Jul 30 2008

McCain Was Right On Obama’s Unforgivable Act Of Ignoring Our Wounded Troops In Germany

Published by at 12:49 pm under 2008 Elections,All General Discussions

The Surrendercrat Media is starting to give legs to the little publicized news on how Barrack Obama failed a key test of leadership and being Commander-in-Chief. I posted days ago on Obama’s unforgivable sin of setting high expectations among our wounded troops by a visit to them in Germany, and then backing off when a minor problem arose – that being the visit could not be a campaign event. As reported, the DoD has been clear that visits to our wounded must be non-political, and as a sitting Senator Obama had free and clear access to the troops if he left his campaign staff and the media behind (the DoD had even made arrangements for them during the visit).

Today the WaPo tries to claim McCain was wrong to highlight this insult by Obama against those who sacrificed the most for this country:

The essence of McCain’s allegation is that Obama planned to take a media entourage, including television cameras, to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany during his week-long foreign trip, and that he canceled the visit when he learned he could not do so. “I know that, according to reports, that he wanted to bring media people and cameras and his campaign staffers,” McCain said Monday night on CNN’s “Larry King Live.”

The Obama campaign has denied that was the reason he called off the visit. In fact, there is no evidence that he planned to take anyone to the American hospital other than a military adviser, whose status as a campaign staff member sparked last-minute concern among Pentagon officials that the visit would be an improper political event.

Emphasis mine. John McCain is right, according to early reports the decision was reported to be a reaction to the media not being allowed to go. Those initial media reports, like all of their shoddy work, were wrong. But the story misses the point entirely.

Obama wants to command the nation and our forces. He claims it is the role of the Commander-in-Chief to give direction and make sure that direction is carried out. Clearly, he had all means at his disposal to see our wounded heroes, but he either let a campaign member (and self-absorbed general) and other events divert him from his goal. Which leaves us with one of two horrible conclusions:

(1) Either Obama did not really care at all about seeing the troops and let a minor issue derail him so he could do a photo op someplace else, or

(2) Obama has no control of his campaign, and he could not enforce his will on his underlings.

Either way Obama looks bad. I hope the SurrenderMedia keeps up their defense of this unforgivable action. Whatever the rational there is no good reason to leave wounded troops aside. The only way to stop the hemorrhaging over this despicable act is for Obama to take full responsibility and get his butt on a plane to Germany to make amends. If our troops can sacrifice life and limb for this country Obama can sacrifice a little pride and ego to make things right.

Not to worry – he won’t fix this. He’ll just let the issue fester and eat away at his image. The Messiah has been drinking from his own Kool-Aid so much now that he has become the “Presumptuous Nominee” in the yes of many:

Barack Obama has long been his party’s presumptive nominee. Now he’s becoming its presumptuous nominee.

Obama’s inexperience is now blindingly apparent. He has lost perspective, he is craving the media adoration. He is in pure American Idol mode, ready to do perform any stunt to get attention. And the American people are becoming repulsed by it all.

Update: Obama truly is seriously in love with himself:

Obama was waxing lyrical about last week’s trip to Europe, when he concluded, according to the meeting attendee, “this is the moment, as Nancy [Pelosi] noted, that the world is waiting for.”

The 200,000 souls who thronged to his speech in Berlin came not just for him, he told the enthralled audience of congressional representatives. “I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions,” he said, according to the source.

You are The True Messiah Wonder Boy! BTW, how many excuses can one campaign make up for their sin? The current count is 11 – with more to come for sure.

38 responses so far

38 Responses to “McCain Was Right On Obama’s Unforgivable Act Of Ignoring Our Wounded Troops In Germany”

  1. Redteam says:

    conman(an appropriate name for someone that is trying to con someone.)

    “Now that the lies are unraveling, you are left with arguing it is a sign that he doesn’t have control over his campaign. Is that really all you got? McCain adopts a campaign rule prohibiting lobbiest without even realizing his campaign is full of lobbiest, he can’t stop Graham from calling Americans worries about the economy whinners, and he can’t remember the difference between sunnis and shites, when the surge started or what countries border Iraq, but that is okay? Please!”

    You’re clearly out of your league here. It was Gramm, not Graham.
    It’s been proven that Obama has as many lobbyist’s as McCain.
    As far as not remembering: Did Obama forget how many states there are, or did he just never ‘not know’. Did he ‘forget’ he’s not on the Senate banking committee, or did he just never ‘not know’.

    If you’re serious about wanting to ‘con’ anyone, you shouldn’t advertise it with your name.

  2. breschau says:

    Redteam:

    “It’s been proven that Obama has as many lobbyist’s as McCain.”

    Please provide a link or URL, admit that you just made that up.

  3. breschau says:

    Terrye:

    “They said he could not visit with campaign staff. But his entire staff is not campaign staff.”

    They were at that point in his trip – his Senate staff had left days before. So, he got told: “Come by yourself, or don’t come at all.” And he got told this less than one day before he came to visit, when he had originally cleared the trip weeks beforehand.

    So, his choices were:

    1) Show up by himself, leaving his entire campaign (that he had at the time) hanging around in some undisclosed location. Yes, that seems like a wise choice for a Presidential candidate, especially in a non-US location.

    (Let’s just walk in by ourselves, with no staff at all – in fact, I see Bush and McCain doing that *all the time*. Hey – how about the next time McCain is asked about the Israeli/Palenstenian conflict, he does so without Sen. Lieberman hanging over his shoulder, whispering answers in his ear?)

    2) Tell the DoD to go fuck itself, and try to show up with his staff instead. And yes, you right-wing blogs would have had fun with that.

    3) Decline to go, just like McCain did under similar circumstances.

    He chose 3, and you all freaked out. Honestly, you should be ashamed of yourselves.

    Obama has met with soldiers (injured and otherwise) without cameras on multiple occasions. He’s taken multiple visits to Walter Reed (you know, the medical hospital that Bush allowed to become a disease-filled disgrace under his watch) without any media whatsoever. To accuse him of being unwilling to visit injured troops unless he was able to make a media event of it is dishonest and disgraceful.

    Obama supported the new GI Bill, while McCain campaigned against it.

    Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America – John McCain rating: D; versus Obama’s B+

    Disabled American Veterans – John McCain rating: 20%; Obama’s rating: 80%

    So you tell me – who is “unforgivable” here in their support of the troops?

  4. breschau says:

    Two comments ago, that was supposed to say:

    “Please provide a link or URL, or admit that you just made that up.”

  5. conman says:

    Terrye,

    Once again you don’t get it. Yes, Obama has more than a campaign staff – he also has his Senate staff. Since I and others have said this several in our comments already, I’ll try capital letters to see if that helps it sink in – OBAMA’S SENATE STAFF HAD ALREADY LEFT ON A FLIGHT TO THE U.S. BEFORE THE HOSPITAL VISIT!!! The visit to the Middle East was part of an official congressional trip, the visit to Europe was a campaign trip. The media confirmed this fact when the story first broke. So, Obama didn’t have any Senate staff or aides with him to attend the hospital visit. Did it sink in this time? I’ll tell you what – if you can cite any instance of the President or any member of Congress visiting a military hospital solo, without any staff or aides, I’ll vote for McCain come November.

    As I said before, if McCain or others want to criticize Obama’s campaign for not recognizing this problem earlier or planning for it better, that is fair game. But to make up all of these outright lies and then suggest that he is not fit to serve as commander-in-chief over this incident is ridiculous. Again, your hero Bush pretended like he gave up golf for the troops and then got caught based on a video that proves he lied, and yet he is still your hero and fit to be commander-in-chief. So if that is the case, why would Obama be disqualified over canceling a visit to the military hospital regardless of the reasons?

  6. conman says:

    Redteam,

    Thanks for the spelling lesson. Boy you sure got me there – if I can’t spell the name of a former Republican Senators name it must mean that I don’t know what I’m talking about! Hey, maybe we should decide who is right on this issue by having a spell off? By the way, its “lobbists” not “lobbist’s”. Too funny!

    So what is your point about Obama’s mistatements? I’m not the one arguing that a candidate that makes a poor campaign decision or a gaffe should be disqualified. Both Obama and McCain have done it and will continue to do it just like every other candidate in modern history. AJ is the one that was suggesting that Obama must not be fit to be commander-in-chief because he doesn’t have control over his campaign. I was pointing out how silly that position is if you factor in the problems McCain has had with his campaign.

    Like breschau said, your statement that Obama has been proven to have more lobbists in his campaing than McCain is a lie. Obama does have some lobbists in his campaign, but not as many of them or in such key positions in the campaign as McCain. So there – I’m calling you an outright liar and challenging you to back up your statement.

  7. Terrye says:

    conman:

    So what if Obama’s regular staff had left? Is the man a baby, does he need a sitter? Can he not go to the base alone? He knew the rules, if it was so damn important to him to go, he could have kept someone with him from his regular staff or gone alone. Sheesh people. the man screwed up and here you are making excuses for him. If he was a Republican you would be raising all kinds of hell about him doing something like this.

  8. Terrye says:

    breschau:

    No, his choices were to do what any other Senator would have done, and just stick with his original arrangements and go. The lengths you people are going to, in order to defend this stupidity is shocking….well sorta shocking.

  9. AJStrata says:

    Breschau,

    It was simple to do, just dump the general and go – not challenge there.

  10. browngreengold says:

    conman,

    Point of clarification please.

    What does “lobbists” mean?

    How about “lobbist’s”?

  11. Redteam says:

     

     More conning from Conman:

    “OBAMA’S SENATE STAFF HAD ALREADY LEFT ON A FLIGHT TO THE U.S. BEFORE THE HOSPITAL VISIT!!! The visit to the Middle East was part of an official congressional trip, the visit to Europe was a campaign trip. The media confirmed this fact when the story first broke. So, Obama didn’t have any Senate staff or aides with him to attend the hospital visit.”

    then why did he schedule the hospital visit if he knew his ‘senate’ staff were not going to be with him?

    Are you saying Obama’s staff is so incompetent they can’t schedule one week in advance?  Are you 100% sure that 100% of his ‘senate’ staff had gone back to the US?  Didn’t he go to England after Germany, and with NO senate staff there?  Is that organization really that disorganized?

     

  12. Redteam says:

     More attempted conning from conguy:

    “Thanks for the spelling lesson. Boy you sure got me there – if I can’t spell the name of a former Republican Senators name it must mean that I don’t know what I’m talking about! Hey, maybe we should decide who is right on this issue by having a spell off? By the way, its “lobbists” not “lobbist’s”. Too funny! So what is your point about Obama’s mistatements? I’m not the one arguing that a candidate that makes a poor campaign decision or a gaffe should be disqualified. Both Obama and McCain have done it and will continue to do it just like every other candidate in modern history. AJ is the one that was suggesting that Obama must not be fit to be commander-in-chief because he does have control over his campaign. I was pointing out how silly that position is if you factor in the problems McCain has had with his campaign. Like breschau said, your statement that Obama has been proven to have more lobbists in his campaing than McCain is a lie. Obama does have some lobbists in his campaign, but not as many of them or in such key positions in the campaign as McCain. So there – I’m calling you an outright liar and challenging you to back up your statement.

    Spelling?  it wasnt’ about spelling.  It was about not knowing what the hell you were talking about.  You had Phil Gramm confused with Lindsay Graham, that’s not a spelling problem.  Have a ‘spell-off’   you lose,  lobbist?  what the hell is that? I didn’t mis-spell that in my comment.  Obama’s ‘mis-statements’?  They weren’t ‘mis-statements’, he didn’t know what the hell he was talking about.  He really thinks there are 58 or more states.  He really thinks he’s on the senate banking committee. And you’re challenging me to back up my one statement?  you have the same access to google that I do,  you need it.  How about backing up Obama’s claim to 58+ states, or his Uncle freeing the Poles from the camp?   You can con some all the time, but not me any of the time.

  13. Redteam says:

    Conguy, here’s that link:

    Obama’s lobbyist ties

    what did that take?  30 seconds, it’s all over google

  14. ivehadit says:

    Personally, I would have walked over broken glass to visit those troops. I owe them a lifetime of gratitude for keeping me safe. I appreciate their sacrifices and their families’ sacrifices beyond words. This would have been the MOST IMPORTANT event for me.

    I fail to see his point of view except that he and his ilk just don’t give a hoot about our military, in fact, many of his supporters hate the military, imho. What’s up with his “civilian forces”….sheeze.

  15. Redteam says:

    Conguy, can’t help but notice that you shut the hell up after I posted that link.

  16. conman says:

    Redteam,

    I didn’t respond earlier because I went to sleep and then work after sending my comment. Some of us have jobs that don’t allow us to surf the web all day.

    I read the link you posted. It does not support your statement. What you said was that “It’s been proven that Obama has as many lobbyist’s as McCain.” That post does not come even close to saying that. The only person it talks about is Axelrod, whom Newsweek concluded is not a lobbyist in the same article quoted in the post. Nowhere in the article you posted or any of the links provided conclude that Obama has as many lobbyist as McCain. Here was what I said and challenged you to do:

    “Obama does have some lobbists in his campaign, but not as many of them or in such key positions in the campaign as McCain. So there – I’m calling you an outright liar and challenging you to back up your statement.”

    I acknowledged that Obama has lobbyist in his campaign, but I challenged you to support your statement that he has as many as McCain. So you post to an article that says what I already acknowledged – Obama has some lobbyist in his campaign. I googled it and didn’t find anything to support your statement. So sorry, you couldn’t back up your statement. Just admit it and save yourself some time.

    By the way, it turns out neither one of us can spell. You are correct that it is spelled “lobbyist”, but the plural is spelled “lobbyists” not “lobbyist’s”. And it is neither “mistatement” nor “mis-statement” – it is “misstatement”. Oh god, I can’t believe I’m arguing about spelling!

  17. conman says:

    ivehadit,

    Given how strongly you feel about showing respect to the troops, let me ask you this question. How do you feel about President Bush lying and saying he gave up golf for the troops? I’ve mentioned it three times and not a word from anyone. I love how you all wave the flag when it comes to a Democrat cancelling a visit to the troops, and yet everyone is silent about Bush’s shameful lie. Nobody disputes it . . . because of course you can’t given that there is a transcript and video to prove the lie. You just sit there silently telling yourself – well its different if it is our hero Bush, he can disrespect the troops all he wants!

  18. Redteam says:

    Conguy, can’t find anywhere that i misspelled lobbyist or used the possessive form incorrectly.
    Anyhow that article I linked to had about 50 links to other stories about the extent of Obama’s lobbyist associations, apparently you didn’t want to spend any time reading about a lost cause.

    Dictionary suggestions:
    misstatement
    mis- statement
    mis–statement
    DIM statement
    Statement

    I rest my case.