ABC News. ” Army captains now take orders from the Obama campaign? An unnamed Capt is available to ABC News. A news service which has zero credibility after their reports from the Iraq War, and the Bush White House years, is all the sudden going to reprt the truth to America because some unnamed Capt told the same kind of war stories that have been told since the days of the Romans ( I didn’t have enough supplies, I didn’t have enough what ever).
“Senator Obama is already bringing people from both sides to work together and he’s not even President yet.” As near as I can tell, the only people brought together so far are the Communist Party of America and the Nation of Islam. The rest of what’s going on looks like the same old story,we’ve seen since Vietnam, Some people defend America and some defend who ever is against America. Those who are supporting Sen Obama, IMO, are not the ones putting their lives on the line every day to defend America; just like those who put their lives on the line every day in Vietnam, were not the ones defending Kerry, IMO.
Pagar: Right you are about the left’s newfound respect for ABC’s Jake Tapper. Just a few weeks ago Tapper slammed Bill Clinton who suggested we should slow down the U.S. economy:
He wasn’t the left’s darling then.
Maybe his recent efforts are an attempt to repair the rift.
Obama is on of the most arrogant pretentious people in the world. He is so condescending when he talks. How can this guy ‘unite’? This guy is not change, he is just more arrogance.
“Senator Obama is already bringing people from both sides to work together and he’s not even President yet.”
Notice it from the tabloid paper, the NYT. Talk is cheap.
Why was 129 deleted did I use profanity, I’m at a loss.
Jain,
Reply #129 made by you is there.
“Those who are supporting Sen Obama, IMO, are not the ones putting their lives on the line every day to defend America”
This sentiment is very strange to me. Perhaps I’ve just had a very strange military career, but Obama is fairly popular amongst the soldiers I know. My fiancee calls every Sunday morning (mission permitting) and this Sunday was no exception, and I mentioned this story. She immediately asked if I had related how her platoon had deployed at about one-third strength (and as it happens, is being lead by a fresh O-3). I said I had, and asked her if 101st was as hostile toward Obama and Democrats as posters here seem to assume. She seemed a little stumped, and seemed skeptical of the honesty of some posters.
I suppose it’s possible that it’s just self-selection: those who comment on this blog are the those whose experience of the Army is one of homogeneous suspicion of Democrats. The people I really don’t understand are those who 1)seem to think that the military is getting what they need to accomplish a reasonable mission and 2) seem to assume that those who suggest otherwise are non-military people who don’t know what they’re talking about. According to a recent Foreign Policy/New American Security poll, 41% of active and retired officers believe the military is broken, and 88% think it’s stretched dangerously thin. Only 19% think the US has gained the most from the war in Iraq, but 37% think Iran did, 22% think China, 13% Russia, and only 3% Iraq. That’s from a non-partisan poll, not an echo-chamber.
I think McCain will do a much better job than this administration, but I wonder how that can be if so many seem to want to insist there’s nothing wrong and anyone who suggests otherwise is an anti-military liberal ignoramus.
Moderate conservative,
Bush was ATTACKED and dragged through the mood for relying on CIA facts of WMD’s in Iraq..
And you expect to vote for a guy that says he heard.. not he heard from someone who heard it from the guy and that he obama nor his staff checked it.
As for switching weapons.. M16’s / M4’s JAM LIKE CRAZY IN THE MIDDLE EAST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
I live in the middle east “Israel” and you have to frikking clean the POS all the damn time and it STILL jam’s!!
You want proof ? google “m16 jam israel” or whatever.. why do you think Israel is ditching it and switching to the Tavor..
And just the opposite for many of us. I still have friends in the military, even those friends have kids that are in the military and I do not hear this sentiment at all. Just the opposite. Maybe its from those who served during the Clinton years and saw the devastation a Democrat can do to our military, or from years past with Jimmah, but I do not know one military member who supports Obama.
Its actually kind of ludicrous to believe people in the military would support a far left Socialist but I’m sure in such a large organization you gonna get some who just do not understand what Socialism and Marxism means.
Curt,
I have the same experiences. No one in the Military I know supports Obama. We have issues with Republicans being “Democrat Lite” at times, but no one is supporting Obama.
One of the reasons not to support Obama goes along the lines of “hope is not a method”. Obama’s “change” seems nothing more than the “it’s time for change” BS of the Clinton Administration. Obama appears just as partisan and just as much a socialist as Hillary or Nader. The only difference is he is a better speaker than Clinton and less insane than Nader.
Those of us who served during the Clinton years know full well the impact of Obama’s naivety on foreign policy and his potential oppressive policies within the US. Considering Obama’s supporter, Ted Kennedy launched what is effectively a gun-ban bill for US citizens this last month, I have further proof for myself that Obama is just the same old tired “holistic rule” socialist Clinton is, but just a motivational speaker to boot.
“According to a recent Foreign Policy/New American Security poll” Since there was no link, I googled the words and found a poll conducted by some magazine called Foreign Policy which apparently is funded by a left wing group Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
““George Soros, the billionaire businessman who recently attacked …
International financier George Soros, insurance magnate Peter Lewis and ….. said after giving a speech at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace …
“There is no doubt about Howard Dean’s abilities and qualities for being president,” Mr. Soros said after giving a speech at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace sharply critical of the administration’s foreign policy. “Other candidates are also qualified. I’m also a great advocate of Clark and Kerry.” Article
I would not think that anyone in America thinks that such a group does not have a far leftist basis.
Pager,
Thanks for the research. As usual, when these “polls” and “studies” come out, unless they are dug into , the truth behind them remains hidden.