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.

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 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.

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.

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.

Of course, no one has been tossed under the Straight Talk Express, right Mr. Tea?

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 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 sycophants supporters 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.

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.

Uh, Mr. Tea? You do know that we can still see all your previous comments on this thread, don’t you?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

And since Barack couldn’t use the troops as a photo-op, he figured “to heck with it.”

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.

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.

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.