Video: Let’s stop “just air-raiding villages and killing civilians” in Afghanistan, says Messiah; Update: AP “fact checks” GOP attacks on Obama quote
posted at 2:50 pm on August 14, 2007 by Allahpundit
We’ve gotten four or five e-mails about this since Glenn posted on it last night and Captain Ed went nuclear on it this morning. I’m loath to defend his holiness but I think this is less a case of Obama meaning to cast unfair aspersions on the troops in Afghanistan than being too flip in describing a serious recurring problem. The fact is, there have been a number of high profile airstrikes lately that ended up killing — unintentionally, of course — large numbers of Afghan civilians. That’s not according to the lying, lying Taliban, either. Here’s a report from May quoting the governor of Helmand province claiming that 21 civilians died in a raid on jihadis; here’s another from June reporting 25 dead sourced to a local police chief; and here’s one just a few days later citing estimates from Afghan officials of 60 dead in the latest strikes. It’s a longstanding issue, sufficiently so as to have drawn a promise from NATO at the start of the year to do more to avoid collateral damage, but this fiasco in March brought the problem to a head.
The Taliban’s obviously using the locals as human shields, as brave mujahideen are wont to do, but reminding Afghans of that fact isn’t going to do much to reduce the heat Karzai’s feeling from the public over it. In fact, if the Guardian’s numbers are right, as of late June there had been slightly more Afghans killed this year by coalition action than by the Taliban. Obama’s point, as I take it, is that the more troops we have on the ground, the less we need to rely on air power, and the more precise our attacks on the enemy will be. The jerky part was adding the word “just,” which I’m guessing is his nod at how Afghans may perceive U.S. operations sometimes.
Update: Romney’s campaign responds to Obama. This is the second time in the past few weeks they’ve gone for a cheap applause line at his expense.
Update: Wow. Their point is well taken — I made it myself, after all — but let me know when they do any “fact checking” of Democratic attacks on Republicans. That’s not an article, it’s a campaign press release.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Here’s my problem with Obama’s statement. First, when he says, “just air-raiding villages and killing civilians” he is obviously trying to portray our military action as simple, almost juvenile, as if the extent of or military planning includes only (“just”) bombing the place. Second, I find it hard to believe that six years into this war (GWOT) a candidate for the office of the president, can’t understand why our target rich environments have civilians in them. These animals surround themselves with civilians. In fact, those hypothetical AQ camps in Pakistan, the ones that he was just itchen to bomb, would no doubt have been populated with what would be reported as innocent women and children. He may not have said that we are targeting civilians, but he left the idea of lazy and simple military planning, which resulted in civilian losses, on the table. And after hearing briefing after briefing by our commanders on how carefully they choose their munitions for a mission, I know that there is nothing lazy or simple about our military planning, and I know for certain that if Obama were Pres. civilians would still die.
Weight of Glory on August 14, 2007 at 5:01 PM
AP,
You’re probably right, he is speaking FROM that perspective. Obama’s problem is that he’s speaking AS candidate for POTUS. His words count as he says them, not as they are fact checked, spun, and analyzed by pundits, and commented on by the HA community. As he said the words they were less than helpful.
I would defend your honor except for the 258 milliseconds you made me look at Rosie.
TunaTalon on August 14, 2007 at 5:03 PM
Besides, when someone is biased towards a political party, I think it’s better if that person is actually harder on that particular party. I’m not saying that you’re doing that here, just that I’d be fine even if you were.
Esthier on August 14, 2007 at 4:58 PM
“To whom more is given, more is asked. To whom less is given, less is asked”
- Somebody or other
MB4 on August 14, 2007 at 5:05 PM
I would defend your honor except for the 258 milliseconds you made me look at Rosie.
TunaTalon on August 14, 2007 at 5:03 PM
Anyone who looks at Rosie for more than 257 milliseconds has no honor left. Thems the rules.
MB4 on August 14, 2007 at 5:07 PM
Seems to me, if you are going to run to be the President of the USofA, that you would not only talk it, but be it…smart.
Say that you would like to see All of what’s going on. I mean, does Obama have regular chats with the generals on the ground, overseas? Does he have a clear picture, of the big picture? Doesn’t sound like it.
Also, Allahp made a point that Obama was not putting down the US Troops, that he was seeing it from the perspective of Afghanis.
He’s running to be our president. Not theirs.
He’s running to be commander and chief of our warriors.
He could have thrown in, “..because the Taliban/terrorists use the civilians. The terrorists put the civilians in harms way on purpose – or whatever…”….
See…it can’t just be, “we are screwing up”
He should have spoken more in depth, or just shut up. IMHO
Bush is not running for President. Can’t they do this country some good and Run on their own credentials and stop playing childish blame games?
bridgetown on August 14, 2007 at 5:07 PM
War is hell, one can not nor should not refine it.
SilverStar830 on August 14, 2007 at 3:36 PM
Agreed.
Everyone knows that your commentary is at least half the reason anyone comes here….Esthier
Ummm…using words like everyone and anyone is always danagerous and probably not true.
MarkB on August 14, 2007 at 5:12 PM
Yeah! Everyone knows that. heh.
Weight of Glory on August 14, 2007 at 5:13 PM
Mr. Hope’s Freudian slip is showing.
He just didn’t do well in pandering 101 at silverspoonupyourbutt private school in Hawaii.
Was this statement full of hope?
He’s John Kerry(D) with bigger ears.
DANEgerus on August 14, 2007 at 5:14 PM
That AP article is freekin joke. AP civilian casualty trackers figure we killed more civilians than AQ or Taliban. That is such BS. Wonder if they got their numbers by cold calling Iraqi civilians counting every person that said yeah I have a cousin or I have a friend in the next city that was…
According to the American media aka enemy propaganda outlets every time we kill enemy there is always the obligatory “wedding party” “funeral party” “Innocent civilians” even thou usually the bodies are identified as fighter aged men with the occasional wife/prostitute/children in tow. I am sorry but if you are married to a Jihadi and hanging out in his hideout planning to kill civilians you are not innocent.
What the Obama comment shows is just what he really thinks. It is way past time for the Republicans and the people to wake up and realize large numbers of those so called Americans on the Left truly believe we are the enemy and we are the problem.
C-Low on August 14, 2007 at 5:15 PM
That would be Jesus.
Esthier on August 14, 2007 at 5:15 PM
Maybe so, but I’m convinced that statement would stand if tested.
Esthier on August 14, 2007 at 5:17 PM
LOL
Spirit of 1776 on August 14, 2007 at 5:21 PM
I mean, does Obama have regular chats with the generals on the ground, overseas? Does he have a clear picture, of the big picture? Doesn’t sound like it.
Also, Allahp made a point that Obama was not putting down the US Troops, that he was seeing it from the perspective of Afghanis.
He’s running to be our president. Not theirs.
See…it can’t just be, “we are screwing up”
He should have spoken more in depth, or just shut up. IMHO
bridgetown on August 14, 2007 at 5:07 PM
I mean, does Bush have regular chats with the generals on the ground, overseas, I mean other than those who he put there who will tell him what he wants to hear? Does he have a clear picture, of the big picture, of Islam? Doesn’t sound like it.
Also, someone made a point that Bush was not abusing US Troops, that he was seeing it from the perspective of Iraqi nation building and Iraqi moms and dads.
He’s suppose to be our President, not theirs.
See…it can’t just be the canard of, “we are fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them here”
He should act with more depth, or just go away. IMHO
Incoming!!!
MB4 on August 14, 2007 at 5:25 PM
MB4
Grrrr :)
Prove to me that the Generals only tell Bush ‘what he wants to hear’.
No idea what the President knows of Islam, and neither do you.
Someone made a point about Bush not abusing US Troops.
Who is that person, and what the? That’s absurd. Our troops are absolutely Not abused, and by the way, our forces are volunteers.
He is our president, and he is also playing an executive role in helping the Iraqis build their own.
If it were a simple thing, it would be handled by now.
Act with more depth?
If you gave me one sentence that wasn’t shallow, I’d respond with more depth…
Grrrrrrrrrr
bridgetown on August 14, 2007 at 5:32 PM
I was thinking the exact same thing, RightWinged. Going out of his way to give Senator Obama the benefit of the doubt and explain away this completely irresponsible pandering to the hate-the-military-because-they-are-dumb-stupid-incompetent-babykillers base?
And those who keep attacking people with “I didn’t know I had to tow the party line” BS. This place is getting ridiculous.
Newsflash. Supporting the war effort and calling out Democrats on their irresponsible pandering is not “towing the party line”.
In fact, AllahPundits explanations for Senator Obama’s ridiculous statement is actually a perfect example of why his words were so bad. IF… as AllahPundit claims to know… Senator Obama knows all these things and is speaking from the perspective of the Afghani people, he should have explained in a Presidential manner why we are conducting these airstrikes and why there is collateral damage: because the terrorists are using the civilians as human shields.
This statement by Senator Obama is just as irresponsible as Senator Kerry stating that soldiers were busting down doors and terrorizing women and children in the middle of the night.
All of us here by now know that the Democrats have NEVER EVER had one good thing to say about the war effort, its progress, the intelligence and success of the efforts of the soldiers all across the country. So to put this statement in proper context, this is simply one more veiled attack on the U.S. military. Everyone knows that is not the ONLY thing we are doing in Afghanistan… or Iraq for that matter.
Things are much more complicated and strategic than that. For Senator Obama to simply sum up our entire Afghanistan campaign with that one line of “air raids and killing civilians” is absolutely irresponsible.
And for anyone to apologize for it is ridiculous.
AllahPundit, I really suggest you spend some time reading Military Blogs such as Mudville Gazette and especially Mrs. Greyhawk’s DAWN PATROLs. Because your negativity and cynicism about our war effort is really getting tiring.
If you would put even half the effort into supporting this damn war that you and HotAir and Michelle Malkin did for the Amnesty Bill, that might help, instead of all this “everything’s f’ed, oh well, nothing we can do” attitude in every single one of your posts on the “war on terror”.
And John, I had a lot of respect for you from your blog Op-For and I work with one of your fellow bloggers there and hold a lot of respect for him, but I am really losing respect for you based on your snark and snide comments here.
Michael in MI on August 14, 2007 at 5:37 PM
Oh well, if the AP has been keeping track of the numbers, it must be the gosple
Please
conservnut on August 14, 2007 at 5:37 PM
I can’t understand the fuss. Obama is stupid and proves it eveytime he opens his mouth. “You can’t fix stupid”. Perfect running mate for the bitch from hell.
leanright on August 14, 2007 at 5:47 PM
This is silly. B.O.’s qualifications for the democratic nomination are cultural, but unrelated to the position in question. He can run, and he can win, but the point remains.
JiangxiDad on August 14, 2007 at 5:51 PM
MB4
Grrrr :)
lol :)
Prove to me that the Generals only tell Bush ‘what he wants to hear’.
What I said was more along the lines of he picks the Generals, or Admirals when he can’t find Generals, who tell him what he wants to hear. I think that it is now 5 out of 7 top inter service jobs that are held by Admirals. Why do you think that is?
No idea what the President knows of Islam, and neither do you.
George Bush, “Islam is a Great Religion of Peace”. I rest my case.
Someone made a point about Bush not abusing US Troops.
Who is that person, and what the? That’s absurd. Our troops are absolutely Not abused, and by the way, our forces are volunteers.
You just, right now, made the point/claim that Bush is not abusing the troops. In fact you even just said absolutely. The troops volunteered, but not for 15 month, multiple tours “nation building” for Shiites and Sunnis who would rather kill each other.
He is our president, and he is also playing an executive role in helping the Iraqis build their own.
Build their own what? Certainly not a rule of law, respect for individual rights, democracy, that will serve as an example for the entire middle east!
If it were a simple thing, it would be handled by now.
If Bush had any sense we would be out of Iraq by now!
Act with more depth?
If you gave me one sentence that wasn’t shallow, I’d respond with more depth…
Dig two shallow graves.
Grrrrrrrrrr
lol
bridgetown on August 14, 2007 at 5:32 PM
MB4 on August 14, 2007 at 5:57 PM
Comeon, don’t be mad at AP. I mean, like other “journalist” organizations, it’s got people on the ground and embedded… just not with us.
TheEJS on August 14, 2007 at 5:58 PM
maybe obama should be sent Yons article birds Eye View.
“The idea was to use just the amount of force to kill the enemy fighters, but leave everyone in the surrounds unscathed, if possible. If that was not possible, often they would simply not fire, but other times they would. Judgment call…..I have no idea if they killed them and if they did, what method they finally settled on. But I know that when there is that kind of careful deliberation in the TOC, combined with excellent combat soldiers on the streets, numbers that otherwise would seem unbelievable are believable.”
Maybe he is making a point but for someone to be in the CINC seat he should know that sometimes that is going to happen.
CaptainObvious on August 14, 2007 at 5:58 PM
Can you back that up with facts showing the flag officers in place are incompetent lapdogs? How bout Petraeus? Ordierno?
We all know you think Pace and Meyers before him are administrative cronies, but was Franks?
Fact is, thanks to clinton, there were a lot of bad generals that never should have been promoted, like weasle clark.
Troops volunteer for anything MB4, something made perfectly clear when signing your contracting forms. I’m sure the guys in WWII would’ve appreciated seeing home in 15 month tours; many never saw home at all.
TheEJS on August 14, 2007 at 6:05 PM
Can you back that up with facts showing the flag officers in place are incompetent lapdogs? How bout Petraeus? Ordierno?
I did not say they were incompetent lapdogs. Let’s not get carried away now.
We all know you think Pace and Meyers before him are administrative cronies, but was Franks?
My dream ticket for 2008 – Jeff Sessions/Tommy Franks. Franks won the war and did it brilliantly and was smart enough not to stay for the “nation building” stuff.
Fact is, thanks to clinton, there were a lot of bad generals that never should have been promoted, like weasle clark.
I won’t argue that.
Troops volunteer for anything MB4, something made perfectly clear when signing your contracting forms. I’m sure the guys in WWII would’ve appreciated seeing home in 15 month tours; many never saw home at all.
Most guys in WWII spent less cumulative time in a combat zone that those going on multiple tours in Iraq/Afghanistan have. Believe to the contrary is a myth.
TheEJS on August 14, 2007 at 6:05 PM
MB4 on August 14, 2007 at 6:15 PM
And these people want to be the Commander-in-Chief. God help our troops if this happens.
SouthernGent on August 14, 2007 at 6:16 PM
What I said was more along the lines of he picks the Generals, or Admirals when he can’t find Generals, who tell him what he wants to hear. I think that it is now 5 out of 7 top inter service jobs that are held by Admirals. Why do you think that is?
OR, He picks the Generals or Admirals because the man sees current situations are not working. This is what a commander in chief is for.
George Bush, “Islam is a Great Religion of Peace”. I rest my case.
There is plenty of Peace within this religion. And this is the respectful thing to do, being the leader of the free world. He has not gone any deeper on that, and other subjects, which is annoying, but I can’t fault him for it. He goes deeper with actions, mostly.
You just, right now, made the point/claim that Bush is not abusing the troops. In fact you even just said absolutely. The troops volunteered, but not for 15 month, multiple tours “nation building” for Shiites and Sunnis who would rather kill each other.
Nation Building, as you call it. What I call it is High Honor, with Good intention. This is not an Evil Quest that we are on. You can not, as you can not speak for the President, you Can Not speak for the “Shiites and Sunnis”.
Build their own what? Certainly not a rule of law, respect for individual rights, democracy, that will serve as an example for the entire middle east!
Why Not?
If Bush had any sense we would be out of Iraq by now!
You are obviously Unaware of the complexity of moving an operation this size. You have no sense. And if you did, you’d realize the futility of leaving right now. (even if it took months to move out)
bridgetown on August 14, 2007 at 6:17 PM
P.S. I like Pace.
MB4 on August 14, 2007 at 6:18 PM
You mean guys like the 1st “Big Red One” in it since Torch in Africa? 82nd that fought through Sicily, Italy, into Normandy and Holland and St Vith? 8th AF in England, keeping the bombers going even with 600 men lost in one mission? The AVG in India-Burma-China? The sailors who were in Pearl on Dec 7th that went out to sea and kept out until the Japs were defeated? 1st Marine Div that went from Guadalcanal through Okinawa?
Ya, you’re completely right. I apologize for having the gall to believe in a myth.
TheEJS on August 14, 2007 at 6:22 PM
Nation Building, as you call it. What I call it is High Honor, with Good intention. This is not an Evil Quest that we are on.
NO ONE said it was an Evil Quest, but you do remember what they say about the “Road to Hell”
You can not, as you can not speak for the President, you Can Not speak for the “Shiites and Sunnis”.
I do not speak for Bush nor do I want to, that is Tony Snowjob’s job. The Shiites and Sunnis are “speaking” for themselves. I am just listening.
Build their own what? Certainly not a rule of law, respect for individual rights, democracy, that will serve as an example for the entire middle east!
Why Not?
See the Koran and Hadiths. See Robert Spencer and Hugh Fitzgerald. Smell the coffee.
If Bush had any sense we would be out of Iraq by now!
You are obviously Unaware of the complexity of moving an operation this size. You have no sense. And if you did, you’d realize the futility of leaving right now. (even if it took months to move out)
“You have no sense”. You must not have much confidence in your own arguments to resort to such ad hominium. No one said that “we” could leave over night. Bush has had four years. You have a very Iraqi centric view of the world.
bridgetown on August 14, 2007 at 6:17 PM
MB4 on August 14, 2007 at 6:31 PM
Allahpundit, take note. Ignorant people hate free thought. It too difficult for them to actually think. They may actually learn something. It is your job to defame Democrats no matter the facts. It must be fun to be torn apart by your own, especially when they misrepresent someone else’s quote to do it.
People, get a grip. You’re talking crazy.
sandman on August 14, 2007 at 6:34 PM
pot meet kettle
SilverStar830 on August 14, 2007 at 6:41 PM
Ya, you’re completely right. I apologize for having the gall to believe in a myth.
TheEJS on August 14, 2007 at 6:22 PM
“Troops in combat for years during WWII is a myth.
During WWII there were troop rotations. Aircrew rotated after 25 bombing missions. Fighter crews after 100 combat sorties. Among the Infantry, most of the troops participating in North Africa and Italy were rotated out to be replaced by fresh troops. The actual combat time for most U.S. troops in Europe was 10 months between Jun 1944 and Apr 1945. In the Pacific, over 75% of the troops that assaulted Iwo Jima in 1945 were unbloodied troops. In WWII, the average combat time for troops was seven months.
The troops currently serving in Iraq on their third and fourth combat tours have served more months in combat than any other American troops since the Civil War.”
- AirForceAggie from http://www.military.com
MB4 on August 14, 2007 at 6:43 PM
Damn skippy!
csdeven on August 14, 2007 at 7:22 PM
Now that’s what I call “fact checking”!
From all I can tell, the AP’s sources count any body not in uniform as a “civilian”.
taznar on August 14, 2007 at 7:51 PM
At 5:57pm, you said:
If Bush had any sense we would be out of Iraq by now!
“You have no sense”.
You: You must not have much confidence in your own arguments to resort to such ad hominium. No one said that “we” could leave over night. Bush has had four years. You have a very Iraqi centric view of the world.
MB4 on August 14, 2007 at 6:31 PM
Explain, please, how I’ve got an ‘iraqi centric view of the world’ .
Luck to you~
bridgetown on August 14, 2007 at 8:13 PM
I was just kidding Mike (and I hope Allah knows that)… I occasionally like to sarcastically jump on the “hate Allahpundit” bandwagon. On this particular issue, I probably don’t agree with wasting a post and giving the benefit of the doubt to this douche (Obama) when he was clearly pandering to the anti-military hate America crowd, and especially when there is plenty of news going on and I’m not sure why it doesn’t interest him… But I’m certainly not going to whine about it… again, I was only being sarcastic, and I certainly don’t believe for a second that AP is voting for Obama.
RightWinged on August 14, 2007 at 8:25 PM
Since no one else seems to have picked up on it in the past several hours… HA! Great reference.
BadgerHawk on August 14, 2007 at 8:28 PM
Just a reminder boys and girls:
The Presidency isn’t an entry level position. Being “flip” about the troops’ actions or expressng a complete and total ignorance about international relations are signs that the man isn’t qualified to be President. It really is that simple and, yes, I absolutely question his patriotism- Obama makes too many of these anti-military comments for it to simply be red meat for the moonbats.
highhopes on August 14, 2007 at 9:02 PM
Nothing more embarassing than a wimp trying to sound “tough”.
It would be like Harry Reid throwing rocks at a lion’s cage dressed as a cartoon bumblingbee.
profitsbeard on August 14, 2007 at 9:11 PM
Explain, please, how I’ve got an ‘iraqi centric view of the world’ .
Luck to you~
bridgetown on August 14, 2007 at 8:13 PM
Iraqi-centric belief system:
1) All roads start in Iraq.
2) All roads end in Iraq.
3) The Sun revolves around Iraq.
4) The moon revolves around Iraq.
5) The stars revolve around Iraq.
6) If the United States does not keep sufficient troop mass in Iraq, the orbital stability of the Earth will become unbalanced and all Muslim terrorists will slide into America.
If you do not have an Iraqi centric view, then good for you. You may even be on your way to an Iraqi epiphany.
MB4 on August 14, 2007 at 9:25 PM
Obama’s comments are at least irresponsible, and in my opinion, inexcusable.
MT on August 14, 2007 at 9:48 PM
Obama want’s large numbers of US troops fighting everywhere on the globe except Iraq. He’s a bright one.
nottakingsides on August 14, 2007 at 10:12 PM
“Civilians”?!
Can we please acknowledge that an insurgent’s wife(s) and children are counted as civilians. That his neighbors, well aware of his activities, are counted as civilians. That anyone who’s body is found without a gun (at the time) is counted as a civilian.
Until we get gender, ages, and proximity for each strike – I will remain “unconvinced”. If a target is missed, that is one thing. But if insurgents are having a party in a warehouse with their families – hasta la vista.
Our military does not lay waste to whole “villages” (not that there is anything wrong with that). They won’t even destroy the poppy fields.
So Obama is either ill-informed (prejudiced or guessing), or he is pandering. As a black man, I reject him out of hand – with a long campaign ahead, he can only get worse. What’s more he is a pawn, a token.
Democrats pull out a “black candidate” when they need a guaranteed black vote – worked for Clinton (almost for Kerry). This is no excuse for Republicans, but it doesn’t impress me.
Agrippa2k on August 14, 2007 at 10:23 PM
Furthermore, Republicans better be looking up potential black (or female) VP candidates. I suggest a wealthy businessman (woman). Someone unapologetic (a Black Cheney).
Now if such a man tells someone to go “F**k” himself…
Such a move would be an obvious conclusion for someone like Gulliani. But it would utterly befuddle the left for Mitt Romney.
Perhaps Republicans are resign to defeat. Not me.
Agrippa2k on August 14, 2007 at 10:36 PM
Bomb Iran.
After Pakistan.
MSimon on August 14, 2007 at 11:22 PM
Question: Do 90% of the people who would vote for Barack the Magic Negro even pay attention to anything he says?
infidel4life on August 14, 2007 at 11:26 PM
Ya know, if Obama keeps sticking his foot in his mouth, Hillary is not going to be able to run him as her VP.
csdeven on August 15, 2007 at 12:44 AM
I could be wrong here, but isn’t or wasn’t Colin Powell giving Obama advice on foreign policy? Am I missing something here? First the meetings with Mahmoud Kim Jong and Hugo. Then Pakistan. Now this. Doesn’t seem Powell like.
PowWow on August 15, 2007 at 12:48 AM
Let’s please sit back until the perfect shot comes up..and while we do that, let’s watch them gather more and more civilians around them to use as shields as we know they do..and we’ll watch them recruit more and more…and then we find out..whoops..no such perfect shot exists…/the horror!
Do we really think the Tommy Franks of the military are dumb and take casualties lightly unless it is a huge strategic target that will actually SAVE not only American lives but Afghanistan lives as well? Ponder that.
Who is to say that people are civilians over there in how they fight?
obama said a stupid thing..he says stupid things all the time. For a guy like him to bitch and whine to a reporter about how dare the reporter make fun of his ears and that he’s supersentive so please don’t do it again. Can you imagine what a terrorist might think replaying that clip of him whining? Haha…I’d be pissing my pants if I were the terrorist on what a wimp that was. If he thinks the whole ear thing is super sensitive..just wait!
I want a true leader that has some cajones for President, not some wet limp noodle that gets his feelings hurt over his ears. This is the President of the United States we are talking about.
Highrise on August 15, 2007 at 1:18 AM
This isn’t the first stupid thing obama has said and it won’t be the last for sure. I haven’t had respect for the pansy ever since he whined to a reporter because a comment was made about his ears. That is no way for a potential President to talk. And his wife talks over him like she’s running, that is just a bit wierd for a Presidential candidate to be.
He makes it sound like our armed forces shoot from the hip and aren’t careful and don’t check things out. I call bullcrap..and think a few should read Tommy Franks’ book..really good book. I also call out that we can’t trust the numbers bantered around on who is a civilian and who isn’t. It isn’t all that easy to look at a dead person and be able to tell. These terrorists do not fight like other wars have been fought, they are cowards and use civilians as shields.
Sometimes, strategic bombing can actually save more civilian lives. I trust the military to do this, not obama.
A Presidential candidate needs to think a little bit about the impact of his statements WorldWide and not wing stuff off the cuff that gets us into trouble such as his pakistan comment and this one. If I were in the military, I’d be insulted. Hell, I’m insulted as an American citizen in hear him say this. Whose side are you on obama? Whose side?
Highrise on August 15, 2007 at 1:30 AM
Obama is STUPID.
He can’t be made UNSTUPID. Not by AP. Not by any of his spinmeisters.
He is incompetent and NOT QUALIFIED to be President of the United States of America.
georgej on August 15, 2007 at 2:22 AM
Hey,
Lets try and keep the truth a little bit going here – Obama was NOT smearing the troops
You surely can find other reasons NOT to vote for him like, well, his voting record
Geez lets all not sound like the truthers
EricPWJohnson on August 15, 2007 at 2:28 AM
Before I hit the wow link in the latest AP update I thought either Jennifer Loven or Nedra Pickler
Whadda you know…NEDRA PICKLER! THE LEAST SHOCKING REVELATION OF THE DAY
Topsecretk9 on August 15, 2007 at 3:08 AM
Well, I’ve been on the “let’s not blow this thing up in to something it wasn’t” side of things here, but Eric you’ve got to admit that while he wasn’t explicitly attacking the troops, he most certainly was trying to appeal to the liberal base who thinks America is always the problem, that we’re targeting civilians, etc. etc. While he may have chosen his words so that he has an out, he was clearly playing to a Democrat crowd because those type of people eat this stuff up.
It’s not as bad as Kerry’s “botched joke”, because he was CLEARLY talking about the troops… speaking to college aged kids, and saying if you don’t study hard you get stuck in Iraq, asserting what Dems do with regularity, that the troops are a bunch of idiots who had no other path in life… he didn’t leave himself an out, because when he claimed that his “if you work/study hard” comments were in reference to Bush, it didn’t wash because Bush got better grades than he did! But he was in front of a bunch of left-wing uninformed college sheep who ate it up, and he didn’t see anything wrong with it until he was caught. Btw, even after the troops expressed outrage he didn’t take responsibility… he instead blamed them (attacking them a second time) for misunderstanding him (calling them stupid again?) and blamed the White House for “spinning” it. When they weren’t even behind the push to expose the comments.
Again, Obama’s comments weren’t as bad because in context you can understand what he’s saying… sort of… but he was deliberately insensitive about it because a crowd that goes to hear him speak WANTS to hear that our troops are the bad guys. If he truly wanted to find “another way” to deal with the military situation he speaks of, he could have done it 1. in a more professional way, and 2. in an official capacity, not on the stump.
Gingrich really stuck it to him and Hillary by the way if anyone is able to catch that somewhere if they didn’t already. I believe he called Hillary’s latest ad “contemptible”.
RightWinged on August 15, 2007 at 4:43 AM
Once again Obama underwhelms.
His comments reveal that he has little to no understanding of the military situation in Afghanistan.
The problem isn’t that there are “too few American troops” to finish the job. The problem is that there are thousands of NATO troops currently in Afghanistan doing nothing. The Germans, the Italians, and the French all have their contingents in areas that are pacified and absolutely refuse to expose them to combat operations.
Mike Honcho on August 15, 2007 at 5:54 AM
Rightwinged
first thank you for your reply – please do not read too much into my short answer
Obama has several flaws – more than enough in my mind to qualify him as to never be trusted with higher office.
Going off the deep end gives him
Publicity
Fund raising material
Reemphasising his property deals, his terrible voting record and hammering home is liberal view points
Surely isn’t that enough?
EricPWJohnson on August 15, 2007 at 6:02 AM
No one seems to have said it but Allah thanks for making this site an interesting one to say the least. If a person finds themself agreeing with a writer about as much as they disagree with them, the writer is doing their job superbly because they cause the reader to actually think.
Re the thread, it is a fairly innocuous statement ripe for being pounced on by critics but does show he probably isn’t quite ready for the presidency. But that is what an election cycle is all about – so we can better measure each person’s deeds and words.
The in-fighting among some here is really funny – kind of like some of the Ky get togethers I attend. Lots of yelling past one another with no common agreement on ANYTHING and fueled exponentially by the amount of alcohol served.
Bradky on August 15, 2007 at 6:06 AM
Should have added “in the context of what kind of team he has assembled and campaaign he has conducted.”
Bradky on August 15, 2007 at 6:11 AM
Oh yeah, he’s a mess and there’s plenty to work with… I just wanted to note that while I largely agree with those who don’t want to make this in to something it’s not, I do feel he was in a “safe” place before the liberal base, who feeds off comments that can place America and the military in a bad light. If it’s anything we’ve learned over the past few years, it’s that they like to attack the military as the bad guys (Murtha is a perfect example of this, even when the facts weren’t in). Need we revisit how the media and the left handled Abu Ghraib? I do think he meant to get that crowd going, but as I say, he can say “I was just attacking the policy”, which is technically accurate.. but again, why not handle it differently, rather than making this statement on the stump.
But again, there’s plenty of other things to attack him on… But this isn’t “nothing”, it’s just not as big as some want it to be. It’s not Murtha, it’s not their whip (too lazy to look up his name again) saying it would be bad for Democrats if things go well in Iraq, Reid saying it’s lost, Pelosi hanging out with our enemies, Durban comparing Gitmo troops to Nazis, Kerry calling troops stupid, saying they’re terrorizing women and children, etc. etc. etc.
RightWinged on August 15, 2007 at 6:20 AM
Will you still be voting for the Hillary/Obama ticket? Placing someone you say isn’t ready for prime time as second in line for the presidency?
“KY get togethers”? Please tell me you’re talking about the state or something, so long as it isn’t the jelly!
RightWinged on August 15, 2007 at 6:24 AM
I don’t believe that I’ve ever said I would vote for that ticket but feel free to prove that claim wrong.
You’ve been watching too many late night commercials. Of course it is the state!
Bradky on August 15, 2007 at 6:42 AM
Yeah, saying they were killing civilians is really supporting the troops…and adding the bit about truthers (playing the “truther card”), just about closes the argument. If you disagree, you must be a truther.
At best, at best, Obama is a loose cannon with his words. Country’s have had riots because of words like this, people die because of idiotic words like this. At worst, he will say anything to his base, and the more extreme the base, the more extreme he takes it…just to get a few votes. Can you say “vote whore”?
Now Reagan used his campaign for a higher purpose. Stating that the first job of his was to get our troops back (remember Carter and his lack of backbone). Reagan hammered that home, on the campaign. And what happened when he was elected? Solidiers released. That is what is missing (that Newt so eloquently stated) from the Dems. The desire to win this war. And hyprocrisy of stating they support the troops, but the troops are murdering (or in Hillary’s case, forgotten). If the Dems got on board, the war would be over much, much sooner, and they would have had the support of the American people (note I said American).
right2bright on August 15, 2007 at 7:39 AM
You mean kind of like Tancredo’s logic about threatening to nuke the holy sites? Rhetoric like that makes Obama seem like a Henry Kissinger in contrast…
Bradky on August 15, 2007 at 7:58 AM
So you agree. Obama is a vote whore and his remark is stupid.
Bradky, you are finally coming around.
You now consider Tancredo a front runner? We have to work on your poll analysis.
right2bright on August 15, 2007 at 8:20 AM
If this moronic little dolt is the best this country has to offer then all is lost and the nation’s demise will come quickly. Where do the politicos find these idiots?
rplat on August 15, 2007 at 8:51 AM
Sorry, foplks, but when Obama and his campaign spokesman say almost exactly the same thing, it’s not a slip of the tongue or an unfortunate phrasing. It’s intentional.
Obama meant to say that our soldiers are “just” bombing villages and his campaing manager meant to say that we’re “solely” doing the same thing.
One or the other and you might have an argument for an error on his part. Both of them? No way.
Jimmie on August 15, 2007 at 9:25 AM
RightWinged, thank you. You said exactly what I was trying to say only far better.
Zetterson on August 15, 2007 at 10:07 AM
I don’t know why posters are getting mad at the big A.
If he wants to vote for Obama, it’s his right.
JayHaw Phrenzie on August 15, 2007 at 10:22 AM
Let’s face it – Obama is intentionally stirring up the base just as he exploited the Kansas tornado situation last May by claiming 10,000 people had died, when the actual number was 12..
Obama joined the chirping chorus who blamed it on Bush and cleverly linked it to the Iraq War by claiming that our manpower and equipment were being used there instead of saving tornado victims.
As such, I completely disagree with AP’s assessment that
and
.
Buy Danish on August 15, 2007 at 11:33 AM
Ah well, can’t make everyone happy.
John from OPFOR on August 15, 2007 at 11:54 AM
B. Hussein is an empty suit. Could he have confused Okinawa with the Chinese perhaps? Is he having morning coffee with murtha these days?
He doesn’t even belong in congress, let alone the oval office or anywhere near the White House.
Heck, he would even get himself banned here at HA for the comments he makes…bomb this, bomb that…
…unless allahp only bans folks for mecca destruction comments.
shooter on August 15, 2007 at 12:02 PM
What Obama said was false, and it is a slam on our military, whether intentional or not.
He’s an idiot. He doesn’t have a freakin’ clue.
Bad rap? My patootie.
JannyMae on August 15, 2007 at 12:10 PM
AP… luv ya babe. You were my intro to blogs during Rathergate. But you’re backing the wrong horse on this one. You can find ways to defend what Obama said if you try hard, but why would you want to try hard when all evidence points to a case of chronic foot-in-mouth disease? Besides, his campaign doubled down on this one. Allow me to help you…
There, fixed that for you.
Immolate on August 15, 2007 at 12:27 PM
I’m clucking here in the desert. So let’s get this straight, the Dhems are going to run Hillary or Barrack. This is bad news? This guy is a gift that just keeps giving. We need to resurrect Lee Atwater from the dead so he can run Fred’s campaign.
Mojave Mark on August 15, 2007 at 12:29 PM
Let me speak slowly for you Bradky… you’re a Dem, and the Dem nominee is going to be Hillary and her VP will be Obama (like Kerry, the opinion polls dictate who she picks, which is why we know it will be him… plus we’re all sexists and racists if we don’t vote for that ticket)… So I’m asking, will you vote for that ticket (placing Obama second in line for the presidency), even though you say Obama isn’t ready to be president. I’m not saying you’ve claimed you’d vote for that ticket, I’m assuming you’re going to vote for the Dem ticket over the Republicans? Or are you a principled Green still holding out hope for Nader or something?
RightWinged on August 15, 2007 at 4:06 PM
Ok, so there’s a likely trade-off here; as in any strategic involvement.
More troop losses, less civilian losses; or vice-versa.
So, for each airstrike, we seem to have the option of losing either a dozen or two civilians, or a handful or more of our troops.
Anyone willing to answer the obvious question? What is the “breakpoint” ratio at which you’d switch policies? Obviously we’d be willing to run a plan expected to lose 1 troop member to avoid killing a million civilians. Obviously we’d be willing to run a plan expected to kill a civilian to save a million troops… but is there a magic ratio in which we should consider losses and restructure our strategy?
Since Obama is criticizing our current strategy, and recommending a different one (with a different ratio); perhaps he could explain at what ratio of expected civilian casualties to expected troop losses he’s willing to run a ground instead of an air campaign.
Somebody needs to make a rational decision based on understanding the actual comparison being proposed… I doubt Obama is willing to be that somebody.
gekkobear on August 15, 2007 at 4:18 PM
Slow is right curious fella with the Ky fantasy.
you said
I’ve been posting here since Nov 06. Go ahead and find any of the posts in which I claim a particular party. Even if you can, which I doubt does it really matter? The discussions are interesting but I will challenge conventional thought to start a conversation. Otherwise I’d just start my own site “I’m a Republican/Democrat/Green (whatever) — Love me, agree with me, and don’t dissent”
Bradky on August 15, 2007 at 6:20 PM
Bradky, and I mean this honestly not as some “name calling” personal attack… but I can’t say it without name calling… for someone to say the stupid things you do, they would have to be a Democrat. Sure, you may not be registered one, because the party isn’t quite insane enough for you yet… But you don’t have to identify yourself, your idiocy is telling enough.
RightWinged on August 15, 2007 at 9:27 PM
Nice spin job, Allah. I guarantee Obama’s campaign doesn’t have anyone as talented as you to do this for the candidate. Read everything they put out on this and then call me a liar, but I said it here first: this is by far the best defense dickhead Obama will get for his idiotic pandering.
I’m glad that the impertinent commenters here get the same benefit of a doubt that dipshit leftist Democrats get from you. They do, right?
Jaibones on August 15, 2007 at 9:32 PM
Oh to be twenty something and the smartest guy in the world…
Bradky on August 15, 2007 at 9:56 PM
The funny part about the whole flap around Obama is that Hillary has to do nothing — she knows that the knee jerk reactions on the right about Obama get her more mileage than any she could personally do.
Middle name Arabic? Manchurian candidate
Father is Muslim? Got to be a plant ready to bring Sharia law unto the land
Statement taken out of context? Hates the troops
AP is not the problem – it is willing dupes who just can’t let the Dems beat each other up. Doing a helluva job I might add as well.
Before you fire off the expected volley, take 30 seconds and think about it.
Bradky on August 15, 2007 at 10:02 PM
Yeah, like when you assert that the country is evenly divided 50/50 Dem/Repub, and pretend you corrected… even though you didn’t, and continue to be dishonest about what the stats say, among your countless other dishonest and insane comments you’ve posted. Again, it’s not just an attack or know it all thing, because half the time it’s not an “opinion” disagreement. It’s that you’re just that stupid. Again, I’m not trying to call you a name, but that’s just how it is. And because of the level of stupidity, it’s clear what party you align yourself with (unless you’re a Ron Paul supporter and the only “real” Republican around here).
RightWinged on August 15, 2007 at 11:16 PM
Wasn’t it you that struck Honora as a kind of stalker? Looks like I’m yoru a new target.
Embrace your bias and arrogance tightly youngster. In the cold dark night it is all you have left. Best of luck in find meaning to your existence. I’m done givng you the free therapy you so desperately need.
Bradky on August 16, 2007 at 12:04 AM
Okay psycho, first of all I don’t believe I was this person you’re talking about… secondly… That “embrace your bias” line doesn’t get any cooler, or make any more sense the more you repeat it.
And no, what I have is honesty and a disdain for insanely dishonest folks like yourself.
Folks, to learn all you need to know about Bradky, follow our entire exchange, beggining to end, here:
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/05/05/party-of-truthers-most-dems-think-bush-knewnot-sure-if-he-knew-of-911/
RightWinged on August 16, 2007 at 12:46 AM
Give it up dude. Like your late great blog no one cares except you.
Bradky on August 16, 2007 at 12:48 AM
OH, hitting me where it hurts! A blog that I hardly ever used and still got 500+ hits a day 6 months after I stopped using it, and is down only because I had hosting problems and because I DON’T CARE. Man, do you ever get tired of being the most retarded person on here and always being wrong. Think about that, you are saying my blog is “late great” because no one cares, when in reality it’s only gone because I don’t care… if I wanted to invest the time I could get it up again, but it’s simply not a priority for me now.
As for not caring, why then are you responding? Yeaaaaaaaaah, that’s what I thought guy. Can’t wait ’til the next time you reveal your always amazing logic skills for us though.
What’s really funny is you keep trying to attack me as some young naive kid (which first of all, is ridiculous because as everyone knows people tend to trend conservative with age), yet your tactic is to mock my blog? HAha, nice. (and before you pull a “you started it” over me calling you stupid, again, I didn’t want to have to, but there was no other way to make my point. You were attempting to act as if I have no way to know you’re a Dem… I admit, I don’t, but based on how stupid your comments consistently are and the your lack of honesty and logic, it’s a pretty safe assumption that you’re a Dem, or perhaps that the party just isn’t far enough left for you.
Troll on.
RightWinged on August 16, 2007 at 1:13 AM
Now you are having imaginary conversations with me! Too rich.
Slowly step away from the keyboard and get some fresh air, you need it.
Bradky on August 16, 2007 at 1:38 AM
Ah, as always, failure to respond to anything I say, yet obsessively needing to reply with another pointless drive-by. And it’s not called an “imaginary conversation”, it’s called beating you to the punch because you libs are so predictable. Again, given your history if idiocy and dishonesty, I make sure I cover all bases because you people like to come back and avoid responding to specific points by focusing on one bit to divert the whole conversation. But you know this. I get tired of going back and forth when I can hand you your ass all at once.
You’re a different bird though. You just choose to bicker without ever addressing things I’ve said, because you’re a troll. You’re not arguing anything here, you’re just here to be a pain in the ass.
Look at your last few comments. That is Troll talk all the way. But I need air, you’re right.
RightWinged on August 16, 2007 at 1:56 AM
This assertion is not supported by the facts. Hillary’s campaign has been singularly focused on assisting “the Messiah” look like the Illinois general assembly nothing that he is, and then screaming about it moments later.
It’s true that she doesn’t need to do anything, but it’s not true that she isn’t doing anything. I am not sure why you think that.
Jaibones on August 16, 2007 at 10:15 AM
Actually, it was several of us (can’t let RightWinged get the credit on that one proud moment), and we also caught her coming on after the open enrollment under another name. And was banned again.
We know Honora, and you are no Honora…she actually had some pretty funny and clever things to say in her own leftist, twisted mind.
right2bright on August 16, 2007 at 11:26 AM
I agree with Allah. I don’t think Obama meant to smear out military. I think what is green here is how to speak about the war in such a way that doesn’t sound demeaning.
Look, Obama reads reports, just like all the candidates do. He read these things about air strikes killing Afghans and spoke about it. I don’t think he realizes how the details of the war are lost on the general public.
You know guys, it’s ok to defend the left if you honestly think they are being criticized wrongly. It’s ok to point out something decent about the other side. IT’S OK.
Except, of course, for Hillary. There is nothing decent about her.
Rightwingsparkle on August 17, 2007 at 3:43 PM
Sparkle, That’s an even better sentence without those last 11 words.
However, ABH –ABH – ABH.
TunaTalon on August 17, 2007 at 5:52 PM
I’m sure the U.S. Air Force is glad they have Obama’s support.
Christoph on August 17, 2007 at 8:53 PM
Except he’s a good speaker on many subjects, probably better than you and definitely better than me.
The problem here is he doesn’t know his subject matter. Sparkle nailed it.
It’s an important subject he doesn’t understand. Should be a deal killer.
Christoph on August 17, 2007 at 8:55 PM
versus
Announcing his own intentions to drop Iraq and invade Pakistan
The first quote passes judgement in current military actions. Obama says we are ‘just’ air raiding villages and killing civilians. The word ‘just’ is used to mean ‘only’ or ‘merely’ dpending upon context and the contents of his unformed brain. That statement definitely says the United States is acting as a war criminal.
His second expression, announcing he would invade Pakistan, that is, act militarily (we are already there) without permission of the Pak government is truely bizarre for someone seeking the office of Commander in Chief. He reveals his war strategy as a campaign point.
This mess-iah has now basically called the USA a war criminal, and to get on our good side, tells the Pakistanis that if he gets elected he will invade, when we already have a presence in that country.
What a great Commander in Chief he would be. This guy could really win the hearts and minds of our soldiers, if they have neither
entagor on August 18, 2007 at 12:18 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »