As soon as I read about that claim, I wondered what the hell he was thinking, and who had fed him that story.

You call him a liar but don't really offer up any real evidence against it. I don't believe him either, but your argument isn't that great.

Perhaps you missed the either/or construction, rude repub. You might want to try reading the post again. It could be that Obama is supremely ignorant.

You call him a liar but don't really offer up any real evidence against it.

In what way is, "he got the rank wrong", "they don't split up platoons", and "there has never been an ammo shortage in Afghanistan" not evidence?

I'm not supporting what Obama's saying, but it's possible he's referring to a reserve unit.

Why they would split up a reserve platoon any more than a regular unit, I don't know.

CY, I have an entirely innocent question. I know enough about regular Army organization to agree with you that a regular Army platoon would never be commanded by a captain or be split up in the way described. However, I know a lot less about the organization of Special Forces units. Is it possible that Obama was talking to a Special Forces officer, somebody who a) commands a platoon-sized unit despite being a captain; b) regularly splits his unit into smaller detachments that go wherever they're needed; and c) often finds himself and/or his men so deep in enemy territory and so far from resupply that they use enemy arms and ammo in order to conserve their own?

Special Forces don't have platoon sized units, to my knowledge. At least not outside the HHD and Support elements. From what little I saw while TCS'd to 5th Group (I stayed with HHD, didn't play with the ODA's at all) it seemed like their chain went from ODA (A-team) to the Battalion to the Group. Don't hold me to that though - there may have been things I did not see.

As for splitting up units, I could see that if a reserve or National Guard Unit had some of it's personnel get cross-leveled to other units in order to fill out their TO&E, prior to the home unit being activated - especially with the new "24 months home" rule.

And the person he "heard from" might have been a 1LT platoon leader in Afghanistan, and then promoted prior to when Obama "heard from" him.

But I still think he ought to be called on it to name his source - the ammo thing sounds rather suspicious.

Obama is a Democrat politician....lying about the military is a requirement to succeed in that endeavor.

Of course, to an audience of Democratic party members, this sort of lie doesn't need any more corroboration than "I heard from an Army captain...."

of course, the MSM will either bury this gaffe or print a few more lies to 'support' it. Enough repetitions and it will become common knowledge.

I thought that the President doesn't give money to the troops directly, he has to have it approved by Congress? Isn't the Democrat controlled congress the one threating money for the troops in an effort to curtail the wars? You'd think a presidential candidate would know this. I guess its just easier to blame Republicans and Bush than actually know anything.

No wonder The Messiah is so popular, he suffers from the same BDS his cult members do.

I'd say this is unbelievable, but that'd be lying as well.

I don't think St. Barack's lying, in the sense of knowingly offering falsehoods. He may even absolutely believe the "facts" that some staffer has dredged up. The "facts" are probably, at best, snippets of ancedotes taken out of context.

I think St. Barack's just a bozo who has no clue what he's talking about, and is more interested in using his alleged facts to Bash Bush and the Republicans than he is in whether his alleged facts bear any relation to reality, which, as CY points out, they don't.

In fairness, it is possible that he talked to a captain who'd commanded a platoon while he was a lieutenant, but who has since been promoted. Of course, that would only account for one of many issues CY has identified. When so many accuracy issues exist, you have to start thinking "Bagdad Diarist" or "Dan Rather." BO should name his sources, but naturally he won't.

Friends, it is always unwise to be fair to the unfair. Certainly, in our private affairs such a thing as this obvious invention is a) unfalsifiable and b) trivial... or it would be if the stakes were not so high. Let us not forget that the good manners and dignity of our servicemen allowed John Kerry to get away with decades of deceit which, yes, included himself. DO NOT go soft on these people. Sure, they are just morons, BUT THEY ARE MORONS THAT WILL RUIN US ALL IF THEY GET TO THE REINS OF GOVERNMENT. Sorry for yelling but this is important. DO NOT be fair to a libby whether it is Barack or Hillary or your sainted mother. Be 1% more fair than they are to us and that is as much fairness as we can afford. True.

Via The Corner, I found a post by Jake Tapper at ABC's website. (I'd provide a link, but the comment-editor is refusing it.) Thumbnail summary: Tapper says he found Obama's source, got the direct story, and it works out pretty much as SSg Jeff suggested uptopic. The "Army captain" (who remains nameless) was a lieutenant at the time he was talking about. He took command of a rifle platoon with 39 men, but a total of 15 were reassigned to other units, no replacements were provided, and he eventually deployed to Afghanistan with 24 men. The supply problems involved parts and ammo for 40mm grenades and .50-cal machine guns, NOT the standard M16 rifles. On occasion they used AK-47s and Soviet-made heavy machine guns, but only for convenience sake. There's also a mention of the well-known problems with getting armored humvees in-country.

In other words, while the story is apparently true as stated, none of this is new. It's already well known that the Army had severe supply and materiel problems in 2003 and 2004. And corrective measures have already been taken -- were taken, in fact, as soon as the problems became known to the senior command.

I still think it is a crock. The problem is not that what he said isn't strictly true, it's the fact that the impression is entirely innaccurate.

1) I challenge you to find a unit that didn't have shortages during training. And I mean ever. We had shortages when I trained for Bosnia, we had shortages at basic, and we had shortages in my train-up for Afghanistan. Would I have liked every one of my guys to fire at AT4 before I got in country, sure, was it going to happen? Hell now.
2) Humvees are chronically short. I've never heard of a unit in history that had everything they requested or wanted. Precious few even made it in theater with what is on the TOW, again, embrace the suck, Shi'ite happens.
3) The unit being split and sent to 2 different theaters, and people being reassigned to different units are 2 entirely seperate animals. While BHO's comment could have been interpreted either way, at the very least it appears he insinuated they were split and sent.

* TOE, not TOW.

One personal anecdote. We had the little squad radios that operated from the helmet, had the little mics that came down. I can't be more specific, because we never received the wire that connected the mic to the radio itself, so we all went out and bought walky talkies.

Now, did we bitch and moan about how that magificent bastard Rove was too busy screwing over the Alabama governor to properly supply us? No, it was the army. You expect that to happen. Doesn't make it right, it just makes it customary. If I showed up in a unit, and they gave us everything we were supposed to have, I would worry, and/or wonder how I ended up in SF.

The problem is not that what he said isn't strictly true, it's the fact that the impression is entirely innaccurate.

I agree. And I'm not saying it wasn't a lousy, rotten thing to say, especially the way he said it. I'm just saying that to call it a _lie_, in the same sense that Rathergate or John F'n Kerry's Tale of the Magic Hat was a lie, is apparently inaccurate and doesn't make our side look good. Assuming, of course, that Tapper's post is truthful.

I don't know, I think intentionally stating something in a way so as that the vast bulk of people will misinterpret is coming pretty damn close to the line.

The way Obama made it sound was the unit was split and sent 2 different places, and with so little ammo they had to steal it from the enemy.

The reality is, individual members were reassigned, and the unit used enemy weaponry on occassion (which literally EVERYONE I ever met did) and he didn't get ammo which is not intrinsic to the TOE for the unit he was in. i also was light infantry, we couldn't get MK19 rounds either, because on the books, we weren't supposed to have them.

Whilst all of the above does shed a more understandable light on each individual event/fact, it doesn't address a point I've heard elsewhere, namely that Marine rifle platoons have 39 men. Army rifle platoons as are being discussed here, typically comprise of 36 men.

No wonder Obama thinks Iraq is a failure, he's living in 2004.

What's on paper and what happens on the ground are different at times Elydo. When I did a combat squad patrol, it NEVER had 9 guys which is what I was autorized on paper. It had my 9 (minus anyone on leave) then added a medic, a FO, and usually 2 gunners. My guess is that it is 36, and the weapons teams (240G) got farmed out to each platoon, making it 40 or so.

Each unit had their own way of doing it that seldom matched what you had on paper.

Understandable and conceivable Ortner, my thanks for the reply.

I note that the raving, drooling lunatic John Cole is having none of this. After considering the Jake Tapper story he concludes in a blog post, typically riddled with bad grammar and misspellings: "...I would take this a grain of salt when you compare it to the vault of knowledge these bloggers have procured over a lifetime of arranging GI Joe dolls while watching betamax copies of Uncommon Valor in the basement apartment they rent from their parents. I know it is a tough call, but I am gonna go with Obama, Tapper, and Phil Carter on this."

Three other problems with Jake Tapper's "fact-checking" that you don't mention:

1) The source is 100% anonymous, so we need to take him at his word on it;

2) The story, if true, is 4-5 years old. Obama was talking as if this were a current issue;

3) At the end of Jake Tapper's article, he does some editorializing which shows he's not really objective about this issue, which lowers my confidence a bit.

One sign of a man, CY, is that he can admit he is wrong when he is proven wrong.

You just failed that test miserably.

But you hang in there, my friend. One of these days you are bound to get something right.

I don't really get where you see that Len.

Obama said that "

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."

And the guy who was the genesis for the entire tale said:

"The purpose of going after the Taliban was not to get their weapons," he said, but on occasion they used Taliban weapons.

So how exactly is CY wrong? I'd say this one is roughly a push at best.

what? The messiah, he be a liar, say it ain't so.

Ok, I have not read everything here yet so excuse me if I address something that has been discussed already.

[quote]You call him a liar but don't really offer up any real evidence against it. I don't believe him either, but your argument isn't that great.[/quote]

Would you like me to post links to the doctrinal publication that outlines what happens who is deployed with who and where with what gear, or will you trust this old salt dogs word?

The FEBA is never more than a few hundred meters forward of the FOB in both Iraq and Afghan. SOF will deploy independently at the Team level (depending on what the mission is). A SOF team is headed by a Major (sometimes a very senior Capt) but being split from the team is not unusual, but will not be in different theaters.

Hell, the smallest unit that will be deployed over two theaters is a REGIMENT . That is three infantry BATTALIONS (but in WWII battalions would sometimes be split into separate theaters).

Yes paper does not always dictate, you will not always have your full TO&E. But the things that the idiot above said, simply did not happen. PERIOD!!!

Flat out, the idiot lied, just as he has been doing. Hell look at his voting record and make your own conclusions (be advised you will need the ability to think outside the box to see through the BS).

Len, it looks like you just failed your own test. The Obamessiah has been proven wrong in all but one respect, yet you cannot admit it.

Of course, I doubt that will bother you, since you are apparently well-versed in holding others to standards you don't hold yourself to.

I wish you good day only as a matter of form, sir.

The essential problem, which we will likely encounter again and again all the way to November, and potentially beyond, is that Obama's entire campaign is already an exercise in intellectual dishonesty. As soon as he begins to open his mouth on military (and most other) matters, acting as though he is some kind of authoritative objective observer able to weigh the meaning and import of whatever anecdotes some Captain or Lieutenant tells him, he's already lying - even if he happens to get all or most of the particulars right.

We can put aside for the moment the deeper differences on the war underlying his comment. What's interesting to me is that he did manage to get some of his facts right, but still imposed a completely improper conclusion on them (that equipment shortages caused by the evil Bush were so severe that our soldiers were sent into the field effectively unarmed). He can be expected to do this kind of thing regularly when on unfamiliar turf. That's the good news. The bad news is that a) many of his supporters don't care, b) voters in general are unlikely to sweat the details, c) he's going to spend all Summer boning up on the subjects that might lead him to expose his ignorance. So, in the absence of a major foul-up, the objective for his opponents will have to be weave his relatively minor errors together with his main stated positions into a narrative of dangerous incompetence, mistaken intentions, and arrogance on the big questions. Anything else will dissolve amidst a welter of disputed and forgotten details.

The essential problem, which we will likely encounter again and again all the way to November, and potentially beyond, is that Obama's entire campaign is already an exercise in intellectual dishonesty. As soon as he begins to open his mouth on military (and most other) matters, acting as though he is some kind of authoritative objective observer able to weigh the meaning and import of whatever anecdotes some Captain or Lieutenant tells him, he's already lying - even if he happens to get all or most of the particulars right.

If we aside for the moment the deeper differences on the war underlying his comment, it's also interesting that he did manage to get some of his facts right, yet still imposed a completely improper conclusion on them (that equipment shortages caused by the evil Bush were so severe that our soldiers were sent into the field effectively unarmed). He can be expected to do this kind of thing regularly when on unfamiliar turf. That's the good news. The bad news is that a) many of his supporters don't care, b) voters in general are unlikely to sweat the details, c) he's going to spend all Summer boning up on the subjects that might lead him to expose his ignorance. So, in the absence of a major foul-up, the objective for his opponents will have to be weave his relatively minor errors together with his main stated positions into a narrative of dangerous incompetence, mistaken intentions, and arrogance on the big questions. Anything else will dissolve amidst a welter of disputed and forgotten details.

So, basically what you are saying, is he is not fit to lead. But those uneducated in the subjects of discussion will continue to be fooled because he talked pretty. Got it, thanks.

We may have thought Bill Clinton was "slick" but I think that his lies will look small compared to what Obama will say.

Barack Obama cannot be trusted.

Two other notes:
1- Obama's response isn't "Our men are underequipped, so we need to spend more money making this end!" or even, "Our soldiers are underprepared, and there must be hearings and procedural changes!" His response is, "Our soldiers are underequipped... so let's surrender in another field of battle!" Little logical disconnect here.
2- Considering the relative world importance of Iraq and Afghanistan, including their relative populations and economies; considering the relative sizes of the deployments to both; adding in in the relative difficulties of accessing either one: if you had to short one of them to fully supply the other, which one would it be?

Senator Obama states that he was always against
the war. Where is his written proof, since he
was not in the Senate to vote on the issue.

One other important thing to note about Jake Tapper's post is that there really was no fact checking done at all. Tapper uses the same anonymous sourse that Obama used for his anecdote. A source that continues to only be known to Tapper, BHO, and BHO staffers. However, I would caution against getting too hung up on whether or not this guy is really in the military. The focus neeeds to be on not only the facts of the allegation, but on the fact that he's talking about things that took place back in 2003 - 04. Not things that are going on currently.

Jim C

Being a politician implies liar. Politicians are a proper subset of the set of liars.

You guys just jump all over something and embarrass yourselves.
The Captain who told Obama that WAS a Lt but was promoted .Apparently you failed to take that possibility before announcing LIAR
That Captain is also a West Point grad.
Proper analysis can only be done with an absence of emotion.
THe ammo shortage was during training.
Anyone who says another is a liar for reporting something outside of their realm of experience is a fool.

"The Captain who told Obama that WAS a Lt but was promoted .Apparently you failed to take that possibility before announcing LIAR
That Captain is also a West Point grad.
Proper analysis can only be done with an absence of emotion.
THe ammo shortage was during training.
Anyone who says another is a liar for reporting something outside of their realm of experience is a fool."

Actually, bright box. We already discussed that possibility many moons ago. Try reading the replies before you mak yourself look a fool.

"The Captain who told Obama that WAS a Lt but was promoted .Apparently you failed to take that possibility before announcing LIAR
That Captain is also a West Point grad.
Proper analysis can only be done with an absence of emotion.
THe ammo shortage was during training.
Anyone who says another is a liar for reporting something outside of their realm of experience is a fool."

Actually, bright box. We already discussed that possibility many moons ago. Try reading the replies before you make yourself look a fool.

Matt, looking like a fool is John Ryan's only talent. He tried it on BlackFive and got his head handed to him in spades (five of spades, perhaps?) so now he's back here.

So, this Tapper fellow thinks "fact checking" means calling the same person Obama did? Call me crazy but I thought "fact checking" was making sure what the Captain said was accurate.

Don't you people ever get sick of being wrong all the time?

The idea behind anonymous sources in news reports is that if it might be damaging to the source to have his identity published, the reporter substitutes his own credibility for that of the source. We might presume that Tapper has done enough legwork to know that the source is actually a captain, used to be a lieutenant, and commanded a rifle platoon in Afghanistan. Further, he is certain enough that the details of the story are true that he risks his credibility on them. If you don't trust him, that's your choice, but this is how things work.

Assuming, as I do, that the story is accurate, it is illustrative of the question brought up by Obama. He is not arguing that, given that we have forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, the wrong choices are being made in the tradeoffs that we face. He is saying that these tradeoffs should have been better considered before we committed forces to Iraq, and people who supported the invasion of Iraq excercised poor judgment.

It's obvious what side of this I come down on, but I think it's worth stepping back and actually considering what Obama said.

Look, guys, wipe the egg off your faces, cool down, and THINK for a minute.

Obama said the story came from a captain who had commanded a platoon. Key word: HAD. The statement is absolutely true. You just jumped to conclusions. If I mention that Colin Powell once commanded a battalion, does that make me a liar because he retired as a 4-star general?

Obama said the platoon in question went to Afghanistan under-strength becasue 15 of the soldiers got sent to Iraq. Again, ABSOLUTELY TRUE. He never said that "the platoon got split into two separate parts and one of those got sent to Iraq." Again, you went running off to a conclusion that had absolutely nothing to do with Obama's statement. Fifteen of those soldiers got pulled from the platoon, re-assigned elsehwere, and ended up in Iraq.

It's just tiresome. When you're in a hole, stop digging.

I think I know how to resolve this:

So let's say that Obama flatout lied in how he represented this story. And let's say that McCain flatout lied in how we represented his shopping trip in the Baghdad market. And let's say that GW Bush lied about our reasons for going to war in Iraq, the connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, our policy on torture, and domestic wiretapping.

There, now everyone's even.

Hello Foot!

Hello Mouth, it's been a long time!

No it hasn't, 'ol buddy.....

Hello Foot!

Hello Mouth, it's been a long time!

No, not really, it hasn't....

OK! Now I'm going for my 3rd deleted comment. :)

That's fine and totally within your rights to delete my comments. Just next time, please, do the right thing and make sure of the facts, before you just flat-out call someone a liar.

You wouldn't like it if it were done to you, or to someone you're supporting. From this point forward, if you can apply the same standards to your *own* actions, you can help make the world a better place.

Thanks,
~j : )

Sorry to interrupt this afternoon's regularly scheduled chorus of insults, but it seems the Army's Chief of Staff should read this blog so he could learn the truth from the real experts:

Gen. George Casey, the Army's chief of staff, said Tuesday he has no reason to doubt Barack Obama's recent account by an Army captain that a rifle platoon in Afghanistan didn't have enough soldiers or weapons. But he questioned the assertion that the shortages prevented the troops from doing their job.

I was a soldier in Iraq at the time this took place. All I can say to you, is that ignorance is bliss. I don't support Obama for president, although I'm glad he's brought light to what was a very real problem.

"The U.S. Army would not, under any circumstance... They train to work as a team..."

It did. Have you heard the term "cross-leveling". It was a crazy thing they did that put soldiers with a different unit to fill the holes, making their unit unprepared to deploy. I was (obviously) not in a rifle platoon, but an ordnance - ie: Ammo Supply!

"There has never been a shortage of weapons or ammunition for U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan." I wasn't in Afghanistan, but I was well aware of shortages. See, infantry and other units on the offensive had priority. When it came time to train to do convoy security when things hit the fan in Ramadi, we had minimal ammo to teach our cooks how to operate a 50-cal before they ventured out into the Anbar province without an "escort". The results? Accidental discharges because soldiers "manning the gun" barely knew how to load it, let alone understand that there was no safety on it.

"Anyone with any sense of how the military works at all would immediately sniff this out as a series of false stories." Anyone with a sense of how the military works, would understand that the likelihood of this claim being false barely exists. Ask the soldiers who've been on the ground and you'll be probably be surprised by the horror stories. No offense intended - I just wish more people would notice the shortcomings, rather than spend time discrediting those who do. Our soldiers lives are depending on it.

Rachel, was this story about Iraq? No it was not... it was about Afghanistan, and soldiers that I know and trust (sorry, I don't know you) who have served there said the claims made or insinuated by Obama were false and/or misleading.

We've already established that the shortage of ammunition occurred at Fort Drum, not in theater. This was from the captain himself, the same captain Obama used, who also said bluntly that contrary to Obama's claim, "The purpose of going after the Taliban was not to get their weapons."

Yes, there are shortages in wartime. There have been since the first caveman ran out of rocks, and they will no doubt occur for thousands of years into the future, which is why logistics is such an important part of combat.

The fact remains at the end of the day that Obama misrepresented the Captain's story into a lie to attack the President.