The noise machine suffers from more friendly fire.
A Pentagon spokesperson confirms to me that because of longstanding Department of Defense regulations, Pentagon officials told Obama aides that he couldn’t visit the base with campaign staff. This left Obama with little choice but to cancel the trip, since the plan to visit with campaign aides had been in the works for weeks.
The Obama campaign yesterday announced that it had decided to cancel the visit to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, saying that it would be ‘inappropriate’ to make such a visit as part of a campaign trip.
Related
Hey Look, The President Lied Again
Obama Tells Bush Appointees At Pentagon To Clean Out Their Desks
The Troops Hate The Troops. Obviously.
Even you’re not this freaking stupid. Obama couldn’t visit with campaign staff. He could bring some senate staff with him. Is Obama sooooo incompetent that he can’t function without his campaign handlers? The truth is obvious — Obama wanted it to be about his campaign, not about the troops.
“The truth is obvious — Obama wanted it to be about his campaign, not about the troops.”
Oh please. If Obama had visited the base without his campaign staff you idiots would be going on and on about how Obama was exploiting the troops for political gain when we all know how much he really hates the troops.
Otherwise, it’s great to see that McCain is running the classy, mud-free campaign he promised to run.
Say what? Visiting WITHOUT campaign staff would be an exploitation, but visiting WITH would be OK?
Can this get any more stupid?
The option was available for Obama to visit. He chose not to when he was told that no politician can visit with campaign staff. Obama obviously is afraid to function without his campaign handlers.
Visiting the base with campaign staff is prohibited, JWG. If Obama had gone without his staff, McCain’s campaign and its idiot minions would STILL be attacking Obama for exploiting the troops on his campaign strip.
It should be noted that McCain has canceled trips to military bases himself because he couldn’t bring his campaign staff:
http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1671
McCain should clearly be afraid of functioning WITH his campaign staff if this is the kind of hypocritical, noxious spin they think will win him the election.
Let’s recall that at the very same time the “Obama canceled the hospital visit” rumor was being ginned up, there was another rumor making the rounds–Obama visited the troops at Bagram but only to use them for campaign props.
So let’s not pretend Mr. Obama could have chosen any course of action that would have inoculated him against the “hates the troops” smear.
“So let’s not pretend Mr. Obama could have chosen any course of action that would have inoculated him against the ‘hates the troops’ smear.”
Exactly my point. And while the Bagram rumor didn’t start with the McCain campaign, the McCain camp sent out a freaking press release attacking Obama’s support of the troops in the case of Landstuhl Regional Medical Center.
Such desperate and floundering tactics do not bode well for McCain down the road.
JWG: The option was available for Obama to visit. He chose not to when he was told that no politician can visit with campaign staff. Obama obviously is afraid to function without his campaign handlers.
Obviously? Do you realize that that conclusion doesn’t follow at all from what you said? It merely goes to show how eager you are to replace rational thought with your bias.
More likely: Given the restrictions the visit wouldn’t be able to accomplish whatever Obama had planned on and so, since it would no longer serve whatever that purpose was, he canceled. That’s still pure speculation so drawing any “obvious” conclusion would only serve to show how partisan and irrational the “drawer” is.
Please, Bush is fuming. Nobody paid any attention to Bush during his farewell tour of Europe. He can’t pay a crowd of 200,000 to come a hear him speak. He is too powerless and meaningless to protest anymore. Everyone is waiting for his ride into the sunset.
This pathetic action to restrict Obama’s visit at the last minute after weeks of preparation from the Obama staff and the hospital is more testimony to the petty minds and actions of America’s worst president ever and his administration of incompetents.
Obama was welcome.
Obama’s Senate staffers — or, at least, a few of them — were welcome.
The press was not welcome.
Obama’s campaign staff was not welcome.
So Obama didn’t go.
Because having the press and his campaign staff there was the dealbreaker for the obama camp.
No matter how Oliver desperately tries to spin the truth.
Hell, Oliver’s own quoted excerpt contradicts what he’s trying to fabricate. Such a tragedy it would be for his campaign staffers and the sycophantic press corps to have to find some way to entertain themselves while Obama gave some of his time to those who have been injured in service to his nation — the very same men and women he wants to command.
J.
I’m just sorry Bush II had to give up golf. The poor dear.
The Pentagon got this right and I hope they apply it the same way to McCain. GBTW.
Yes, for all the frantic spinning by the leftists, it needs to be said explicitly: Oliver is a liar: “Pentagon told Obama he couldn’t visit troops.” That is a complete and knowing lie.
>Pentagon Told Obama He Couldn’t Visit Troops, Republicans Still Stupid
Very weak spin Oliver, surely you can do better? “He couldn’t visit troops” ‘He’, as in, him. Obama. This is not true, as you know. Obama himself could visit, but he couldn’t take his campaign staff with him. For whatever reason, that was a dealbreaker for him.
>More likely: Given the restrictions the visit wouldn’t be able to accomplish whatever Obama had planned on and so, since it would no longer serve whatever that purpose was, he canceled.
Going along with this theory, what was it Obama would have wanted to do that required compaign staff? Given that we probably won’t ever know the real reason, the point, I think, is that none of the probable reasons make him look very good. Even if he had planned to make it a campaign event, (and it doesn’t seem unreasonable to think that most politicians would probably try to make a campaign event out of such a thing if they could) why not go anyway? Then he could claim that he was doing it to see the troops and didn’t care whether it was a campaign event or not. Seems like a mistake to me.
Bruce, as far as I know, it has been. It’s been noted in several places that McCain (like Bush and Obama) have made trips to Walter Reed to visit with the troops, and there have been no photos of him doing so.
The reasoning for doing it is simple: “I want to be Commander in Chief of these men and women. I ought to look them in the eye and, as the duly elected leader of the nation, thank them for their service, listen to them, offer my support and best wishes, and understand that when I make my decisions, they are the ones who will most likely be tasked with carrying them out — and paying the price.”
An unwillingness to do that sort of thing is precisely the sort of thing that led to the Blackhawk Down/Battle of Mogadishu fiasco, when the Clinton administration sharply limited the military resources that the commanders wanted in Somalia — “why do you need tanks and airplanes? The Somalis don’t have them, so what will they do?”
Senator Barack Obama could have gone. SENATOR Obama could even have taken a couple of his Senate staffers with him, in case he needed them (for things like taking notes of promises he made to wounded souldiers, like making sure their families were being taken care of and whatnot). CANDIDATE Obama was not welcome, nor was CANDIDATE Obama’s legions of press sycophants and campaign mugwumps.
Apparently the Senator wasn’t available.
J.
McCain was denied his request to make a campaign speech at a museum at the naval air station where he trained to be a fighter pilot. Instead he gave it a crowd near the station.
How does that compare to deciding not to visit wounded soldiers after being told he couldn’t bring his campaign handlers? Was he planning on giving them a speech?
As far as getting criticism for visiting them, if he really cared about the visit he would have done it anyway. Furthermore, as a smart campaigner, which makes more sense:
1) Take grief for visiting wounded soldiers, vs
2) Take grief for canceling visit with wounded soldiers?
Jay’s right, you know?
If you can’t have staffers or press accompany you when visiting our men and women in uniform, you should go by yourself regardless – At every opportunity. Every one.
Obama did visit wounded soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan but not Germany, by the way.
It turns out that John McCain was in Colorado today, did he make a stop at Evans Hospital at Ft. Carson? Nope. Guess that Colorado has no wounded, probably.
The day before, McCain was in his home state of Arizona, surely he must have made a stop over at the 56th Medical Group at Luke Air Force Base or the Raymond W. Bliss Army Health Center at Fort Huachuca. Nope, just the local diner.
Also, Ohio. Dayton VA Medical Center? Nope. Wright-Patterson Medical Center / Air Force Base? Nope. McCain was making a few cracks about smoking with Lance Armstrong.
It must be a slip of the mainstream media not to notice this, or willful ignorance on the part of RNC salad-tossers. Take your pick.
Did McCain make plans to visit and then cancel when he found out he couldn’t bring his campaign?
No?
Oh, well. Nice red herring.
0 for 3 and still counting, shiteater.
I’m not sure what that means, but whatever reason Obama had for canceling, Oliver’s title is still a proven lie.
JWG – um, yes actually he did apparently:
From CNN:
With Department of Defense rules prohibiting political campaigning on military bases, it was determined that in some cases McCain could visit the installations as a senator but could not engage in any political activity or have news media present. McCain campaign officials said Thursday they intentionally did not campaign on military property.
“We follow the rules,” said senior McCain adviser Steve Schmidt.
Do you idiots ever tire of being such ignorant failures?
Oh, and BTW, let’s try to find W’s visits with troops that are like totally not campaign events…
The stupid doesn’t stop. I already addressed this. McCain requested to give a speech where he trained to be a pilot. It was denied. He gave it outside the naval air station instead.
Again, I ask — was Obama planning on giving a speech to the wounded soldiers?
Go easy on them Rheinhard, it’s like picking on the retarded. These are some props still left in the bag.
So now a commander-in-chief can’t even visit the troops?
I thought the argument was that Republicans would be critical of Obama using troops as a campaign tool. You’ve just proved that it is the other way around. Leftists are the only ones being critical of someone visiting the troops.
Like I said — the stupid doesn’t stop.
Bonus question: Why aren’t their any pictures of Bush meeting with the families of the dead? It is because they were private and not used as props.
I’m not sure what that means, but whatever reason Obama had for canceling, Oliver’s title is still a proven lie.
.. Meaning the only wounded veterans that McCain saw in the last month were from COLUMBIA.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/07/02/mccain-wraps-up-colombia-visit/
Priorities, people.
Who cares? This is not about a contest to see who can visit the most soldiers in one month.
The point is that Obama decided to CANCEL a visit with wounded troops when he was told he couldn’t use it as part of his campaign.
Who tells wounded soldiers, “Hey, never mind. I didn’t really want to visit unless I could use you to look good.”
Did McCain make plans to visit and then cancel when he found out he couldn’t bring his campaign?
No?
Actually, yes.
Boy I wish we could hook some of our wingnut trolls to a dynamo – the spinning around here could solve our energy needs for the next decade!
So “it’s not a contest to see who can visit the most troops” but after being told shortly in advance of a visit planned for months that it wasn’t allowed but Obama should have gone anyway despite having recently visited other bases as well and McCain had the same problem but that doesn’t count….
Wow.
BTW, has there been some fatwa issued against Oliver by Michelle Magalanag or something lately? There seems to be an uptick in the number of raging wingnut assholes around here for some reason.
Christ! For the THIRD time — I’ve addressed this already.
1) McCain requested to give a speech and was denied. He did not cancel a meeting with wounded soldiers.
2) He STILL visited the air station (It’s where he was trained as a fighter pilot). He STILL gave the speech outside the air station. He didn’t do the two events at the same time.
3) Obama went shopping instead.
Hey, remember Cindy Sheehan?
She kept demanding a meeting with Bush. Well, it turned out that she had had one, where the two actually spoke. It took a while for word of that meeting to get out, because Bush’s meetings with families of service members killed in action are NOT publicized.
Nor are his trips to Walter Reed. They’re occasionally mentioned, but never in advance or even right after they occur.
No one says that presidents or potential presidents should meet with wounded troops at every opportunity. That’s just plain stupid. But to schedule a visit and then blow it off when you’re told that you can’t do it in front of reporters and bring along your campaign staff… that’s just showing where your priorities lie.
Obama’s priortiy wasn’t showing concern and respect for the troops. It was BEING SEEN showing concern and respect for the troops. Once it was clear that he would be denied the spotlight, he found better things to do with his time. I believe it was either basketball or shopping.
J.
1) HE WAS ALLOWED.
2) Yes, he should’ve gone after making plans to do so. By canceling after being told he couldn’t use it as a campaign event, he is telling the soldiers they are only props.
Are you guys really this stupid? Is it really not obvious what an insult this is?
“An unwillingness to do that sort of thing is precisely the sort of thing that led to the Blackhawk Down/Battle of Mogadishu fiasco …”
WTF. You guys are so fucking addled in the brain it’s beyond comprehension.
Obama has visited with wounded troops in the past, I’m sure he’ll visit with wounded troops again. You guys want to take this one incident – in which military rules and scheduling issues – lead to a change of plans and make it sound like Obama is unfit to command because he hates the troops. Jesus fucking christ.
You mean during his many trips to Iraq and Afghanistan?
You wingnuts should really push this untold story of how IslamoMarxistHitler Obama really and truly hates The Troops. And you really mean it this time. Good work. Stay on this really important, game changer and maybe, just maybe, the Ultra Liberal Emm-Ess-Emm will pick up on it. Good luck, and God bless.
For all the howling and attempts to change the subject, the facts remain indisputable:
1) Obama planned to visit wounded troops in Germany.
2) The military agreed and planned to host Obama at the hospital.
3) Obama was informed that while he and, if he wished, some Senate staffers, would be welcome, press and campaign staff would not be welome.
4) Obama canceled the trip when informed that he couldn’t bring the reporters and campaign staffers.
If there’s an alternate explanation besides “Obama decided that if he couldn’t be seen meeting with the troops, he wouldn’t go,” I’d like to hear it.
J.
Good for him. Better late than never.
That’s it, Jay Tea, that’s it. It’s plainly obvious and objectively a fact that Barrack Hussein Obama hates Amareka and hates Teh Troops. But it’s gonna take good people like you to make the rest of this great nation understand Teh Truth.
Keep up the strong effort, one blog comment at at time. You da man!
so Obama is told at the last moment he can’t go, he doesn’t go, and it’s an international scandal? Instead, he’s supposed to change the schedule because some meddling bureaucrat at the Pentagon wanted to lick his superior’s boots by screwing with a Presidential nominee. That is some serious cheese you are smoking.
He got set up.
I have no doubt that next week, when Obama sneezes and turns his head to the left, it will be evidence of his deep seated latent physchological Marxism, and why won’t he submit to a full psych exm, huh HUH?!?!
You wingnut clowns really need to come up with a new schtick beyond the phony outrage ploy. It’s really, really getting old.
What the right-wingers are forgetting, or are too stupid to understand, the PENTAGON CHANGED THE RULES AT THE LAST MINUTE. Obama’s plan to go in with a couple of people, no media, to speech, to campaigning was approved by the Pentagon. The Pentagon changed their minds at the very last minute. Why?
Does it have something to do with the State Department withholding all help from Obama during his overseas trip, even though it is part of their job to help Senators when they travel overseas. And don’t give me that shit about this being a campaign stop, they helped McCain during his trips.
This is a case of the Bush administration changing the rules to partisan gain. EVERYONE should be pissed off about this. If you are not pissed off, you are not a real American. You are a Republican first, American second. … If American is that high up the list.
“He got set up.”
Exactly. And this should be a huge scandal.
OK, Strowbridge, just what rule was changed? Spell out the rule that you say was changed at the last minute on Obama or admit you’re a lying hack.
Next, if you manage to find this mythical rule that was changed at the last minute, explain how the change of rules was so unacceptable to Obama, so offensive to his sensibilities, that he was unable to comply.
It’s not that hard, Strowbridge. Cite the specific rule, the specific regulation, the specific order that said that it was fine for Obama to show up at a military hospital with presidential campaign staff and the media in tow.
Alternately, you can admit that you are… what’s the phrase… “a fucking subhuman lying sack of shit” (is that close enough?) and admit that Obama’s schedulers screwed up — they either didn’t know about the rule forbidding campaign staff and press from military hospitals or figured that they could get the military to waive it. Then, when the military informed his staff that they couldn’d bring along the press and the campaign staff, they said “screw it” and Obama found something else to do to entertain himself.
Why is it so hard for you to admit, Strowbridge, that Obama was NEVER turned away from the hospital, only his campaign staff and press? And when given the choice of going only with a few Senate staffers or not at all, Obama chose not to go at all? Why do you and the rest of the deniers have to keep lying and spinning and just plain making shit up about this whole incident?
Forget that. I don’t really care WHY. I’m sure you have your own twisted rationale all worked up. I don’t think my stomach could handle it.
J.
“OK, Strowbridge, just what rule was changed? Spell out the rule that you say was changed at the last minute on Obama or admit you’re a lying hack.”
The Pentagon agreed that Obama could visit as long as there was no media, no speeches given, etc. Obama agreed. The Pentagon agreed.
This is important, and a fact you keep ignoring. They had an agreement.
At the last minute, the Pentagon revoked permission saying Obama broke the rules.
So if you want to know what rule that is, you should ask the Pentagon.
While you are at it, ask the State Department why they changed the rules for Obama. Why is it okay to support McCain while he is traveling overseas, but not Obama.
Think about it.
When McCain traveled to Iraq to walk in the streets, with 100 armed soldiers, in order to prove how safe it was, he was given help by the State Department, despite this obviously being a political campaign.
When Obama goes overseas, the State Department is told point blank to not offer any aid to Obama and the others, despite the fact that that is part of their job.
Why is it so hard for you to admit, Jay Tea, that George W. Bush has turned the American government, which is supposed to work for all Americans, and have turned it into a branch of the Republican government?
Strowbridge, you’re certainly entitled to your own opinion. But not your own facts.
From the very source Oliver chose to quote at the top:
Note the key words there: “longstanding… regulations.” “(not)… with campaign staff.”
Oliver’s own source confirms it: this was no new rule like you lied about, and Obama was never denied permission. His campaign staff was refused.
The utterly indipsutable facts:
Obama asked to visit the hospital.
The DoD gave permission.
The DoD reaffirmed their long-standing policy: no campaign staff, no reporters. If Obama wanted to visit as a Senator, fine; if he wanted to visit as a candidate, no.
Obama chose to act as a candidate and canceled the visit.
Obama ran up against long-standing (and, in my opinion, very good) policies and chose to not abide by them. Either he didn’t know about the no campaign staff rules, didn’t care about them, or figured they didn’t apply to him. When he wsa informed that they most certainly did apply to him, he chose to skip the visit rather than venture out without his campaign toadies and press sycophants.
His choice. His decision. No one pushed him. No one coerced or double-crossed or lied to him — except, maybe, his staffers who set up this whole mess and left him holding the bag.
As Oliver’s own source says, Strowbridge, these were “long-standing” regulations. They were not changed at the last minute, like you lied about. The Pentagon did not revoke permission, as you lied about. The Pentagon said that it had long-standing rules, and they would not bend them, so Obama said “forget it.”
LEARN TO READ, YOU MORON.
Another key quote from Oliver’s source:
THE CAMPAIGN CANCELED THE VISIT. NOT THE PENTAGON, THE CAMPAIGN.
I don’t know what fantasy world you inhabit, but it must be a fun one. “Long-standing regulations” become “suddenly changed rules.” The Obama campaign’s decision to cancel the trip becomes “the Pentagon revoked permission.”
Things are so topsy-turvy in your world, you must wear your pants on your head and look out your zipper.
J.
This is why Barry didn’t visit the troops in Germany –
“Shortly before five o’clock Obama comes over and sits directly next to my cross-trainer on the mat. First he does 10 sit-ups, then stretches. Then he looks at his watch and says to his bodyguard: “It’s time, let’s go.” Quickly I ask: “Mr. Obama, could I take a photo?”. “Of course!” he answers, before asking my name and coming over to stand next to me.”
“My name’s Judith” I reply. “I’m Barack Obama, nice to meet you!” he says, and puts his arm across my shoulder. I put my arm around his hip – wow, he didn’t even sweat! WHAT A MAN!”
http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/bild-english/world-news/2008/07/24/Bild-was-in-fitness-studio/with-barack-obama-before-his-speech-in-berlin.html
Thanks for the straight talk, christie. Now America knows the truth about that Troop Hating meanie.
Oh, and keep calling Obama “Barry.” That’s so awesome.
“This is why Barry didn’t visit the troops in Germany”
So wingnuts really are out of ideas. Bears shit in the woods too.
I’m getting a good chuckle out of those claiming the Pentagon “changed the rules at the last minute” when a link provided by Quaker (in a failed attempt to answer a quetion by JWG) says otherwise.
Candidates for office have long been prohibited from engaging in political activities at U.S. military installations or using U.S. military personnel in their political appearances. Presidential campaign staffs generally are very familiar with these military rules.
No rules were changed.
Jay: “No rules were changed.”
The Pentagon and Obama agreed on the visit, and then the Pentagon said no. Something changed.
Jay Tea: “The utterly indipsutable facts:
Obama asked to visit the hospital…”
and gave details to the DoD.
The DoD gave permission based on what Obama had said.
The DoD revoked permission at the last minute, too late for Obama to change plans.
“The DoD revoked permission at the last minute, too late for Obama to change plans.”
Where did the DoD revoke permission? Was Obama originally going to be allowed with the press and his campaign staff? If the DoD had originally agreed to waive its longstanding regulation and then change its mind at the last minute, that would be one thing (which still would not preclude him from going but would legitimately put the onus on the DoD). But where is the proof of this? Haven’t seen it.
Why was it “too late for Obama to change plans”?
Obama: “You, you, you and you, stay in the car. Tell the press to wait, too”
That is so difficult?
Jay Tea: “Obama chose to act as a candidate and canceled the visit.”
You obviously have no idea of the logistics required for an international tour of this magnitude. Everything has to be set like clockwork in order to manage to get through the huge list of appearances and engagements.
In such a context, any change in plans represents a huge logistical challenge. Whether the campaign had been unaware of the Pentagon’s requirements, or the latter only advised the campaign at the last minute, is irrelevant. The Campaign would have had to scramble to change the day’s plans, and in the end it seemed safer (from a schedule point of view) to cancel the visit and have Obama call some of the patients on the phone instead (which he did, and for which there was no photo-op).
Of course, anti-Obama posters are so awash in their own bias that they immediately echoed the criticism from McCain that “BHO hates teh troops”. Like good little attack dogs they do not give the benefit of the doubt – it all must fit in the narrative that their “enemy” has no soul and that all his actions are self-serving exercises in immorality.
That’s okay, we live in a free Internet and they are welcome to express their views – just like we are free to logically explain how tremendously stupid some of these views might be.
“If there’s an alternate explanation besides “Obama decided that if he couldn’t be seen meeting with the troops, he wouldn’t go,” I’d like to hear it.”
You’re right, Jay Tea. There really is no possible explanation except that Obama is Teh Ultimate Evil. Obviously, if Obama can’t exploit the troops for political gain he’d rather order them on suicide missions just for the lulz. Bwahahahahahahaha!
Since we’re all opposed to using the troops for political gain, I’d to know what we’re supposed to call McCain’s attempt to use Obama’s cancelled visit for political gain:
“Barack Obama is wrong,” McCain spokesperson Brian Rogers said in a statement yesterday. “It is never ‘inappropriate’ to visit our men and women in the military.”
There’s no need to speculate about the McCain campaign’s reasons for issuing this statement. They are making visiting the wounded or not a campaign issue. They are, in other words, exploiting the troops for political gain. And, of course, so are you idiots.
“Where did the DoD revoke permission? Was Obama originally going to be allowed with the press and his campaign staff?”
There was never going to be press. There was never going to be a campaign speech. The DoD has his plans and agreed to it.
Are we at least on the same page here?
“Why was it “too late for Obama to change plans”?
Obama: “You, you, you and you, stay in the car. Tell the press to wait, too”
That is so difficult?”
I am so glad you are not in charge of planning for any government department.
Also, I really doubt the DoD would be cool with that. You couldn’t say, “You wait in the car.” and expect the DoD to be cool with that.
I give up. Is there some kind soul that can translate Plain English into Complete Fucking Moron so Strowbridge can understand?
From Oliver’s own article above:
Strowbridge’s willful ignorance of the facts here is absolutely incomprehensible. He is pulling this “the Pentagon changed the rules at the last minute, then canceled the trip entirely” argument out of his ass, and then insisting that we treat his turd as God’s Own Truth.
You keep calling me “subhuman” and “lying,” Strowbridge, but here it’s obvious that you are the lying liar. EVERY PARTY INVOLVED ALL AGREES THAT THE RULES WERE LONG-STANDING, NOT CHANGED ANY TIME RECENTLY, AND IT WAS THE OBAMA CAMP THAT CANCELED THE TRIP.
I’ve cited my source — Oliver’s own article, quoting someone who is on Obama’s side. Show your source. Tell us all where you’re getting this information that the source Oliver quoted (as well as everyone else talking about this) disagree with.
You won’t. You won’t because you can’t. It doesn’t exist. It only exists in that twisted, diseased, hate-filled, fetid cesspool inside a lump of cement you call a skull.
THE PENTAGON DID NOT CHANGE ANY RULES FOR OBAMA’S VISIT. THE REGULATIONS INVOLVED HAVE BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR A VERY LONG TIME, FOR VERY GOOD REASONS. OBAMA’S PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN ABOUT THEM, AND SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THEY WOULD NOT BE WAIVED.
THE PENTAGON DID NOT CANCEL THE VISIT. OBAMA’S PEOPLE DID WHEN IT BECAME CLEAR THAT THEY COULD NOT BRING ALONG CAMPAIGN STAFF AND REPORTERS.
Good god, “debating” with Strowbridge reminds me of the old advice about wrestling with pigs…
Or maybe the warning about arguing with idiots. “They drag you down to their level, then beat you through superior experience.”
J.
fafaroo, “evil” doesn’t have to enter into the equation for an explanation. Tom Lehrer offers a great on in his song “Be Prepared.”
If he couldn’t have the press and his campaign staff with him, there wasn’t any real benefit for him to do it — so why not hit the gym and do some shopping?
J.
Right. Not visiting wounded troops, isn’t evil, it just leads directly to callously ordering troops into harm’s way without regard for proper support or their safety or security.
Now can you tell me how many veteran’s hospitals Bush visited before we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq? That might explain a whole lot.
Absolutely dynamite point, fafaroo. You’ve convinced me. There’s no way in HELL I’ll vote for Bush ever again.
So, what’s YOUR explanation for Obama blowing off the scheduled visit? Can you improvise something as creative as Strowbridge? That’s a high bar — Strowbridge showed some incredible imagination with his scenario.
J.
“So, what’s YOUR explanation for Obama blowing off the scheduled visit?”
You know what? Remarkable as it may seem I’m going to take the Obama campaigns explanation at face value:
“Senator Obama had hoped to and had every intention of visiting our troops to express his appreciation and gratitude for their service to our country,” said Scott Gration, a retired two-star Air Force general who advises the campaign and is traveling on the Obama trip. “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.”
What that means to me is that Obama felt, with staff or without, he was worried his visit would be perceived as a campaign stop and so decided to avoid any appearance of impropriety or exploitation altogether. That’s a pretty simple explanation to me.
I will also take at face value the McCain campaign’s criticism of Obama for not going: “Barack Obama is wrong,” McCain spokesperson Brian Rogers said in a statement yesterday. “It is never ‘inappropriate’ to visit our men and women in the military.”
McCain clearly has no problem politicizing visits to military hospitals for electoral gain.
With an attitude like that, Obama faced a damned if you do, damned if you don’t decision and he erred on the side of not involving wounded troops in the process. It is the McCain campaign who made an issue of Obama’s decision not to go and thus dragged visits to military hospitals into the campaign.
Willing idiots such as yourself then add your own half-baked analysis suggesting that failure to visit wounded troops can only lead to poor military planning and strategy.
If that is the case, Jay Tea, as you clearly believe it is, it is entirely relevant to ask how many wounded soldiers Bush visited before we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, whether he’s up for election or not. I’d be curious to know if you apply the same standard to Bush that you would apply to Clinton or Obama.
So how many VA hospitals did Bush visit before ordering troops into harms way? Do you know?
At the same time, is it not now appropriate to watch the McCain campaign for its next opportunity to visit a military hospital and see what it does? When is McCain next scheduled to visit with wounded troops? Do you know? If McCain doesn’t have any such visits scheduled, why not? Is he failing to take advantage of every opportunity to do so? Is he not making opportunities to do do? If not, why not? Does he not care about the troops? Why isn’t he visiting a military hospital on every campaign trip? Do you know?
Once again the desperate McCain campaign has gone for short term gotcha politics instead of taking the high road and just letting it go. You guys are attacking Obama but have nothing to say about McCain using the issue of visiting wounded troops for his own political gain. Why is that?
See my last reply. Out of ideas (well, they probably never had any). Seriously, the deficit, war, terrorism, 4 dollars per gallon of gas, 47 million Americans without health care, mortgage foreclosures- no, the stateside deferred message board warriors scream from Darwin’s waiting-room about whether Obama was in a German hospital.
How they get through the day without children throwing gravel at them is beyond belief.
Wow.
TFJ for Fafman.
Shorter just about everyone here: Anything my candidate does has a legitimate, praise-worthy explanation. Anything the other guy does was calculating, partisan and should be condemned. There is no middle ground.
Gods.
Via Americablog…
Wow that was dumb. McCain put out a press release today criticizing Obama for not politicizing our wounded troops. Seriously. McCain is upset that Obama did NOT want to appear to be using our wounded troops for a photo op, so after the Pentagon raised the concern that Obama’s planned visit to wounded vets in Europe might appear as just that, Obama canceled the trip. McCain, who never misses a chance to imply that Obama is un-American and hates the troops, now went a step further. He had his campaign call Obama “a young man” in a press release, clearly implying that Obama is too young to be president. Which is ironic, considering that McCain isn’t just 72 years old this summer – he’s an old 72. McCain is not your father. He’s your grandfather. And while we all love and loved our grandfathers, we don’t necessarily think they’re up to being the leader of the free world because, quite simply, 72 year olds don’t have the energy and stamina, and often the mental acuity, of 46 year olds. So it’s rather odd, and I would argue dangerous, for McCain to now say that age is a legitimate issue in this race when he’s beyond the age of most presidential candidates and Obama is smack in the middle. Not to mention, with the growing number of times of late that McCain has confused key facts regarding his signature issue, national security, you’d think McCain would be the last person to argue that age is a relevant factor in this race. But today he just did.
“Anything my candidate does has a legitimate, praise-worthy explanation. Anything the other guy does was calculating, partisan and should be condemned.”
Now wait a second. What exactly did Obama do that required a) a statement from the McCain campaign in response and 2) massive speculation about his true motives regarding the military?
This isn’t one of those “everybody’s equally cynical and only partisans can’t see it” kind of things.
Obama canceled a freaking stop on his trip. Big fucking deal. This was a non-issue until the McCain camp decided to make it one and the only reason why they made it an issue was to score cheap political points with their rabid base.
This was a non-issue until the McCain camp decided to make it one and the only reason why they made it an issue was to score cheap political points with their rabid base.
Well, in the McCain team’s defense, pretty soon the Jay Tea Ilk will be the only people left root root rooting for him.
Obama canceled a freaking stop on his trip. Big fucking deal. [Anything my candidate does is not deserving of criticism.] This was a non-issue until the McCain camp decided to make it one and the only reason why they made it an issue was to score cheap political points with their rabid base. [Anything the other guy does should be criticized with extreme terms.]
I do get your point and would agree that Obama’s changing his plans to cancel something may not be worthy of the amount of discussion that has occurred. But my point (and I think you demonstrated it a bit again) is that that discussion is conducted in extreme terms.
Can anyone who defends Obama’s change in plans acknowledge that it can be reasonably perceived as he decided not to visit because he couldn’t make political hay out of it? Can anyone attacking Obama’s change in plans acknowledge that it can be an un-calculated change in plans with no slight intended to troops?
sigh I hate screwing up my italics tags. When we going to get WYSIWYG preview on this thing, Oliver?
Everything after “rabid base” should not be in italics.
Can anyone who defends Obama’s change in plans acknowledge that it can be reasonably perceived as he decided not to visit because he couldn’t make political hay out of it?
Sorry, no.
I might be wrong about this, but it’s my understanding that he went to Iraq and Afghanistan as part of a congressional delegation on the Senate’s money, so he was able to visit military facilities as a Senator.
He went to Germany on his campaign’s nickel. I’m not sure that he could wave his magic wand outside the hospital door and say, “Shazam, I am now a Senator, not a candidate.” And even if he could, I don’t think anyone would give him a pass on that. That’s why the military took care to tell him–ahead of time–that he couldn’t visit as a candidate.
Jay Tea: “So, what’s YOUR explanation for Obama blowing off the scheduled visit? Can you improvise something as creative as Strowbridge? That’s a high bar — Strowbridge showed some incredible imagination with his scenario.”
Yeah, fafaroo, can you listen to news reports and figure out what happened? That would make you smarter than Jay Tea. Lord knows, Jay Tea doesn’t think that’s possible.
Jay Tea: “You keep calling me “subhuman” and “lying,” Strowbridge, but here it’s obvious that you are the lying liar. EVERY PARTY INVOLVED ALL AGREES THAT THE RULES WERE LONG-STANDING, NOT CHANGED ANY TIME RECENTLY, AND IT WAS THE OBAMA CAMP THAT CANCELED THE TRIP.”
Unless you think the Pentagon didn’t know about Obama’s plan till the last minute, you are missing the point.
By the way, your post contained insults, all caps, and definite ranting. Can I call you Stroke now? You’ve earned it.
What it doesn’t have is any mention of the timing.
What you think happened…
1.) Weeks ago Obama said to the DoD that he was going to visit this hospital.
2.) The DoD gave permission.
3.) Right before the visit Obama mentioned one or two campaign staff were going to visit with him.
4.) The DoD said no to those people.
5.) Obama said, ‘Fine, then I’m not going either.’
This is fucking retarded.
There’s no goddamned way the DoD would give permission to Obama without knowing the details on who would be going with him. If he planned to have a prepared speech. Etc. The DoD doesn’t do spontaneous.
If they knew, why wait till the last minute to inform Obama that he couldn’t go ahead as planned? Could it be for the same reason the State Department was told not to help Obama during his trip? That was also a last minute set if instructions given by the White House.
This is not my imagination, this is part of a pattern by the Bush administration. A pattern that includes firing attorneys who are not sufficiently partisan, among other incidents.
And by the way, McCain is now emulating Bush’s campaign strategies, so there’s little reason to think he would act the same was as president.
“He went to Germany on his campaign’s nickel. I’m not sure that he could wave his magic wand outside the hospital door and say, “Shazam, I am now a Senator, not a candidate.” And even if he could, I don’t think anyone would give him a pass on that. That’s why the military took care to tell him–ahead of time–that he couldn’t visit as a candidate.”
This explanation lets everyone off the hook.
If the DoD said, ‘You flew to Germany using campaign money, then you can’t go.’ then there was nothing Obama could have done to go himself.
Can anyone who defends Obama’s change in plans acknowledge that it can be reasonably perceived as he decided not to visit because he couldn’t make political hay out of it? Can anyone attacking Obama’s change in plans acknowledge that it can be an un-calculated change in plans with no slight intended to troops?
1) If you have a problem with someone defending their candidate, maybe you should stop visiting political blogs.
2) People can perceive whatever they want from Obama’s change of plans but if they want me to entertain the idea they have come up wiith something a little better in the way of evidence than the bullshit that’s been exhibited in this thread. Until they can do that, the second explanation is the only that makes reasonable sense. See the difference here? It isn’t my partisan blinders keeping me from seeing Obama as an opportunist. It’s the facts. Anyone who doesn’t want to accept Obama’s explanation of the change is engaging in mind reading or the worst sort political spinning.
3) I’m not reading anything into the McCain campaigns statement. That was an attack on Obama’s support of the troops, straight out. There was no need for the McCain campaign to respond in that way. Indeed, there was no reason for them to say anything about it. So why did they? Again, there’s only one reason: Score political points with a cheap shot.
I have little patience for this kind of call for “seeing the other side.” I’m sorry but sometimes the other side is just full of shit. This would be one of those instances.
Ok. It’s official. John McCain is a scumbag who’s going to run a desperate, dirty, mud-slinging campaign:
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/07/obama_arrives_home.html
What an asshole.
Strowbridge, you said: “If the DoD said, ‘You flew to Germany using campaign money, then you can’t go.’ then there was nothing Obama could have done to go himself.”
Interesting theory. Very plausible.
Pity that there’s not a shred of evidence to back it up. Or if there is, you’re hiding it very well.
Oliver chose the tune, and you’re dancing like a puppet to that tune. The established facts of the matter don’t fit your narrative, so you have to invent cockamamie theories and grand conspiracies to make things fit, pulling stuff out of thin air to justify and rationalize things.
The facts, as everyone agrees to, are this — I repeat for the Nth time:
1) Obama said he would like to visit the hospital at Landstuhl.
2) The Pentagon agreed to the visit, as they have to numerous other elected officials at numerous other hospitals around the world.
3) The Pentagon has long-standing rules that forbid political campaigning in relation to its hospitals and other facilities (for very sound reasons). In furtherance of those rules, they forbid political campaign staffers and the press from accompanying said elected officials on such visits.
4) The Obama campaign was informed that they could not bring campaign staffers and press along on the visit.
4A) That implies — does not conclusively prove, but can be logically inferred — that the Obama visit as planned did originally include campaign staffers and press.
4B) The Obama staff, once informed that campaign staffers and the press would be blocked, canceled the visit.
Here’s the logic:
A) The Pentagon may or may not have a standing policy to reiterate the “no campaign/press” rule before such visits. If it doesn’t, it probably should.
B) If they do have such a policy, then informing the Obama camp of such a rule would have been routine.
C) If they don’t, then something must have triggered the reminder — such as a submitted list of those accompanying Obama, including campaign staff and press.
D) If the Obama camp had known of the rule in advance (and that is highly likely, as this was not Obama’s first visit to a military hospital — I understand he’s been to Walter Reed), then they should not have submitted the roster containing campaign staffers and press.
E) If the Obama camp did know about the rule and submitted a list containing campaign staff and press, then they are either incompetent or arrogant enough to expect the rules to be bent on their behalf.
F) If the presence of the campaign staff and press was of lesser importance than the entire visit, then Obama could have told them “you guys wait here, I’ll be back in a few hours” and left them in Berlin or on his campaign jet — which had been granted permission to land at the air base.
(A quick aside — that last bit, about Obama’s plane getting permission to land at military air bases, blows Strowbridge’s theory about the Pentagon saying “if you went there on your campaign’s dime, you can’t come.” all to hell. Sorry, Strowbridge, back to the drawing board (or Democratic Underground) for your next grand conspiracy theory.)
The only logical conclusion is that the Obama camp — either through appalling arrogance or complete and utter ineptitude — planned to ignore the Pentagon’s rules about even the appearance of campaigning at military facilities like the hospital at Landstuhl, and when they were informed that no, the rule would stand, they decided that giving up the presence of campaign workers and press was too high a price to pay.
If you need more corroborating evidence, witness the actions of the Obama camp — they showed almost no concern about the whole matter. They just announced that the visit had become too inconvenient and dropped it, saying nothing more than the reminder of long-standing rules and the requirements that they abide by them was too inconveniencing. The simplest interpretation of their words and deeds is that the banning of the campaign staffers and press was the deal-breaker — it was the only factor they cited.
No other explanation fits the known facts cited above without invoking some grand conspiracy and literally making up facts out of the air and running with them — as Strowbridge so capably demonstrates.
J.
I don’t know if I’m doing this right. A quote within a quote within a quote. Not sure on the grammar rules there.
Me: “Strowbridge, you said: ‘”If the DoD said, ‘You flew to Germany using campaign money, then you can’t go.” then there was nothing Obama could have done to go himself.”
Actually, fafaroo said that. I was merely commenting on what he said.
“1) Obama said he would like to visit the hospital at Landstuhl.”
“2) The Pentagon agreed to the visit, as they have to numerous other elected officials at numerous other hospitals around the world.”
Again, you are skipping the part where the DoD would ask for Obama’s plans IN ADVANCE. You are assuming they would agree to let Obama visit without knowing Obama’s plans in advance.
This is simply beyond belief.
“4A) That implies — does not conclusively prove, but can be logically inferred — that the Obama visit as planned did originally include campaign staffers and press.”
Except Obama’s camp agreed to no press in advance.
“A) The Pentagon may or may not have a standing policy to reiterate the “no campaign/press” rule before such visits. If it doesn’t, it probably should.”
Considering the numbers of times Bush as used the military for such a way, they might not. But they should.
“B) If they do have such a policy, then informing the Obama camp of such a rule would have been routine.”
Again, they should have, but you can’t assume they did.
“C) If they don’t, then something must have triggered the reminder — such as a submitted list of those accompanying Obama, including campaign staff and press.”
We already know there was going to be no press. Stop mentioning press. It makes it sound you you are intentionally setting up a lie.
“(A quick aside — that last bit, about Obama’s plane getting permission to land at military air bases, blows Strowbridge’s theory about the Pentagon saying “if you went there on your campaign’s dime, you can’t come.” all to hell.”
Why? They can’t use landing at the base in a campaign, so why forbid it?
“Sorry, Strowbridge, back to the drawing board (or Democratic Underground) for your next grand conspiracy theory.)”
Right back at you.
“The only logical conclusion is that the Obama camp — either through appalling arrogance or complete and utter ineptitude — planned to ignore the Pentagon’s rules”
This assumes the DoD didn’t have Obama’s plans in advance and didn’t approve them in advance.
This is simply stupid.
So again, you entire theory is based on the assumption that the DoD would approve Obama’s visit without getting details. This is not a logical assumption, so your argument falls apart.
You are wrong.
I want to put this in a separate post to make sure Jay Tea actually addresses it this time. … Well, increase the chance that Jay Tea will address it this time.
His argument is based on the assumption that the DoD would give permission to Obama for his visit without knowing the exact details of that visit.
Does anyone here really think that’s how the DoD operates?
Here’s a plausible scenario, Strowbridge, that both fits the established facts (you might want to brush up on them — or, rather, “familiarize yourself with them for the first time” might be more accurate).
1) Obama’s camp tells the Pentagon that he would like to visit wounded troops at Landstuhl.
2) The Pentagon gives a tentative approval, presuming Obama respects the rules and regulations that govern a United States Senator making such a visit.
3) As the visit nears, the Obama camp gives the Pentagon a complete roster of the people they intend to bring with them. This list includes campaign staffers. (I suspect it also includes press, but for the sake of argument I’ll waive that for now.)
4) The Pentagon informs the Obama camp that a couple of Senate staffers would be welcome, but no campaign staff. Obama is welcome only as a Senator, not as a candidate, and only those people who help him in THAT role will be permitted in.
5) Obama says “well, we certainly wouldn’t want people to get the wrong impression” and tells his campaign staff that they’ll have to entertain themselves for a couple of hours while he goes to see some of the men and women who he wants to command.
Whoops, my bad.
5) The Obama camp, for reasons that certainly don’t resemble anything like “if we can’t bring along our campaign staff, it’s not worth our time and effort to go,” announce publicly that they have chosen to cancel the visit to the hospital.
The deal breaker from the outset, according to the Obama camp, was the presence of the campaign staff. Note — for once, please, Strowbridge — the article Oliver quoted:
Obama’s own camp specifically say that the campaign aides were an essential part of the visit — so essential that their exclusion voided the entire trip. If you don’t agree with that statement, Strowbridge, take it up with the Obama camp.
If you keep arguing that it was anyone else besides the Obama camp that made the decision to pull the plug, you’re calling them liars. As a general rule, I have no problem with that, but in this case I’m inclined to believe them.
J.
“1) Obama’s camp tells the Pentagon that he would like to visit wounded troops at Landstuhl.
2) The Pentagon gives a tentative approval, presuming Obama respects the rules and regulations that govern a United States Senator making such a visit.”
NO. NOOOOO!
The DoD doesn’t say, “Sure, you can come on over. We’ll work out the details later.”
They don’t work that way.
Good god, do you really believe that?
“They don’t work that way.”
OK, Mr. Expert, then explain — in exacting detail — precisely how it does work. And cite your sources.
It’ll give you more time to avoid having to acknowledge what every single party in the actual incident has all agreed — Obama’s people CHOSE to cancel the trip after being informed of or reminded about long-standing policies that their guest list violated.
You know, the naked fact you are so frantically trying to avoid having to recognize.
J.
“OK, Mr. Expert, then explain — in exacting detail — precisely how it does work. And cite your sources.”
Sure, I’ll do that as soon as you quote your source. Show me definitively where Obama didn’t give his itinerary to the DoD.
In other words, it’s your fucking claim. You have to back it up.
You are trying to claim the DoD wouldn’t have a full itinerary from Obama before they agreed to it. You have to back that up.
“Show me definitively where Obama didn’t give his itinerary to the DoD.”
Proving a negative? Man, you really ARE desperate to avoid the main (indeed) only issue here — that Oliver’s title is a flat-out LIE and you are desperately trying to either justify or bury that fact:
Once more unto the breach, dear friends:
The Pentagon said “no campaign officials on the trip.” Senator and a couple Senatorial aides at most.
Obama’s camp said “if we can’t bring them, we’re not going.”
No one from the military EVER SAID NO TO OBAMA, only his campaign minions. And their presence was the dealbreaker.
All else is just spin. Or, in language you seem to prefer, “fucking lies.” Well, lies and diversions and distractions.
But I’m sure Obama had a great time in Berlin, so that’s all that really matters, right?
J.
Me: “Show me definitively where Obama didn’t give his itinerary to the DoD.”
Jay Tea: “Proving a negative? Man, you really ARE desperate to avoid the main (indeed) only issue here…”
It’s not that difficult to prove a negative. Prove you are not on the moon, right now. That shouldn’t be hard.
You are confusing proving a negative with proving universal negatives. Prove you will never be on the moon. That is impossible.
But nice dodge.
…
So….
Care to back up your claim?
Actually, you have a couple of claims you have made.
1.) The DoD didn’t know about the details of Obama’s plan when they agreed to the visit.
2.) Obama could have simply left his campaign staff behind and went ahead with the visit.
Do you have any evidence for either of those?
“He went to Germany on his campaign’s nickel. I’m not sure that he could wave his magic wand outside the hospital door and say, “Shazam, I am now a Senator, not a candidate.” And even if he could, I don’t think anyone would give him a pass on that. That’s why the military took care to tell him–ahead of time–that he couldn’t visit as a candidate.”
Exactly. One has to go a long way, and ignore a lot of other behavior, to make it appear as if Sen. Obama does not support/like/appreciate American soldiers and their service. There are those in our political culture and climate that have a great deal politically to gain in making that appear so. They did it successfully to John Kerry, but then he did make it easier on them. Forgive my presumptiveness (presumption? – too early to be hitting wiktionary) But I get the feeling that’s all this is.
Man, the lengths you go to to avoid the actual issue at hand. You’re like the guy couting the hairs on a gnat’s ass while the lion rips out your intestines.
Oliver’s title and main thesis are demonstrable lies, proven by the actual words Oliver chooses to quote. Obama pulled the plug on the trip, and said — explicitly — it was because he couldn’t bring his campaign staff along.
Period.
End of discussion.
Nothing else need be said.
With the possible exception of “587,” that being the number of hairs on one particular gnat’s ass.
J.
“Man, the lengths you go to to avoid the actual issue at hand.”
Are you referring to me, or yourself?
I ask because you still refuse to explain how you know the DoD didn’t have his itinerary before it approved the trip and how you know he could have just left his campaign staff behind and visited the troops by himself?
“it was because he couldn’t bring his campaign staff along.”
I’ve addresses that. Both sides also say the visit had been approved by the DoD. This brings up the question, why did the DoD approve the trip, then revoke it?
Whoops, my bad.
588.
Two hairs were stuck together.
Strowbridge, it’d be nice if you’d quit lying.
The DoD NEVER revoked approval for the trip. They simply informed Obama that there would be no exception to their long-standing policy, and his campaign workers would not be allowed. At that point, it was the Obama people that pulled the plug on the trip, not the DoD.
One more time, in black and white, from Oliver’s own article:
Key points:
1) Obama and his Senate staff were always welcomed.
2) The rules that excluded the campaign staff have been around for a long time.
3) Obama’s folks made the call that “if we can’t take the campaign staffers, we aren’t going.”
DoD did NOT revoke any permission, only informed the Obama camp that the existing rules would not be waived.
Why, WHY are you getting so hung up on minutiae that is utterly irrelevant to the point at hand? Oh, yeah, because if you didn’t, you’d have to admit that Oliver’s original article and your spirited defense of same was a complete crock.
Can’t have that, can you?
J.
Wow. You’re never going to quit, are you? You are also never going to address my point, are you?
“The DoD NEVER revoked approval for the trip. They simply informed Obama that there would be no exception to their long-standing policy, and his campaign workers would not be allowed. At that point, it was the Obama people that pulled the plug on the trip, not the DoD.”
So they approved the trip, then said campaign staff weren’t allowed, but didn’t revoke their approval.
Are you using different definitions that other people? I ask, cause it sounds like they gave approval for the trip, then revoked it.
This is an important point, one that you refuse to address. Approval was given, I’ve seen multiple sources that agree with this and no credible denials. (I don’t even remember a non-credible denial.) At first you argued that the DoD didn’t have Obama’s itinerary when they gave the initial approval, but you seemed to have dropped that argument. Or at least you refuse to address the question of evidence.
Now you are arguing the DoD never gave permission and I guess Obama’s team were just winging it. When they say it was planned for weeks, they meant they had planned it, but never got around to telling the DoD. Is this your new theory?
“DoD did NOT revoke any permission, only informed the Obama camp that the existing rules would not be waived.”
And who thought the rules would be waved? And before you give names, I’ll want evidence to back up your claim.
“Why, WHY are you getting so hung up on minutiae that is utterly irrelevant to the point at hand?”
It’s not minutiae.
It is not minutiae to ask, “Why did this happen at the last minute?”
Since the DoD is involved, nothing should have been left to the last minute, so the fact that something apparently changed at the 11th hour is strange, to say the least.
This is like watching someone trying to argue that we never landed on the moon or that 9/11 was an inside job. Strowbridge needs to remove the tinfoil. Seriously.
Then, perhaps, Strowbridge, you ought to take it up with the Obama camp. They are the ones who canceled the trip entirely. And they’re the ones who can answer your questions.
They’re also the ones who pulled the plug on the trip.
J.
“This is like watching someone trying to argue that we never landed on the moon or that 9/11 was an inside job. Strowbridge needs to remove the tinfoil. Seriously.”
So Jay Tea says that Obama canceled his visit to the troops because he wasn’t allowed to make a campaign commercial out of it (or words to that effect), and I’m the one spouting crazy theories.
Interesting grasp on reality you have there.
“Then, perhaps, Strowbridge, you ought to take it up with the Obama camp.”
There you have it, gentlemen, admission of defeat.
The DoD said he couldn’t go, what was he supposed to do? Go anyway? Of course he canceled the visit, after his permission was revoked. Just like many people resign after they are informed they are about to be fired. But nope, you are stuck on this one aspect of the debate ignoring all other points. And then you accuse me of debating minutiae.
It’s pathetic.
Do you want to try again? I’m willing to start from the top.
Strowbridge, I just repeated the words that Oliver himself cited. I think I’ve only quoted them a dozen times, you you might have missed it:
Pentagon says no campaign staff.
Obama says no visit.
I admit, it’s a potential logical fallacy — post hoc ergo propter hoc — but it’s a damned sight sounder than your “prove a negative assertion” and is based on the actual evidence at hand. The Obama people themselves say that the reason they canceled the trip was the exclusion of the campaign staff.
Were I the enquiring sort, I’d wonder why the Obama camp wanted the campaign staff to go along in the first place.
J.
CSS: It’s not that difficult to prove a negative. Prove you are not on the moon, right now. That shouldn’t be hard.
CSS, are you feeling OKay? Seriously, you are usually way better than this. Lord knows we’ve had our go-arounds with each other in the past but much as I’ve disagreed with the way in which you present your arguments you’ve usually had some semblance of logic and reason behind them.
But now you’re just starting to sound like someone starting to just lose it and feverishly say whatever you can to just disagree with the other side. You can easily prove a negative?
I’d like to see how you do that. How do you prove you are not the moon without making the case by actually proving a contradicting positive?
“Man, the lengths you go to to avoid the actual issue at hand.”
RFLMAO. And what is the actual issue at hand? According to you, the issue is that Obama won’t make time for the troops if he can’t get some political advantage from it. And yet here we have the words of Mark Halperin from the link above:
UPDATE: Jake Tapper notes the ad also claims that Obama cancelled the trip because he was told he couldn’t bring the media. There is absolutely no evidence for that one. The campaign insists that the plan had been to leave us at the airport, and the military has confirmed that arrangements were being made to hold media and staff there at a passenger terminal.
Hmmm, so the plan had always been to leave the press at the airport? How interesting. So why did the Obama campaign cancel the trip? Well, if you take the Obama camp at its word it’s because they felt they would still come under fire for exploiting the troops on a campaign trip. Again from Halperin:
As I have heard the campaign’s explanations for this decision over the past few days, as well as the attacks, I am convinced that it comes down to something that campaign strategist Robert Gibbs told reporters on the plane: When the campaign learned of the Pentagon’s concerns (Wednesday night), they realized that, however they structured the hospital visit, they were going to come in for criticism.
So the campaign decided to cancel the trip because, as I said above, they had a damned if you do, damned if you don’t decision to make and they made their call. From Halperin:
Their choice was to take a hit for going (even if it was a private detour from a very public campaign swing, Obama was going to be accused of using wounded troops for political gain), or a hit for not going (the charge would be–and has been–that Obama didn’t care about wounded troops). They decided to take the latter. We’ll see, as this controversy plays out, whether this was the right decision.
And what how is this “controversy” playing out? Well, the McCain campaign has resorted to lying in order to smear Obama. In the ad linked to above:
“He made time to go to the gym, but cancelled a visit with wounded troops. Seems the Pentagon wouldn’t allow him to bring cameras.”
Now Obama says the press were always going to be left on the plane so the second sentence is false. But the first sentence reveals the true depths of McCain’s dishonesty: the photo the McCain camp has used in the ad to prove Obama was “at the gym” is actually a photo of Obama playing basketball with the troops in Kuwait.
So Jay Tea, would you now like to address the McCain campaign’s exploitation of wounded troops to attack Obama? How can you defend this ad?
Jay Tea, the plan was always, apparently, for the press to stay at the airport.
From Time:
UPDATE: Jake Tapper notes the ad also claims that Obama cancelled the trip because he was told he couldn’t bring the media. There is absolutely no evidence for that one. The campaign insists that the plan had been to leave us at the airport, and the military has confirmed that arrangements were being made to hold media and staff there at a passenger terminal.
As I have heard the campaign’s explanations for this decision over the past few days, as well as the attacks, I am convinced that it comes down to something that campaign strategist Robert Gibbs told reporters on the plane: When the campaign learned of the Pentagon’s concerns (Wednesday night), they realized that, however they structured the hospital visit, they were going to come in for criticism.
So they had a decision to make, and they had to do it on the fly. Their choice was to take a hit for going (even if it was a private detour from a very public campaign swing, Obama was going to be accused of using wounded troops for political gain), or a hit for not going (the charge would be–and has been–that Obama didn’t care about wounded troops). They decided to take the latter. We’ll see, as this controversy plays out, whether this was the right decision.
So, Jay et al.: All that stuff you say is indisputable?
Looks PRETTY DAMN DISPUTABLE to me!
“Strowbridge, I just repeated the words that Oliver himself cited.”
Jay Tea, I’ve already addressed that quote. But apparently I have to do it again.
1.) Obama asked to visit the hospital.
2.) The DoD gave permission.
3.) SOMETHING HAPPENED HERE!!!
4.) The DoD revoked permission.
My question is… What the fuck happened in #3.
You seem to think he never had permission, despite both side saying he did. Or that the DoD didn’t revoke permission, despite first telling Obama he could go, then telling him he couldn’t. You also argued that the DoD would give permission without hearing the details in advance.
You haven’t backed up any of those claims. Hell, you won’t even talk about them.
But you will still write posts in this thread.
“Were I the enquiring sort…”
You would asked why the DoD changed their minds.
“The campaign insists that the plan had been to leave us at the airport, and the military has confirmed that arrangements were being made to hold media and staff there at a passenger terminal.”
Stop… Stop… STOP!
The press AND the campaign staff were never going to the hospital.
Seems Jay Tea’s last attack is dead.
“I’d like to see how you do that. How do you prove you are not the moon without making the case by actually proving a contradicting positive?”
You just proved my point, you fucking retard.
Now going away before this becomes another “Per 10,000″ debate. That debate, by the way, proved you were hopeless.
STILL waiting for you to show a single citation that backs up your assertion that #4 even happened, Strowbridge… you keep tossing out this cockamamie statement that the Pentagon revoked permission for the visit, when everyone else keeps saying that Obama was always welcome, and it was the Obama camp that canceled the visit.
J.
“STILL waiting for you…”
And I’m still waiting for you to back up your claims. Hell, I can’t even keep track of your claims.
“…to show a single citation that backs up your assertion that #4 even happened, Strowbridge…”
So now you are arguing that the DoD never gave permission? Was Obama planning on crashing the veterans’ hospital?
“…when everyone else keeps saying that Obama was always welcome…”
No, that’s not what everyone is saying.
The DoD saying his visiting the troops could be seen as a campaign stop and therefore against the rules is not welcoming. Since there was never any plans to have press OR CAMPAIGN STAFF, that must refer to Obama visiting alone.
So…
The DoD first agrees to the trip, then says it breaks the rules, even if Obama left his campaign staff on the plan, which was the plan all along.
Yet you are still arguing that Obama canceled the trip because he only wanted to do it for the publicity.
Strowbridge, apparently basic logic escapes you.
THE OBAMA CAMP CANCELED THE VISIT.
That means, in absolutely indisputable language, that the Pentagon did NOT cancel the trip. No matter how many times you try to spin your bullshit to say otherwise.
If the Pentagon withdrew permission, then one would think that someone would say so. If the Pentagon withdrew permission, then there would have been no trip for the Obama people to cancel out.
Just explain that twist of logic, Strowbridge: why would the Obama camp announce they had chosen to cancel a trip that had been canceled by the Petnagon?
Maybe the Obama campaign was lying, to spare the reputation of those lying, low-life scumbags at the Pentagon who baited and switched on them. “We don’t want to embarrass the Petnagon by exposing their duplicity, so we’ll announce that we canceled the trip and look like either opportunistic political hacks, or utterly incompetent idiots.”
Yup, that’s plausible. That makes whole heaps of sense. I’m sure that’s exactly how it happened, and it fits in with your repeated insistence that the Pentagon pulled a fast one.
Man, you really do have access to the good drugs. Why don’t you ever share?
J.
CSS: You just proved my point, you fucking retard.
Talking to yourself again?
sigh. Never fails. Try to talk to you in a reasonable voice and even give you credit where due and the response is more insults, the tactics of one who hasn’t something more substantial to stand on, runs away from the actual point at hand and (by CSS’s definition as given several times) thereby admits defeat.
CSS: And I’m still waiting for you to back up your claims.
Typical CSS. Demand proof from everyone else but flat out refuse to provide any yourself. The four year old’s cry of “you first”.
There is speculation and guesses going on all over the place here from both sides. I find it amusing how both sides (see, C, commenting on both sides so you can put your other childish “you only pick on me!” crying away) are making up motivations and hypothetical and then defending them to the death.
Sean, I’m really, really trying to not do that. That’s why I keep going back to the quote Oliver cited. The one where the Obama camp implies that they were going to bring campaign staffers to the hospital, and canceled it after the campaign staffers were explicitly excluded.
My last piece was intended as sarcasm, a satirical jab at trying to reconcile what Strowbridge was spouting with known facts. Luckily, there’s virtually no Venn overlap between the two.
J.
Maybe McCain will realize that you don’t have to visit Iraq to know it was a War in Error. And that having been in the military doesn’t give him a free pass to play politics with the troops. Stupid is as stupid does… http://angryafrican.net/2008/07/27/views-on-the-weakly-news-xvi/
Let’s let Obama himself clear this up:
CSS, you gonna call Obama a liar? Even HE admits that HE cancelled the trip because he couldn’t bring campaign staff.
Game. Set. Match.
Even HE admits that HE cancelled the trip because he couldn’t bring campaign staff.
That’s poor reading, even for someone who is TRYING to miss the point. Not because he couldn’t bring campaign staff, Farris:
Game. Set. What?
In other words, Farris, he’s taking flak so right-wing knuckleheads won’t start prowling around the families of the wounded checking what kind of countertops they have or what bumper stickers are on their cars.
Well, it WOULDN’T have been political if he hadn’t insisted on press and/or staff. He was able to comply with the rules when he visited Walter Reed. He was able to do it on this very trip during stops in Iraq & Afghanistan. And none of those right-wing wackos are “checking the bumper stickers” of those soliders. So your goal-post moving, while admirable, doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
He was able to comply with the rules when he visited Walter Reed. He was able to do it on this very trip during stops in Iraq & Afghanistan.
Let’s see, that’s Senate business, Senate business, and Senate business. Trip to Germany? Paid for by Obama for President.
And none of those right-wing wackos are “checking the bumper stickers” of those soliders.
My mistake. That never happens. Ever.
And as long as I’m taking the trouble, let’s get right down to the truth, Farris. You really don’t care whether he visited the wounded service members or not. If anyone is using the troops for political gain it’s the people using them as a club to attack Obama.
“THE OBAMA CAMP CANCELED THE VISIT.”
The only response to this is: So fucking what?
After all the bullshit arguing with CSS you guys have yet to address the fact that it is McCain that made this an issue by impugning Obama’s support for our troops. It’s a low and despicable attack based on nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Quaker sums it up nicely: “If anyone is using the troops for political gain it’s the people using them as a club to attack Obama.”
Now is their one of you jackasses who’d still like to defend McCain’s attack, go for it. Love to hear it. Otherwise, just shut the fuck up.
“Well, it WOULDN’T have been political if he hadn’t insisted on press and/or staff. He was able to comply with the rules when he visited Walter Reed. He was able to do it on this very trip during stops in Iraq & Afghanistan.”
How blind partisan stupid do have to be to write something like this? Jesus fucking christ.
The Obama campaign, the military and the press have said that the press was always going to be left at the airport. Obama did not insist that the press accompany him. At the same time, look at what Obama said when he was told his staffers couldn’t come: “That triggered then a concern that maybe our visit was going to be perceived as political.” Obama was concerned that even if he went on his own, the visit would still be perceived as political because of the context in which it was arranged. Obama didn’t insist on anything. He just weighed the options and the perceptions and decided it was better not to be accused of using injuried troops as political props and didn’t go.
Then along comes McCain and uses injuried troops as political props by attacking Obama for canceling the trip. And what do you asshats do? Jump right on board. Despite the fact that Obama has visited with the troops, injuried and not, before and will no doubt do so again.
I think this headline pretty much sums it up:
“New McCain Ad Bashes Obama for Not Visiting Troops Using Footage of Obama Visiting Troops”
I think it’s really going to be a very close race.
No, not the November election, dum-dum!
The race to see who will have run the more incopmpetent campaign, Hillary Clinton or John McCain!!
From the article Rheinhard linked to:
UPDATE: Obama campaign spokeswoman Linda Douglass says, “We told military officials explicitly that Senator Obama had absolutely no intention of bringing any members of the media or photographers in with him to visit the wounded warriors. In all of our communications with the military, we stressed that this was to be a private visit by Senator Obama.
Now Jay Tea, if you want to suggest that the Obama campaign is lying, fine. If you don’t want to take Obama at his word, fine. But all that’s just spin based on nothing.
It’s much harder spin McCain’s ad as anything than what it is: An unfounded attack that uses American troops as a political weapon.
If you want to suggest another way to read it, we’re all ears.
“Try to talk to you in a reasonable voice and even give you credit where due and the response is more insults, ”
Fuck you, Sean. You are attacking me for asking for simple proof, and this is not the first time you’ve done this. Yet you never even complain to Jay Tea for saying he would laugh at my death.
You are not fucking reasonable.
It is possible to prove a negative. We both agree on that. Yet you fucking attack me.
You are not fucking reasonable.
You attacked me for days about the “Per 100,000″ question, even after Jay admitted it was a mistake.
You are not fucking reasonable.
Got it?
You are not a voice of reason here. You are a fucking troll who delights in busting my balls even when I’m right, like now.
No if you can find anything unreasonable that I said in my post that you replied to, I am willing to discuss it in a rational way. But you can’t.
So fuck off and go to hell.
“Well, it WOULDN’T have been political if he hadn’t insisted on press and/or staff.”
And he didn’t. His staff and the press were never part of the visit to the hospital, but they were on the plane that flew him there.
Jay Tea: “Strowbridge, apparently basic logic escapes you.
THE OBAMA CAMP CANCELED THE VISIT.”
The DoD said he couldn’t go. What was he supposed to do? Go anyway?
Goddamn, you are stupid.
You refuse to address this point. The DoD said NO.
“CSS, you gonna call Obama a liar? Even HE admits that HE cancelled the trip because he couldn’t bring campaign staff.”
Again from the top…
1.) Obama asked permission for the visit.
2.) The DoD gives permission.
3.) SOMETHING HAPPENS
4.) DoD revokes permission.
The guy is fucking military, of course he would want to visit the troops. But the DoD knew he was coming from the beginning, because they would ask for a full guest list. They are the DoD, they don’t say, “We can work out the details later.”
Personally, I think the DoD got a memo from the White House just like the State Department did. The State Department’s job is to help government officials, like Obama and McCain, when they travel overseas. However, this time around the White House told the State Department not to help Obama, ‘because he was campaigning.’ However, during McCains many trips, he was given aid by the State Department, despite the obvious campaigning McCain did.
Just another case of the Bush administration turning the government, which is supposed to work for everyone, into an arm of the Republican party.
And SaveFarris does the homework that none of the rest of us could be bothered to do: words from Obama’s own mouth that he tried to bring a campaign staffer along to the hospital, the Petnagon told him that was not allowed, so he canceled the entire trip. His statement makes it a little more understandable why he thought that particular staffer wouldn’t be an issue, but it was still against long-standing rules.
But that doesn’t matter. Obama himself must be lying, as part of some grand Republican conspiracy engineered by George W. Bush and John McCain and run through the Pentagon to make Obama look bad. Man, that’s one effective conspiracy. Why should we even bother resisting it, when they can get Obama himself to cooperate in it?
At least, that’s how it plays out in the world of Strowbridge.
The McCain reaction is a red herring here. People were already saying that Obama had screwed up and given more evidence of his priorities before McCain said word one. The FACT is that Obama canceled the trip after he was told he couldn’t bring along a campaign staffer. The PERCEPTION that gave is that he put a higher priority on his campaign than the visit to the wounded troops. The ELABORATION that the staff in question is a military matters advisor and veteran himself mitigates that somewhat, but it still shows incredibly sloppy work on the Obama camp to not know that the same rules that held during his visits to Walter Reed, as well as in Afghanistan and Iraq, would apply here.
And it leaves Strowbridge’s potty-mouthed howls of some grand, evil conspiracy right where they belong — in the toilet.
Someone wanna give it a courtesy flush?
J.
CSS: Fuck you, Sean. You are attacking me for asking for simple proof,
For someone who has tried to take me and others to task for supposedly not understanding basic English and not getting the point of what was being said, you seem to get it wrong yourself at times.
(Personally I’d like to see more proof from folks. The flights of fancy on this thread alone are just astounding.) But I didn’t attack you for wanting proof. I pointed out that you don’t provide proof for many of your own statements and you have often defended your not doing so by claiming the other guy has to go first. But I did not attack you for requesting proof.
CSS: Yet you never even complain to Jay Tea for saying he would laugh at my death.
Jesus, how many times do I have to explain this to you. I never saw a post where he did this so what in hell am I supposed to complain to him about. Clearly that incident sticks in your craw. Fine. That’s your problem. But don’t expect me to take issue with something that I believe happened before I even started posting to this board.
CSS: It is possible to prove a negative. We both agree on that.
We do? Because I never said you could. So WTF do you mean we agree? Is this how you convince yourself you win discussions? You say black, the other person says white and you declare both sides in agreement? What is “fucking reasonable” about that?
CSS: No if you can find anything unreasonable that I said in my post that you replied to, I am willing to discuss it in a rational way. But you can’t.
How about your insistence in numerous posts that “the Pentagon revoked permission” for Obama’s trip despite Obama’s own campaign saying it was they (the campaign) who had made a decision not to go? Isn’t it unreasonable to insist he was told “you can’t come” when he himself says “I decided not to go.” “Personally, I think the DoD got a memo from the White House” doesn’t mean anything other than your opinion.
How about your declaration that we agree on something where I had only stated a different opinion than you?
Care to discuss those rationally?
“We do? Because I never said you could.”
Actually, you did. You pointed out you could prove a negative, and you even gave an example how. I did the same when Jay Tea complained the first time. IN THE FUCKING POST YOU REPLIED TO.
Are you this fucking stupid?
Here’s something that should blow your mind…
‘I always where green shirts.’
This statement is not a negative, yet it is just as unprovable as, ‘I never where green shirts.’
How can you explain that? Let’s see your vast knowledge on the subject brought to full force.
Just because a statement has the word, ‘not’ in it, doesn’t mean it is unprovable. A statement can be 100% devoid of the word, ‘not’ and be completely unprovable.
Fancy that, you actually have to look at the substance of the claim to determine what evidence is required to back it up, or if it is indeed provable at all. Wow. Isn’t that what I have been saying all along?
“Jesus, how many times do I have to explain this to you.”
As far as I know, this would be the first time you have explained it. Last time I brought it up, you just said it would be hypocritical for me to say it, but you never bothered to comment on Jay Tea saying it.
“I never saw a post where he did this so what in hell am I supposed to complain to him about.”
Funny how that seems to happen a lot.
Funnier still how you were in the thread where he said it. And you even responded to one of his posts where he called me Stroke.
oliverwillis.com/index.php/2008/06/28/mccain-taxes-for-thee-not-for-me/
You wrote three messages and never checked back to see if anyone responded to you? Hmmm… given your history, I don’t believe it.
“How about your insistence in numerous posts that ‘the Pentagon revoked permission…’”
First of all, I didn’t say that in the post you responded to.
Secondly…
“How about your insistence in numerous posts that ‘the Pentagon revoked permission’ for Obama’s trip despite Obama’s own campaign saying it was they (the campaign) who had made a decision not to go?”
THE FUCKING DoD SAID HE COULDN’T GO BECAUSE THEY WOULD BR BREAKING THE RULES. How is that not fucking revoking permission? It’s not like Obama had a choice not to cancel.
It would be like a judge sentencing you to three years in prison, and you saying you decided to go to prison. You really didn’t have a choice.
“And SaveFarris does the homework that none of the rest of us could be bothered to do: words from Obama’s own mouth that he tried to bring a campaign staffer along to the hospital, the Petnagon told him that was not allowed, so he canceled the entire trip. His statement makes it a little more understandable why he thought that particular staffer wouldn’t be an issue, but it was still against long-standing rules.”
This only makes sense if the DoD didn’t know this guy was coming, which makes no sense.
Again for the umpteenth time…
1.) The DoD would not give permission to Obama for the visit without knowing all of the details.
Does anyone disagree with this? Anyone? And if you do, give a reasonable argument why.
2.) Later on, just before the visit was to take place, the DoD changed it mind and said the ex-military man would be breaking the rules and told the Obama camp that they could go through with the visit as originally planned.
Does anyone disagree with this? Anyone? And if you do, give a reasonable argument why.
These two are indisputable facts. And they are facts that one side refuses to deal with.
‘Obama canceled the trip!’ Obama was told he couldn’t go, of course he canceled the trip. He had no choice.
At least we are getting more information here. But we still don’t have answers for the timing.
“…as part of some grand Republican conspiracy engineered by George W. Bush and John McCain and run through the Pentagon to make Obama look bad. Man, that’s one effective conspiracy.”
You realize Rove’s involvement in the Don Siegelman case has been exposed, right? Don Siegelman went to prison, and the White House is connected with the politically motivated prosecution.
But I guess you think Nixon was railroaded as well.
But back to the topic at hand…
When the DoD revoked its permission, Obama had no choice but to cancel his visit. The real question is why did the DoD revoke permission, and why at such a late time?
CSS: As far as I know, this would be the first time you have explained it. Last time I brought it up, you just said it would be hypocritical for me to say it, but you never bothered to comment on Jay Tea saying it.
See, that was once of the places where I explained it before. Good to know you did see it.
CSS:Funnier still how you were in the thread where he said it.
Yes, and his comment came after my last one. I do have a life outside this site and occasionally don’t return to threads
And you even responded to one of his posts where he called me Stroke.
Yeah? So? You’re objecting to my replying to a comment not because of what I said in my comment but because he called you “Stroke” in his? Am I supposed to take such umbrage at him calling you a name that I shouldn’t even reply to his point? God, you are thin skinned.
You wrote three messages and never checked back to see if anyone responded to you? Hmmm… given your history, I don’t believe it.
Well, what you believe is completely irrelevant. Your belief doesn’t make it fact. But even if I did see his comment, so what? Is there some requirement I take offense and respond to every hyperbolic insult made in comments? Do you need me to jump in to defend your honor for you?
CSS: First of all, I didn’t say that in the post you responded to.
Nice dodge. Keep that scope narrow. Yeah, I know your post said “if you can find anything unreasonable that I said in my post that you replied to” so you can keep anything unreasonable in all your other comments off the table.
Such as:
“THE FUCKING DoD SAID HE COULDN’T GO BECAUSE THEY WOULD BR BREAKING THE RULES.”
Show me where they said Obama couldn’t go. They said he couldn’t go with campaign staff. Show me where they said Obama couldn’t go. Obama himself said “what we decided was that we not make a visit”. This has been pointed out several times. The Obama campaign and Obama himself are saying that they decided to cancel the visit. Yet you continue, unreasonably, to insist that permission for him to go was revoked by the DoD.
CSS: “As far as I know, this would be the first time you have explained it. Last time I brought it up, you just said it would be hypocritical for me to say it, but you never bothered to comment on Jay Tea saying it.”
Sean: “See, that was once of the places where I explained it before. Good to know you did see it.”
You never explained why you didn’t respond to him.
“I take offense and respond to every hyperbolic insult made in comments? Do you need me to jump in to defend your honor for you?”
Hey, I wasn’t talking to you here, yet you felt the need to jump in anyway. It seems you do that whenever you see something you feel needs commenting on, like when I ask for evidence on a claim.
Asking for evidence on a claim = requires comment.
Laughing at someone’s death = no comment required.
“Nice dodge. Keep that scope narrow.”
Fucking liar.
I responded to your comment in full.
You cut it and lied about it.
You also cut the point where I showed you agreed that you could prove a negative.
Why do I bother responding to you?
You are not worth dealing with, because you are a pathological liar.
Fuck off and go to hell.
CSS: The DoD would not give permission to Obama for the visit without knowing all of the details…. These two are indisputable facts.
Actually that first one is specualtion on your part. Reasonable, educated guess speculation, perhaps, but still your opinion on what the DoD would do and not an indisputable fact.
Unless you are privy to the actual conversations and arrangements that were made, you’re opining on what happened.
CSS: ‘Obama canceled the trip!’ Obama was told he couldn’t go, of course he canceled the trip. He had no choice.
Pentagon spokesperson Elizabeth Hibner: “We informed the Obama staff that he was more than welcome to visit as Senator Obama, with Senate staff.”
Per the link posted previously paraphrasing Obama campaign strategist Robert Gibbs: When the campaign learned of the Pentagon’s concerns (Wednesday night), they realized that, however they structured the hospital visit, they were going to come in for criticism. So they [Obama's campaign] had a decision to make, and they had to do it on the fly. Their choice was to take a hit for going (even if it was a private detour from a very public campaign swing, Obama was going to be accused of using wounded troops for political gain), or a hit for not going (the charge would be–and has been–that Obama didn’t care about wounded troops). They decided to take the latter.the right decision.
So tell us again how Obama had no choice.
CSS: You never explained why you didn’t respond to him.
Yes, I did. At least twice before. I could search for the postings and provide links to them, but since you made the claim I didn’t first by your rules it’s your burden to provide the proof I didn’t. Proving that negative should be easy for you.
CSS: It seems you do that whenever you see something you feel needs commenting on
Yes. I post a comment when I see something I would like to comment on. Why else would anyone post a comment?
CSS:Asking for evidence on a claim = requires comment.
Laughing at someone’s death = no comment required.
Again, I didn’t comment on your asking for evidence. I’ve said I support the idea that people should provide support for their comments. What I did comment on wasn’t your asking for evidence but your declining to provide any yourself.
And laughing at someone’s death in a comment which I didn’t see and which was obviously hyperbole? Yeah, no comment required. (I do notice you keep leaving out the part where he said he’d fell sad if you died, so his was kinda a mixed message anyway.)
CSS: I responded to your comment in full.
Keep telling yourself that. Becuase we know we’re supposed to accept as “indisputable facts” something just because you say it is.
Sean, your mistake is in thinking that you and Strowbridge operate under the same dictionary. In his book, it goes from “hissy fit” to “hysteria,” with no entry for “hyperbole.”
I’ve been wondering what he meant by all those references to “Jay Tea… saying he would laugh at my death,” because I didn’t recall ever saying something like that, and I’d tend to remember that sort of thing. I’m glad he finally linked to it.
The whole statement:
“And I call you “stroke” as a caution — you get so worked up on occasion, I worry you might actually give yourself one. I figure if I keep using the term, it might remind you to keep yourself calm.
If you were to have a stroke, or a coronary, or an aneurysm, over the discussions here, I’d feel bad for you.
Then, I’d laugh my fucking ass off.”
Normally, I hate explaining a joke. It tends to suck the humor right out of it. But I feel I better spell it out.
First up, the “fucking” was included because I had earlier tweaked Strowbridge over his overdependence on profanity. He had rebutted that I was “afraid” of such language, and I had to reiterate my longstanding policy of minimizing my own use of profanity to preserve its rhetorical power. Dropping the f-bomb in at the end was my way of highlighting that I was not “afraid” of such words.
But on to the substance of my comment. For some time, Strowbridge has called me “sub-human” and all other sorts of interesting things. I didn’t let it get to me, but it did get tiresome. So I started calling him “Stroke” as both a play on his name and a reference to masturbation — calling him a “wanker.” Then, when he started getting annoyed over it (a purely juvenile gesture on my part, I freely admit), I figured that if he couldn’t see the (to me) obvious explanation, I made up a new one on the spot, just for him, that kinda sort explained it in a very condescending, very snide, and (I hoped) humorous fashion.
I never had any idea that Strowbridge would latch on to that as anything serious and keep harping on it. I think I gave him a bit too much credit there; I didn’t realize he could, indeed, be that dumb.
In my defense, though… think about Strowbridge, howling and frothing and screaming at his keyboard (much like that German kid in the Youtube video — THANK YOU, whoever hung that image on Strowbridge) and then suddenly seizing up and keeling over like the animator in Monty Python And The Holy Grail. It’d take a saint or an utterly humorless stick in the mud or a complete prig to not stifle a giggle at that image for just a second.
I foramlly apologize for making a joke you didn’t get, Strowbridge. All the time I was calling you “stroke,” I was calling you a “wanker.” And when I said I would laugh at your death, I was simply making more fun of you for not realizing I was calling you a wanker.
OK, back to the topic at hand. I think we’re going to call in reinforcements. Nobody has managed to convince Strowbridge that “The Obama camp decided to cancel the visit” and “the Pentagon canceled the visit” are mutually exclusive statements. And since he’s the only one who’s saying the latter while the rest of the known universe — including the small green things from Alpha Centauri and the Hooloovoo, a superintelligent shade of the color blue — is saying otherwise, OBVIOUSLY the entire usniverse is conspiring to keep the truth suppressed and Strwobridge is the only one who has the courage and integrity to speak it.
(For Strowbridge: that last bit featured “hyperbole,” as well as a reference to “The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy.” Go and give the series a read — although the quality starts to fall off around the end of the third and beginning of the fourth books of the trilogy.)
J.
CSS: “I responded to your comment in full.
Sean: “Keep telling yourself that.”
And you cut my response again. You are such a fucking liar, it is unbelievable. Nothing you say matters, because nothing you say can be trusted to be accurate.
So fuck off and go to hell.
“In my defense, though… think about Strowbridge, howling and frothing and screaming at his keyboard…”
This is never, ever happened. At least not with you.
(I have screamed at the computer while listening to a hockey game.)
“Normally, I hate explaining a joke. It tends to suck the humor right out of it. But I feel I better spell it out.”
I recognized it was a joke. You joking about causing my death and laughing at it is not better to any significant degree, so don’t think you’ve proven anything.
“I foramlly apologize for making a joke you didn’t get…”
I don’t believe you.
Simply put, you are a liar, and I don’t believe you.
To: Everyone reading this BUT Strowbridge
Re: Strowbridge
Is there anything funnier than someone who not only has no sense of humor or proportion, but insists that no one else be allowed to exhibit signs of those things he so obviously lacks?
or, for that matter, anyone more tiresome once you’ve figured out that he’s a one-trick pony?
J.
Robert Gibbs shows how it’s done, this AM on Scaroborough:
Scarborough tried to get Gibbs to mess up his words in explaining why Obama didn’t visit the troops in Berlin.
In a short synopsis of Gibbs’ brilliance, he told Scarborough, “The reason why Senator Obama didn’t go is because the Pentagon had labeled it a campaign event, and Senator Obama did not want to have the troops seemed to be used for a campaign event.”
Scarborough, as usual, was adamant in trying to force a double talk by asking “Why is Kuwait different than Berlin?” Gibbs was so good, he even kind of chastised good ol’ Joey boy, waving his hands at Scarborough to basically tell him to pay attention and stop repeating the same bulls—-by reiterating again, “That the Pentagon said that it would be a politicial move.”
Gibbs made an example again of Scarborough when the latter tried to make the issue of his basketball footage in Kuwait being taped, asking why where cameras there. Gibbs simple but terrific (and true) reply: “Joe, once again, the Armed Forces taped the footage of Senator Obama playing basketball, not anyone else.”
“…it still shows incredibly sloppy work on the Obama camp to not know that the same rules that held during his visits to Walter Reed, as well as in Afghanistan and Iraq, would apply here.”
Jay Tea, you readily acknowledge that Obama has visited Walter Reed and troops in Afghanistan and Iraq (and Kuwait), visiting many of these troops through out his most recent trip abroad. And you still perceive his canceled visit in Germany as evidence that he puts “a higher priority on his campaign than the visit to the wounded troops.”
Jay Tea, that a sure that you aren’t naturally an idiot, you’re actually going out of your way to be one. Unbelievable.
“The McCain reaction is a red herring here. People were already saying that Obama had screwed up and given more evidence of his priorities before McCain said word one.”
And as for this … A red herring? How on earth is it a red herring? McCain shouldn’t be criticized for using the troops in a political attack ad because “other people” were already criticizing Obama? I suppose then McCain would be fully justified in running ads suggesting Obama is a secret Muslim because, you know, people have already been forwarding stupid emails suggesting it. That’s really great sense of personal responsibility and character you’ve got there, Jay Tea. It goes along way to explaining your own track record of repeating unsubstantiated, unfounded attacks. As long as someone else says it, why not repeat it? You can’t be held responsible for what you write.
CSS: And you cut my response again
No, I quoted the relevant part and the entire quote is remains available for anyone who wants to see it. You may think your words so precious that they must be reproduced in their entirety every time, or that pressing the PgUp key is too arduous, but I disagree.
Y’know, the irony here is that on most issues I think I’d tend to agree with CSS and disagree with JT. It’s just that dealing with CSS is so frustrating. He demands proof from others while claiming he doesn’t have to provide any himself (”you first”). He expresses opinions and calls them “indisputable fact”. When people disagree with him he claims they’ve actually proved his point. When you confront him with clear evidence that what he has said isn’t true he changes the subject and starts with the insults. If you offer an apology or acknowledge a point he’s made he says he doesn’t believe you.
I think he’s so tied up in being absolutely right and never admitting an error or even a change in view that he just can’t see straight sometimes. Which is a shame because CSS, minus the rants and unreasonable bias, can make very good, clear points sometimes.
If any of you quacks had read up on this, you’d see that they didn’t stop him from seeing the troops…….they just wouldn’t let him do it with a camera crew, which isn’t uncommon.
And since Barack couldn’t use the troops as a photo-op, he figured “to heck with it.”
Try to keep up, mccann. We put that one to rest about 40 or 50 comments back.
Fafaroo, I never criticized Obama for his prior visits. I think it’s an entirely appropriate thing for a United States Senator to do — his votes have tremendous influence over the fates of those young men and women, and it’s good for both sides to see each other, eye to eye, at least once in a while so both sides are reminded that there are real human beings on both sides of the relationship.
Hell, I’d extend that to presidential candidates, who will have even more to do with the military, as commander in chief, than pretty much any Senator.
I can even see the rationale for Obama to want to bring his military advisor, a veteran, with him — he can act as a “translator” for Obama between the Senator and the troops he’d be meeting.
The problem arose when it someone connected the dots and noticed that the advisor was not part of Senator Obama’s staff, but Candidate Obama’s. That made him a political operative, not a government aide, and meant he should be excluded.
So, what is the appropriate thing for Obama to do in such a situation? The correct thing, in my opinion, is to leave the staffer behind and make the visit, perhaps with a Senate staffer or two, preferably one with military experience if one is available. Don’t let the blocking of the campaign military advisor (for very sound and legal and moral principles) kill the entire trip.
By treating that aide’s exclusion as the deal-breaker, that gives the PERCEPTION (note the word, fafaroo — “perception” does not necessarily imply reality) that Obama didn’t feel like going on the trip unless he had a political aide with him, presumably to make sure the trip is presented in the best way to maximize the political gain.
Instead, Obama spent the time he was scheduled to be at the hospital either shooting hoops or playing tourist around Berlin (I’ve seen reports of both), leading to the PERCEPTION that he thinks that’s a better use of his time than meeting with wounded American troops.
Bad call for a man who touts as one of his most qualifying traits his “jusdgment.” But that’s another whole topic, one I won’t go in to here.
There it is, all wrapped up in a pretty bow — an explanation that doesn’t depend on any grand conspiracy, any evil or untoward motives, no deception, no manipulation, no LYING!!!!!, just a bit of ineptness and poor judgment.
“Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.” That seems to apply quite well here.
Finally, I said going after McCain on this one is a “red herring” because it comes across as an attempt to change the subject. Obama’s actions were criticized by others before McCain, and the arguments remain the same. McCain’s ad can — and, perhaps, should — be the topic of discussion, but that should not supplant the actual discussion about Obama’s actions.
J.
‘I always where green shirts.’
This statement is not a negative, yet it is just as unprovable as, ‘I never where green shirts.’
How can you explain that? Let’s see your vast knowledge on the subject brought to full force.
CS, you’re confusing the issue because this is not an issue being applied to every day situations, but in the context of this debate. Here’s your challenge:
Show me definitively where Obama didn’t give his itinerary to the DoD.
There are still “burdens of proof” that need to be met in a debate. In this instance one has to determine where that burden of proof lies. Just because Jay Tea says the Obama camp didn’t give an itinerary to the DoD, the burden of proof is not on him. Remember, you’re the one saying “it makes no sense” that the DoD wouldn’t know Obama was coming. Therefore, you’re assertion is that there was some sort of itinerary given to the DoD. As such, the burden of proof rests with you, not with Jay Tea.
Again, let’s look at your challenge once more:
Show me definitively where Obama didn’t give his itinerary to the DoD.
Now since you’re smarter than everybody here, perhaps you can explain exactly how somebody shows another person definitively something that DIDN’T HAPPEN unless it’s on video tape somewhere.
I can say, “Show me definitely that Manny Ramirez did not him a home run last night” and somebody can play back a tape of the game. But in this case
To be more specific, you’re engaging in the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam or arguing from ignorance. Your asserting that something is true simply because it hasn’t been proven false. The same can be reversed, but in this case, the burden rests on you because its part and parcel of your contention that the DoD yanked permission on Obama despite knowing exactly how he intended to show up. Remember, you’re the one asserting this because you said “it makes no sense” that the DoD wouldn’t know. And merely saying “it makes no sense” is not enough evidence to support such an assertion.
By treating that aide’s exclusion as the deal-breaker, that gives the PERCEPTION (note the word, fafaroo — “perception” does not necessarily imply reality) that Obama didn’t feel like going on the trip unless he had a political aide with him, presumably to make sure the trip is presented in the best way to maximize the political gain.
And, of course, there’s absolutely nothing misleading or dishonest about feeding that false percept…uh, PERCEPTION if you can do so for political gain, right Mr. Tea?
“Finally, I said going after McCain on this one is a ‘red herring’ because it comes across as an attempt to change the subject.”
Jay Tea, perceptions aren’t something that are forced upon us which we have to accept blindly as in, “Well, Obama could be perceived as a cynical exploiter of US troops so I guess there’s nothing I can do but accept that perception, regardless of the actual facts, and spread it around as much as I can.”
The discussion of Obama’s actions is a pretty straight forward one if you choose to accept Obama’s explanation of his decision at face value: When the military raised objections to a campaign staffer coming along, it raised larger questions in Obama’s mind about how any visit on his part might be perceived and he opted for not going to avoid the perception that he was using the troops as a campaign prop.
The only reason to discuss this any further is if you choose to believe that Obama is lying and that he really didn’t want to visit the troops unless he could make political hay out of it. There is, of course, no evidence for that. Or do I need to explain that simply because you choose to interpret something some way, doesn’t make it true.
Of course we shouldn’t forget your brilliant bonus analysis:
An unwillingness to do that sort of thing is precisely the sort of thing that led to the Blackhawk Down/Battle of Mogadishu fiasco, when the Clinton administration sharply limited the military resources that the commanders wanted in Somalia — “why do you need tanks and airplanes? The Somalis don’t have them, so what will they do?”
You added this little bit why? Obama has visited Walter Reed. How does this then apply to him in this case at all? Clearly, it doesn’t. So why throw it out there? Especially if you are not willing to then apply the same standard to Bush before our invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Fafaroo, I offered that as an explanation into the mindset of a lot of people who see Obama’s lack of experience on matters concerning the military, and how his decision to skip the hospital trip might be seen. I didn’t defend it, and the more I consider it the more I’m chalking this up to “ignorance” or “dumbness” than callousness. The Somalia anecdote is brought up because Bill Clinton, like Barack Obama, had zero military experience and tried to impose his own judgment and sense of what was “fair” and “proportional” to a situation — over the objections of his military advisors, who tried to convince him that such concepts have no place in decisions of military matters.
I’ve participated in some naval discussion fora, and one topic that often comes up with great regularity is “if you were to face X ship, and you had to choose between ships A, B, C, D, E, F, or G, which would you choose is why?” The correct answer is “all of them, plus any more I can get.”
Another aphorism in the military is “if it’s a fair fight, you’re doing it wrong.”
The guys on the ground in Somalia wanted aircraft and tanks. Clinton (through his SedDef, Les Aspin) said no. They didn’t see the need to risk “escalating” the situation and specifically said that since the Somalis didn’t have such weapons, our guys didn’t need them, either.
If you don’t recall how that decision turned out, check out the book or movie “Blackhawk Down.”
That is why I brought it up — the general perception of Obama as weak and inexperienced and ignorant on matters relating to the military, something a lot of people take into account when they’re voting for Commander in Chief. His mishandling of this whole hospital visit will, quite likely, overshadow any good his visits with the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq might have done him — both politically and as a matter of character.
I’m not acting as a partisan here, but offering analysis and opinion of the situation. Personally, I liked most of Obama’s trip, and was glad he made it. (Although I didn’t like how he pretty much said that the Iraq portion of the trip was pointless — he said beforehand that nothing could change his mind on withdrawing troops on a rigid time schedule.)
Roughly speaking, there’s a 50-50 chance that he will be the next president. It’s in everyone’s best interests that Obama be as ready for that responsibility as possible. That means that trips like this one are a GOOD THING, because it’s preparing him for the chance that he will, indeed, be president come January.
That’s what’s so disheartening about the incredibly inept way that he (or his staff, but that’s pretty much the same thing) handled the whole Landstuhl visit. It falls under the “unforced error” category. There was no reason for him to botch the whole thing, but he still did.
The partisan part of me got a bit of a kick out of his blowing the whole thing. Kind of like Oliver’s gleeful posting of pieces on McCain.
But a far bigger part of me is American, and I am more troubled by the thought that someone who does things like Obama does could be our next president.
Oh, well. In a democracy, the people tend to get the government we deserve.
And come what may, on January 20 of next year, the man who takes the office will be my president. Whether or not I voted for him.
J.
I’m not acting as a partisan here, but offering analysis and opinion of the situation.
Uh, Mr. Tea? You do know that we can still see all your previous comments on this thread, don’t you?
That means that trips like this one are a GOOD THING, because it’s preparing him for the chance that he will, indeed, be president come January.
Of course such trips are a good thing, presidents should have a sense of the price of war and sacrifice before they go about ordering troops into harms way but that raises the question, again, how many VA hospitals did George Bush visit before he became commander in chief? Any idea? Was this a huge concern of yours before the invasion of Afghanistan? “Gee, I hope Bush has at least visited wounded soldiers before he makes the call”?
Remember, it was Rumsfeld who pushed for a lean fighting force in Iraq and rejected plans for larger numbers of troops going in, a plan Bush approved. It’s conventional wisdom now that we did not have enough troops to secure the country after the invasion (hence the surge). Did Rumsfeld not have enough military experience? Had he not visited enough military hospitals? You’re argument that visiting military hospitals provides some sort of inoculation against poor military judgment is meaningless. You just tossed it off, like you toss of most of your bullshit, without even thinking about it. But it certainly helped spread those “perceptions” about Obama being ill-prepared to become president. But let’s return to Obama.
I know you are aware that Obama visited Walter Reed, but were you aware that he visited with wounded troops just a few days before he went to Germany:
… while Obama did not go to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany, he did visit wounded troops on his trip while in Iraq, according to colleague MSNBC chief foreign correspondent Andrea Mitchell, who reported during the July 25 edition of MSNBC’s Morning Joe that Obama “visited a casualty unit in the Green Zone without photographers as part of the congressional delegation.” Indeed, later on July 28, Mitchell confirmed her previous reporting, saying, “I can attest to the fact that he did visit troops in Iraq only four or five days earlier, that there was no notice of it, that I confirmed that it happened, but they had no video of any type and no reporters. And that he’s been to Walter Reed. So let’s at least get that off the table.”
http://mediamatters.org/items/200807280003?f=h_latest
Obama also spoke with soldiers at Landstuhl over the phone while on his trip.
So by your own standards, Obama is doing what you think he should do to prepare himself to be president. Despite this, you still feel the need to write:
But a far bigger part of me is American, and I am more troubled by the thought that someone who does things like Obama does could be our next president.
And you still feel the need to defend McCain’s attack ad by writing it off as a “red herring” despite the fact that it is obviously a rank distortion of the truth.
fafaroo, when Bush ran in 2000, we weren’t at war. Probably not too many recently-wounded veterans in hospitals at that point.
And say what you want about Rumsfeld, you can’t fault his experience. He had previously served in the Ford Administration as… wait for it… Secretary of Defense. Rumsfeld holds the distinction of being both the youngest and oldest SecDef in history. He also served as a Navy pilot during the 1950’s. Fault him on his judgment, but you can’t say the man wasn’t experienced enough (at least on paper) to serve as Bush’s SecDef.
And my point is that he’s making serious “unforced errors” — witness his handling of the Landstuhl visit. It appears that there was a very plausible, very reasonable storyline that explained the matter in a satisfactory manner. But the Obama camp didn’t manage that very well. Here it is, days after the trip, and it’s taken some serious Obama
sycophantssupporters to find out these particulars and piece them together.Obama has stated as one of his greatest qualifications is “judgment,” and cites as an example of that good judgment is his opposition to the Iraq invasion. Well, it seems that that was a one-shot deal (if you agree with him on that, and I don’t); ever since then, he’s shown incident after incident after incident where he’s shown bad judgment, to the point where classic phrases as “that’s not the XX I know” or “that was inartful” or “that’s a distraction” or “how does this help our children” have become humorous catch-phrases among his critics, and so many people have been jettisoned from the Obama campaign that the phrase “thrown under the bus” has officially been declared a cliche’.
And the incredibly inept way the whole Landstuhl visit was handled is just the latest example. His decision was “unfortunate,” and his initial explanations “inartful.”
In other words, some ol’ same ol’.
When can I Hope that he’ll Change?
J.
But the Obama camp didn’t manage that very well. Here it is, days after the trip, and it’s taken some serious Obama supporters to find out these particulars and piece them together.
Am I understanding correctly, Mr. Tea? The right-wing blogosphere and the John McCain for President campaign make stuff up about Mr. Obama’s trip and it’s Obama’s fault?
You’re really pushing the envelope today, aren’tcha?
and so many people have been jettisoned from the Obama campaign that the phrase “thrown under the bus” has officially been declared a cliche’.
Of course, no one has been tossed under the Straight Talk Express, right Mr. Tea?
Jay Tea: fafaroo, when Bush ran in 2000, we weren’t at war. Probably not too many recently-wounded veterans in hospitals at that point.
I’m sure there were planty of vets who had served in Somalia or the first Iraq war or even Vietnam who were getting treatment for injuries recieved in those wars. Are you seriously suggesting that there is some “recently wounded” cut off point after which there is nothing for a candidate to learn by visiting vets? I mean, if there were no new admissions at all to the vet hospitals for, what?, six months then there would be no point to a candidate visiting with those vets who were in the hospitals? “Sorry, guys. Your wounds are over six months old. Nothing to learn from you.”
On a much larger point, tho, we weren’t facing a housing crisis or a surge in energy prices when Bush ran in 2000 either. Are you suggesting that a candidate for the Presidency should only make sure that they are familiar with the issues currently pending, and not pay any attention to the things that might come up? Personally, I’d like the candidate as well versed in as many aspects of their job as possible.
Jay Tea: And say what you want about Rumsfeld, you can’t fault his experience. He had previously served in the Ford Administration as… wait for it… Secretary of Defense.
I think the point being made was that despite all his “experience” Rumsfeld did not do well with the invasion of Iraq. If Clinton should have deferred to his generals and given them a larger force for taking on Somalia, then certainly Rumsfeld should have done the same when taking on Iraq. And Rumsfeld had “experience” to draw on which means his failure is even more notable than Clinton’s.
“fafaroo, when Bush ran in 2000, we weren’t at war. Probably not too many recently-wounded veterans in hospitals at that point. And say what you want about Rumsfeld, you can’t fault his experience. He had previously served in the Ford Administration as …”
I think Quaker and Sean responded adequately to these two gems. I’ll just add that your example was Clinton and Somalia. Please tell me why the “we weren’t at war” defense for Bush doesn’t, in your mind, apply to Clinton in that instance. We’re at war somewhere else at the time?
Quaker also makes the good point that shouldn’t we also be questioning McCain’s judgment? When faced with the decision to politicize visits to military hospitals, McCain decided to go for it, smearing Obama with gross distortions of the facts in the process. That doesn’t give you pause at all? No, of course, not. It’s all Obama’s fault.
I know you’ve spent a good deal of time attacking CSS for whatever, but maybe you should go back over your own comments in this thread. You don’t come off any better.
Former Chief of Medical Operations for HQ USAFE at Ramstein Air Force Base Responds to Latest McCain Ad
WASHINGTON – The former Chief of Medical Operations for United States Air Force in Europe (USAFE) Headquarters at Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany today ripped into Senator John McCain’s latest ad, which attacks Senator Barack Obama for not making a campaign event of a visit to wounded troops.
Dr. Katherine Scheirman, who was Chief of Medical Operations during Operation Iraqi Freedom, said in a statement:
“John McCain’s new ad is dishonest and shameful, and I say that as the former Chief of Medical Operations. Senators Hagel and Reed confirmed to Bob Schieffer yesterday that Senator Obama visited the Combat Support Hospital in Baghdad as a part of their CODEL, with no media present.
“In Germany, Senator Obama made the right decision to respect wounded troops, and the doctors and nurses doing crucial and time-sensitive work, by not making a visit that was characterized as a campaign event by the Pentagon. Senator Obama should be thanked for putting our military above politics. And, I would hope that John McCain would think in those same terms, the next time he is put in a similar situation.
“Senator Obama has voted for the troops when John McCain has not, most recently on the new GI Bill. I am happy that Senator Obama puts the welfare of our troops above politics.”
Dr. Katherine Scheirman, MD, MHA, CPE, FACPE, is a Senior Advisor to VoteVets.org, and has twenty years experience in the Department of Defense medical system. She retired from the Air Force in 2006 with the rank of Colonel. During her time in the military, she was assigned to a number of duties where she saw ‘first hand’ the shortcomings of the DOD medical system and its effect on troops. Most recently, she was at Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany, which saw the majority of those injured during the war in Iraq.
I’m back…
Fucking hell, that was a rough week at work.
Jay: “There are still “burdens of proof” that need to be met in a debate. In this instance one has to determine where that burden of proof lies.”
So far we agree.
“Just because Jay Tea says the Obama camp didn’t give an itinerary to the DoD, the burden of proof is not on him.”
Wrong. 100% wrong. He made a claim, it is up to him to back it up. He can’t say, “Obama didn’t give an itinerary to the DoD and was expecting the DoD to bend the rules for him. Now prove me wrong.”
“Now since you’re smarter than everybody here, perhaps you can explain exactly how somebody shows another person definitively something that DIDN’T HAPPEN unless it’s on video tape somewhere.
I can say, “Show me definitely that Manny Ramirez did not him a home run last night” and somebody can play back a tape of the game.”
That’s an interesting point you bring up. It seems Jay Tea made a claim that is impossible to back up. Perhaps that’s why I asked for proof. In fact, I can tell you without any doubt, that was the main reason I asked for proof, because he made a claim he could not back up.
In other words, Jay Tea acted in an intellectually dishonest way, and this is not the first time he’s done that.