Posts Tagged ‘Pentagon’

Wounded Veterans: Obama Only Cares When There Are Cameras

July 27, 2008

Here’s a view into the window of Obama’s soul:

Obama Camp: Visit to Troops Would Have Seemed Too Political
by FOXNews.com
Friday, July 25, 2008

U.S. troops at military facilities in Germany, but it would have been awkward.

That was the suggestion from both the Obama campaign and the military Friday, after the Illinois senator drew criticism from Republicans for canceling his scheduled visits while in Europe.

Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said Friday the campaign was initially given clearance to land at Ramstein Air Base, but were told by the Pentagon Wednesday that the trip “would be viewed as a campaign stop.”

Obama also had plans to visit the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center. Gibbs said on the flight from Tel Aviv to Germany, Obama made the call not to go.

“Senator Obama made the decision that we were not going to have wounded men and women become involved in a campaign event or what would be perceived as a campaign event,” Gibbs said.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told FOX News the Pentagon did not tell Obama he couldn’t visit, but explained that he would be under specific restrictions.

“We do have certain policy guidelines for political campaigns and elections and what is appropriate and what is not appropriate in those situations,” he said. “The issue here is that if you are both a sitting senator and a political candidate … you need to do it in your capacity as a sitting senator or you have to do it with the restrictions that apply to any other candidate out there that might be running for office that is not a sitting senator.”

A memo sent out Wednesday from Undersecretary of Defense David Chu explained that Obama’s visit to such a military facility would be limited under these circumstances. Obama would not have been able to bring any of his campaign staff — only one Senate staffer and security. He also would not have been able to address the media or make any campaign-related statements.

The Obama campaign said Thursday it would be “inappropriate” to make such a stop on the campaign-funded leg of his trip, after the German magazine Der Spiegel reported on the cancellations.

John McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said, “Barack Obama is wrong. It is never inappropriate to visit our men and women in the military.”

McCain’s Senate colleague Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., also took a shot at Obama.

“I noticed that Obama had plenty of time to shoot hoops … but he didn’t have the time to stop by (the Ramstein base),” he told FOX News.

FOX News’ Justin Fishel and Bonney Kapp contributed to this report.

The visit was planned until Obama found out he wouldn’t be able to bring his media entourage with him.  Rather, as a Senator, he would only be able to bring a single staff member.

The Pentagon provided Obama some special leeway given the unusual nature of Obama’s visit.  They arranged to allow his campaign plane to land in the airfield, and they arranged to allow a military photographer to accompany Obama and take pictures if the soldiers agreed.

But Obama decided that if his media entourage couldn’t come, the trip wasn’t worth making.

And then – when criticized – he demonstrated that at his center he is a blame-the-military-style liberal.  He misrepresented the Pentagon’s message in a self-serving and accusatory way that the Pentagon – which bent over backwards for Obama – didn’t deserve.

Obama should have quietly visited the troops with his single staffer, and been on his way.  The notion that he would have been criticized for doing so is patently false.  Also, there are simply things that are presumably WORTH taking criticism for – and visiting wounded heroes is one of them.  If Obama truly valued these men and women and their service, he would have done what was right, and that’s that.

Apparently, Obama only “cares” when there are cameras around to record his display of compassion.

Obama’s Democratic Debate Goofs

April 18, 2008

During the 16 April Democratic debate, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos asked Senator Barack Obama the following question:

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: I want to give Senator Clinton a chance to respond, but first a follow-up on this issue, the general theme of patriotism in your relationships. A gentleman named William Ayers, he was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol and other buildings. He’s never apologized for that. And in fact, on 9/11 he was quoted in The New York Times saying, ‘I don’t regret setting bombs; I feel we didn’t do enough.

An early organizing meeting for your state senate campaign was held at his house, and your campaign has said you are friendly. Can you explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to Democrats why it won’t be a problem?

SENATOR OBAMA: “George, but this is an example of what I’m talking about.

This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who’s a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He’s not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.

And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn’t make much sense, George.

The fact is, is that I’m also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions.

Do I need to apologize for Mr. Coburn’s statements? Because I certainly don’t agree with those either.”

What exactly can we say about a man who equates being a murderer and a terrorist bomber with being a pro-life conservative U.S. Senator? Isn’t that frankly over-the-top nuts? Not to a liberal, so it’s perfectly okay in the People’s Republic of Leftistan. Surprise, pro-lifers: you’re just as vile as terrorist bombing murderers! How dare you believe babies deserve to live!!! Quit clinging to your religion, you bitter people!

And the fact that Ayers bombed some 20 places forty years in the past (and, just to make sure we all know, Ayers has admitted his involvement in the bombings; he was arrested and tried for the crime, but was acquited on a technicality) when Barack Obama was “8 years old” should somehow mean its okay to be his buddy now?

Beyond the affirmation that Barack Obama and William Ayers “were friendly” comes the realization that Obama went to Ayers’ house to garner support for his campaign. The two men went to speaking engagements together. They served on the same board together. They had the sort of relationship that Americans would not expect between candidate for the office of President of the United States and admitted terrorist bomber of American targets.

Do you think it will be okay to be in a friendly relationship with an unrepentant al Qaeda terrorist who killed Americans in a few decades? Is that a guy you don’t mind being on friendly terms with? Apparently, if you are a liberal, it’s just not that bad.

Here was another magic moment during the debate:

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS (asking about Rev. Jeremiah White): But you do believe he’s as patriotic as you are?

SENATOR OBAMA: This is somebody who’s a former Marine. And so I have — I believe that he loves this country, but I also believe that he’s somebody who, because of the experiences he’s had over the course of a lifetime, is also angry about the injustices that he’s seen.

Well, Lee Harvey Oswald was a former Marine, too. And he was pretty darned angry about injustice, as well. Does that make Lee Harvey Oswald a patriot too, Senator Obama?

A liberal patriot, of course, is a person who dedicates his life to attacking and undermining America (oh, I’m sorry: AmeriKKKa).

Oh, as a follow-up question, as a white man living in poverty, could you please explain how Reverend Wright – who will be living in a 10,000 ft/sq house located on the fairway of an exclusive country club with a $10,000,000 line of church money – is angry? And what I did to him? I’m not sure I get that.

The resulting media firestorm has been both predictable and amusing. The New York Times – the flagship of the elite media – thought it entirely appropriate to write a front page story about a “relationship” Senator John McCain had with a female lobbyist. The story was clearly nothing more than an uncooborated hatchet piece alleging impropriety and sleeze against a Republican. But when there are genuine, documented events concerning Senator Obama’s pastor for 20 years, concerning a former Marxist terrorist whom his own campaign acknowledged as being a friend – these things should be completely off limits?

I have heard liberals ask, “How would John Mccain like it if the media looked into his pastor?” I honestly don’t think the man would mind. Unlike Barack Obama, I don’t think John McCain has been sitting under a Marxist preacher for twenty years. Nor do I think he’s friendly with terrorist bombers who attacked the United States.

This little allegory might help liberals understand why Barack Obama’s relationship with William Ayers is disturbing:

Senator John McCain was linked today with a former Army of God member who bombed a string of women’s health clinics that provided abortion, it was revealed today. In 1985, Michal Bray was charged with conspiracy, following a series of clinic bombings. The Maryland Metropolitan Medical Women’s Center, a Planned Parenthood office and also the Washington Office of the American Civil Liberties Union were bombed. Two doctors who performed abortions were killed in the attacks.

“Reporters verified that Senator John McCain served on a board with Mr. Bray, and the two attended a number of speaking engagements together. When his campaign was contacted for comment with the story, McCain campaign manager Terry Nelson acknowledged, “They’re certainly friendly with each other.”

Michal Bray has repeatedly acknoweldged taking part in the bombings, and several years ago said, “My only regret is that I didn’t bomb more abortion clinics” at the anniversary of Roe. V. Wade Decision.

And, again:
“In an unrelated story, we have just obtained video of Senator John McCain’s paster for the past twenty years, the Rev. Tom Robbe, engaged in a series of racist rants against African Americans. The Senator has been a member of Rev. Robbe’s congregation for the past twenty years. The church features a “White family contract” and preaches white separatism.

In one video-taped sermon, Rev. Robbe calls African-Americans “degenerate criminals, drug addicts, murderers, rapists, and gang banging thugs who have children like rabbits and inflict their animal behavior on white America.” In other videos he claimed that America deserved 9/11 for tolerating black behavior and for not shipping blacks off to Africa.

Contacted for comment, Senator McCain said he was shocked at the the racist comments, and claimed that he had not been in the church when the remarks were made.

I made up these stories. But imagine they were true. As a liberal, what would you think of Senator John McCain? Would liberals and the liberal media be saying, “Well, we can’t convict a man of guilt by association“? No friggin’ way!!! They would not only be demanding that Senator McCain suspend his presidential campaign; they would be hysterically demanding that he resign from the U.S. Senate!!! You KNOW they would.

And rightfully so. If John McCain had those associations, it would disqualify him from ever being president, and should frankly disqualify him from continuing to serve in the U.S. Senate.

But please tell me the difference between Senator Obama’s “associations” and the one’s I just made up (and realize, the only reason I have to make them up is because – unlike with Obama’s – they didn’t happen). It turns out that the only difference is the fact that Obama’s bomber bombed the Pentagon and New York Police headquarters (good targets from a liberal perspective) and my bomber bombed abortion clinics (bad targets from a liberal perspective). And it turns out that Obama’s pastor is an anti-American anti-white racist (good targets from a liberal perspective) and the pastor I desribed is an anti-American anti-black racist (bad targets from a liberal perspective).

It is time that liberals grew up and learned that hate is hate, and racism is racism, and it is simply unacceptable from anybody – particularly when it can be associated with a man who wants to be the president of the United States.

Any genuine candidate of reconciliation would not EVER have tolerated such people in his life. He would have confronted their racism, their anti-Americanism, and (in the case of Ayers) their violence against Americans, and they would have refused to associate with them. Period.