I can’t bring Katie and Matt and all my other peeps to visit you. Like to, but no pics of me preening for the cameras would be a waste of my time. And, I must admit, I luvz hangin’ with my European ‘partners’, they think the same about America as me and Michelle.
So, get better soon and, even though I voted against funding you, you are always foremost in my heart and in my prayers. Really.
And don’t forget to vote for me come November!
Your future Commander-in-Chief,
Barack (yea baby, thass me!!)"
[quote]btm62 wrote:
Ren wrote:
He’s not allowed to. and besides, mccain opted not to visit them for the same reason. suck it.
Way to suck in dude. Try some independent thought.
Yay Change and shit!!! Hope floats!! So do terds sometimes.
[/quote]
my thoughts are very independent. I know the exact issue HH is referring to and the regulations and backstory applying to it, as well as how McCain and his people have handled similar situations.
And seriously, “yay change and shit”? Do you think as a reasonably informed adult I have a somewhat better grasp of the candidates and their ideals?
DOD spokesman says Obama camp was reminded of political rules
[UPDATED]
"Chief Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell confirmed to Politico that Department of Defense officials cautioned Barack Obama’s campaign that his planned visit to wounded American troops in Germany could not be political in nature and that he would be barred from bringing along campaign staff and reporters. He also said that Cindy McCain recently requested to visit sailors aboard the U.S.N.S. Comfort and was denied.
“Sen. Obama is welcome to visit Landstuhl or any military hospital in his official capacity as a United States senator,” Morrell said in a brief interview. “But there is a DOD policy which governs campaigning and electioneering at military facilities that would have to be respected if he were to visit. That distinction was relayed and made clear to campaign, and they made a decision on their own based on that guidance.”
Morrell, in a subsequent interview, added that military officials told Obama he could only visit the military facility with his Secret Service detail and Senate staff.
“We made it clear to him that campaign staff and press would not be permitted to accompany him,” Morrell said of Obama. “We relayed those ground rules. They made a choice based upon the information we relayed to them. It was their choice. We had nothing to do with it.”
Military personnel at Ramstein Air Force Base, where the senator was to fly into, had already made arrangements to accommodate Obama’s traveling press pack and campaign staff while he visited the wounded troops, Morrell said.
Obama’s campaign tells a different story.
Obama adviser David Axelrod told the Chicago Sun-Times that the Pentagon “viewed this as a campaign event, and therefore they said he should not come.”
In a briefing to Obama’s traveling press corps, another adviser stopped short of saying they were told to not come but also suggested that even a visit by Obama alone may have been at issue.
Robert Gibbs said one of Obama’s military advisers had been informed by the Pentagon that the visit may be seen as a campaign stop.
“They cited a regulation,” Gibbs said of their point of contact, described as legislative affairs in the office of the secretary.
“We believed that based on the information we received that any presence, even his own and only his own, would get into a back and forth on whether his own presence was a campaign event,” Gibbs said.
Gibbs also pointed out that that their plane had been cleared to land at Ramstein and the Pentagon subsequently issued the reminder about political activity at military posts.
Obama, who was not traveling with any Senate staffers, decided on the flight Wednesday from Tel Aviv to Berlin not to visit the hospital.
Trying to make clear that this was not an attempt to undercut the Democratic nominee, Morrell also noted that when McCain officials asked the Pentagon for permission to let Cindy McCain visit the massive U.S. hospital ship, the U.S.N.S. Comfort, the request was rejected.
“Had she gone with Sen. McCain, it would have been OK,” Morrell said, underlining the delineation between what are official and campaign activities. "
It certainly appears he could have visited the wounded troops after his sermon to the Germans last week. He just couldn’t document it and have it witnessed by his travelling press corp and msm water carriers. He made a judgement call, based on those conditions, he chose to shop and workout instead.
It is what it is ,nothing more. It shows poor judegment and lack of empathy for those he praised so highly just a few days before.
Ren, is this McCain incident you referred to or was their another incident.
To be fair, if every time a US politician traveling abroad was to “visit” the soldiers, they won’t get much else done. America’s got a shitload of bases overseas, you know.
Edit: It would be nice to know how the soldiers got “wounded” as per Hedo’s article.
"It is obvious racism that my young follower was denied access to the troops! This decision was made at top levels of the US of KKK! Any time that a black man is denied anything, it is obvious racism.
Look at this quote from the military:
“We made it clear to him that campaign staff and press would not be permitted to accompany him,” Morrell said of Obama. “We relayed those ground rules. They made a choice based upon the information we relayed to them. It was their choice. We had nothing to do with it.”
That is pure racism. Highly educated black men can see the evil shadow of racism everywhere and here, it’s obvious! William Ayers done told me so!!
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
From the desk of Pastor Wright:
"It is obvious racism that my young follower was denied access to the troops! This decision was made at top levels of the US of KKK! Any time that a black man is denied anything, it is obvious racism.[/quote]
[quote]lixy wrote:
To be fair, if every time a US politician traveling abroad was to “visit” the soldiers, they won’t get much else done. America’s got a shitload of bases overseas, you know.
Edit: It would be nice to know how the soldiers got “wounded” as per Hedo’s article.[/quote]
In combat against your friends in Iraq and Afganistan.
He requested to visit them, then cancelled his visit by the way. That’s why it’s newsworthy.
[quote]lixy wrote:
hedo wrote:
In combat against your friends in Iraq and Afganistan.
You don’t know that. Not everybody shooting at foreign troops in Iraq is my friend.
[/quote]
You are saying that some are your friends. You are admiting that your friends are terrorists. My family comes from Iraq (I was born here in America). Tell your friends to leave.
Americans got rid of Saddam and his horrible sons. They set up and gave Iraq a chance at democracy. They are good people.
[quote]Standndeliver wrote:
You are saying that some are your friends. [/quote]
Figure of speech. I know quite a few people in Iraq, but none are going out of their ways to wound anyone in particular.
That said, I don’t blame the Iraqis who want to get foreigners in uniform out of their lands.
It’s all relative. I do sympathize with the LTTE, Falun Gong, ETA, Hezbollah, the FARCs, the FLNC, Polisario, the LTTE, Jaish Al-Mahdi, etc. All of which are considered “terrorists” by one party or another.
Just like I would have sympathized with the Patriots in 18th century America, or the Sans-culottes in France.
Don’t necessarily agree with their methods, but as a general rule, I tend to side with the oppressed over the oppressor.
What are you? 15 years old?
Can’t argue with that part.
But you make abstraction of the human cost here. While you were eating popcorn and watching Iraq be torn to shreds, real people had to deal with the real consequences of aerial raids, a massive invasion and the ensuing chaos.
I don’t think Saddam was worth all those innocent lives. And even if you think he was, it certainly wasn’t Washington’s call.
As opposed to what? The evil brain-eaters I said all Americans were?
I’ll resume this discussion when you can manage to crack open a book on logic. Here, I’ll get you started:
DOD spokesman says Obama camp was reminded of political rules
[UPDATED]
"Chief Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell confirmed to Politico that Department of Defense officials cautioned Barack Obama’s campaign that his planned visit to wounded American troops in Germany could not be political in nature and that he would be barred from bringing along campaign staff and reporters. He also said that Cindy McCain recently requested to visit sailors aboard the U.S.N.S. Comfort and was denied.
“Sen. Obama is welcome to visit Landstuhl or any military hospital in his official capacity as a United States senator,” Morrell said in a brief interview. “But there is a DOD policy which governs campaigning and electioneering at military facilities that would have to be respected if he were to visit. That distinction was relayed and made clear to campaign, and they made a decision on their own based on that guidance.”
Morrell, in a subsequent interview, added that military officials told Obama he could only visit the military facility with his Secret Service detail and Senate staff.
“We made it clear to him that campaign staff and press would not be permitted to accompany him,” Morrell said of Obama. “We relayed those ground rules. They made a choice based upon the information we relayed to them. It was their choice. We had nothing to do with it.”
Military personnel at Ramstein Air Force Base, where the senator was to fly into, had already made arrangements to accommodate Obama’s traveling press pack and campaign staff while he visited the wounded troops, Morrell said.
Obama’s campaign tells a different story.
Obama adviser David Axelrod told the Chicago Sun-Times that the Pentagon “viewed this as a campaign event, and therefore they said he should not come.”
In a briefing to Obama’s traveling press corps, another adviser stopped short of saying they were told to not come but also suggested that even a visit by Obama alone may have been at issue.
Robert Gibbs said one of Obama’s military advisers had been informed by the Pentagon that the visit may be seen as a campaign stop.
“They cited a regulation,” Gibbs said of their point of contact, described as legislative affairs in the office of the secretary.
“We believed that based on the information we received that any presence, even his own and only his own, would get into a back and forth on whether his own presence was a campaign event,” Gibbs said.
Gibbs also pointed out that that their plane had been cleared to land at Ramstein and the Pentagon subsequently issued the reminder about political activity at military posts.
Obama, who was not traveling with any Senate staffers, decided on the flight Wednesday from Tel Aviv to Berlin not to visit the hospital.
Trying to make clear that this was not an attempt to undercut the Democratic nominee, Morrell also noted that when McCain officials asked the Pentagon for permission to let Cindy McCain visit the massive U.S. hospital ship, the U.S.N.S. Comfort, the request was rejected.
“Had she gone with Sen. McCain, it would have been OK,” Morrell said, underlining the delineation between what are official and campaign activities. "
It certainly appears he could have visited the wounded troops after his sermon to the Germans last week. He just couldn’t document it and have it witnessed by his travelling press corp and msm water carriers. He made a judgement call, based on those conditions, he chose to shop and workout instead.
It is what it is ,nothing more. It shows poor judegment and lack of empathy for those he praised so highly just a few days before.
Ren, is this McCain incident you referred to or was their another incident.
[/quote]
Yeah, the naval visit was the one I was talking about. Where his staff mentions that they “play by the rules”
And just so you know, Obama was initially told he could not visit the troops at all unless it was part of a congressional trip. He wanted to do what you said he could have, visit it by himself, but was told he could not (and then was later said he could).
[quote]lixy wrote:
Standndeliver wrote:
You are saying that some are your friends.
Figure of speech. I know quite a few people in Iraq, but none are going out of their ways to wound anyone in particular.
That said, I don’t blame the Iraqis who want to get foreigners in uniform out of their lands.
You are admiting that your friends are terrorists.
It’s all relative. I do sympathize with the LTTE, Falun Gong, ETA, Hezbollah, the FARCs, the FLNC, Polisario, the LTTE, Jaish Al-Mahdi, etc. All of which are considered “terrorists” by one party or another.
Just like I would have sympathized with the Patriots in 18th century America, or the Sans-culottes in France.
Don’t necessarily agree with their methods, but as a general rule, I tend to side with the oppressed over the oppressor.
My family comes from Iraq (I was born here in America). Tell your friends to leave.
What are you? 15 years old?
Americans got rid of Saddam and his horrible sons. They set up and gave Iraq a chance at democracy.
Can’t argue with that part.
But you make abstraction of the human cost here. While you were eating popcorn and watching Iraq be torn to shreds, real people had to deal with the real consequences of aerial raids, a massive invasion and the ensuing chaos.
I don’t think Saddam was worth all those innocent lives. And even if you think he was, it certainly wasn’t Washington’s call.
They are good people.
As opposed to what? The evil brain-eaters I said all Americans were?
I’ll resume this discussion when you can manage to crack open a book on logic. Here, I’ll get you started:
I need no lesson, Lixy. You said what you said. I will give to you the benefit of the doubt though.
My family is Chaldean, Iraqi Catholics. My parents came here in the 1970s to get away from that hell. They have told me all about Iraq. You are hating the Americans from a distance. Saddam probably would have had you shot.
Eating popcorn? 15 years old? Why the insults? I have supported you somewhat when others attacked you here.
The Americans didn’t kill all those people, Saddam did. He held the country in terror. If he had been a good man with free elctions and democracy, the Americans would not have attacked him. If he had no hinted that he had WMD, they wouldn’t have attacked. If he had changed after Gulf War 1, no one would have attacked him. You are blaming the wrong people.
[quote]
I need no lesson, Lixy. You said what you said. I will give to you the benefit of the doubt though. [/quote]
Look, I’m from a country where the leadership slaughters, tortures, jails, oppresses, etc. I want the monarchy removed and a democratic system instated, but if some foreign power dares set foot over there I’ll be among the first to take up arms in resistance.
Good for you!
Did they tell you how the US supported Saddam while he slaughtered Iranians?
Nah, I’m hating the criminals in power. Most Americans don’t give a rat’s ass about what’s happening on the other side of the planet.
So…? My enemy’s enemy is supposed to be my friend now?
Well, I don’t know what you were eating while watching the news in 2003 but I’m certain you would have had a different perspective if your house was destroyed by the USAF.
I didn’t insult you. How old are you anyway?
You’re really asking for an insult now.
I’m not talking about the crimes that Saddam committed. He’s dead anyway. I’m referring to the crimes committed by Americans in Iraq.
Absolutely!
It’s statements like these that made me question your intellectual maturity.
America doesn’t give a shit about “free elctions[sic] and democracy”. Open a history book once in a while. Heck, open a newspaper even!
That’s conjectural at best. Besides, it adds little value to this discussion. The US attacks because (from Bush’s own mouth) a country has the ability to acquire WMDs. Not because it has them. Not because it is trying to acquire them. They attack country that CAN have WMDs.
Agreed. If he had played ball with the US, they wouldn’t have attacked him.
But then again, if US’ foreign policy changes, it’s safe to assume nobody would attack her either.
When you wage a war of aggression against a country that’s in shambles, you are to blame. And look! The crushing majority of the world agrees with me.
My parents came here with next to nothing. We are now very well off and I am gradually taking over some of my father’s businesses.
The Americans liberated my parents’ homeland from the grip of a monster, and you are mad about it, calling it a war of aggression. It is not aggression to liberate a country. We, the Americans, spent hundreds of billions of dollar and over 4000 soldiers lives to liberate hell, and you are mad about it.
I see now why the other people here attack you. You are mad because a hell got liberated. You are crazy.
My parents came here with next to nothing. We are now very well off and I am gradually taking over some of my father’s businesses.
The Americans liberated my parents’ homeland from the grip of a monster, and you are mad about it, calling it a war of aggression. It is not aggression to liberate a country. We, the Americans, spent hundreds of billions of dollar and over 4000 soldiers lives to liberate hell, and you are mad about it.
I see now why the other people here attack you. You are mad because a hell got liberated. You are crazy.[/quote]
[quote]orion wrote:
Standndeliver wrote:
I was born in 1983.
My parents came here with next to nothing. We are now very well off and I am gradually taking over some of my father’s businesses.
The Americans liberated my parents’ homeland from the grip of a monster, and you are mad about it, calling it a war of aggression. It is not aggression to liberate a country. We, the Americans, spent hundreds of billions of dollar and over 4000 soldiers lives to liberate hell, and you are mad about it.
I see now why the other people here attack you. You are mad because a hell got liberated. You are crazy.
Saddam offered to leave.
That offer was declined-
Hundreds of thousands of civilians died.
Anything else?
[/quote]
This is false. I remember watching the news and President Bush offered him and his sons 24 hours to clear out. They did not.
I have never seen so many people defend such a rottan person as Saddam. He was a monster. Why do you think my people (Chaldeans) ran from Iraq anyway we could? He is dead. Thank you America!
[quote]Standndeliver wrote:
orion wrote:
Standndeliver wrote:
I was born in 1983.
My parents came here with next to nothing. We are now very well off and I am gradually taking over some of my father’s businesses.
The Americans liberated my parents’ homeland from the grip of a monster, and you are mad about it, calling it a war of aggression. It is not aggression to liberate a country. We, the Americans, spent hundreds of billions of dollar and over 4000 soldiers lives to liberate hell, and you are mad about it.
I see now why the other people here attack you. You are mad because a hell got liberated. You are crazy.
Saddam offered to leave.
That offer was declined-
Hundreds of thousands of civilians died.
Anything else?
This is false. I remember watching the news and President Bush offered him and his sons 24 hours to clear out. They did not.
I have never seen so many people defend such a rottan person as Saddam. He was a monster. Why do you think my people (Chaldeans) ran from Iraq anyway we could? He is dead. Thank you America!
[/quote]
No, that is not false.
He wanted to leave with 1 billion and some documents, presumably about the US and UK involvement in his weapon program to avoid later extradition.
We have Bush on tape with the Spanish prime minister.
While the thought of letting dictators escape is hard to stomach, killing civilians, losing soldiers and pay through your nose to afford all that is insanity.
The memo provided insight into the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The memo revealed that Saddam Hussein had offered to step-down and leave Iraq if he were allowed to keep $1 billion. Some have suggested that this indicates that the war was avoidable. According to the account in El PaÃs, the memo also gives details on how Bush tried to coerce members of the United Nations Security Council into supporting US policy: He tells Aznar how he can cut Angola’s foreign aid from the Millennium Challenge Account and how he can torpedo the free trade agreement with Chile (awaiting ratification in the United States Senate at the time) if the two countries did not back US policy. Another portion of the transcript shows Bush’s confidence in Iraq’s stability after the invasion.[2]
The original and further links can be found at the link provided.