RSS Feed
Loading ...
Obama made the following statement in last nights debate:
OBAMA: 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. 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.
Immediately, people started asking questions, and the story has opened a can of Obama is ignorant worms. Stephen Spruiell spoke with Obama advisor David Axelrod to get clarification on the statement:
AXELROD: That was a discussion that a captain in the military had with our staff, and he asked that that be passed along to Senator Obama.
Chris G made this comment at Flopping Aces:
What a crock of outright lies and BS!!!! Platoons are not split up along theater level lines. A Platoon is the smallest tactical element commonly employed. Normal Squads, which make up Platoons, do not go out alone unless covered by something big (Tank/Infantry squad teams for example).
Units are not halved for combat!! Units in Afghanistan were not used in Iraq and the two events occurred almost a year apart!! 10th Mountain went into Afghanistan fully manned. 10th Mountain was not used in Iraq. Also, all units have organic vehicles. Divisions are not stripped of vehicles for another theater operation. We have APS fleets to cover this (pre-deployed assets in Kuwait)!!! Obama should know about this as funding for the APS fleets are in the appropriations bills.
So on this aspect: FLAT OUT LIE by Obama!!!!!!
Now, as for Obama’s military skills, exactly WHAT captain leads a platoon?????? 2LTs lead platoons with a few 1LTs who might lead one as the senior platoon leader in a company, COMMANDED by a captain. Maybe this was a captain who lead a platoon 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. 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. years ago, however, Obama’s lack of knowledge betrays him. Even if Obama is not slandering/making up a story by the officer, it will be the first anyone I know of has heard about this lack of equipment and ammo issue.Now as for weapons. No kidding we use the enemy’s when we can. The same is true for the initial invasion of Iraq. Ammunition is always a sought commodity, but there was no shortage of transports getting it to Afghanistan. HOWEVER, in the midst of a fire fight, ammo runs low and many Soldiers/Marines know how to use the AK series (AKM/AK-74 and SVD). Since a majority of US Military Members are gun owners/shooters and many are NRA members, we tend to learn all we can about weapons and teach those who are not hunters/shooters in our ranks. A light infantry unit can only carry so much ammo on extended missions. Air resupply is not always available while in combat (helicopters draw enemy fire for some reason) and ground resupply is not always able to get up the goat trails that comprise Afghanistan.
However, I know a captain who commanded in 10th Mountain in Afghanistan during the most intense fighting there and he NEVER had problems with lack of men, equipment, or ammo. But then, I am an Army officer who, like a VAST, near total majority of us, supports the war so my opinion is unwanted by the left.
The more Obama speaks, the more he digs holes.
Jack Tapper at ABC tried to shed light on the story, but as failed, as the AP points out:
He underscored his point in the Democratic debate Thursday by telling a story about a rifle platoon in Afghanistan that allegedly didn’t have enough soldiers or weapons to do its job, leaving the platoon to scrounge for weapons from the Taliban…
The captain said [to ABC], however, that the unit did not go after the Taliban for the purpose of getting their weapons, but sometimes used those weapons when some were captured.
Obama said the platoon was supposed to have 39 soldiers. A platoon does not have to consist of 39, but can have between 16 to 40 soldiers, according to standard Army unit organization. It is also commanded by a lieutenant and not a captain.
According to Michael Goldfarb, Senator John Warner sent a letter to Barack Obama. Please take the time to read the letter, but here is a synopsis from Michael:
Warner refers to Obama’s comments as “a disturbing framework of factual allegations.”
According to Jake Tapper’s report earlier today, the unnamed captain to whom Obama attributed the account was deployed to Afghanistan in the summer of 2003. Warner was, at the time, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. As such, he explains that he has “a responsibility to establish where in the military chain of command rests the ‘accountability’ [for the shortfalls], depending of course, on the accuracy of the facts.”
Warner informs Obama that he is working with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to determine the facts of the incident described in last nights debate, and that he intends to raise the issues next Tuesday when Secretary of the Army Pete Green and General Casey appear before the committee.
Further, he asks Obama to provide the “essential facts of when- the dates- the unit was deployed, to which brigade combat team, or other unit it was assigned, the name and current location of the captain, or other military personnel who shared the alleged facts with you, so that the committee staff can debrief them.”
This comes just hours after Reuters reported doubts within the Pentagon as to the veracity of Obama’s account.
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary’s Thoughts, 123beta, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Leaning Straight Up, Big Dog’s Weblog, Cao’s Blog, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Nuke Gingrich, Woman Honor Thyself, Pirate’s Cove, Celebrity Smack, The Pink Flamingo, Wolf Pangloss, Dumb Ox Daily News, , Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
February 22, 2008 - 07:37 PM on February 22nd, 2008
Reading what Obama said just made me cringe…apalling lack of knowledge, plus being 100% fecal matter on the face of it.
Really disturbing…you catching this, SFL?
February 22, 2008 - 09:22 PM on February 22nd, 2008
Last I checked, a rifle platoon was 42 not 39 individuals and commanded not by a Captain but by a 2nd or possibly a 1st Lieutenant. The only way that an ARMY Captain would be leading a platoon, it would have to be a spec ops unit (or on the very outside chance a national guard unit, but they don’t generally break up NG units smaller than companies). The only other way for a platoon to be lead by a Captain would be if they were Marines.
Barak is utterly clueless when it comes to the military and Hillary isn’t much better. How the hell could you expect someone so clueless to become Commander in Chief?
February 22, 2008 - 09:31 PM on February 22nd, 2008
That was the point Robert and FAO. I knew this would strike a nerve with both of you..
He expects to be the Commander in Chief, yet he throws something out there so carelessly..ODUMBO!!!!
February 22, 2008 - 09:31 PM on February 22nd, 2008
Nice photo shop. I couldn’t believe when I heard Obama say this. I want to know NAMES!
February 22, 2008 - 09:38 PM on February 22nd, 2008
Thanks Debbie..from what I can gather, the soldier that provided the info to Baracks people doesn’t back up their translation. Let’s get the real facts out there. If these guys are using the weapons, okay, I can see that..but to make it sound like they went out on a mission to get them in order to have a weapon is just ignorant! I am not so sure that Obama is aware that he is a current member of the US Senate, and he really should have gone through the proper channels with that info.
Hey, did you see your little friend, Brandy Priestess, spent the better part of the day here?
She is a piece of trashy art!
February 22, 2008 - 10:07 PM on February 22nd, 2008
There are times and places for using captured weapons. The AK47 was almost as often carried by spec op troops in Vietnam as the M16 was. It was reliable even when wet and dirty and because of the difference in ballistics between the two rounds (5.56 x 45 Nato round vs the 7.62 x 39 AK round) it had a significantly different sound signature. When operating in enemy territory, using a weapon that sounds radically different (high pitched crack because the higher velocity of the M16 round) when fired is a surefire way to announce your presence and location to every enemy in the area.
February 22, 2008 - 11:19 PM on February 22nd, 2008
Thank you for putting all of these links together for me. There is one more that I have. AllahPundit over at HotAir. Blackfive has also commented about this. He will probably have a post up about this.
BTW, the 10th Mountain was in Afghanistan, not Iraq, in 2003 when this Captain spoke. They do not break up small units in the Army. Maybe in the Marines, because they can hang, but not the Army. OKAY, I take that back. I was just thinking about FOOTBALL…GO NAVY!
February 23, 2008 - 08:03 AM on February 23rd, 2008
12- Thanks for the added links Rosemary!
February 23, 2008 - 11:40 AM on February 23rd, 2008
“Military equipment shortages have been a big U.S. political issue, particularly in the early years of the Iraq war.
A U.S. soldier confronted then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld over the topic in Kuwait in 2004, complaining that troops were forced to dig up scrap metal to protect their vehicles because the military did not have enough armor.
Rumsfeld famously replied that “you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time” — a remark that drew widespread criticism.”
February 23, 2008 - 11:54 AM on February 23rd, 2008
It seems that Sen. Obama is correct on this one, as long as the Captain who relayed the information to his campaign staff is telling the truth.
Everyone should read this link…
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/from-the-fact-3.html
I don’t see how the ABC blog has been shown to be incorrect…
The only person who may or not be telling a lie here in the Army Captain.
February 23, 2008 - 11:59 AM on February 23rd, 2008
21- SFL, I have already linked to that source and no, the Captain is not in agreement with what came out of Obama’s mouth. Read it again. Start with the section that begins with Jake Tapper at ABC..here is where it goes wrong:
The captain said [to ABC], however, that the unit did not go after the Taliban for the purpose of getting their weapons, but sometimes used those weapons when some were captured.
Obama said the platoon was supposed to have 39 soldiers. A platoon does not have to consist of 39, but can have between 16 to 40 soldiers, according to standard Army unit organization. It is also commanded by a lieutenant and not a captain.
February 23, 2008 - 12:06 PM on February 23rd, 2008
That doesn’t make sense…I’m not understanding where the error is.
WHO is incorrect, in your opinion?
February 23, 2008 - 12:09 PM on February 23rd, 2008
Found this comment on that ABC blog, and I think it’s perfect…
——————————–
“They Swift Boated John Kerry…
They Swift Boated a covert CIA agent, Valerie Plame…
They swifted boated a 7th grader, Graeme Frost…
Now, they’re swift boating an Army captain for stating that his men didn’t/don’t have the proper equipment to protect themselves.
What a bunch of un-Patriotic, heartless bastards.”
February 23, 2008 - 12:11 PM on February 23rd, 2008
Obama may have been given info, but he/staff, either didn’t pay attention to what was said, or deliberately changed what was said. Obama stated that these troops went on missions looking for weapons, which the Captain denies. He said if they confiscated them, they kept them and at times, used them. Obama also said: “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.”
Again, not a true statement. So Obama looks like he is wrong.
February 23, 2008 - 12:14 PM on February 23rd, 2008
24- Swift boated the Army Captain? No one is going after the Army Captain, we went after the tale Obama told, just like Kerry told tales about his service, The Frosts pimped their kids out and didn’t expect us to question them. Valerie Plame has her photo taken for the cover of Vanity Fare, and can’t figure out how her cover was blown! Let’s not forget that whole TNR/Scott Beaucamp disaster where TNR claimed the stories from Beaucamp were real…
February 23, 2008 - 12:22 PM on February 23rd, 2008
So you are telling me, that the only thing wrong with what Obama said is, number one, the WORDING about how enemy weapons were acquired - either on “purpose” or by “just because” - and second, because the Captain said that he went to Afghanistan with a short crew because many had been sent to Iraq?
Pam, the ABC fact check has the Captain saying that by ones and twos, his men were reassigned, while he was sent to Afgh. short on men, temporarily.
Why is Obama wrong when he is merely repeating what the Captain said?
This is an empty and weak attempted attack on Obama that will, once again, not hurt the man or his campaign.
February 23, 2008 - 12:31 PM on February 23rd, 2008
Are they just words, as the Messiah plagerized? There is a big difference between the way Obama presented the story and the way things went down SFL…Take a little time to read some of the links. Obama should never have opened his mouth without verifying the facts. It appears that he tried to take a cheap shot, and it is backfiring on him, not the Army Captain. As a memeber of the Senate, and as a person running for the positions of Commander In Chief, at the very least, would it be too much to ask that he understand the basics of units in the Army?
I noted your post #20, and if it could be soley attributed to that, I would concur. We have not always provided everything necessary, be it in Iraq, or any theater of war in any war we have fought. After 237 years, one would think that we could take care of the problem. As for using the weapons, again, not the first time our guys have used the enemies weapons..
February 23, 2008 - 01:13 PM on February 23rd, 2008
“would it be too much to ask that he understand the basics of units in the Army?”
———————–
See, I don’t understand what you people are driving at here…I honestly don’t see any fault with any of it, and not because he’s “the messiah”…
Regarding the numbers that make up platoons, Obama was simply repeating what was told to him. The Captain, was a Lt. at the time, and according to that officer, his platoon was not at full strength.
All Obama did was repeat what had been told to him, the source being this officer.
How does Obama, in repeating this story, as you say “not understand the basic units of the army”?
February 23, 2008 - 01:18 PM on February 23rd, 2008
There is a reason why no major news outlets are running with this “story”…
…it’s dead in the water.
February 23, 2008 - 01:35 PM on February 23rd, 2008
Last time I checked, The AP, ABC, and Reuters are all considered major news outlets. Also, Obama wasn’t told this, his staff was, as I posted at the very top of the page.
The fact that he didn’t even take the time to verify the story says alot about the man’s lack of intelligence.
February 23, 2008 - 02:35 PM on February 23rd, 2008
BARACK OBAMA is your typical liberal demacratic nit wit dumber them a stick
February 23, 2008 - 08:21 PM on February 23rd, 2008
The “Soldier” who confronted Rumsfeld later admitted that the question was fed to him by a reporter because reporters were not allowed in the meeting to ask questions. At the time that that question had been asked, over 90% of the Hummvs in theatre had been upgraded so the question was moot by the time that it was asked.
A little fact about military supply that liberals don’t seem to comprehend. Military equipment shortages are a fact of life, especially the first 8 - 10 years after a Democratic presidency. Equipment doesn’t just miraculously appear in military supply rooms. Money has to be requested by the White House, and allocated by Congress, bids have to be submitted, contracts awarded and then the equipment must be built. ALL OF THE ABOVE TAKES TIME. Additionally if the White House doesn’t ask for enough (it never does) or Congress fails to allocate enough (which Dems ALWAYS do) not enough equipment can be purchased. When I got out of the Army in 1987, the 4th Infantry division still had not received kevlar helmets or any form of body armor despite it being on the Modified Table of Organization and Equipment for probably 10 years. Why? Because the military was an extremely low priority during the Carter Administration and even under Reagan, Congress would not allocate enough money for body armor to supply the entire Army instead allocating it in dribs and drabs never taking into account that body armor has a usable life expectancy that meant that front line high priority units like the 82nd Airborne and the 101st Airborne were needing replacements before the initial issue had ever reached the 4th ID. As the RDF units were higher priority, they would receive their replacement body armor in lieu of us receiving any. Had a war broken out in Europe, we’d have had to go to war with the same 20 yr old steel helmets that had seen service in Vietnam. For that matter, I was riding around in a Vietnam era M151A1 Jeep that can’t even be sold surplus because the NHTSA deems them unsafe to operate on the roads for a number of reasons. There is a reason why one of Murphy’s laws of combat is “if you’re low on everything but enemy, you’re in combat.”
February 23, 2008 - 10:14 PM on February 23rd, 2008
SFL is an idiot and a liar suporting an idiot and a liar. Both are Democrat, so it figures.
February 24, 2008 - 02:17 AM on February 24th, 2008
SFL isn’t stupid. He’s ignorant of facts and naive, but not necessarily stupid. He needs to spend a bit more time actually living in the real world and less living in liberal enclaves wherein reality doesn’t have to be faced on a daily basis.
February 26, 2008 - 07:24 PM on February 26th, 2008
Army Chief of Staff defends Obama’s “story”
http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/Obama_s_Army_equipment_story_may_be_02262008.html
February 26, 2008 - 08:41 PM on February 26th, 2008
Did you read what the article said? Do you know who Casey is?
February 26, 2008 - 09:47 PM on February 26th, 2008
Pretty much backs up what Obama was told and what he then said at the debate…
Another “scandal” bites the dust…
February 27, 2008 - 06:35 AM on February 27th, 2008
No, what it said was Obama should have done his homework. It says that the unit was staffed, and there may have been spot shortages, but these guys were not out scrounging enemy ammo and guns.
It negates what Obama said! Had Obmama talked to the proper people that he has access to, he could have found this out.
February 27, 2008 - 10:42 AM on February 27th, 2008
43, FAO, SFL’s demonstrated inability to read with understanding is posted by himself in 50 and 52. He is an idiot.
February 27, 2008 - 10:53 AM on February 27th, 2008
Regardless of the technical details behind the story, the fact that Obama regurgitated it, complete with fundamental errors and logic holes you could drive a truck through, demonstrates he is utterly ignorant about the composition, doctrine, role, and command of the US Military.
Translation: He’s not ready for primetime, especially in wartime.
And HilLiary loathes the Military. So there’s nothing on the Democrite side that can do that job.
February 27, 2008 - 10:59 AM on February 27th, 2008
In fact, I will now make the point that unless someone has served in the US Military, they are not qualified to be CIC.
February 27, 2008 - 03:11 PM on February 27th, 2008
I agree Robert. With things the way they are in the world, countries first hating us then begging us for our help when things get tough for them I think it would be in our best interest to elect a military man for President. Anyone less and they’ll go the diplomacy route right down the path of destruction for us.
Conversation with a liberal just the other day regarding the non vote of surveillance laws by the House.
“So you feel safer now that we can’t surveil terrorists?”
“Yes, I do.”
“Great, then you’re okay with hundreds, maybe thousands of Americans killed in another terrorist attack?”
Silence. Complete blank stare.
Yup, those non military types sure do like to TALK.