The Smear, The Rebuttal, and the Faux Pas
As if Barack Obama is not having enough fault-finding of his foreign tour…
First, there was the smear. According to the Daily News on July 24:
“The latest chain e-mail smear against Barack Obama: He “blew off” troops at an Afghan base to shoot hoops for a publicity photo. The letter was apparently written by a Utah Army National Guard intelligence officer in a linguist unit at Bagram Airfield who claimed the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee was rude to G.I.s.”
Then there was the rebuttal and condemnation of the smear. In the same Daily News article:
But angry Army brass debunked the Obama-bashing soldier’s allegations, which went viral Thursday over the Web and on military blogs such as Blackfive:
“These comments are inappropriate and factually incorrect,” said Bagram spokesman Army Lt. Col. Rumi Nielson-Green, who added that such political commentary is barred for uniformed personnel.
Obama didn’t play basketball at Bagram or visit the Clamshell, he said. Home-state troops were invited to meet him, but his arrival was kept secret for security reasons.
“We were a bit delayed … as he took time to shake hands, speak to troops and pose for photographs,” Nielson-Green said.
And then there was the reporting on the rebuttal of the smear. In its usually accurate “Early Bird Brief” e-mail to readers of Defense News summaries of articles in its “DoD Current News Early Brief,” prestigious Defense News has the following summary:
POLITICS
Army Refutes Slam Of Bam
[New York Daily News, July 25, 2008, Pg. 7]
An Army spokesman denied that Osama bin Laden “blew off” troops at an Afghan base in order to shoot hoops for a publicity photo.
Wow, a good thing that Osama “blew it off.” What would the Al-Qaeda troops say of their leader shooting “hoops” with American troops!
In all seriousness, I am sure that Defense News will correct this faux pas, post-haste.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
17 Responses to “The Smear, The Rebuttal, and the Faux Pas”
How many faux pas can you do before it seems to be a concerted effort? I've seen this faux pas done a number of times now.
Does this Utah soldier have any honor? Does John “I'll redefine the surge today” McCain have any honor left?
Oh, it's a concerted effort alright.
Make no mistake. And so is McCain's “flimsy” campaign right now.
I'm telling you that democrats are walking directly into a trap set by the GOP. And that trap is the charismatic, stubborn, non-unifying and patently unelectable Barack Obama.
Larry Sinclair. Google it.
How do you defeat your enemy? Get them to send the weaker of two candidates to do hand to hand combat with you just after the gate closes behind their back.
It's all about the Denver Convention. When that event is over, look for the McCain campaign to suddenly get new and very sharp teeth.
The Obama Trap. It is my suggestion that people begin to take a very close look at it as a possibility..
“How many faux pas can you do before it seems to be a concerted effort? I've seen this faux pas done a number of times now.”
Yes, with the Obama campaign — when something is criticized, it “was a mistake.”
As to this thread's issue, it isn't commonly in the news and this is the first time I heard of it, and even though the media are active Obama campaigners, I doubt they would suppress it (because it could be used to make McCain look bad, as postings already made on this thread imply).
The one trivia item I was aware of about Obama in the Middle East was that he had the guts to fly on the Osprey (the program Cheney tried to kill years ago, for the tilt-rotor aircraft that has experienced several crashes, and the commercial version of which has yet to be offered and probably never will).
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004308.html…
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004309.html…
You sound interestingly wishful, Silhouette.
If you know something we don't, pray tell us.
DLS,
What's your point about the Osprey?
“What's your point about the Osprey?”
“The” [main] point is what I wrote: he had the guts to fly on the Osprey. While no doubt it isn't as bad as the hypesters say it is, it has been a problem-ridden aircraft and program (was selected for termination in the past), with a notorious record of crashes. (These were other points that may have cluttered what I was saying in your view.) I say he had guts to ride in it (even if he may kill it someday!).
Probably the most important other point, Chris, is that he or McCain (I suspect it will be he, Obama) will have to face the military cost and procurement and future systems mess once taking office. It won't necessarily be left up to the new Sec Def to decide what programs get reduced or terminated. That's actually independent of the obvious appeal to an Obama to raid the military funds to pay for social-spending programs and other favored forms of spending. It wouldn't even surprise me if that stupid phrase “peace dividend” once more was used once our troops are out of Iraq if not soon out of Afghanistan.
We all know about that nutjob Larry Sinclair, or I hope many do. He's no smoking gun, just another small-wick firecracker.
Sil is uttering more “truther” nonsense.
DLS,
The problem with the Osprey is not that it's generally unsafe. The problem is that it's too fragile for the hardships of a military theater.
This “story” has been very big in the comments section of military.com, with over 90% of the commenters believing it totally. Remember that the 50% sheeple type voter is who this crap is aimed at. The no nothing voter, the ones who see the first smear, but never see/hear the rebuttle. Methinks that this is just one more example of the type of crap that the 101st fighting republician keyboarders do from their mothers basements. A broad appeal to those whose minds are already locked against everything that does not fit their world view.
Chris – actually, the Osprey has performed outstandingly in the Gulf. It has changed the minds of many in the military that opposed it, and the troops love it.
AR,
Good to hear. I wouldn't want to think all that money went to waste.
DLS-
It's no longer criticism when it's a factually false statement. It's a smear.
Veering off into 'Clinton did it too' land is not a valid rebuttal to what is ahppening NOW. That's an effort to alibi the unacceptable.
=================
'Osama bin Laden' usage is ugly and politics at its worst. There should be some hoops no one would jump through for political advatnage, not if they want to lay claim to any principles whatsoever.
Besides, what does it say about a candidate if he has to rely on this level of muck to win?
——————————
SIl-
Friendly tip: give it a rest. You've worn out your mantra to where it's no more than the annoying buzzing of a fly.
Try googling 'hoaxes'.
Yes let's dump billions on completion of the FCS, Pentagon geeks will win the GWOT from Virginia instead of Iraq and Afghanistan. The COIN/4th Gen war, a product/usurping of Rummy, is going swimmingly. Transponders and digital communication of the ground is a farse…
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/…
“Veering off into 'Clinton did it too' land “
I haven't done this, ever, on this site. (or elsewhere) Why direct this at me?
* * *
“let's dump billions on completion of the FCS”
Yeah, if you thought Osprey was fit for the ax…I'm more familiar with FCS than you realize, Rudi.
I'm critical of much of FCS — from what I suspect was an original all-wheeled set of vehicles (the manned vehicles now wisely have band tracks instead); going too light weight (even giving up the hope of surviving a direct hit; so much for crew survivability), and going too light (good for deployment and larger numbers of guns on the ground, but what about that crew survivability?) as well as the silly as well as expensive techno-futurism (even Al Gore could not be accused of having conceived this) and expecting to detect the enemy first with our New Lite Nifty Wizard Forces and destroy him at stand-off, _never_ close-in, range with our weapons and hi-tech coordination and communications. It's techno-conceit! Right now the most common buzz term in Iraq and Afghanistan is “up-armoring” and “up-armored” and Mine Resistant, Ambush Protected vehicles are selling in huge numbers. We need tougher, heavier vehicles mainly, not techno-whiz stuff.
http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/FCS.pdf
http://web.mit.edu/ssp/Publications/working_pap…
[strident but good reading nevertheless]
http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/pdf/orielly_preventabl…
[wheels versus tracks, new and expensive versus old and cheap]
http://www.west-point.org/publications/Stryker.pdf
I believe the eventual “FCS” may not even be anything by that name and will give us a common set of lighter-weight vehicles (and other tools) where they are shown to make sense. Already some smart things are being done such as not going to all wheels but using band tracks on the ground vehicles. [whew] The MCS is going to use an improved version of the 120 mm gun on the Abrams but it will double the moving engagement range and include beyond-line-of-sight targeting out another 50% beyond that newer, longer range. That's probably something the Army would eventually like even though there's no way on earth I consider it the replacement of the Abrams.
And, of course, FCS is ripe for more cuts or termination by the next President or his Sec Def.
I'm a track guy, not a wheel guy, and I doubt the light weight vehicles (which already are heavier than what was originally desired, under 20 tons) will ever give the crews the confidence that those in the Abrams and Bradley have. Some smaller vehicles are a good idea, but not complete conversion to these, and the high-tech sustitution for survivability and being able to slug it out at diistances where we _normally_ and _typically_ encounter the enemy is just, well, conceit.
At least they're still not wheeled ground vehicles, intended for UN-style peacekeeping primarily if not exclusively. [rolling eyes]
Silhouette – I'm sure you were very disappointed when Texas Darlin posted Obama's birth announcement from the 1961 Honolulu paper. That pretty much puts to bed the Great Birth Certificate Conspiracy. Just like the infamous “whitey” tape that never was, the Sinclair crap will disappear also.