Who's the Mysterious Captain, Obama? [Update]
February 22nd, 2008 by Admin
[UPDATE] The media is trying hard to help clean up Obama's mess during the debates. MSNBC is tripping over themselves to "fact check" and prove his gaffe. The story mentions that there are "specific gaps" in Obama's story (presumably from the point he opened his mouth), but that "in whole….largely holds up." Isn't that kinda like saying, "I sorta, kinda think there may have been an instance of truth to the rumor that it's possible something similar to happened at some point in time"? Let's compare the major point of what Obama said with the "details" MSNBC found:
Obama said: "…they didn't have enough ammunition" in Afghanistan.
MSNBC's facts: "Yes, they did run out of ammunition, but that was in training, not actually during combat."
MSNBC then goes on to say that "the overall story that was being told, what it was supposed to illustrate is still the same." I'm sorry, but lying doesn't illustrate anything except mistrust. You can't illustrate a legitimate point with illegitimate arguments. That's like me arguing for more money for the poor by illustrating that our transportation system is broke. Personally, I think the "Captain", if he/she really exists, is crapping his/her pants right now, realizing that there's no way to back up this story with truth. Where are the other Soldiers that were with this "Captain" in Afghanistan? I wouldn't be surprised if he were a member of IVAW or some similar organization.
ABCNews similarly talked to "with the Army captain in question" and noted that the story is "quite credible", even though it hasn't been backed up by any other sources. In the intel world, we don't (or we try not to) rely on ONE source as a basis for a decision. Bad things happen when we do that. Here's what ABCNews unwittingly found out to contradict Obama's public story:
Obama: "15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq."
ABCNews "facts": "..in ones and twos — 15 members of the platoon were re-assigned to other units."
You mean to tell me that Soldiers get reassigned in the Army? Say it isn't so. The "Captain" says he knows "for sure" that 10 of those 15 "went to Iraq" and only speculates that the other five did as well. That's a flawed argument. Just because someone gets reassigned to another unit and that unit happens to get deployed to Iraq doesn't mean they were plucked from Afghanistan and sent to Iraq as Obama claims. Obama also neglected to mention that half those Soldiers were "replaced" by the fall, "but not all 15." Welcome to the Army, Captain! We all have manning problems and have since our budget and personnel strength was cut in the 90's.
Obama: "they didn't have enough humvees" in Afghanistan.
ABCNews: "As for the weapons and humvees, there are two distinct periods in this, as he explains — before deployment, and afterwards."
So….the "Captain" DID have enough humvees in Afghanistan then!! Iraq was no consequence of something that didn't happen. Yes, despite all these glaring contradictions, ABCNews finds that "Obama's anecdote checks out." Isn't the News supposed to find the TRUTH? No, instead they just fall on their sword, ending the story with this little gem: "I might suggest those on the blogosphere upset about this story would be better suited directing their ire at those responsible for this problem, which is certainly not new. That is, if they actually care about the men and women bravely serving our country at home and abroad." I might suggest that ABCNews actually talk to the military they feign to "care about".
AP used a bit of the ABCNews story in their piece which also discredits Obama's claims. Yet, we still don't have an apology from the Obama Campaign.
Obama said: "They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief."
AP's "facts": "The captain said, however, that the unit did not go after the Taliban for the purpose of getting their weapons, but sometimes used those weapons when some were captured."
Interesting, and I'll tell you why. When I was in Iraq (and I've already mentioned this), I used an AK a lot as well. Does that mean that Afghanistan was also distracting from MY mission? During WWII, Soldiers frequently used weapons captured from the enemy in Europe. Does that mean that the Pacific campaign was distracting from the European one? No. There – I think I've done my job and can rest now….[end update]
Last night, I had a very difficult decision to make: watch my new favorite show, Smallville, or watch the Clinton/Obama "debate". For some unknown reason, I chose the debate. I'm glad I did, because the following story actually made me think I'd choose Clinton over Obama. In came in response to a question about Obama's readiness to be commander in chief:
You know, I've heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon — supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon. Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq.
OBAMA: And as a consequence, they didn't have enough ammunition, they didn't have enough humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief.
I have so many issues with this, I don't know where to start. So, let's start at the beginning. I've discovered the identity of this mysterious Captain…
First of all, Captains don't lead platoons. Captains lead companies. Secondly, nowhere does Army doctrine state that Rifle Platoons will have 39 troops in them. As a matter of fact, Field Manual 7-8, INFANTRY RIFLE PLATOON AND SQUAD, a standard rifle platoon consists of three rifle squads and a headquarters. Rifle squads doctrinally consist of 9 personnel (x3 squads = 27 troops in a platoon + 3 HQ personnel: Plt Leader, Plt Sergeant, and RTO = 30). Seems to me that 24 ain't that bad! Keep in mind this is in a perfect world where every position in the military is full, which it's not. Researching this a bit, I notice that Obama's peeps are trying to backtrack on this saying that the Captain was Lieutenant at the time the story took place – 2003!!! So, why would Obama mess this up. After all, he's the one that talked to this mysterious Captain, right? Wrong. Turns out that Obama never "heard from an Army Captain". In reality, he heard from his staff who supposedly heard from this CPT. This is semantics to a degree, but what we don't know is who this "Captain" is and what unit he was with. Knowing the unit involved would easily debunk or substantiate Obama's story. The only unit I remember being in Afghanistan in 2003 was my alma mater unit, the 11th ACR from Fort Irwin and some Special Forces units.
The second issue is the one of separating a platoon for combat in multiple theaters. It simply doesn't happen. At worst, Companies would be separated from Battalions, but not squads from platoons or even platoons from companies. It simply doesn't happen. Even supposing that it were true that 15 bubbas got sent to Iraq, how exactly does that translate into a deficit of ammunition. Wouldn't that mean there were be more ammunition for the remaining troops in that platoon? The reason we were capturing Taliban weapons was because we didn't want them to have them – not because we wanted their ammo. Though, I'll admit, AK's don't misfire as much as our inferior M16s do in desert environs.
When I was in Iraq the first time during ground combat, I'll admit I ended up using an AK more than my M16. I did this for two reasons: the AK didn't jam and there was more ammo. We were moving so fast north, that the ammo supply couldn't keep up. But, guess what? That had nothing to do with President Bush or even Congress. That had to do with a superior fighting force (us) defeating an inferior fighting force (Saddam's military) with overwhelming precision and speed. The president does not stamp our ammo requests and make sure they get pushed up the lines of communication to us. He doesn't even tell us how much we can have. The Secretary of Defense doesn't even do that. That's a Brigade and Division issue! Wouldn't that be funny if I had to go and sign for my ammo from the Commander in Chief?
Vets For Freedom, my brothers from other mothers, released a statement today about Obama's comments which I hope every Obama supporter that clapped for him that day reads:
Vets for Freedom questions the recent comments by Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill) in the Democratic debate last night, in which he stated that American troops were “capturing Taliban weapons because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than get equipped by our current Commander in Chief”.
“Yet again Senator Obama has demonstrated the loose grip he holds on the reality of these conflicts,” said Vets for Freedom State Captain, and Afghanistan Army veteran Daniel Bell. “Senator Obama’s comments are insulting not only to those who have served and are still serving in Afghanistan but to all who serve in the armed forces. I can attest from my first hand experience that these comments are incredulous and that we were supplied all the tools necessary to complete our missions.”
He continued “His statements last night assert that he lacks the necessary knowledge to make serious judgments on military matters, that he is prone to dangerous exaggeration, and that he is grossly unaware of the facts on the ground. I call on other veterans of Afghanistan to respond to these ridiculous allegations and to remind Senator Obama that it is the sacrifice of those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan that allows him to so freely speak in this manner.”
I'm surprised the media isn't calling Obama on all his lies and blatant misrepresentations. He truly is the media's darling. The interesting thing is that I had mentioned to my wife how I could vote for Obama a few weeks ago – as a last resort of course. Now, I would vote for Clinton over Obama in a heartbeat. Honestly, and I don't say this in jest – if Obama became Commander In Chief I would SERIOUSLY rethink my military service. I would rather endure another 4-8 years of Clinton degradation that that. Not only would he be a TERRIBLE Commander in Chief, he wants the UN to tax us to help pay for global poverty. That's right, Obama is a co-sponsor of the "Global Poverty Act" legislation circulating through Congress right now. The Global Poverty Act:
* Declares it official U.S. policy to promote the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of cutting extreme global poverty in half by 2015.
* Requires the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to carry out that policy.
* Includes guidelines for what the strategy should include – from aid, trade, and debt relief, to working with the international community, businesses and NGOs, to ensuring environmental sustainability.
* Requires that the President’s strategy include specific and measurable goals, efforts to be undertaken, benchmarks, and timetables.
* Requires the President to report back to Congress on progress made in the implementation of the global poverty strategy.
There's no way in hell I'd ever vote for this man!! I've already written the following letter to each of my Congresspeople and Senators:
I read with extreme fear and frustration that Sen. Obama had sponsored legislation for a "Global Poverty Tax" that would impose international taxes on Americans to pay for GLOBAL poverty. I am completely against this!! We have enough taxes imposed on us from our own government; we don't need the U.N. taxing us further.
I am an American citizen, not a citizen of the United Nations. They have no authority over me and no right to tax my person, my property, or anything else belonging to this great nation.
I don't have a bill number, but here is a link to the story I read:
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-global-tax-proposal-up-for-senate -vote
Please vote against this bill and do everything in your power to inform the American people what is being proposed by the Socialists in our government. Thank you.
Feel free to use this as a template for your letters to your Senators if you feel the same way.
Posted in Military Perspective
Not sure where to start, but if the UN runs this "Global Tax" to end proverty in the same way they ran the "Oil for Food" program, it would be a disaster.
As a Democrat, I don't feel Sen Obama has the experience to lead this nation. This leaves me with Sen Clinton. She has done a remarkable job for our state during her time in office and had gotten more in tune with the issues of the state then her competitors that had been here for years. She constantly visits the 105th Airlift Wing and the 9th Mountain Division as they are deployed and she maintains a military staff that these families can reach out to. As I've said privately to CJ, I with we had more of a choice this time around, but so goes it. I have a lot of respect for Sen McCain for both his military service and his ability to upset the current administration by saying (gasp!!) what he thinks. I'm looking for substance from both sides and will make my descision accordingly.
Don't forget to take your kids to the Polls!! They learn by what they see.
David
I correct myself. It is the fine 10th Mountain Division, not the 9th from Ft Drum, NY.
CJ, I am not about to get into a debate with you on Army Doctrine, I would be a total fool. Go online to "http://thomas.loc.gov/" or "THOMAS". This is the online site for the Library of Congress dealing with Legislation in Concress. There are 2 bill relating to this "Global Poverty Iniative". They are S. 2433 and HR 1302. When you go to THOMAS, you'll see a search engine. You'll see "Search Bill Text", click "Bill Number." Then put in the S number or the HR number, click "Search". Then read the bill, not just the summary. Read everything. There is one thing not really thought about in this present situation, co-sponsors. These are the people with the wisdom, seniority and clout to get it through the Congress. I just don't see it happening.
Interesting thought, go to THOMAS, "Browse Bills by Sponsor", look to the right you see the large "GO" button. But just to the left of that button, you'll see up and down arrowheads, these are actually drawdown screens. These screens are alphabetical lists according to last name. Go to Obama and see how many bills had few or no co-sponsors. This speaks volumes. I believe, you will see this bill die in committee. It would be nice to be the one to put this bill out of its misery.
In closing, CJ is right, communicate with your Congressional Delagation and let them know what you are thinking on this issue. It just makes their job easier. Wouldn't it be nice to have your thinking be the "Coup de Grace" to this legislation.
As always,
Grumpy
From SNAFU: Someone please inform Senator Obama and his staff that we did not accidently drop troops in Mexico, as well. Perhaps he's been watching too many moviews, when he dreams up troops sizes and movements. Maybe he saw it on the movie Delta Farce.
B. Obama – Commander In Chief??…
Even worse than Hillary – God help us ~
CJ at A Soldiers Perspective has a must read post up on this.
Go there now if you haven't already seen it:
Who's the Mysterious Captain, Obama?
CJ also writes about the Global Poverty Act spon…
Once again, a damn fool liberal…….
….has bought another bogus story about the military.You know, I've heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoo……
WHY IS IT THAT WHEN EVER ANYONE DISAGREES WITH ANY STATEMENT
THAT SOMEONE ELSE DISAGREES WITH THAT THEY ARE CALLED A "D—F— LIBERAL?
I ALWAYS THOUGHT THAT BEING ABLE TO VOICE YOUR OPINION WAS
PROTECTED AND THAT EVERY MILITARY PERSON WHO HAS FOUGHT
FOR OUR COUNTRY DID IT TO PROTECT THAT RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH.
CJ, I'm not a great fan of Obama. I don't like politics, give me FACTS! In the above comment, I suggest a place where people may find "Documents of Record."
CJ, you suggest, infer or imply that you have the name of the "Captain". Is there any National Security reason you can not name him?
I read your rationale and from your perspective, I can understand how you came to your views. Personally, I don't believe they are comprehensive. I believe you have the right to your views. We may disagree, but I refuse to be disagreeable.
This is just a thought to be put on the table for your consideration. This comes from an unclassified setting. I hope to get it accurately.
(Pararaphrase)
"Sometimes we go to war with the Army we have and not the Army we need."
Former SECDEF, Donald Rumsfeld
CAPTAIN U.S. NAVY, Retired
To put that quote in context, it was wrongfully asked in a "Townhall" at the Pentagon. The tactic was wrong, not the factuality. Rumsfeld agreed with the young soldier. I don't like the fact some reporter planted the question.But Rumsfeld was aware of logistical issues in Afghanistan and later in Iraq.
There was an old saying, "They don't bury politicians, they just screw them into the ground." The thing to remember is this applies to BOTH Conservatives AND Liberals. We need to bring this Country together.
Now, you know why they call me
GRUMPY
LCDR,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Obama IS a Liberal. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't disagree with him on the basis of belief but of FACT. The FACT is that he's LYING to achieve a political, a liberal political, agenda.
I fight for free speech. I encourage every American to use it and use it freely and often. I don't encourage anyone to use that free speech to spread lies and propaganda regardless of which side it is on and especially if those lies are directed against the military.
There is a such a thing as responsibility. We also have a right to bear arms, but that doesn't mean we point them just anywhere we please. Therefore, any liberal spreading these blatant lies and falsehood would be a damn fool liberal just like any conservative spreading them would be a damn fool conservative!
The Army RESERVES reassigns individual soldiers…they are called Individual Mobilization Augmentees. Up until 2005 it was common practice…my daughters unit went to Iraq in 2004 with ~40% Individual Mobilation Augmentees.
Every month DOD puts out a press release called "National Guard/Reserves In Federal Status"…their are currently about 2,000 Individual Mobiliztion Augmentees for all services.
Reserve/National Guards have a Federal Status time limit set by law and their enlistment contracts at 2 years. If someone went to Iraq as an Individual Mobilization Augmentee…that pretty much expends their deployment clock.
If one is talking about Army Reserves…than a unit deploying with 40% IMA's was actually quite common.
Grumpy, are you saying that we should vote for Obama because Rumsfield is an idiot? Don't mean to mis-represent you. Would you care to correct my understanding or you share your logic?
C.J. MAY I PLEASE POST THIS FROM THE NEW YORK POST ?
OBAMA'S REAL MIDEAST PROBLEM
IT'S HIS POLICIES, NOT HIS HERITAGE
BY AMIR TAHERI
March 5, 2008 — IS pronouncing a man's mid dle name tantamount to in sulting him?
In Sen. Barack Obama's case, the answer appears to be yes.
Sen. Hillary Clinton has already apologized because her allies used the unmentionable middle name – ostensibly without her consent. Last week, it was Sen. John McCain's turn to apologize, because the host of a meeting he attended was rash enough to pronounce the seven-letter word.
The word in question is "Hussein," Obama's middle name and the name of his Kenyan Muslim father. Obama has accepted the apologies as if using his father's name was, indeed, an insult. Why?
Well, "Hussein" supposedly has a negative resonance with many Americans, reminding them of Saddam Hussein, the late Iraqi dictator. The fact that the name Hussein means "most benign" or "very beautiful" in Arabic isn't enough to persuade Obama and his pr gurus to treat it more kindly. (Hussein is also one of the most popular names for Muslims, especially Shiites.)
Obama's problems shouldn't end there. "Barack" is also Arabic, from "barakah," meaning "blessing." "Obama," meanwhile, is a word in Swahili – a language based on Arabic that serves as the lingua franca of East Africa; it refers to members of his father's tribe who converted to Islam.
In other words, "Barack Hussein Obama" is a perfectly common identifier for someone with an ethnic East African Muslim background.
Nevertheless, Obama insists that, while his father and paternal grandfather were both Muslims, he himself was never one in any way.
In Islam, of course, anyone born of a Muslim father is automatically regarded as Muslim. But Obama is hardly obliged to abide by what Muslims may or may not think of his religious status. As a citizen of a free and democratic state, he can cross from one faith to anther or have no faith at all without losing any of his rights, including the right to stand for the highest office.
What's troubling about Obama's approach to the mini-storm stirred by his political enemies over his name is what may look like an attempt at obfuscation. He has behaved as if he did have a family secret, and as if the name Hussein was something to be ashamed of – or, worse still, as if a Muslim background is somehow a handicap for an American politician in ways that Christian, Jewish, Mormon or any other faith is not.
That, of course, is hurtful to Muslims – a majority of whom reject the anti-American diatribes of the radical and violent minority.
It would've been better for Obama to state the situation clearly at the start: I was born in Hawaii and spent part of my childhood in Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country. Half of my family background is Islamic. My paternal grandfather and father were both Kenyan Muslims. My father gave me an Islamic forename and middle name. But my mother was from a Christian background, and I chose her faith.
Most Americans judge a candidate based on his politics rather than his parents' religious background. In a country where everyone has a rich ethnic and religious background, Obama's family story wouldn't have sounded that exotic. Some Americans may have even regarded the Islamic part of Obama's family story as a plus for the candidate, if only because the biggest challenge to US global leadership todayscomes from forces speaking in Islam's name.
Obama's efforts to distance himself from Islam contrasts with his innovative approach to US relations with its Islamist challengers.
President Bush has chosen the "iron fist" – invading Afghanistan and Iraq, quarantining the Islamic Republic in Iran, keeping Syria's Baathist regime in check and helping a dozen Muslim states fight al Qaeda or its variants. McCain and Clinton offer variations on the same theme, albeit with twists and turns to satisfy their constituencies.
By contrast, Obama offers a policy of dialogue and accommodation. He has opposed listing Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization and proposed a grand bargain with Syria's rulers. He is even prepared to ignore two UN Security Council resolutions that require Iran to stop its uranium-enrichment program as a precondition for talks at the highest level. He has campaigned for a formal congressional move to prevent Bush from taking any military action against Tehran.
In an important symbolic move designed to signal an end of the special relationship between Israel and America, Obama has become the first major presidential candidate in 25 years not to commit himself to transferring the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
Last but not least, Obama has promised to withdraw from Iraq in his first year in office – meeting a key demand of all radical Islamist forces, Sunni and Shiite.
The message is clear: Obama wants a new relationship with radical forces in the Islamic world while distancing America from its traditional regional allies. In other words, he proposes to reverse policies that have taken shape over more than six decades under 12 successive American presidents.
It's this revolutionary idea that deserves to be examined and debated, not the origin and meaning of Obama's middle name.
The Army Captain in question is Craig Mullaney, currently stationed at USNA. He is an active ans vocal supporter of the Obama campaign and met privately with the candidate on at least one occasion. He definately has scant regard for the army in which he was forced to fight, especially its leadership.