Feb 22 2008
Obama Is An Obidiot
You know, I am rethinking my position that Hillary would be the easier of the two candidates for McCain to whoop in November. Obama demonstrated last night (H/T to Gateway Pundit) that he is just not ready for the job of Commander-In-Chief. Here he is obsessing in last night’s debate about a rifle platoon that was shipped partially to Iraq and partially to Afghanistan, and then he makes up some BS about how they were shipped without enough equipment (was this around the time the Democrat Congress was withholding funds to force a retreat from Iraq?) and had to steal their weapons from the “Taleeban”:
The man’s discomfort is clearly evident as he stumbles through his little story. A story Obama “heard” from some “captain”. How naive can you be? First off, Presidents don’t deploy platoons, and they sure as hell don’t equip them. I mean this suggest Obama’s perception of what it means to be President apparently comes from watching Hollywood’s attempt to portray them on TV. Presidents need to be thinking way above the platoon level. Can’t you just envision how war hero McCain would just rip Obama’s blatant ignorance to shreds if he tried this kind of BS on the old warhorse?
But what makes this little anecdote truly foolish is the fact we have Obama the Obidiot all through the critical early stages of The Surge and The Awakening which transformed Iraq from a defeat to a victory last year:
Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.) announced yesterday that they will support a symbolic vote to cut off funding for combat troops in Iraq within a year, …
Symbolic vote – which means to send a signal to our troops and our enemies. Is this all? Of course not, the Obidiot seems to think there is no record or memory of the last year to go back and check. His desire to hold off funds for our troops goes back to the very beginning of the war:
In video obtained by ABC News of a Winnetka, Ill., Democratic event from Sunday, Nov. 16, 2003, then-state senator Obama told a cheering crowd that it was wrong to vote to fund the war.
“Just this week, when I was asked, would I have voted for the $87 billion dollars, I said ‘No,'” Obama said to applause as he referred to a bill to fund troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Barack the Obidiot has compounded his reputation for being a novice in eloquent clothing. Please don’t tell me he actually believes we sent troops unarmed into Afghanistan and made them steal weapons from the ‘Taleeban’ so they could fight. What does ANY of this have to do with the war on terror and the need to surrender to al-Qaeda (verses defeat al-Qaeda). Even Clinton was wondering what the hell Barack was babbling about! Thank you lord for making liberals such simpletons.
Update: More outrage here at Hot Air.
This does not ring true.
Platoons are usually commanded by second lieutenants, not captains. It’s usually an entry-level position.
AJ, you’re onto one of the Great Big Problems we have with Presidents.
The President needs to be working at the grand strategic level, not the tactical level. Which is why many of our best Commanders in Chief have had very little military experience – it left them with no desire to play 2nd Lieutenant instead of being CinC. Clausewitz had something to say about that, too, IIRC….
I think we may be looking at a replay of the 1972 election – Nixon wasn’t all that popular even before Watergate, but when put up against the “lose at any cost!” McGovern he pulled off one a landslide victory. I think McCain will be able to do the same against Obama, who really has no substance at all. Hillary will be a little tougher candidate, but her biggest problem now is that even if she beats Obama, a huge chunk of Obama supporters are going to drop out of the race. (and we thought Repubs had problems!)
On Last Night’s Debate…
While the media is enjoying going after Hillary for her comment “Change you can Xerox” (hey, don’t you know that Xerox is not a verb, but a trademarked word by the Xerox corporation who has fought tooth and nail to keep it), the real story is that B…
I heard about this and was just amazed that Obama would say this. Does this socalled Captain have a name?
As for the war, Obama has tried to have it both ways. On one hand he wants to bring peace and humanity to the world. He does not support people like Saddam he says, but then neither does he have a rational explanation as to what to do with them.
Just this sort of vague peacenik crap that makes no sense.
If we had not gone into Iraq, he would have been complaining about the human rights violations of the Butcher of Baghdad, just like he complains about Darfur, count on it.
And what about Afghanistan? Does he support the mission or not? Does he want to kick out NATO and make it an American only operation? The US has been in disagreement with her allies about the poppy fields, Americans want to eradicate them, the Europeans do not. Well, what does the Chosen One plan to do about that? If Iraq is a quagmire and not worth the fighting for, what is Afghanistan?
So, you guys all assume that Barack was talking out of his butt, right? Fact is, it’s all true. Check it out here:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/from-the-fact-3.html
I wonder how many other knee-jerk assumptions you guys are making. I may be a “simpleton”, but you’re raving like a lunatic. And I believe most would agree, we’ve had enough of those.
Chrenson -that was one shoddy piece of analysis by ABC.
Already answered and demolished.
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5104
AJStrata
Yes, I think the man is talking out of his butt, about something that supposedly happened years ago.
Do you think that American soldiers are using enemy weapons because they do not have ammo?
From the Corner:
Obama, last night:
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.
Obama’s source, an Army captain, to ABC’s Jake Tapper today:
“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.
Wasn’t the point of Obama’s anecdote that our troops in Afghanistan were so poorly equipped, they were forced to capture weapons because they didn’t have enough?
Sorry I’m so late to the thread dudes.I can’t get to the computer for the kids packin’ into the room for “Rock Band”.
Just wanted to say Obidiot. There.
Methinks O’Bama has been hitting the sauce a little early for St. Patrick’s day.
I too believe Obama will be easier to defeat than Hillary. The Dem party turnout advantage can be in large part attributable to the extreme anti-Hillary verve present in the nut-roots community. Will they turn out to vote FOR Obama?
Secondly, I believe that once the tea leaves have been read after McCain wins, significant numbers of WHITE LIBERALS will have stayed home. Contrary to popular belief, liberals are far more prone to racist thinking that those on the right. They simply cannot allow a black to become President of the United States, as it will ruin the victimhood narrative they have successfully ingrained into mainstream belief.
And thirdly, when Obama’s fiscal policies are more widely known, fiscal conservatives (non-socialists?) will turn out in great numbers to vote AGAINST his policies.
I hope Michelle Obama keeps giving speeches… she’ll be the best reason for vote for McCain than anything McCain can say.
Seldom does he stump his toe………but this is another doozy. Notice it only happens when he leaves his ‘Hope & Change” speech or in other words, anytime he actually says something. So after that first bad stumble when he went down so bad and some thought him out, he has not made that mistake again until this debate.
The Dem party turnout advantage can be in large part attributable to the extreme anti-Hillary verve present in the nut-roots community. Will they turn out to vote FOR Obama?
No Gwood………they are voting FOR Obama, not against Hill. Look at their faces at the rallies. And yes, they are actually going to vote in the real election and many for the first time. There really should be a test for voters. Surely something several steps below citizenship tests should wipe out some of this stupidity.
So, is CNN guilty of “shoddy journalism” too? Does this not corroborate Obama’s remarks? I mean, Army chief of staff Gen. George Casey does have some experience in the matter. Check out:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/26/obama.troops/
And come on, guys. Is “Obidiot” the best you can do? Man, Barack has got this election in the bag!
And Owl, are you suggesting a “test for voters” like the party affiliation vetting people had to go through to attend Bush rallies in 2004? Sounds an awful lot like “big government” to me. And who will pay for these tests? Taxpayers? Looks like you could use a refresher course on citizenship. You could start by reading The Constitution. I’m sure there’s an illustrated version at Barnes & Noble [that’s a book store].