Skip to comments.Barack Obama Caught on Tape Accusing U.S. Troops of 'Killing Civilians'
Posted on 08/15/2007 12:43:57 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd
This is a rush transcript from "Hannity & Colmes," August 14, 2007. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops that we are not just air raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST: That was Illinois Senator Barack Obama. Now let me play you former Democratic presidential nominee Senator John Kerry from Massachusetts.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN KERRY, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: They relived the absolute horror of what this country in a sense made them do. They told stories of times that they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan.
There is no reason that young American children need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, women.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
“Air raiding villages”
What is that? Scary to think this bonehead thinks he should be the Commander in Chief.
Groucho Marx could be a politician today.
But, what of the Democrats? Sadly, mostly silence. You can find our issues explicitly referenced on only three candidates sites (Kucinich, Richardson and Gravel). Frontrunners Clinton, Obama and Edwards carefully parse their support of our people into specific reforms. We find no evidence that the Democratic frontrunners counter Republicans anti-LGBT speech with routine and positive inclusion of LGBT people in their visions for a whole and healthy society.
Its déjà vu all over again the GOP often slyly and sometimes audaciously whips us for political gain. The Democrats include us sorta but only in response to a direct question and typically in the language of careful legislative reform.
This must change, starting now, because at this moment in history, reforms are both important and insufficient.
I think Obama watched Apocalypse Now before he spoke.
Osama Obama = John sKerry
Are liberals truly civilians or can we designate them enemy combatants and start ridding the universe of their ilk?
FITB: “all enemies foreign and...”
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
His statements about our military is a perfect reason not to elect this guy as President. He doesn’t have a clue, doesn’t have any military experience, doesn’t understand military strategy. During these times, we need some smarts in the White House. And.........he and Hillary ain’t them.
>>>>all enemies foreign and...
Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq
There is hope.
This goofball is too clueless to be qualified to be Commander in Chief.
Too bad no one has the stones to ask him “Sir, please cite SPECIFIC instances where American forces in Iraq or Afghanistan air raided villages and killed civilians”. I cannot believe this knucklehead made it through Harvard Law School-someone should demand to see HIS test scores and transcripts, just like they went after Bush!
What a scum bag. That’s the nicest thing I can say.
Thanks and bookmark for later use.
Obama’s Air Raid
Democratic Presidential candidate (and amateur airpower strategist) Barack Obama
Based on his recent comments about “invading” Pakistan and taking our nuclear option off the table, Illinois Senator (and Presidential hopeful) Barack Obama has demonstrated—beyond any shadow of a doubt—that he’s unprepared to serve as Commander-in-Chief.
Yet, Mr. Obama persists in demonstrating his incompetence in military and security affairs. Just yesterday, Senator Obama observed that “We’ve got to get the job done [in Afghanistan]. And that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there.”
The Senator’s remarks drew instant criticism from a spokesman for GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney, although (predictably) Mr. Obama’s Democratic rivals remained silent. We’re guessing that the other Democrats harbor similar thoughts, or they’re just content to watch Obama slowly destroy his own candidacy.
From a military perspective, there are clear problems with Senator Obama’s “analysis.” First and foremost, the U.S. military does not engage in the indiscriminate bombing of villages in Afghanistan—or anywhere else. If Mr. Obama had even a rudimentary knowledge of air operations, he would understand that bombing missions generally fall under two categories, interdiction and close air support.
As the name implies, interdiction raids are aimed at preventing the enemy from achieving specific military goals. While these strikes are typically planned at least a day in advance, they are based on firm intelligence indicators. In other words, if an Afghan village is a target, it’s only because the Taliban are conducting operations there, and the air strike will be limited to those military elements, with strict ROE on target identification and weapons employment.
However, most of our air operations in Afghanistan are classified as close air support (CAS) , designed to help our troops on the ground. CAS missions are usually classified as pre-planned or immediate. Pre-planned sorties allocate specific assets to certain ground units or a geographical area, at a pre-determined time. Immediate CAS missions are flown in support of troops in contact. In both cases, the attacking aircraft are, invariably, under the control of a ground observer, who identifies the enemy, briefs the pilots and literally “talks” them onto the target. But then again, we rather doubt that Senator Obama is familiar with a “nine-line” briefing.