Obama Afghanistan Email Author Recants Letter

It appears that the latest Obama smear email has now been utterly debunked.

The letter that was being sent around was a legitimate letter written by a real soldier.  However, that soldier is now recanting his account and is requesting that anyone who is promoting what he wrote in his original email to take the letter down:

Now the Bagram captain is dialing back, having signed the viral e-mail with his name, rank and unit – a possible violation of military regulations barring political statements. This morning, he sent The Mouth a new statement (punctuation corrected):

“I am writing this to ask that you delete my email and not forward it. After checking my sources, information that was put out in my email was wrong. This email was meant only for my family. Please respect my wishes and delete the email and if there are any blogs you have my email portrayed on I would ask if you would take it down too. Thanks for your understanding.”

An Army officer familiar with the incident told The Mouth today that the writer is “devastated that the letter was made public. It was never his intention that it go beyond members of his family.”

Now, will the right wing and PUMA sites actually honor the wishes of this soldier and take down his email which even he himself now says was written in error?

While I obviously believe that this soldier should have had his facts straight to begin with, I at least commend the fact that he is willing to admit when he is wrong.  And one should note that the author of this letter never meant for it to be spread all over the internet either.

Snopes debunks “Obama ignores the troops” smears

Pass this to everyone you know, since this email seems to have spread pretty rapidly:

Claim: Barack Obama “blew off” U.S. soldiers during a July 2008 trip to Afghanistan.

Status: False.

[...]

It’s difficult to independently verify the details recounted above because press coverage of Senator Obama’s Middle East visit was severely limited, but according to an Army spokesperson (as quoted in the New York Daily News) they are false:

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 e-mail claims Obama repeatedly shunned soldiers on his way to the Clamshell – a recreation tent – to “take his publicity pictures playing basketball.”

“These comments are inappropriate and factually incorrect,” said Bagram spokeswoman 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, she 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.

Remember, Air Strikes are Safe for Civilians

Right?

The Vice Presidential Contenders: the GOP side

I haven’t really discussed who I thought would be a good person for Obama or McCain to name as their barnacle Vice Presidential candidate, but since everyone else and their mother (and probably her mother as well) is, I thought I would throw in my own 2 cents as well.

I’lls start off with the GOP slate first.  Let’s look at McCain’s candidates that are being thrown around the most:

Tim Pawlenty – The arguments in favor of Pawlenty are that he won re-election as a republican in 2006, which was obviously a very tough year for republicans, and that he may put states like Minnesota and Wisconsin into contention.  The latest Quinnipiac showing McCain within 2% in Minnesota may give McCain hope at this prospect as well.

However, the problem with that is that both of those states have been strongly favoring Obama as late.  Quinnipiac not-withstanding, most projections still show both Minnesota and Wisconsin currently favoring Obama by around 10%.  Choosing Pawlenty could swing the state if it were within 5% perhaps, but asking to swing 10% is asking for quite a bit.  Also, even though he won in 2006, he only won by 27,000 votes out of over 2 million cast, and it’s hard to see how his stock could have risen since then, especially after that whole bridge collapse thing.

Personally, I think choosing Pawlenty would be a horrible choice, since he’s unknown, is no guarantee to help McCain any additional states, and doesn’t seem to add anything of quality to the ticket otherwise (like, say, economic prowess, etc.).  What exactly would the rationale be to choose him?

Bobby Jindal – Elected governor of Louisiana in 2007, the biggest argument for Jindal are probably that he’s a rising star in the party, and he isn’t and old, white man.  That might be able to counter the “wow, we could have the first African American President” thing that Obama might have, at least slightly.  He would also appease the base, at least in his political beliefs.

The biggest negative to Jindal is that, if McCain’s main argument against Obama is his lack of experience, he would basically lose that argument with Jindal, who would have spent all of 4 years in elected office come inaguration day 2009 (at least Obama was a member of the Illinois State Senate for 8 years before becoming a US Senator), though Jindal has had an additional 9 years or so of experience in one appointed position or another, either at the state or federal level.

Also, given that the Republican base has been conditioned to be leery of any “scary brown people,” I should note that, even though Jindal is a strong Roman Catholic today (though, that fact may, itself, be a problem with the base), he had been Hindu up into high school, so one might be unsure how that would play.  On the other side, moderates may be leery of the story of Jindal partaking in exorcisms while in college.

Again, I’m not sure what McCain gains by choosing Jindal.  If he really thinks he can stop Obama from being elected by putting a non-white person on his ticket, then perhaps that would be enough for McCain, but I fail to see what real positive there is for McCain choosing Jindal.

Charlie Crist – Crist is the governor of Florida, elected in 2006 by a healthy margin, despite the mood in the nation that year.  Crist appears to be pretty popular within the state of Florida, particuarly with the African-American population in the state, which could effectively put Florida out of reach for Obama.  He also holds some positions which the GOP base would like, including supporting Florida’s ban against allowing gays to adopt.

There are a few negatives for Crist as well.  While he holds some positions the GOP base likes, he also takes some positions they don’t like, such as an apparently strong anti-global warming position (sans his new-found support for offshore drilling) and his support for right-to-die and living wills (think Terry Schiavo).  Crist is also relatively unknown, despite holding elected office in Florida nearly continually since 1992.

The primary negative for Crist, however, might be something which isn’t in the forefront and is something which the McCain camp might have difficulty dealing with and which may scare off the GOP base: rumors that he is gay.  These rumors are so prevalent that it has led people to say that Crist being gay is the “worst kept secret in Tallahassee.”  I’m not sure the GOP base would be happy electing the first potentally gay President or Vice-President, even if he is still in the closet.

If McCain and Crist (who recently got engaged) feel that they can effectively battle against the gay rumors, Crist may be one of McCain’s best choices for Vice-President, as he’s both experienced, has a balance of moderate and conservative stances, and would make carrying Florida exceptionally difficult for Obama if the election is close.

Mike Huckabee – Of course, Mike Huckabee is the runner up in the GOP nomination race, and would kind of harken back to the Kerry/Edwards ticket from 2004.  Huckabee, of course, was governor of Arkansas for 10 years.  Huckabee would also appease many of the anti-McCain people in the GOP as he was the primary candidate many of them ultimately supported.  If McCain’s goal is to keep the GOP base, there may not be a better pick than Huckabee.

The primary problems with Huckabee are the flip-side of his positives.  While the GOP base might love him, more moderate voters may be spooked away by him for his taking a hard line on Immigration, holding very strong anti-gay views, publicly stating his support for teaching creationism and his hostility towards evolution, and supporting a national sales tax.  He’s also made statements to the effect that the Constitution should be amended to better match Christian Biblical tennants.  Huckabee has also had earned a bit of a reputation as someone who shoots off at the mouth quite a bit, which could cause McCain problems if Huckabee were to say something inappropriate during the campaign.

The problem here for McCain is that he needs both the GOP base to come out and he also needs to win over independents, and it would be very difficult to find a Vice Presidential candidate who can do both.  If McCain believes that his reputation alone can overcome any fear by moderates about Huckabee, then Huckabee might be a good choice due to his reputation with the base.

Tom Ridge – Tom Ridge is the former Secretary of Homeland Security, former governor of Pennsylvania, and fellow Vietnam veteran.  As opposed to Huckabee, Ridge would clearly be a play toward the center for McCain as Ridge is both well known and seen as relatively moderate.  If McCain wants to steroid up his national security credentials, then adding Tom Ridge would also be a good choice.

The primary negatives for Ridge is that the GOP base might see him as a problem, as he supports abortion rights.  There is also a potential problem with Ridge for moderates as well, as he was a high-profile member of the Bush Administration, though he left after Bush’s first term, so he may have been away long enough that it may not end up being a factor.

If McCain either believes that he’ll keep the GOP base no matter what, or if he’s already lost them no matter what he does, then Ridge would be a pretty good play in order to get moderates.  He could also potentially put Pennsylvania more into play than it is today.

Mitt Romney – The person who most people think has been making the most effective case for being chosen for the 2nd spot appears to be Mitt Romney.  He would add two things to McCain’s ticket: someone who has a reputation for being solid in economic matters, and someone who fundraise.  While, fundraising isn’t necessarily an issue for McCain himself in the general, as he’ll be taking public financing, the republican committees – the senate and house committees and the RNC – will all still need fundraising, and McCain might be able to use Romney to help with that.

The biggest negatives for Romney, however, is that it is unclear whether anyone actually likes him.  Both the GOP base and independents potentially don’t like Romney as he has come off as being fake – having run as a rather liberal republican to become governor of Massachusetts, and then doing an about face and running as a conservative in the primary.  Romney’s flip-flopping past may just amplify McCain’s own flip-flopping, both before and after he won the nomination.

It’s difficult for me to see how Romney is a good choice.  If he’s doing it for the money, it reeks of desparation, as money no longer beomes an issue after the election, and it’s unclear how else Romney helps the ticket.

Others – Many other people have been listed as well, including Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, who now finds herself in a major scandal back home which probably eliminates her from the race, Carly Fiorina, who drove HP into the ground and has no political experience, and Robert Portman, who might be the best pick of all if he weren’t so unknown.

Iraq banned from Olympics

This has to smart for Bush and McCain:

The International Olympic Committee has banned Iraq from competing in the upcoming Summer Olympics because of what it says is political interference by the government in sports….

The move stems from an Iraqi government decision in May to suspend Iraq’s Olympic Committee and form a temporary committee to handle its duties.

I wonder if there is any precedence for this, but you know the right wingers are going to claim that the Olympic Committee is just doing this to make Bush look bad.

Though apparently this decision has largely expected for the past month or so.

PUMAs: We finally admit Obama was born in Hawaii, but…

It looks like the amount of completely overwhelming evidence has finally forced even the PUMAs to admit that Obama was “likely” born in Hawaii.

However, they won’t let that stop them trying to prove that Obama isn’t eligible for the Presidency, through a series of argues involving Obama being born with dual American and Kenyan citizenship, and the possibility of him gaining Indonesian citizenship.

They might particularly stress the Indonesian citizenship since, apparently Indonesia doesn’t allow for dual citizenship so, their argument would probably go, if he became an Indonesian citizenship, Obama would have had to relinquish his “natural born” citizenship.

However, this is not how it works.  While foreign naturalization can be a basis for losing citizenship, it must be shown that you did so with the intention of revoking your American citizenship.  It is unclear wither the Indonesian law forbidding dual citizenship would actually impact the United State’s recognition of your US citizenship were you to return.  However, reading through the law definitely suggests that, from the eyes of the US, if you are born in the US, you are a citizen, period.  More information can be found here.  In any case, US law clearly states that a minor cannot lose their US citizenship due to an act of their parents and cannot otherwise commit an expatriating act as, by definition, a minor cannot consent.

In any case, dual citizenship, even if Obama has it, would appear to have no impact as the only requirement is that he is a natural-born American citizen, which he clearly is.

Oh, and they still think the birth certificate is fake, but contains Obama’s “real” information as to, for some reason, cover up some sort of embarassing information on his real birth certificate.  What this “embarassing information” could possibly be, I have no clue (and neither do they), but obviously Obama must be hiding something!

Just so we can counter those Al-Qaeda MiGs

What could the rationale possibly be for this move:

The Bush administration plans to shift nearly $230 million in aid to Pakistan from counter-terrorism programs to upgrading that country’s aging F-16 attack planes, which Pakistan prizes more for their contribution to its military rivalry with India than for fighting insurgents along its Afghan border.

A mere days after Obama said that we have to work with India to improve their relationship with Pakistan, Bush goes and gives the Indians a giant middle finger. Nice.

And $230 million is hardly spare change:

The financing for the F-16s would represent more than two-thirds of the $300 million that Pakistan will receive this year in American military financing for equipment and training.

Actually, it’s more than three-fourths of the money we’re sending to Pakistan this year.  But have no fear, the State Department says that they’ll be helpful in the war on terror:

State Department officials say the upgrades would greatly enhance the F-16s’ ability to strike insurgents accurately, while reducing the risk to civilians.

Because air bombing is so well known for it’s lack of risk towards civilians.

The Jokes Write Themselves

No really, this goes into the “what were they thinking” category:

No, you are not seeing things.  That is indeed a John McCain doormat, so that you may stomp your muddy feat all over John McCain’s name.  However, it will cost you $70 to do so.

You can buy that along with the John McCain ice scraper, so that you may never surrender in the face of terrorist ice and, of course, no purchase from the John McCain store would be complete without his signature golf gear.  Oddly, the golf gear costs less than the doormat.

But don’t fret.  For the Obama fans, you can buy your own terrorist fist jab button, or stickers with suspicious looking foreign writing on them.

A big difference between Obama and McCain (or, why McCain is so wrong about the Anbar Awakening)

Here is a major difference between Obama and McCain, one that just makes McCain seem even more like Bush.

When Obama makes a gaff:

Barack Obama today boasted about a bill in “my committee,” a committee on which he has no seat….

During the press conference, Obama said, “Just this past — this past week, we passed out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, which is my committee, a bill to call for divestment from Iran as a way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don’t obtain a nuclear weapon.”

He admits he flubbed up and gives a reasonable explanation of what he was trying to say:

“[Obama] meant to say ‘my bill,’”

Reasonable enough gaff to make, and the correction clearly makes sense in the sentence.  Fair enough.

However, when McCain makes a gaff, he keeps spinning and spinning and spinning in order to never admit he ever made a mistake, such as his mistake in a CBS news interview where he said:

Colonel MacFarland was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that’s just a matter of history.

Except, of course, it isn’t.

Now, instead of giving up and admitting his mistake, McCain is now arguing that the surge started working, even a month before it was even announced:

McCain says U.S. Col. Sean MacFarland started carrying out elements of a new counterinsurgency strategy as early as December 2006.

Except the surge wasn’t even announced until January 2007 and Colonel MacFarland was talking about the “Awakening” (even if it wasn’t called that yet) back in September 2006.

So, according to McCain, an event that started in September 2006 was started by a change in startegy which started to be implemented in December 2006 – a strategy which wasn’t even announced until January 2007.

Now, it is, of course, plausible that some parts of the new strategy were implemented before the surge was announced, but troops definitely didn’t start arriving in Iraq until the end of January, so even if McCain wants to argue this point, he’s still admiting that additional troops – the defining characteristic of the surge – had nothing to do with it, despite his previous statement.

And to top it all off, the sheiks McCain referenced was assassinated after the surge started.

So not only did the surge, which hadn’t even started yet, prompt the sheik to come forward, but when the surge actually did begin, it wasn’t good enough to keep him from getting assassinated.  Doesn’t this just show that McCain is not only wrong, but that reality actually completely backwards from what he states it to be?

McCain: Obama flip-flops on genocide

How you can flip-flop on genocide, I’m not sure, but that’s McCain’s newest jumping-the-shark attack:

Obama on Genocide

Obama today at Yad Vashem:

“Let our children come here and know this history so they can add their voices to proclaim ‘never again.’ And may we remember those who perished, not only as victims but also as individuals who hoped and loved and dreamed like us and who have become symbols of the human spirit.”

Obama on July 20, 2007:

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.

“Well, look, if that’s the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven’t done,” Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Of course, Obama is right. It has never been the policy of the US to unilaterally use troops to deter or stop a genocidal situation. One can argue whether we should or not, but we don’t, and it probably isn’t McCain’s position either, unless he supports sending a few hundred-thousand troops into Sudan and the Congo and whether he supported unilaterally sending in troops to Rwanda before and wherever else genocide might be taking place in the future.

The second problem with McCain’s attack is that the only reason why we might have a genocidal situation in the first place is because we invaded. Before we invaded, we had the no fly zones and such, which pretty much prevented Saddam from going after the Kurds and the shias. One should also note that much of the reduction of violence in Iraq is due to the ethnic cleansing of neighborhoods.

The third problem with McCain’s position is that, if he believes that pulling out of Iraq may lead to Genocide, how can we ever leave Iraq?