The ad is a product of Vets for Freedom. They call themselves "a nonpartisan organization established by combat veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan." This wounded veteran featured has a scathing message for Barack Obama.
The Vets for Freedom's 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 strategy and tactics in Iraq," and they "support policymakers from both sides of the aisle who have stood behind our great generation of American warriors on the battlefield, and who have put long-term national security before short-term partisan political gain."
The organization is a PAC. To see how a PAC is different from a 527, read more.
The FEC only requires a 527 group to file regular disclosure reports if it is a political party or if it advocates the election or defeat of a federal candidate or puts out electioneering communications.
A PAC raises and spends limited "hard" money contributions specifically for electing or defeating candidates. Organizations that raise soft money for issue advocacy may also set up a PAC. Most PACs represent business (like Microsoft) labor (like the Teamsters) or ideological interests (Emily's List or the NRA).
Do you think there's any difference in result between the efforts of a 527 and a PAC? Even though a 527 can't expressly advocate for a candidate, could the outcome be the same? Should they have to abide by the same rules as a PAC?
Start London
Maloles
Bruno Magli
Obama hasn't been to Iraq in over 2 years???
1While I don't like these types of ads, he does make a valid point
I was more suprised that Obama hasn't met with Petraeus ever. I guess it's easy to cling to the "It's not working" strategy when you refuse to be updated by the people who actually see the whole picture, and not just the media.
2yeah, that too undave
3Finally! An unbiased opinion!
4Aaaaaand... SwiftBoat 2.0!
5I think that certain aspects of the situation in IRAQ go highly underreported. There are many soldiers there that think that they are making a difference. There are people that volunteer to go back. They are building infrastructure and turning electricity on. Providing protection and learning to respect the people they are protecting. I go back and forth with my opinion of if we should leave, but I do wish that more sides of this issue were shown in the popular media.
6Those are all very good points HF, but those are very boring points. Who wants to hear about good news, when the bad news sells so much press?
7In my opinion this is just another ad that presumes the listener is ignorant. True that Sen. Obama may not have met with this gentleman and his twelve comrades. However, the (why?) is left ambiguous so that the tone and choice of words would have us believe that Sen. Obama did not meet with them for negative reasons. Furthermore out of over 3 million military service persons Sen. Obama may not have met with these 13 individuals but wouldn't logic have it that he has met with some individuals/groups that are or have participated in Iraq/Afghanistan? As for meeting with General Petraeus one on one Sen. Obama questioned the Gen. before the Sen. Committee and I'm sure that the questions he asked the general in committee are the same questions he would have asked him one on one. It is also a fact that Sen. Obama has met with commanders serving under Gen. Petraeus.
I just hate ads that presume that we're a bunch of imbeciles and can't put two and two together whether they're republican/demorat or other wise.
8As far as not meeting with these specific soldiers, I think the point is that he is their senator. If he won't even meet with politically active veterans from the relatively small group that he is supposed to represent as a senator, will he make a good commander in chief?
As hypnoticmix said, I'm less concerned about his not meeting with Gen Petraeus one on one. It would be great to see him making an extra effort to have contact with people that have a lot of influence over a war he will effectively be running if elected. But, it's not as if he has completely avoided them.
9Actually, you know what would be of even greater concern to me...? If he has met with veterans who now oppose the war, yet refused to meet with his own constituents who support the war. That would be of greater concern to me than his not meeting with Gen Petraeus.
10I wonder if they did this ad as a response to the moveon.org ad...
11what scares me is the fact that a candidate who has such a strong opposition on the war, and who may be the next PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES in less than half a year, has NEVER met with the General commanding the WAR we are in!
12That is ludicrous!
I also was reminded of the Swiftboat ads. However, if it's true, it's worth mentioning.
Hypnotic: I think all the congresscritters--in both parties--think we're imbeciles. There are some key issues that all three of the currently running candidates have been dancing around and spinning (or avoiding) their viewpoints.
13Oh my gosh I am so happy you said that Harmony! I am still reading what everyone said, but I had to stop and say, yeah for you!
As far as I can tell, because of the military people that I know, they ARE doing a lot there, and they DO believe in what they are doing.
I haven't done this in awhile: Go team red!
BTW, I haven't seen what the guys says because I have dial up-dinasour age over here
and I
have given up on that stuff because it takes forever to actually see or hear anything.
14I'm referring to 6 BTW.
15I'm at 9 and I have to say this or I'll forget.
If he were to meet with Petreus, one on one, he could really get a "why we're doing this" stratagies. If he's in the court room (that is what you were talking about right, hypno?) it is more of being able to answer questions more thoroughly. He (Petreus) wasn't able to go into why or what. Often times with anything or a lot of things there are explainations that could explain or justify, but aren't allowed to be heard in court. They say, yes or no.
You make good points though Hypno and I'm not meaning to pounce on your point just giving another thought. I personaly do think it would be good for any political leader to meet with those who are involved with Iraq.
16Oh Jenn76 on 10 good point!
Blondie, 12 exactly!
Ok, I'll just throw out the comment numbers and say ditto! Because I guess I don't have anything good to add.
I'm worthless and weak!
17Clinton was the one who wants to bring troops home right away NOT Obama which alot of Dems gave him crap for. Afghanistan was a war called for even if our government was the one financing Taliban and supplying them with weapons,money and IUDs. But for anybody who doesn't believe that Iraq was about vengeance you are painfully retarded turning on power they had power they had building and hospitals schools WE blew them up and when did this war start? People still don't have power and for the ones who do how long does it stay on? How many Hijackers were from Iraq and how many were from Saudi Arabia? But are president has no problem kissing and dancing with them,for those who want to stay let them stay and then send ever child boy from every family that has supported this to Iraq. Then maybe we can let the guys who signed up for Afghanistan but are stuck in Iraq go over there and help are troops who have been neglected in that country.
O where is Bin Laden?
18Ok my message got flagged because we are a happy community! So fairies and butterflys everythings great! Afghanistan was a war called for even if our government was the one financing Taliban and supplying them with weapons,money and IUDs. But for anybody who doesn't believe that Iraq was about vengeance you are painfully wrong turning on power they had power they had building and hospitals schools WE blew them up and when did this war start? People still don't have power and for the ones who do how long does it stay on for? How many Hijackers were from Iraq and how many were from Saudi Arabia? But are president has no problem kissing and dancing with them,for those who want to stay let them stay and then send ever boy and husband from every family that has supported this to Iraq. Then maybe we can let the guys who signed up for Afghanistan but are stuck in Iraq go over there and help are troops who have been neglected in that country.
O where is Bin Laden?
19This ad bugs me. He says he went to meet with Obama but not if they had an appointment or if they just dropped in or what. He gave no specifics and for all we know Obama could have been in another state. He doesn't say whether or not they tried to reschedule another meeting just says they "weren't surprised" that Obama wasn't availible. he then goes on to say that he wasn't surprised that Obama hasn't been to Iraq in two and a half years, which seems recent to me.
I don't know. It's onesided and bias. Just seems to me like an ad designed to whip over zealous patriots into a tizzy and vote red come November. Nothing in this ad changes how I will vote.
20cabaker27...after viewing the moveon.org ad, I definately think this is direct retaliation. It's basically a rebuttal.
21McCain went to Baghdad and toured accompanied by “100 American soldiers, with three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships overhead.” Then he claimed the marketplace he visited was safe.
22Does Obama need to waste resources like that too so that he can lie in an Iraq photo op?
He's questioned Petraeus more than once in public hearings - I wouldn't want to think that the answers he might get from the General would be any different if they met privately. Also, in written statements, Petraeus has said that he believes the U.S. should should make "every effort to engage by use of the whole of government, developing further leverage rather than simply targeting discrete threats" so how is that different from anything Obama has said?
And kastarte's right - Senators aren't just sitting in their offices waiting for constituents to drop in. Did this guy and his friends have an appointment?
Ads are not equal to doing your own research about a candidate.
Stephley to the rescue with knowledge!!! I wanted to comment so bad earlier, but I'm so sick of trying to teach those who are believing the hype that bitter racist people with friends in the media are putting out there about Obama.
Look, the man portrays what Americans should all be portrayed as: intelligent, calm, and classy individuals. John McCain walks around acting as if he's the Terminator. Hillary...pfft. Most of our politicians are NOT doing a good job showing the US as a great world power because our leaders act like effing little kids on the playground, complete with the gossiping females, and the little boys that think they're men because they know a few racial slurs (in reference to the "gooks" comment).
Until people act like adults and actually try to work together, nothing is going to get better in this country. I support Obama because he's the ONLY one who wants to unify us all, because thats what we need. Thats what we needed after 9/11, and Katrina, and every other major disaster that has stricken our county. I'm tired of seeing Americans jumping up to help out in Tibet and Myammar, yet where were all these people when our own country had violence against a certain minority (Megan Williams, Jena 6, Sean Bell)...or when we had a natural disaster (Katrina)? What the hell were we doing? Where were our oh so caring and helpful Americans?
I say we focus on us before we focus on others, especially since our economy is suffering and our people are losing money because we're allowing our tax dollars to fund our goverment's unjustified bombing of innocent people in Iraq (and the use of the Quran for target practice).
Sheesh. Cut the bull. We need to get out there and do something.
23sorry, but publicly asking questions versus sitting down and having a PERSONAL conversation differ GREATLY.
and its not about "wasting resources" when it comes to visiting iraq. its just for extra safety, which is worth going over there for. Talking to the people, the soliders, the citizens...seeing what its like...going to the place where war actually takes place is EXTREMELY important whether you are "wasting resources" or not. And its up to Obama whether he wants a "photo op" or not. But not everyone goes to Iraq for one. For god sakes, even Angelina Jolie has been there, and by her going there, she said that she got to talk to iraqi citizens who said the surge was helping! Many have visited, and there is no excuse.
p.s. there is very little "racist hype" against Obama in the media versus the extreme favoritism the media has for him. Unless you haven't been listening to the news, almost all of them but Fox news has been trying to protect Obama. So he's had a bunch of lee way when it comes to all of this.
24p.p.s. i still DO NOT get why people make everything linked to Obama a racist issue???? Ridiculous
25Public or private shouldn't differ GREATLY - unless the General isn't telling the truth in one of the two situations. Obama has opposed the war from the start, so going to see if we're achieving the agenda du jour isn't really helpful.
26And fat lot of good Angelina Jolie's visit did anyone but her p.r. people: The United States has admitted fewer than 5,000 Iraqi refugees between April 2003 through the end of March '08 while Sweden has accepted 34,000 since 2003.
but they DO differ greatly. there is plenty of confidential information that cannot be released to the public due to security reasons. And speaking one on one makes a difference none the less.
27And the reason i brought up Angelina Jolie was simply to compare the fact that people who aren't running for President but want to understand the situation have traveled to Iraq.
Just because Obama has "opposed the war from the start" doesn't mean he should shun any possible evidence or reasoning or "good news" of the war in iraq, let alone visit it! God forbid he should change his mind on the Iraq War with the help of new information. It doesn't hurt to be informed...especially when your running for president
Blondie, darling, the media isn't who I was referring to. I was making a reference about the other two candidates (McCain and Hillary), their supporters and their comments. I was actually more so referring to John McCain's "gooks" reference (and thats why I explicitly made the statement that I was referring to it).
Please do not comment on my posts unless you read the entire post. You might stand to learn a bit of insight when you do.
28I didn't realize Obama hadn't been to Iraq since taking office. How can anyone make an informed decision on anything without gathering facts first hand?
29People oppose the war because the 'facts' that we were presented as reasons to begin it weren't carefully collected but carefully selected. Since we can't trust the facts we get from the government, should we ALL go to Iraq to decide if we agree with the war? There are 600 members of Congress - should they all go?
30Opposition to this war isn't about how it's being fought but why -the answers to why are in Washington. There's no new information or good news that can make the war right. If you read the almost daily stories from the U.S. about constant changes the government is making to 'improve security' it's clear that the war hasn't made us any safer and must have placed us in greater danger.
I don't even think Blondie was directly commenting to your post. There is no need to be rude. ALSO you may have just as much insight to learn from other people's posts as they have to learn from yours.
31Steph I completely agree that it wasn't the best idea in the world to go to Iraq in the first place. The thing is. We're there now. I don't think it matters who was for the war and who was against it. To me the only thing that matters is who has an exit plan that makes sense or a plan to stay there that makes sense. It's not going to be simple extracting that many military members from the area. It's going to cost money and it's going to be complicated. AND then what do we do? Do we leave a presence there? Do we take everyone out and let them fend for themselves which some people say would be disastrous? Do we leave a military force nearby in case they need to go back in? These are really complicated questions. It's not as simple as we need to get out of Iraq. Just like it was a complicated decision to go there. It might not have been the right decision, but now we have to deal with it. I just really don't care that Obama didn't support the war when the decision was made. That means nothing to me. I didn't support it. My mother didn't support it. We didn't vote on the decision but neither did Obama. His opinion mattered as much as anyone else's and no more. What I DO care about is what he plans to do about the situation since it looks like he is going to be our nominee and I am trying to figure how to honestly support him after Hillary is done...and not JUST because he's a Democrat. There are things that I know about Iraq that most politicians probably don't JUST from being in the military. I would hope that he would try to talk and learn from as many people as possible to try to ascertain what the right move is. Even pro-war people. You can learn something from everyone. AND yes I think he needs to go to Iraq.
(Goodness....this was NOT all to you steph
)
32"Furthermore out of over 3 million military service persons Sen. Obama may not have met with these 13 individuals but wouldn't logic have it that he has met with some individuals/groups that are or have participated in Iraq/Afghanistan? As for meeting with General Petraeus one on one Sen. Obama questioned the Gen. before the Sen. Committee and I'm sure that the questions he asked the general in committee are the same questions he would have asked him one on one. It is also a fact that Sen. Obama has met with commanders serving under Gen. Petraeus."
I agree! I think it is pretty low to just show up at a Senators office with out an appointment and expect to be seen. If Senators had free time to fit in random people that show up, they wouldn't be making the most of their time.
Several soldiers testified before congress last week, and they had several things to point out to McCain.
This is the same group that said "You can keep your Tiger Woods, we'll have John McCain". Joe Lieberman, while not a veteran, is also on the board of this group!
33We're still friends HF, but we can agree to disagree on the necessity of an Iraq visit.
34I wish all these ads could be banned, they don't help anything. If you're voting because of something you saw in an ad, that's not good.
This really cracks me up, because of all of the Presidential candidates, McCain has made THE MOST mistakes when talking about Iraq.
He said that you can walk through marketplaces with out protection. He said that Petreaus rides around without body armor on in unarmed vehicles, which has been corrected by Petreaus himself. He confused the Sunnis and Shiites 3 or 4 times. He said the war was for oil. He said that Iran was going to be helping Sunnis. The list goes on and on.
I am really waiting for McCain to step up the substance of his attacks. So far we know he can get personal, but like the GI Bill and the forgotten oil tax, he doesn't stand up and say why he thinks he is right when other people disagree with him.
Speaking of Memorial day weekend, this was when McCain's "Gas Tax Holiday" was supposed to begin. How come McCain dropped it after Indiana and North Carolina's primaries? Why didn't he fight for his cause if it was so just???????
35Oh I completely agree in banning these adds. I've felt this way for some time...but I hate the idea that these adds are influencing voters when they are all so biased no matter which candidate they are for/against.
36Harmony, if you really research Obama and the people on his staff...he ALWAYS has people he agrees with and people that he doesn't. He tries to find the "real" answer, and not just the idea that is easy to swallow. Colin Powell has spoken up in support of Obama and his balanced and reasonable approach to our international relations. Powell has also advised the campaign. There are a LOT of people who have advised Obama's campaign. General Casey is one of them as well.
Just because a smear ad that was organized by Liebermann doesn't list the military experts that Obama has spoken with, doesn't mean they aren't out there. I can't believe how many people are taking this smear ad at face value.
37ALSO I don't think it's necessary for Obama to go to Iraq NOW, but if he becomes President I would hope he would go before making any official decisions.
38I don't take this ad at face value. What I said has nothing to do with this ad. I think that IF Obama is our President in 2009 that he should go to Iraq himself before deciding what to do about it. Everyone has an agenda and everyone has an opinion of what's going on. I don't think he should take anyone's word for it. I think that he should see it for himself IF he is president.
39obviously this is a hot topic that we are all very fixed on. I never intended to start an argument and I think you called it best Stephley to agree to disagree :anegyptian:
40You got it blondie! Cocktails for everyone!
Steph, blondie, ladychaos, jill....
41Nice!
42One more thing I have to point out...
I have read that Obama was getting hassled while in the Senate in regards to international trips that he was taking. When he was trying to get his paperwork to go to Russia when he was researching Non-Proliferation legislation, they were delayed because of authorization that some suggested was based on partisan bias. I believe I read about this in Newsweek, but it was several months ago. Perhaps a trip to Iraq was delayed as well.
43yeah, it's a holiday - we should relax!
44My apologies if I came off rude.
Ok, so how about martinis for all of the ladies? Drinks are on me!
45YAY!!! Drinks for everyone.. Happy Memorial Day everyone!
46mamasuri: hillary is not the one who wanted to bring the troops home right away, she said it would take over a year and it would be "a slow process, that she cannot put a time stamp on" its pretty common knowledge that she has no intention of bringing the troops home and she will establish permanent bases in iraq.
47as far as the ad goes, obama is still fighting for the democratic no
mination, going to iraq is not as important as going to the states that are deciding his fate in the race. to be honest i just dont see the importance of it at this point in the game. should he do it if and when he is the actual democratic nominee? of course. it just seems like this ad is another shining bouncing ball to take voters attention away from the facts and the issues at hand. furthermore, if obama didnt care about vets then why is he pushing so hard for healthcare and education for them after they leave iraq?
"and its not about "wasting resources" when it comes to visiting iraq. its just for extra safety, which is worth going over there for. Talking to the people, the soliders, the citizens...seeing what its like...going to the place where war actually takes place is EXTREMELY important whether you are "wasting resources" or not. "
thanks blondie! i agree 100%!
also, its really low to expect a senator to drop everything and meet with you if you show up? i agreee but is it low to do that to a president and then refuse to leave and camp out for months outside his residence?
i would think so but there are many people (not you specifically Jill) who would disagree based on politics.
i would not be surprised in the least if we see an obama trip to iraq in the next few weeks... its not like he really needs to campaign more for right now.
48"its pretty common knowledge that she has no intention of bringing the troops home and she will establish permanent bases in iraq."
is that true? i never heard her say she wants to set up bases there
maybe i missed it
also why is it that whenever any criticism of obama comes up, its always just something that is detracting from the "real" issues? i mean seriously, are we really to believe the man is impervious to all criticisms? i think not going to iraq and not meeting with veterans (if that part is true) is a REAL ISSUE.
49hillary didnt say "oh yes i am setting up permanent bases in iraq" but she never denied that she would either. her hemming and hawing on the iraq issues and her voting record point to the fact that she is not as anti war as she portrays herself. and im sorry but i dont see why obama should go to iraq at this point. his concern right now should be collecting delegates and winning the nomination. if he were to go to iraq it would be nothing more than a photo op, which will take time away from him getting his message across to the delegates. did john edwards go to iraq when he was seeking the nod? did kucinich? i mean lets get real, we are still in a primary. lets stop putting expectations on him that we wouldnt put on anyone else. getting vets an education and health care after the war, thats a real issue. saying hello to every vet and general petreaus, not a real issue
50Post New Comment
Please share your opinion with our community, but make sure it is on topic and follows our Community Rules. We moderate comments and prohibit personal attacks, threats, spam, lewd images, or the promotion of your personal website.