July 30, 2008
McCain Lies About Obama and Wounded Troops (Brent Budowsky)
John McCain personally told Larry King that Barack Obama wanted to bring reporters, cameras and campaign aides to a meeting with wounded troops in Germany.
When he said this, John McCain was lying. Let me spell this correctly: L-Y-I-N-G.
Obama never intended to bring reporters, period. That is a lie. Obama never intended to bring cameras. That is a lie. Obama never intended to bring "his campaign staffers" (to use McCain's words). That, too, is a lie. The only person Obama intended to bring was retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Scott Gration, who is an unpaid military adviser.
Credit to Dan Balz in The Washington Post today for laying out the facts. Shame on many in the political, cable, pundit and commentariat classes who have allowed McCain to get away with what are several clear, unmitigated and outright lies (spell that L-I-E-S) about Obama and wounded troops.
One can understand McCain's frustration. He taunted Obama to make the trip and it was a major success. One can understand McCain's anger. He was reduced to a photo-op on an oil rig that was canceled by a hurricane, and while he dished his talking points at Schmidt's sausage factory, Obama was greeted by a quarter of a million people, many waving American flags, and praised extravagantly by the conservative leaders of Germany and France.
One can understand McCain's problem. His record on veterans’ issues over many years is far weaker than that of most Democrats and most Republicans. He recently unsuccessfully opposed the strong version of Sen. Jim Webb's (D-Va.) new GI Bill, irritating many veterans’ groups, again, while the bill passed with bipartisan support over McCain's objection.
That is no excuse for lying. That is no excuse for repeating the lie in campaign statements and paid television ads approved by McCain.
While credit is due to the front page of The Washington Post for reporting the facts in the paper this morning, it is an outrage that many in the media, whom McCain has long called part of his political base, fail to report this story with integrity, clarity, facts and truth.
Permalink TrackBack
Email This Post
Share this post
What's This 81 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Brent;
Another spot on post. Get ready for the band of neocons (RR, Misha, Igor and Simmons) to bash your post. Cheers!
Comment by Mike Coleman — July 30, 2008 @ 10:31 am
Brent, you obviously can't read or just plain WANT to have your head in the sand. Here, let me post what the Pentagon said:
"Chief Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell confirmed to Politico that Department of Defense officials cautioned Barack Obama's campaign that his planned visit to wounded American troops in Germany could not be political in nature and that he would be barred from bringing along campaign staff and reporters. He also said that Cindy McCain recently requested to visit sailors aboard the U.S.N.S. Comfort and was denied."
"Sen. Obama is welcome to visit Landstuhl or any military hospital in his official capacity as a United States senator," Morrell said in a brief interview. "But there is a DoD policy which governs campaigning and electioneering at military facilities that would have to be respected if he were to visit. That distinction was relayed and made clear to campaign, and they made a decision on their own based on that guidance."
So the only thing Obama needed to do IF he wanted to visit the troops as a Senator was to leave his staff and reporters behind. That's it. IF HE DIDN'T INTENED ON BRINGING THEM, HE COULD HAVE MADE THE VISIT. Is that any clearer for you?
Apparently that was too hard for the senator, candidate, whatever he's calling himself today. The Pentagon gave him a choice and he couldn't go it alone.
That's the real story Brent. Spin it any way you like, thems the facts as they say. You should get your facts together before you blog away the crap that you do.
Comment by Wayne Kulick — July 30, 2008 @ 10:52 am
Sorry Wayne, I cited three specific charges
McCain made that were false, untrue, dishonest,
wrong, lies in plain speaking and I cited
them factually, one by one. You can't defend
even one of them, factually, and you didn't
even try. Why dont you try taking each of
the specific McCain statements I cited, one
by one, and tell me which of them are true?
You can't. Brent
Comment by Brent — July 30, 2008 @ 11:16 am
Brent;
Good rebutal to Wayne. He has been spewing childish rants for a while now and I'm glad to see you take him apart.
Comment by Mike Coleman — July 30, 2008 @ 11:42 am
Brent, common sense would dictate, if he didn't intend on bringing his entourage, according to the statement by the Pentagon, his visit would not have been prevented or construed to be a campaign visit..
Obama's campaign staff stated: "Obama decided it would be inappropriate to go there as part of a trip paid for by his campaign." BUT if he were overseas as a member of Congress, as he stated, it shouldn't have been viewed as a campaign visit.
He visited other military installations and they have the same rules with respect to campaigning. If he could visit them he could have worked out (ESPECIALLY in advance) a visit to Landsthul. Amazing he could work out visiting 200,000 Germans and not a military hospital.
Spin it any way you like. He could have visited and he didn't. That's the point here.
Funny, other detailed accounts seem to support my position. Might want to read them.
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/obama-staff-blames-pentagon-candidates-failure-visit-wounded-troops-pentagon-denies-claim
Comment by Wayne Kulick — July 30, 2008 @ 12:00 pm
Let's approach it from another perspective Brent. McCain says something about Obama as in this case. Obama staffers deny the claim and you say that's evidence? Of course they deny it.
Based on that logic you'd ask a man accused of murder if he did it, and when he says no you say he's free to go. Be serious.
Actions speak much louder than words. McCain had every right to call him on it.
Comment by Wayne Kulick — July 30, 2008 @ 12:11 pm
You seem to miss the point, Wayne. The first part of Obama's trip was Congressional in nature, paid for by taxpayers. The second leg of his trip was paid for by his campaign. Any visits to troops on the second portion of the trip, no matter how low key, would've occurred on campaign funds and therefore considered political in nature.
You say that "it shouldn't have been viewed as a campaign visit," but what else could it be viewed as if it was paid for by his campaign?
Given McCain's recent assaults on Obama, the likelihood is that McCain would've accused him of using wounded soldiers for his political gain if he'd have made the visit. Obama made the right choice to avoid any sense of impropriety.
Comment by Melissa — July 30, 2008 @ 12:57 pm
So, why didn't he go?
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — July 30, 2008 @ 1:52 pm
So Obama had this trip planned in advance and did not know the rules and had to cancel. So he is stupid.
Comment by Jon Pemberton — July 30, 2008 @ 1:56 pm
It seems to me that the rightwing crying machine is damning Obama because he did the right thing. Now if he had gone, they would have damn him for going. You folks are never satisfied.
Comment by Mike Coleman — July 30, 2008 @ 3:34 pm
Mike Coleman: He planned his itinerary. If anyone is crying it's you. But that's to be expected.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — July 30, 2008 @ 5:34 pm
My, my, my does not Senator Idiot (McCain) have a trove of apologists writing fro him..must be from ABC,NBC, & CBS…I call them sacophants..
I ask the question: Why are so many vet groups against McCain and his ass-kissing?
Moreover, go to Google.com and type in "McCain crashes jet onto aircraft carrier." Some hero! And his statement that he is qualified to be president because he spent 5+ years in a NV prison camp…truly, he has been out in the AZ sun for too long..
Comment by dagored — July 30, 2008 @ 5:49 pm
You cares what republicans say. All you need to do is remind them what a bang up job they've done; economy, trade, enviroment, energy etc etc. They've got nothing. They're policies are failures, just take a look around!
Comment by kurtislowe — July 30, 2008 @ 6:07 pm
The bottom line is that when you're president of the United States, you become a surrogate parent to every member of the armed services. As President, and commander in chief, your sacred vow and responsibility is to care for our military, and in exchange, the parents of these brave men and women support their precious children in their decision to serve. Obama should just say he screwed up.
Comment by Caryn Veasey — July 30, 2008 @ 6:17 pm
I have yet to see a single post from a McStainiac that isn't either a lie, an ad hominem attack, or racist. You guys would get a solid F in debate class, that's for sure.
Comment by El Dorado — July 30, 2008 @ 6:28 pm
It seems to me that Wayne is the one who is politicizing the wounded troops. If I was lying in a hospitable bed I would incensed at Wayne's attempts to use me for his political agenda. What jerks Republicans are to use our troops for their political purposes.
Comment by Gilpin Guy — July 30, 2008 @ 6:55 pm
All conservatives have for an argument is lies, innuendo, misdirection, and finally insults. When they're proven wrong, they move the goalposts.
Obama visited the troops. He chose not to in one location, for a legitimate reason, and the sad, sorry conservatives pounce. (Had he visited, they would have pounced and accused him of politicizing the wounded.)
It must be embarrassing to know that after 8 years of power, they've done nothing but allowed America to be attacked, violated the Constitution, ruined the armed forces, destroyed a vibrant economy and made enemies of the entire world.
But they promise not to raise your taxes.
I'm not sure what kind of messed up values you must have to think that one promise is worth the sacrifice of all the rest.
Comment by mkochinski — July 30, 2008 @ 7:08 pm
My. My. Not one Obama supporter can answer the question of why Obama didn't go, they can only launch personal attacks. This is the kind of Nazism you see practiced at many liberal web sites. The military welcomed him as a U.S. Senator. He chose not to go. He blew it off so he could go apologize about America to a bunch of knackwurst loaded inebriated German youth.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — July 30, 2008 @ 7:29 pm
Robert, are you reading the posts?
The first part of his trip was congressional in nature and paid for by taxpayers. During this time frame he visited the troops. Several times.
The second part of his trip was paid for by his campaign and was as a candidate.
Now read carefully - Department of Defense officials cautioned Barack Obama's campaign that his planned visit to wounded American troops in Germany could not be political in nature.
As a campaign visit instead of in capacity as a congressman, it would be political and therefor violate the standards. He chose not to violate the standards set by the DOD.
Chief Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell also said that Cindy McCain recently requested to visit sailors aboard the U.S.N.S. Comfort and was denied.
Do you get it now?
The question is answered, no one launched a personal attack against you, and liberalism is the political opposite of Nazism, no matter how much historic revisionism anyone wants to practice.
Anytime you want to debate with facts and logic rather than lies, innuendo, ad hominem attacks and misdirection, I'm always here, and you'll always come out looking worse for the wear.
Comment by mkochinski — July 30, 2008 @ 8:24 pm
ITs very obvious some posters aren't aware of the fact that the Pentagon didn't inform Obama about the rules until the last min. THe other senators had already gone back to the US., therefore they couldn't go with him to see the soldiers( a requirement). Obama visited the injured troops in Iraq and Afghanistan without reporters. The picture of him playing basketball was taken in Kuwait.
Obama did the right thing. McCain is the one using the soldiers for political gain. Attacking Obama is all he can do. He also knows there are those who will fall for the lies. He was allowed to visit the troops in the other country because it wasn't paid for by his canpaign. The fact that the Pentagon waited to the last min. to inform Obama, is rather telling. If he had visted the troops any way, than we would see a different attack ad from McCain. Its called damm if you do, and damm if you don;t. Its all McCain has left. ATTACK, ATTACT. It takes the public attention from all the mistakes he has made.
Comment by Thelma — July 30, 2008 @ 8:44 pm
My my, Robert resorts to the "N" word that is becoming the favorite distraction for the McCain supporters. Its a shame when a campaign is so out of ideas that they have to resort to such inappropriate terminology. Makes one wonder if they really understand what Nazi Germany was about.
Thelma is correct in her mention of the rule changes imposed on the Obama campaign. In addition, the state department barred its employees from attending Obama functions during their free time, even though high ranking diplomats attended McCain functions during his foreign travels.
None should be surprised with this hypocrisy.
Comment by Lmaris — July 31, 2008 @ 2:29 am
Question:
What qualifies Sen. McCain as a hero?
He was an unlucky fighter jock that got shot down and captured during one our first ill-advised wars. He followed the Service Man's Code of Conduct (which he supposedly studied and the USNA) and didn't provide help to the enemy (just like the majority of our POWs). He got repatriated, worked for a while in his wife's daddies company, then went into politics.
Where is the hero part?
The young soldier recently honored for saving his comrades by jumping on a live grenade, now he's a hero.
What makes Sen. McCain a hero?
The way his campaign is using the word cheapens it for the real HEROS.
Stop calling him a hero!
Through the recent ads he has been approving, he shows that he has no honor.
Comment by AnnapolisMD — July 31, 2008 @ 7:28 am
Apparently the Obama supporters can't read at all or have poor reading comprehension skills. The military advised him that if he bought along campaign personnel it could or would be considered a political event. Obama had a choice at that point and he simply blew it off. Barack could easily have gone, but he would not have had as much time to diss America at some German event. The Barack supporters can try to justify it until Hell freezes over, but you never diss the troops. And if you do you face the political consequences. It's obvious he knew there would be serious political consequences but Barack figures he's bigger then all that. Barack is learning he's not bigger than all that, and his supporters at NBC (National Barack Channel) can try to explain it all they want. The public is not that dumb. They see Barack for what he is and isn't. Now, go join your German comrades and have some knockwurst, beer and listen to some rock music so you can get back into the Barack mindset once again.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — July 31, 2008 @ 8:13 am
I'd say there's a lot of truth twising going on on both sides. One of the reasons people are so turned off by campaigns. Please God, just get it over with. As for Obama, he can't have it both ways. It was a campaign trip or it wasn't. We know what it was with all the posturing and pontificating.
Comment by Glennis — July 31, 2008 @ 8:44 am
Please,
Everyone know's what an ego maniac obama is. Look at his prayer everything is I and me nowhere does he say bless america or our troops..He coulld have gone by himself and it would have meant everything to the troops..instaed he decided not to go..then gave 4 different excuses..he had to know it would look bad and if he did'nt that another poor judgement call on his part. McCain did not lie obama just has a hard time telling the truth he did not want to go because it served no purpose for him and the american public will just get over it..What a loser!
Comment by jadeona — July 31, 2008 @ 9:04 am
Robert, go somewhere and sit down! You are just like the rest of them, can't u see that McCain is senile. The past few times I saw him he was getting his facts wrong and just wrong and he looked like he was in pain one of those aching knee days that the elderly get!Let it go! Stop hating! Your fangs are showing.Let's get a report on the aging Senator's senility,instead of his physical health how about his mental health,then you can rant. Final point, McClaus is wack,finish and senile! Robert choose your battle!
Comment by coffee — July 31, 2008 @ 9:28 am
Brent,
You lack the moral authority to challenge the American Patriot & War hero, John Sidney McCain III.
What the hell does B. Hussein Obama know about the military and service to the republic, in that vain.
Unlike his descendants (Raila Odinga, Kenyan PM) McCain's have fought in every military conflict since the commencement of the Republic, up until his son in Iraq.
Comment by Carlos Echevarria — July 31, 2008 @ 10:12 am
[...] Read More Here [...]
Pingback by Brent Budowsky: McCain Lies About Obama and Wounded Troops « — July 31, 2008 @ 10:14 am
Carlos, that sounded like some kind of Ted Nugent (real genius) rant. I take it you won't be voting for Obama. Would you vote for Bush Cheney again?
Comment by Dwayne Mac — July 31, 2008 @ 10:34 am
For Robert, Wayne and Jadeona. Have you all had read the Washington Post Dan Balz's 3 page article mentioned above? If not,then don't say this and that, because in it was reported by the Post reporter all what is going on at the Obama plane:the agenda to visit the wounded given to each reporter,then the pilot's directing another way,after that the explanation in the plane by Gibbs (Obama does not want to use campaign money etc) followed by the press release about the refusal of Pentagon about General Gration as an aide to Obama's visit (he was viewed as a campaigner),whereupon Obama felt that the whole thing was being seen by Pentagon as his campaigning by visiting wounded troops,and he did not want the wounded to be hustled into chosing one of the campaigns of the candidates,so he cancelled the agenda.
You should write based on facts, not on racism (against Germans) like Robert,or unknowingly (Wayne, Obama didn't want to take THEM reporters,ONLY HIM/GRATION; and Robert,the military did not welcome Obama in Germany,they welcome him in Iraq and Afghan as US Senator,and it was not Obama who chose not to go to be welcomed by knackwurst Germans,but he was told by Pentagon he was campaigning using wounded military,as his MILITARY ESCORT General Gration was seen as part of a campaign too,so he himself the candidate must be seen as such.That's the way he perceived Pentagon's messasge).
Jadeona said it serve no purpose to him,why not? As there were a bunch of reporters on his plane in Germany,everybody will report his going alone to wounded troops.How could his secret visit to wounded soldiers in Iraq and Afghan (not published in the news,so you don't know about it) how would it be of any purpose to him? He did it,anyway!!!
The faulty of Obama's campaign is that they did not deter McCain's attacks by publishing even now,about the secret visits by Obama to wounded troops in Iraq and Afghan.This will be enough to show the attention Obama have to those wounded ones,even if not publicized at that time (so it's not af any purpose for his campaign,the opposite of Jadeona's ideas)
Comment by om santi — July 31, 2008 @ 10:46 am
#7 Melissa;
You seem to be missing the point entirely. Notice in the Pentagon's statement, they said NOTHING about how his trip was financed, nothing. They gave two criteria for a visit: No staffers, no reporters to be considered a non-campaign visit.
Pretty easy if you ask me. Especially for a trip planned AHEAD of time. So what you're saying is for a guy who wants to lead a country of 300+ Million people, he can't plan a trip to a hospital to visit troops? Be serious…
Try to spin it any way you like but he dropped the ball big time and he's rightfully taking a pounding for it.
Comment by Wayne Kulick — July 31, 2008 @ 11:08 am
#30
Duh. Of course I read it. Obviously you didn't read my post. The reporter was talking to HIS STAFFERS. So yeah, they denied the accusations. That's your "proof?" Like I said, just like asking a murderer for confirmation of evidence….
Comment by Wayne Kulick — July 31, 2008 @ 11:10 am
#22 Annapolis…
John McCain is a HERO!
Comment by Wayne Kulick — July 31, 2008 @ 11:13 am
Obama didn't go. He could have gone. It's just that simple. I see a couple of the resident lunatics are accusing people of racism for mentioning that it still doesn't pass the smell test.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — July 31, 2008 @ 11:18 am
#19 MK
Looks like you're the one not reading. The Pentagon stated in unequivocal terms: "his planned visit to wounded American troops in Germany could not be political in nature and that he would be barred from bringing along campaign staff and reporters."
Again since you're not reading well lately, THE ONLY THING HE NEEDED TO DO WAS DITCH STAFFERS AND REPORTERS…
…and he CHOSE not to.
Do you get it now?
Comment by Wayne Kulick — July 31, 2008 @ 11:18 am
I keep wondering why John McCain is considered a HERO? What did he do to deserve that title except for getting shot down in Viet Nam. Did he shoot down 5 enemy planes to earn himself a Ace? No. Did he save someone from harm? No. So what is his claim to fame. He got shot down. He spent 5 years in prison but other than that what is the claim. Also how does that translate into being qualified to be POTUS, it doesn't so keep that in mind while we debate his other qualifications.
Comment by Mike Coleman — July 31, 2008 @ 11:36 am
#31
The campaign funded the trip to Germany, Wayne, and so that alone would have made the visit highly questionable! He'd have walked an indistinguishable between his roles as both candidate and senator. He made the right choice in scrapping the visit and avoiding any potential claims of impropriety and placing wounded troops in the center of a firestorm.
The only one doing a tremendous disservice to those troops is the man who is using them for his own political gain by lying about the reasons why the visit was aborted.
Obama visited troops during the first leg of his overseas trip, and he also made a quiet visit to wounded troops at Walter Reed, so any suggestion that he doesn't care enough about troops to visit them is pure fabrication.
Be serious…
Comment by Melissa — July 31, 2008 @ 12:12 pm
Mike,
You don't understand. John McCain could have been released from prison because of his fathers rank but he chose to deny the enemy a propaganda victory, and stayed in prison. His sacrifice stands in stark contrast to any politician who would use others for gain. John McCain is a hero, but more importantly, he has shown what character is. You ask "…how does that translate into being qualified to be POTUS…". I wish that all candidates could be as brave.
Comment by Jim Clevenger — July 31, 2008 @ 12:43 pm
Excellent commentary, Brent. Clear, concise, and factual.
How interesting to read revisionist history as presented by Wayne Kulick.
1. McCain is no War Hero. He, by his own admission, "caved in", did not just give his name, rank, and service number as required by the military, he told the North Vietnamese exactly what they wanted to hear and now states his feelings of guilt for having failed at holding to the basic rules of military conduct when a POW. Shame on McCain.
2. Over a period of many years McCain held himself out as a Moderate. In the 2008 Campaign he sought the endorsement of racist Christian Right Nuts such as the Reverend Hagee ("The Catholic Church is a Whore") and the Reverend Rod Parsley, just as racist. McCain SOUGHT OUT their endorsements, unlike Obama whose endorsement from Reverend Wright was dumped in his lap.
3. McCain knew, as did every other THINKING American that the Pentagon asked Obama to not visit the injured troops because it would leave the impression that the US Military was endorsing Obama.
4. McCain appears to be suffering from a loss of mental acuity as evidenced by his inability to remember just who the players are in world affairs, specifically in Iraq.
5. McCain clearly has no problem in revising the Constitution in his statement that America was founded as a Christian Country and should be led by a Christian, "as written in the Constitution". McCain lied about that and has no clue as to the substance of the Constitution or he would know that the Constitution very clearly lays the groundwork for "Separation of Church and State".
Senator John McCain is a bonafide LIAR, and this country has had enough trashing by LIARS, such as McCain's Mentor, George W. Bush and Richard Cheney, et al, who have trashed our Constitution and appear to wish to establish a Dictatorship in America, with John McCain assuming the next phase, moving in that direction.
John McCain is a better candidate for a Nursing Home than for President of the USA.
Comment by Spencer Lehmann — July 31, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
#35 - Wayne -
My reading comprehension skills are just fine, thank you.
Your misunderstanding of the facts seems to be based here:
"his planned visit to wounded American troops in Germany could not be political in nature AND that he would be barred from bringing along campaign staff and reporters."
The operative word is "and".
By having the campaign pay for that leg of the trip, it was, by definition, political in nature, WHETHER OR NOT he brought staff or reporters.
Cindy McCain was denied for similar reasons.
If he had visited the wounded without reporters, the right would be - justifiably - accusing him of using the troops as campaign props, whether reporters were present or not, because he was visiting them in the capacity of a presidential candidate. That would be a violation of military standards.
You are assuming facts not in evidence, and reporters have stated clearly that in the original planned agenda, they were NOT scheduled to appear with Obama visiting the wounded anyway.
So it is a LIE, a false implication created by throwing in a secondary phrase that has no connection to the actual event.
You'll have to do better than that. Some people can't be fooled by bluster and misdirection.
Comment by mkochinski — July 31, 2008 @ 1:27 pm
In response to Jim Clevenger, post #38, McCain may have chosen to "stay" in the POW Camp to allay his guilt for having told the enemy what they wanted to hear, but in no way does that make McCain a War Hero, or Brave.
"McCain has written repeatedly of his service, including in a long 1973 magazine article and in his memoir, "Faith of My Fathers." A Navy aviator from a military family, he was shot down on his 23rd sortie over Vietnam on Oct. 26, 1967. His mission was to bomb a power plant in the North Vietnamese capital. Already suffering from broken limbs, he was beaten by a crowd before being taken to a POW camp. After being tortured there, he participated in some Vietnamese propaganda efforts.", Politico.com.
Other sites found on Google present the same information. Other POWs did not cave in. McCain did. How does that fit in with the definition of a War Hero? It doesn't.
Comment by Spencer Lehmann — July 31, 2008 @ 1:59 pm
In a nutshell: Obama was invited. Obama could still have gone. Obama chose not to. He's getting what he deserves.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — July 31, 2008 @ 2:28 pm
#36
Mike, a helluva lot more than Obamvoyage ever did. McCain has leadership of over a THOUSAND personnel under his belt. 17 I think is the max for Obama. The fact you can't even correlate performance under stress in combat to leadership make more apparent your lack of understanding of the office.
#39
You've never been through SEER training so you have no idea what you're talking about and as such I can't even take you seriously.
#40
Umm, MK. He wasn't barred by the Pentagon from visiting. He could have made it work yet he chose not to. The Pentagon CLEARLY left it up to him. Again, not very presidential when you can't coordinate a trip to a hospital.
Comment by Wayne Kulick — July 31, 2008 @ 2:39 pm
Spencer;
I was going to highlight that fact when you beat me to it. Google has many articcles regarding McCain but this one I thought was quite interesting:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd59.htm
Comment by Mike Coleman — July 31, 2008 @ 2:49 pm
Wayne and Robert -
You are both clearly confused. Obama was on a campaign visit. The Pentagon would not allow a visit that was political in nature. Read the words.
He CHOSE not to visit for that reason. In my opinion, it was the correct decision. It would have been unethical, and, as I pointed out, it would have been used against him if he DID go.
The reporters along with him have stated they were NOT scheduled for the visit. Obama had no issues visiting troops during the part of his trip that was in official state capacity, whether there were reporters around or not.
Having the press in tow had NOTHING to do with it.
Your interpretation of the facts has been debunked, and your clinging to it shows either a lack of comprehension or a willful denial of reality. You're not really very good at this reasoning and debate business. The right needs a better class of trolls.
I've pointed out before that the entire conservative repertoire of debate consists of lying, changing the subject when proven false, ad hominem attacks, and finally, yelling "But…Clinton!" before slinking off.
I'm actually flattered, Robert, that I've seen you attempt to use my analysis of false debating techniques, but apply it to liberals.
It's cute, and sometimes even accurate.
Now, where's your outrage at Cindy McCain for choosing not to visit wounded soldiers without the press in tow? I mean, she could have visited them as a private citizen, right?
Comment by mkochinski — July 31, 2008 @ 3:07 pm
Now, I'm considering this whole McCain as war hero as a distraction from the point of the conversation, but as long as I'm hitting on the hypocrisy theme, I want to illustrate this.
In 2004, it was perfectly acceptable to the Right to question the patriotism and heroics of both a purple heart winner and a man who lost three limbs fighting for his country, even to go so far as comparing them to terrorists - as long as they were Democrats.
I would go so far as to suggest that the sacrifice Max Cleland gave is at least as great as the sacrifice Mr. McCain made in choosing to remain a POW.
I find the questioning of Mr. McCain's service to be appalling and outrageous, as much as I found the questioning of Kerry's and Cleland's.
All of you people who do so, and do so for partisan purposes should be ashamed.
Comment by mkochinski — July 31, 2008 @ 3:14 pm
Mkochinski, salute on your clear, to the point explanation,(not just saying bad names or bad things like small children fighting over toys).
In Iraq and Afghan Obama made secret visits to wounded troops,with no one joining,no reporters,because it is a dangerous zone and also a Congressional visit.But in Berlin his plane was full with reporters seeking news about his campaign abroad (a campaign, because it used campaign money), so even if he went to Landstuhl alone the whole world would know; "Oh Obama made a visit to wounded troops alone,how good is he etc.etc",so he would still enhance his campaign by going alone without any reporters or escort.
And #32 Wayne, I talk about the stickers given to each reporter when the plane took-off,printed with Obama's agenda's, including his vist to Landstuhl only with General Gration,that's before Pentagon changed mind and told Gration was not allowed (how could Obama knew beforehand about the change of Pentagon's policy here?).
Well, his Staffers said this and that about Pentagon and the campaign, AFTER the passengers saw the plane went in another direction than Landstuhl and ASKED the reason of it. What did they deny,I don't understand you? They are NOT accused of anything then,such as you said "they denied the accusations" (by McCain one week in the future?)
Comment by om santi — July 31, 2008 @ 3:15 pm
To Wayne Kulick, post #43:
While I am not familiar with SEER training, I did serve in the US ARMY from 1964 through July, 1970.
You are welcome to not take me seriously, but only demonstrate your own ignorance of the Code of Military Conduct in your posts, and clearly enjoy ranting from your soapbox, spewing whatever verbiage falls from your mouth, accurate or not.
Having checked your website and noticing that you work for the US Government explains your bias. It does not explain your ranting rudeness to any who disagree with you.
Perhaps on your next post you can rip into twenty more posters with whom you disagree, or who question your intellectual capacity.
I have noticed that most who find your posts to be marginal in their efficacy have provided sites and sources to validate their claims. You have not.
I think that based on that information alone, other posters can easily determine who is credible and who is just shooting from the hip.
Keep shooting; eventually you may improve your aim.
Comment by Spencer Lehmann — July 31, 2008 @ 3:16 pm
Mike Coleman, Post #44:
Mike, thank you for that link. The information is excellent. I think that it also validates what a number of us have been saying, after having researched McCain's history including his own confessions.
I have read many of the same points on other sites, many of them MSM sites as well as sites that have posted comments from those who were in Vietnam at the same time as McCain. I found additional information on the site you provided and appreciate it.
It never ceases to amaze me that there are those who will accept only the positives they know about McCain and follow him "blindly in love" even though his gaffes have been proven and cited many times over.
As I said before, McCain is a consummate liar. Those who blindly follow him are, in my opinion, simply blind.
Again, thank you for the excellent link, Mike.
Comment by Spencer Lehmann — July 31, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
The rules for visiting military bases by politicians have been in-pplace for years. Obama and his campaign not understanding the rules, thus cancelling the trip is stupidity. The rules did not change, they were not a surprise and funding that part of the trip to his Senate office would have been easy. He chose not to go, he has to live with it, eeven if he doesn't look like all those DC lifer presidents on the dollar bills…
Stupid is as Stupid does
That should be obama's campaign slogan!!
Comment by Jon Pemberton — July 31, 2008 @ 3:46 pm
Leaders make things happen. Obama could not or would not. This equals incompetence or his choice based on whatever was in his mind.
Obama 08 "Stupid is as Stupid Does"
Comment by Jon Pemberton — July 31, 2008 @ 3:57 pm
@27 Carlos Echevaria,Hispanic McCain voter/adorer, do you believe McCain objected to his father's help to release him from prison ? I do not see any posibility that Vietnamese military has any knowledge about his father,especially as Vietnam is a country without sea and his father was from the Navy (Vietnam does not have Naval enemies).
Well, I am from a country ruled by the Army military for 30 years, ie Indonesia, and the military was given much credit as being good managers and rulers (as governors,village heads etc,government institutions' heads etc) with the result a prosperous and modern country then,although Indonesia is an archipelago consisting of many islands surrounded by sea,but all the militarywere from the Army.
The Navy/Airforce only see the sea or the sky,never fight against guerilla's/enemy armies on the ground,or having to talk to the people etc. in their operations. So McCain as an Airforce pilot will be deemed INEXPERIENCED TO GOVERN in my land,as he was not from the Army!!!!
About McCain's grandfathers etc erving the land, well, Obama's greatgrand uncle Charles T.Payne who served in the US troop liberating Buchenwald Nazi camp is very proud of him.And there was a Robert Duvall,a sheriff in Lonesome Dove,a distant relative from his mother's side.
About McCain's mother side,do you read that his grandfather from his mother side (Wright family) was many times fined and one or two times to cell because he was a big and maybe a bit dishonest lotto player (I forgot the name of the game)and got rich from secretive land deals. That's why the article's name sounds like "McCain just like his mother's side" (Yahoo News)
Comment by om santi — July 31, 2008 @ 4:15 pm
# 50 Pemberton, please read my comment #47 to understand the cancellation of Obama's trip. Of course funding that part of his trip to his Senate office would be possible too, although not easy I think, because the trip to Iraq and Iran must be already costly.
And about the stupidity of his cancellation, it's because he asked ONE MILITARY GENERAL to accompany him, why? Maybe to give a neutral aspect to his visit (if he go alone he would seem like a candidate visiting wounded troops amongst his campaign trip).
Obama not understanding the rules,and cancelling is stupidity? He choose a military general and not a civilian as companion just because he knows the rules, and Pentagon at first allowed him too, till they change their mind and rejected Gen.Gration,maybe because they got some info suddenlly about him being close to (or endorsing) Obama? Who is stupid,then?
Ordunary people like us who have no ability to become a presidential candidate will do the easiest way to do,to go alone to Landstuhl,but a candidate must be able to see far in the future of his actions: the press left behind in his plane citing news about Obama "so brave to go alone to visit wounded ones" (or "so charitable" etc,etc) (although he did it already in Iraq and Afghan,secretly visiting wounded's without any press following),the military becoming irritable about his getting so popular because of their wounded, McCain attacking his impoliteness to use wounded men to enhance his campaign etc.etc.
Can you follow anyone's thoughts,mr Pemberton?
Comment by om santi — July 31, 2008 @ 4:45 pm
Thank you, Jon Pemberton, for your input. It reveals more about you than it does about the subject we're discussing.
Honestly, what this is really about is that McCain challenged Obama to go to Iraq, and Obama did so. Unfortunately for McCain, he committed no serious missteps, so pundits are stuck trying to find invented reasons for attacking Obama. And it's not even that they are really attacking Obama, they are just trying desperately to create controversy, and therefor ratings.
Does it make any sense whatsoever that Obama would quietly visit the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan - without the press - and then refuse to visit the ones in Germany simply because the press couldn't come?
What is it about the troops in Germany that makes them any different from the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan? Can you explain that?
If you can answer any of those questions, Robert, Jon or Wayne, I'll be happy to concede. And again, let's look at the outrage against Cindy McCain for committing the exact same offense.
The cognitive dissonance of the Right is astounding.
And thank you Om Santi for the kind words.
Comment by mkochinski — July 31, 2008 @ 5:12 pm
mkochinski and om santi,
" Pentagon at first allowed him too, till they change their mind and rejected Gen.Gration"
Wrong wrong wrong. All the military said was you cannot bring Campaign advisors and reporters. Gen. Gration is a campaign advisor. These were not new rules they are existing ones.
Obama planned the trips months in advance. He as you stated visited wounded soldiers in Iraq. He was planning to do the same in Germany. He understood the rules in Iraq but not Germany? Even though they are the same?
"What is it about the troops in Germany that makes them any different from the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan? Can you explain that?"
Yes I can. They are people not zoo animals. So since obmama visited some soldiers he is good? He planned to visit others and cancelled, but that is OK cause they are all "soldiers" anyway? I cannot believe you used the above as an arguement, have you no understanding or compassion for indiviuals?
I have not attributed as to why Obama made his decision but have said that his and your defense of not knowing the rules is stupidity and ignorance.
Answer me this
Could he have gone?
Sometimes a leader makes things happen regardless of who is going to attack him cause he or she knows it is the right thing to do, keep a promise and visit those who have served their country.
Comment by Jon Pemberton — July 31, 2008 @ 6:57 pm
Brent, as usual, you fall for their trap.
Obama, and his supporters (including you) should've responded to this attack by saying…
"The McCain campign wants to sidetrack discussion of important issues like healthcare, bank failures and evisceration of the constitution. They create controversy where none exists in an attempt to control the daily headlines. I will not fall victim to their obvious game. They can question my patriotism, religion and masculinity every day until the election. I will not be sidetracked. I am too busy working on solutions to real problems THEY created and wish to misdirect your attention from.
* Brent, simply by responding to this, and every other ridiculous and meaningless attack YOU LOSE. You don't win any battles being on the DEFENSIVE. Yet they trick you into responding every time. Why can't you resist?
** This would effectively nullify every future attack Karl Rove has planned.
*** I'm not an Obama supporter. I'm voting third party.
Comment by wewillnotbeneoconned — July 31, 2008 @ 7:46 pm
Jon, you are wrong. It's very simple.
Here's the direct quote:
"Chief Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell confirmed to Politico that Department of Defense officials cautioned Barack Obama's campaign that his planned visit to wounded American troops in Germany COULD NOT BE POLITICAL IN NATURE and that he would be barred from bringing along campaign staff and reporters. He also said that Cindy McCain recently requested to visit sailors aboard the U.S.N.S. Comfort and was denied."
The trip to Germany WAS A CAMPAIGN TRIP.
Paid for by the campaign and for the sole purpose of CAMPAIGNING.
Maj. Gen Scott Gration, who was intended to join Obama, is a CAMPAIGN advisor. The two were the ONLY people who were to visit the hospital. I could see the Maj. Gen. wanting to attend, despite his campaign status. I could see him having some interest in the wounded troops.
Now, you are ASSUMING that the motivation to not visit the troops is reason 2 - "he would be barred from bringing along campaign staff and reporters."
I am assuming it is reason 1 - his planned visit to wounded American troops in Germany COULD NOT BE POLITICAL IN NATURE.
The basis for this assumption is that Obama visited troops in his capacity as Senator, on the SAME trip, in a non-political visit, WITHOUT PRESS, in both Afghanistan AND Iraq.
The reason I disagree with your assumption is that the press were not to attend in the first place, and that they also did not attend in Afghanistan OR Iraq.
The press were a factor in NONE of the instances.
The only thing that changed was the NATURE of the trip. Afghanistan and Iraq were senatorial visits, paid for by the government, and were non-political in nature. Once Obama visited Germany, the purpose of the trip changed, and it was made clear that the Pentagon viewed his visit as political in nature.
Rather than contest this, he simply cancelled the visit. For the last time, the press had NOTHING to do with the decision. To imply otherwise is to lie. The press were NEVER invited.
As to your other comments, as far as I know, you're the first to imply that our troops are zoo animals. Really, you guys seem to have to make things up to justify your faux outrage.
I'm certainly not implying that visiting one group means you don't have to visit others, I'm very clearly stating that Obama certainly had no issues visiting the ones in two other locations, and you guys are clearly trying to imply that Obama has contempt for the troops.
I'm asking why, if your absurd premise is true,why he only holds the wounded in Germany in such contempt, and not the others he visited.
Now, to answer your question (which I already have, twice) - Could he have gone?
Sure.
And then you guys would be screaming that he used a campaign trip to use the troops as a prop during his campaign.
And you'd bring up that Cindy McCain was denied a visit for the EXACT SAME REASON and you'd be foaming at the mouth because of that.
Now I'd suggest you do more research and think through your suppositions a little more clearly.
Or find a blog with less informed opponents.
Comment by mkochinski — July 31, 2008 @ 7:55 pm
And anyway, you guys should be happy he DIDN'T visit the troops in Germany. Once he showed up and gave the soldiers an example of a charismatic, intelligent leader, the republican Party would have lost even more votes.
I hear his reception from the troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan was pretty enthusiastic.
I'm not sure if you're a true believer or just another paid hack trying to strike up hatred and fear on websites. If you're the latter, Americans are a little too informed this time around to fall for it. You won't find it as easy as before.
Comment by mkochinski — July 31, 2008 @ 8:06 pm
#45
MK, you're just an idiot. Cindy McCain isn't a candidate the last time I checked. She's not a member of congress last time I checked. As for your opinion, you're entitled to it. Again, if Obama is worried about a visit to a hospital to visit wounded soldiers being used against him, what other decisions will he make based on what people think? You do what's right regardless of the consequences. Your parents must not have taught you that.
#48
Spencer. Thank you for your service. Many things have changed since you served and Code of Conduct training has indeed changed in SEER. While you make every effort to resist EVERYTHING, you do to the limit of your ability. They tell you the enemy WILL break you if they want. They will cut and splice every word they record and video to piece together a very realistic confession or propaganda film. They teach the families of hostages to not believe a single thing they see or hear on the media involving their family member. If you actually believe any of those video you do yourself and your comrades a gerat disservice. That's actually a technique the enemy uses against captured personnel. telling them their "buddies" will see the film and hate them for turning against their country. That pressure alone can make a young soldier crack. Good to know you're helping out your fellow soldiers. You also must not read many of my posts Spencer. Most here know I provide much data and sources for my posts when necessary. See #5.
As for all the Vietnam buffs here, the theory McCain's war record is of some NVA puppet rather than the exemplary one it was, is in the minority and has been debunked by most. Notice Obama doesn't even go there.
Comment by Wayne Kulick — July 31, 2008 @ 8:34 pm
To Jon Pemberton, post #55:
How could Obama have planned this trip "months in advance"? He didn't even know if he was going to be the "Presumptive Democratic Nominee" months ago.
It is easy to just vomit words when you don't provide sources to back up your claims.
According to many sites listed on Google, including http://www.CNNPolitics.com, the earliest Obama's campaign announced his planned trip was June 28th, 2008. That isn't "months ago", it is a touch over four weeks ago.
Facts, Sources, Links to Sources, Validation. Spewing words, just as spewing vomit, leaves a very questionable odor in the air.
You asked, "Could he have gone?"
Answer: No. Not when after weighing the pros and cons of doing so left Obama with the distinct feeling that to do so would be putting the troops in an uncomfortable position. He did not, in any way, want such a visit politicized.
After reading your posts on this issue it is clear that he made the correct decision. Those such as yourself are politicizing his not visiting the hospitalized troops anyway.
Obama would have been "Damned if he did", and is being "Damned" because he didn't. Clearly, this issue was a Lose/Lose no matter how you cut it. Yours and others posts are validation of that perspective.
Comment by Spencer Lehmann — July 31, 2008 @ 9:55 pm
Brent, I'm not sure that your post has xhanged any minds about anything, but I do think it may have caused a Pundit's Blog record.
I don't remember any previous post that has inspired 60 comments! It seems not very long ago that this Blog only had at most a dozen people total who ever entered comments.
Keep up the good fight!
Comment by smilinjack — August 1, 2008 @ 1:39 am
Last post.
OK so he planned a month in advance and was ignorant to the rules. He could have changed the cost portion of the visit to his Senate office, he chose not to do so. He chose not to go because he thought people would attack him for using troops to further his campaign. That is the dumbest arguement i ahve ever heard. How crippling to his decision making as future CIC. "Hmm, can't do that people may criticize me"…
As a veteran, I would not have made a single fuss if Obama visited the troops, not a one.
The Cindy McCain comparison is invalid see Wayne's response.
I never said nor implied obama has contempt for the troops. I have said an am saying his stated reasoning for not going does not add up for me. I have not attributed any other "whys" he did not go. Never said anything about him hating the troops.
I have said his reasons for not keeping a promise and not understanding the rules for the visit are not believable.
He did know at the end of June that this portion of the trip was "planned" to be paid as part of the campaign. He did or did not understand the rules for visiting military basis at that time.
He could have made it happen, he chose not to, and damn to those who would have been critical of it, he should have gone.
Comment by Jon Pemberton — August 1, 2008 @ 11:29 am
Wayne - Calling me an idiot doesn't change the facts, it just gives you another opportunity to be wrong. And, btw, it's what's called an ad hominem attack.
I don't get your point about Cindy McCain. I'm quite aware she is neither a candidate nor does she hold office. The comparison point was that she was not allowed to visit wounded soldier for political purposes, just like Obama.
Is it only an outrage if you're a candidate?
This seems to be a common error for you, you can't tell which facts are relevant to a conclusion. You constantly misdirect in a flailing attempt to justify your conclusions.
For your final point, Obama chose to honor Pentagon policy, which strikes me as the right thing to do. My mother taught quite well, thank you - I don't need to make up and cling to lies to support my conclusions, unlike some.
Comment by mkochinski — August 1, 2008 @ 2:01 pm
Jon, Obama DID visit the troops, more than once. Without press, without fanfare. He was unable to visit the last group of them.
The accusation here, which by now has been thoroughly debunked, is that Obama intentionally skipped meeting the wounded BECAUSE HE COULDN'T TAKE ALONG THE PRESS.
This is a lie, and I notice you kids have moved the goalposts again in an attempt to justify your outrage. Now it's about breaking promises and making a bad decision, even though he made no promises, he made a schedule - that decision was to FOLLOW PENTAGON POLICY.
Given your opinions seem to continue despite reality and facts, I find it hard to believe your statement that you would not find some other excuse to resent Obama. I appreciate your service to our country, but I'm having a hard time believing your statement.
Comment by mkochinski — August 1, 2008 @ 2:18 pm
Oh and Wayne, we're all aware Obama didn't go to Vietnam. Neither did I. We withdrew when I was about 12 or so, and Obama is younger than me.
Serving in the military is an honorable profession, but it is not the only means of serving the public.
Comment by mkochinski — August 1, 2008 @ 2:43 pm
To mkochinski, Post #63.
In calling you an idiot, m, Wayne has also made clear to everyone else that he lacks class, professionalism, and the ability to debate without insulting others.
Wayne like to bully from a soapbox. Ignore him.
Comment by Spencer Lehmann — August 1, 2008 @ 3:09 pm
Thanks Spencer. I'm sorry, it's against my nature to let lies pass without challenging them.
Wayne is by all means entitled to his opinion, and he's welcome to state it. But erroneous statements of "fact" need to be challenged.
In a lot of ways, that's how the liberals got into trouble in the first place -the endless repetition of inaccurate statements, left unchallenged.
Comment by mkochinski — August 1, 2008 @ 5:14 pm
mkochinski,
"This is a lie, and I notice you kids have moved the goalposts again in an attempt to justify your outrage. Now it's about breaking promises and making a bad decision, even though he made no promises, he made a schedule - that decision was to FOLLOW PENTAGON POLICY."
I have been consistent about my opinion on the whole thing and without outrage.
HE COULD HAVE FOLLOWED PENTAGON POLICY AND STILL HAVE GONE. Would that have been difficult? Maybe, but possible. He could have transferred the cost of going to his Senate office and damn those who would have criticized him. You and I disagree on this point, nothing will change that. I just cannot believe someone could plan such a trip and backout so easily without putting forth that extra effort to go because it would have been the right thing to do. This makes me question his judgement in future situations. It was a bad decision, he should just move on and stop putting out 3-4 different BS excuses.
Comment by Jon Pemberton — August 1, 2008 @ 5:41 pm
Jon, I don't know how many ways I can explain this to you.
There were two parameters for visiting the soldiers according to the Pentagon.
1.) That the visit could not be political in nature.
2.) That press and campaign staff could not attend.
The trip to Germany WAS a campaign trip, making it political in nature. The entire purpose of the trip was political in nature. The visit to the troops was an add on, NOT the PURPOSE of the trip.
The press was NOT to be a a part of the trip.
This renders the second requirement moot.
John McCain accused Obama of canceling the trip because he couldn't bring press and photographers.
This is a LIE.
And THAT is the subject of this entire post.
He did NOT cancel the trip because he couldn't have press.
Now whether you agree with his decision or not is your business. There was no promise, therefor no promises broken. He simply decided that visiting the troops while on a campaign running for president would violate Pentagon rules, as explained to him. He DID visit the troops in two other countries WHILE ON SENATE BUSINESS, and therefor was NOT violating Pentagon rules.
You're entitled to your opinion, but the FACTS are that the press had NOTHING to do with his decision, so McCain LIED to give a false impression about Obama. If that makes you resent Obama more than you already did, that's your business.
I know what it clearly illustrates about McCain, though.
Comment by mkochinski — August 1, 2008 @ 8:01 pm
Now, I'd like to ask you a question. I
f Obama's decision to abide by Pentagon rules makes you doubt his judgement and therefor his ability to lead, how does McCain's decision to lie about his opponent in order to make him look bad make you feel about McCain's judgement?
I'm not looking for an insult, a change of subject, a moving of goalposts or anything else here.
Obama's decision bothers you. Does McCain's lying bother you at all?
And your reply will neatly answer the question of your own honesty.
Comment by mkochinski — August 1, 2008 @ 8:19 pm
yep.
Remember McCain was responding to Obama's campaign initial response.
Are you concerned about any of Obama's lies?
Comment by Jon Pemberton — August 1, 2008 @ 9:35 pm
Thankfully Obama is going to lose in 08. And after the Pelosi screw-up today 08 is looking better and better.
Comment by Jon Pemberton — August 1, 2008 @ 9:37 pm
#69 That's a nice, clear explanation of the facts, mkochinski. It's easy for a few armchair warriors to criticize, but I think he made the wisest choice he could given the information he had at the time. Some people are never satisfied, and this seems like one of those "damned if he did, damned if he didn't" situations.
One interesting note that I've been unable to follow up on is related news articles suggesting that Obama decided that he would call the troops in Landstuhl rather than make a face-to-face visit. I don't know if those phone calls ever took place, but it would certainly be meaningful to know that they did.
Comment by Melissa — August 1, 2008 @ 9:58 pm
It appears that the Lincoln effect has taken affect. The official Obama explanation fooled no one, and his poll numbers have dropped dramatically since returning and looking ever the fool. The Obama train has run out of steam, and is headed for end of track.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — August 2, 2008 @ 2:53 pm
I'm sorry, Jon , I'm not quite getting your answer.
Are you saying "yep." to the fact that McCain lied is bothering you?
I also don't follow when you write:
"Remember McCain was responding to Obama's campaign initial response."
Are you simply changing the subject, or suggesting that it's okay for McCain to lie if he's responding to the Obama campaign?
And I'm not sure what Obama lies you're referring to. Could you be more specific?
I would consider that a change of subject, though.
Comment by mkochinski — August 2, 2008 @ 2:53 pm
Thanks, Melissa!
I haven't heard about the phone calls. Given the current uproar, I think it would be best for Obama if he didn't publicize it either way. Another damned if he does or doesn't scenario.
Comment by mkochinski — August 2, 2008 @ 2:55 pm
JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF INEXPERIENCE … and lack of appropriate protocol. Obama has a big learning curve ahead of him if he expects to be Commander and Chief.
Comment by JFK-HRC — August 5, 2008 @ 6:01 pm
[...] http://pundits.thehill.com/2008/07/…wounded-troops/ McCain lies about Obama's alleged "media visit" to wounded troops in Germany (a lie that was then repeated by many major conservative news outlets, with no retraction yet printed). [...]
Pingback by On John McCain lying his face off: | Randomness. — September 2, 2008 @ 9:14 pm
OBAMA IS LYING HIS FACE OFF.
after realizing that attention was drawn to him snubbing the troops, he lied and said he had already gone to see them, and nobody knew about it.
yeah, nobody knew about it, including the troops he was visiting, or the staff at the care centers. obama is a master of stealth. he must be a ninja.
Comment by obama LIED — September 4, 2008 @ 8:30 am
the official explanation from obama's advisors was that he decided not to visit the troops because it'd be inappropriate. it would appear that it was done only to help him in the election.
however, later on obama said that he actually did visit the troops, but in his own words "nobody knew about it."
he's right. nobody knew about it. not even the staff at the care center. not even the patients he allegedly visited. not even his own staff.
what a great man obama is, to decide not to visit the troops then go through the trouble of secretly doing so anyway, just to tell everyone that he did later.
Comment by now we know the truth — September 4, 2008 @ 9:45 am
Code-name: "Songbird", McCain made 32 propaganda videos for Hanoi denouncing the U.S. for special treatment.
Former Vietnam vet with top secret clearance - Republican front runner
is "a lying skunk" Top Cop Says McCain Was Never Tortured
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, February 7th, 2008
A former Vietnam veteran with top secret clearance says he has
personally spoken to numerous POW's who dispute John McCain's claim that
he refused to provide information after he was captured and tortured in
Hanoi, saying that in fact McCain's code-name was "Songbird" because of
his willingness to tell all to avoid torture.
Jack McLamb served nine years in secret operations in Cambodia and other
nations before going on to become one of the most highly decorated
police officer's in Phoenix history, winning police officer of the year
twice before taking a role as a hostage negotiator for the FBI.
"I know a lot of Vietnam veterans and a few POW's and all the POW's that
I've talked to over the years say that John McCain is a lying skunk,"
McLamb told the Alex Jones Show.
"He never was tortured - they were there in the camp with him and then
when he came in….he immediately started spilling his guts about
everything because he didn't want to get tortured," said McLamb,
contradicting the official story that McCain only offered his name,
rank, serial number, and date of birth.
"The Vietnamese Communists called him the Songbird, that's his code
name, Songbird McCain, because he just came into the camp singing and
telling them everything they wanted to know," said McLamb.
McLamb said the POW's told him that McCain had sustained two broken arms
and a leg injury from not pulling his arms in when he bailed out of his
A-4 Skyhawk that was shot down over the Truc Bach Lake in Hanoi.
The POW's said that McCain made 32 propaganda videos for the communist
North Vietnamese in which he denounced America for what they were doing
in Vietnam.
"They have these sealed now, our government has these sealed, we can't
get to it, they have it classified," said McLamb, adding that in truth
"the POW's hate John McCain."
It is commonly accepted that McCain was treated better than other POW's
and afforded medical care immediately after the North Vietnamese
discovered that his father was a top admiral.
Several Vietnam veterans groups do solely exist to expose McCain's
abandonment of veteran's interests as well as his lies about being
tortured, including Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain and U.S.
Veteran Dispatch.
Comment by Nick — October 18, 2008 @ 3:12 pm