« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Barack Obama Blew Off Troops According to Email Now Retracted by Captain Jeff Porter

Was Jeffrey Porter's retraction an Admiral Denton moment? Is he signaling it's truth by saying it was only meant for his family and friends and now that it is in wider circulation he must now claim it is false to save his job?

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  July 28th, 2008 at 08:42 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Yesterday, I pointed out that it does not matter if Barack Obama actually did blow off the troops, as an email from Captain Jeffrey S. Porter reported to friends and family back home.

The email got onto the internet and spread like wildfire.

The point is not that the email is true. The point is that a lot of people who do not really even pay attention to politics were quick to believe the email was true because it plays directly into the narrative that Obama could care less about the war or the troops.

Some will view this news report from the New York Daily News as further proof that the email was true.

Captain Porter contacted the paper and asked that they delete his email. He wrote that the “email was meant only for my family.” He also said “[a]fter checking my sources, information that was put out in my email was wrong.” The New York Daily News notes

An Army officer familiar with the incident told The Mouth today that the writer is “devastated that the letter was made public. It was never his intention that it go beyond members of his family.”

Some people will view this as Captain Porter fibbing and needing to correct the record. I suspect a great many more will view this as proof positive that the story was true, but Captain Porter was pressured by superiors to claim it is not true.

Tags: , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • mzforrest

    Most likely it was the case of someone who didn’t have actual knowledge offering his opinion. For example, he likely doesn’t have a clue whether it was base advisers, Secret Service, or the candidate himself that declined to have an outdoor meet and greet. Last I checked, the Secret Service didn’t escort the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders.

  • deltar

    How could someone come to the conclusion that the author saying “[a]fter checking my sources, information that was put out in my email was wrong.” actually means that the information is true? Is up down?

    If he’s lying now on pressure from his superiors, how does that get spun to give you confidence that his original email was true? Isn’t a guy who lies subject to serious skepticism?

  • blooch

    …subject to serious skepticism?”

    Sure, he is…only sometimes it takes months, even years:

    Scott Thomas Beauchamp
    Jesse Macbeth
    John Kerry

    IMO, Capt. Porter is not anywhere near this rogue’s gallery.

    If I may edit Eric’s words into a generic form:

    “The point is not that the [story] is true. The point is that a lot of people who do not really even pay attention to politics were quick to believe the [story] was true because it plays directly into the narrative…”

    People will weigh their skepticism about an author’s veracity with skepticism about the author’s target, and sometimes the truth comes out wanting. I don’t think you’ll find furious spinning and defense of Capt. Porter’s actions at RedState.

  • Crowe

    There’s an old adage: “Character is what you do when no one is looking.”

    In Obama’s case I believe it needs revising: “Character is what you do when the cameras are not snapping.”

    Any quibbling over the veracity of the original email’s account of Obama’s very limited time in Afghanistan is quite beside the point. It’s likely that the email is at least part true and in part exaggerated. The point is that it is so believable that he would do such a thing. And, frankly, the context and the schedule of Obama’s whirlwind tour support at least the timeline offered by Cpt. Porter’s email.

    Think: A simple examination of the amount of time Obama spent in Afghanistan will show that he had precious little time to meet with anyone in particular, let alone do an extensive meet-and-greet with the troops. He had to meet with that general and get his b-ball photo-op at Bagram, then jet to Kabul to meet with Karzai, and then get on a plane to Iraq, all within a few hours. Based on his well-documented brush-off of the wounded in Germany, a cold shoulder to non-wounded in Afghanistan is entirely possible and believable. After all, he got his “with-the-troops” photos in the b-ball game.

    But you are correct that the actual veracity of Porter’s email is not the issue — the issue is the believability of it (his after the fact retraction notwithstanding) in light of Obama’s utter lack of consideration for other people, especially our military as anything but props.

  • IndependentfrMI

    What we saw or did not see out of the junior Senator’s trip abroad in fact speaks volumes. Did Obama visit the troops? Well he went to Afghanistan and spent a few minutes with troops even playing a little hoops. In Iraq he met with some military commanders, but he still sticks to his original war strategy that was decided before he stepped a foot in the sand. When it came time to visit wounded troops in Germany…well since he couldn’t take non congressional personnel or cameras to the hospital (words from him and his staff) he did not visit them. Sounds like a snub to this American. Could it be he wanted photographs for props? He says he visited troops here at Walter Reed hospital before…but what no photos. The fact is he did not visit the wounded troops and it was his decision to make and it was the wrong one. Let that one stand for itself.

  • forocite

    What further evidence to we need than the fact that he was in France and didn’t visit the war memorials in Normandy, to prove he hates America! Huh? So, let me get this straight:

    Obama was reportedly considering visiting troops in Germany. For an unknown reason he decided not to. We then use his not doing something against him because we suspect he was not allowed to bring cameras, and we then infer this must have been the reason why he didn’t visit the troops, thus proving his disdain for our military. What an amateur political move that would be. Not at all in line with the political facility he continually demonstrates.

    Why would we speculate on the reasons for not doing something that is not even a required protocol? Nonetheless, just for fun I’ll give it a try:

    Could it be that he was concerned it would be viewed as a political stunt that takes advantage of our wounded troops for his own political gain? YES.

    Could it be that he was concerned that it would be viewed as overly presumptuous since he is only a candidate and not the commander-in-chief of these troops? YES.

    Could it be that he had diarrhea that morning and decided he couldn’t make it at the last minute? YES.

    Finally, if it actually is a required protocol for a presidential candidate to visit wounded troops while he’s in Germany, then would Obama shirk his duty because he couldn’t get press coverage? NO.

    Why not? Because that would be politically stupid and he’s not politically stupid.

    This is a classic example of ‘grasping at straws’ to support a belief.

  • wt259

    The last two sentences say it all, regards the junior senator from Illinois. The shopping and beer were so much more important.

  • Dave_in_Fla

    Really speaks to his character. Thanks for pointing this out!

  • blooch

    Presidential Seal for you.

  • Moe_Lane

    …of thinking that I can’t look up your old posting history.

  • Vegas_Rick

    “Could it be that he was concerned it would be viewed as a political stunt that takes advantage of our wounded troops for his own political gain?” If there is no camera, and it is not broadcast, it cannot be “viewed” as anything.

    “Could it be that he was concerned that it would be viewed as overly presumptuous since he is only a candidate and not the commander-in-chief of these troops?” No. See above.

    “Could it be that he had diarrhea that morning and decided he couldn’t make it at the last minute?” No. The alleged diarrhea didn’t keep him from his sight seeing tour of Berlin.

    “Finally, if it actually is a required protocol for a presidential candidate to visit wounded troops while he’s in Germany, then would Obama shirk his duty because he couldn’t get press coverage?” Yes, you’ve finally figured out what the rest of already knew.

    “Why not? Because that would be politically stupid and he’s not politically stupid.” Really? How about politically naive, disconnected, out of touch, etc.
    Your messiah can’t even get to 50% in the national polls in a blow-out Democratic election year. Wonder why that is?

    Because, like the rest of the liberal elite, long nose snobs in your party, HE HAS NO CLUE ABOUT THE AVERAGE AMERICAN.

    And, no slick, you ain’t one. Average American, that is.

  • forocite

    I guess I should have said, ‘we republicans’.

    I didn’t mean ‘We’ gossip mongers and straw grabbers.

  • Vegas_Rick

    ‘Cause, based on the content of your post, you probably don’t qualify. :)

  • Canthros

    Could it be that he was concerned it would be viewed as a political stunt that takes advantage of our wounded troops for his own political gain? YES. (

    I think that is precisely the reading I’d put into it: he skipped out on visiting the injured soldiers because he was concerned that his photo-op couldn’t be done without his entourage.

  • Moe_Lane

    Apparently, having this particular hobby seems to immunize them from being able to contemplate that they could possibly be caught doing it.

    Ta.

  • IndependentfrMI

    **Barrack Obama DID NOT visit the wounded troops overseas. The reason is not the issue but his judgement is. Again because of poor judgement he and he alone decided not to visit the wounded.