to receive an officer's name whose candor would be career ending. Whose comments in a personal conversation with a sitting Senator (which may or may not be entirely accurate) are just that ... of a PERSONAL nature.

It's enough for Senator Warner to know that a junior officer has some complaints. Investigation of those complaints doesn't need name rank and social security number associated with it.

For the readers of RK, it may be of some interest to know that John Warner is not above trite vindictiveness. There's a story out there (rumor for some), from people in the know .... where a highly decorated, but brash Marine Captain working for Warner in the SECNAV office, had made some "personal" comments in a public forum while on official Navy business. Those comments did not reflect the party line at the time.

Mr. Warner wanted that USMC Captain court-marshaled. It was explained to Warner that it would be very bad press to court-marshal a courageous Vietnam veteran who had earned a Navy Cross for heroic selfless combat action.

The rest of the story (as Paul Harvey might say) ... is that Jim Webb could not forestall medical retirement for his combat wounds and took a job with the EPA, part of which was made possible by former Marines who understood John Warner's politics.

My own view of John Warner (formed by people who actually worked for him) is that he's prone to being a POMPOUS ASS. His latest inquiry should be viewed through that lense.

it was told at an event celebrating Webb's election at a veteran's post after the election.  The man telling it was a former Marine officer to whom Webb was sent at EPA to hide him from Warner.  

What had happened is that Webb had been out on a speaking tour and was somewhat critical of the policy as it was being played out in Vietnam.  He was told that he could not go off script again.  When he did Warner wanted him courtmartialed.  The Marine officer on SecNav staff to whom the order was given hid Webb at EPA as he began to process the paperwork to discharge him, and kept stalling Warner.   When the paperwork for the discharge was done the officer walked it up to Warner who was quite upset that his direct order to courtmartial Webb had not been obeyed.  At that time it was pointed out to the SecNav that courtmartialing a Navy Cross winner might not be the most politically smart thing to do - with the implication that it would merely give more credibility and voice to the criticisms of policy that Webb had been making.  So Jim Webb did not get courtmartialed, and got a full honorable discharge.

Warner is certainly no saint -  his refusal to followup on the atrocities of Abu Ghraib while he chaired Armed Services diminishes his standing in my eyes somewhat.  On the other hand, he did vote against convicting Clinton on one of the two charges.

ala the Mitchell report on baseball. A fact finding commission can be established just like in baseball can it not? That issue surely calls peoples careers into question does it not?

for petty political purposes?  I just can't imagine that happening.

His campaign should find out who this guy is, and ask him whether or not he would like to come forward.  If he does, problem solved.  If he doesn't, then Obama can say he's protecting the soldiers anonymity.

See here for more:

I called the Obama campaign this morning to chat about this story, and was put in touch with the Army captain in question.

He told me his story, which I found quite credible, though for obvious reasons he asked that I not mention his name or certain identifying information.

Short answer: He backs up Obama's story.

The fact that the right wing is in a lather tells you all you need to know about how worried Obama makes them.

will be drawing lots of fire from the right.

It's worth spending a few minutes following the links to right wing blogs from Jake Tapper's ABC story to feel the heat of the vitriol headed Obama's way.  

Is this a deal breaker for Obama and the American electorate?  Again, the political context is we're in some kind of war.

Of the last few presidents, there was Bush junior's weekends in the Champagne Guard, but Bush senior's service as a carrier pilot was the real deal. Clinton's utter lack of knowledge or interest in things military is well known and affected his presidency in ways that were far from positive. Reagan served only in Fort Hollywood and was known for confusing war movie moments with reality. President Ford saw combat in the Navy.  President Carter was an Annapolis grad. Nixon was in uniform in WWII. President Kennedy was, of course, a genuine war hero.

Does military experience matter?

It would seem the number one task for the next president is disengaging from the quicksands of Iraq.  If that is to be Obama, he's going to need an unassailable shield.

The most likely place to position one is as vice-president.  Clark, Webb, Zinni?  Each have their drawbacks.  Is there someone else?

Clark was a Clinton supporter.  That may be the only drawback, though.

Webb is combative, but that's what a VP is, the pitbull.  He's independent, though, which is his only real flaw.  Not a great #2.  But he'll be able to communicate better with rural america than Zinni or Clark.  Still my number one choice.

Zinni... got to admit, never thought about this one?  SecDef to Clark's SecState?

Warner is out campaigning for McCain and that is the only reason he's pressing Obama for details. He's found a political story he feels he can play with at Obama's expense.  

http://blogs.abcnews.com/polit...

who said flat out the Bush Administration did not provide adequate funding or equipment to enable the National Park Police adequately to protect our many national monuments in Washington, D.C.? As I recall she was attacked, humiliated, and cashiered  in short order. That is exactly, exactly what will happen this rather similar situation.  

This is not the first time supposedly moderate John Warner and supposedly maverick McCain have sedulously advanced the neocon cause and monolithically supported Bush, who regularly confuses loyalty to himself personally (and to his absurd policies) with actual patriotism.

I agree completely with Teddy.

I added a reference to that incident to the diary.

it may just have been that Obama mispoke on the characterization of the event but that the actaul event may be very real, at this point we really cannot be sure. It reminds me of that Army soldier fabricated his service I think back around 2003 that people ran with only to find out to be proven he never served in a forward operating unit and could have never witnessed what he said he did.
I am not saying that the event is a fabrication, but if it is than it demonstrates the level at which such things get within our politics today; alot of trust without any real verfication I suppose.
I felt he mispoke immediately mainly because a "Capt." does not command/control platoons, that level of responsibility is in the order conducted by LT's. Again he may simply have just mispoke. In any case it may work to Obama's advantage to let this work out and if all points are true it may very well go to disprove the myth that only Republicans look out after the military.
You have to remember there are alot of younger veterans now in their thirties/forties downsized by the Clinton administration during the 90's that will vote on issues/emotions that these things bring up so Obama should put it to bed orderly and quickly, satisfy requests and move on towards campaigning for President against McCain.

and Jake Tapper of ABC was put in contact with the officer in question who has verified the gist of what Obama said, but as a serving active duty officer asked not to be identified.

There has been one scandal after another in any number of different areas with the bunch of incompetents running our Executive branch of government.  Instead of giving the benefit of the doubt to the people who go out and lie every day so the Liar-In-Chief can save face, it is way long past time we give the benefit of the doubt to the people who have been putting their lives on the line to protect the country.

With all due respect to Senator Warner and his service, I would expose his politicking for what it is.

The bashing of Warner and his inquiry only goes to support the idealogue of the extreme right talk show radio hosts who pound everyday that Republicans who step across the aisle and work with Democrats are absolutely crazy and misguided.
Many on RK embraced Warner in his attempts to pull people from both sides on climate change and was the one Republican who really tried to get things rolling and now of course the same people bash the heck out of him for seeking an inquiry into the allegations or events that perpetuated the comments of Obama. Simply because it was Obama. If Clinton had made the same comments I imagine it would be perfectly fine for Warner to be seeking the inquiry.
Why am I feeling like no matter what the feeling little is changing in the discourse of politics. I could care less about the political implications of any of this, what we should be caring about is the men and women in uniform should the soldiers story be accurate and making the lives of those serving better and safer.

In the end I care very little for self-absorbed politicians on either side when compared to members of the armed services of this country.

Now I know why I am having such a problem leaving the Independent camp and why the ranks of Virginia independents is growing. Each day last weeks political allies are somehow this weeks enemies. Whats a rationale voter to do?

And I have taken on my fellow Obama supporters and I've defended Hillary when I thought attacks were unfair to her.  And I've even defended Republicans in the past.

But this attempt by Warner was to get the identity of a possible whistleblower who could face personal and professional consequences for telling the truth on behalf of his fellow soldiers.  It's a fishing expedition that could expose a military person to the reprisals of a vindictive administration.

The things that this person told Obama fit a much larger pattern of this administration sending troops into harm's way without proper equipment.

It's been well documented by many others.  Warner did not need the solder's name.  He does not have to launch an investigation.  Nothing that Obama said was unknown to him or anybody else.  Again, this is a pattern that has been going on since the beginning of the war in Iraq.  And if you cared about the military, you'd know this too.

And even if Hillary had said, I most assuredly would be defending her the same way.

to have an investigation on baseball by Congress than it is to get to the bottom of something that either did or is placing our troops in harms way or keeping them from be adequately supplied in order to bring them home safe?
Wow.
I would think that most people would love the opportunity to explore the depths of the administrations incompetance and dispell the myth that Republicans always put the military first whereas Democrats neglect the military.
I still feel this whole thing has little to do with "the whistleblower" per say as much as the issue at hand.
John Warner like it or not has always had a history of looking out for the military and Virginia's military interests and who else would you have had raise the issue.
I guess we have forgotten the days of Ollie North. Warner is hardly being partisan here.
Maybe Jim Webb will give Warner a call a provide him with his own son's take on what it was like to be in country during this war.

But what should be investigated is how well the military has supplied the troops with equipment and soldiers for the different operations.

To be honest, a lot is already known. It is no secret that our military is overextended. Just this week there were at least one discussion about it in Raising Kaine.

There has been the bad body armor for the theater and refusal to consider alternatives and refusal to buy armored vehicles (I believe that Rumsfeld aesthetically disliked them for being too "WWII" I heard this week that the vehicles started to be bought when Gates became the Secretary of Defense). A refusal to give the military leaders in Afghanistan enough troops, a refusal to have enough troops in Iraq to begin with.

And how about the negligence from the military to provide proper medical treatment in Walter Reed to injured soldiers? Or the refusal from the military to treat soldiers suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and for other mental health treatment.

Or how about the stories of soldiers coming back from Iraq and becoming homeless?

If this is news to John Warner, what exactly has he been doing in the last 5 years?

John Warner has had a long record of serving honorably in the Senate. No one can dispute that. No one can take away his looking after the military all of these years.

It is the recent conduct that it is mystifying. These kinds of stories have been circulating since Iraq started. Why didn't he start investigating them back then? If I know them by reading the paper, he should know them too.

yes invesitgate because I would love to get the Joint Chief back up and talk about becasue of the shortage of steel they have been unable to meet the demands of the mission again. I love how Washington and the media likes the side step that at every chance. We do not have enough steel because we have shipped off all of our manufacturing jobs....like in Ohio and PA two mkore startes with Primaries coming up...and supply was being held up do to delays in China and South Africa.

Yeah, a bigger travesty than the original story is we have to get steel from another country to build our military infrastructure and weapons. Things like NAFTA were reall "boons" for our economy and security.

Maybe for once just once there will be a real debate on issues like this on Tuesday night in Ohio.

I mean, don't we all remember Rumsfeld's "You go to war with the army you have" comment?  That was in response to a soldier's complaint about equipment, and that incident happened years ago.

If Obama's comment actually informed Warner of this problem, then Warner has been out to lunch on what he himself is calling an important issue.  

Warner knows what is right, but acts against his consciousness. He will publicly come out against torture, and then vote along with the party line.

Warner appears to be working across the aisle, and that is why he gets criticized by right-wing radio. But his votes, which is what really counts, tend to align with the central party line.

He did not misspeak.  He had his facts; he had a credible source whose story has since been confirmed.  Furthermore, this is part of a much larger pattern with this administration.

The Bush administration has been sending its Armed Forces men and women into dangerous battle situations ill equipped for years.  This has been documented over and over again.

There have even been stories of families forced to raise money to help their sons, daughters and spouses purchase body armor, which should be provided by the military.  When before have we ever sent our troops into battle without the proper equipment?  

As to Obama's other important point, the misadventure in Iraq diverted precious resources from the real threat in Afghanistan.  We captured Saddam Hussein and orchestrated his execution by the Shiites.  But Osama bin Laden, the only one who attacked American civilians, still mocks us from the wild tribal regions of Pakistan.  

Obama, the one who supposedly has less experience in foreign policy and military matters, saw this one clearly.

Experience is important but only when it's coupled with good judgment.  Likewise, Obama and his campaign staff surely had the good judgment to vet the soldier's story before using it.  That's why it checked out.

The crucial point is that Obama has the good judgment needed to be president and no amount of cheap politicking by Warner and McCain will change that.