Obama and the Army captain — Day Two

This looked like it had all the makings of a one-day story. At Thursday night’s debate, Barack Obama talked about an Army captain serving in Afghanistan who found that, thanks to the war in Iraq, he or she didn’t have the support, ammunition, or resources necessary.

The right went nuts, insisting Obama’s story was bogus. ABC and NBC checked it out, talked to the Army captain directly, and as expected, found that Obama’s story checked out. Another misguided conservative attack for the list.

So, time to move on? Apparently not.

It would appear that we have another case where the Bush Pentagon, particularly the Office of Public Affairs is forcefully inserting itself into the civilian election process. Earlier today I referenced Barack Obama’s anecdote from Thursday night’s Democratic debate about an Army Captain in Afghanistan who said his unit had had to get from captured Taliban ammunition they weren’t able to get quickly enough through standard Army supply channels. ABCNews’ Jake Tapper talked to the soldier in question, who confirmed the story he’d told Obama. Now NBC News also appears to have confirmed the story by talking to the Army Captain in question.

But Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman is telling reporters he doesn’t think it’s true and that of course they can’t confirm it unless the soldier — still on active duty — comes forward to discuss the issue with the Pentagon brass, a step that would surely do wonders for his future in the Army.

I don’t know how far this is going to go.

You don’t suppose Bush’s Pentagon would take partisan considerations into account, do you? Heaven forbid.

On a related note:

Senator John Warner of Virginia, the ranking Republican and former chairman of the Armed Services Committee who has endorsed Senator John McCain, wrote to Mr. Obama on Friday seeking more details. Senator Warner wants to find out of the story is true — and, if so, who might be responsible for any lapses. He said that he will also raise the issue with Army Secretary Peter Geren and Army Chief of Staff William Casey when they testify next week before his committee.

In the letter, which begins “Dear Barack,” Senator Warner said that the incident most likely occurred while he was chairman of the committee, whose members also include Senator John McCain and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

“There are specific military regulations governing the use by U.S. forces of weapons other than of U.S. manufacture, and, likewise, regulations covering the deployment into combat zones of military units at manning levels below optimum level,” said Mr. Warner.

To establish accountability within the military chain of command, Mr. Warner is asking Mr. Obama to provide more facts about the incident cited in the debate — the dates, the unit involved and the name of the captain and other military personnel who provided the information to Mr. Obama.

First, if the Army captain who contacted the Obama campaign came forward, he or she would have a whole series of political problems to worry about.

And second, Warner’s interest is hardly dispassionate. Not only is he a close McCain ally, but as chairman of the Armed Services Committee at the time of the Iraq invasion, he bears some responsibility for troops in Afghanistan getting the short shrift.

The Captain didn’t know they’d make a federal case out of it.

  • Warner has no need to know who the captain is. There are plenty of other ways to find out whether soldiers are getting parts and ammo as needed, or if platoons are being split up and sent to Afghanistan without training. With whores like McCain and Warner in the Senate, why would anyone enlist?

  • The word for this is: Witch Hunt. The right and surrogates within the military have a need to squash any military member who expresses any discontent and strays from the accepted story. This is an inevitable product of the Republicans overt strategy over the last 16 years of politicizing the military and turning it into an arm of the party. In this regard the modern Republican party has much in common with fascist and communist political entities of the past.

    I just hope this young captain is able to keep his head and down and survive, career intact, the baleful eye of the republican slime machine.

  • I see that the focus is shifting to this particular Captain and this particular platoon, whereas Sen Obama’s point was to illustrate a situation with a concrete example. The shift is the first step to dismissing the situation as that of a “few bad apples” or an isolated mistake.

    But its not. How many troops have had to buy their own body armor? How many soldiers have had to up armor their own Humvees? (granted, they’re probably safer in a Toyota HiLux…youtube “Top Gear” and its attempt to destroy one) Then again, Hitler sent the Wehrmacht into Russia without winter clothing because he was sure they’d be in Moscow long before the snow came.

    Since Reagan, the Pentagon has spent its money on ghee-whiz weaponry rather than equipping/training troops for the situations they are most likely to encounter. This is no surprise.

  • Actually, I don’t think they’re really after the captain, except to make an example of him. They just want to discourage an other people from coming forward to give this story legs.

    Just like they did with the chaplain at gitmo, and the prosecutor from gitmo.

  • Obama should so what every rethug has done for the last 7 years. Just ignore the request. Period. No questions asked. No explanations given.

  • Time to strip that olive branch from the eagle on our national seal and replace it with a sledgehammer or a mouth gag. (Thanks to GWB’s surveillance programs, we finally figured out what the all-seeing eye on top of the unfinished pyramid means).

  • Sorry but after 30 years in the Army and participation in some of the events Officer X describes I just find it hard to believe that he has correctly identified what he saw. Just a few examples:

    1. A Light Infantry Platoon has a Headquarters section consisting of 1 officer and 8 enlisted members and 3 rifle squads each consisting of 9 enlisted members for a possible total of 36 soldiers. http://orbat.com/site/toe/toe/usa/platoontoe.html Not 39 soldiers.

    2. Alittle background; The invasion of Iraq took place from March to May 2003. The order of battle for US Army combat forces at the time under discussion was V Corps, 3ID, 4ID, 1AD, 173ABde, elements of 3ACR, 82AID, 1ID. 10th Mtn. Div (the unit offices X says he belonged to) started rotating brigades in to Afghanistan to replace elements of the 82 Abn Div in August of 2003. In December of 2003 the time in question there were 83 KIAs in Iraq and 6 KIAs in Afghanistan. Up-Armored HMMWV and other vehicles were not introduces into the theater by the Army in any numbers until 2004.

    I point this out because I find it difficult to believe that the “Captain” is correct in his assertions. I do not believe that the officer is lying but rather because of inexperience (after all he as at that time a 2d LT with 15 Minuets in the Arrmy) and a limited field of view he has misinterpreted what actually happened.

    3. In particular I find it hard to believe that 10 or 15 of his personnel would have been detached for duty in Iraq just prior to his deployment. That some might have rotated normally that I can believe. That some were cross-leveled within the division is also possible but not that 15 EMs were rounded up and sent to the 101st or 82d or the 173d (the only units in Iraq that had light infantry). Why, well because all of those units were getting ready to come home and be replaced by other units like the 10th Mtn. Div. Nope does not pass the make sense test.
    I am also surprised that his unit had any vehicles for daily use much less two/three armored HMMWV. Up-Armored vehicles did not start moving into theater in any numbers until 2004. There were a few running around but mostly in Iraq.

    4. That is where the causality figures come in. Afghanistan was just not that dangerous during the time the Officer X was deployed there. I am not sure how many enemy weapons Officer X used but with limited combat opportunities I doubt if it was many.

    Nope, I am afraid that unfortunately for you, Mr. Tapper and indirectly Mr. Obama this story is so much Bunkum.

    H. Evers
    LTC Armor (ret)
    1975 to 2005

  • Colonel Evers,

    I don’t think the “light infantry” is certain. That means the TOE may not apply. Also, the officer is now a captain, so it seems unlikely he was a 2nd looey then, more likely a first lieutenant.

    There are several aspects of this story that leave room for significant doubt, and it may turn out that the officer was exaggerating the supply problems.

    Or it may be a problem with just his supply chain. That would still be problematic, but might not indicate a systemic problem.

    Still at this time, the story, as related by Obama, appears to be based on fact, which is the political issue.

  • The list of politicians who have lied for the Bush Administration increases daily. Anyone who willingly stopped the provisioning of our our military in combat should be tried for treason and/or war crimes. Maybe that will allow more truth in telling rather than stiffling the voice of reality from being heard. I am tired of raunchy Republicans & wimpy Democrats who smother the truth from Americans . Listen to the VOTERS or you the politician will not get VOTES.

  • Expanding on the remarks of Danp (#2), what is it with all the “individualizing” that’s going on in today’s political-policy discussions? Danp is perfectly correct in pointing out that there is no need to know who the captain is. There must be data on the rate with which all such things happen in the military. That’s the more important matter.

    More broadly, in the current political debates and speeches all candidates like to say “I met a single working mom…” or “a coal miner told me…” Who cares, unless that anecdote bespeaks a widespread condition which needs addressing by some level of government? And if it does, why not tell us about that instead? With all the trillions ofbits of data we collect routinely in this society you’d think such general conditions to could be described and addressed, wouldn’t you?

    Years ago Democrats cited general facts from the Bureau of Labor Statistics while Republicans pointed to statements from the National Association of Manufacturers. Now all we get, from the leaders of either party, are the kinds of emotional appeals and visual glimpses featured, e.g., in People, USA Today and the infotainment vomited through our TeeVee screens and passed off as “news”.

    I keep a daily updated graph of US war deaths in Bush’s Iraq Quagmire. Apparently the accumulated deaths aren’t enough: I get suggestions saying it would be a more attractive (or even forceful) presentation if it featured portraits of the individuals wasted there. It’s as though we’ve collectively turned off (or chemically damaged?) our frontal lobes, relying instead on our more primitive senses.

    In discussing Rousseau and the romantic movement in philosophy, Bertrand Russell wrote (History of Western Philosophy, 675-6) what could still be said of many today:

    Cultivated people in eighteenth-century France greatly admired what they called la sensibilité, which meant a proneness to emotion, and more particularly to the emotion of sympathy. To be thoroughly satisfactory, the emotion must be direct and violent and quite uninformed by thought. The man of sensibility would be moved to tears by the sight of a single destitute peasant family, but would be cold to well-thought-out schemes for ameliorating the lot of peasants as a class.

    Well-thought-out schemes? In 21st century America? In a sound bite? On TeeVee?

  • Also, as Tapper’s story made clear yesterday, the 15 weren’t rounded up and sent off elsewhere. They were peeled off one by one to put with different groups headed to Iraq. They were just never replaced, which left him undermanned when he went to Afghanistan.

  • With a competent Democratic Party, every time the Republican smear machine goes to the matt for McCain, it’s a chance to wedge Mr. Straight Talk express between the Mayberry Machieavelle base and independents who like him because he’ll stray from this stuff. So far, every time he’s placed in this position, he embraces the old politics of Rove and Gingrich. So I say, keep making them play kissy face by making him embrace the smear artists to play to the talk radio crowd.

  • The question is: Why did they pick the weapons up when they found them?

    Maybe they were planning on opening a gun store? You don’t go around picking up stuff you don’t need when you are at war. So, the fact that they took weapons (apparently in defiance of a direct order from the top brass) must mean that they needed them for something.

    Dear Senator Warner: Next time, if you are going to go on a witch hunt, make sure that you are not the witch before you whip up the crowd into a frenzy.

    Time it the truth’s best friend and a lie’s worst enemy. Best of luck with the remainder of your career.

  • “I don’t think the “light infantry” is certain. That means the TOE may not apply. Also, the officer is now a captain, so it seems unlikely he was a 2nd looey then, more likely a first lieutenant. There are several aspects of this story that leave room for significant doubt, and it may turn out that the officer was exaggerating the supply problems. Or it may be a problem with just his supply chain. That would still be problematic, but might not indicate a systemic problem. Still at this time, the story, as related by Obama, appears to be based on fact, which is the political issue.”
    Dear Mr. Charles,

    I understand your confusion as to the TO&E issue however since this was the 10th Mountain Division and they are a light infantry division I am afraid that Officer X’s unit would be light infantry. Light infantry Platoons have no HMMWV, no heavy MGs etc… They therefore have no PLL (Parts Load List) to support such equipment. It does not surprise me that they had trouble keeping equipment that they were not authorized operational. I would also like to point out the illogic of saying that troops were detached from one unit that was in the process of deploying to another that was in the process of returning home. Just does not make sense but it is a mistake that a young officer on his first trip to see the elephant might make. Finally, we all like to think that “our war” was the toughest of anyone else but there are always a few indicators to look for. While the young officer (and given the time frame I really do believe we are talking about a “shave-tail” just out of the point) was definitely in harm way there is no comparison between duty in Afghanistan and Iraq at least at that point in time over 4 years ago.

  • Steve,

    You should include Obama’s response to John Warner.
    Here’s an excerpt from the NY Times:

    The Obama campaign issued a statement about Senator’s Warner’s request late yesterday: “Senator Obama is glad that this issue is getting the attention it deserves, and looks forward to working on a bipartisan basis to ensure that our troops have the training and resources they need.”

  • Brendon: Absolutely right on. What’s even more worrisome is that Blackwater has the makings of a Brownshirt organization or actually even more scary a future Republican SS, because of all the weaponry they posses.

  • socratic_me said:
    “Also, as Tapper’s story made clear yesterday, the 15 weren’t rounded up and sent off elsewhere. They were peeled off one by one to put with different groups headed to Iraq. They were just never replaced, which left him undermanned when he went to Afghanistan.”
    Dear Mr. socratic_me
    I understand that this seems logical and that it seems it could have possibly happened but it is in reality so unlikely that it borders on the insane. Soldiers have MOS (Military Occupation Specialty) that describe their jobs. Units have slots that are described by those MOS. In short you do not put a “Light Infantryman” in a Tank and visa versa. The only light infantry deploying that August was the 10 Mtn Div. Officer X is shall we say confused.

    H. Evers

  • …as chairman of the Armed Services Committee at the time of the Iraq invasion, he bears some responsibility for troops in Afghanistan getting the short shrift.

    Not at all. This was during the time when Congress was not exercising its oversight responsibility. Therefore, Warner is blameless. See?

  • Twinkies anyone?

    Instead of Senator Warren asking for the Captains name wouldn’t it be better for him to launch an investigation into the number of deployements that were made with less than a full compliment? He has the name of the base in New York so why isn’t he investigating whether or not they did have the vehicles to train with?

    Senator Warren has all the resources at his finger tips to step up to the plate and get to the bottom of many problems our soldiers have and that is causing the loss of lives.

    No more behind closed door cover ups.

  • As someone who did serve as an 11Charlie with a light infantry unit ( HHC 2/9 Inf, 7th ID(L) ), the 39 soldiers and Humvees does not sound too far-fetched.

    You have combat medics attached from HHC to the line platoons, as well as FISTers for fire support, interpreters for dealing with the local population, and whoever else battalion feels you need to have tag along.

    While these aren’t part of the actual platoon TO&E, maybe the captain was including this additional soldiers in his platoon.

    As for the Humvees, it might be an platoon attached from the heavy weapons (Delta) company.

    This is all conjecture on my part. I don’t know the actual situation, and don’t know the validity of this whole story, but I just wanted to put in my two cents.

  • With all due respect, Colonel, I’ve seen radio and relay repair MOS holders assigned as radiomen for infantry companies. I’ve seen personnel specialists assigned to operate electronic equipment. I’ve seen infantry made cooks.

    The TOE of any unit bears only a distant resemblance to actual personnel in units when staffing gets tight.

    Any unit that doesn’t adapt its equipment to the mission isn’t as effective as it could be, and every good officer knows that.

  • Its really pretty simple to find out who this CPT is. Personnel records are fairly easy to look up. Find all the 1st or 2nd LT’s that shipped from the 10th MTN Div and figure out who got promoted to CPT and go from their. It sure is a hard story to believe that a COL or GEN would allow a platoon to go into battle with about half of their men. Beings how theres about 20,000 troops at Ft Drum, NY makes the story more unbelievable.

    CPT is just confused bottom line. If its true then he shouldn’t be an anonomin source. Could be if its true talking to Pentagon professionals not appointed personnel could save lives in the future.

  • After what the right wing smear machine did to a 12-year-old disabled boy (the one who was seriously injured in the car accident and helped by SCHIP) and others who dare to speak up, Obama needs to tell Warner to stuff it… This has all the makings of yet another witch hunt.

    I thank our resident military expert posters for their information, but this all about politics at this point.

  • I think the comments that are ostensibly from an ex-US military man are a little thin, such as number 19: if rifle platoons in Iraq lost personnel, couldn’t people have been drafted from the Captain’s platoon to fill in those blanks? Certainly there are many light infantry rifle platoons deployed in Iraq.

    I would think a lot of these kinds of people are all over the blogs today, holding themselves out as military personnel and trying to sell a line to less knowledgeable, gullible blog readers. Obama’s story and the captain’s story don’t look fake, in fact they sound like just another example on the huge pile of incredible Bush admin. and Republican incompetence in this war. If the answer were something as simple as “H. Evers” is pointing out, a mainstream media military consultant would have been all over it on the mainstream media cable TV channels by now. The fake that this hasn’t been done says to me that it’s not being attempted by the H. Evers-types because they know that if they put it on TV news, a bunch of military and ex-military people who do know what kind of stuff goes on would see the report and call “bullshit” on it immediately, thereby discrediting the H. Evers types’ opinions.

  • “Hannah said: I thank our resident military expert posters for their information, but this all about politics at this point.”

    Dear Hannah;

    Given the dubious facts of the story do you not think that it would be best to establish if there was any truth to what Officer X has said? I believe that this individual has done Sen. Obama a great disservice and that he needs to come into the open and defend these allegations or be considered the same as other imposters like Jesse MacBeth and Scott Beauchamp.

    H. Evers

  • “Ralf Malf said: If the answer were something as simple as “H. Evers” is pointing out, a mainstream media military consultant would have been all over it on the mainstream media cable TV channels by now. The fake that this hasn’t been done says to me that it’s not being attempted by the H. Evers-types because they know that if they put it on TV news, a bunch of military and ex-military people who do know what kind of stuff goes on would see the report and call “bullshit” on it immediately, thereby discrediting the H. Evers types’ opinions.”

    Dear Ralf Mal,
    Unfortunately good lies told to people who want to believe them tend to be very simple. You are very possibly correct, and this allegation made by Officer X is exactly what Sen. Obama said; but, then again it may not. I believe we got into this trouble in the Mideast because we did not take the time to determine the truth of several allegations. Maybe it would be a good time to listen to the “Military Types” opinions as opposed to trying to discredit them as was done to General Shinseki in similar circumstances.

  • Oh, the CPT is supposed to come FORWARD and fess up on how messed up it was? Don’t you think he did that back then? He knows coming forward now is a career ending maneuver.

    Been there, done that. I do not expect him to step forward to catch this spear!

    The mere fact that the Pentagon civilian staffer are already in search and wreck mode of a line officer is enough of answer for me.

  • From today’s NYT Magazine:

    It was a coordinated attack on all the fire bases. It didn’t take long to understand why so many soldiers were taking antidepressants. The soldiers were on a 15-month tour that included just 18 days off. Many of them were “stop-lossed,” meaning their contracts were extended because the army is stretched so thin. You are not allowed to refuse these extensions. And they felt eclipsed by Iraq. As Sgt. Erick Gallardo put it: “We don’t get supplies, assets. We scrounge for everything and live a lot more rugged. But we know the war is here. We got unfinished business.”

    The troops in Afghanistan are getting short changed by the misadventure in Iraq – it’s an undisputed fact. Let’s be honest here: the wingnuts don’t want to find out who he is to fact-check every tiny minutae of Obama’s story. The wingnuts want to find out who he is so they can make his life a living hell for daring to question Dear Leader’s competence at war. They want to make an example of him so no one else steps forward. I guess we should be happy they’re not going after a 12 year old this time.

  • I, for one, am grateful to hear from actual experts on the subject, because I don’t know enough to ferret out the truth. And I don’t think we should be giving high credibility to Defense Dept spokesmen, who are as likely to be getting their lines from political appointees as not. May I ask, what is TO&E? Also, assuming the Captain is telling the truth, did he do anything improper. What should he have done? Thanks.

  • TOE = TO&E = Table of Organization and Equipment. Organization includes “slots” which are MOS (Military Occupational Specialty) descriptions of the people — reads like a parts list.

    A work of fiction in almost every real unit, treated traditionally as non-fiction by the Army.

  • Scott Horton has a nice piece up with some historical examples of the “credibility” of the DoD “Public Affairs” Office. Given their past behavior, I don’t think their expression of doubt about the story provides information about anything other than their own political leanings.

  • “glen said: Oh, the CPT is supposed to come FORWARD and fess up on how messed up it was? Don’t you think he did that back then? He knows coming forward now is a career ending maneuver.”

    Dear glen: Some things are more important than your career. In a similar situation an officer I know told a senior officer who threatened him with dismissal from the Army if he disclosed certain information to the IG that “he (my acquaintance) had been looking for work when he found this job. He said that could look himself in the mirror then and was dam sure he wanted to be able to do so in the future”.

    You see many of us “Military Types” actually believe the oath. Army Officer Appointment Acceptance and Oath of Office: “I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S. Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.”
    And because of that yes I do expect Officer X to come forward some things are more important than a career.

    H. Evers

  • Killjoy said: As Sgt. Erick Gallardo put it: “We don’t get supplies, assets. We scrounge for everything and live a lot more rugged. But we know the war is here. We got unfinished business.”

    Dear Killjoy: Not that I would dispute the New York Times, after all, it is an institution devoid of an anti-military bias and would never overemphasize the negative to make a cheap point. However, I believe both you and the Times missed the real message.

    When we signed up to be soldiers (I enlisted in 1975 as an 11c Indirect Fire Infantryman [4.2 mortar] medically retired in 2005 an LTC in Armor) we did not swear to just do what was easy or comfortable. We said we would do what was needful as determined by our leaders both military and civilian. Sgt Gallardo knows that and he will do what ever it takes to accomplish the missions assigned him. The Sergeant may believe he is getting screwed by the system but he will still do his duty. That is because he knows deep down that those who lead him will do the same for him and that they will not ask anything from him that they would not ask of themselves.

    Real Army, Marine, Navy and Air Force leaders will not put career before their soldiers. That they would rather die than loose one of their troopers and that, above anything else, is why I doubt Officers X’s story. I know too many real Officers and Senior Enlisted who would sacrifice anything rather than cheat their soldiers. So if this “Officer” will not come forward he is a phony!

  • Been there, DONE THAT. TOOK THE OATH.

    US Navy 14 years.

    I was never ordered to anything illegal or immoral. I sent my judgement up the line and was ordered what to do and executed those orders to be best of my ability EVEN IF these were 180 degrees to my stated opinion.

    You are asking this officer who was doing the best he could with what he had, to kill his career. A parable related from a colonel in the Army:

    “Why did the cowboy pick this horse? Because he knows this horse will never complain and it will drop dead trying to get the job done. What this horse needs is a better cowboy.”

    We all know that Bush has wrecked the military, is wrecking the military. We all know he is our CinC while we serve. We all know that serving military cannot, will not step forward. We all know that we will do the best we can with the orders we have. (That’s why the whole Petraus is calling the shots was such a load – generals do not tell the CinC what to do.)

    As far as I know, this officer was just telling his Senator was it was like trying to get the job done. The only thing that makes it news worthy is that the public truly does not understand just how thin the military has been strecthed by our current CinC. Why is that?

  • Not that I would dispute the New York Times, after all, it is an institution devoid of an anti-military bias and would never overemphasize the negative to make a cheap point.

    You’re not disputing the New York Times, you’re disputing Sgt. Erick Gallardo. He’s someone willing to go on the record as saying the Afghanistan mission is in danger of failing due to the incompetence of the Bush Administration. There are many other soldiers who have done the same. Your single minded focus on the identity of “Officer X” is both an thinly veiled attempt at intimidating whistleblowers and a smoke screen designed to make people lose sight of the broader picture – the Iraq invasion was a mistake, and may cost us victory in Afghanistan.

  • I don’t see the oath an officer takes as requiring him to stand up and expose himself to incoming attacks, nor to expose himself to the administration’s attacks. People who have done this have had bad experiences later in their careers (see Kerry, John).

    Should the military send an IG with integrity to get to the bottom of the situation, he should definitely report honestly to that IG. Sadly, the last senior person with integrity was eliminated by the Bush administration a few years ago.

  • “glen said: Been there, DONE THAT. TOOK THE OATH. US Navy 14 years.I was never ordered to anything illegal or immoral. I sent my judgement up the line and was ordered what to do and executed those orders to be best of my ability EVEN IF these were 180 degrees to my stated opinion. You are asking this officer who was doing the best he could with what he had, to kill his career. A parable related from a colonel in the Army:”

    Dear Glen: Yes he is telling A senator (I do not think it has been established that it is his senator). He is finally telling someone 4 years late. Unfortunately there comes a time when you must judge and decide and live with your decision. That time has come for this officer (4 years late) but it has finally come.

    H. Evers

  • As a retired Marine officer I find some of these comments silly. Senator Warner or the Department of the Army doesn’t need to talk to the captain who was the source of this anecdote. And nobody needs to be questioning the veracity or integrity of this West Point officer. Some staffers can go back and look at the SORTS and personnel data for the units in question, and after stripping out all the inflated “commanders estimates” of training and readiness glean the information desired. Hats off to this Captain for having the fortitude to speak up. Especially in view of Republican efforts to discredit him. Not to fix the problems he identified, but to set an example so that others won’t speak out. We need more officers like him.

  • Killjoy said: “Your single minded focus on the identity of “Officer X” is both an thinly veiled attempt at intimidating whistleblowers and a smoke screen designed to make people lose sight of the broader picture – the Iraq invasion was a mistake, and may cost us victory in Afghanistan.”

    Dear Killjoy,
    I have no capability to threaten anyone and you are ignoring the Sergeant’s point “But we know the war is here. We got unfinished business.” Leaders have a responsibility to their troopers to insure that they do their absolute best to see that they survive. This means that you train brutally hard. That you maintain strict discipline and that you do not let you people be cheated.

    You seem to wish to make this discussion about Iraq 2008. However, the incident was about Afghanistan 2003. It is not about today but is about what an officer did or failed to do 4 years ago. You may seek to draw parallels from 2003 in 2008 and I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is this officers “late” concern with a 4 year old incident. I also have a few other in country sources of information other than the New York Times and surprisingly enough those sources and the much of the media just do not seem to agree.

    H. Evers

  • For those who may believe it is unfair to think that Senator Warner would put the interests of a Republican President and his party first in an issue like this, all you have to do is go back and review Warner’s actions in the Yeoman Radford affair when he was Nixon’s SecNav.

  • I have no capability to threaten anyone

    We’ve already seen what happens to people when the right wing starts frothing at the mouth investigating a story they don’t agree with. Go find someone else to persecute.

    It is not about today but is about what an officer did or failed to do 4 years ago.

    Yes, let’s lose focus on the fact that Bush is losing Afghanistan now and instead focus on the vitaly important issue of how one platoon is destroyed.

  • “Charles said: I don’t see the oath an officer takes as requiring him to stand up and expose himself to incoming attacks, nor to expose himself to the administration’s attacks. People who have done this have had bad experiences later in their careers (see Kerry, John).”

    Dear Charles,
    One assumes, Senator Kerry did what he thought was right. He is a U.S. Senator, extremely wealthy, and very influential. Am I to conclude that that you believe that this will be the reward for all who “do what is right”; or, do you assume that those who “do the right thing” will be crushed? I have raised several issues with Officer X’s information as relayed through the media. I believe that those of a particular viewpoint do not care if what Officer X says is true or not just so long as it is not “shown” to be false. Thus they can use this myth to reinforce their preconceived notions.

    I on the other hand do not care about the political fall-out. I want to know what happened and why because what is being put about makes no sense. Officers are not the self serving back stabbing wrenches that this fellow seems to be. They have the courage of their convictions and speak truth to power. I know my fellow officers and I will not have them portrayed as this fellow is portraying them.

    H. Evers

  • “Mamzic said: Hats off to this Captain for having the fortitude to speak up. Especially in view of Republican efforts to discredit him. Not to fix the problems he identified, but to set an example so that others won’t speak out. We need more officers like him.”

    It is called DRRS now and since when is waiting 4 years to surface what you believe is a major shortcoming courageous?

    H. Evers

  • Killjoy said: We’ve already seen what happens to people when the right wing starts frothing at the mouth investigating a story they don’t agree with. Go find someone else to persecute.

    H. Evers replies: Excuse me and I do not mean to point out the obvious; but, you seem to be the only one frothing.

    Killjoy said: Yes, let’s lose focus on the fact that Bush is losing Afghanistan now and instead focus on the vitaly important issue of how one platoon is deployed.

    H. Evers Replies: Once again I am sorry but I did mention the fact in a previous post that the truth or lack there of is what concern me. I do not believe I have hidden that point from anyone. I would be interested in seeing the metrics with which you are determining that we are loosing Afghanistan. Are they by any chance the same that are being used to measure the “failure” in Iraq?

    H. Evers

  • “Real Army, Marine, Navy and Air Force leaders will not put career before their soldiers. That they would rather die than loose one of their troopers and that, above anything else, is why I doubt Officers X’s story. I know too many real Officers and Senior Enlisted who would sacrifice anything rather than cheat their soldiers. So if this “Officer” will not come forward he is a phony!”

    Amen brother! Thank God the shortages the CPT suffered in Afghanistan did not cause or contribute to any casualties to his men!

    Now you better go find out who stuck that poor soldier in that position! And don’t stop till you get to the top!

    Good luck with your inquisition.

  • Dear Glen:

    Before we start any new cusades maybe we better find out what actually happened? Were there shortages, did he and his men suffer? You know just the small details. As Joe Friday used to say “the facts ma’am just the facts”.

    H. Evers

  • “Given the dubious facts of the story do you not think that it would be best to establish if there was any truth to what Officer X has said?”

    No. It’s actually almost irrelevant whether the story is true or not. The only purpose of telling the anecdote at all was to argue that the war in Iraq as a whole diverted supplies and manpower from the war in Afghanistan as a whole.

    The right way to argue against Obama here is to prove that the deployment in Iraq did not lead to the mission in Afghanistan stalling. This can be done by A) showing that the allies continued to make steady progress in Afghanistan, and B) proving that the U.S. continues to have enough resources to fund both ventures equally well.

    (I should say that I believe both A and B are a little tricky to do at this point.)

    Argument by anecdote is weak at best, and Obama can be called out for relying on it. But it is important to note that refuting the anecdote does not refute the argument. The issues the captain said he had could have been caused by an incompetent administrator one level up, and an investigation could bear that out. But Obama’s point was that both missions seem to be struggling due to a lack of manpower, and the decision to divide American forces (with the bulk of everything going to Iraq) is on the surface, the obvious reason that happened.

  • “Captain Tells NBC Shortages Were in Training, Not Combat”

    Yes, I question this Captain’s sanity if he was looking for Taliban AK-47s in New York.

  • “Splitting Image said: The issues the captain said he had could have been caused by an incompetent administrator one level up, and an investigation could bear that out. But Obama’s point was that both missions seem to be struggling due to a lack of manpower, and the decision to divide American forces (with the bulk of everything going to Iraq) is on the surface, the obvious reason that happened.”

    Dear Splitting Image,
    May I point out that it has not been established that any “issues” have or did happen at all. Officer X could (I say could) be inventing the entire issue. I would also like to point out that the “obvious reason that happened”, (that meaning the lack of sufficent military manpower) was the draw down in military forces occurring during the 1990’s. When you go from 20 effective Divisions to 8 effective Divisions in the Army alone you do create a problem. Just because the world is a more dangerous place than some had us believe and we needed to defend yourself with more forces than we had does not mean that the need caused the shortfall. The need to exercise military force is never the cause for not having the force you need to exercise. It is the leader’s job to foresee and allow for the forces required to do the job. You cannot expect our adversaries to tailor their threat so that we always win and they always loose. You must look to other decisions and other decision makers for that.
    Just one example Roosevelt did not have the forces necessary to win WWII in 1942. Was the need for more forces the cause of the shortage of forces? No it was merely the reality of the situation.

    Sorry but I am tired and I have much traveling to do tomorrow… Good night all

    H. Evers

  • The army is hemmoraging Captains, they are offering big incentives to keep young officers in uniform.

    They can’t afford to kick him out.

  • To 2Manchu in reply to #64 from previous post, you said:

    Now losing 15 soldiers out of 39 may not sound like a big deal to a civilian. But these are fellow soldiers which whom you trained with, lived with, and depend you life on.
    It’s not simply a case of swapping out personnel like some temp agency.

    How much are you willing to risk your life for someone who has only been in country a week or two?

    That wasn’t the issue. Even so, the captain said that six of those 15 had been replaced. What he didn’t say was whether he was sent into combat short 1 squad or 2 squads.

    Then you ended with:

    So which is it? Did soldiers not have enough rounds because someone in battalion didn’t think they needed enough, or was there not enough ammo in Afghanistan to go around?

    Again, not the point. Here is what Obama said:

    They were actually capturing Taliban weapons because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief.

    And here is what the captain said, fully within context [emphasis mine]:

    “It was very difficult to get any parts in theater,” he says, “because parts are prioritized to the theater where they were needed most — so they were going to Iraq not Afghanistan.”

    “The purpose of going after the Taliban was not to get their weapons,” he said, but on occasion they used Taliban weapons. Sometimes AK-47s, and they also mounted a Soviet-model DShK (or “Dishka”) on one of their humvees instead of their 50 cal.

    As I’ve argued, as any soldier would say, and what this captain confirmed, enemy weapons are captured because they are there and available. Period. It has nothing to do with whether or not units are fully equipped or not. That is the crux of the entire rebuttal against Obama’s statement, “They were actually capturing Taliban weapons because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief.” With his own statement, the captain Obama cites refutes what Obama said.

  • The right went nuts, insisting Obama’s story was bogus. ABC and NBC checked it out, talked to the Army captain directly, and as expected, found that Obama’s story checked out.

    I think I’ve made a valid rebuttal against the key statement Obama made, using the statements from the captain that Obama got his information from. The statement I quote is spin.

    From Marshall, “It would appear that we have another case where the Bush Pentagon, particularly the Office of Public Affairs is forcefully inserting itself into the civilian election process. Excuse me, but when a serious charge is brought against an organization (in this case, the DoD) or someone within the organization, doesn’t it make sense that a defense against the charge be made? Or is it the contention of those like Marshall that someone in the government mounting such a defense is somehow unethical, and that they should just take it? To me, that sounds like Marshall believes that “innocent until proven guilty” doesn’t apply to some Americans; in which case, Marshall (and anybody else) should re-read the first clause of the 14th Amendment. Marshall is just injecting more hyper-partisan spin.

    As far as Sen. Warner injecting himself into this, I believe he is engaging in political grandstanding. But so is Obama. The difference is, Warner is not running for President, to be the commander in chief. Obama is. What is on display is Obama being nothing more than a political hack, not any kind of responsible individual capable of being commander in chief. Especially during wartime.

  • So Obama makes the assertion that the Bush administration’s Iraq adventure has caused the effort in Afghanistan to be understaffed and under-supplied, and illustrates this by way of an anecdote, and all the right-wing does (as illustrated by SteveIL and Evers here) — is attack the anecdote for accuracy.

    It’s hard to imagine, with all the reports of “stop loss” orders, equipment shortages, the difficulty the administration had finding soldiers for the “surge”, that any sane person could be arguing against Obama’s assertion, but it seems some people are so invested in their support for the Iraq adventure that they cannot tolerate someone pointing out the obvious.

  • So Obama makes the assertion that the Bush administration’s Iraq adventure has caused the effort in Afghanistan to be understaffed and under-supplied, and illustrates this by way of an anecdote,… Stop right there. An anecdote. Just an anecdote. At least the adjective “mere” wasn’t added before the noun “anecdote”.

    Let’s put the entire Obama statement in context [emphasis mine]:

    I heard from an Army captain, who was the head of a rifle platoon, supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon. Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24, because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq. And as a consequence, they didn’t have enough ammunition; they didn’t have enough humvees.

    They were actually capturing Taliban weapons because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief.

    No sir, that is not just an anecdote. That is a conclusion, using the statements made in the previous paragraph to make that point. Yet, even the words of the captain Obama cites says the exact opposite:

    “The purpose of going after the Taliban was not to get their weapons,” he said, but on occasion they used Taliban weapons.

    Obama’s clearly asserts that the purpose for getting Taliban weapons was due only to the fact that it was easier for U.S. soldiers to get them than it was to get equipped properly. The captain’s statement itself could only be considered as a refutation of what Obama said. It cannot be argued any more clearly than that.

    Which then leads credence to what was said before, “What is on display is Obama being nothing more than a political hack, not any kind of responsible individual capable of being commander in chief. Especially during wartime.

  • SteveIL,

    Are you just going to continue to repeate your already-answered arguments over and over?

    I see you are. Never mind.

  • H. Evers and you other so-called ex-military “experts” who claim this captain doesn’t sound credible: you can use all the jargon, acronyms and platoon numbers you want but the bottom line is that military organizations throughout history are invidious examples of incompetence, waste and fuck ups. Anyone who has served knows this. To claim that one standard for the number of men in a platoon is as standard as the uniform daily chow the Army supposedly serves all over the world is total bullshit. The story sounds plausible to me having experienced Army inefficiency and incompetence first hand. In fact, given how this Administration of arrogant bumbling jackasses has screwed up everything about these two wars, it seems very plausible.

  • And apparently, Charles, you are going to no longer dispute my rather correct arguments. Like Al Gore believes with global warming, the debate here is over. Obama is not worthy of being commander in chief.

  • SteveIL,

    Do not mistake my unwillingness to repeat the refutations of your inane arguments for agreement with them. It’s just that I have other tasks which are more rewarding than beatinga dead horse.

    And you underpin your losing arguments on this issue by alluding to your unwillingness to see the truth on another issue. It takes a truly clever mind to come up with an argument like that.

    Perhaps you could get more rhetorical points by pointing out that you’ve never really seen proof that man landed on the moon, or that the Earth is round, or that smoking is hazardous to your health? I’m not saying you hold those views — this is merely a suggestion.

  • Charles, you haven’t refuted my arguments. In fact, nobody has. But I do agree that you are beating a dead horse, considering how you ended your comment. After all, you’ve really never seen those things either, at least not first hand, have you (with the possible exception of the fairly common hazards of smoking thing), unless you are Charles “Pete” Conrad, who walked on the moon with Apollo 12, or Charles Duke, who walked on the moon with Apollo 16, or you actually were in a space program and actually have gone into space but not to the moon (which then means you still haven’t seen proof that man landed on the moon)?

  • SteveIL,

    Thanks for clearing that up. You are delusional.

    I did work, coincidentally, for NASA, but not until after the last moon landing. I can testify that NASA wasn’t capable of that level of fakery.

  • For what it’s worth, an Airborne rifle platoon would have 39 soldiers (assuming the weapons squads hadn’t been otherwise tasked out) ( http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/unit/toe/07037L000.htm ).

    But it’s not just an Iraq vs. Afghanistan thing. In the 04-05 timeframe the active duty Army was desperately scrounging around for .50 calibers in the Baghdad area, repair parts for them were close to non existent.

    Our civilian leadership opted to engage in two major campaigns at once, we also opted to do this with insufficient manpower and inadequate planning (IMHO). You can suggest that this Captain’s (LT at the time) experience was unique, but I’d say that’s hardly the case.

    Granted, a fully MTOE equipped / manned military unit would be almost unheard of, as our former SecDef pointed out “you go to war with the army you’ve got”, that being said there’s no excuse for a country that should have been on a wartime footing to be short of machine guns and repair parts.

  • StevelL,

    “That wasn’t the issue. Even so, the captain said that six of those 15 had been replaced. What he didn’t say was whether he was sent into combat short 1 squad or 2 squads.”

    His platoon had to give up 15 soldiers from his unit with six replacements from somewhere else. Who gives a rat’s ass whether or not he said he was short a squad? You lose 15 men with whom you train and live with before you go into a combat situation, and then have them replaced by six soldiers you don’t know. Maybe it’s just me, but that doesn’t sound like a great tradeoff.

    “Again, not the point. Here is what Obama said:

    “They were actually capturing Taliban weapons because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief.”

    “And here is what the captain said, fully within context [emphasis mine]:”

    “‘It was very difficult to get any parts in theater,” he says, “because parts are prioritized to the theater where they were needed most — so they were going to Iraq not Afghanistan.’

    “‘The purpose of going after the Taliban was not to get their weapons,’ he said, but on occasion they used Taliban weapons. Sometimes AK-47s, and they also mounted a Soviet-model DShK (or “Dishka”) on one of their humvees instead of their 50 cal.”

    From the original article:
    “Also in Afghanistan they had issues getting parts for their MK-19s and their 50-cals. Getting parts or ammunition for their standard rifles was not a problem.”

    Obama never said that they going after the Taliban specifically to capture weapons. He said they were using Taliban weapons that they captured, when our soliders’ own weapons were deadlined for lack of parts.

    In other words, US forces go out on operations for the purpose of destroying the Taliban’s military capability, then they capture the Taliban’s weapons and bring these weapons back with them.

    When they run out of spare parts for their own issued weapons, they had to use the Taliban weapons that they captured.

    Now is Obama not competent enough to be a commander-in-chief? I don’t know, does he think that you can recall ICBMs after you launch them, or want to share SDI technology with the very country the system was designed to defend against? It seems that we had a certain Republican president who did both of those.

  • Also, how does Obama’s competence compare to the guy who wants to keep US troops in Iraq for 10,000 years?

    Of course, that’s comparing “competence” to “level of bat-shit craziness”.

    And Obama’s apparent lack of military expertise doesn’t seem to bother military donors, since he’s running second in contributions from that source.

  • 2Manchu, I’m not arguing the point about the platoon being down some men. Clearly they were. I’ve never indicated that Obama made a false statement here. But it is a fact that neither Obama or the captain indicated when they went into combat, whether down 15 men around the time the unit got to Afghanistan, or down 9 men after replacements were transferred in.

    You also said, “Obama never said that they going after the Taliban specifically to capture weapons. I’ve checked and re-checked what I’ve said, and I never stated this. What I did say was that Obama specifically said that our soldiers were capturing Taliban weapons because they weren’t properly equipped. That is what he said. I’ve argued how wrong his statement is on so many levels, not the least of which is lack of military understanding by someone who wants to be the commander in chief of the military. That and the fact that even the captain refutes it.

    Is he competent? No. One can argue Bush isn’t either. However, Bush wasn’t elected on his commander in chief capabilities in 2000, since the prior administration (Clinton) didn’t seem to leave with the impression that the new administration (Bush) needed to be more prepared for potential warfare, in my opinion. Now, however, that isn’t the case, since we are at war. That isn’t in dispute. And we need a serious commander in chief in order to make sure the military fights this war to victory. That doesn’t appear to be Barack Obama. Or even Hillary Clinton.

  • Yes, nothing says “I’m a serious Commander-in-Chief candidate” like “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran”.

    And of course, insisting that only those with military service can be CiC turns the whole principle of civilian control of the military on its head.

  • SteveIL,

    This is from Jake Tapper’s article at ABC’s Political Punch:

    “Prior to deployment the Captain — then a Lieutenant — took command of a rifle platoon at Fort Drum. When he took command, the platoon had 39 members, but — in ones and twos — 15 members of the platoon were re-assigned to other units. He knows of 10 of those 15 for sure who went to Iraq, and he suspects the other five did as well.

    “The platoon was sent to Afghanistan with 24 men.

    “‘We should have deployed with 39,’ he told me, ‘we should have gotten replacements. But we didn’t. And that was pretty consistent across the battalion.’

    “He adds that maybe a half-dozen of the 15 were replaced by the Fall of 2003, months after they arrived in Afghanistan, but never all 15.”

    So when this platoon arrived in Afghanistan, it was still without those 15 soldiers.

    This is what Obama said:

    “You know, I’ve heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon — supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon,” he said. “Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq.”

    So it seems that this platoon of 39 had 15 of it’s soldiers taken away for Iraq, and then had to deploy to Afghanistan. And that’s what Obama said.

    As for Obama’s comment on the Taliban, that may just be him misunderstanding what the captain was saying. He may have heard the captain say that they were using captured Taliban weapons, and thougth that the captain said they were deliberately having to aquire those weapons because they couldn’t use their own.

    If I miscontrued your comment into something that you did not intend, I apologize.

    But is a flub a sign on incompetence? I would say no. That’s why presidents who don’t have military experience have people who wear the uniform advise them on these kinds of things.

    Like I said, Reagan thought you could recall ICBMs after they were launched. Does that mean he was an incompetent commander-in-chief?

    “Bush wasn’t elected on his commander in chief capabilities in 2000, since the prior administration (Clinton) didn’t seem to leave with the impression that the new administration (Bush) needed to be more prepared for potential warfare, in my opinion. ”

    Well, Bush did accuse the Clinton administration of leaving the military in a less capable state. He did say in 2000 “If called on by the commander-in-chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report …, ‘Not ready for duty, sir.'”
    So military preparedness was made an issue during the campaign.

  • But is a flub a sign on incompetence? I would say no. If it were just a flub, I would agree. However, it is a pattern with Obama, the idea that he understands what is even going on with regards to Al Qaeda. But you don’t have to take my word for it; read Obama’s counter-terrorism strategy on his campaign website. He links to it from his foreign policy platform. His strategy came about in August, 2007. Considering all that has gone in that region of the world since then, it’s ancient history.

    This is the same as why he wants to abandon Iraq; because he says he was against the U.S. going into Iraq in the first place. I will reiterate the last paragraph of my comment #61 of the other post on CB regarding Obama and this captain:

    Again, the whole premise of Obama’s statement is to show how he was against the U.S. going into Iraq in the first place. So what? As I’ve stated, President Bush didn’t send anyone into Iraq without congressional authorization. Therefore, it’s a moot point, and has been ever since certain members of Congress have been using that argument. There have been investigations and investigations and investigations on how President Bush determined that it was the right time to invade Iraq and get Saddam Hussein out of power, and all those investigations haven’t come up with anything that was done in violation of the law, nor will they. The President and Congress made their determination, and sent the troops in. So if Obama wants to continue his ridiculous assertion that he was against the war, fine. Like everything else, it is nothing more than a political assertion, not a legal one. But what it also shows is that we have a completely irresponsible candidate for President who is more willing to play politics while the defenders of the United States are in the middle of a war against those who the federal government has deemed this country’s enemies. And that defines Barack Obama to a tee.

    And I haven’t changed my opinion.

  • Yes, nothing says “I’m a serious Commander-in-Chief candidate” like “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran”. Charles, give it a rest.

    But to rebut, there hasn’t been one shred of proof the U.S. was ever going to bomb Iran since President Bush named them as one of the “axis of evil”. Speculation, yes. Speculation isn’t proof. And before you say it, contingency plans by the Pentagon wouldn’t be considered proof either. I would make a pretty good guess that the DoD has come up with plans over the last nearly 30 years to try to figure out how to successfully defeat Iran militarily. That’s called being prepared. But that isn’t proof of the Bush administration set to bomb Iran.

  • SteveIL,

    What are you responding to? I ridiculed your stated desire for a “serious” person for Commander-in-chief with the words of the person you support.

    If you wish to respond to me, please, try understanding what I’m saying first. It wasn’t complicated, in this case.

    What you said before made no sense, and it makes no sense now. That a majority of the Senate voted for the AUMF does not mean it was an intelligent thing to do then, and it means nothing now that we know how the intelligence was manufactured to support the administration.

  • What are you responding to? I ridiculed your stated desire for a “serious” person for Commander-in-chief with the words of the person you support. I got what you were trying to do. And I then I threw in a challenge to provide real proof the Bush administration was or is going to bomb Iran.

    That a majority of the Senate voted for the AUMF does not mean it was an intelligent thing to do then, and it means nothing now that we know how the intelligence was manufactured to support the administration. Uh, no it wasn’t. Where’s your proof? Oh yeah; you don’t have any. That is unless you believe it was manufactured by the Clinton administration as well. And ignore 5 years worth of statements from members of both parties warning of Saddam’s WMD programs (from 1998 until the invasion in 2003), all based on the same intelligence. Time to give that crock of crap a rest as well.

  • SteveIL,

    I’m not going to try and “prove” to you that the Bush administration is planning to attack Iran, and I’m not going to try and prove to you that the Bush administration manufactured intelligence to create a context for ware. I’m also not going to try and prove to you that the tooth fairy doesn’t exist. I see no point in such an attempt, since nobody can force you to think.

    You can’t even understand the simplist concepts, such as that it doesn’t matter, anymore, what Clinton did or did not do.

    No, the only proper methodology for dealing with bizarro-world inhabitants is to ridicule the blather you regurgitate.

  • Ah. So what you are telling me is that the Clinton administration and members of Congress of both parties were warning about Saddam’s WMDs from 1998 until 2001, and that the intelligence that these warnings were based on, from the CIA led by the Clinton-appointed George Tenet, was not manipulated. But when the Bush administration and the same members of Congress, including new ones like Hillary Clinton, continued their warnings about Saddam’s WMDs after 9/11/2001, and that the intelligence that these warnings were based on, from the CIA led by the same Clinton-appointed George Tenet, this intelligence was manipulated. I see.

    Look, I don’t want to strain your brain any further with, you know, logic and sense. So I will stop now.

  • I guess anything passes as reality these days. Mr. Benen, the author of this blog seems to feel that the Obamas creative little story qualifies as truth. But like most libs he doesn’t want to be confused by those pesky “fact thingies”

    Facts such as Obama claiming that he had been told the story by the Captain, when in reality the story was second hand through his staffers.

    Or that Obama spewed the story as though it represented the current situation in Iraq and Afghanistan when the “facts” were really five years past.

    Or that these (appalling) events were not current events nor anything that had happened as a matter of normal operating procedure, but were instead the result of moving into a war in a “come as you are” world.

    The good Captain involved actually did have all the vehicles he was supposed to have, as his unit was with the 10th Mountain Division, a Light Infantry Division, that has no vehicles for the Infantry Platoons, nor does the 10th have M2 HB Flex MGs in it’s Infantry Platoon TO&E. The Captain (LT at the time) only recognized the shortages when he got in country and found that “In country” he was authorized vehicles as a part of the MTO&E.

    This has all the markings of another cheap anti-war smear with Mr. Benen as a willing accomplice. I too went in harms way, without all of my authorized people and gear, in 1994 and again in 1997, under Mr. Clinton. But as he is a democrat, I am sure none of that made the news.

  • So your adding Obama to the list of people that lied? If the media found out Obama had lied, they would bury it the way a dog buries a bone. Obama can do no wrong in the medias eyes. How anyone can vote for someone that has never been tested, I don’t know. Rezko has gone to court and there are rumblings on the internet that perhaps as early as next week there will be a bomb shell in the case. Stay tuned.

    I think in this case Obama is not telling the entire truth Its there for all to see but it hiding in plain site. We just have to look harder.

  • You know campaigns have been sunk by less than this. If Obama is finally caught in a lie, the gates of h!!! will open up.

    Strange how in the debate tonight this subject wasn’t mentioned once. Strange indeed.

  • Comments are closed.