Archive for the 'Support Our Troops' Category

The Real Reason Obama did not visit wounded troops — he wouldn’t be allowed the media coverage he wanted

I heard about the following sickening piece of Obama news while listening to Mark Levin’s show from last Friday. In it he read a portion of MSNBC’s First Read where it reads:

*** UPDATE *** From NBC’s Jim Miklaszewski and Courtney Kube
A U.S. military official tells NBC News they were making preparations for Sen. Barack Obama to visit wounded troops at the Landstuhl Medical Center at Ramstein, Germany on Friday, but “for some reason the visit was called off.”

One military official who was working on the Obama visit said because political candidates are prohibited from using military installations as campaign backdrops, Obama’s representatives were told, “he could only bring two or three of his Senate staff member, no campaign officials or workers.” In addition, “Obama could not bring any media. Only military photographers would be permitted to record Obama’s visit.”

The official said “We didn’t know why” the request to visit the wounded troops was withdrawn. “He (Obama) was more than welcome. We were all ready for him.”

It’s incredibly sad that a man who would want to be Commander in Chief of our brave fighting men and women would not visit wounded troops because Obama could not get the media coverage that would provide the correct cost-benefit analysis that would make the troop visit worth his while. Please forward this story on to anyone you can.

Thanks!

Wesley Clark, how does it feel to be used as a propaganda tool? [Updated]

As reported by Ben Smith at his Politico blog, retired General and Democratic attack dog Wesley Clark will not back down from his crazy rhetoric over Senator John McCain’s military service. It’s truly a sad sight to see Clark disrespect McCain over his perceived shortcomings in Senator McCain’s military experience as fighter pilot, POW, and squadron commander. Clark somehow believes that being the commander of the largest squadron in the Navy isn’t applicable military experience - hogwash.

I’m confused. Now, what is the rookie senator’s relevant experience? Whoops, I forgot, he doesn’t have any!

I wonder how does it make General Clark feel to know that Senator Obama’s spokesperson has denounced his inane rhetoric. Also, how does it make Clark feel to know that his absurd comments have motivated me and many others to donate more money to Senator McCain? I wonder if Clark is truly making these comments free of coordination with the Obama campaign. Regardless, as I emphasized before, his statements only bring clearer into focus Obama’s poor judgment by associating with anti-American rhetoric hate merchants like Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and Michael Pfleger.

It also makes General Clark look like a major propaganda tool as Senator Obama moves farther and farther to the right on Iraq. Perhaps the retired general would enjoy reading The New Yorkers piece titled “Obama’s Iraq Problem” that shows that Obama is really just a flip-flopping politician on Iraq as his political needs change with the successes on the ground in Iraq.

General Clark, it appears to me that you are being used like a propaganda tool by the Democratic party as an attack dog against McCain. How does that make you feel?

******

Update:

Allahpundit over at Hot Air adds the following comments:

The more I re-read this and the transcript of what he said on Face the Nation, the more mystifying it is — not because it’s offensive or even controversial (although the insinuation that anyone who hasn’t “ordered the bombs to fall” doesn’t understand the gravity of war is mighty rich vis-a-vis a POW), but because it’s so lame. His point is simply that being bastinadoed by enemy agents won’t inculcate any finer appreciation for the nuances of geopolitical strategy. Er, true enough, except (a) the power of McCain’s Vietnam experience is in its testament to his character, not his mad foreign policy skillz, and (b) no one who supports a guy who cites a few weeks spent in Pakistan on a college trip as a serious policy credential should be raising the subject of executive qualifications with a straight face.

Brothers at War - The Movie

I heard Monica Crowley’s moving interview with Jake Rademacher director of the new documentary “Brothers at Arms.” Rademacher goes to Iraq in an effort to personally witness (and experience to a certain degree) what his two brothers are going through in Iraq. Jake’s brothers, Capt. Isaac Rademacher, a West Point graduate and officer, and his younger brother Corp. Joe Rademacher, a highly trained sniper, offer two different perspectives in the interviews.

Predictably, as Hollywood pushes it’s election year propaganda and anti-war films, this pro-soldier film that honors the sacrifices on the battlefield and at home by our brave soldiers will likely get little to no support from big studios. That is a shame.

Please join me in doing what ever you can do to spread the word about this important film, and please watch the extended trailer below:

Must Read: The Democrats’ rewritting of history on Iraq

California Yankee over at Redstate has an excellent article looking at the attempt of US senators to rewrite history on the Iraq war. Could it be that the Democrats are trying to combat the excellent accomplishments that have been made in Iraq since the surge has been ordered by President Bush (a surge that McCain has advocated for years)?

As a few Democrats realize, success in Iraq will be a problem for the Democrats. Now that the success of the surge is being recognized by the press, if not the Democrat’s standard bearer, those that once supported the war but switched positions with the prevailing political winds are growing disparate. The only way those Democrats who once supported the war, and thereby offended the Democrats’ agenda-setting antiwar left-wingers, can see to hold onto power is to blame their support for the war on being mislead.

Read the entire article at Redstate and forward it to you friends. Don’t let the truth be suppressed by a non-objective main stream media that is largely supporting the Obama candidacy.

Keith Olbermann spins his deplorable comments

I imagine that Keith Olbermann believes that he’s a pretty smart fellow and a rather clever linguist at that. It’s with apparent glee that he delivers his commentaries high on vocabulary and his personal leftist opinion but rather weak on any semblance of substance. And a deep hatred of our president does not equate substance. Sorry Keith.

In fact it seems that he believes that he is so clever, that he can attempt to twist the deplorable, careless, and broad comments that he made during his excruciatingly long 12 minute “Special Comment” diatribe to attack his critics saying that it is conservative talk show hosts like Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin who actually hate our troops to even criticize Olbermann’s lazy and sloppy language. I’ll have to give him credit, that’s pretty audacious even by his own standards.

During his “Special Comment” he played lose with language like “cold blooded killers” in a way that most sensible viewers would regard them directed at the young men and women in our military. The entire transcript of his “Special Comment” is available online. Here is a central passage that I found personally offensive:

Mr. Bush, at long last, has it not dawned on you that the America you have now created, includes “cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives?” They are those in — or formerly in — your employ, who may yet be charged some day with war crimes.

Through your haze of self-congratulation and self-pity, do you still have no earthly clue that this nation has laid waste to Iraq to achieve your political objectives? “This ideological struggle,” Mr. Bush, is taking place within this country.

It is a struggle between Americans who cherish freedom, ours and everybody else’s, and Americans like you, sir, to whom freedom is just a brand name, just like “Patriot Act” is a brand name or “Protect America” is a brand name.

Undoubtedly, the network that he works for MSNBC and it’s sister/parent network NBC received a fair amount of criticism. And I would venture a guess that most of it took offense to the comments that Olbermann threw around carelessly in a caviler manner like “cold-blooded killers.” So last night, likely under pressure, Olbermann issued an on-air clarification. Here is his “clarification” or blame shifting reply to his long winded diatribe, I mean special comment, against the Bush administration and the troops:

Let’s de-construct his clarification a little bit. In Olbermann’s words, the explanation is rather simple: it was likely that “reasonable viewers” were simply “confused” and that maybe a script would have helped us clarify his broad sweeping and lazy comments. Does anyone else find this to be rather insulting? He blames the viewers and not the speaker.

I would offer the following suggestion to Mr. Olbermann: if you can’t figure out how to clearly state your position in 12 minutes of air time, you should look for a ghost writer or better yet consider a new career. Maybe you can have your old job back at ESPN. Then again ESPN has constantly shown a higher level journalistic integrity than MSNBC and you may now be under qualified to even read the scores.

Wouldn’t you have thought that Olbermann would have apologized about his inability to clearly articulate his position? Would that have been too much to expect from the former sports reporter? Of course it was — this is Olbermann that we are talking about here and apparently he is above integrity and restraint.

How stupid does MSNBC and Olbermann think that Americans are to pull this kind of stunt? Olbermann, for once exhibit some journalistic integrity and be honest by admitting that you are truly full of hot air.

Additional Coverage:

The Olbermann Watch - Was Olbermann Lying Then, Or Is He Lying Now?
Hot Air - Olby: Why do Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin hate the troops?

Michael Yon calls Michael Moore on his illegal propaganda use of Yon’s photos

As mentioned earlier in The Conservative Post, Michelle Malkin has linked to Michael Yon’s article where he calls left wing zealot Michael Moore out on the illegal and “war porn” use of one of his famous photos of an American soldier holding a dying girl in Iraq. In Yon’s article he states the following:

A photograph can be a signal event in a war. Think of the flag raising at Iwo Jima, the naked Vietnamese girl fleeing her napalmed village, prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. These photos were not just important journalistically, but also strategically – each one literally shifted the course of a war. Photographs can be immensely powerful because they are single images, deep with meaning, able to resonate with disparate audiences, straight through language barriers, at an emotional, even visceral, level. A picture can tell a thousand words in a thousand languages, but placed in the wrong context, a photograph can be turned into propaganda, and the truth becomes a lie.

We need to know the truth about the wars we are currently fighting. That’s why I went to Iraq in the first place. Sometimes the difference between War Porn and the truth can be subtle, ambiguous, even subjective. But I know it when I see it. And if Michael Moore learned to respect not just my work, but other aspects of the truth, not to mention respecting his audience’s intelligence, he would better serve his own cause.

Somehow I imagine that Yon’s excellent points are lost on Michael Moore and his sledge hammer approach to driving home his political agenda. I applaud Michael Yon for standing up for his work and preventing it to be used in a manipulative way by Moore.

Obama would not meet with terrorist groups but would meet with the states that sponsor terrorism WITHOUT preconditions?

Barack Obama once again is showing his lack of substantive experience, especially in regards to foreign policy and national security. Just recently Obama tried to clarify his position by stating that he would not meet with terrorist organizations. To me that seems rather hypocritical and relies heavily on semantics because he has stated that he would meet with Iran and Syria without preconditions. The Wall Street Journal has the following written in the op-ed article titled “How to Enrage a Democrat”:

But Barack Obama is the party’s presumptive standard-bearer for 2008. Thus, let’s try to bring this dispute into sharper focus.

Mr. Obama asserted again yesterday that he will not meet with terrorists. He is, however, willing to meet with Iran or Syria. Virtually no serious person disputes that Iran has shipped weaponry to terrorists in Iraq and that Syria has provided safe haven to these terrorists and let them cross from Syria into Iraq. In turn, these jihadists have killed U.S. soldiers. At a minimum, one might expect that ceasing this lethal activity would be a “precondition” before committing the office of the presidency to meet with either.

If in the unfortunate event that Barack Obama, the rookie senator from Illinois, actually wins in the fall, I hope he would soon realize that appeasing Iran and Syria without preconditions is actually providing validation to states that provide safe haven and weapons to Islamic terrorist groups. The stakes are incredibly high and the senator’s sensitivity to this issue makes me wonder if he realizes that he’s advocating a indefensible and naive position to appease to the left-winger nuts like MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann.