Posted on 04/12/2009 10:07:03 AM PDT by STARWISE
“Cheered wildly by U.S. troops,” begins Jennifer Democratic Operative Loven’s AP report on Obama’s surprise visit to Iraq on Tuesday.
Quite a contrast to the silent treatment Marines gave Obama at his Camp LeJeune speech in late February. Just how did Obama manage to fix that little problem?
According to a sergeant in Iraq :
*****We were pre-screened, asked by officials “Who voted for Obama?”, and then those who raised their hands were shuffled to the front of the receiving line. They even handed out digital cameras and asked them to hold them up. [Via Macsmind.]****
As supporting evidence for the digital-cameras part of the story, the sergeant (or Mac, can’t tell which), suggests that the identical cameras can be verified in the AP photos. Looks right:
Charles Dharapak/associated press
So will the press cover this evidence of a staged and unrepresentative show of military affection for our anti-military president? The reporters were there. Did they actually see the troops being sorted by whether they voted for Obama, which the sergeant describes as happening on the spot?
Stephen Hurst’s AP report is upfront about Obama’s fervent desire for a hero’s welcome:
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama went for the defining television shot by capping his first extended foreign tour with a surprise visit to Iraq.
He got it – pictures of hundreds of U.S. troops cheering wildly as he told them it was time for the Iraqis to take charge of their own future.
Just no mention of HOW Obama managed to fake this response: Obama lover’s to the front!
FLASHBACK: How the press treated the merest impression of a staged troop response under President Bush, even when there was no actual manipulation
Remember this headline from 2005:
Bush Teleconference With Soldiers Staged
It dominated the headlines and the television news-analysis for days, and the fabricated scandal was utterly dishonest. The so-called “staging” involved no manipulation whatsoever. A group of soldiers who were scheduled for a televised chat with President Bush were “caught on tape” discussing ahead of time who would answer questions on what subjects. There was NO discussion of WHAT should be said.
Now there is evidence that Obama perpetrated an actual fraud right under the watching eyes of the press, handpicking Obama voters to represent on television the views of our soldiers, and the press reports nothing but the fraudulent story.
Piling it on
Of course the AP stories about Obama’s surprise Iraq trip are larded with other bits of pro-Obama, anti-Bush disinformation as well. Hurst ends with his own interpretation of the glorious new age of Obama:
The world has been alerted to a new U.S. approach that breaks with the “go it alone” style of Bush.
“Go it alone” as in going into Iraq with a coalition of 40 countries and an evenly split minority party (same degree of Democrat support in the Senate as opposition in the House).
Neither did the press note the glaring counter-factuals in Obama’s speech. From The New York Times:
The president said that it was time for Iraqis “to take responsibility for their country and for their sovereignty.”
So why does it take Gateway Pundit to point out that sovereignty has already been transferred in 13 of 18 provinces?
All the disinformation that fits in print.
Ahh LUV, thanks so much!!
I agree. NOBODY should be asking members of the military who they voted for! That's just wrong!
I have serious doubts about this story. It just doesn't pass the smell test. There are DOD regulations against polling members, in this case directly, about who they intend to or did vote for. I believe that there's also Federal statutes that prohibit the same, but I'm not attorney, so I could be mistaken about the US Code.
I served under four different presidents. And, I was fortunate enough to be in attendance when three of them visited my camp or base. Two of the times, attendance was mandatory - it was a formation. The third time, during the height of campaign season, it was completely voluntary. As an officer, I was given explicit instructions that I couldn't pressure my subordinates to attend.
I find it very difficult to believe this happened the way the story describes. I'm much more inclined to believe that this was a voluntary event. It would explain the disproportionate minority representation that indicated in the photos that I saw. JMHO.
Yep, the soldiers were handpicked and the cameras were given out and they were told to hold them ‘high’. Guess they forgot the very same ‘cameras’ would be obvious, lol.
I think you’re exactly right about the regulations, but how do you explain the exact same cameras in the picture though?
There’s no way those present would happen to have that many of the same kind of cameras.
The are base exchanges in these forward deployed operating areas. The selection isn't great. I'm going to wager that the similarity of cameras is because the base exchange (or in this case, the Army PX) only sold that one model of camera. I think that's the more likely scenario.
I could be wrong. I suppose that there's a chance that one of the camera companies sent a pallet of give-away cameras to the Green Zone. When I was there, the troops got corporate freebies with some regularity - that was several years ago, so I'm not sure if it's still that common.
But, I know that there's NO WAY the White House or the DNC would have been allowed by the Pentagon to give away cameras. Such a brazen publicity stunt - no matter who the president is - is a no-go.
Where he grew up, hanging a pork chop around his neck would have greatly increased his "social undesirability".
Admittedly, I’d like to believe this about the Administration. The one thing that keeps going over in my head is that more than one out of that number of soldiers would get the word out even if it meant incriminating themselves. It’s kind of like the UFO thing to me... that much silence is unlikely.
That being said, I wouldn’t put it past them and wouldn’t discount the story completely.
Well, a few people would have brought their own, just to document the mass of identical ones, don't you think?
I don't think that the fraud following *just* from that.
If it had been a legitimate, but voluntary, event, you'd get plenty of self selection, without any blatant, "seeding" of the audience by Obama's handlers.
But remember, we are no longer doing things according the regs, the law, or the Constitution, we are doing them "The Chicago Way".
Last time I checked, the Pentagon was lower in the food chain than the White House. The White House tell s the Pentagon what it may not do, or what it must, not the other way around.
Besides which, the leadership, especially the civilian leadership, at the Pentagon are appointed by the President, and approved by the now Rat Senate, and serve at his pleasure.
See #43 and #53
ilitary who they voted for! That’s just wrong!
I have serious doubts about this story. It just doesn’t pass the smell test.
~~~
So you think this crew would give a
duck’s poop about that ?
The "military establishment" didn't disappear on Jan. 20. There still are hundreds of thousands of officers and SNCOs they take the regulations very seriously. I have no doubt that Alexrod et. al. are used to having their way back in Chicago. But, they're in a different league now.
Think back to what happened to Obama at Landstuhl. He wasn't allowed to take his camera's and his entourage into the hospital. The military takes protocol very, very seriously. They won't allow it to be abridged or compromised just because some political hacks say so.
There's no doubt that there respect for the office of President, no matter who the president may be. But, there's equal contempt by the military officer corps for the political machinery that surrounds any president, but I'm guess especially this president. The military isn't going to cede there obligations that easily.
They apparently have, you've just not come accross the places yet. Allegra gets her "G2" from the horse's mouth so to speak, independent of a couple of blog sites. She confirms the basics of the story.
He wasn't the President then, assuming he is now. He was just a first term Senator.
I was at Camp Lejeune from '95 to '96. Clinton came just before Christmas (I can't remember which year) for a photo op. His advance people wanted to put up a background sign. I can't remember the verbiage, but it was just a little to political in nature. The CG said nope. The banner came down and was replaced by a big American flag. That's how it works. The President is Commander-in-Chief, but he's not the sovereign king. He has to follow the rules too.
If this Baghdad event happened the way it was described, which I believe is dubious, eventually there will be an investigation and the truth will come out - it always does.
Yep, I retired a few years ago and while I wasn't in during the election I knew plenty of folks that I suspect voted for Obama. They are probably more concentrated in the junior ranks but the senior ranks aren't immune.
And it isn't just the "welfare class". It's people who think The Daily Show is a real news show. It's people from families or areas that have always voted democrat and aren't going change just because they are now in the service.
Nice job potlatch.
The photo on the front page of the WSJ showed Obama fistbumping a black soldier in a sea of white faces.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.