Wash. Times headline asserted "Military fears 'unknown quantity' " of Obama, but quote came from "scare[d]" defense "industry executive"
A February 26 article in The Washington Times was headlined "Military fears 'unknown quantity' " and contained criticism of Sen. Barack Obama's "commander-in-chief qualifications," but did not quote a single military official asserting that Obama is an "unknown quantity." Rather, the article quoted a defense "industry executive" who asserted of other industry executives' feelings on Obama: "We've got some trepidation. There is no track record." The industry executive added, "He's an unknown quantity and that scares us a little bit."
From the February 26 article in The Washington Times:
Questions about Mr. Obama's commander-in-chief qualifications have reached the campaign trail. The Obama camp Wednesday sent out one of its advisers, former State Department official Susan Rice, to respond to charges from Sen. John McCain, the likely Republican nominee.
[...]
Gen. McPeak, who is an Obama campaign co-chairman, said the senator's intelligence will dazzle the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
"I think Obama is going to be an outstanding commander in chief, not just an ordinary commander in chief," he told The Washington Times. "He has the potential to be one of the all-time greats. I think the senior military will learn that about him starting from the first minute he occupies the Oval Office. ... There's no question that he is kind of scary smart. I think just plain intelligence is a very good quality to have in a commander in chief."
Gen. McPeak said it is a "fair comment" that Mr. Obama is viewed skeptically by senior officers. The general, who led the Air Force during the historic Desert Storm bombing of Iraq in 1991, believes the second war was unnecessary. He switched from Republican to Democrat in protest.
"I think that's undoubtedly true that the surge has reduced the violence there," he said. "But at the strategic level they did not set the initial conditions properly and therefore we can never be a success."
Defense industry executives worry that Mr. Obama will end six years of defense budget increases and, as he has repeatedly said on the campaign trail and in debates, tap into war and military funds to support his plan for universal health care.
"We've got some trepidation. There is no track record," said an industry executive of the first-term senator. "He's an unknown quantity and that scares us a little bit."
Does your mother change your sheets or are you a big enough boy that you can do it yourself?
My guess is because you refuse to acknowledge those "liberal" newspapers we print as american, ergo they must be foreign.
Actually I think he’s a result of the new secret Republican wingnut cloning scheme…
Project Replicating Ignorant Conservative Klingons
The Moonie Times, and the "defense" contractors, like $45 for a can of soda KBR, are scared to death of Obama.
He says he'll end this corruption.
"Defense industry executives worry that Mr. Obama will end six years of defense budget increases..."
That's a nice way of putting it.
That sounds much better than, "Defense industry executives worry that Mr. Obama will slow the astronomical war profit gravy train and the endless pallet loads of American money that disappear into Iraq without a trace."
CLEVE,
A good way to start the training on reading between the lines is Thom Hartmann's book "Cracking The Code".......
All in all this is a pretty fair article, it's not some hit piece. Even Obama's co-chair, Gen. McPeak, said those that view Obama skeptically is a "fair comment". It is not unreasonable to believe that some in the military would view a one term Senator with little foreign policy credentials in this manner. This is all part of examining candidate's experience and qualifications for the job. It is expected and should be welcomed.
I have always had reservations when it comes to Obama's experience so this critical look at this issue is important, for me. The more these issues are scrutinized, I believe, the more comfortable people are with Obama. The "unknown quantity" doesn't scare me, but I think the analysis is vital.
Tommy - so you would count the Defense Industry as part of the military? That's the problem with this article, it's EXTREMELY misleading, even for the Moonie Times. The military has no reservations about Obama, but the Defense Contractors are worried that they won't be able to get rich off of no-bid contracts and ripping off the government. Halliburton and Co. are NOT the good guys here, they are exploiting our soldiers' fortunes for a profit.
Support the troops, not the defense industry!!
What is illegitimate about raising the issue, just because people aren't named?, even Obama's co chair doesn't see it as illegitimate.
Is Obama under scrutiny that "illegitimate" for you?
it's not raising the issue that is illegitimate, it's the fact that they sourced defense contractors who obviously have a profit margin to maintain.
You know, if they were patriotic, they'd be a non-profit entity.
Illegitimate is grouping heartless war profiteers into the same group as the brave soldiers who spill their blood to ensure those profits.
Tommy, like I said, if they were patriotic, they'd be a non-profit entity.
and I don't know about heartless, but "war profiteers" is a pretty apt description. That's not fear mongering, they are making money off of the war in Iraq.
After seeing how horribly Halliburton and KBR mishandled their Iraq contracts, with full complicity from Cheney and the White House, it's really difficult to believe that the defense contractors their executives have the same goals as the U.S. military.
They don't want the war in Iraq to end because it makes them rich. If that doesn't make them 'war profiteers', than I don't know what does. They've wasted so much of our government's (and therefore taxpayers') money that it's difficult to claim that any of these 'industry executives' even have a conscience.
So you're at least not disagreeing with my point then, just throwing up more diversion from the issue.
You are, however, making a false accusation, by saying that I called Pentagon officials heartless war profiteers. I did not say that you can't prove that I said it.
You're also accusing me of fear mongering. I think you'll have hard time proving that as well. I don't believe I'm using fear to sway anyone's opinion when I call defense industry executives heartless war profiteers, which accurately describes what has happened during the Iraq occupation.
"Gen. McPeak said it is a "fair comment" that Mr. Obama is viewed skeptically by senior officers."
Notice, senior officers. That is not "industry executives" speaking for other "industry executives." Gen. McPeak believed those criticisms to come from the military, not the defense industry.
I'm curious what these same "senior officers" think about the current CIC and the Veep. I know a lot of folks in the Pentagon were not fans of Rumsfeld, and GWB sure thought Rummy was doing a heck of a job. No, wait, that one was the root of "I'm the Decider" clip. My bad.
It was almost a half-century ago that Eisenhower warned about the power of the Military-Industrial [Congressional] Complex. Those same interests are obviously concerned whether Obama might cut weapons programs that make them a lot of money.
The post you responded to said:
"Illegitimate is grouping heartless war profiteers into the same group as the brave soldiers who spill their blood to ensure those profits."
And not to knock the old Military Industrial Complex, but don't you think that if they had the good of the nation at heart and not profits for the shareholders, they would have rushed to produce more up-armored troop carriers. Do you think that The Marine Corps might have been given the MRAPs they desperately needed when they requested them and not two years later?
"The military" as an entity doesn't take political sides, it can't. I'm sure there are members of the military with reservations about Obama, and there are probably even more with reservations about McCain.
The point is, the article's headline claimed that the military was uncertain about Obama, when in fact, it was an 'industry executive' who is the uncertain one.
For all we know, that 'industry executive' is a close friend and confidant of Cheney. These could be Karl Rove's words, and they are attributing them to 'the military'.
It's actually quite denigrating to our troops to lump them in the same category as some corrupt, fat cat executive who's making millions off of the deaths of our troops.
No, no, NO. The article made the claim. They did not back it up with any MILITARY PEOPLE MAKING THAT CLAIM. That means the article is misleading at BEST. You do NOT get to reverse the burden of proof and say its ok because we cant prove a negative. That tactic is a logical fallacy.
I think the "unknown quantity" that has the guy nervous is in the "how many can I put you down for?" category.
Some of these people may have to start making useful items and providing needed services at competitive prices. Yikes!
The economic fears of heartless war profiteers are not "part of examining candidate's experience and qualifications for the job."
I will not expect it. I will not welcome it.
What is rather funny is how you slammed the rightwing yesterday for falsely manipulating the word "patriotism" to use against liberals, yet now you accuse all defense department personnel as being blood-spilling heartless war mongering profiteers - a little manipulation of your own, perhaps.
It's perfectly fine for you to baseless generalize when it suits your agenda, but not the other side? Glass houses.
Tommy -
The Defense Department is a branch of government. Nobody made that accusation about the Defense Department.
The Defense Industry is a totally separate entity that seeks the government's money in exchange for providing materials and services. Lately, the defense industry has been fleecing our government and the American people at exhorbitant rates, and they are not providing the level of service that should be required of them at a time of war. They should be held accountable, but the White House would never let that happen. But some right wing tabloid says they are part of the military, therefore we must support them! Basically, the Moonie Times is telling us to 'Screw the Troops!'
What do you mean lately? They have done it for many many years. Back when they charged 150.00 to 200.00 dollars for a freaking toilet seat for christ's sake!
Get real! They are money grubbing heartless executives that only fear thier gravy train is going to come to an end.
"now you accuse all defense department personnel as being blood-spilling heartless war mongering profiteers"
AGAIN, COMPLETELY, UNDENIABLY, 100% FALSE.
When I talk about heartless war profiteers, I AM TALKING ABOUT HEARTLESS WAR PROFITEERS. Not the Department of Defense, not the Pentagon.
Well, I doubt Gen. McPeak knew he was answering a loaded questing from a right-wing tabloid run by a criminal theocratic cult leader.
"Gen. McPeak said it is a "fair comment" that Mr. Obama is viewed skeptically by senior officers."
The way that's phrased, it sounds like he was answering a question, not making a statement. Most likely he was asked "Would you say it's a fair comment that Obama is viewed skeptically by senior officers?"
So, why didn't they ask McPeak if he thought it was a fair comment that McCain is viewed skeptically by senior officers.
There was a statement made, but McPeak didn't make the statement, he merely agreed that the statement wasn't unfair. There's a difference.
Do you see the part of the article that MMFA has in bold? It is in direct conflict with the headline.
That's the part of the article where it stops being a legitimate discussion of MILITARY fears (the soldiers who spill their blood) and turns into to an illegitimate discussion of DEFENSE INDUSTRY EXECUTIVE fears (the heartless war profiteers).
"Wash. Times headline asserted "Military fears 'unknown quantity' " of Obama, but quote came from "scare[d]" defense "industry executive""
Tommy, the point of the article is that "some," the some being a defense industry executive, are wary about his capabilities. The headline, however, says that the "military" fears "unknown quantity." Last time I checked, the military was not a wholly owned subsidiary of Halliburton or Blackwater. Therefore, the defense industry executive is not speaking from a military stand point. he's speaking from a business stand point. and that business is war, which I am sure he's made a handsome profit on.
"The point of the article is the trepidation by some regarding Obama's military experience."
No, according to the headline, the point was trepidation by the MILITARY regarding Obama's military experience. I am acknowledging it, it's a legitimate issue, deserving of legitimate discussion.
But then the point was lost when it dissolved into trepidation by DEFENSE INDUSTRY EXECUTIVES regarding the effect of Obama on the size of their wallet.
Why bring up the financial well-being of wealthy defense contractors in a discussion of how well Obama will do as commander in chief?
Defense Indusry Executives...be afraid, be very afraid. When will you executive allow yourselves to interviewed to explain your FEAR. Is it a concern over our men and women in the armed forces or the monies being made/lost? Let us be honest, you are not non-profit organizations.
Look, Executives, you have gone to the trough with VP Cheney leading the way and have absorbed as much as you could handle and more. Give us a break. You'll still get you share if Obama becomes President but then, you will have to earn it. And be fair about it.
It's a puzzle, Nerzog. The same ones who cheer on and wave the flag as the government steals our money to use towards something that can't possibly be a good investment (except against fighting perceived fears), go into convulsions at the mention of putting some of that money towards something that may address more real problems.
NERZOG,
I posed a near identical question to copiousdissent over at his blog the other day and he didn't even answer the question.......
I to wonder sometimes on how the conservatives can be a-ok with the spending of millions of our tax dollars on a missle that has no redeeming value beyond the destruction of part of a city block as opposed to spending those same millions to create potential billions in the long run in tax revenue, which would create better security for us all......
How do people that think this way sleep at night?
I totally agree with you Nerzog.
Conservatives who think paying less in taxes means more money in their pockets are deluding themselves. Do they not understand how the system works? It's trickle down theory at it's "finest". You're going to pay for services one way or another, and it's the lower to middle classes who pay disproportionately.
As the saying goes, "shit rolls downhill."
Not to mention that the missile that was used to shoot down that spy satellite last couple weeks ago, cost in the range of 1 BILLION dollars a piece, and they had THREE missiles set to go in case they missed the first couple times.
the "defense industry" and "military industry" built those missiles, not the military.
Wonder how much it actually cost to build it? hmm?
Unless we live under a military dictatorship the military is under the direction of the President who is elected by the people! Congress declares wars and controls the develop[ment of military with its ability to provide or take away funding. So the military may have reservations(what does that mean anyway-sort of like saying some people)what are they going to do over throw the government of the THE PEOPLE! This piece by the Times is BS,but the insinuations are telling. There is a reason that we keep the military under civilian control and not vice or versa. The outrage that was expressed about Gen.Patreus had to do with him being interjected by this administration into a political debate,we pride ourselves in the fact of not being controlled by the military, why start now!
"In 2006, it was McInerney who insisted that Russian Special Forces entered Iraq before the invasion and moved Saddam’s WMD to Syria.
In 2002, McInerney assured Americans the war in Iraq “will be a war that is shorter than” the 1991 Gulf War, which lasted 42 days.
In 2005, McInerney insisted that terrorists no longer feel the need to attack inside the United States because we have “leftists in America who have aided and abetted the enemy more than Tokyo Rose did in World War II.”
The man is a sad, right-wing, unhinged activist. That the Washington Times could only quote one retired military official, and they dug up McInerney to smear Obama, suggests Obama is in pretty good shape."
"Defense industry executives worry that Mr. Obama will end six years of defense budget increases "
I bet they do...
i have no doubt that the arms salesmen are a tad concerned about a potential obama commander-in-chief. however gentlemen, take heart, he couldn't possibly be any worse than the current one has proven to be.
unfortunately for the defense industry, neither sens. obama or clinton seems to be nearly as in thrall to them as bush is. that could definitely be problematic, for their earnings per share.
Re: Gen. McPeak's comment: "I think just plain intelligence is a very good quality to have in a commander in chief."
Add to that a basic intellectual curiosity and a "want to know" attitude.
Additionally, defense industry employees should start thinking about selling their company stock and find a new line of work. Talk about a bubble bursting...
Ok, would someone clue me in here cause I am not that smart. No, wait a minute, uhm I mean the media thinks me a dullard. Sorry to disappoint kiddies but I ain't. Guess what it just not me America by and larges loves the men and women of the military. As for Obama he likes them too.
Now as for the demon infested complex that is a unholy alliance of every sort of unclean spirits and dark forces are scared cause they don't know if they can buy his soul like George and that Dick I mean DICK Cheney, illuminate, builderbergers and what not. Its your turn to worry, go without sleep wonder if all you know will come down at your feet knowing you can't do a damn thing about it.
Thanks Obama,
a white college educated used to be republican, that was tossed out on his ear for loving the flag.
http://www.freewebs.com/writingindependence/PostAnthrax04.pdf
I think the American people see the only "track record" worth their attention.
They must fear Obama would clean America's house, of them.