Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

We only visit wounded soldiers on official duty ... (update)
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, July 24, 2008

And since this is "campaign funded", well, you know, it just wouldn't be appropriate - so instead we're going to party in Berlin!

I've never seen such a pathetic excuse. Ed Morrissey has the story. Excuse me while I go wash out my eyes.

UPDATE: And apparently even when "on duty" he doesn't much meet with soldiers. I assume Bill Ayers would be pleased.
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

Is anybody really going to put a tent over this circus?
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—
The whole idea of a US pres candidate even leaving the country or our obvious interests(ie Iraq, afghanistan or military bases) to campaign makes me sick. The germans arent who give a crap what they think.
Written By: josh b
URL: http://
There are a couple of "official" jihadist propaganda outlets on the Internet — their main channel for disseminating information — and one such discussion board is called Al-Hesbah where a certain pseudonymous Abu Dujanah al-Khurasani is active. Only a limited number of jihadist writers are allowed to post their views there and Mr. Khurasani is one of them.

In November 2007, Mr. Khurasani posted a mini-play of several acts; the opening scene takes us to the year 2025 to show Baghdadi surveying the capital of his empire, the city of Baghdad. After reminiscing about Zarqawi’s last dying moments, Baghdadi receives a call on his cell phone from the "Chief of Staff of the Army of the Caliphate." Another scene is set in a classroom where a teacher asks his pupils "What was the Arabian Peninsula called before it was liberated by the Commander of the Faithful Abu Omar al-Baghdadi in 2010?" The students grapple with the answer before one of them blurts out that it used to be called Saudi Arabia.

Yet another scene showcases an Al-Jazeera TV-like program where the topic of discussion is the dictatorship of Edward the Third in Britain — remember the year is 2025 — and the leader of the British opposition movement, who has adopted Mr. Baghdadi’s Baghdad as his city of refuge, is identified as "Peter," the fictitious son of Tony Blair.

Fantastical as this may all seem, it was exactly where the jihadists thought they would be in a couple of decades. They thought they were building an empire in Iraq, the caliphate that Mr. bin Laden was always harping on about but never got the nerve to attempt. It was to be the realization of their dream, the same vision for which they launched the September 11, 2001, attacks and the mayhem and bloodshed in Iraq.

And now that they have been defeated in Iraq — anyone saying otherwise is either clueless or being purposely mendacious — America has in fact achieved something far greater than a military victory: America’s soldiers have smashed the nascent state of the caliphate; the dream is no more. This is a fate far worse than death for the jihadists, who enthusiastically embrace dying for their cause of resurrecting an Islamic empire as a noble act of martyrdom. Should Mr. bin Laden be killed or captured, then he would remain an undiminished hero in their eyes; while Americans may think that this would count as victory, the jihadists may simply shrug it off. However, seeing their state collapse in Iraq is their own nadir of demoralization and ideological defeat.

I wonder if Mr. Obama understands all of that. Keeping troops in Iraq is not an end unto itself, yet victory is. Stationing more troops than are necessary to maintain the fruits of victory was never one of America’s war aims. Victory is easily defined as having a democratic and independent state of Iraq (check) and preventing another "Islamic State of Iraq" (check).

Prime Minister Maliki recently welcomed Mr. Obama’s withdrawal plan with caveats and this sent the usual pundits a-twitter, but whereas Mr. Obama was thinking in terms of retreat, Mr. Maliki on the other hand was suggesting the natural outcome of victory: that America’s soldiers, who had fought a hard won yet incidental battle against the ultimate jihadist aim of resurrecting an Islamic Empire, could go home with laurels and to acclaim.
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Truly, this will be Obama’s "Tank" picture...
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Boys, the pentagon wouldn’t let him do the visit. Long standing policy, you know.
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
Let me get this straight:

"We have longstanding Department of Defense policy in regards to political campaigns and elections," Pentagon spokesperson Elizabeth Hibner told me. "We informed the Obama staff that he was more than welcome to visit as Senator Obama, with Senate staff. However, he could not conduct the visit with campaign staff."


It’s unclear how Obama could have made the visit at all, given the Pentagon’s directives. No Senate staff was on the trip, and the Obama camp says they received the Pentagon’s directives on Wednesday, after they were already abroad.

Either no one bothered to check beforehand with the post HQ to make sure everything was kosher or post HQ screwed up. That in itself isn’t newsworthy since the regs are often ridiculously complicated and I don’t find it at all hard to believe that the post HQ is clueless.

But it’s impossible that Sen. Obama couldn’t simply go by himself (since there would be ample military pax to escort him) while the campaign staff checked into a hotel. The simple fact is that he didn’t want to waste time visiting soldiers when he could be getting a photo op.
Written By: Ben
The simple fact is that he didn’t want to waste time visiting soldiers when he could be getting a photo op.
Yeah, cuz visiting soldiers would have been totally useless as a photo op.
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
Yeah, cuz visiting soldiers would have been totally useless as a photo op.

Well as compared to shopping in Berlin apparently...what is your point? To suggest that Obama blew a GREAT photo op? In which yeah he did and we agree...oddly enough.
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Boys, the pentagon wouldn’t let him do the visit. Long standing policy, you know.
They didn’t stop him at all - they just told him they wouldn’t allow it to be a media event and it was against the law to electioneer.

But nothing prevented private citizen Obama from stopping by, minus retinue and cameras to thank wounded troops for their service.

Too much to ask, apparently.
Written By: McQ

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks