RECENT POSTS
- Oprah, Health Care Lobbyists, Among Recent Visitors to White House
- An Obama Thanksgiving Menu, with an Extra Serving of Pie
- White House Thanksgiving Traditions: Broken and Observed
- Obama, GOP Air Differences Over Jobs, Economy In Thanksgiving Addresses
- White House State Dinner Party Crashers
- Obama to Lay Out Emissions Goals in Copenhagen
- Free Bird
- The "Good" War
- The Presidential Planner
- Under the Stars, Obama Toasts India’s Prime Minister
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
And Why Isn't Obama Wearing Body Armor In Those Photos?
July 21, 2008 5:29 PM
We were wondering why those shots, below, seem to show Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, in a war zone without body armor on.
ABC News' Luis Martinez asked Gen. Petraeus' spokesman Col. Steve Boylan. Boylan's response: "It is not a requirement for them to wear it and it is situation dependant. If you notice, General Petraeus is not wearing his body armor as well. There have been few if any attacks of late on our aircraft and the situation did not require them to be wearing body armor. If they felt that they did not need too, it is personal choice. Many times while out in various places in Iraq, I myself have not wear my IBA since the situation did not require it. It is interesting to note that the media in most cases wears their body armor when many of us are not."
(Above you can see an image of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown opting for the armor.)
Look for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and his allies to make the argument that the only reason Obama could be so stylish in Baghdad was because of McCain's advocacy for the surge.
-- jpt
UPDATE: Martinez notes for some added context that Col. Boylan points out that the photos of Obama were taken at Baghdad International Airport shortly after his arrival. Obama and Senators Hagel and Reed were greeted by Gen. Petraeus who then escorted them to a waiting helicopter that took them on an aerial tour of Baghdad before proceeding to the Green Zone. Boylan says he knows of "very few" visitors at the airport who arrive wearing body armor. When traveling through the city of Baghdad, Boylan says the wearing of body armor by visitors depends on the situation and where one's going. It should also be noted that other photos of British PM Brown's recent visit to Iraq show him also not wearing body armor.
July 21, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (137)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
"Look for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and his allies to make the argument that the only reason Obama could be so stylish in Baghdad was because of McCain's advocacy for the surge."
And why shouldn't he? He was the guy who was on the leading-edge of the "surge" advocacy, and the surge has clearly been nothing short of a success. I'm not a fan of McCain -- I will likely vote for him, though -- but why should he not promote a position on which he was obviously on the correct side and his opponent was was not?
Posted by: Bill | Jul 22, 2008 12:24:02 AM
Strange, I realy don't know of anyone who has lost their rights nor freedoms, none of my friends do either. Hmmm......
Posted by: Temgami | Jul 22, 2008 12:06:52 AM
PROFOUND!! NITE ALSO
Posted by: Jimbo | Jul 21, 2008 11:59:43 PM
_____________________
Nite, have a good one.
Posted by: rhbate | Jul 22, 2008 12:04:23 AM
Rhbate.
PROFOUND!! NITE ALSO
Posted by: Jimbo | Jul 21, 2008 11:59:43 PM
Intelligent discussion? NITE
Posted by: Jimbo | Jul 21, 2008 11:57:35 PM
Is it a fiasco that a tyrant is destroyed,
Posted by: Manitu | Jul 21, 2008 11:23:33 PM
_______________
From my point of view, the real tyrant is still in office - in the US.
Posted by: rhbate | Jul 21, 2008 11:53:49 PM
Rhibate.
800,000? Source?
Posted by: Jimbo | Jul 21, 2008 11:50:24 PM
McCain did not spit in the face of American soliers.
Posted by: Manitu | Jul 21, 2008 11:47:09 PM
_________________
McCain is not the brightest bulb on the tree.
In justifying his position in Iraq, McCain said on the Today show this morning that there is a very dangerous situation on the Iraq-Pakistan border. Someone should have told him those borders are over 750 miles apart.
Posted by: rhbate | Jul 21, 2008 11:49:47 PM
Is it a fiasco that a tyrant is destroyed, that a nation becomes a democracy . . .
Posted by: Manitu | Jul 21, 2008 11:38:11 PM
________________
I wonder which nation you are referring to that became a "democracy." Here in the US we have lost more rights, stooped to torture, wiretapped our own citizens, lost many of our Constitution rights. Less of a democracy than at any time in history.
Posted by: rhbate | Jul 21, 2008 11:47:11 PM
McCain did not spit in the face of American soliers.
Posted by: Manitu | Jul 21, 2008 11:47:09 PM
Is it a fiasco that a tyrant is destroyed, that a nation becomes a democracy, bad guys are defeated, that our butts are kept safe over here? Sorry you don't agree.
Posted by: Manitu | Jul 21, 2008 11:38:11 PM
_____________________
The real fiasco is that over 4100 of our men and women are dead, that over 800,000 Iraqis are dead, that millions more are displaced, that a country has been destroyed and is worse off than before this unnecessary war. And worse, that the American people are worse off than before.
Posted by: rhbate | Jul 21, 2008 11:42:57 PM
Rhbate.
McBush? Running out of good material?
Posted by: Manitu | Jul 21, 2008 11:33:46 PM
_____________________
Seems that way!
Posted by: rhbate | Jul 21, 2008 11:38:54 PM
Is it a fiasco that a tyrant is destroyed, that a nation becomes a democracy, bad guys are defeated, that our butts are kept safe over here? Sorry you don't agree.
Posted by: Manitu | Jul 21, 2008 11:38:11 PM
Rhbate.
McBush? Running out of good material?
Posted by: Manitu | Jul 21, 2008 11:33:46 PM
The point here is that Obama was WRONG ON THE SURGE
Posted by: Temagami | Jul 21, 2008 11:15:23 PM
_______________________
The real point is: McBush was WRONG ON THE WAR!
Posted by: rhbate | Jul 21, 2008 11:26:15 PM
Germany, France and Great Britain have recently elected pro Bush leaders. Are these the allies that di was referring to? Actually, all the intel services of these nations have contributed immensely to the war on terrorism.
Posted by: Manitu | Jul 21, 2008 11:23:33 PM
Calm down Temagami!
Judgement you say? Well, well, well, guess who tried to save us from the entire Iraq fiasco in the first place?
Is it not Senator Obama? Unfortunately, MCCAIN'S JUDGEMENT FAILED HIM WHEN IT MATTERED MOST - AT THE FIRST POINT OF DECISION MAKING.
Posted by: Gillian | Jul 21, 2008 11:21:23 PM
Why isn't Obama wearing body armor? Maybe it's the troop surge?
I sence another Jimmy Carter type presidency on the horizon....
Posted by: Scott Buchele | Jul 21, 2008 11:21:17 PM
Mccain is eating obama's lunch on iraq and afghanistan. obama has absolutely no experience or credibility with our troops and veterans. they will vote for mccain in mass.
mccain was right on iraq and afghanistan. obama was wrong.
mccain has the qualifications and strong bipartisan record to lead us on day 1
Posted by: Kurt | Jul 21, 2008 11:16:26 PM
The point here is that Obama was WRONG ON THE SURGE, MCCAIN WAS RIGHT. THE ISSUE HERE IS ONE OF JUDGEMENT, LACK OF ON OBAMA'S PART. GERERAL PETRAEUS HAD A JOB TO DO AND THESE LEFT WINGNUTS INCLUDING OBAMA ANNOUNCE THAT THE WAR WAS ALREADY LOST - GREAT PRESIDENTIAL MATERIAL. I'll BET GENERAL PETRAEUS WISHED THAT HE COULD HAVE BEEN A CIVILIAN FOR TEN MIN DURING HIS MEETING WITH OBAMA.
Posted by: Temagami | Jul 21, 2008 11:15:23 PM
Post a comment
