Political Punch

the real issue about those comments are not wether they are accurate or not the issue is that senator obama related a story on a subject that falls under defence security telling the enemy on national tv that we are sending our troups to battle undermaned and ill equipt to the extreme that they have to use arms captured from the enemy to fight them. this puts the lives of our soldiers at risk because the leaders of our enemies will use this information to inlist more recruits citing our weakneses and to bolster their moral. all this to make a point that he as good judgment.lives for a point is not good judgment.

To Bob: I hardly think that experimenting with drugs in school is anything to discredit a Presidential Candidate. There are plenty of members of our government that I'm sure use drugs, at present. So, he couldn't have joined right of college, but do you think he wouldn't have fought just as hard for his country as you, if he did join the military? This argument is completely invalid to his candidacy and this article.

Thats a great story the Army Captian told, But I would say he is inflaming his story. His unit relieved us in Afganistan. Never had a problem getting any type of ammunition. As for Mk-19/M-2 parts, I am very interested in that story cuase when we left, there was plenty of Service and Repier parts. As for vehicles, We used Toyata most of the time, had guntrucks. Never had any problems with maintiance.

The experience of this captain resembles stories I've heard from my marine cousin who is currently serving in Iraq but was first in Afghanistan. Unfortunately this is not an isolated story.

When I was an Air Force Recruiter in the mid '70s, if Obama had applied for enlistment he would have been turned away because of his drug experimentation in high school and college. Now he wants to be commander-in-chief. It's amazing that the moral requirements for an Airman Basic are tougher than those for the President of the United States.

You are indeed corporate media. You do not report some very real and pertinent problems facing our servicemen right now.I

I could not sleep so i got up to use my nebulizer to help me breath and i turned the tv on and there was a story of our servicemen committing suide because of the horrors experienced in Iraq. One particular serviceman who came back was to lonely and distraught because of otrocities he saw and had to partake in Iraq that he was drinking heavily and was trying to do it his way to get back to normal. He was so much in need of comort and acceptance that he asked his dad if he could sit on his lap. He wa a you solder only 23 years old. Yet he felt los and abandoned by the inhumane things that thei war has brought upon our military men.
Today is Good Friday. and our Lord jesus was crucified and died for our sins so that we can have life once more. I compare our sacrifices of our military you men who would rather die than go back to iraq or afghnistan to resume killing his fellow men and women. At least he does not have to follow orders by west point commanders who give orders that a morally upright kid from Ameroca does not have to obey any longer.

I was married to a viet-nam naval servicemen who was in the river boats in vietname and he turned from a nice innocent kid into a killer because the millatary turned him into a bad person. These kid that committed suicided had the guts to feel sorry for what was compelled to do in the service and would rather die than go back and do horrible otrocities to his fellow men the Iraqis.

This was has got to stop, now and this story was on so early in the morning that the corporate meid saw fit to show it but that the limited public would see it.

Tomorrow Easter Sunday we are shown that we will all rise and live again because our Lord jesus Christ victory over suvering and death to bring us eternal life. 3/21/08

WHAT'S O'BAMA RESPONSIBLE FOR? ISN'T HE A USA SENATOR....WITH A SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFGHANISTAN.....

SEEMS TO ME HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HOW THE SOLDIERS IN AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ ARE EQUIPPED.......

BUT IN o'BAMA LAND......SOMEONE ELSE IS TO BLAME.......HE'S TAKES NO RESPONSIBILITY........HE'S JUST A POTTED PLANT....FLY ON THE WALL.....HEAR NO EVIL SEE NO EVIL.....HE' AIN'T IN CHARGE OF NOTHIN........

I DIDN'T VOTE FOR THE WAR.....HEHEHEHEHE

THEY DID.....HAHAHAHAHA.....

NOT ME TO OUTFIT A SOLDIER......HAHAHAHA...

BECAUSE I DIDN'T VOTE FOR THE WAR.....DON'T LOOK AT ME.......HEHEHEHE.....

i AM SO HIGH MINDED......i AM SO RIGHTEOUS.........A MEN.......I DON'T GET A GOVERNMENT CHECK EVERY MONTH......YOU AIN'T PAYING ME NOTHIN.....i'AINT A USA SENATOR.........i'M TOO YOUNG......DIDN'T HAPPEN ON MY WATCH......

I NEVER BEEN IN THE USA MILITARY...I DIDN'T WEAR A UNIFORM......NEVER LEARNED TO SALUTE......OF FIRE A GUN OR RIFLE......NEVER DROVE A HUMVEE.....DIDN'T GET MY HANDS DIRTY......A SUCIDE BOMBER......NEVER SEEN ONE IN THE GHETTO OF CHICAGO......HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHHE....GOOD...GOOOD LAWD.....i'M MR. oBAMA....LISTEN TO MY SMOOOTH VOICE.........I CAN SELL ICE TO AN ESKIMO.........BUT.......I CAN'T STOP aLQUEDA....HELL...I AIN'T GONNA WASTE MY TIME WITH BEN LAUDEN....IS THAT A COUGH DROP BRAND.....HAHAHAHAHHAHHAHA

Obama and Nader, they may be serving the same purpose when all is said and done in the 2008 Presidential race.

I'm upset that Obama, with less experience than anyone in recent history, is running for President, and is hurting Democrats... or let me put it differently, he is assuring McCain will win, and be Democrat Loss #3.

Obama has a huge ego, and no patience, and arrogant for sure, so instead of spending some time in the US Senate, and earning our trust through solid deeds and accomplishments, he got elected and immediately hooked up with Oprah, then Ted Kennedy (the oldest Old Boy in DC who owns his seat) and started on the road to STOP HILLARY.

In the end, Republicans will win, and Obama would have made a statement, that a Black Man is ready to be President.

So McCain will probably choose Rice and show that Republican policy may not bring change, and our economy will remain in ruins but at least they are willing to show respect women and black people.

Making a statement and hurting Democratic chances to win, isn't that what Nader does? Nader has way more accomplishments on his resume, so my answer is I respect Nader more than Obama. The Presidential candidate that Inspires me, and I have faith will bring change I can believe will be realized is, Hillary Clinton. Obama supporters like to say all she is a First Lady, but in fact she has spent 8 years as a US Senators, and has a record of accomplishments that is real. In the General Election, people will choose experience over Obama’s hype, so our President will be Hillary or McCain?

I often hear Obama supporters talk of Obama Uniting Us, and all I hear from my male friends who support Hillary is “People say men who support Hillary are Gay” (Not that there’s anything wrong with that – I say” ;-) This is another hidden – or not so hidden factor in this race -- the Bullying that is being done by Obama supporters is unbelievable. The Press is scared to death to admit Obama is playing the race card and sexist card, like no one since Wallace, and what it’s doing to race relations is tearing people apart.

Obama intimidates the Press, because writers can be fired if they say anything that seems racist and Obama is unabashedly running as a Black Man candidate. So they are helping propel his “electrifying” candidacy by refusing to criticize and it’s easier to report Obama’s criticism of Hillary.

Nader will do much better in this election, because he has a record of accomplishments a mile long, and seems very motivated to get people to wake up, and realize what Obama is saying, will not bring any change we can believe in. I voted for Hillary, and if she does not win in TX and Ohio, I may vote for Nader. McCain will win either way if Obama is the chosen Democrat for President. In that case, I’d rather make a statement, to choose someone who actually works for change, rather than Obama, who is a wild card, promoted by people whose main goal was to keep Hillary from being President, at the expense of the Democratic party.

As Hillary supporter, I feel that Obama’s is a guy, who should have earned his way to run for the Presidency, and if there is anyone who should drop out it it’s Obama. Thankfully, I have Hope and Faith, Hillary will win in TX and Ohio. I trust Hillary to bring the change she promises, and am so tired of the Obama bullying, sexism and racism, it makes my blood boil.

how are the neocon naysayers gonna knock this down?:

'Army chief of staff Gen. George Casey, testifying on troop strain before the Senate Armed Forces Committee Tuesday, said there is "no reason to doubt" Sen. Barack Obama's military shortage story during CNN's debate in Austin, Texas, last week.'

look it up, read it for yourselves, and then please stop whining.

Let's see.... What is the word from Obama Nation.... Four years ago.... at least three years before the Surge.... An officer and his platoon were short on people, training, and supplies. In the combat situations they adapted, improvised, and overcame.

This career officer and West Point graduate contacts the staff of a foot-dragging Senator who is politicizing every dollar they get and detracting from his mission to raise some hell.

Obviously, this officer still believes in his mission as not only he has retained his commission, he has gained a promotion.

This captain sounds a bit like another Maverick..... Senator John McCain.

What I find actually comical about this is that Obama tried to use a story about events in 2003 to bash a war that is going on in 2008. Maybe he thinks that the public is stupid enough to be taken in by the stringing together of loosely fitting facts to make his "non" point. When I heard this for the first time, my firsts thought were "What the hell is a Captain doing commanding a Platoon" and "If they split the platoon to two different theaters, that would be a first". I suspected from the start of this little gem, that something was very fishy with the comment. But then Barry O. is a politician, which means everything he says should be questioned.

The fact that the source remains unnamed does not invalidate the story.

But nor does it validate it.

In the absence of any substance, then, it remains a story, nothing more, nothing to get excited over, and nothing worthy of basing decisions.

Ben

A West Point Officer conducting a show of force/deterrent motorized movements outside the wire in Combat Zone knowingly of his platoon(-) inoperable weapon status?

Thought we taught West Pointers better, must of had a young Platoon Sergeant too.

The problem with the numerous arguments about being short on supplies in every other war would be valid if we had rations, victory gardens, and war bonds in the US, and if Iraq attacked us first. Unfortunately, our president chose to preemptively go to war with Iraq unprepared, and all we seem to care about is the price of a gallon of gas for our civilian Hummers while our troops aren't provided adequate equipment from the very same company.

Thank you for the fact check. Our military deserves the best. I'd rather all non-critical issues, like the baseball steroid hearings and several earmarks, be put on hold until we can get the military the proper training, equipment, and rotations required to ensure their safety. I salute our troops.

I just LOVE to see the war hawks here frothing at the mouth! Why? Because they know they are backed into a corner by facts & public opinion which no longer supports their bully mindset towards the world. We now know that it takes brains more than muscle to win a conflict!

I just LOVE to see the war hawks here frothing at the mouth! Why? Because they know they are backed into a corner by facts & public opinion which no longer supports their bully mindset towards the world. We now know that it takes brains more than muscle to win a conflict!

if what this capitan is saying is correct, that means americans may be dying because of these mistakes. So your argument is that he's afraid to lose his job, so he lets his brothers die?

anonymity my rear end, Soldiers ain't cowards.

Unnamed sources are necessary for freedom of speech. This isn't a trial. It is democracy and part of that is the freedom to write using sources that wish to remain unnamed publicly, especially sources that could lose a career if uncovered. This article is a check on what a candidate said which is also great. This is journalism. Because we the public can't get the names to trash and mob doesn't make the story invalid.

For those who wonder why a West Point grad would ask for anonymity, try to remember a fellow named Billy Mitchell. Also, it's so long ago, but there were a couple of Pentagon guys relieved for saying the occupation of Iraq would require 300,000 troops.

He must be disgruntled.

Seems to me your story has the same credibility as the NYT smear piece on McCain. Unidentified sources just don't cut it.

Wow... an Army at war has to make decisions on how to prioritize equipment and ammo... never heard of that before.

I am an Army CPT who spent two tours overseas and YES, there was plenty of times I was short supplies and people. You don't whine about it... you get it done. Throughout history our armed forces have overcame seemingly insurmountable obstacles to win (Point Du Hoc... google it). You fight with what you have until the fighting is done. Ask my grandfather if he had everything he needed during the attack on Pearl Harbor... or my other grandfather if he had everything he should have had on during the battle of the bulge? Surely my uncle who parachuted into Normandy on D-Day had everything he wanted...
I have to say that we are doing pretty well suppling those on the sharp end of an 8000 mile supply line.

you say we should direct our ire at those responsible, but how the hell to we punish people without evidence? The day an unidentified source is enough to get someone thrown in jail, is the day America really loses its way.

furthermore, why is this army capitan remaining "unidentified". If his claim is true, then american lives are being thrown in danger without the tools they need. Am i suppossed to believe that a man willing to die for his fellow soldiers is afraid to lose his commision
or go to jail for them? unlikely.

If this man's story is true, then he truly serves his country by coming forward so those responsible can be held accountable. Until then, i will not just take a reporters word for it.

When I served in the US Navy in the 80s, we had the equipment and material we needed to do our jobs. If we hadn't, though, you may well believe that I would have wanted the press, and the American people, and anybody running for national office to know about it!
Anybody, regardless of party or position, attacking this story for political gain is, at best, betraying our fighting troops, and, at worst, betraying their country.

"great reporting" is all the reporters talking to the SAME person.
This whole thing is based upon statements by one (1) unnamed unverified person
who may or may not be a US Army Officer, who may or may not have been deployed to Afganistan.

Has any of these great reporters talked to other members of this guy's unit?
Do any of these reporters even know which unit we are talking about?

The story told by this 'captain' has not been verified.

What astounds me are the comments by those here that somehow think that pointing out the insufficient equipment issues is NOT spporting the troops. The same people that claim Democrats do not support the troops. The same people that supported those in charge of the problem. THe same people that insist we stay in theatre with demoralized and under-equipped troops. THe same people that abandon the hunt for Bin Laden and short-change our troops in Afghanistan to pursue oil in Iraq. The same people that will vote more draft dodgers into office to hire more of them like Rumsfeld to continue this morass. The same- well, Republicans.

Do the Bush supporters realize Bush will go down as the First President to lose two wars to some street gangs.

How pitiful

Your explanation simply shows that Obama was playing fast and loose with the truth. he doesn't say this guy was a new Ltr when this happened in 2003; not in 2007/8.

he doesn't say 15 of his guys were sent to Iraq; he says he doesn't know.

he doesn't say he didn't receive his supply of ammunition in Afghanistan, he says they didn't receive it in training, but then claims it was for weapons he doesn't even deploy with.

And if it waa EASIER to get taliban ammuniation and weapons, then it would seem he wasn't having any big problem defeating the enemy with what he had, I am sure they must have defeated those Taliban before they took their weapons.

In addition, Obama tried to make it wound like he had talked directly to this person, when in fact he was mischaraterizing second hand information.

Its gonna be great to finally have a CINC that will listen to phone calls to his aides from Lts in the field on just what that particular Lt believes he was 'SUPPOSED TO HAVE' prior to fighting this Nations wars.

I'll have to go back and see if FDR awaiting what every soldier was SUPPOSED TO HAVE , prior to D-Day.

My take on this story is that Sen. Obama should be very pleased with the Captain's story, after all didn't he vote to cut funding for the war effort several times? You know - stop the ammo flowing, ground the jets, turn tale like a whupped dog!

Maybe if history was properly taught in the schools most people would yawn and say, "Typically American" We have always had units that went into battle under-manned, under-trained, under-equipped. Ask the US GIs in the Ardennes in the winter of 1944 what it was like fighting in summer uniforms that stuck out that sore thumbs in the snow while the supposedly broken and underequipped Germans had warm winter uniforms that blended in with the surroundings (many froze to death). Or the tankers of the 1st Armored that got to go toe to toe with Rommel's Panthers and Tigers at Kassering in their Lee and Stuart tanks (they got mauled and we LEFT over a 1,000 dead lying on the battlefield). Or the brave bomber crews that were sent into Germany without fighter escort in 1943 (they died by the hundreds). Or the soliders of the 24th Infantry Division sent into South Korea at half strength to fend off the invading North Koreans (they were routed and the division's general captured). The list goes on and on. But the thing I am really curious about is what all you hang wringers plan to do about it. What social giveaways are we cutting back on so the troops have the needed equipment? What government subsidies are going to be cut to provide the needed training for the troops? What government agencies are going to have their staffs and pay cut so that we can provide the pay and benefits needed to attract new recruits to fill the ranks? Just curious.

Is it unfair to hold the President accountable for the DoD's supply effectiveness? Well, accountability goes to the top. That has been a long-established norm. Given this President's frequent reference to the title "commander-in-chief," we should all understand the authority AND responsibility that comes with that role. Unexpected shortages may be somewhat understandable during a time of conflict, but who else is to be held accountable? He needs to ensure the right people are managing this war, which is difficult for the average voter to judge. As for the validity of Obama's argument: it's in fair territory, if nothing else.

My son just finished active duty as a combat engineer in the USMC. He did 2 tough tours in Iraq and went without needed equipment both times. Last time I had to send him replacement boots! He had to go out on patrols with known unreliable vehicles. How would you like to be stuck in a bad neighborhood in Ramadi, waiting for a tow back to base?

Just one short observation about this mighty american military and defense department. We have been spending tens of trillions of dollars for the defense of this country and all it took is 19 tougs with $60 worth of box cut to bring this mighty army to it knees we shall be all proud to be american.

To all those who are in such high dudgeon about Osama's actually...gee, how could he do such a thing...listening to a soldier tell him about problems our troops are having in this war declared by those deferred in the '60s, the story's been confirmed. Deal with it. To suggest that sending troops in without sufficient arms and equipment is okay because it --- what is the argument, anyway? Grow up and face the facts, folks. GW jetted onto the ship in his fancy little jumpsuit and meanwhile our troops are still dying. And bin Laden has yet to be caught due to our diversion to Iraq based upon lies and bad intelligence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

And for the guy who argued that the 3000+ dead we've had stemming from incompetence and lies is okay because it's a low percentage, that is just all too typical. Those are 3000 Americans whose lives were lost because we were lied to by our dishonest and incompetent leaders. It is *NOT* okay that they're dead because it's a low percentage of those in uniform. And again, what about bin Laden?

Obama should win. Game, set, match.

In this confusing and sometimes beligerant and at other times slanderous parcel of posts, there is one sent by a guy named Thomas which,if you have an open mind, might provide you with more than a little background music..

It doesn't matter who you're for; you should read it.

Write on, Thomas!

I'm LOST! Would all of You posting about WHEN this happened and When Obama was informed about it PLEASE tell Me What article YOU read? It SURE isn't the one I read! Either I need a reading & comprehension course OR YOU DO! I forget WHICH person made the comment about giving Al queada Military information that could put US Troops in harms way by relating this story, BUT I can PROMISE You that They ALREADY KNOW IT! And Probably a whole lot MORE that is TRULY dangerous! They may be Fanatics, But I doubt They are Idiots! Hopefully, in a twist from the current fad of running down someone or something, I would like to THANK some of the Posters here for their well thought out and intelligent posts: Bub, Stephen D., Rich Baltimore, The Oracle, Buck Turgidson & Thomas. It was a pleasure to read Your comments!

Barack Hosein Obama is the name of a potential suicide bomber. It is not the name of the future President of the United States.

Also, it looks like we are coming up on 4,000 American Service Men and Women being killed in Iraq. That's out of nearly 1.5 million having served. That's 0.3%.

If these same myopic liberals lived during WWII, the 400,000 killed out of the 16 million, or 2.5% killed, who served in WWII in 39 months would have turned a succesful war effort into a failure.

I look foward to seeing celebrating liberals who make a living pretending to care about these individuals who they only find value in reporting on when they DIE or "SCREW UP".

Then I look foward to seeing the same liberals LIE about their effort in Iraq being a FAILURE.

The work of these soldiers in Iraq has been a success with setbacks, but a success nonetheless. The only reason liberals call Iraq a FAILURE is because they are ignorant of warfare and they hate President Bush more than they pretend to care about the troops.

Job well done to the troops.

Also for you libs who are ignorant of history, the GOP was slaughtered in the 1986 Midterm election and Dukakis had a 17 point lead over Bush 41 in Mid-August of 1988.

Hope for Change is not the reality of elections.

Steve,

In case your post wasn't rhetorical, here's a quick link to Obama's work in the Senate, which contains yet more links to more comprehensive work. As for State Senate, cursory searches will turn up loads of info on his work requiring the videotapeing of police interogations which is interesting for how it got passed, as well as his leadership on reproductive rights and other issues.

You are so correct Stand Tall.

How many of those in here can name Hillary's accomplishments in her '35' years of experience? She supported NAFTA which ultimately send thousands and thousands of jobs overseas. For those of you that don't remember, study the Clinton years and get a good dose of reality. Thanks to the Clinton's, more Democrats lost their re-election bids in Congress because of the untold damage Clinton did. Not only Bill, but Hillary too! People, get your education first before expressing opinions. I suspect many on this blog do not take the time to study the candidates.

As for the comments about drug use....give me a break! Obama put his entire life out there before he ran for president. So no one here has ever tried anything illegal in their life? Hillary and Bill grew up in the hippie era and in Bill's own words...."I tried it, but didn't inhale".

George Bush, of which I'm NOT in support of, stopped drinking LONG before his political life.

So no one on this blog has anyone in their family with past or present drug or alcohol problems? I didn't realize all of you were holier than thou and take pleasure in knocking people down for changing their lives.

There is nothing new about shortages in deployed military units. In Vietnam, we rarely had a full complement of men or materiel. Units are equipped and manned in accordance with mission priorities. Perhaps the unit in question wasn't first priority. Finally, remember that many female soldiers are non-deployable when it's time to go to war.

There is nothing new about shortages in deployed military units. In Vietnam, we rarely had a full complement of men or materiel. Units are equipped and manned in accordance with mission priorities. Perhaps the unit in question wasn't first priority. Finally, remember that many female soldiers are non-deployable when it's time to go to war.

Thanks for a well-written article. After reading some of these comments that say they STILL don't believe the story, I have to say a few things.
1) The military/congress/pentagon/you-name-it has stated that the military is over-stretched and can't keep up this pace or handle another engagement right now. So at some level this has to be plausible.
2) Obama was relating a STORY that he was TOLD by a soldier. He didn't say he was there or saw it with his own eyes. He isn't insulting you.
3) His point is that he wants the military in BETTER shape, so why are all you right-wingers and vets calling him a liar? He's making a case that you should be better equipped.

I am shocked to read most of these comments. Where were all of you several years ago when the issue of equipment shortages was brought to Rumsfeld's attention and it was shot down? This was all over the news people! Did all of you just crawl out from under a news rock?

Do any of you remember the fundraisers nationwide to purchase flak jackets because they couldn't get them in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Do your research folks before you start blasting Barack. This dominated the news for a long time.

Go back under your rocks.

Sen. Obama, you say that you are going to change things?? OK, then what are you going to change and HOW are you going to change it?? I never heard one word as to how you are going to do something.. Just how do you plan on doing something when you have never done anything in your political career of 1 year?? Name 1 thing that you have done while being a Senator from Illinois?? I would like to hear your response to that!!!!

Since when do Republicans know the difference between the truth and a lie?

They make me LAAAUGH!!

CPT, under Carter, the US Army SF did not have night vision equipment, and our x-county skis dated from WWII. So if you want that level of funding again, vote for Obama.

I don't often respond to these type of stories but today I must say something. My sister a US Marine Officer and her husband also a US Marine Officer are both serving in Iraq/Afghanistan respectively. They agree that the Obama story is true and that was all we needed to know. I am appalled at Sen. Warner trying to discredit a man who is trying to make sure that my sister and brother-in-law are safe and have the necessary supplies. Say hello to the republican turned Democrat for OBAMA 08.

Just one more example of how Bush/Rumsfeld wanted the US military to travel "light."

Can someone tell me where in the article did this captain confirm Obama's claim that he and his men had to use taliban weaponry and ammo because they did not or could not get their own as Obama claimed.

Obama is supposed to be a potential president or commander in chief. His wife has never been proud of our military's accomplishments "in her entire adult life". Now her husband does not have the respect for the American soldier or the American public to relay the true statements given to him in trust by this soldier.

Instead Obama twisted what this brave soldier told him to insult the integrity of the soldier's commanders who would be directly responsible for insuring that he had ammo before going into the war zone.

Shame on you Sen Obama and I'm sorry to say, the same for your wife.

Is this the integrity you gleaned from the bastion's of higher learning that you attended?

Tommy Times wrote: George W Bush was president for three years before he sent undertrained and undersupplied troops to Afghanistan.

Operating Enduring Freedom, that is the war in Afghanistan Tommy, began on October 7, 2001. That's a little less than 10 months into the Bush presidency Tommy, not three years.

Might want to sign up for that remedial math course Tommy.

If as some Democrats have implied, you have to wait to deploy until you have the ideal number and type of vehicles, the ideal ammount of weapons and ammunition, the fullest staffing, ideal levels of training with all of the above, no army that ever existed will ever deploy. This sounds like an excuse for never using the military which I suspect is Obama's actual intention rather than an intent to make sure all military shortages are forever eliminated.

If you read the milblogs, the idea that we we would seek out Taliban weapons for our troops to use instead of our own is ridiculous. On the other hand, we do give captured enemy equipment to our Iraqi and Afghan allies. There is nothing wrong with that and thus there is little value to this anecdote.

Appropriately ill-timed purely for political consideration, Sen. Warner’s priority-displacement and lunacy wreaks of a “flaming cocktail” that all show and offers no buzz…rather morality high! His attack smacks of desperation, while offering a striking retrospective-sadly, of a more modern face of McCarthyism…rather early European and American “witch-hunts!” And at his age, I’d wager that he himself might offer an eyewitness testimonial to this dark era of western civilization. Predictably irrational…as are most of America’ current crop of spendthrifts elected-officials daily making a “run-on-the-bank” of tax-payer’s hard-earned wages under the capital dome, Sen. Warner appears conspicuously oblivious-rather there appears to be no rush-to-judgment on behalf of the “Warner Commission” assuaging fellow-partisan and 2008 presumptive Republican Presidential nominee: Arizona Sen. John McCain’s alleged…blatant conflict-of-interest concerns, cozy relationship with “certain shadow” communication-operatives slash lobbyists. All of whom were recently…some anonymously, quoted in a story in the New York Times, as well his own “Keating Five” testimonials. Sen. Warner is all about polarized-politics, for which Sen. Obama seeks to disband. This form of demagoguery is void of any movement proactively-as you’ve risen, to pursue viable or alternative solutions to the concerns at the core of Sen. Obama’ conversation with the Captain. Sen. Warner’s lame-duck tactic doesn’t past the smell test…selecting to use politically-correct discourse rather than reverting to a more preferred Texan, beer-induced, expletive-laden tirade.

George W Bush was president for three years before he sent undertrained and undersupplied troops to Afghanistan. Blaming it on WJC, who actually stopped terrorist attacks, is crap. You know, you right wingers love to yap about "personal responsibilty" but god forbid you expect your cocaine addled president to practice it.

So when Obama tells us martians are landing or the earth is flat, I suppose the press will find a way to justify that baloney. The guy stretches the truth as much as he ego.

I have to add some comments to your own article:

1) A the time there was a shortage of small-arms ammuntion throughout the entire Army.

2) Your own story demonstrated that they did have enough humvees - the issue was keeping them running.

Both these problems were the direct result of Clinton-era budget cuts. Clinton closed the military's ammunition factories and forced the Army to 'make do' with aging vehicles. Can we be surprised that aging vehicles will break down more often in combat?

"Similarly Iraq had the fourth largest standing army in the world and represented a country that could and would provide material aid and support to Al Queda. "

Oh good God, people still believe that crap?

Once more: Saddam Hussein, Iraq's secular Communist dictator, hated al-Qaeda, executed them when found.
Once he was *removed*, al-Qaeda, seeing the power vacuum, flooded into Iraq.

As for "fourth largest standing army in the world", that depends how you count. The US is by far the largest by every measure, followed IIRC by Russia and China. Saddam's inflated numbers in his *land* army posed no threat to us -- how would they get to the US? Meanwhile, it was a very poor, poorly *equipped* military.

I think the only people who would not believe this story or what the captain said would be people who are not military veterans. I am a military veteran and I find this story totally believable.

Funny to listen to your spin on this story, I listened to a similar report on CNN and the outcome was quite different from yours. The captain, for instance, was talking of 'not enough' equipment for 'training in the USA', not in Afghanistan, etc etc etc

Facts are always good, and there's no question the Bush admin lost interest in fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban in favor of oil.

Not sure why this reflects poorly on Senator Clinton though.

Maybe - just maybe -- these right-wing nuts, who have long appropiated and monopolized discussions about the military (and religion, i might add), feel thereatened by an "encroachment" to thier turf.

But guess what, Obama will not only give lip service; he'll acutally do something to fix the problem.

I find it irksome that these 'conservatives', who speak so highly of 'the troops' in public settings, have done more to undermine the military. Just look at the neo-cons pet project in Iraq.

The ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Andylit said, "Obama sits on the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. If he had this knowledge and suppressed it...well...I'll leave it to you to decide on that."

I'm hoping you can understand this. Where on earth did you read that the Captain gave this information to Obama in 2003???

You said, "The source claims to have met with Obama in 2003."
=============================

My apologies. Obama claimed that during his speech, not the article above.

Odd, even the author calls the story an anecdote. Look it up.

As for tall tales and outright lies, okay, here you go.

John Kerry 1971, under oath

Winter soldier Investigation
I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

The so called investigation was later found to be...faulty..at best. http://www.wintersoldier.com/staticpages/index.php?page=YesterdaysLies1

Many of the VVAW founders were found to have lied about their time in theater (if any), participation in atrocities, decorations and honors, and in at least one case, military service at all.

For something a little more recent, google the name Scott Thomas. That's the jerk who floated stories about using skulls as helmet decorations, running down dogs in the street, mocking disfigured civilians, etc.

BTW, I did a little fact checking on the author. This guy has ZERO credibility as a journalist. He was a staffer at Handgun Control Inc. His literary claim to fame is Down and Dirty: The Plot to Steal the Presidency on the 2000 Presidential election and Body Slam: The Jesse Ventura Story.

A liberal masquerading as an impartial journalist.

And to close, my original questions remain.

How did Jake manage to fact check the "captain's" background so fast, and if he did, why didn't he share a paragraph about that fact check? He didn't check. It's been less than 24 hours since the speech. This "fact check" story is BULL.

The FACT is that you have a liberal reporter CHOSEN by the Obama campaign to be allowed to contact the source. You have no indication that the reporter did anything other than talk to a person who CLAIMS his story is true.

Talk about gullible. Wow

Thanks for this blog, Jake Tapper. Keep up the good work in un-muddying the water.

Andylit said, "Obama sits on the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. If he had this knowledge and suppressed it...well...I'll leave it to you to decide on that."

I'm hoping you can understand this. Where on earth did you read that the Captain gave this information to Obama in 2003???

You said, "The source claims to have met with Obama in 2003."

NO, he didn't. Read on.

"The Captain has spoken to Sen. Obama, he says, but this anecdote was relayed to Obama through an Obama staffer."

The Captain was in Iraq 2003-2004. Nowhere did he say he gave Obama, or his staff the information at that time. Sounds like it was recently.

You said, "These are not simple attempts to discredit the source. Recent history if rife with sources who either lie about their duty stations, or even lie about being in the military at all."

So give us some links to these 'rife' stories. I gave you plenty of links below to stories that back up the Captain. Several million as I recall.
A lot of them, United States Military sites.

Most of the people speaking here are just ignorant. There is no perfect man. I say who are you to judge, no one has a clean past although some are cleaner than others. People are afraid of Barack because he represents something new in D.C. than the same old crap. Mr. Bush is an alcoholic and did his share of cocaine and could'nt even run a business. GET REAL! OBAMA 08