The  "Calypso Presidency"???

http://musictome.imeem.com/...

I can hardly wait.

Pseudo-Intellectuals unite!

You are giving me ideas for new parodies.  Keep it coming.  I wouldn't hesitate to hire Obama as a motivational speaker, but I wouldn't want to "hire" him as president.  Where's the beef?  Hillary, on the other hand, has big buns (and I mean that in the figure-ative sense)  but no beef, and she can't even speak. 

And Harry Belafonte---please stick to singing, political critique is not your Bela forte!

Day-one, Day-ay-ay-one
Day-one come and me wan' go home
Day, me say day, me say day, me say day
Me say day, me say day-ay-ay-one
Day-one come and me wan' go home
 

I think his point was that our resources are stretched very thin right now as a result of the failed leadership of those currently calling the shots.  But, please continue to spin  your views with antiquated racial characterizations that only demonstrate your meanness. 

Our new Defense Moto regarding WOT beginning in 2009:

Hey, Mr. Tolly Mon, tolly me bah-nah-nah ...
Daylight come and I wish they'd go home.

Hey, it just might work!

Yeah............ Riggghhhht!

You're the one making in racial Adam

There are white Calypso singers you know

No, you probably didn't

Or care to know

It doesn't fit YOUR shopworn stereotypes does it?

 It made no sense to you that there might just be some soldiers that are short on equipment? Geez Chico, I thought you were paying attention.

SEN. OBAMA: I wouldn't be running if I didn't think I was prepared to be commander in chief. (Cheers, applause.) And my — my number one job as president will be to keep the American people safe. And I will do whatever is required to accomplish that, and I will not hesitate to act against those that would do America harm.

Now, that involves maintaining the strongest military on earth, which means that we are training our troops properly and equipping them properly and putting them on proper rotations. And there are an awful lot of families, here in Texas, who have been burdened under two and three and four tours, because of the poor planning of the current commander in chief. And that will end when I'm president.

(Applause.)

But it also means using our military wisely. And on what I believe was the single most important foreign policy decision of this generation — whether or not to go to war in Iraq — I believe I showed the judgment of a commander in chief. I think that Senator Clinton was wrong in her judgments on that. (Applause.)

Now, that has consequences. That has significant consequences because it has diverted attention from Afghanistan, where al Qaeda, that killed 3,000 Americans, are stronger now than at any time since 2001.

I heard from a Army captain, who was the head of a rifle platoon, supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon. 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. Now that's a consequence of bad judgment, and you know, the question is on the critical issues that we face right now who's going to show the judgment to lead. And I think that on every critical issue that we've seen in foreign policy over the last several years — going into Iraq originally, I didn't just oppose it for the sake of opposing it. I said this is going to distract us from Afghanistan; this is going to fan the flames of anti- American sentiment; this is going to cost us billions of dollars and thousands of lives and overstretch our military, and I was right. [emphasis added]------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------

You have entirely missed the point PP

But then what else is new?

Obama Heard Wrong

There is a lot about Obama's story that makes no sense. Let us start with the opening line:

 

"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. Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq."

Well, captains command companies, not rifle platoons. A rifle platoon is normally commanded by a 2nd lieutenant, sometimes (if short handed) by a senior sergeant. So for starters, Obama betrays a woeful ignorance of military organization and the chain of command. Then he remarks that the platoon was under-strength because 15 of its men had been "sent to Iraq." Sorry, the Army doesn't work that way. Platoons are organic units, consisting of three rifle squads, a heavy weapons squad, and a headquarters section. You can't break it up. It is the smallest building block in the infantry that can conduct fire-and-movement tactics.

So, no matter what, if the Army needed to shift men from Afghanistan to Iraq, it would have done so either by detaching the whole platoon, or, more likely, an entire company from its parent battalion, because a company is an administrative as well as a tactical unit, and believe me, the Army would sooner fight with one hand tied behind its back than create administrative hassles for itself. Maybe the captain was commanding something other than a rifle platoon--perhaps a company headquarters unit, or an intelligence or communications unit, or some other small specialist unit, but in that case, the loss of troops is not nearly as critical as Obama's story implies. "High-Demand/Low-Density" specialists are always being moved around because there just aren't enough of them to go around. Period. It's a chronic problem not just in the military, but in civilian life as well. Obama went on:

 

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.

The idea that our guys were scrounging weapons and ammo because they were short is ludicrous. How much ammo you carry is done on a "per man" basis in the infantry--each solder carries a "basic load," which is backed up by reserve supplies at company, battalion, and above. It is possible to run out of ammunition, temporarily, in the midst of an intense firefight. Weapons like the M4 Carbine, the M16A3 rifle, and especially the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) can burn through ammo like fire through dry tinder. Since each man carries perhaps 200 rounds into a firefight (about six or seven magazines), he can easily expend it all in a matter of minutes (which is the reason the Army teaches fire discipline). If you can't get a runner back to the company supply train, then things might get dicey, and if you're out, and there's a Taliban guy lying dead at your feet with an AK-74 and a full bandoleer of ammo, what are you going to do?

Moreover, U.S. soldiers have always scrounged, and have always admired the other guy's weapons. In World War II, our guys picked up German MP-41 submachine guns and MG-42 machine guns, which were demonstrably better than their U.S. counterparts. In Vietnam, GIs seemed to prefer the rugged and reliable AK-47 to the high-tech M16 (while, perversely, the Viet Cong preferred the M16 because it was lighter and had less recoil). It would not surprise me if some U.S. troops "acquired" some ex-Taliban AKs--though they run the risk, especially at night, of being mistaken for the enemy because different types of guns have distinctive sounds.

To the best of my knowledge, no U.S. forces in either Afghanistan or Iraq ever ran out of ammunition for more than a few hours at most. When you consider that we were operating in Afghanistan at the tenuous end of a 8,000 mile supply line, that's pretty impressive.

As for not having enough HMMWVs, that's understandable, when you consider what it takes to get a HMMWV to Afghanistan and then to keep it up and running. Fact is, no unit ever has enough HMMWVs (in its own mind, at least), just as in World War II, no unit had enough Jeeps. Again, that we have managed to sustain our forces in Afghanistan so well is cause for congratulations not criticism.

Overall, I think Obama would be better sticking to his "message of hope"--hope that nobody will ever ask him to make any substantive statements on military affairs, ever again.

Weekly Standard--Stewart Loehl

Nah, the bananas and your quaint take on a pronunciation is the strictly racial bilge, anyway you want to look at it. It bothered me that another poster seemed to imply because Obama drew large crowds he was a lot like Hitler. I just don't see the need to resort to really hostile and unenlightened descriptors used to enrage people.

Day-O! I talk like that all the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watc... 

You have entirely missed the point PP

But then what else is new?

Oooooo, you sure got me that time. 

So really, is the point he was trying to make about who commands a platoon or was his point that currently, the military is being run poorly? You can nitpick his statements all you want, but nothing will roll back the clock to fix all of the screwups that the current administration have made.

Hey, at least we all agree that our brave men and women overseas don't have enough equipment for whatever reason.

We scrounged steel plates, etc. for guntrucks in nam too

So what else is new?

C'est la Geurre!

but adam, correct me if I'm wrong

Don't those on the Left do this to Bush all the time?

(Hitler stereotypes, analogies, etc.)

and Adam, are we really to the point where we can only poke fun at those of certain ethnic groupings and others are just  "off limits" because the fall into certain categories?

That seems  "anti-intellectually honest" to me somehow

(FTR I used to think some of the CIC (Chimp in Chief) jokes, etc. about Bush were actually funny)

"CIC (Chimp in Chief) jokes"

Me too, because "W" actually looks like a Chimp. It's a Hoot!

Listen to yourselves.  Since when does Obama have to make sense?  Don't try so hard to make it anything more than it was - an attempt  to turn a Bush problem into a Hillary problem.  It really bothers me that  is opening statement was nothing more than a synopsis of  the Democratic platform as if it were his own.  It's the same platform that has existed for the past couple of decades and yet he says he stands for "change".  I'm afraid if he is the Democratic candidate the Republicans will win. The white mailes who have been voting for Clinton because she is a woman will switch their votes to McCain.  Many young college students will start looking around at their peers who are abusing cocaine and realize that's not the type of person who can handle the stress of the White House and ..VOILA .. another Republican in office and no change for at least four years. 

Obama nor Hilliary said anything of substance at their love fest.  I can not imagine either of these clowns as President. God help us all. Good post Chico. It illustrates Obama's complete lack of Military knowledge.

Re:  Obama Heard Wrong (above):

http://blogs.abcnews.com/po...

Short answer: He backs up Obama's story.

The longer answer is worth telling, though.

The Army captain, a West Point graduate, did a tour in a hot area of eastern Afghanistan from the Summer of 2003 through Spring 2004.

Prior to deployment the Captain -- then a Lieutenant -- took command of a rifle platoon at Fort Drum. When he took command, the platoon had 39 members, but -- in ones and twos -- 15 members of the platoon were re-assigned to other units. He knows of 10 of those 15 for sure who went to Iraq, and he suspects the other five did as well.

The platoon was sent to Afghanistan with 24 men.

"We should have deployed with 39," he told me, "we should have gotten replacements. But we didn't. And that was pretty consistent across the battalion."

He adds that maybe a half-dozen of the 15 were replaced by the Fall of 2003, months after they arrived in Afghanistan, but never all 15.

As for the weapons and humvees, there are two distinct periods in this, as he explains -- before deployment, and afterwards.

At Fort Drum, in training, "we didn't have access to heavy weapons or the ammunition for the weapons, or humvees to train before we deployed."

What ammunition?

40 mm automatic grenade launcher ammunition for the MK-19, and ammunition for the .50 caliber M-2 machine gun ("50 cal.")

"We weren't able to train in the way we needed to train," he says. When the platoon got to Afghanistan they had three days to learn.

They also didn't have the humvees they were supposed to have both before deployment and once they were in Afghanistan, the Captain says.

"We should have had 4 up-armored humvees," he said. "We were supposed to. But at most we had three operable humvees, and it was usually just two."

So what did they do? "To get the rest of the platoon to the fight," he says, "we would use Toyota Hilux pickup trucks or unarmored flatbed humvees." Sometimes with sandbags, sometimes without.

Also in Afghanistan they had issues getting parts for their MK-19s and their 50-cals. Getting parts or ammunition for their standard rifles was not a problem.

"It was very difficult to get any parts in theater," he says, "because parts are prioritized to the theater where they were needed most -- so they were going to Iraq not Afghanistan."

"The purpose of going after the Taliban was not to get their weapons," he said, but on occasion they used Taliban weapons. Sometimes AK-47s, and they also mounted a Soviet-model DShK (or "Dishka") on one of their humvees instead of their 50 cal.

The Captain has spoken to Sen. Obama, he says, but this anecdote was relayed to Obama through an Obama staffer.

I find that Obama's anecdote checks out.

"It was very difficult to get any parts in theater," he says, "because parts are prioritized to the theater where they were needed most -- so they were going to Iraq not Afghanistan."

"The purpose of going after the Taliban was not to get their weapons," he said, but on occasion they used Taliban weapons. Sometimes AK-47s, and they also mounted a Soviet-model DShK (or "Dishka") on one of their humvees instead of their 50 cal."

Again factor, we used to scrounge for anything we could get as others have through every war known to man. The  "on occasion" used Taliban weapons" is instructive. "Sometimes" utilized AK's or one time a Dishka is also instructive. It was instead of their 50 cal. You know, in some circumstances (in the mud, etc.) the AK actually worked better (due to its intrinsically "sloppy" tolerances) better than the M-16? Doesn't mean we didn't have an M-16 should any of our troopers have chosen to utilize them from time to time. Does it?

Your  "proof" is only proof of Obama's regurgitation of an anecdote to  "prove" an unrelated contention. 

Boy! This has gotta help! (not sure who though)

http://www.breitbart.tv/htm... 

No, people on the left have complained about Bush policies. We have complained bitterly about  his misleading the American public  and  engaging our military against a nation, however flawed and corrupt, that had nothing to do with 9/11. The left has complained about his signing little messages on legislation that he dislikes, stating he won't abide by the law. The left has poked fun at the way Bush mangles the English language every time he speaks. The left has made references to the cowboy simplicity of his speech and actions. The left has attacked the Bush military record and his privileged status. There have been names applied to Bush, like shrub, which denote a smallness of being without insinuating prejudicial pejorative.

There has been a lot of references over the years to the types of government actions that have curtailed American civil liberties. Many of these references are drawn from the various fascist authoritarian regimes that dominated the landscape for many years during the last century. Actions by Nazis were reprehensible and stand in a class all by their lonesome for sheer brutality. For sheer mayhem on scales of epic proportions hardly a nation was not involved during the last century in the most heinous of acts.

I don't like hearing the word "homeland" used to describe my country. It does remind me of phrases like Fatherland or Motherland which despots used to increase patriotism and whip the lads into a frenzy to go out and kill some more people. I also do not like people telling me how to stand at attention, how to salute the flag, how low to bow my head for the national anthem. That type of stuff is creepy in the civilian world. If people want to be told exactly what to do they should join the army or a cult.

I'm all for poking fun at actions. I am a doofus a lot of the time, but I prefer my comedy to be more about the specific misery or corruption of the individual rather than lumping whole sections of race, gender or religious persuasion to administer the joke. Heritage and gender are not things anybody asks for when they come into this world, and a person's faith should theirs alone to confound themselves with.   

For sheer mayhem on scales of epic proportions hardly a nation was not involved during the last century in the most heinous of acts.

I wasn't sure I quite understood what this really meant. Was this specifically with regard to Germany and other nations attempts to quell their quest for world domination or an indictment of other nations in general or what? It wasn't clear to me.

I'm merely trying to comprehend the gestalt of what you are saying so I can respond.

Chico shares his military knowledge and acumen: "Well, captains command companies, not rifle platoons. A rifle platoon is normally commanded by a 2nd lieutenant, sometimes (if short handed) by a senior sergeant. So for starters, Obama betrays a woeful ignorance of military organization and the chain of command. Then he remarks that the platoon was under-strength because 15 of its men had been "sent to Iraq." Sorry, the Army doesn't work that way.... Maybe the captain was commanding something other than a rifle platoon--perhaps a company headquarters unit, or an intelligence or communications unit.

The fact is, Obama relayed information provided by a captain who was indeed a lieutenant at the time he led a rifle platoon bound for Afghanistan. Investigations by several news organizations have since proved after followup interviews with the soldier that Obama was accurate in the retelling.

If there is question about the veracity of the information given Obama, the responsibility lies with the soldier, not the messenger.

More Chico on military: "To the best of my knowledge, no U.S. forces in either Afghanistan or Iraq ever ran out of ammunition for more than a few hours at most."

Just a few hours?

Oh, well then that's okay.

No one would dare engage U.S. troops while they're out of ammunition, it just wouldn't be fair.

First of all Saber, the story was from 2003. The least Obama could have done is make this clear. A  "messenger" can at least relay the story accurately and be up front. There was a reason (shock value) he was not entirely candid in this situation.

Secondly, I will put my military knowledge (first hand or otherwise) up against yours any day of the week. They  "ran out of ammo" in training, not on the battlefield it turns out. But in any case, troops in the field run out of all kinds of things. We did in VN. You adapt, improvise, and overcome. (No I wasn't a jarhead, but we did borrow some things from them ;=)  ). Sarcasm noted, but not effective, in the least.

For some reason, I don't feel  "wounded" in the least by your latest fusillade here Saber. But go ahead...... Take some more shots! Maybe you'll get  "lucky"!

IF Obama was given incorrect information wouldn't it be on him to verify it?  Or for his people to verify it?  When I cite something incorrect on here and get called on it by my blog peers it's a tad embarrassing.  For a potential president..now that's a horse of a different color.

Not long ago Bush was given incorrect information that BOTH parties accepted and you guys crucified him for it.

Chico challenges: "I will put my military knowledge (first hand or otherwise) up against yours any day of the week."

No contest. I concede that if you indeed served in Vietnam combat, your first hand military experience far exceeds mine which, incidentally, consists mostly only of classroom strategy study during several years of military school and some ROTC. Your rank as that of either an officer or grunt might further weigh in the determination of the extent of your military knowledge. In any case your insight is and was not in dispute

"For some reason, I don't feel  "wounded" in the least by your latest fusillade here Saber. But go ahead...... Take some more shots! Maybe you'll get  "lucky"!"

Here, your defensive, combative stance when questioned with simple comment is further illustrated by your apparent umbrage at a simple point of clarification. I didn't attack you. I simply pointed out that it has been verified that Obama accurately recited information.

They  "...ran out of ammo" in training, not on the battlefield it turns out.

Again, if true, and undisclosed to Obama, how is he responsible for the soldier's failure to impart that particular fact?

Nancy, if someone tells you that he didn't have lunch on a given day last year, are you expected to verify it? I suppose Obama could have had his people attempt to track down other members of the soldier's unit for corroboration but it didn't happen and the bulk of the information was verified as accurate by others.

They lacked for equipment before *AND* after, Chico.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/po...

Quote:

He told me his story, which I found quite credible, though for obvious reasons he asked that I not mention his name or certain identifying information. 

Short answer: He backs up Obama's story.

The longer answer is worth telling, though.

The Army captain, a West Point graduate, did a tour in a hot area of eastern Afghanistan from the Summer of 2003 through Spring 2004.

Prior to deployment the Captain -- then a Lieutenant -- took command of a rifle platoon at Fort Drum. When he took command, the platoon had 39 members, but -- in ones and twos -- 15 members of the platoon were re-assigned to other units. He knows of 10 of those 15 for sure who went to Iraq, and he suspects the other five did as well.

The platoon was sent to Afghanistan with 24 men.

"We should have deployed with 39," he told me, "we should have gotten replacements. But we didn't. And that was pretty consistent across the battalion."

He adds that maybe a half-dozen of the 15 were replaced by the Fall of 2003, months after they arrived in Afghanistan, but never all 15.

As for the weapons and humvees, there are two distinct periods in this, as he explains -- before deployment, and afterwards.

At Fort Drum, in training, "we didn't have access to heavy weapons or the ammunition for the weapons, or humvees to train before we deployed."

What ammunition?

40 mm automatic grenade launcher ammunition for the MK-19, and ammunition for the .50 caliber M-2 machine gun ("50 cal.")

"We weren't able to train in the way we needed to train," he says. When the platoon got to Afghanistan they had three days to learn.

They also didn't have the humvees they were supposed to have both before deployment and once they were in Afghanistan, the Captain says.

"We should have had 4 up-armored humvees," he said. "We were supposed to. But at most we had three operable humvees, and it was usually just two."

So what did they do? "To get the rest of the platoon to the fight," he says, "we would use Toyota Hilux pickup trucks or unarmored flatbed humvees." Sometimes with sandbags, sometimes without.

Also in Afghanistan they had issues getting parts for their MK-19s and their 50-cals. Getting parts or ammunition for their standard rifles was not a problem.

"It was very difficult to get any parts in theater," he says, "because parts are prioritized to the theater where they were needed most -- so they were going to Iraq not Afghanistan."

"The purpose of going after the Taliban was not to get their weapons," he said, but on occasion they used Taliban weapons. Sometimes AK-47s, and they also mounted a Soviet-model DShK (or "Dishka") on one of their humvees instead of their 50 cal.

The Captain has spoken to Sen. Obama, he says, but this anecdote was relayed to Obama through an Obama staffer.