General: Obama's story is believable

[cato2]

WASHINGTON - 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.

Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Casey said the incident would have occurred in 2003 and 2004 following the Iraq invasion. He said he remembers it as a "difficult time" trying to rush armor and other equipment to the troops.

"I have no reason to doubt what it is the captain said," Casey said. "This was 2003 and 2004, almost four and a half years ago. We acknowledge and all worked together to correct the deficiencies that we saw in that period, not only in Afghanistan but in Iraq. It was a period that we worked our way through."

During a Democratic debate last week, Obama said an Army captain remembered leading a platoon in Afghanistan that was short on men, ammunition and 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," Obama said.

Obama's account prompted denials from the Pentagon. In a letter to Obama, Sen. John Warner, R-Va., demanded the name and whereabouts of the captain so he could investigate the matter.

Obama campaign has declined to release the name of the captain, citing the soldier's privacy.

"I find that account pretty hard to imagine," said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman after the debate.

Casey said the Army has purposefully not tried to seek out the captain individually. But he did contact the platoon's brigade commander, which belonged to the 10th Mountain Division, and reviewed the division's readiness reports.

Casey said the brigade was manned at 100 percent during its entire deployment, but that it is possible a particular platoon within the brigade was not manned at the desired level.

"There may have been some spot shortages in spare parts and ammunition," he said. "But the commander said that there were never a shortage of ammunition that impacted the units ability to accomplish its mission."

General: Obama's story is believable - Yahoo! News

[leobold1]

Didn't someone from ABC talk to the Captain (actually Lieutenant) involved in this? Oh, yeah...Advice for Obama: Stay away from matters of substance

Just scroll down and see how Obama's comments were cherry picked and chosen for the most impact.

[cato2]

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.

Chief of Staff seems to find no reason to doubt Barack Obama.

I seem to not be able to find the report quoted by the columnist stating that Jake Tapper of ABC tracked down the Captain.

I have however found the article from the Joint Chief of Staff stating that he had no reason to doubt.

[leobold1]

Political Punch

Took me 3 minutes thanks to Mr. Google.

[las47032]

Captains don’t lead platoons. They lead companies and perhaps our troops use the Taliban weapons because they sound different from U.S. weapons. Consequently a deceptive tactic is to contuse the enemy since they can't tell who is shooting the AK, and I hear the AK hardly jams. Besides, the troops are oh so ill-equipped, how were the troops able to seize all those weapons?!

Regarding the military funding for them to be able to obtain equipment, ammo and other needed paraphernalia Congress give the money on the Commander in Chief.

Obama and the rest of the Democrts want to stop the funding our http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,332129,00.html military, cut and run from Iraq like they turned tail and ran from Vietnam. And they want to use the lack of equipment as a justification to stop financial support for the war.

Also, how come Obama voted opposing the funding of the troops? The bill provied financial resources for Afghanistan.
110th Congress, 1st session, Senate vote 181 | Congress votes database | washingtonpost.com

In addition, according to Blackfive, the story is four five years old. BLACKFIVE: In the Crosshairs- General Obama on Readiness

[cato2]

Originally Posted by leobold1

Political Punch

Took me 3 minutes thanks to Mr. Google.

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.

Political Punch

[leobold1]

I don't recall my saying that Obama was lying, just that he cherry picked his comments.

The longer answer is worth telling, though.

Political Punch

First of all, Obama said he was a Captain...and he was a Lieutenant. Little thing for someone who doesn't spend much time around the military. No big quibble on that one.

"15 of these soldiers were sent to Iraq"

But the Captain/Lieutenant isn't sure if 5 of them actually did go to Iraq, but he "thinks they did". 5 years later, again no big quibble.

"Didn't have enough ammo/Humvee

They didn't have access to the ammo/vehicles. Strange, no one else has come up with this. And if the Captain/Lieutenant was doing his job, he'd have made arrangements with neighboring units or local entities to at least get simulator support. And if Paris Texas, in the middle of nowhere has it, then it may take a little travel, but they can get to somewhere that does. All it takes is a phone call. Failing that, broom handles and a convertible or sunroof would double in a pinch for everything except actually popping off rounds, which he's shown he's incapable of locating anyway.

And ammo for the Mk-19 and M-2 is low in active duty units, much less Reserve/Guard units.

And the up-armored humvees...the funding bills since the mid-90s (Bill Clinton's watch) cut the funding for the up-armor every year, even knowing that the troops coming back from the Persian Gulf War as well as in Bosnia said it was something they HAD to have for any future conflict. They up-armor was being funded better after Bush came in, but it wasn't completely up to speed. You can't erase 10 years of ignoring a problem in 2 years when the funding is this much.

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 Humvee instead of their 50 cal.

But to listen to Obama during the debate, this Captain/Lieutenant went to war with nothing, threw rocks at their enemies, and had to walk from Kabul to Kandahar.

"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," he said. "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 Humvee. 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."

That is the exact quote (quoted by Mr. Tapper, so it may not be 100%).

I also have problems with "anonymous sources" which this basically is. We're being asked to believe someone without even knowing a name. To me, this just means that either they're scared for their career (although how talking to a Senator about problems can get you in trouble I have no idea), or they don't exist. To me, its not "obvious" why. I'm going with the second choice.

Wouldn't be the first time a Dem running for President lied about the military.