3 Comments

1. Todd Dugdale  •  Feb 23, 2008 @8:42 am
   

   It was a secondhand story, and Obama’s story jibed with the officer’s story in all of the important aspects. The big difference is that in Obama’s re-telling (of a story originally told to an aide), they were short of ammunition and arms in combat and in training. It appears that they were only short of arms and ammunition in training. They were short of men and up-armored vehicles in combat, which is the main point.

   Now, if the Pentagon says that the officer is lying, that can’t reflect on Obama. He didn’t say that he had been to Afghanistan and saw shortages, only that he had been told of shortages. It’s quite a stretch to accuse Obama of lying in this case.

2. joanr16  •  Feb 23, 2008 @10:21 am
   

   I’m imagining how that story would play in an Obama-McCain debate. McCain would be incensed at the story, call it a lie, point out that the Pentagon denies it. Obama would stand by it.

   The next morning, the MSM would repeat both the gist of Obama’s story (usually garbled) and McCain’s forceful denials, but no more.

   Over the next few days, GOP bloggers would refute the story with hot air and misinformation, while Dem bloggers would support it with facts. The general electorate would remain confused and misinformed. Probably a net loss for the Dems.

   This is not what happened in 1992, in that delicious moment between Al Gore and Dan Quayle, when Quayle repeatedly misquoted Gore’s own book, Earth in the Balance. (Yes, Dan Quayle is so stupid he will argue wrongly with an author about what’s in the author’s book.)

   The next morning, reporters actually took 30 seconds to flip to the page Quayle had cited, and then reported his error all over the MSM. (He said Gore wrote that it would cost X huge amount of dollars to clean up the environment, when in fact Gore had pointed out the X huge amount of dollars the Marshall Plan cost us after WWII.) Several of my coworkers told me they decided to vote Clinton-Gore because of that debate, so I know it was a net gain for the Democrats.

   Ah, the good old days.

3. Bonnie  •  Feb 23, 2008 @1:58 pm
   

   It’s too bad the M$M hasn’t done some real investigative work to get these stories told when, perhaps, it would help the soldiers involved improve the conditions. But, then, that would mean the M$M just might be worth the money they get paid to sit on their butts these days and type the propaganda from the White House.