Whats the deal with Obama

I am not sure what you have read but if it is the e-mail going around about Obama in the war zone. That e-mail is writen by someone that wanted to bash Obama. Check it out in Smopes
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/afghanistan.asp

No when he went over seas and didn't visit the Soldiers. I've heard his story but i'm not sure it flys with me.

Its good to boost the spirits of the ones fighting.

The storys on Fox News Channel, and every other News Channel.
I DID read that on Snopes but thats not what i'm talking about. I Just mean I don't understand why he couldnt go visit the soldiers in the hospital. I know some of them were looking forward in seeing him matter of fact I do have a friend over there that is injured in the war and he really wanted to meet Obama. It really hurt his feelings.

Thanks for the website, David, but the fact remains: Obama did not visit thetroops.

I do think this whole issue points out an important difference between the candidates. McCain goes over there and he meets with the troops and he does not get lots of PR or credit for doing it. Why should he? He is just doing what is right.

Obama is over there to bask in the glory of the press. He is trying to prove that he can be effective in foreign policy, but it is more complicated than drawing crowds like a rock star.

Many people are fascinated by Paul McCartney and Mick Jagger. They could draw crowds and fill hundreds of auditoriums. That does not mean I would vote for them for president.

Now that I think of it Jagger and McCartney, if they were U.S. citizens, would be more qualified by life experience than this upstart, Obama.

I would love to see a black president. Colin Powell or Condeleeza Rice would make great choices. They paid their dues; they have the backgrounds.

Obama is just a community organizer with about 143 days of experience in the Senate. He is hardly qualified to be a senator much less a president.

If the Democrats want a community organizer, surely they can find one who makes more sense than Obama.

a few photos of him with soldiers would go a long way in dispelling those ideas that he is unpatriotic, anti-American, you know the ones.

David's link does have photos, but where and when were they taken.
Photos prove nothing nowdays.

Sandi. A 'few' photo's would be mere propaganda to help his image. He did't go see the injured soldiers because he doesn't give a rats ass about them. His main goal is to make brownie points with the enemy and become friends with the very people that want us dead. He may gain their 'friendship', but if he's elected into office they will exploit him all they can and when they can't exploit anymore they will turn on him.

I think most of the comments above say what I would have said. I'm not the least bit surprised that Obama didn't visit the wounded soldiers. That would not have been in his agenda.

Obama has solicited the press. He is a very good convincing speaker, "Golden tongue". He is gaining needed publicity. Wonder how many are falling in his trap. I agree if Colin Powell would have run for President, he would have my vote. Needless to say Obama is too inexperienced to even be considered as President.

Methinks he did but the military wanted to keep it secret for the sake of morale.

interesting thought, Kerell! But wouldn't Obama have "leaked" the pictures? Unless he doesn't want to be seen with Our Troops.

Lie,lie,lie some more gently down the toliet,

He did't go see the injured soldiers because he doesn't give a rats ass about them.

WTF? Has Obama ever said that? What about the administration whose stupid idea of war got them injured (and killed) to begin with? They are SUCH caring people.

I'm still out on this one. Until I hear an explanation from Sen. Obama, I'm not passing any judgment on this act. If his intentions were one way and they were interpreted another way, then Obama will speak on it. If he made a mistake, he will admit it, unlike the bastard president we have now who seems to think mistakes are what other people do if they don't think and act exactly the way he does.

Interesting how some of you forget how those wounded soldiers got in those beds in the first place.

I agree with Mary Ann, above...

Why would you share a post without knowing the facts? How can WE give our opinion about what another has done, without knowing the facts? Are you suggesting we jump to conclusions and spread false rumors? That wouldn't be very nice.

I'm beginning to be amazed by the number of people who expect the world to work the way they specifically want it to. It doesn't matter what good a person does in the world, we will find a way to denigrate him because drama is conflict and the nightly news runs on drama.

Obama has been against the war since the beginning. If anyone has shown concern for the lives of valiant Americans, it is he.

I'm sure every candidate running for any office would love to clone himself so he can visit every constituency who might remotely become disenchanted with him if he doesn't, but there is only so much time and they are bound, as politicians, to maximize their media opportunities.

If Sen. Obama were president, I would have expected him to visit and thank the troops he had committed to this conflict. Since he is a political candidate, I think he was trying to spread himself around and to make contact with world leaders who might aid in bringing troops home and end the conflict which injured the soldiers in the first place.

He scrapped a visit to wounded troops in Germany. That does not mean Obama did not visit troops during the trip (he did, and was shown doing so in other locations). Frankly, photo ops with wounded soldiers does not make someone presidential in my book. Voting FOR veterans funding (which McCain DID NOT back) shows more support for troops.

This is not about patriotism, etc, its about sound bites. Let's look at the whole picture ... not the sound bites.

What are you talking about??????????

Did you not see him last week in Afghanistan & Iraq surrounded by CHEERING soldiers?

Why do you let yourself believe lies?

Lies are bad for the soul.

I'm not sure of the surrounding circumstances but I say look at Obama and the work he's done for injured soldiers and how he supports their benefits. He's done a lot of good.

I'm voting for Obama.

I am just curious as to why he didn't go visit them. Like I said I'm sure hes a good person I don't judge other people. Just wanted to know if he had a specific reason why he wasn't able to go. I still don't think i could vote for him because i don't think he has the experience and this country needs a over haul so to speak.

Martha, just which troops and at what location and what day? Why are you so concerned about that particluar event / non-event? Besides, the treatment of veterans and their families by the present Administration has be abominable. I don't see how Obama could do much worse even if he tried.

I am not sure why he did not visit the soldiers. And, I think it matters not what he does that makes him great. When he is president, he will do what is necessary. And, not just because others want him to do it. He is upholding his principles and that is more than most politicians do.

thanks for the information

Whether he visits the soldiers or not, I hope that if you do not vote for Obama you do not waste your vote on McCain!

Obama is damned if he do and damned if he don't! If he had visited the injured soldiers in Germany he would be accused of using them for a photo op which would have been disrespectful. Please, look at what he accomplished and compare that to the last time Bush or McCain represented us abroad. Remember that when ANY elected official visits a foriegn country and our bases there he or she is representing us, and I have no complaints about Obama's visit thus far.

Thank you for using Gather Broadcast, where there is an open line of communication for all and you’re more than a connection.

I believe that he didn't visit the troops. I wouldn't vote for another Democrat if my soul depended on it.

As far as it goes, there's nobody to vote for. MC is just a RINO anyway. I haven't a clue what all you liberals are whining about. He's just not quite the socialist that BO is.

And BO is NOT qualified to be a presidential candidate, no matter what anyone thinks.

God help us all if he is elected.

Ewww.. what a horrible thought, if either of them are elected.

Signed,
Proud Politician Hater. ( They all stink and are only there for their own benefit... which they've given quite plenty of to themselves. )

If he had visited the troops, they would have said he was exploiting them on his campaign tour.
If he didn't they said he didn't care.
Most important is whether their injuries would have occurred if we had followed his advice and stayed out of Iraq altogether.

With John McCain, there will be 100 years of us in Iraq and lots more chances to visit wounded troops.

Thanks you guys for your input.
I do understand what your saying Robert.

Hi kids,

Obama was prohibited from visiting with campaign staff. He would have been allowed in with Senate staff and Secret Service escort. His senate staffers had left after the Iraq / Afghanistan leg of the trip, and the Pentagon changed their tune only a day before the scheduled event, thus effectively canceling it because the senate staffers could not arrive in time. He did phone them and so avoided using OUR AMERICAN [not republican, not democrat] TROOPS as a backdrop....something which the republican administration has no problems in doing....pawns and props.....

Louis...on the mark!

The only thing they prefer that the public not see are the flag-draped caskets of G.I.'s who have died in combat. Those are the props that aren't useful for the "cause".

http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/fall2006/features/shooting-war.html

"The Pentagon’s solution has been to hide casualties. There have been remarkably few photographs of the thousands of wounded at Walter Reed and other military hospitals. Save for a few carefully chosen photo ops with the President, the roughly 20,000 wounded (by official count) in late 2006 have all but disappeared from view.

The Pentagon has also enforced a ban on photographs of coffins and body containers returning through Dover Air Force Base. The policy began during the 1991 Gulf War and continued during the Clinton administration, although exceptions were made for the victims of the 1998 terrorist bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kenya and the 2000 attack on the USS Cole in a Yemeni harbor. The Pentagon went back to a total ban in November 2001, shortly after the bombing campaign began in Afghanistan. In March 2003, Bush issued a directive stating that there would be no coverage of “deceased military personnel returning to or departing from” air bases. In 2005, in response to a lawsuit filed under the Freedom of Information Act, the Pentagon released a limited number of its own pictures. But news organizations are still prevented from taking photographs.

Defense Department officials maintain that the restriction is necessary to protect mourners and to ensure their privacy. What is interesting is how many military families oppose the Pentagon’s inclination to hide the dead. In an October 2004 study, 51 percent of military families thought that permitting the photographs would increase respect for their sacrifices, while only 8 percent felt that it would have the opposite effect. At least one mother protested her son’s death in Iraq by inviting the media, against regulations, to film the return of his casket."

Props when needed. Censorship when helpful. This isn't about caring for the soldiers. It is all about 'advancing the political agenda'.

I do not trust Obama, but I do trust www.snopes.com
Snopes has debunked the rumor about Obama's snubbing the soldiers.

I do think it is hilarious that he went to the middle east to compete with Condoleeza Rice and our actual, official, elected and appointed government reps. It's so childish!
Obama's message: "Look at me! I'm here, too. I can take credit for any progress made toward peace" ROFL. politics!

Thanks for sharing your post. I have a stepson in the Navy...who has gone to Iraq and Kuwait to keep us safe. I won't comment beyond that...lol

Jan,

so good of you to agree that Bush and the rest of the republicans a re finally moving towards Obama's positions.....by the by, they are.....we're here too!!

politics is right.

David A.: Thanks. A good set of points. I have tried to get people to realize that the problem is not with the people who are candidates. It is the system that defeats anything good that they might want to do unless it suits the special interest groups that control the funding of the candidates. It is also the necessity for getting large numbers of "too busy earning a living and getting drunk to think about the issue in depth" people to chant, "Four legs good, two legs bad" and then vote.

Donald very true....David we are bought and sold a thousand times a day......but at least Obambi has less funding [to date] from special interests. So i shall cast my vote for him and hope that he will at least attempt a change.

As for McCain? it's all K street.

One world government? that will be hard as money is very different in US vs Europe.....but our dollar is sinking quickly I could see an 'Amero' at some point in the future with Canada and Mexico.....in the end the rich stay rich the poor stay poor. If you stay educated and flexible you can work under any system.

It could be that situations weren't in place for him to do so. There is a war going on, certain precautions have to be taken. I would like hear more to the story before snapping judgement.

This comment is to let you know that this content has reached at least five votes and over 8.0 average rating, and as such has been removed from Rating Resurrectionists! Congratulations, and check out this week's Need More Ratings!

the deal with him in this matter is that the media (and all of it, sans PBS/NPR) loves to string up a headline to get you to stay tuned.

I admit the headling grabbed my attention but as I would do if it were any other candidate I read the story. His campaign manager stated that since this tour was a campaign tour, funded by campaign dollars he did not feel it was appropriate to use injured soldiers as a photo op. I agree with his decision on that. Especially being the wife of a disabled vet. My husband who has been there done that agrees whole heartedly with that decision. It, as most of his decisions do, show respect, intelligence, grace and stregnth. Not to mention the fact that many articles have been written lately on proper ettiquette when visiting those who are sick/injured. And the bottom line is that patients need to be able to get plenty of rest and to deal with their situation with some sense of decorum. It is one thing to have your spouse in the room while the medical staff strips off that gown and does what ever procedure is to be done. But most people really don't want to have their co0workers and neighbors in there for that so they can have some sense of dignity if possible. The advice being offered these days is to first call the nurses station and ask if the patient is, in their opinion up to visitors, if so what is the best time and maximum legnth of visit recommended and what if anything would be acceptable in the room. Then if they give the all clear it is still recommended to speak to the person closest to them and ask their opinion.

Two years ago he was not my preferred candidate. And I had to come to realize my decision was not based on his so called lack of experiece, but on my lack of knowledge of his experiences. So I started reading up and researching his resume so to speak. McCain has many more years of experience under his belt in working in politics, and I will avoid making any agism comments here. So then I realized his QUALITY of work and personal background and successes in his works were very impressive. Then as the mud slining begin he is the ONE candidate in all of this that I say addressing the issues and even pointing out the idiocy of the fact that the debate Charlie Gibson and George S. mediated was ludicrus and spent more than the first half NOT addressing the real ISSUES. He is and has been ready to address the issues and no one else really has. Back in March when my state held their primaries the presidential candidates were on one page in columns where each column listed a brief bio, then stated where the candidates stood on these matters and in the case of Clinton and Obama listed in several of them plans on how to accomplish (including funding) of these issues. So his and Senator Clintons were so similar it was like playing that childrens picture game of can you spot the differences? McCain on the other hand had listed his stance on the issues that run contradictory to what I believe is the best for this country, was too bushesque, and did not list any plans on how to finance/accomplish these goals. Now top that off with the fact that the mud being slung at him has become worse each day and not because he warrants it but because it keeps McCain from having to address the real issues. Yet through the mess of lies, twisting of irrelevant matters and even starting in on his wife, he has handled each and every one with intelligence, grace, and stregnth. Since I have been voting I have not seen ANY candidate handle this so well. This is exactly what we need in the Oval Office. Each passing day with each twisted story to outright lies just makes him shine more and more.

Obama spent the morning playing basketball with American soldiers, injuring his knee in the process. (That's what happens when old guys play basketball.) Number of American soldiers that John McCain visited that day: 0. This is not any kind of a standard to judge a candidate by, though. It's a media mountain made out of a molehill. Judge your candidate by his stand on important issues, not made-up campaign crap.

i feel so bad for the media-mongers out there.

this is exactly why i won't vote: too many of you are taking spun stories...and spinning them even faster.

it's a tub full of whirling tops, ricocheting off of one another.

Obama's smarter than anybody who's tried for his position in a great long while. he can admit he's wrong (which, as it turned out, he wasn't--not in THIS case--and i see some of you have captured the truth in your Comments...a truth that was PUBLICIZED, but for the most part ignored); he can see various sides of any issue he's given to examine (rather than, say, come off as partisan); he has a universal appeal (which so many are spinning as a bane, rather than a BOON--the world has a CONTEMPT for us, and he's a great trouble-shoot for that issue alone...); he's canny enough to do what presidents do (which isn't much), and talk to Petraeus (and an Iraqi leader or two) instead of assuming Obama Knows Best.

what's your beef, imbeciles?
seriously. under all the "spin"...what...the HECK...do you WANT...that HE doesn't want TOO.

now find yourself another viable candidate who is, without controversy, on YOUR side.
the side of the commoner.
the side of the poor.
the side of the gas tank.
the side of The Future.

YOUR side.

oh, by all means: bicker some MORE. -if you do it juuuuust right, maybe some eagle-eyed redneck with a night scope (and Obama's itinerary in his overalls' breast pocket) will take him out of your high-and-mighty WAY.

for good.

oh; wait a sec'.

you may be "high"...but "mighty" is for the WEALTHY.

i dont like obama anyways so it really doesnt suprise me although it does piss me off grrrr

This comment is to let you know that this content has reached at least 100 views, and as such has been removed from ViewMasters! Congratulations!