Big Dogs Weblog

Obama Winning is a Consequence of Bad Judgment

by Big Dog on Feb 22, 2008 at 19:02 Military, Political

In the debate Barack Obama made a statement that might lend credence to Hillary’s new mantra about being ready to be Commander in Chief. Obama told a story that is rather nuanced. Yes it has elements of truth but some items are half truths designed to say George Bush is a bad Commander in Chief. Ask the troops who they would rather have in charge Mr. Obama, the answer would not be you.

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.

This whole statement was open to a lot of criticism because Captains do not lead platoons and platoons do not get split across two theaters. Additionally, our troops sometimes do not get all that they need but this is not because the president is not supplying them, it is because Congress fails to provide for them. They hold the purse strings. Humvees have been in short supply throughout the war.

Turns out the Captain was a Lieutenant at the time and that they had trouble getting items related to grenade launchers and .50 cal machine guns and only in training (though we might never really know if this is true because he remains anonymous). Obama made it sound as if they could not get supplies and that they had to get Taliban weapons in order to fight. Soldiers have always scrounged for equipment on the battlefield and if they capture weapons there is no reason not to use them. However, that is a far cry from saying they needed to get the enemy’s weapons in order to fight.

Obama acts like it is easier for our troops to use AKs and get ammunition for them than it is to get ammunition for our own weapons. Where does he think we would get ammo for those weapons, from Taliban supply? I would also like to know how, if we don’t get ammunition, we were able to get these AKs that we are using. Did we walk up and ask for them? If we are using their weapons there is a good chance that we took them in battle so we had to have ammo to do that. As for our ammunition, it becomes scarce on missions but the supply of it from the logistical system has not been much of a problem.

The last thing Obama said was that; “it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief. That was a consequence of bad judgment.” As stated Mr. Obama, the Commander in Chief does not equip the men and women of the armed forces. They are equipped by the Congress who votes for budgets that send them ammunition, uniforms, Humvees, and any number of other items needed to prosecute the war. The President signs those when they get to his desk. I would like to know how it is that you think George Bush failed to properly equip our soldiers…

…when you voted against the war funding bill that would have supplied them. Matter of fact, both Obama and Clinton voted against it (“Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Hilary Clinton (N.Y.) were among the 14 who opposed the bill”). What makes them think they are qualified to be Commander in Chief when they are incapable of taking care of the troops? It is easy for Mr. Obama to say that this Commander in Chief did not properly equip the troops but the reality is, both Democratic candidates were the ones who failed to provide for the men and women of the armed forces. The president does not provide for the troops, the Congress does and these two have failed miserably in that regard.

Barack Obama is leading in the delegate count and Hillary is desperate to win Texas and Ohio. She is touting credentials that would make her a better Commander in Chief than him. They both failed to provide funding for the troops but want us to believe that they would be the best to lead them. As for Obama, his statement was very misleading and many of the people watching that debate had no idea that he had stretched the truth in order to portray something that was not quite true so that he could slam President Bush. It is interesting that Obama slams Clinton for being part of the old establishment and then he tells a story that had Bill Clinton deception in it.

It all depends upon what the meaning of is, is.

Picking Obama or Clinton to lead our troops would be a consequence of bad judgment. Neither has ever served in the military and it shows.

On a side note, a bunch of the Obamamaniacs follow him like he is a cult leader. They chant for him and think he is wonderful. They want us to accept him as a great man who can lead and they want us to ignore his use of drugs and alcohol in his youth. They tell us that does not matter after they spent all that time telling us that George Bush was not fit to lead because of his drug and alcohol use in his youth…

As for being qualified to be Commander in Chief, John McCain has more qualifications in that department than both of these two combined.

Others:
Flopping Aces | Cop the Truth | The Jawa Report | Hot Air | Hot Air (2) | Datatroll | The Political Inquirer | The American Pundit | A Blog for All

Tags: debate, exaggerations, Hillary, no military experience, Obama, stretching the truth