Why didn't the Obama campaign foresee McCain's troop smear?

Right now, the blogosphere is abuzz about John McCain's new ad smearing Obama for not visiting wounded troops in Germany. The McCain claim that Obama cancelled because he couldn't bring reporters with him is utterly false, but the failure of the left and the Obama campaign to immediately and aggressively shoot down the growing Pentagon-fed narrative that Obama deliberately "snubbed" wounded troops has proved to be highly damaging.

After news of the ad broke Saturday, the Obama campaign managed to issue a rebuttal to the claim about it wanting to bring along the media for the visit , but it still hasn't shot down the other smears that have emerged or forcefully challenged the Pentagon's politicized role in spreading lies and misleading statements designed to damage his campaign.

Spokesperson Linda Douglass said: "We told military officials explicitly that Senator Obama had absolutely no attention of bringing any members of the media or photographers in with him to visit the wounded warriors. In all of our communications with the military, we stressed that this was to be a private visit by Senator Obama."

What's remarkable, of course, is that Obama was supposedly immunizing himself against national security smear ads by reversing himself on FISA, but no one in his campaign staff had the foresight to to ask, "How's this headline going to look: `OBAMA CANCELS TRIP TO WOUNDED SOLDIERS'?" when deciding how to handle the visit to the military hospital.

The AP reported earlier on Saturday:

Republican John McCain's campaign on Saturday sharply criticized Democratic rival Barack Obama for canceling a visit to wounded troops in Germany, contending Obama chose foreign leaders and cheering Europeans over "injured American heroes."

Obama's campaign called the accusation "wildly inappropriate." His spokesman has claimed that the visit to a military hospital in Germany was scrapped after the Pentagon raised concerns about political activity on a military base. Earlier, though, the campaign had said Obama decided the visit might be seen as inappropriate politicking. However, the Pentagon said the senator was never told not to visit.

A new McCain ad that began airing Saturday in selected markets also chides Obama as disrespectful for making "time to go to the gym" during his European visit while at the same time canceling the visit with wounded troops

Right now, in the "balanced" mainstream press, it's being portrayed as just differing points of view -- one from the straight-shooting, patriotic Pentagon officials vs. that anti-war political opportunist, Barack Obama.

But amid all the blogosphere's handwringing and complaints about McCain's low blow -- sadly reminiscent of the weak response to John Kerry's Swift Boating -- there is still no effective counter-punching from the Obama campaign targeting McCain or going after him in TV ads. And as the lies about this incident spread, there still hasn't been a clear, compelling story offered to to the press about the Pentagon's double-dealing and partisan sabogating by GOP-appointed flacks. And there's been little said of McCain's serial flip-flopping or other character and political weaknesses (from sexist hostility to women's rights to his callous ignorance on the economy) by allied progressive groups with the money to buy TV ads, even if Obama's campaign wants to take the high road. (Apparently, Obama's campaign has asked independent 527-style groups to refrain from negative campaign ads targeting McCain, but there shouldn't be unilteral surrender in the air wars that lie ahead.)

Pentagon officials, especially a GOP flack named Bryan Whitman, are behind the ongoing anti-Obama spin that his campaign declined the visit because he couldn't bring his campaign staff or reporters with him. Here's how he works, as noted by Americablog:

Last February, Barack Obama told an anecdote of a soldier who was shipped to Afghanistan:

"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. Now, that's a consequence of bad judgment."

The story was true, but many in the traditional media immediately jumped all over that story because John McCain -- and a GOP press hack at the Pentagon said it wasn't true:

NBC, also spoke to the soldier, but gave the McCain campaign the headline it wanted "Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story." NBC quoted Bush appointee/Pentagon flack Bryan Whitman:
"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
in harm's way are properly trained, equipped and with the leadership to be successful," he said.

Okay, that is so not true. But what else would you expect. Whitman's been flacking at the Pentagon since the Rumsfeld days. Think of all the misinformation and lies he spewed at us.

Whitman not only engaged in partisan politics, he basically lied about the situation in Afghanistan to NBC. Obama's version was accurate. Whitman's wasn't.

Fast forward to July of 2008: Which Pentagon political hack is right smack in the middle of the latest manufactured controversy about Obama's visit to the troops in Germany -- a political controversy being pushed by "The Pentagon"? That's right. Bryan Whitman. Yes, apparently when the press talks about "The Pentagon" they mean Bryan Whitman -- and Whitman was quite happy to stir the pot on this one:

The Pentagon said on Friday that it did not prevent an Obama visit.

"Nobody denied Senator Obama the opportunity to visit our wounded being cared for at Landstuhl. Obviously, as a sitting senator, he has an interest in that and can certainly visit in an official capacity," said Bryan Whitman, a spokesman for the Pentagon, who added that there are "restrictions on what you can do as a candidate for political office, that stems from trying to maintain political neutrality and not have the military involved in politics."

"The senator's staff was informed of the limits on what the military can do with respect to a political campaign and how we could support a senator's visit to Landstuhl and, quite frankly, I expected them to have the visit," Whitman said.

Quite frankly, no one should believe anything Bryan Whitman says on behalf of "The Pentagon." He's a GOP political operative who has done a lot of Bush, Cheney and Rummy's dirty work from his press perch at the Pentagon for years. The guy has no compunction about engaging in politics. And, he's the one pushing this latest fake controversy. In February, Obama was right. Whitman was wrong. Same now.

The issue was muddied further while the Obama campaign waited at least a day to clarify that the scheduled visit was blocked by the Pentagon, and was still offering as late as Saturday a weak response that the candidate had, as Obama said, "a concern that maybe our visit was going to be perceived as political," and, initially, that it would be "inappropriate" to spend campaign funds to make that hospital visit.

Such responses are politically lame and tin-eared. The immediate response should have been a tough-minded assertion that they were blocked by the Pentagon, seemingly for partisan political reasons. The Obama camp, after making clear that Obama wanted to visit , should have forcefully said the Senator's planned meeting with wounded troops was blocked because of a last-minute invoking of rules by the Pentagon designed to thwart his visit, apparently for political reasons.

If the Pentagon continued to stand by its misleading claims designed to smear Obama, the issue could be framed by his surrogates this way: "Who're you going to believe: the Pentagon that lied about Iraq's WMD and the derring-do of Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch -- or a candidate for President, Barack Obama, who was right about Iraq all along?"

Now a new right-wing and Pentagon spin is emerging: an ego-crazed McCain military advisor, infuriated that he couldn't accompany the Senator because he was a campaign staffer, torpedoed the visit, but the source for this story, is, once again, "Pentagon officials," i.e.
no doubt, Bryan Whitman. NBC's First Read presents this latest improbable tale, again sourced primarily to the Pentagon:

In his official capacity as a sitting US senator, Obama has every right to stay in touch with America's men and women in uniform. According to Pentagon officials [emphasis added], the problem was that Obama's request to visit Landstuhl included two members of his campaign staff -- retired Major General Jonathan S. Gration and Jeff Kiernan. US military officials in Germany informed the campaign the two political operatives would not be permitted on base.

Pentagon officials say Gration was the campaign's point of contact at Landstuhl in arranging Obama's visit and "got torqued" when he was told he would not be permitted to join Obama. It was Gration who later suggested to reporters that the Pentagon short-circuited Obama's visit.

Are there some in the Pentagon or military resentful because Gration has climbed on board the Obama campaign? Did Gration overreact? As a former policy director for the US European Command, he would surely be disappointed -- if not offended -- by being excluded from the visit. It's also been my experience that even retired generals do not want to hear the word "no."

Whatever the reason, Obama and the troops he would have visited have both missed a unique and historic opportunity. According to one Army lieutenant colonel, "Everyone was excited about Obama's visit. It's a shame."

Of course, it the story is true, that an unpaid military advisor's personal pique led Obama's top advisors to recommend scrapping the visit to see wounded soldiers, then Obama has indeed been ill-served by his staff.

But more likely, NBC,in the rush for an online scoop, felt free to tell only one side of the story, and either failed to get the Obama camp's version of events or the Obama campaign failed to communicate its version of a fast-growing PR disaster, perhaps hoping it would go away. And we've yet to see a detailed, accurate independent news account of what actually happened.

But Obama, with relatively little objection from the mainstream media, has already been portrayed by the McCain campaign as a genocide-favoring traitor seeking to gain office by losing a war -- while willing to ignore wounded troops although finding time to work out in a gym. And what's Obama done except to express "disappointment" at McCain's comments in an interview with Brian Williams?

That won't be good enough either for Obama or his progressive allies in a hard-fought, close campign.

huffingtonpost

Bookmark with:

              

Comments

Add New Search

Ben   |2008-07-30 13:10:10 Art, You use words like "false" and "Lies" without even a shred of evidence, as if the mere word of an Obama staffer constitutes unquestionable truth. It is reminescent indeed of the swiftboat affair, when Kerry's groupies claimed victory, yet failed to actually present anything beyond a verbal rebuttal- and even that accompanied with the admission that perhaps rathered than a seared, Kerry had a merely luke-warm memory that 30 years on understandably confused details like dates, locations, and which side the Khymer Rouge was on. Can't we elevate things a little by not using these kinds of overblown rhetorical claims "it's all lies- because I say so!" without at least an ounce of actual source material to go with it? Obama's trip was cancelled. We have statements, we have possibilities. We have nothing upon which to make a divisive and rude claim like "false". Use "different" or something like that. Ben Reply | Quote

Edi2or   |2008-08-03 19:32:27 No Art, you made the statement and the challenge, now back yours up. Reply | Quote

Spiker   |2008-08-06 04:30:21 Why not just simply tell the truth without the spin? Go on record as telling the truth. Nobody is going to believe it anyway. Reply | Quote

the Editor  - re:   |2008-08-06 09:14:43 Spiker wrote: Why not just simply tell the truth without the spin? Go on record as telling the truth. Nobody is going to believe it anyway. true dat Reply | Quote

Write comment
Name:
Email:	do not notifynotify
Title:
UBBCode:	-color-aquablackbluefuchsiagraygreenlimemaroonnavyolivepurpleredsilvertealwhiteyellow -size-tinysmallmediumlargehuge
	Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.21

3.21 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."