Another Obama Gaffe

Obama Doesn't Understand Role of Joint Chiefs: Will MSM Take Note?
By Mark Finkelstein | July 14, 2008 - 17:35

A couple days ago at the gym, listening to a Hugh Hewitt podcast and perhaps not paying as much attention as I should have while pedaling away, I heard Hugh mention that Barack Obama doesn't understand the role of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. What was Hugh referring to? As the British would say: the penny just dropped. A few minutes ago, CNN's Situation Room played a clip of Obama saying this about his plan for Iraq:

BARACK OBAMA: I'm going to call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and give them a new mission, and that is to bring the war in Iraq to a close. We are going to get out.

There's only one problem. The Joint Chiefs of Staff does not have operational command of U.S. military forces. That authority resides in the commanders of the various Unified Combatant Commands. CENTCOM is the command with responsibility for Iraq [and 26 other countries including Afghanistan and Pakistan]. Earlier this month, the Senate confirmed Pres. Bush's appointment of Gen. David Petraeus as CENTCOM commander. Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno is the new US commander for Iraq, replacing Gen. Petraeus. Those are the people, along with the Secretary of Defense, to whom the orders Obama spoke of would be issued.

http://newsbusters.org/static/2008/07/2008-07-14CNNSRObama.wmv

Sorry, couldn't resist reporting another "gaffe". Heh heh.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/obamagaffeamericadidntinventautomobile

Markwes wrote:Sorry, couldn't resist reporting another "gaffe". Heh heh.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/obamagaffeamericadidntinventautomobile

Man, I think it's a stretch to call this a gaffe. If he had said "invented the first internal combustion horseless carriage" I may consider that a gaffe... "we" invented the automobile? ...all of America? ...alongside many other inventors who were experimenting at the same time. Like A/C electric transmission, the telephone, "cyberspace", et. al.

Yawn for sure on this one...

No, Henry Ford pretty much invented the assembly line, which helped in the mass production of automobiles. But he was many years after the first creation of a car. Why is this a yawn?

I think a bigger gaffe is on his auto team to save the American auto companies. It was reported 16 of his 18 member team own/drive foreign brands.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090223/AUTO01/902230327

Markwes wrote:No, Henry Ford pretty much invented the assembly line, which helped in the mass production of automobiles. But he was many years after the first creation of a car. Why is this a yawn?

I wonder if this is kind of like if someone said Bill Gates invented the computer...

Scooby01_98 wrote:I think a bigger gaffe is on his auto team to save the American auto companies. It was reported 16 of his 18 member team own/drive foreign brands.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090223/AUTO01/902230327

Interesting. So the vetting/interview process must include what kind of car a person drives and that has some bearing on how well a person can do a job or represent the best interests of the American auto industry?

Do all American car company executives fly in jets built by American owned companies?

I've not met a single person who understands the tangled web of ownerships, shares, sales, partnerships etc, across all brands and all manufacturers worldwide. It's damn near impossible.

I suppose if he were to form an agriculture team, the scrutiny would be placed on the type of cheese they prefer on their cheese toasties, AND whether it was milk sourced from domestic cattle or goats?



Lets talk about the TARP money given to banks vs. the amount of foreign investment in failing US banks... completely irrelevant.

meta4 wrote:

Scooby01_98 wrote:I think a bigger gaffe is on his auto team to save the American auto companies. It was reported 16 of his 18 member team own/drive foreign brands.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090223/AUTO01/902230327

Interesting. So the vetting/interview process must include what kind of car a person drives and that has some bearing on how well a person can do a job or represent the best interests of the American auto industry?

Do all American car company executives fly in jets built by American owned companies?

I've not met a single person who understands the tangled web of ownerships, shares, sales, partnerships etc, across all brands and all manufacturers worldwide. It's damn near impossible.

I suppose if he were to form an agriculture team, the scrutiny would be placed on the type of cheese they prefer on their cheese toasties, AND whether it was milk sourced from domestic cattle or goats?



Lets talk about the TARP money given to banks vs. the amount of foreign investment in failing US banks... completely irrelevant.

While I harped on what they own....did you look at the background of the people doing their recovery plan. Not one manufacturing person on the committee. Why was no one selected that might know something about manufacturing? You know past CEO's not necessarily auto but manufacturing in general. Jack Welch comes immediately to mind, Lee Iacocca might be a little too old, but you get the jest.

Scooby01_98 wrote:While I harped on what they own....did you look at the background of the people doing their recovery plan. Not one manufacturing person on the committee. Why was no one selected that might know something about manufacturing? You know past CEO's not necessarily auto but manufacturing in general. Jack Welch comes immediately to mind, Lee Iacocca might be a little too old, but you get the jest.

I think follow you. It's the old notion shared by both labor unions and manufacturing that unless an executive/CEO was once a line worker, they somehow do not understand the challenges of manufacturing intimately enough to be qualified to make good decisions that effect the little guy on the line. Meanwhile, the guy on the line doesn't study finite mathematics or watch the credit markets and doesn't have a clue what financial, legal, or administrative environment the company's executives face.

So unless it's plainly obvious why Mr. X was chosen for the committee - i.e. he wears a flag lapel pin or drives a Hummer.

So forget you read this line, then reread it and find out what kinds of vehicles shuttle them to work and back.

Cabinet officials are typically transported to and from work by security officials in government vehicles.

So this article appeals to the laborer, and is designed to suggest that because a task force AIDE drives a Toyota Highlander - GM, Chrysler, and Ford are as good as dead. If the article were any more transparent in it's obvious pro-laborer, pro-union bias than it already is, it could easily sneak up on someone and "pants" them.

Especially when you put all those gov't wall street/fed reserve personnel that have done just a bang up job using those TARP funds with the banks. Those same people are going to save those automobile manufacturing companies/jobs.

I would definitely be looking for someone outside of gov't.

Scooby01_98 wrote:Especially when you put all those gov't wall street/fed reserve personnel that have done just a bang up job using those TARP funds with the banks. Those same people are going to save those automobile manufacturing companies/jobs.

I would definitely be looking for someone outside of gov't.

True, the talent needs to come from somewhere. I guess I'll keep my fingers crossed. No matter what the gov does with the money, the outside is going to have to use it wisely. IMO, a much bigger challenge lay ahead with these car companies themselves rather than with the GOV oversight. To the gov, this is not a life or death situation. It better be a life or 'death' situation to that private institution seeking help. The auto companies are going to have to take responsibility.