Thanks for Commenting
Might want to watch out for citing that poll. From the Military Times itself:
The results should not be read as representative of the military as a whole; the survey’s respondents are on aver age older, more experienced, more likely to be officers and more career-oriented than the overall military population.
^^^That was me, not Richard, who used my computer last.
Wow Mario, if mixing Auschwitz up with Buchenwald is the best you can come up with to argue against Obama, you're in for a tough campaign. Especially with McCain repeatedly unable to differentiate of the difference between Shia and Sunni Muslims.
Will it ease your mind to find out that Obama's Uncle was one of the liberators of Buchenwald, not Auschwitz?
Its funny to me that after spending the last two presidential election cycles tearing down war veterans in favor of a draft dodger, you're now so gung-ho for military vets.
I also notice you didn't bother rebutting Burton, who was absolutely correct:
Point 1: Touring Iraq is a political stunt wherein the traditionally Republican-leaning military can show their preference towards McCain.
Point 2: Iraq has still not reached the political progress goals that it was supposed to have reached TWO YEARS AGO. The escalation/surge has had NO POSITIVE EFFECT on the Iraqi political process.
Point 3: The Iraq War has made us less safe, not more so. This is confirmed by our own national intelligence estimates.
The only thing Burton's statement has wrong about it is that he forgot to reiterate that the War was justified through lies and propaganda and that the reasons for invading turned out to be complete fabrications. Oops.
Wasn't it John McCain that recently confused shias and sunnis?
Mario not only did Obama make the statement that his uncle was among the American soldiers who liberated Auschwitz during World War II last weekend but he made that same statement in his Iraq speech in 2002. This is Obama's maternal grandfather's service information which shows he did not enlist right after Pearl Harbor
Dunham, Stanley A. Enlisted 18 June 1942, Army 17056069
While his Uncle did enlist in the military a quick check of military records on line reveals that he did not enlist in the ARMY but he enlisted in the NAVY. My guess is that no NAVY sailors liberated any German Concentration Camps.
I guess his connection to these two Vets provide him with military experience.
. . . and today McCain says troop levels are down to pre-surge levels. Who is making the bigger mistake in misspeaking? Certainly not Obama.
Don't you think as a potential future Commander in Chief, he ought to be willing to spend some post-surge time on the ground with our generals in Iraq?
No.
Iraq is not a military problem, it's a political problem. The problem is to find the best way to help create a peaceful, reasonably free civil society out of the wreckage that our misguided policies have made.
Bush - and now, McCain - have wanted to pretend that this is a military problem. They've always irresponsibly duckd the political questions by saying "we must listen to our military people". But that's a craven evasion of their responsibility.
We need to listen to historians and political scientists and sociologists and anthropologists and religious scholars to figure out how to foster civil society in Iraq. Our generals aren't in the nation-building business - haven't been since Viet-Nam - and we shouldn't give them a task they're neither trained nor equipped for.
Ogler, before you get to cozy with those Republican talking points, you might want to read this on a site dedicated to the 89th Infantry Division, run by a veteran:
Concerning the service of Mr. Charles Payne: C.T. Payne was a soldier in the 89th Infantry Division. He served in the 355th Infantry Regiment, Company K. The 355th Infantry Regiment was the unit to liberate Ohrdruf. Mr. Payne was there.Ohrdruf was a "sub-camp" of Buchenwald.
For those who seek to minimize the horrors of Ohrdruf since it was a 'work' camp and not a 'death' camp, we have but one word: shame. Ironically, this argument has been made to us time and time again by various Holocaust-deniers and other pro-Nazi groups. We will let the testimony of survivors and veterans speak for themselves.
Ha ha ha, wait. We now gauge the efficacy of our global strategic moves by, um, polling servicemen? And a majority of a particular sample "believe[s]" that the US is 'somewhat' or more likely to "succeed in Iraq?" That's it? "Succeed?" One wonders if "success" was defined in any way by this poll or just left to mean everything, nothing, or anything in between. What does "somewhat" mean in this context?
Were these servicemen asked their opinion of an "orderly" withdrawal? Or just the straw man of a "precipitous" one? This sort of thing is patently meaningless in its own right, much less as a pseudo-benchmark for a politician's "military" expertise.
I agree, Obama's no Cheney when it comes to matters military, but he should do just fine against a guy who doesn't know the difference between Iran and al Qaeda and thinks being clueless is a matter of verb tenses...
I concur with Dan; this is the best you got? Good luck with that.
Commenting by HaloScan
