Obama Camp Response to McCain Ad “Troops”

[Hope And Change]

Obama Camp Response to McCain Ad “Troops”

Obama campaign response to Senator McCain’s latest attack ad:

“John McCain is an honorable man who is running an increasingly dishonorable campaign. Senator McCain knows full well that Senator Obama strongly supports and honors our troops, which is what makes this attack so disingenuous. Senator Obama was honored to meet with our men and women in uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan this week and has visited wounded soldiers at Walter Reed numerous times. This politicization of our soldiers is exactly what Senator Obama sought to avoid, and it’s not worthy of Senator McCain or the ‘civil’ campaign he claimed he would run,” said Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor.

FLASHBACK – Senator McCain in 2007: “How can we possibly find honor in using the fate of our servicemen to score political advantage in Washington? There is no pride to be had in such efforts. We are at war, a hard and challenging war, and we do no service for the best of us-those who fight and risk all on our behalf-by playing politics with their service.”

MCCAIN “TROOPS” ADWATCH

July 26, 2008

SCRIPT

RESPONSE

Anncr: Barack Obama never held a single Senate hearing on Afghanistan.

McCain Missed Every Armed Services Committee Hearing In The Last Two Years That Discussed Afghanistan. A review of the Senate Armed Services Committee hearings as listed on the committee Web site for the past two years reveals that McCain’s committee has held six hearings that included the word “Afghanistan” in the title or Central Command — which overseas U.S. troops in Afghanistan. McCain missed them all.

Senator Obama Chaired A Foreign Relations Committee Hearing That Discussed NATO And U.S. Efforts In Afghanistan. Obama chaired a Foreign Relations Committee meeting chaired by Sen. Obama in April 2008. During the meeting, Obama discussed NATO and Afghanistan and the lack of resources we need to win the war there saying, “Afghanistan, NATO’s first major mission beyond the borders of Europe, has been overlooked and undermanned by many members of the alliance, including the United States. Success in Afghanistan, I believe, is critical to American national security and to the security of the entire world, and a failure there would not only endanger our nation and global stability, it would cast serious doubt on the ability of NATO’s military and political architecture to uphold our security in the 21st century. Some new troop commitments to Afghanistan were made in Bucharest, and that is good news. But neither the administration nor our allies have yet done enough to muster the resources that would win the war there and prevent Afghanistan from re-emerging as a safe haven for the Taliban and al Qaeda.”

HEARINGS ON NATO’S ROLE IN AFGHANISTAN WOULD BE HELD BEFORE THE FULL FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE AND NOT OBAMA’S SUBCOMMITTEE

Republican Lugar’s Spokesperson Said Criticism Of Obama On Not Holding Hearings On Afghanistan Is Unfair Because NATO’s Role In Afghanistan Would Be Held Before The Full Foreign Relations Committee. The website PolitiFact, run by CQ and the St. Petersburg Times wrote, the claim “is unfair, said Andrew J. Fischer, a spokesman for Republican Sen. Richard Lugar. Lugar now serves as a minority member of the Foreign Relations Committee, but he was the chair, from 2003 to 2006, when Republicans controlled the Senate. He is the ranking Republican on the committee. Fischer, who is a minority staff member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said something as major as NATO’s role in Afghanistan would typically be held before the full Foreign Relations Committee, rather than Obama’s European subcommittee.”

Biden: Obama Didn’t Chair A NATO And Afghanistan Subcommittee Hearing Because I Did As Chairman Of The Committee—“We Hold Those Hearings At The Full Committee Level.” Sen. Joe Biden said, “The reason Senator Obama didn’t chair a NATO and Afghanistan subcommittee hearing is because I did, as Chairman of the Committee….when it comes to the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq, we hold those hearings at the full committee level.”

Kerry Said That Oversight Of Afghanistan Falls Under His Subcommittee And Not Obama’s; Said Top Topics Like NATO Are Left To The Foreign Relations Committee. “Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., an Obama supporter and member of the Foreign Relations Committee, pointed out in a teleconference with reporters Monday that oversight for Afghanistan falls under the jurisdiction of his subcommittee — Near East and South and Central Asian Affairs. He said he had conducted hearings on policy in Afghanistan. He also said top topics such as NATO are left to the Foreign Relations Committee.”

Subcommittee On European Affairs Doesn’t Have Primary Jurisdiction, Secondary Jurisdiction, Or Even Tertiary Jurisdiction Over The Campaign In Afghanistan; Clinton’s Claim Is False And “Represents Politics At It’s Most Cynical.” It’s worth reiterating: the Foreign Relations Committee’s Subcommittee on European Affairs doesn’t have primary jurisdiction over the campaign in Afghanistan. The Armed Services Committee (on which Senator Clinton serves) does. The Subcommittee on European Affairs doesn’t have secondary jurisdiction over the campaign in Afghanistan. The full Foreign Relations Committee (which has held hearings on Afghanistan) does. The Subcommittee on European Affairs doesn’t even have tertiary jurisdiction over the campaign in Afghanistan. The Subcommittee on Near East and South and Central Asian Affairs does. Both Clintons, obviously, fully understand how the Senate operates; and recognize that any freshman senator who hopes to have any influence in the upper chamber isn’t going to hold hearings on a matter almost wholly tangential to his subcommittee’s jurisdiction… The Clinton memo’s charge about the Subcommittee on European Affairs—which the campaign now has repeatedly made—represents politics at its most cynical. It’s a false statement. The campaign officials who made it know it’s a false statement. Yet the issue is arcane enough that most readers of the memo wouldn’t know the statement was false—and the press (as seen by Halperin’s introduction) can be counted on to frame the issue in a neutral fashion, since most journalists want to avoid the appearance of editorializing.”

He hadn’t been to Iraq in years.

Headline Five Days Ago: “Obama Visits Iraq, Focus On U.S. Troop Levels.” “U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama met Iraqi leaders and U.S. military commanders in Baghdad on Monday in a visit overshadowed by the question of when U.S. troops should go home.”

He voted against funding our troops.

FACTCHECKERS: CLAIM THAT OBAMA VOTED AGAINST TROOP FUNDING IS “MISLEADING”

Annenberg Fact Check: Saying Obama Voted Against Troop Funding Is “Oversimplified To The Point Of Being Seriously Misleading, Which Is Exactly The Problem With McCain’s Ad.” “As recently as April 2007, Obama voted in favor of funding U.S. troops again, but this time Democrats added a non-binding call to withdraw them from Iraq. McCain (who was absent for the vote) urged the president to veto that funding measure, because of the withdrawal language. President Bush did veto it, and McCain applauded Bush’s veto. Based on those facts, it would be literally true to say that ‘McCain urged a veto of funding for our troops.’ But that would be oversimplified to the point of being seriously misleading, which is exactly the problem with McCain’s ad.”

AP Fact Check: The McCain Ad’s Charge That Obama Voted Against Troop Funding Is “Misleading.” “The ad’s most inflammatory charge — that Obama voted against troop funding in Iraq and Afghanistan — is misleading. The Illinois senator consistently voted to fund the troops once elected to the Senate, a point Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton made during the primaries when questioning whether his anti-war rhetoric was reflected in his actions.”

And now, he made time to go to the gym, but cancelled a visit with wounded troops.

Seems the Pentagon wouldn’t allow him to bring cameras.

Obama Has Been Clear: He Did Not Want Visit to Wounded Soldiers To Be Perceived as Political, Which The Pentagon Had Ruled It Would Be, And Never Planned To Bring Media. “We had scheduled to go, we had no problem at all in leaving, we always leave press and staff off — that is why we left it off the schedule. We were treating it in the same way we treat a visit to Walter Reed which I was able to do a few weeks ago without any fanfare whatsoever. I was going to be accompanied by one of my advisors, a former military officer.” Continued Obama, “And we got notice that he would be treated as a campaign person, and it would therefore be perceived as political because he had endorsed my candidacy but he wasn’t on the Senate staff. That triggered then a concern that maybe our visit was going to be perceived as political. And the last thing that I want to do is have injured soldiers and the staff at these wonderful institutions having to sort through whether this is political or not or get caught in the crossfire between campaigns.” “So rather than go forward and potentially get caught up in what might have been considered a political controversy of some sort,” Obama said, “what we decided was that we not make a visit and instead I would call some of the troops that were there. So that essentially would be the extent of the story.”

Obama Visited Wounded Troops at Walter Reed Last Month. The AP wrote, “Barack Obama stopped by Walter Reed Army Medical Center Saturday to visit wounded war veterans, a group that he has said endures substandard care under the Bush administration. The presumed Democratic nominee, who was in Washington to speak to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, slipped into the facility shortly after 9 a.m. without stopping to speak to the small group of reporters who follow him. The visit wasn’t on his public schedule.”

Obama Visited Wounded Troops In Baghdad’s Green Zone. Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said, “On Monday, Sen. Obama stopped into a combat support hospital in the green zone of Baghdad, some of you may have seen the show on HBO called Baghdad ER, that was this hospital.”

McCain Senior Advisor Steve Schmidt: “We Follow The Rules” Banning Political Campaigning On Military Bases. “With Department of Defense rules prohibiting political campaigning on military bases, it was determined that in some cases McCain could visit the installations as a senator but could not engage in any political activity or have news media present. McCain campaign officials said Thursday they intentionally did not campaign on military property. ‘We follow the rules,’ said senior McCain adviser Steve Schmidt.”

John McCain is always there for our troops.

McCain. Country first.

John McCain: I’m John McCain and I approve this message.




http://thepage.time.com/obama-camp-response-to-mccain-ad-troops/

[bluestateguy]

1. That's better, but I wish they would cut an ad of their own

nt

[MrModerate]

2. The McCain ad is such sour grapes that responding to it would lend it . . .

More credibility than it deserves.

Yes an ad -- highlighting the trip and how Obama's brand of diplomacy would be a major departure from the moronity practiced by Bush-McCain Republicans. A picture of Obama being cheered by two hundred thousand of our fellow human beings while diners in the background ignore McCain while he talks sausage to an audience of six.

Something that highlights the fact that Obama is a force of nature, and McCain is a shriveled turd.

[elkston]

4. That could backfire though.

Some will interpret it as McCain being more willing to make contact with regular people, despite how "unpopular" it is.

If the ad left out the McCain juxtaposition, it would be great. Then accompany that also with ads of Obama campaigning stateside.

[MrModerate]

5. In terms of "good ads," you're probably right . . .

as in "keep the visuals consistent and focused." But the look on the faces of the guys behind McCain in the sausage house shot is priceless: "Who is this puffed up old fart?"

I have every confidence that McCain will continue to shrink and Obama will continue to grow over the next 100 days. There will be plenty of ways to draw the contrasts.

[fasttense]

3. McInsane running another dirty, nasty add seems to be news.

It's one of the major headlines of most of the corporate media sites today. This is why corporate media is losing viewers and readers everyday. Their content is really, really boring.

They can blame the internet or the younger generation that supposedly doesn't read but the truth is that their content is really, really very boring. They say the format of standard news programming is dull to viewers with short attention spans so they pump it up with flashy crap like Fox Noise. But the truth is the CONTENT is really, really, very, very BORING.

See, propaganda has always had this problem. It is dull and does not keep the viewer's attention. Even Fox Noise with it's touted high ratings, only have those ratings because restaurants and hospitals play their noise in the background. No one watches it for the news or because it is interesting. Viewers turn Fox noise on, then walk away to do something else because they are very bored. No one is watching their commercials cause no one is watching their noise.

Propaganda is destroying ratings and subscriptions.