Vets for Freedom - Senator Obama: Talk with Dictators or Meet with Commanders?

[Queasy]

New ad campaign from the Vets for Freedom PAC.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 23, 2008
Contact: Judy Mayka 202-834-5931
Or Brian Marriott 703-593-1679

This morning Vets for Freedom Political Action launched its first internet advertisement, which asks Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) why he is willing to meet, unconditionally, with foreign dictators, but has shown no interest in meeting with Commanders on the Ground and has not visited Iraq in over 2 years.

The 60-second ad, which was released at 8 am E.T. today, features retired Iraq war veteran Sergeant Garrett Anderson. Click here to view the ad. Sergeant Anderson served in Iraq with the Illinois Army National Guard, and was severely wounded when his patrol was hit by an IED.
The ad highlights the unfortunate fact that:

1) Senator Obama has never met, one-on-one, with the Commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus.

2) Senator Obama has not visited Iraq, and our brave troops on the ground, in over two years. His last visit to Iraq was January 2006, and he was there for less than two days.

3) On April 8, when two-dozen Illinois veterans went to his office for a meeting, Senator Obama was unwilling to meet with them. He was in the office, just wouldn?t come out. Sergeant Anderson was a member of that group.

The ad can be viewed at www.VetsforFreedom.org and can be downloaded HERE.

We're going to have dueling Veterans PACs going now as well as dueling whacko ministers. Yay!

Though, I have to say, #1 is kind of bad and #3 is potentially damning. I kind of give Obama a pass on #2 because he's been campaigning for the Presidency for about that long.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Queasy
New ad campaign from the Vets for Freedom PAC.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 23, 2008
Contact: Judy Mayka 202-834-5931
Or Brian Marriott 703-593-1679

This morning Vets for Freedom Political Action launched its first internet advertisement, which asks Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) why he is willing to meet, unconditionally, with foreign dictators, but has shown no interest in meeting with Commanders on the Ground and has not visited Iraq in over 2 years.

The 60-second ad, which was released at 8 am E.T. today, features retired Iraq war veteran Sergeant Garrett Anderson. Click here to view the ad. Sergeant Anderson served in Iraq with the Illinois Army National Guard, and was severely wounded when his patrol was hit by an IED.
The ad highlights the unfortunate fact that:

1) Senator Obama has never met, one-on-one, with the Commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus.

2) Senator Obama has not visited Iraq, and our brave troops on the ground, in over two years. His last visit to Iraq was January 2006, and he was there for less than two days.

3) On April 8, when two-dozen Illinois veterans went to his office for a meeting, Senator Obama was unwilling to meet with them. He was in the office, just wouldn?t come out. Sergeant Anderson was a member of that group.

The ad can be viewed at www.VetsforFreedom.org and can be downloaded HERE.

We're going to have dueling Veterans PACs going now as well as dueling whacko ministers. Yay!

Though, I have to say, #1 is kind of bad and #3 is potentially damning. I kind of give Obama a pass on #2 because he's been campaigning for the Presidency for about that long.

This ad is totally retarded.

1.) Obama is one of the most junior senators there are, do you think he just dials up the commander in Iraq and tells him to stop on by the office? What does that even mean to imply? Smear by vague insinuation.

2.) I fail to see why taking a guided military tour lends you any greater insight about Iraq then knowing what the military wants you to see.

3.) What was he doing at the time? What were the veterans going to his office for a meeting about? Did they schedule an appointment that Obama broke? Etc.. etc.. etc. I'm a veteran, I bet you I could go to the white house today and ask to meet with Bush and I wouldn't get in even if he were there. WHY DOES BUSH HATE THE TROOPS!?!!? Another smear by vague insinuation.

Are you going to be like this all the way up to the election? Are you honestly attempting to use "Obama wouldn't meet with 12 random veterans at a time and place I know nothing about" as a legitimate point for discussion? These threads are getting more and more pathetic.

 

[Slick5150]

Oh boy. Here come the Swiftboaters of 2008.

 

[Arkaign]

Epic fail @ smear.

 

[Dari]

I'm sure there's more where this shit came from.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Queasy
New ad campaign from the Vets for Freedom PAC.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 23, 2008
Contact: Judy Mayka 202-834-5931
Or Brian Marriott 703-593-1679

This morning Vets for Freedom Political Action launched its first internet advertisement, which asks Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) why he is willing to meet, unconditionally, with foreign dictators, but has shown no interest in meeting with Commanders on the Ground and has not visited Iraq in over 2 years.

The 60-second ad, which was released at 8 am E.T. today, features retired Iraq war veteran Sergeant Garrett Anderson. Click here to view the ad. Sergeant Anderson served in Iraq with the Illinois Army National Guard, and was severely wounded when his patrol was hit by an IED.
The ad highlights the unfortunate fact that:

1) Senator Obama has never met, one-on-one, with the Commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus.

2) Senator Obama has not visited Iraq, and our brave troops on the ground, in over two years. His last visit to Iraq was January 2006, and he was there for less than two days.

3) On April 8, when two-dozen Illinois veterans went to his office for a meeting, Senator Obama was unwilling to meet with them. He was in the office, just wouldn?t come out. Sergeant Anderson was a member of that group.

The ad can be viewed at www.VetsforFreedom.org and can be downloaded HERE.

We're going to have dueling Veterans PACs going now as well as dueling whacko ministers. Yay!

Though, I have to say, #1 is kind of bad and #3 is potentially damning. I kind of give Obama a pass on #2 because he's been campaigning for the Presidency for about that long.

This ad is totally retarded.

1.) Obama is one of the most junior senators there are, do you think he just dials up the commander in Iraq and tells him to stop on by the office? What does that even mean to imply? Smear by vague insinuation.

If he's one of the most junior senators there, does he have the cache then to be POTUS and Commander in Chief? Petraeus was in D.C. recently. I think Presidential Candidate Barak Obama could have gained an audience. There was another occasion when Petraeus was in DC and invited Congressman from both sides of the aisle to come meet him. Only one Dem showed...and it wasn't Obama.

2.) I fail to see why taking a guided military tour lends you any greater insight about Iraq then knowing what the military wants you to see.

I somewhat agree. That's why I gave Obama a pass.

3.) What was he doing at the time? What were the veterans going to his office for a meeting about? Did they schedule an appointment that Obama broke? Etc.. etc.. etc. I'm a veteran, I bet you I could go to the white house today and ask to meet with Bush and I wouldn't get in even if he were there. WHY DOES BUSH HATE THE TROOPS!?!!? Another smear by vague insinuation.

Who knows. But, as Dari pointed out in another thread, Obama does sit on the Veteran's Affairs Committee. This can reflect negatively upon him.

Are you going to be like this all the way up to the election?

I don't know. Are you? I post when I like about what I like within the rules of the forum. And I honestly try to do so in as balanced a manner as I can because none of the candidates "send a thrill up my leg". Don't like it? Tough beans.

Are you honestly attempting to use "Obama wouldn't meet with 12 random veterans at a time and place I know nothing about" as a legitimate point for discussion?

Why not? This tactic has been used an infinite number of times by partisans from both sides. I'm merely posting about it.

These threads are getting more and more pathetic.

wah

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Queasy
New ad campaign from the Vets for Freedom PAC.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 23, 2008
Contact: Judy Mayka 202-834-5931
Or Brian Marriott 703-593-1679

This morning Vets for Freedom Political Action launched its first internet advertisement, which asks Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) why he is willing to meet, unconditionally, with foreign dictators, but has shown no interest in meeting with Commanders on the Ground and has not visited Iraq in over 2 years.

The 60-second ad, which was released at 8 am E.T. today, features retired Iraq war veteran Sergeant Garrett Anderson. Click here to view the ad. Sergeant Anderson served in Iraq with the Illinois Army National Guard, and was severely wounded when his patrol was hit by an IED.
The ad highlights the unfortunate fact that:

1) Senator Obama has never met, one-on-one, with the Commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus.

2) Senator Obama has not visited Iraq, and our brave troops on the ground, in over two years. His last visit to Iraq was January 2006, and he was there for less than two days.

3) On April 8, when two-dozen Illinois veterans went to his office for a meeting, Senator Obama was unwilling to meet with them. He was in the office, just wouldn?t come out. Sergeant Anderson was a member of that group.

The ad can be viewed at www.VetsforFreedom.org and can be downloaded HERE.

We're going to have dueling Veterans PACs going now as well as dueling whacko ministers. Yay!

Though, I have to say, #1 is kind of bad and #3 is potentially damning. I kind of give Obama a pass on #2 because he's been campaigning for the Presidency for about that long.

This ad is totally retarded.

1.) Obama is one of the most junior senators there are, do you think he just dials up the commander in Iraq and tells him to stop on by the office? What does that even mean to imply? Smear by vague insinuation.

2.) I fail to see why taking a guided military tour lends you any greater insight about Iraq then knowing what the military wants you to see.

3.) What was he doing at the time? What were the veterans going to his office for a meeting about? Did they schedule an appointment that Obama broke? Etc.. etc.. etc. I'm a veteran, I bet you I could go to the white house today and ask to meet with Bush and I wouldn't get in even if he were there. WHY DOES BUSH HATE THE TROOPS!?!!? Another smear by vague insinuation.

Are you going to be like this all the way up to the election? Are you honestly attempting to use "Obama wouldn't meet with 12 random veterans at a time and place I know nothing about" as a legitimate point for discussion? These threads are getting more and more pathetic.

And yet when those same people came to DC he managed to get himself a special inventation to commitee hearings he wasn't a member of to get TV time.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Are you going to be like this all the way up to the election?

I don't know. Are you? I post when I like about what I like within the rules of the forum. And I honestly try to do so in as balanced a manner as I can because none of the candidates "send a thrill up my leg". Don't like it? Tough beans.

Can you link to a positive thread about Obama and a negative thread about McCain and/or Hillary that you have personally started to evidence this balanced manner?

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

I think the (R) are focusing too much on this"meet with our enemies" thing.

It is not going to harm Obama like they hope.

There is nothing wrong with having a dialog and encouraging our enemies to change.

 

[OrByte]

dude dont fall for this.

I mean seriously...

Let me ask these:

#1 is it a requirement of some sort?

#2 Again, where is the criteria for critque?

#3 More needs to be known about this issue. And it appears to be somewhat of a "he said/she said" scenario in which it makes great ammo for mud slinging but nothing substantial or long term. Can we get more info?

Now in regards to #3. If someone caught Obama on tape saying something to the effect that he doesn't want to meet with those A-hole losers because he hates the troops...then you might be onto something

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Queasy

Are you going to be like this all the way up to the election?

I don't know. Are you? I post when I like about what I like within the rules of the forum. And I honestly try to do so in as balanced a manner as I can because none of the candidates "send a thrill up my leg". Don't like it? Tough beans.

Can you link to a positive thread about Obama and a negative thread about McCain and/or Hillary that you have personally started to evidence this balanced manner?

Let's see, in the New Obama Rule thread I called the rumor started about a Clinton operative about a secret videotape of Obama's wife saying bigoted things at the pulpit stupid and untrue.

In another thread, I've called McCain "Sen. McCain and Dr. Hyde".

Obviously, since I am a conservative (and don't belong to any party), I'll disagree with Obama more because his liberal ideals are in antithesis to the things I believe in. Same with Hillary. McCain is about 50% and that is infuriating not only to me but to other conservatives as well.

But again, note the first line after the quote in my OP.

"We're going to have dueling Veterans PACs going now as well as dueling whacko ministers. Yay!"

This was more about the absurdity of going through dueling Veteran's Groups PACs...again - Vets for Freedom Vs Vets for Peace.

 

[jpeyton]

This has "backfire" written all over it.

Like I said before, if the GOP thinks they can win the general by bringing the Iraq war into the spotlight, they are in for the biggest surprise of their life.

 

[yllus]

3) On April 8, when two-dozen Illinois veterans went to his office for a meeting, Senator Obama was unwilling to meet with them. He was in the office, just wouldn?t come out. Sergeant Anderson was a member of that group.

Depends how much of a setup it was. It could have been akin to President Bush not meeting Cindy Sheehan. You could look at it narrowly and say, "She's the mother of a dead soldier! How dare he!" However, looking at it from a wider angle makes it obvious that meeting would simply be used a prop for her to froth at the mouth to his face in front of the media.

I also don't know what the big deal is with #2. He's been sort of busy for the last two years, even above and beyond the requirements of his office. He's not going to get some special insight as a result of another carefully scripted and mapped tour.

 

[pstylesss]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
This has "backfire" written all over it.

Like I said before, if the GOP thinks they can win the general by bringing the Iraq war into the spotlight, they are in for the biggest surprise of their life.

The GOP will win if the Iraq war becomes a topic of discussion. I hope you're noticing they aren't calling it a failure as much now since Iraq has been out of the headlines... and it's been out of the headlines because it's been going well.

 

[ProfJohn]

1) Senator Obama has never met, one-on-one, with the Commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus.

2) Senator Obama has not visited Iraq, and our brave troops on the ground, in over two years. His last visit to Iraq was January 2006, and he was there for less than two days.

3) On April 8, when two-dozen Illinois veterans went to his office for a meeting, Senator Obama was unwilling to meet with them. He was in the office, just wouldn?t come out. Sergeant Anderson was a member of that group.

1. Is going to hurt him.

2. Is going to hurt him.

3. Kind of petty, but with the right target audience might hurt him.

These types of ads aren't going to affect the people suffering from Obamania, but for the middle of the road folks in fly over country it might. All those blue collar workers that voted for Hillary that Obama must now win over.

BTW the first one would be a killer debate question, if someone doesn't ask it McCain need to figure out a way to include it in a debate response.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
This has "backfire" written all over it.

Like I said before, if the GOP thinks they can win the general by bringing the Iraq war into the spotlight, they are in for the biggest surprise of their life.

Like that 2004 "surprise" called W's second term? To me, it's a huge worry that as much as GWB and Congressional GOP has tarnished that party's image, McCain is still competitive with Obama. I fear that the polls merely reflect that Obama's 'honeymoon' period lingers on, and once his nomination is official, and the real, bare-knuckles general election begins, Obama is going to get pounded. The Dems just aren't very smart right now, and there's a huge disconnect between the Dems who pick the nominee and the people who elect the president. The Dems should've never lost twice to GWB, and they got squashed like bugs trying to stop the war. At least the GOP knew how to be an opposition party, even if they proved to be a poor governing party. They killed Hilarycare dead, despite the Dems owning both chambers of Congress and the White House at the time.

 

[Stoneburner]

Talk to Bush's handpicked commanders? Why not talk to all the rational ones bush had purged? LIke Shinseki

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Like that 2004 "surprise" called W's second term?

This tired argument again? C'mon, think a little.

In 2004, the Iraq war was about 19 months old. We had lost approximately 1126 soldiers when Americans went to the polls. People still had faith Bush could pull it off in Iraq; they didn't want to send a wartime President packing.

During the 2006 mid-term elections, arguably one of the best ever for Democrats, we were 43 months into the war with 2821 soldiers killed. People handed the elections to Democrats because they wanted our troops home immediately. They were tired of the war and tired of Bush's excuses.

Now for 2008, we will be 67 months into the war by November, with 4080 soldiers killed to date and somewhere over 4300 by the time people hit the voting booths. It will be 2006 all over again.

Bush and the war in Iraq have already cost the GOP three Congressional seats in heavily Republican districts so far this year. McCain is staring down the barrel of Cheney's hunting rifle.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Like that 2004 "surprise" called W's second term?

This tired argument again? C'mon, think a little.

In 2004, the Iraq war was about 19 months old. We had lost approximately 1126 soldiers when Americans went to the polls. People still had faith Bush could pull it off in Iraq; they didn't want to send a wartime President packing.

During the 2006 mid-term elections, arguably one of the best ever for Democrats, we were 43 months into the war with 2821 soldiers killed. People handed the elections to Democrats because they wanted our troops home immediately. They were tired of the war and tired of Bush's excuses.

Now for 2008, we will be 67 months into the war by November, with 4080 soldiers killed to date and somewhere over 4300 by the time people hit the voting booths. It will be 2006 all over again.

Bush and the war in Iraq have already cost the GOP three Congressional seats in heavily Republican districts so far this year. McCain is staring down the barrel of Cheney's hunting rifle.

First, it's not an "argument", it's a fact. And I'm not disagreeing with you that the GOP is on the ropes - I said as much. Yet still, with all this damage, why don't the polls show Obama ahead by a huge margin? That's the question the Dems need to ask themselves.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: eskimospy

This ad is totally retarded.

1.) Obama is one of the most junior senators there are, do you think he just dials up the commander in Iraq and tells him to stop on by the office? What does that even mean to imply? Smear by vague insinuation.

If he's one of the most junior senators there, does he have the cache then to be POTUS and Commander in Chief? Petraeus was in D.C. recently. I think Presidential Candidate Barak Obama could have gained an audience. There was another occasion when Petraeus was in DC and invited Congressman from both sides of the aisle to come meet him. Only one Dem showed...and it wasn't Obama.

2.) I fail to see why taking a guided military tour lends you any greater insight about Iraq then knowing what the military wants you to see.

I somewhat agree. That's why I gave Obama a pass.

3.) What was he doing at the time? What were the veterans going to his office for a meeting about? Did they schedule an appointment that Obama broke? Etc.. etc.. etc. I'm a veteran, I bet you I could go to the white house today and ask to meet with Bush and I wouldn't get in even if he were there. WHY DOES BUSH HATE THE TROOPS!?!!? Another smear by vague insinuation.

Who knows. But, as Dari pointed out in another thread, Obama does sit on the Veteran's Affairs Committee. This can reflect negatively upon him.

Are you going to be like this all the way up to the election?

I don't know. Are you? I post when I like about what I like within the rules of the forum. And I honestly try to do so in as balanced a manner as I can because none of the candidates "send a thrill up my leg". Don't like it? Tough beans.

Are you honestly attempting to use "Obama wouldn't meet with 12 random veterans at a time and place I know nothing about" as a legitimate point for discussion?

Why not? This tactic has been used an infinite number of times by partisans from both sides. I'm merely posting about it.

These threads are getting more and more pathetic.

wah

1.) What does someone's political position have to do with them having sufficient 'cachet' to be the president? As an example, Mitt Romney wouldn't have been able to get an interview with him either, yet I fail to see why that would matter as to how fit he would be to be president. We don't know what was going on, if Obama chose not to meet with him, if schedules didn't work out, or anything like that. We just know that for one of a thousand reasons those two people haven't had a one on one talk. Talk about a worthless piece of information specifically designed to smear someone on vague insinuation. If you can get some real information on why Obama hasn't met with him and find something bad in it, by all means get back to me.

If not, then should people start making THE ECONOMY IS IN TROUBLE AND JOHN MCCAIN HASN'T MET WITH THE FED CHAIR EVEN ONCE! threads? (I don't actually know if he has or not... but now that I think about it that just helps my point)

3.) Again, people have absolutely no idea of the circumstances under which Obama didn't meet with those guys on that one specific day but it must be something bad, right? Again, a worthless smear by vague insinuation. If you can find any information that would show Obama did not meet with them for a reason that would be considered bad, by all means get back to me.

If you've got a problem with Obama based on issues you disagree with, why not start a thread about those? All I see from you are crap threads like this one.

 

[Lemon law]

As a general commentary on this thread, we can see that the ever diminishing 27% popular support group that still supports GWB&co is totally fired up about this thread and convinced this reasoning will hurt Obama.
While at the same time, the 73% group consisting of some of the GOP, independents, and most democrats yawn as they see this kind of reasoning as being a non factor on how they will vote.

After all, that big GOP hero, Ronald Reagan did not serve in the military, said he would not talk to terrorists, and later had to admit that he did. If anything, the US military is going to be the big loser in the Iraq war.
After spending the better part of two decades rehabilitating their public image after Vietnam, GHB and gulf war 1 completed that long process. And now in less than six years the Powell doctrine is decimated, the
reserve system is in serious danger, the army leadership is seriously intimidated, and they are again stuck in two almost un winnable quagmires that can only be solved in the diplomatic arena.

The only honesty we can get from the military comes from retired or forced to retire former military leaders, as anyone on active duty is now totally intimidated. We can bet that the Iraq war will be a huge campaign issue in 2008 with the shortcomings of our military being used as an excuse by McCain and GWB. Looking further down the road, the big toy military looks to be a thing of the past. I am not so confident that McCain can rely on military support in the same way previous GOP Presidential contenders used to be able to.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Yet still, with all this damage, why don't the polls show Obama ahead by a huge margin? That's the question the Dems need to ask themselves.

Wait until people only have two choices in November, not three. Wait until the June primaries are over, the nominations are solidified, the VPs are selected, and the general election campaign begins.

 

[preslove]

Was Reagan wrong for meeting with Gorbachev?

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: preslove
Was Reagan wrong for meeting with Gorbachev?

Are the right-wingers wrong for throwing out "appeasement" as a half-assed battlecry...

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: preslove
Was Reagan wrong for meeting with Gorbachev?

ummm Reagan did not meet with Gorbachev until 1986, 5 years after he had been in office.

He refused to meet with the prior Russian leaders because he knew such a meeting would be meaningless.

Obama on the other hand stuck his foot in his mouth big time when he said he would meet them within the first year.