ABC interviews Obama’s Army source for last night’s ammo shortage claim; Update: AP “fact checks”
posted at 3:05 pm on February 22, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
An answer to the question of why Hillary hasn’t gone after him over it: Because, like me, she’s heard enough old stories of troops being underequipped not to doubt any new ones too strenuously. Even the Pentagon is skeptical but Jake Tapper was put in contact with the captain by Obama’s campaign and corroborated most of the details with him. The guy commanded the platoon back when he was a lieutenant, which explains the odd incongruence between rank and unit; the ammo shortages were related to grenade launchers and to .50 caliber machine guns, although only during training (problems with finding replacement parts for the weapons persisted into the theater); and they were short on humvees from day one and sometimes had to rely on pick-up trucks.
As for the Messiah’s essential claim that “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,” that’s a little more nuanced:
“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.
Stuart Koehl acknowledged this morning that troops do, as they always have, occasionally scrounge for weapons when they’re in a spot but mooching off the enemy isn’t regular practice, and even Obama’s source doesn’t suggest that it was. We’ll chalk up the exaggeration to, shall we say, audacity.
Milbloggers, everything squared away here?
Update: I was going to let this go since Tapper did good work in following up on the story but his snide “tsk tsk, right-wing bloggers” outro warrants some static. Like Rusty says, what does this mean?
I find that Obama’s anecdote checks out.
Well, except for that very minor detail about them not actually having to capture Taliban weapons to fight, okay. But how does it “check out” merely because Obama’s source for these explosive charges is willing to repeat them to a reporter? If you’re willing to take the guy at his word, fine, but the Times applied this same standard of “checking” to the McCain/Iseman rumors. How’d that work out for them?
Update: Ah, and here’s Yglesias in Greenwald mode, not paying attention to what the right-wingers he links actually write lest it complicate the narrative. I made a point of saying last night that the story could be true; troops are in fact underequipped. The Yglesias reimagining:
Basically, as you can see if you check the conservative blogs above, that story can’t possibly be true, and the fact that Obama would say it reflects either his dishonesty or else his gross ignorance of military matters.
No surprise: If he’s willing to gloss over the fact that Tapper’s source didn’t corroborate Obama’s basic claim, he’s willing to gloss over whatever else. Beauchamp redux, like the man says.
Update: The AP notices a detail that eluded Tapper and Yglesias:
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.
I didn’t know this either:
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.
Update: Never mind Tapper’s piece; read this illuminating post by Phil Carter instead, which does actually involve “checking out” details from beyond the source himself. Carter says he has in fact heard of guys using Taliban weapons because they can’t get parts for theirs and asserts that it’s a result of resources being diverted to Iraq, although it’s unclear how widespread the practice is and to what extent it would be happening anyway due to standard military inefficiency. As Carter says, “These stories are timeless; you’ll see similar ones in the narratives from WWII, Korea and Vietnam vets too. Anyone who’s dealt with the Army supply system – particularly at the pointy end of the spear – ought to be able to sympathize.”
Update: Vets for Freedom, which is sort of the hawkish counterpart to VoteVets, just issued a press release challenging Obama. I’m dreading this turning into another Beauchamp saga, I don’t mind telling you.
Update: I should note that Phil Carter is doing some work for the Obama campaign.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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: [1] 2 »
The “spin” is sooo thick, I’m dizzy just reading it. Sheeze!!!
kcd on February 22, 2008 at 3:10 PM
Just a small misunderstanding. I’m sure Obama meant no harm. But, the question still nags,..why did he vote against more funding for the military with these obvious concerns nibbling at him?
a capella on February 22, 2008 at 3:12 PM
Oh. Well in that case, it all makes perfect sense.
q2600 on February 22, 2008 at 3:12 PM
One thing for sure…..this Captain is going to be the most vetted officer since Ollie North. Lefty and righty bloggers, MSM, the service itself. Hope this fella has thick skin.
Limerick on February 22, 2008 at 3:13 PM
Hey, at least Obama coughed up the name of his source. Most libs wouldn’t have–they’d typically just puff up with outrage at the implication that we don’t trust them.
aero on February 22, 2008 at 3:15 PM
No way. Different mounting pintles.
And at any rate the Obamassiah tried to spin this at a theatre-wide problem, not an isolated instance.
pseudonominus on February 22, 2008 at 3:15 PM
The ABC report drops it from heinous to just ignorant. My main beef is that such a silly sounding story made it to the debate as Obama’s main point about the military. It was slanted and not an accurate portrayal, thus emphasizing his wekaness for the CinC role.
Cordially,
Uncle J
Uncle Jimbo on February 22, 2008 at 3:19 PM
This is the biggest pile of goat dung I’ve stepped in lately. Is Obambi really as stupid as he appears?
rplat on February 22, 2008 at 3:19 PM
So, he and the Dems are going to get right on that funding thing STAT? Right?
bbz123 on February 22, 2008 at 3:20 PM
Clear spin going here but the fact that troops used AK’s isn’t that surprising. If there’s one lying there and you just need to put some suppression fire why not save your own ammo? Just let rip with the AK then drop it when your done.
VeniVidiVidic on February 22, 2008 at 3:21 PM
you can be stupid when you have the media in your back pocket and a large segment of the public that feel instead of think. There would be no democrat party as we know it without that combo
jp on February 22, 2008 at 3:22 PM
H
Actually, I believe he just threw his source under the bus. Or Humvee as it were.
funky chicken on February 22, 2008 at 3:23 PM
But don’t you all understand that B.O. is offering us HOPE here?
As in….he HOPES that the news media will stop asking him for clarification on this AK-47 thing.
pilamaye on February 22, 2008 at 3:23 PM
The part that the Messiah can’t spin away is that this is another case of the US military adapting and overcoming. It’s been going on since our inception; adaptibility has survived Presidents and wars, and is just as strong as ever. So while he votes against our funding, then talks of how the CiC can’t get us adequate equipment, talking out of both sides of his mouth so hard he’s coming in in Stereo, those of us in uniform just laugh, find what works, and keep going.
Spc Steve on February 22, 2008 at 3:27 PM
If the Captain, a West Point grad, truly feels like he and his men were put in harms way unnecessarily then he has a moral and ethical obligation to step out of the shadows and tell his story. Obviously he considers his career more important than his men’s lives or he is a lair/exaggerator.
Were any of his men inured or killed because of these issues? Did they prevent them from accomplishing their mission? what were the consequences of these “problems.” How many units were similarly affected? We can’t get answers from somebody hiding behind the cloak of anonymity and obviously ABC does not care enough to ask. All they care about is smearing people bold enough to ask tough questions. If Obama had an “R” after his name it would be another story entirely.
TheBigOldDog on February 22, 2008 at 3:28 PM
Hope and Change and Hope for Change because without Hope and Change we are left with no Hope and no Change…
sabbott on February 22, 2008 at 3:29 PM
Spin or not, the Messiah STILL isnt qualified to be Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces.
Always Right on February 22, 2008 at 3:29 PM
Good news: Media no longer in pocket of the Clintons.
Bad news: Nothing’s changed.
Kai on February 22, 2008 at 3:32 PM
funky chicken on February 22, 2008 at 3:36 PM
A different point of view on this story:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/
liberty on February 22, 2008 at 3:36 PM
Actualy this points out that Obama is clueless about the realities of military life…
YOU NEVER HAVE ENOUGH AMMO!
YOU NEVER HAVE ENOUGH SPARE PARTS!
YOU NEVER HAVE ENOUGH PEOPLE!
Especialy when you are at the end of a supply chain that stretches LITERALY to the other side of the world.
And I can ALWAYS find a Junior Officer who does not have enough experience to realize this.
And why? because Congress dictates how much you can spend, and how you have to spend it.
You know, that same Congress that Obama is a member of?
Romeo13 on February 22, 2008 at 3:39 PM
If this event occurred back in 2003 why has it taken Obama so long to investigate the problem and come up with a solution. Shouldn’t a leader try and fix problems like this pronto?
knat on February 22, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Tin-foiled hat observation.
In less than 24hrs, an ABC reporter is able to get a hold of Obama’s anecdote source and “confirm” the story.
That’s pretty damn impressive if you ask me. Doubly impressive if the guy is an active duty Capt.
Kai on February 22, 2008 at 3:40 PM
The point that’s missed, of course, is that if Obama becomes President, one of his stated goals is to defund the war and surrender as soon as possible. I think that zero ammunition is somewhat less than sporadic shortages…
Asher on February 22, 2008 at 3:40 PM
So Changey McHopeNChange was relaying a story about equipment shortages FROM FIVE YEARS AGO? Nope, not letting him off the hook on this one. Not by a long shot.
BohicaTwentyTwo on February 22, 2008 at 3:41 PM
Every war has periods of privation in the field. The real issue is whether or not it’s theater wide. If it is, then there is trouble. For Heaven’s sake, on Guadalcanal, U.S. forces had to rely on Japanese stores of rice - until they could be properly resupplied.
Last I heard, we won that war.
OhEssYouCowboys on February 22, 2008 at 3:42 PM
They actually expect us to believe what they report without independently verifiable facts. It’s not like we don’t have multiple documented cases of people lying about even being in the military or claiming to have served in areas where they never served or creating false stories altogether.
The media actually thinks they still have credibility after all the documented cases of outright lies. It’s laughable.
If this Captain is telling the truth and the issues were serious enough to put lives at risk unnecessarily then he has an obligation to step forward. Instead he sends a message to Obama.
TheBigOldDog on February 22, 2008 at 3:42 PM
I’m not a blogger, but I am a military guy, and my verdict is no. I, too, grabbed an AK for myself in Fallujah ‘04, but as a supplement to my primary weapon. I never found much use for it; it was too inaccurate and spraying and praying is frowned upon because Americans actually care about sparing innocent lives. It was never a question of being underarmed, and that is a gigantic stretch and a huge difference.
The Humvee thing is plausible, but that’s an issue with the military supply beauracracy in general. That has nothing to do with the Bush administration. If Obama wants to make a campaign promise to streamline government agencies and improve resupply service, I’m all for it, but I don’t think that is really an issue he cares to pursue.
joewm315 on February 22, 2008 at 3:45 PM
it depends on what your definition of the word “equipped” is.
.
.
.
heh
subbottomfeeder on February 22, 2008 at 3:45 PM
I’m sure that under Barack O’Jesus’s adminstration, all problems with logistics and funding will be solved post haste. He’s gonna stare down congress with that flinty “get ‘er done” glint in his eyes and the M16’s and kevlar will flow like Niagra.
Akzed on February 22, 2008 at 3:46 PM
What is going on with this Obama fellow? Has he lost his mind?
Zelsdorf Ragshaft on February 22, 2008 at 3:47 PM
No wonder why he thinks Iraq is a failure, Obama still thinks its 2004.
/still ranting
BohicaTwentyTwo on February 22, 2008 at 3:47 PM
I had to make an add to my previous comment.
Who is this jackass and what unit was he assigned to? Did he inform his commander before he puked his guts out to a politico. We need to know more about this guy and his unit. I spent 35 years as a soldier and from time-to-time I experienced some serious logistical problems but never did I let it effect the welfare of my troops, or my mission, nor did I whine to the media. I think what we have here is a young captain that really needs attention. This sorry story just doesn’t have much effect.
rplat on February 22, 2008 at 3:48 PM
All I got out of this was that an ABC Political Blogger was able to make contact with this Army Capitan and confirm what Obama said last night.
It still doesnt make any of it true. I havent seen any fact checking yet.
southsideironworks on February 22, 2008 at 3:49 PM
Don’t anyone say I’m sure he means no harm…People will say this over and over until it is too late. Get out and vote people…you are our Obi Wan
tomas on February 22, 2008 at 3:49 PM
The audacity of exaggeration, and the media lethargy…
Hope and Change. Nirvana. No thinking, whatever. If there is a god, he/she is either wondering at what the U.S.A. is about to allow herself to become, cheered on by a powerless and envious world, or is saying “my human experiment went sour”.
p.s. VeniVidiVidic - Veni, Vidi, Vici?
Entelechy on February 22, 2008 at 3:52 PM
Methinks military supply bureaucracy might be a shade older than the GWoT. And there was a good point brought up eariler: No leader should ever think he has “enough.” The point of being in a leadership position in the military is to give your soldiers the best chance to succeed. As such, you should never be content with what you’ve got. Why shouldn’t this Captain say that as a Lieutenant he thought his guys didn’t have enough weapons, ammo, sleep, time, manpower, equipment, personnel, vehicles, flashlights, decent meals, visits from NFL cheerleaders, etc., etc.? However, it’s one Hell of a stretch to go from a Captain saying this if his guys scrounge AKs that he’ll say good for them to blaming it on the Commander in Chief for not drowning his soldiers in beans, bullets, and blankets.
Spc Steve on February 22, 2008 at 3:53 PM
I called it last night in the comments. My analysis was flawless as usual, lol.
muyoso on February 22, 2008 at 3:54 PM
Sounds like a plan. Sadly, I get the feeling he is not yet aware the CiC cannot avoid hard decisions by simply voting present.
a capella on February 22, 2008 at 3:56 PM
McCain needs to make note of this anecdote and come up with a response for the fall. There’s a good chance Obama will reach for it in one of their debates and McCain better be ready to rhetorically knock it out of the park.
Dudley Smith on February 22, 2008 at 3:57 PM
Hw would have chastised the first American Soldiers for not following the then standard battle technique of standing in a line and firing at the enemy.
bbz123 on February 22, 2008 at 3:57 PM
I’d also like to add…
When my boarding team was doing Ops during Desert Storm… a Ensign decided to do us a favor and replace our “ancient” (his words) M-14s and 45s for us…
Of course… we wanted them for the stopping power of the 45… and the ability for the M-14 to shoot THROUGH aluminum bulkheads…
Luckily, my CO listened to us…
But to the media, or a politician, I’m sure we were not armed with “modern military weapons”….
Romeo13 on February 22, 2008 at 3:57 PM
agreed! Unless they have someone who can convert it, it isn’t going to happen. To much trouble to do.
As are most of the civilians in the world.
Probably the correct story!
As I have many a friend over in Afgahnistan right now. I do not know of any who have used an AK. Other then looking at them and shooting them to see the difference, since they work along side the Afgahn Army and train, they won’t use them.
B.O. may not understand, but an LT should have. Makes me wonder about B.O.’s source, and what the guy actually said. Guess we may never know.
upinak on February 22, 2008 at 3:57 PM
If I would have been one of the questioners, I would have followed up with “Sen. Obama, how do you feel about the difference between what you just stated and this“?
Entelechy on February 22, 2008 at 3:57 PM
If we ever do find out, I doubt anything is going to happen to this guy.
upinak on February 22, 2008 at 4:01 PM
The Pentagon on Friday cast doubt on an account of military equipment shortages mentioned by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama during a debate with rival Hillary Clinton.
“I find that account pretty hard to imagine,” Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters.
“Despite the stress that we readily acknowledge on the force, one of the things that we do is make sure that all of our units and service members that are going into harm’s way are properly trained, equipped and with the leadership to be successful,” he said.
Whitman’s remarks were unusual as the Pentagon often declines to talk about comments from political campaigns.
Obama said the captain was the head of a rifle platoon, which should have had 39 members — but 15 were sent to Iraq so the unit deployed to Afghanistan had 24 soldiers.
Several Army officers said a platoon is normally commanded by a 2nd lieutenant — two ranks below a captain — but the size of a platoon would indeed be around 40 soldiers.
liberty on February 22, 2008 at 4:01 PM
On the minor detail of capturing weapons, Phil Carter at Intel Dump confirms, via John Cole.
commissar on February 22, 2008 at 4:04 PM
Of course nothing will happen to him . . . he’s a political whistleblower and they’re afforded more protection than the Spotted Owl.
rplat on February 22, 2008 at 4:06 PM
Don’t worry it’s deliberate. A homage to this man: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemanja_Vidi%C4%87
A Red shirted hero that would, and could, run through brick walls for the cause ;-)
VeniVidiVidic on February 22, 2008 at 4:14 PM
whistle blower or not… he may not get it this time, but the Army eventually gets them.
upinak on February 22, 2008 at 4:21 PM
No, he’d rather pull everyone out of everywhere so they don’t need to be resupplied. And then invade Pakistan.
Pablo on February 22, 2008 at 4:22 PM
I’d lay good money that grunts use the AKs as throwaways or for diversionary reasons. Grunts aren’t gonna hump their service issue plus ammo AND an AK and an equal amount of ammo for it. SF might use AKs as primary weapons, but that’s why they are special. Barky Omessiahbama took sparce info and embellished it. I’m so surprised too.
44Magnum on February 22, 2008 at 4:23 PM
Maybe . . . but he can ride his protected status for a long time.
rplat on February 22, 2008 at 4:26 PM
Thanks. Wasn’t worried, just curious. Nice play :)
Entelechy on February 22, 2008 at 4:27 PM
This won’t stick to Obama in the end, even if it’s proved false (which it can’t be), except as a residue of resentment for having brought it up as a cheap shot. Likely as not, if there’s hell to be paid, the active-duty source will pay it.
spmat on February 22, 2008 at 4:28 PM
Puke.
“These stories are timeless; you’ll see similar ones in the narratives from WWII, Korea and Vietnam vets too.”
“Sen. Obama is also absolutely right to use this anecdote as a critique of the administration’s decision to go to war in Iraq.”
Looks like Obama was opposed to WWII also.
pedestrian on February 22, 2008 at 4:29 PM
This man Obama is a great danger to this country wake up people!!
thmcbb on February 22, 2008 at 4:34 PM
So he wasn’t a Captain, who didn’t run out of ammunition in theater so he wasn’t forced to use captured weapons, whose platoon may have been understrength because of normal turnover but certainly wasn’t because platoons are ’split’ against Army policy, so… even though the circumstances were misrepresented, and even though the anecdote was not representative of any actual circumstances reported by any other units… yeah… it “checks out”.
DANEgerus on February 22, 2008 at 4:35 PM
I haven’t heard anybody say when this happened. But, if it was indeed back in 2003, that was a long time ago. I was in OIF2 (Dec03-Mar05). Early in the war–second rotation. We ALL had body armor, plenty bullets and beans, and pretty much anything we needed.
If this happened before my time, then yes, it could be possible, but that is a fact of deploying at a fast tempo and not having the supply lines in place.
Something that tells me this is the case is the officer’s rank–CPT. He led the platoon when he was a LT. Almost always its a 2LT, and very rarely a 1LT, but I say again, almost always a 2LT.
With that in mind and the fact that he is now a CPT, he likely finished another year of 2LT, 2 years of 1LT and possibly another 1 or more as a CPT. This could easily be a story 5 years old. Would it really surprise anyone that supply was not as good 5 years ago as it is today?
It is now fixed? Where is the story? Why is this an anecdote worthy of the debate Barack?
thomashton on February 22, 2008 at 4:35 PM
Dreading?
Spirit of 1776 on February 22, 2008 at 4:36 PM
Come on Obama needs to be called on this crap. He is preaching to the choir on this one and I’m surprised no one clapped. We still have the best trained best equipped army in the world. We are fighting on 2 front but that is where we find ourselves. Ask ANY soldier who fought in ANY war and he will tell you he was short of this or short of that. Soldiers find ways around stuff that is what they do. He took the Cpt’s comments way out of context and how he came up with what he said I have no idea. Obama is showwing he is just a puppet, my question is whio is pulling the strings?
TroubledMonkey on February 22, 2008 at 4:36 PM
I don’t care how much “nuance” is applied to the assertion made by the Messiah. The fact that lefties continue continue to go around making reckless claims and then walking away from them with a shrug of the soldiers and simple explanations has got to stop. This isn’t nuance to the men and women on the front lines fighting this war so that the average American in his favorite WiFi hotspot sipping coffee doesn’t have to worry about some deranged homicide bomber walking in and going all splodeydope on their fine threads.
I am sick and tired of all of the reckless, reprehensible comments thrown out for public consumption and then ignored by the national news agencies, whose job it is to report the facts and not reckless allegations, provide the cover.
Whether it is Murtha condemning Marines or Hillary giving slide shows on Capitol Hill showing where the vulnerable points of the body armor are or Pelosi going over to visit the chinless ophthalmologist in Syria I have had it.
Merely commenting on blogs is not going to get it done any more. It is time to take visible and yes even juvenile behavior just like our enemies the liberals to get this type of stuff highlighted and not just on Brit Humes show segment called the Grapevine.
People need to crash Obama rallies if need be in some sort of military attire pretending to search under seats for stuff. Things like that are just childish enough to get the Mass Market media attentions, because if there is one thing they have proven over the years, the more juvenile it is the more likely it is to make the news cast.
Just A Grunt on February 22, 2008 at 4:38 PM
This man Obama is a great danger to this country wake up people!!
thmcbb on February 22, 2008 at 4:34 PM
Ditto…
d1carter on February 22, 2008 at 4:39 PM
Furthermore, soldiers are accostomed to scrounging. I was my commander’s right hand man (driver, appointment book, brains etc). He was the commander of a small, local detention facility.
We had to build that place from the ground up. I remember scrounging wire from the walls of bombed out buildings, I large plastic gravity-fed water tank we used for bathing the detainees off of the roof of another building, statues as road blocks and just about anything else you could need.
Why would it surprise anyone that if a soldier needed something to complete the mission he would adapt and overcome and get ‘er done. Weapons and vehicles included. Plus, we used to call those civian trucks we used “Mad Max” vehicles.
thomashton on February 22, 2008 at 4:39 PM
on edit and review soldiers should be shoulders
/never type when you are mad
Just A Grunt on February 22, 2008 at 4:41 PM
Good People disagree. And that’s okay.
At least he seems to be honest.
Dorvillian on February 22, 2008 at 4:45 PM
Now I know what the 3 stooges were doing over in Afghanistan - looking for Taliban weapons to support our troops.
sleepy-beans on February 22, 2008 at 4:46 PM
Agreed
bnelson44 on February 22, 2008 at 4:50 PM
The ABC story said it happened in 2003
bnelson44 on February 22, 2008 at 4:51 PM
You owe me a keyboard :)
bnelson44 on February 22, 2008 at 4:52 PM
funky chicken on February 22, 2008 at 4:55 PM
What this event is crying for is another squad creating a banner, this time for Obama.
bnelson44 on February 22, 2008 at 4:59 PM
I’d like to know what the LTs senior NCO at the time thought about all of this. Also, was the mission impared and were any troopers hurt or worse as a result.
A good officer puts the welfare and training of his men above all else.
Now that they have found him maybe he’ll come forward with more info like…was this endemic throughout the force?
Did he forward his concerns up the chain of command? what was their response? If he wasn’t satisfied with their answers, why not?
dingbat on February 22, 2008 at 4:59 PM
@ bnelson44 on February 22, 2008 at 4:52 PM
Oh you know you agree with me.
muyoso on February 22, 2008 at 5:00 PM
before our son went to the sandbox I encourgaed him to pick up a AK-47 when he got there….frankly it has a larger caliber than our M-16A or M4….when kicking in doors that extra stopping power is needed, also it has a shorter stock than the M-16A and is a better weapon for house to house clearing.
With many of the al-quieda fighters amped up on drugs you would want the extra stopping power too.
robo on February 22, 2008 at 5:04 PM
To add to my preivious post; did he document his training and supply issues up his chain of command?
dingbat on February 22, 2008 at 5:07 PM
The slightly shorter stock is true, but the recoil makes it much more difficult to track a target, and the tendency is to “spray & pray” with an AK. Imagine the media’s response to a soldier inadvertantly killing a civilian on the battlefield, using a weapon he’s not authorized to have, that he’s never zeroed, firing ammunition that is not on the books anywhere in the US Army.
That and the M4, in the experience of many Rangers and infantry types I’ve talked to, has been highly spoken of, as the combination of very high muzzle velocity and low recoil allows them to put multiple rounds into the same person, with precision, and in a very short period of time.
Spc Steve on February 22, 2008 at 5:16 PM
This Obama guy has developed such a unrealistic, glorified persona that it shouldn’t take anything to bring him down. I just can’t see him going thru a general election and not being cut down to size.
darwin on February 22, 2008 at 5:17 PM
Thank you, nothing to see here..
Move along..
Chakra Hammer on February 22, 2008 at 5:19 PM
So how did the “improperly equipped” troops go after the Taliban? With rocks?
Osamambama=Carter
davidk on February 22, 2008 at 5:23 PM
Exactly. First he breaks wind. Next he complains about the smell.
petefrt on February 22, 2008 at 5:24 PM
Hmmm…. interesting thought…
Is not this a possible blow to moral of our troops in war time…
And also telling our enemies we are not organized or properly equiped?
And therefore, by definition, giving “Aid and Comfort to the enemy”?
Treason anyone?
Romeo13 on February 22, 2008 at 5:36 PM
The “willing suspension of disbelief” time is now, at least when Democrats are involved.
And the reason the Messiah sat on this story for all these years is simple: he couldn’t get any political advantage from it back then.
What the hell, those guys over there are only soldiers and therefore expendable as far as the Messiah and the Hildebeest are concerned, you know….
MrScribbler on February 22, 2008 at 5:36 PM
Story seems at least plausible anyway to me.
I recall in RVN trading a couple of 50cal machine guns, which we had little use for and no ammo for anyway, to a guy I had known stateside and had run into over there, for M16 ammo which we were short on.
MB4 on February 22, 2008 at 5:46 PM
Carter is correct about the stories being ‘timeless’. The Guadalcanal campaign and the M14 torpedo fiasco being the biggest examples. The ‘ooops’ of the retelling still doesn’t hold water. He did it to expand his lefty street cred and make his case that HE is more concerned about the troops then Bush.
Limerick on February 22, 2008 at 5:46 PM
Do i think that an individual unit scrounged a heavy MG. Sure. It probably happens all the time. That does not mean it is a theater wide shortage. In fact, not all units are authorized an M2. I was light infantry back in the day and we had to borrow a .50 cal from the artillery to train for EIB. Additionally, 16 men is a small platoon, not even two squads of infantry, mech or light. I wonder if this was a tank platoon that was in dismount. Maybe cav scouts.
In any event, this certainly does not jibe with the tale of units having to fight the taliban in order to steal their weapons and ammo.
The Opinionator on February 22, 2008 at 5:48 PM
and right or wrong abot the statement, this says “what” aout his take on the war and our troops? Bashing and slashing tells us nothing on the mans position of a darn thing. Unbelieveable that people will vote just on that alone. The choices this year just plain suck! Is this all our country can produce?
johnnyU on February 22, 2008 at 5:51 PM
So.. the same democrats who wanted to cut funding to the troops and cut and run are now going to use “lack of equipment” anecdotes as to why the GWOT is a failure and we should elect THEM?
BRILLIANT!! /sarc
UncleOlaf on February 22, 2008 at 6:03 PM
Didn’t anyone see the show “MASH”? Why is this news now?
Resolute on February 22, 2008 at 6:12 PM
What really strikes me is who would want to follow this officer, in title only, into combat. Not me, I don’t like whiners and military men(?) who can not follow the chain of command. Hope they ship this jerk to McMurdo for a nice 24 month tour.
Wade on February 22, 2008 at 6:14 PM
If Hillary was as smart as many claim, and if she didn’t hate the military she’d have asked Obama the man’s name and vowed to work with him to get the money the troops need since it’s CONGRESS who allocates money not the president.
*sigh* Nevermind!
SouthernGent on February 22, 2008 at 6:17 PM
Obama and Hillary know as much about the military as Al Gore knows about science!!
landlines on February 22, 2008 at 7:17 PM
“Meet the new boss…Same as the old boss”
eanax on February 22, 2008 at 7:38 PM
One anal exam, please, hold the mustard
He saw the anal exam coming
Obama comes across as 1 part Kerry, 1 part Cindy Sheehan before they muzzled her
I changed my mind: 1 part Kerry, 2 parts Cindy Sheehan
Another load of shame for Obama’s wife. Disgusting using Taliban weapons against Taliban. Gutless wimps
entagor on February 22, 2008 at 7:57 PM
Military Supply system is questionable at best. Parts order may take weeks or monthes to arrive.
A story I heard while in the US Navy. A Submarine was trying to order toilet paper. Supply system said not in supply system. He puts in the order again. Still says none available. The send in a dozen requests. Went to see a number of times. All the sailors brought their own Toilet paper for use. Because the Supply system could not provide it. They were so frustrated the sent a few sheets of Toilet paper and Said We need Several hundred rolls of per sample. Still after several months none in sight. The Submarine was due to deploy. A week before deployment a Semitruck pulled up with supplies for the submarine. Not only did they get the last order of Toilet paper of several hundred rolls. They got every back order item. They could not fit all that toilet paper on the Submarine. THe sailors went to all the submarines and shore command asking if they wanted some toilet paper.
WHen it rains it poors. Remember a Submarine has very limited space. But a Semi truck of just toilet paper is a bit hard to stow.
I can believe parts and ammo are possible but the way the comment was made is that all military personnel are in the same boat.
The thing that bothers me most is these are the same people who do not want to fund more than a couple months at a time. So how can the military get repair parts to the theater if they do not get the funding that they can plan more than a month in advance. Things break and if you do not have funding for more than a month or two extra supplies can be on the bottom of the list. Priority spending for most important items that gun repair parts could be at the bottom of the list if they do not have a history of breaking very often.
danfinrud on February 22, 2008 at 7:58 PM
Looks like a friggin UFO sneaking up on him… lol.
johnnyU on February 22, 2008 at 8:08 PM
The truth is just something that gets in the way of the anti American democrats agenda Destroying America as we know it!!
build the wall on February 22, 2008 at 8:32 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »