CJ Exclusive: Obama Supports Troops…
July 14th, 2008 by CJ
…if they're anti war.
A lot of mainstream press was given to Presidential hopeful Barack Obama when he spoke to veterans in Colorado earlier this month. On July 2nd, Obama spoke in Colorado Springs before a group of veterans. The context of his speech was to contrast his military experience and agenda with that of his main opponent, John McCain.
At the rally, Obama said he hopes the military community will see him as “a guy looking out for us and not someone trying to score cheap political points.†Really? Is that why Barack stocked the audience behind him with members of "Colorado Veterans", an anti-war group based in the area? After all, it was an invitation only event.
"Colorado Veterans" is another one of those kook organizations calling for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney and also prominently display the death totals on their website, highlighting a supposed toll of poor, Iraqi children killed "in cold blood" by the murderous United States troops. They are an anti-war group along the lines of IVAW, only more localized.
In an interview with Military Times, Barack admitted that due to his lack of military experience he would have to work twice as hard to earn our respect and trust. “Precisely because I have not served in uniform, I am somebody who strongly believes I have to earn the trust of men and women in uniform.†Since Obama's event was an invitation only event and the only ones on stage with him were anti-war veterans, how exactly is that going to earn the trust of men and women who are fighting and support their efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan?
The answer is that Obama just wanted to LOOK like he supported the troops by having a bunch of "veterans" behind him that made him look good. He was even introduced by the wife of an Army Sergeant at the event who got all veclempt at the opportunity. I guess when you're thinking about all the innocent children our Soldiers are "terrorizing" in the "dead of night", but the tears sure wowed the press and those in attendance. The Military Times writer said that "Corinne Gadzia’s voice choked as she looked out over the audience."
But, in all the press about this event, did anyone explain who these "Colorado Veterans" are? No. All we get is this:
As Obama spoke, a handful of men with “Colorado Veterans†on their shirts were seated behind the stage. And after the event, an Air Force captain wearing a flight suit worked his way through the crowd to shake Obama’s hand.
“Thank you for your service,†Obama told the captain. As people filed out of the gymnasium, the captain covered his name tag with his hand.
He probably didn't want to be outed by me!! When it comes to military issues, Obama is the candidate of change. He will change (read: repeal) the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. He will change whether people are bound to contracts they legally sign by getting rid of the stop loss policy (he better get to work on the enlistment contract). Basically, he'll change the whole concept of accountability. He will change how the Commander in Chief listens to the troops on the ground. His policy can be summed up in his "I'm a pretty persuasive guy" philosophy. ie: They'll do what I tell them to do, right or wrong!!
The media may not care that Obama is the consummate illusionist when it comes to military issues, but I'm not letting him off the hook. It would be one thing if he admitted that the veterans behind him were there to support an agenda, but his intent was to make us believe that he had the support of the military. I don't think either candidate can proclaim that victory yet!!
Here's the video of the event from Obama's own YouTube page:
Excellent job, CJ!
[...] This time involving Senator Obama and the Colorado Veterans. CJ exposes the illusion. [...]
Thanks CJ for bringing this to our attention. If I had seen this on the news I wouldn't have known about the Colorado veterans behind him, thanks for enlightening us. Deception is what Obama is doing here.
""Colorado Veterans" is another one of those kook organizations calling for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney…"
Why is it that you disparage veterans who have served their nation honorably simply because they have a different viewpoint from yours?
JD, I disparage equally anyone calling for the unnecessary (and unwarranted) impeachment of President Bush. I didn't say another "kook veteran organization" or that they were a bunch of "kook veterans". My words are simple. Just read them left to right, top to bottom.
Kook
Noun Slang. 1. An eccentric, strange
Since most Vets are not against the WOT, nor are they for the impeachment of Bush or Cheney, saying that a small group that has an eccentric belief would be accurate.
And it sounds better to call them kooks, then to call them nutjobs/anti-bushites, commie wakkos.
See JD it could be much worse.
CJ:
Be careful what you say, very careful, as you are likely speaking toward and about your future boss!
"These are not the Colorado Veterans I used to know!!"
Obama doesn;t care about the military. This guy couldn;t tell the truth if it came up in front of him. The democrats have been demeaning our men and women for 7 and 1/2 years. They accused them of being stupid, cold blooded killers, and much more. They have been doing everything for along time to sabatoge their mission by siding with the enemy. Obama gets money from Code Pink who gave 600,000 dollars to the enemy with the help of Henry Waxman and also Carl Levin who used some in the executive beaucrats who hated the president worked behind the scenes to sabatoge the Iraq War effort. The plan the president came up with was switched by the state department beaucrats with the help of Paul Bremer and Carl Levin and Democrats to make us have to be there in Iraq as occupiers instead of the plan the president oked so would be libarators but dems hated the president and they wanted to win the white house in 2008 that they leaked secrets of the tools we were using to capture the enemy and they worked to sabatoge the War on Terror escepicially Iraq. Read the books Shadow Warrior by Kenneth Timerman and Party of Defeat by David Horiwitz and Sabatoge by Rowan Scarbourgh. These people did investigations with the help of some good people to get the truth out and they go in to great detail what democrats did all these years to try and destroy a sitting president because they hated him so much for winning the 2000 election and they wanted to have a plan to deligitimize his presidency. They will get away with it if we don;t get the truth out. Many of us have known this for years and have tried to tell people but the main stream media will not tell the story because they help the democrats on this issue and many more.
And the media swallows it all, hook, line and sinker.:(
Cross posted all over the place.
Obama has no military experience, a fact he's never refuted. Then again, Bush's National Guard "stint" was nothing more than an interim sabbatical. Alas, he even missed out on all the action in Vietnam. Those of us without Congressmen for fathers at that time, weren't as fortunate. To me that's not the definition of a true soldier, much less a patriot.
CF, I KNOW I'm talking about my future boss. The key word there is FUTURE! He's fair game until he swears in in January 2009! And when he screws up as President, I'll give him the same independent criticism I gave Bush about his immigration, education, and Patriot Act missteps.
I just HATE all these games that they play trying to get our votes. What happened to good old honesty? Staying true to what you believe instead of painting a picture of something you aren't? Sure do wish I had other choices in November!
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 07/15/2008 A short recon of what%u2019s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
Just wanted to point out that the IVAW not the IAVA is the anti-war group. One is the Iraq Veterans Against the War, and the other the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. IAVA is a non partisan VSO that fights for Vets rights and works to pass things like the new GI Bill. IVAW is the group that speaks about war "atrocities" and calls for impeachment.
Gunslinger, thanks for the correction. That's what I meant. I support the IAVA, not the IVAW.
Obama and the military? check out his youtube "52 seconds".
The law requires all males to register when they reach the age of 18 and before they reach the age of 26, in case there's a draft. Do you suppose Obama did so?
Cj perhaps you can enlighten me on something. After returning from what we called ANCO, my platoon sergeant told me referring to soldiers as "troops" was incorrect. He explained, by definition, "troop" was the term for the horses ridden by troopers. He even showed me in the dictionary that troops were military horses or pack animals. So what gives?
Russ, are you saying that people who served in the reserves or guard and did not get called to war are somehow less respectable than those that were?
If so, I take great offense to that. I was in the reserves. I volonteered to go to war. I asked to go. I was not given the opportunity. My unit was not activated. We did not go. That does not make our service less important.
Steve,
The Seargeant needs to understand that as the Army evolves so does the language.
Thanks for serving.
dictionary.re...browse/troop
Steve, ever the master of symantics. "Soldiers" are in the Army. Marines are not called Soldiers. Airmen are not called Soldiers. Sailors are not called Soldiers. Troops refer to ALL military servicemembers, regardless of branch of service. Just so you know, since you got out of the military, we stopped using horses and now travel on Saudi Arabian oil-fed, gas guzzling tanks and tactical vehicles. Our horses are now merely ceremonial at Cav units.
Ron,
As someone who did nothing more glamourous then change tires during the eighties, I consider your service as important as any other. Sometimes readiness is the hardest extercise because you are doing it without the "adreneline rush" of war.
NY-David
20th Engineers
We have been writing about this for over a week now and not one bit of it is in the Lame Stream Media. Go figure.
I wonder what his Civilian National Security Forces will be up to?
Barack is clearly A Clear and Present Danger.
Maybe because some of the men and women fighting ARE against the war. IVAW has a lot of active duty servicemembers in it, some of them currently in Iraq.
So I guess some change is good. But CJ, I thought you didn't like change. After all you claim America is the best country in the world and Obama is wrong for wanting to bring change. Evolving is better than changing. Evolution we can believe in! Now that's a campaign slogan.
Steve, don't talk down to me. I have NEVER, EVER said I don't like change. I love change if it's the right change. For example, I'm all for changing the death penalty to include more crimes. I'm all for changing (read: lowering) crime statistics by getting guns in the hands of more law-abiding Americans. Obama wants the wrong kind of change for our national security and military. Change is necessary if it is done correctly and you know that, but you want to continue playing with words. It's a fun game I'm sure, but it really makes you look like an idiot, not the brave veteran I think of you as. Without change, we'd still be shooting black powder muskets and using those crappy M16A1s. Don't patronize me! Now you are becoming the master of smoke and mirrors.
ArmySergeant, the number of troops against the war the way IVAW is against the war are FAR OUTNUMBERED by those who support what we're doing over there. There are very few Soldiers who LIKE/WANT war, but that doesn't make them anti-war. IAVA and VetForFreedom each have more active duty and recently separated troops than IVAW does. That says something. And they both greatly dwarf IVAW in total membership. It's a fact with which you can't argue.
You're the one that started the semantic games with the whole kook thing above and the LIKE/WANT. I'm just trying to keep up.
Since you're on the topic. Just because someone is against the invasion of Iraq doesn't mean they are anti-war or a pacifist.
I read the Army Times, Corinne Gadzia is not even a military wife, she's the fiancee of an Army sergeant. I'm sorry, but she really has no right to say what is like until she has lived a military life as a spouse. Being a spouse and being a fiancee is two total different things. When the Soldier is deployed, she stays at home and does not deal with the things that any military spouse has to deal with.
[...] in the hopes that people would be convinced this was an open forum. Just like when Obama gave that speech in front of "veterans", this was a well-crafted media spin of real events. I have no problem with Obama only meeting with [...]