GOV/MIL Obama Supports Troops! McCain Lies (as usual) In Campign Ad

Warandra

Membership Revoked
http://www.drudge.com/news/110517/former-ramstein-medical-chief-rips-new

Former Ramstein Medical Chief Rips New McCain Ad

WASHINGTON - The former Chief of Medical Operations for United States Air Force in Europe (USAFE) Headquarters at Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany today ripped into Senator John McCain's latest ad, which attacks Senator Barack Obama for not making a campaign event of a visit to wounded troops.

Dr. Katherine Scheirman, who was Chief of Medical Operations during Operation Iraqi Freedom, said in a statement:

"John McCain's new ad is dishonest and shameful, and I say that as the former Chief of Medical Operations. Senators Hagel and Reed confirmed to Bob Schieffer yesterday that Senator Obama visited the Combat Support Hospital in Baghdad as a part of their CODEL, with no media present.

"In Germany, Senator Obama made the right decision to respect wounded troops, and the doctors and nurses doing crucial and time-sensitive work, by not making a visit that was characterized as a campaign event by the Pentagon. Senator Obama should be thanked for putting our military above politics. And, I would hope that John McCain would think in those same terms, the next time he is put in a similar situation.

"Senator Obama has voted for the troops when John McCain has not, most recently on the new GI Bill. I am happy that Senator Obama puts the welfare of our troops above politics."
 
Last edited:

Topusaret

Deceased
Warandra, I have to give credit where credit is due.

You are the undisputed Energizer Bunny of liberal, socialist bullcarp.

Reduce your Kool-Aid intake before you suffer a blow-out. Save your energy to make moon-eyes during the convention.
 

night driver

ESFP adrift in INTJ sea
the boots on the ground indicate that the folk at Ramstein simply indicated that he would be welcome, with official photogs from the Army, and NOT his retinue of aides and media.
Without his retinue he declined.
 

Seeker

3 Bombs for Hawkins
. . . Senator Obama puts the welfare of our troops above politics."

As previously pointed out by a far more intelligent and perspicuous poster, she just reveals that politics and photo ops, were indeed and after all, his motivating factor for ever visiting the troups. What an asinine (absurd, dense, doltish, idiotic, imbecilic, inept, lamebrained, mindless, senseless, silly, simple, simpleminded, stupid) example to support an opinion.
 

Wardogs

Deceased
A retired Obama supporter says....

Wow, that clears it all up, thanks Warandra...

.
 

Attachments

  • Obama2008.jpg
    Obama2008.jpg
    21.4 KB · Views: 220

Be Well

may all be well
Warandra, I have to give credit where credit is due.

You are the undisputed Energizer Bunny of liberal, socialist bullcarp.

Reduce your Kool-Aid intake before you suffer a blow-out. Save your energy to make moon-eyes during the convention.

:lkick::lkick:
 

Desertrat

Inactive
Emails from guys in Iraq generally indicate he snubbed the grunts.

In Germany, his deal is about the first time in US history that a wannabe Commander in Chief has not practically fought for an opportunity to show appreciation for wounded guys.

McCain's folks didn't lie. Simple as that.

'Rat
 

denfoote

Inactive
Yeah OK, commielib.

Put down the crack pipe and listen for just one second.
There are people...ALREADY HERE...that want to cut your scrawny Marxist throat.
If the Majick Muzzy happens to win, then these people will have FULL REIGN to do just that!!
When that happens, the knife wielding turban wearer standing on your doorstep, won't be there to help you cut lines of coke!!
Don't come crying to me for protection, my guns will be busy defending MY family!! Providing, of course, you commies don't try to disarm me first, which in that case, all it will mean is that the landscape will be an even bigger target rich environment!! :whistle:
 

Oilpatch Hand

3-Bomb General, TB2K Army
One wonders, then, why Obama felt it necessary to flee the scene at Landstuhl and Ramstein, when he learned that he would not be allowed to use wounded soldiers as campaign props.

Doesn't sound very supportive to me. :shr:





























Frankly, I'm having a hard time believing that Barack Hussein Mohammed Obama was actually in Washington long enough to cast any vote at all, much less one in support of the servicemen.
 

Warandra

Membership Revoked
http://www.drudge.com/news/110517/former-ramstein-medical-chief-rips-new

Former Ramstein Medical Chief Rips New McCain Ad

WASHINGTON - The former Chief of Medical Operations for United States Air Force in Europe (USAFE) Headquarters at Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany today ripped into Senator John McCain's latest ad, which attacks Senator Barack Obama for not making a campaign event of a visit to wounded troops.

Dr. Katherine Scheirman, who was Chief of Medical Operations during Operation Iraqi Freedom, said in a statement:

"John McCain's new ad is dishonest and shameful, and I say that as the former Chief of Medical Operations. Senators Hagel and Reed confirmed to Bob Schieffer yesterday that Senator Obama visited the Combat Support Hospital in Baghdad as a part of their CODEL, with no media present.

"In Germany, Senator Obama made the right decision to respect wounded troops, and the doctors and nurses doing crucial and time-sensitive work, by not making a visit that was characterized as a campaign event by the Pentagon. Senator Obama should be thanked for putting our military above politics. And, I would hope that John McCain would think in those same terms, the next time he is put in a similar situation.

"Senator Obama has voted for the troops when John McCain has not, most recently on the new GI Bill. I am happy that Senator Obama puts the welfare of our troops above politics."

So, I take it that none of you believes that Obama voted for the G I Bill? Or is it that none of you understands that Obama visted the hospitals without the media covering the event. Or, perhaps, none of you can actually read. That must be it. You simply don't know how to read. It's the only thing that would explain your ignorance.
 

BV141

Has No Life - Lives on TB
So, I take it that none of you believes that Obama voted for the G I Bill? Or is it that none of you understands that Obama visted the hospitals without the media covering the event. Or, perhaps, none of you can actually read. That must be it. You simply don't know how to read. It's the only thing that would explain your ignorance.

Not only can we read, We can read between the lines........


I read Obama wants $845 Billion for the world and read that Obama want $$$$ for reparations....

The more I read about Obama, the less I want to read about Obama.....

There won't be any money to fund the GI Bill once Obama starts shipping money to the UN (ie the $845 Billion dollars) and reparations.....and the millions of other things.....on the left wing agenda.

Do you have a clear read on that?


bv
 

buff

Deceased
Or, perhaps, none of you can actually read. That must be it. You simply don't know how to read. It's the only thing that would explain your ignorance.

you are correct...none of us with a differing opinion can read...

way to smell us out and get to the facts there sherlock...
 

Infoscout

The Dude Abides
Warandra,

If you are supporting Obama,

Do you also support gun control? The banning of all semi-auto firearms?

Do you support the foundation of a new internal security force, with the same powers of arrest as other federal law enforcement agencies, but with the armament of the US army?

Do you support paying higher taxes?

Do you support late term abortion?

Do you support the President of The US talking to those countries that have spent their considerable wealth in killing US citizens and US servicemen and women? Talking to them without pre-conditions? Killing your fellow citizens for decades.

Do you support the announcement of pulling US troops out of Iraq, which is still a combat zone, causing more murder and mayhem?

Do you support having racist preachers, and religious leaders such as Farrakhan being able to stay and speak at the Whitehouse?

Do you really support a candidate who in college sought the council of members of the Weathermen, who bombed targets in the United States, murdering US citizens?

Do you support a candidate who cannot even compliment his grandmother, who raised him because none of his parents could take the time to do it? He called his grandmother a typical white person.

I mean no offense, if these issues do not bother you, then I respect your decision. I am just a little shocked that you would be posting on a board that is primarily a preparedness board, with info and news being second to the large amount of preparedness posted here. Part of my preparedness is being armed. Obama is against any American being armed and has said so on many occasions. That should be enough for any sane thinking person to not support him. But gun-control is not on everyone's most important list.

Have a good evening!

Infoscout
 

Uhhmmm...

Veteran Member
Documentation, buddy, documentation. (And, blogs don't count.)

Please keep up the good work W. We need more of all sides.

I think we pretty much have the rabid right, the fascist corporation lovers, the paid disinformation mongers, the flat earthers, the creationists, the no-global-warming bunch, the muzzie haters, the gay bashers, and the Obama hysterics covered.

Now, if some of these types would more carefully document their views instead of just spewing their own worthless opinions, we might have a discussion forum again.
 

Trek

Inactive
So, I take it that none of you believes that Obama voted for the G I Bill? Or is it that none of you understands that Obama visted the hospitals without the media covering the event. Or, perhaps, none of you can actually read. That must be it. You simply don't know how to read. It's the only thing that would explain your ignorance.

The only ignorance I see in there is committed by the FORMER Chief of Medical Operations for United States Air Force in Europe (USAFE)...

When she had the foolish need to get up and make a statement based upon hearsay. " Senators Hagel and Reed confirmed to Bob Schieffer" (quoted from her own statement!).

She's just another idiot who believes whatever she hears on the news.
 

kozanne

Inactive
Please keep up the good work W. We need more of all sides.

I think we pretty much have the rabid right, the fascist corporation lovers, the paid disinformation mongers, the flat earthers, the creationists, the no-global-warming bunch, the muzzie haters, the gay bashers, and the Obama hysterics covered.

Now, if some of these types would more carefully document their views instead of just spewing their own worthless opinions, we might have a discussion forum again.

Uh, no. W and her ilk are the ones that need to put their money where their mouth is. She fired the first shot, she needs to follow thru. You don't walk into my house and tell me to prove I belong there. You have to prove you have the facts to back your statement up.

And W or anyone else has no authority to tell anyone on this board what documentation to come up with ['no blogs']. She can go practice her censorship elsewhere, it don't wash here. That's one of the reason she's on my 'famous' list.

Too damn bad.
 

eXe

Techno Junkie
Perhaps we all just need to drink a bit more...
 

Attachments

  • ChangeKooladeGIF.gif
    ChangeKooladeGIF.gif
    53.5 KB · Views: 138

Topusaret

Deceased
Documentation, buddy, documentation. (And, blogs don't count.)

As you wish:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s2433/text

S 2433 ISRS

110th CONGRESS Calendar No. 718
1st 110th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. 2433
[Report No. 110-331]To require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
December 7, 2007

Mr. OBAMA (for himself, Mr. and HAGEL, Ms. CANTWELL, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. DODD, Mr. FEINGOLD, Ms. SNOWE, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. SMITH, and Mr. KERRY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

April 24, 2008

Reported by Mr. BIDEN, with amendments and an amendment to the title

[Omit the part struck through and insert the part printed in italic]



A BILLTo require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.
  • Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  • This Act may be cited as the `Global Poverty Act of 2007'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

  • Congress makes the following findings:
    • (1) More than 1,000,000,000 people worldwide live on less than $1 per day, and another 1,600,000,000 people struggle to survive on less than $2 per day, according to the World Bank.
      (2) At the United Nations Millennium Summit in 2000, the United States joined more than 180 other countries in committing to work toward goals to improve life for the world's poorest people by 2015.
      (3) The year 2007 marks the mid-point to the Millennium Development Goals deadline of 2015.
      (4) The [Struck out->]United Nations [<-Struck out] Millennium Development Goals include the goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, that live on less than $1 per day, cutting in half the proportion of people suffering from hunger and unable to access safe drinking water and sanitation, reducing child mortality by two-thirds, ensuring basic education for all children, and reversing the spread of HIV/AIDS and malaria, while sustaining the environment upon which human life depends.
      (5) On March 22, 2002, President George W. [Struck out->]Bush stated[<-Struck out] Bush participated in the International Conference on Finance for Development and endorsed the Monterey Consensus, stating: `We fight against poverty because hope is an answer to terror. We fight against poverty because opportunity is a fundamental right to human dignity. We fight against poverty because faith requires it and conscience demands it. We fight against poverty with a growing conviction that major progress is within our reach.'.
      (6) The 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States notes: `[A] world where some live in comfort and plenty, while half of the human race lives on less than $2 per day, is neither just nor stable. Including all of the world's poor in an expanding circle of development and opportunity is a moral imperative and one of the top priorities of U.S. international policy.'.
      (7) The 2006 National Security Strategy of the United States notes: `America's national interests and moral values drive us in the same direction: to assist the world's poor citizens and least developed nations and help integrate them into the global economy.'.
      (8) The bipartisan Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States released in 2004 recommends: `A comprehensive United States strategy to counter terrorism should include economic policies that encourage development, more open societies, and opportunities for people to improve the lives of their families and enhance prospects for their children.'.
      (9) At the summit of the Group of Eight (G-8) nations in July 2005, leaders from all eight participating countries committed to increase aid to Africa from the current $25,000,000,000 annually to $50,000,000,000 by 2010, and to cancel 100 percent of the debt obligations owed to the World Bank, African Development Bank, and International Monetary Fund by 18 of the world's poorest nations.
      (10) At the United Nations World Summit in September 2005, the United States joined more than 180 other governments in reiterating their commitment to achieve the [Struck out->]United Nations [<-Struck out] Millennium Development Goals by 2015.
      (11) The United States has recognized the need for increased financial and technical assistance to countries burdened by extreme poverty, as well as the need for strengthened economic and trade opportunities for those countries, through significant initiatives in recent years, including the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7601 et seq.), the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative, and trade preference programs for developing countries, such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act (19 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.).
      (12) In January 2006, United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice initiated a restructuring of the United States foreign assistance program, including the creation of a Director of Foreign Assistance, who maintains authority over Department of State and United States Agency for International Development (USAID) foreign assistance funding and programs.[Struck out->](13) [<-Struck out] (12) In January 2007, the Department of State's Office of the Director of Foreign Assistance added poverty reduction as an explicit, central component of the overall goal of United States foreign assistance. The official goal of United States foreign assistance is: `To help build and sustain democratic, well-governed states that respond to the needs of their people, reduce widespread poverty and conduct themselves responsibly in the international (14) Economic growth and poverty reduction are more successful in countries that invest in the people, rule justly, and promote economic freedom. These principles have become the core of several development programs of the United States Government, such as the Millennium Challenge Account.system.'.
SEC. 3. DECLARATION OF POLICY.

  • It is the policy of the United States to promote the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide [Struck out->] worldwide [<-Struck out] , between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.
SEC. 4. REQUIREMENT TO DEVELOP COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY.

  • (a) Strategy- The President, acting through the Secretary of State, and in consultation with the heads of other appropriate departments and agencies of the United States Government, international organizations, international financial institutions, the governments of developing and developed countries, United States and international nongovernmental organizations, civil society organizations, and other appropriate entities, shall develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide [Struck out->] worldwide [<-Struck out] , between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.
    (b) Content- The strategy required by subsection (a) shall include specific and measurable goals, efforts to be undertaken, benchmarks, and timetables to achieve the objectives described in subsection (a).

    (c) Components- The strategy required by subsection (a) should include the following components:
    • (1) Continued investment or involvement in existing United States initiatives related to international poverty reduction, such as the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7601 et seq.), the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), and trade preference programs for developing countries, such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act (19 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.).
      (2) Improving the effectiveness of development assistance and making available additional overall United States assistance levels as appropriate.
      (3) Enhancing and expanding debt relief as appropriate.
      (4) Leveraging United States trade policy where possible to enhance economic development prospects for developing countries.
      (5) Coordinating efforts and working in cooperation with developed and developing countries, international organizations, and international financial institutions.
      (6) Mobilizing and leveraging the participation of businesses, United States and international nongovernmental organizations, civil society, and public-private partnerships.
      (7) Coordinating the goal of poverty reduction [Struck out->]with other development goals, such as combating the spread of preventable diseases such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, increasing access to potable water and basic sanitation, reducing hunger and malnutrition, and improving access to and quality of education at all levels regardless of gender.[<-Struck out] with the other internationally recognized Millennium Development Goals, including eradicating extreme hunger and reducing hunger and malnutrition, achieving universal education, promoting gender equality and empowering women, reducing child mortality, improving maternal health, combating the spread of preventable diseases such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, increasing access to potable water and basic sanitation, ensuring environmental sustainability, and achieving significant improvement in the lives of at least 100,000,000 slum dwellers.
      (8) Integrating principles of sustainable development and entrepreneurship into policies and programs.
    (d) Reports-
    • (1) INITIAL REPORT-
      • (A) IN GENERAL- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President, acting through the Secretary of State, shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report on the strategy required under subsection (a).

        (B) CONTENT- The report required under subparagraph (A) shall include the following elements:
        • (i) A description of the strategy required under subsection (a).
          (ii) An evaluation, to the extent possible, both proportionate and absolute, of the contributions provided by the United States and other national and international actors in achieving the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.
          (iii) An assessment of the overall progress toward achieving the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.
      (2) SUBSEQUENT REPORTS- Not later than December 31, 2012, and December 31, 2015, the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees reports on the status of the implementation of the strategy, progress made in achieving the global poverty reduction objectives described in subsection (a), and any changes to the strategy since the date of the submission of the last report.
    (e) Coordinator- The Secretary of State shall designate a coordinator who will have primary responsibility for overseeing and drafting the initial report under paragraph (1) of subsection (d) and subsequent reports under paragraph (2) of such subsection, in coordination with relevant Federal agencies, as well as responsibility for helping to implement recommendations contained in the reports.
SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

  • In this Act:
    • (1) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES- The term `appropriate congressional committees' means--
      • (A) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; and
        (B) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
      (2) EXTREME GLOBAL POVERTY- The term `extreme global poverty' refers to the conditions in which individuals live on less than $1 per day, adjusted for purchasing power parity in 1993 United States dollars, according to World Bank statistics.
      (3) GLOBAL POVERTY- The term `global poverty' refers to the conditions in which individuals live on less than $2 per day, adjusted for purchasing power parity in 1993 United States dollars, according to World Bank statistics.
      (4) MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS- The term `Millennium Development Goals' means the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (2000).
Amend the title so as to read: `An Act to require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.'.
Calendar No. 718

110th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. 2433
[Report No. 110-331]
A BILLTo require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.

April 24, 2008



Reported with amendments and an amendment to the title




Check, Please

By JAMES TARANTO
July 30, 2008

One of the most appealing features of the Barack Obama candidacy is the idea that Obama is "postracial"--that he is a candidate who is black and does not practice the adversarial politics of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. This is why his 20-year association with the racist anti-American crackpot Jeremiah Wright was potentially so damaging to him, and why Jesse Jackson's lurid fantasies of sexually mutilating Obama were such a great stroke of luck for the candidate.
But a story in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin raises serious questions about Obama's postracialism. The paper describes an Obama appearance at Unity '08, "a convention of four minority journalism associations":​
"I personally would want to see our tragic history, or the tragic elements of our history, acknowledged," the Democratic presidential hopeful said.
"I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it's Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds."
Exactly what Obama is advocating here cannot be determined, but it seems to be something of an endorsement of the idea of "reparations for slavery," which is usually taken to mean cash payments. In this view, the following deeds are insufficient to balance the ledger between America and the descendants of slaves: the Civil War, the ratification of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, Brown v. Board of Education, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the continuing practice of racial preferences.
The idea of reparations is highly unpopular, and with good reason. Unlike the Japanese-Americans who in 1988 received compensation for their internment by a Democratic administration in the grips of wartime hysteria, no one alive today has ever been a slave. The idea of the government cutting checks to compensate people for a wrong that they did not personally suffer is unlikely to appeal to anyone except perhaps those who stand to receive those checks.
The politics of this are rather odd. There is little for Obama to gain by endorsing reparations. If ever there was a candidate who has no need to pander to the descendants of slaves, it is Barack Obama. Democratic presidential candidates can usually count on upward of 90% of the black vote, and Obama racked up similar percentages in a hard-fought primary battle.
On the other hand, in order to attract votes among nonblacks, Obama needs to guard carefully his postracial credentials. It's one thing to endorse racial preferences, a conventionally liberal if unpopular view. But reparations remains a fringe idea--the sort of idea a presidential nominee would normally be careful to stay away from.​
 

Uhhmmm...

Veteran Member
...And W or anyone else has no authority to tell anyone on this board what documentation to come up with ['no blogs']...

I could be wrong, but are not blogs just more debatable opinion? I believe W is just asking for facts to support your POV, not just someone else's opinion to buttress your opinion. What is the point of that? :rolleyes:
 

kozanne

Inactive
I could be wrong, but are not blogs just more debatable opinion? I believe W is just asking for facts to support your POV, not just someone else's opinion to buttress your opinion. What is the point of that? :rolleyes:

Go read some then answer your own question. There are some excellent blogs out there of all viewpoints that work off of hard news items, etc. Not all blogs are about 'what I think'. Google surveys on readership of hard copy newspapers versus Internet blogs or 'pure' newsites.

Besides that, if the MSM aren't interjecting their own personal agendas into the carp they put on the airwaves, then color me surprised. The corruption of the MSM and their incredible lack of journalistic integrity are one of the big reasons the Internet has exploded with blogs and newsites.

ETA: TOP! You do aim to please, don't you?
 

Topusaret

Deceased
Go read some then answer your own question. There are some excellent blogs out there of all viewpoints that work off of hard news items, etc. Not all blogs are about 'what I think'. Google surveys on readership of hard copy newspapers versus Internet blogs or 'pure' newsites.

Besides that, if the MSM aren't interjecting their own personal agendas into the carp they put on the airwaves, then color me surprised. The corruption of the MSM and their incredible lack of journalistic integrity are one of the big reasons the Internet has exploded with blogs and newsites.

ETA: TOP! You do aim to please, don't you?

I try, Ms. Kozanne, I try.
 

Wardogs

Deceased
Go read some then answer your own question. There are some excellent blogs out there of all viewpoints that work off of hard news items, etc. Not all blogs are about 'what I think'. Google surveys on readership of hard copy newspapers versus Internet blogs or 'pure' newsites.

Besides that, if the MSM aren't interjecting their own personal agendas into the carp they put on the airwaves, then color me surprised. The corruption of the MSM and their incredible lack of journalistic integrity are one of the big reasons the Internet has exploded with blogs and newsites.

ETA: TOP! You do aim to please, don't you?

Good work Top, you beat me to it.
Kozanne, you too are right, the blogs I visit may comment on issues, but they back them up with sources.
I also find it amusing that Warandra insists on information that excludes blogs when the OP was from Drudge....a blog.

Since we are trotting out retired personnel from Landstuhl, however, let's include one that spoke out today...

The former Command Sergeant Major at Landstuhl Hospital, blasted Barack Obama for blowing off the wounded troops in Germany.

Michael Goldfarb at The McCain Report posted a letter from Command Sergeant Major Craig Layton, USA (Ret.) on this decision by the antiwar candidate:
http://www.johnmccain.com/mccainreport/Read.aspx?guid=6dee9da0-a7f9-45bc-a516-a13dad43c23f

"Having spent two years as the Command Sergeant Major at Landstuhl Hospital, I am always grateful for the attention that facility receives from Members of Congress. There is no more important work done by the United States Army than to care for those who have been wounded in the service our country. While Americans troops remain engaged in two hot wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is a steady stream of casualties to the hospital, and a steady stream of visitors who wish to meet with those troops and thank them for their service.

"Senator Obama has explained his decision to cancel a scheduled visit there by blaming the military, which would not allow one of his political advisers to join him in a tour of the facility. Why Senator Obama felt he needed an adviser with him to visit U.S. troops is unclear, but if Senator Obama isn't comfortable meeting wounded American troops without his entourage, perhaps he does not have the experience necessary to serve as commander in chief."

While the Washington Post plays defense for Team Obama, even the New York Times is compelled to ask: "Why didn’t Mr. Obama leave his aides behind, even the retired general, and make the visit by himself?"
wardogs


.
 

Attachments

  • obo mc.jpg
    obo mc.jpg
    34.2 KB · Views: 123

Infoscout

The Dude Abides
uhmmmmmmmmmmm and warandra,

Why can't either of you answer the questions I posted above, I mean seriously answer them?

That is the thing about Obama supporters, they can't take a stand and they have no idea what Obama says or believes in. Hence the term....LIBTARD

If you are gonna post articles supporting Obama, then you should be able to answer the simple questions I have placed above. Just answer them......
 

pugdog

Membership Revoked
Warandra

Some of us know people or have family in the military. I have heard from people over there. I KNOW what I have heard from the SOURCE. obama wiped his ass with the troops.

You can tout this propaganda all you want.
 

Fred

Middle of the road
Know what's cool? If Obama visits the troops, he's accused of using them for photo ops and there are many great arguments to be had. If he doesn't visit the troops, he's accused of not supporting them and there are many great arguments to be had.

The merry-go-round of pointlessness goes on in American political discussions, and the idiocy continues, while Rome burns.
 

hawkeye

Membership Revoked
McCain Charge Against Obama Lacks Evidence

By Michael D. Shear and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, July 30, 2008; A01


For four days, Sen. John McCain and his allies have accused Sen. Barack Obama of snubbing wounded soldiers by canceling a visit to a military hospital because he could not take reporters with him, despite no evidence that the charge is true.

The attacks are part of a newly aggressive McCain operation whose aim is to portray the Democratic presidential candidate as a craven politician more interested in his image than in ailing soldiers, a senior McCain adviser said. They come despite repeated pledges by the Republican that he will never question his rival's patriotism.

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.

"Absolutely, unequivocally wrong," Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said in an e-mail after McCain's comments to Larry King.

Despite serious and repeated queries about the charge over several days, McCain and his allies continued yesterday to question Obama's patriotism by focusing attention on the canceled hospital visit.


McCain's campaign released a statement from retired Sgt. Maj. Craig Layton, who worked as a commander at the hospital, who said: "If Senator Obama isn't comfortable meeting wounded American troops without his entourage, perhaps he does not have the experience necessary to serve as commander in chief."

McCain's advisers said they do not intend to back down from the charge, believing it an effective way to create a "narrative" about what they say is Obama's indifference toward the military.

McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said again yesterday that the Republican's version of events is correct, and that Obama canceled the visit because he was not allowed to take reporters and cameras into the hospital.

"It is safe to say that, according to press reports, Barack Obama avoided, skipped, canceled the visit because of those reasons," he said. "We're not making a leap here."

Asked repeatedly for the "reports," Bounds provided three examples, none of which alleged that Obama had wanted to take members of the media to the hospital.

The McCain campaign has produced a television commercial that says that while in Germany, Obama "made time to go to the gym but canceled a visit with wounded troops. Seems the Pentagon wouldn't allow him to bring cameras." TThe commercial shows Obama shooting a basketball -- an event that happened earlier in the trip on a stopover in Kuwait, where the Democrat spoke to troops in a gym before grabbing a ball and taking a single shot. The military released the video footage.

A reconstruction of the circumstances surrounding Obama's decision not to visit Landstuhl, based on firsthand reporting from the trip, shows that his campaign never contemplated taking the media with him.

The first indication reporters got that Obama was planning, or had planned, to visit the hospital came last Thursday morning, shortly after the entourage arrived in Berlin. On the seats of the media bus were schedules for his stop in Germany and the final entry -- a Friday-morning departure -- indicated that the senator's plane would fly from Berlin to Ramstein Air Base.

When a reporter asked spokeswoman Linda Douglass that morning about the trip to Ramstein, she said that the trip had been considered but that Obama was not going to go. At that point, the campaign provided no other information.

Later that night, after Obama gave a speech in Berlin, a campaign source spoke about the canceled stop on the condition of anonymity. The official said that the trip was canceled after the Pentagon informed a campaign official that the visit would be considered a campaign event.

Overnight, the Obama team issued two statements, one from senior campaign official Robert Gibbs and the other from retired Air Force Maj. Gen. J. Scott Gration, an Obama foreign policy adviser who was on the trip.

Gibbs's statement said the hospital visit, which had been on the internal schedule for several weeks, was canceled because Obama decided it would be inappropriate to go there as part of a trip paid for by his campaign. Gration said the Pentagon had told the campaign that the visit would be seen as a political trip.

Those two statements, while not inconsistent, did not clarify whether the visit was canceled in reaction to Pentagon concerns or because of worries about appearances. They also opened Obama's camp to charges that it was offering slightly different reasons at different times.

Gibbs said yesterday that the campaign had planned to inform the traveling media members sometime on the morning of the flight to Ramstein that Obama was intending to visit the hospital but had made no plans to take reporters, including even the small, protective press pool that now accompanies him most places.

Reporters, he said, probably would have been able to get off the plane but not leave an air base facility close by. "We had made absolutely no arrangements to transport the press to the hospital," he said.

On Friday afternoon, en route from Berlin to Paris, Gibbs briefed reporters traveling with Obama. He noted that the candidate had visited wounded soldiers several weeks earlier at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in the District and at a combat support hospital while in Iraq earlier in the week -- both times without reporters.

At one point, a reporter asked, "Why not just say it is never inappropriate to visit men and women in service?" -- a key McCain charge -- "What is your response to that?"

Gibbs replied: "It is entirely likely that someone would have attacked us for having gone. And it is entirely likely -- and it has come about -- that people have attacked us for not going."

On Saturday in London, Obama addressed the controversy during a news conference. He said Pentagon concerns about Gration's status triggered the decision not to visit Landstuhl.

"We got notice that [Gration] would be treated as a campaign person, and it would therefore be perceived as political because he had endorsed my candidacy but he wasn't on the Senate staff," Obama said. "That triggered then a concern that maybe our visit was going to be perceived as political, and the last thing that I want to do is have injured soldiers and the staff at these wonderful institutions having to sort through whether this is political or not, or get caught in the crossfire between campaigns."

Obama's explanation, which came after more than a day of controversy, was the clearest in noting that it was Pentagon concerns about Gration accompanying him to the hospital that forced Obama to reconsider and, ultimately, cancel the visit.

Gibbs was asked yesterday about the continuing allegations from McCain that the real reason was a desire to bring a media entourage to the hospital.

"That's completely untrue, and I think, honestly, they know it's untrue," Gibbs said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/29/AR2008072902286.html
 

mbo

Membership Revoked
I'm a narcissistic liberal with deep-seated feelings of guilt, so I'm voting for Jesse and Al's choice!!!!! :whistle:
 

Attachments

  • jackson-choice.jpg
    jackson-choice.jpg
    62.3 KB · Views: 92

Bad Hand

Veteran Member
Just this morning on Fox News Obamanation was taking about giving reparations to the blacks because of "The slavery that they suffered". He is the biggest POS to ever run for office.
 

Dennis Olson

Chief Curmudgeon
_______________
Wandara, you used a "GOV/MIL" prefix when POL (political) is the appropriate one for this thread. Please try to be more aware of using proper prefixes on political material. I've corrected prefixes and warned members before, even issuing an infraction from time to time. I ask that you use a little more care in your future POL posts.

Thanks.
 
Top