2/25/08

Right Wingnut Frenzy Over Soldier's Assertions

Right wingnuts were hysterical over this story:

In last week’s Democratic debate, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) said he was told by an Army captain that his platoon’s resources in Afghanistan were shortchanged because of the Iraq war. Seeking to turn Obama’s remarks into a political attack, Sen. John Warner (R-VA) immediately questioned the authenticity of the statement. But ABC News contacted the Army captain, who backed up Obama’s story. And now the New York Times reports that soldiers in Afghanistan are still strapped for resources:

And they felt eclipsed by Iraq. As Sgt. Erick Gallardo put it: “We don’t get supplies, assets. We scrounge for everything and live a lot more rugged. But we know the war is here. We got unfinished business.”

Jon Soltz and VetVoice have more.
Crooks and Liars has more on this as well:

During the Austin debate last week, Barack Obama made this comment:

“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,” he said. “Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq. 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.”

Well, you had to know that a statement like that–insinuating that life is not all wine and roses for our troops being sent for their third, fourth and fifth rotation into the Gulf–was just going to make the wingnuts crazy. (I won’t link them, but you’ll find links here)

ABC's Political Punch knocks out the highly partisan far right wingnuts that screeched over Obama's statements:

Some are quibbling about whether or not the "commander in chief" can be held responsible for how well our soldiers are being equipped, since Congress provides the funding for the military, but the Pentagon (and ultimately President Bush) are in charge of the funding mechanism.

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 have asked this question over and over again:

Do you really support the troops?

Do you even know what kind of support they really need? I could tell you but you politically partisan right wingnuts will not like the answers. You never did like the truth...

4 comments:

Alicia Morgan said...

Amen! Oh, we luv the troops, all right - luv to send 'em out to die gloriously so that we can feel patriotic by proxy. All that stuff about equipment, armor, untainted food and blankets - are you insinuating that our troops are pussies? You troop-hater, you!

Connecticut Man1 said...

Bumper stickers and flag waving just doesn't cut it when it comes to really supporting the troops. Thanks for the comment Alicia.

Beach Bum said...

Saw a McCain rally at some college on the tube the other day with a bunch of "able bodied" young men supporting him and the war. None of them were in uniform and most either were over weight are the preppy chickenhawk looking type. I wanted to puke.

Connecticut Man1 said...

If any of those McCain supporters you are talking about read this... The military takes guys who are overweight!