Barack Obama, U.S. Military Expert UPDATED ABC News Finds the Story 'Credible' UPDATED The Pentagon Refutes Both Obama and ABC News

Can you believe this?

Here's the transcript:

OBAMA: 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. 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 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.

First of all, it's the responsibility of Congress to provide money and equipment to our military, not the POTUS. And we all know who is responsible for all the delays in making that happen: Democrats.

Secondly, although I've been away from the Army for awhile, I have never, ever heard a rifle platoon being split up and sent to two different theaters of war. You see, the whole idea of Infantry Platoons is to train them together so that they can fight together. It's called unit cohesion, friends.

Third, except in rare cases, Captains command rifle companies and Lieutenants command rifle platoons.

Finally, as Curt points out, how are our troops capturing enemy weaponry if they don't have weapons or ammo? Throwing rocks and homemade spears, perhaps?

In my humble opinion, the guy has no clue what he's talking about. And this is precisely why we do not want an inexperienced, incapable Senator running the United States of America.

Related posts:

• The Obamas: Wrong for America
• Friday Funnies - Valentine's Day
• O'Reilly vs. Obama, Round 1
• What 'Presidential' Candidates?
• Obama attacks the Australians
• Obama: soldiers 'wasted their lives'

Also posting:

• Hot Air
• Charlie Foxtrot
• Ace of Spades HQ
• BLACKFIVE
• Amy Proctor

Updated: As you can see in the comments section, people are pointing to this Jack Tapper piece at ABC News.

According to Tapper, the still unidentified Captain was a Lieutenant at the time in question, not a Captain, so he gets a pass on that one.

I still don't buy the fact that an Army platoon was split in half to fight in two separate theaters. According to Tapper

When he took command, the platoon had 39 members, but -- in ones and twos -- 15 members of the platoon were re-assigned to other units. He knows of 10 of those 15 for sure who went to Iraq, and he suspects the other five did as well.

The platoon was sent to Afghanistan with 24 men.

"We should have deployed with 39," he told me, "we should have gotten replacements. But we didn't. And that was pretty consistent across the battalion."

He adds that maybe a half-dozen of the 15 were replaced by the Fall of 2003, months after they arrived in Afghanistan, but never all 15.

So the platoon was reduced in size, gradually, and almost all of them were replaced. Now that makes a little more sense, doesn't it?

The part about the weapons and ammo changes too.

As for the weapons and humvees, there are two distinct periods in this, as he explains -- before deployment, and afterwards.

At Fort Drum, in training, "we didn't have access to heavy weapons or the ammunition for the weapons, or humvees to train before we deployed."

What ammunition?

40 mm automatic grenade launcher ammunition for the MK-19, and ammunition for the .50 caliber M-2 machine gun ("50 cal.").

Now this makes it sound like the ammo problem was a training issue the unit had before deployment. That's not what Obama said, though, is it? You might also note that the 10th Mountain Division, the unit in question, is a LIGHT Infantry unit, meaning no HEAVY weapons, which M-2's and MK-19's - and armored Humvees - are. Light Infantry means you fight with what's on your back.

And, if you read the Tapper piece, they were only short one or two Humvees from their TO&E. You might also remember that 2003 was still before the large increase in IED's in Afghanistan.

Also note the Tapper piece here:

"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 on one of their humvees instead of their 50 cal.

Now that's a lot different than what Obama said, too, isn't it? ON OCCASION, they used Taliban weapons. But no explanation as to why. It's easy to see, however, why a Light Infantry Platoon would put a captured heavy weapon into effect. You see, that's what the Infantry is trained to do.

So, as usual, we have some information provided by an unnamed, unidentified source that cannot be verified. And that information was stretched to make it look like something that it wasn't.   

Now if everything Obama said is true, let him identify the source and the specific unit so that his story can be verified. Then all of you Liberals can get in line behind me demanding that these problems, if they did - and still do - exist, are fixed and never happen again.

Because we definitely owe that to our troops.

BTW, if Obama is so concerned about these problems, why did he vote against increasing spending for our troops on the battlefields? Damned details...

It also strikes me funny that the nuts on the Left completely discount all of the Milbloggers and veterans, many of whom are identified by name, unit and experience, and point to ABC News as a more credible source. Amazing.

UPDATE II: Oops, more credibility problems for Obama and for Mr. tapper at ABC News, the guy trying to hammer all the Milbloggers.

It seems that Pentagon doesn't buy it either.

During the face-to-face encounter on Thursday evening, Obama said he had heard from an Army captain whose unit had served in Afghanistan without enough ammunition or vehicles.

Obama said it was easier for the troops to capture weapons from Taliban militants than it was "to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief," President George W. Bush.

"I find that account pretty hard to imagine," Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters.

"Despite the stress that we readily acknowledge on the force, one of the things that we do is make sure that all of our units and service members that are going into harm's way are properly trained, equipped and with the leadership to be successful," he said.

Whitman's remarks were unusual as the Pentagon often declines to talk about comments from political campaigns.

Exactly what Milbloggers like Amy Proctor, Blackfive, Flopping Aces and I have said since his comments made the news. No wonder Obama's people - and Mr. Tapper - didn't dig too deeply.

Vets for Freedom also weighed in today:

“Yet again Senator Obama has demonstrated the loose grip he holds on the reality of these conflicts,” said Vets for Freedom State Captain, and Afghanistan Army veteran Daniel Bell. “Senator Obama’s comments are insulting not only to those who have served and are still serving in Afghanistan but to all who serve in the armed forces. I can attest from my first hand experience that these comments are incredulous and that we were supplied all the tools necessary to complete our missions.”

He continued “His statements last night assert that he lacks the necessary knowledge to make serious judgments on military matters, that he is prone to dangerous exaggeration, and that he is grossly unaware of the facts on the ground. I call on other veterans of Afghanistan to respond to these ridiculous allegations and to remind Senator Obama that it is the sacrifice of those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan that allows him to so freely speak in this manner.”

Vets for Freedom is a nonpartisan organization established by combat veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Its mission is to educate the American public about the importance of achieving success in these conflicts by applying our first-hand knowledge to issues of American military strategy.

In typical Obama fashion, he commented on something he knew nothing about, got caught, and now the Liberal left mouthpieces are trying to save Mr. Second Coming.

And reading through the comments - aside from the ones I deleted for failing to adhere to this blog's policy of no profanity - one thing is clear. Every Liberal that came here to defend their Messiah simply hurled insults and pointed to the ABC News piece, such as it was, rather than commenting on their own military experience. Why is that, do you think?

Oops, even CNN's "The Situation Room" is questioning Obama and the crappy follow up by ABC News. Amy Proctor has the video posted on her blog. Their consensus? Obama "missed some important nuances." In other words, Obama was trying to relate some story that some staffer heard and he screwed it up because he knows nothing about the military. You can even see it in the stuttering, halting way he relates it during the debate.

Even the "Captain" clarifies it for CNN, after they obviously asked much better questions than ABC News did. Ah, facts.

The bottom line is that he screwed up the story related to him by a staffer. While there is some truth to it, he screwed up the facts and mislead anyone who was watching. I'd at least respect him if he came out and said as much, but I won't hold my breath.... 

Comments

[Howard B.]

Jake Tapper of ABC News (who linked to this column) spoke with the soldier and said that he found him quite credible. I would suggest that before you spout off about things like this you take the time to go to the source and do a little research.

[Teresa]

Not that you actually care about the truth, but Jake Tapper talked to the army guy who backed up Obama's story: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/from-the-fact-3.html

[Wally]

Don't let the facts get in the way of thje truth guys. Because the truth hurts. The story has been fact checked and Obama was right. The Captain in question was a Lieutenant at the time. I quote:

"Prior to deployment the Captain -- then a Lieutenant -- took command of a rifle platoon at Fort Drum. When he took command, the platoon had 39 members, but -- in ones and twos -- 15 members of the platoon were re-assigned to other units. He knows of 10 of those 15 for sure who went to Iraq, and he suspects the other five did as well."

check out the link yourself. and pull your heads out of your asses:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/from-the-fact-3.html

[KSH]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/from-the-fact-3.html

[Your Conscience]

Don't let the facts get in the way of the truth Rape-Public-Cans. Because the truth hurts. Now go on and swift boat this hero. The story has been fact checked and Obama was right. The Captain in question was a Lieutenant at the time. I quote:

"Prior to deployment the Captain -- then a Lieutenant -- took command of a rifle platoon at Fort Drum. When he took command, the platoon had 39 members, but -- in ones and twos -- 15 members of the platoon were re-assigned to other units. He knows of 10 of those 15 for sure who went to Iraq, and he suspects the other five did as well."

check out the link yourself. and pull your heads out of your asses: You loser pukes are such a joke. It is cute how you play along as if you had a prayer of winning 08. See there is a price to pay when you support, enable, and excuse a dry drunk AWOL failure. GOP is DEAD.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/from-the-fact-3.html

[william]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/from-the-fact-3.html

Captain produced, by ABC News’s Jack Tapper.

Hey, genius. Look it up. Read it and weep for our country. I guess Barrack knows a little more than you, huh. LOL

[HumboldtBlue]

So, are you going to post a correction? I won't hold my breath.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/from-the-fact-3.html

[Swift Dem Activist for Sniping 527s]

so what happens when Obama ends up telling the truth: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/from-the-fact-3.html

[Hamilton-Lovecraft]

Fact-checked here: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/from-the-fact-3.html

[Neil]

First off, the CINC is the one responsible for how the money is allocated. It was the CINC who decided to shift resources to Iraq while still fighting in Afganistan.

Second off, apparently the platoon was split, at least ACCORDING TO THE ARMY CAPTAIN.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/from-the-fact-3.html

If you want more similar anecdotes, perhaps you should read Phil Carter's blog:

http://www.intel-dump.com/posts/1203696668.shtml

Third off, he is CURRENTLY an Army captain. At the time of his tour, he was a lieutenant.

In my humble opinion, you should offer a retraction and an apology.

[Mike]

Thanks for weighing in, folks. I find it incredible, however, that you consider and ABC News reporter, interviewing an unnamed, unidentified, source, as "facts." Facts are those things that anyone can verify. Things like the name of the officer, the unit he was with, where and when he was there. You know, FACTS. As to the rest of your arguments, you can see my rebuttal added to the post. Thanks for reading..

[Douglas Watts]

So let me get this straight.

If you point out that combat soldiers are often forced to train and fight without important pieces of equipment that they are supposed to have, that means you don't "support the troops."

But if you call these combat soldier liars and insist that they have all the equipment they need -- even when they don't -- that is a sure sign that you "support the troops."

And it's not the President's fault if troops are not properly equipped.

Just checking.

[Mike]

People like you amaze me Mr. Watts. We're talking about one unidentified "officer" here, yet you conveniently change it to OFTEN forced to train and fight without important pieces of equipment. Maybe you should write Obama's military stuff. The rest of your rant is utter BS because you didn't read anything like that here. Which combat soldier did I call a liar? Name him and provide the example, and I will happily apologize for doing so. And - I know I'm repeating myself here, but you guys don't seem to get it - if your hero is so bent on providing our troops with the proper training and equipment to wage war, why does he consistently vote against them?

[bochinam]

Newt in '08

BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[jbrookins]

The "fact check" is funny as hell. So the CPT didn't get what "he" thinks was adequate ammo and equipment for training. Well no one every thinks they get enough. That is not a fact it’s an opinion. Give us numbers of rounds request (paperwork to back the request), Number of personnel actually training and then we can access where it was enough. Of course we'd also have to decide what the baseline for a unit is.

The "fact" that they didn't have a full platoon. Another basic military issue where manpower due to numerous reasons are almost never 100%. People come and go in the military. Neither issue is much to go on and it has always been a complaint at the lower levels of the military. Perhaps they are arguable truths but not necessarily facts.

Mismanagement of military funds is most often by neither the POTUS nor Congress but the military themselves.

Still the biggest issue that rings bullshit is using Taliban equipment especially weapons. The consequences for actually going out of the wire with non-issued weapons are often severe. If you were to kill someone with those weapons I would guarantee there would be court marital proceedings. If this CPT’s chain of command actually permitted and authorized this he should come forward publicly with real “facts” not opinions so that his chain of command could be held responsible. But I suspect thats not quiet the political statement either Obama, reporter or this unnamed CPT would like.

Oh and I was in Afghanistan in 2002-2003 and also used Hilux Toyotas. I highly recommend them as some tough ass vehicles. The HUMMHV was not armored at that time and was/is very hard to get in and out of. I'm not defending using the Hilux but I don't recall a lot of infantry units driving these while I was there except for local on base travel. But it's possible.

This is propaganda horseshit spin. And the fact checking doesn't actualy check any facts other than some CPT said it.

Name please, time please, Unit please.

[labradog]

What a pack of knee-jerk, Sgt. Rock wannabe morons.
It's obvious from the comments that your readers have never been closer to the military than a contract laundress.
See you at the Obama Inauguration, losers. Join us at the overpass, pissing on W on his way to Andrews AFB, scuttling back to Crawford.

[Bad]

"In my humble opinion, you should offer a retraction and an apology."

That would require HIM having a humble opinion, and his opinions are anything but.

[Mike]

Just a note, to friends and not so friendly, alike.... I do not tolerate profanity and/or abuse on my blog. If that's the only way you can express yourself, you're wasting your time. You're welcome to disagree, of course, but do so calmly and intelligently, or ply your hatred elsewhere. Thanks for reading, as always. The Management.

[Amy Proctor]

Oh, brother! You have "the truth hurts" Obama supporters over here, too?

This so-called equipment failure occured in 2003. 2003!! Obama tried to pass it off as current. What a deceitful person. I thought that was Hillary's department. The soldier wasn't a CPT at the time, he was a 1st LT! That's the equivelant of being a PVT! And according to CPT Mystery Soldier, Obama was wrong about the unit being split between Afghanistan and Iraq. What actually happened was at Ft. Drum some of the soldiers PSCed adn didn't go to Afghanistan... and the anon soldier has no idea if they ended up in Iraq or not but assumed some must have!

Obama is a fool and a dishonest one at that. Libs are falling on their swords over this because they're blindly following their Messiah.

[Amy Proctor]

Holy cow! Some of these comments are IDENTICAL to the ones on my blog by the same people. Obviously this is a lib tag team that cuts and pastes their stuff. Maybe from 2003?? Or is this current? Unreal. What a bunch of plastic phonies. I'd think it was the old time Clinton hit squad except that this is an Obama hit squad.

[Mike]

It almost makes Hillary Clinton look good, doesn't it? Lord help us all..

[Tundra Politics]

The more I hear from Obama, the more I dislike him.

I seriously question his integrity when Barack Obama makes statements like this one.

[Bill]

For those of you still knee-jerk reacting to the Right wing lies about this, Obama's story has been verified by the source:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/from-the-fact-3.html

[Bill]

"The more I hear from Obama, the more I dislike him.

I seriously question his integrity when Barack Obama makes statements like this one."

Interesting - questioning a man's integrity over truthful, verified statements, when you didn't have a clue as to whether what he said was right or wrong.
And WHOSE integrity should be questioned here?

[Mike]

Boy, you can't read very well, can you Bill? The ABC News piece is a shoddy piece of journalism. Even CNN has a better follow up with the "Captain" and says Obama screwed up most of the finer points of what he said..