Now, that has consequences -- that has significant consequences, because it has diverted attention from Afghanistan where al Qaeda, that killed 3,000 Americans, are stronger now than at any time since 2001.

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.

OBAMA: 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.

NBC News also spoke to the captain Friday.

The captain told NBC News that he was talking about not having enough ammunition and no Humvees for training, but that his unit underwent a three-week crash course in Afghanistan before they saw combat.

The captain, who spoke on background because he's still active duty, said that his unit temporarily had to replace their .50-caliber turret-mounted machine gun with a weapon seized from the Taliban because they couldn't get a needed part fast enough.

He did not say that any of the shortages contributed to any combat casualties in his unit. But he said any shortage, whether in training or combat operations, was inexcusable for the U.S. military.

While Obama didn't say the lack of equipment occurred during combat vs. training, I think he implied it by prefacing the story with a statement about 3,000 Americans being killed by al Qaeda, which is now stronger in Afghanistan.

Obama said the captain's unit lacked ammo and humvees. The captain says they didn't lack ammo once in Afghanistan, only during training.

Also, Obama never spoke directly with the Captain about the incident, he was repeating a story his staff had told him.

David Axelrod told the National Review's Stephen Spruiell, "that was a discussion that a captain in the military had with our staff, and he asked that that be passed along to Senator Obama."

Nor did Obama mention this occurred several years ago. (The captain, at that time, was a Lieutenant.)

In all, I think the differences are petty. What I question, is Obama use of this hearsay incident to argue he's ready to be commander in chief. Back to the transcript:

And on what I believe was the single most important foreign policy decision of this generation, whether or not to go to war in Iraq, I believe I showed the judgment of a commander in chief. And I think that Senator Clinton was wrong in her judgments on that.

Now, that has consequences -- that has significant consequences, because it has diverted attention from Afghanistan where al Qaeda, that killed 3,000 Americans, are stronger now than at any time since 2001.

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.....

Obama, as we all know, expressed his opposition to the war in 2002. What legislation has he introduced in his three years in the Senate to strengthen the ability of our troops fighting in Afghanistan, where he believes the fight should be taking place? Or any other topic related to the military?

Here's one from Hillary, in Feb. 2007, speaking on the floor of the Senate about a bill she was introducing:

Finally, I would prohibit any spending to increase troop levels unless, and until, the Secretary of Defense certifies that our American troops will have the proper training and equipment for whatever mission they are ordered to fulfill. Yesterday I read the classified report outlining the findings by the Department of Defense's Inspector General about the problems that have been faced by our troops getting the equipment they desperately need in combat areas like Iraq. The Inspector General did not have the full cooperation of the Department of Defense and it is heartbreaking that the Inspector General could conclude that the U.S. military still has failed to equip our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially for the kind of warfare that they are confronting with IEDs and insurgents who are attacking them in asymmetric, unconventional warfare.

This report comes on the heals of an article in The Washington Post last week entitled, "Equipment for Troops is Lacking: Troops Must Make Do, Officials say." The Washington Post story raised serious questions about the adequacy of the supply of up-armored humvees and trucks. One of our Generals is quoted as saying that he doesn't have the equipment that our forces need and they will have to go into battle with what they have.

On my way back from Iraq and Afghanistan, I stopped at Landstuhl Hospital in Germany to visit with some of our wounded soldiers. I met with one young man who was lying in his bed with his injuries that he had suffered from one of the shape charges, these new, more advanced, more sophisticated command-controlled IEDs, the Improvised Explosive Devices. He told me that the armored fully equipped humvee that saved his life and that of the life -- the lives of his buddies who were with him. But he also told me that not everybody that he served with had that kind of protection because there weren't enough of those armored vehicles to go around.

Madam President, I do not believe that the Congress can shirk its responsibility.

What has Obama done, legislatively or otherwise, that prepares him to be Commander in Chief?

Hillary has served on the Senate Armed Services Committee and three of its subcommittees, Airland, Emerging Threats and Capabilities and Readiness and Management Support

She introduced a bill to enhance services available to members of the Armed Forces returning from deployment in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom to assist them in transitioning to civilian life.

She introduced a bill to prevent nuclear terrorism.

She co-sponsored the Standing With Our Troops Act of 2005 to increase authorized end strengths for the Army and Marine Corps. The bill also required the Secretary of Defense to publish a monthly accounting of military casualties incurred in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, and any other operation undertaken under the Global War on Terrorism, among other things. Sen. Obama didn't sign as one of the 25 co-sponsors.

She co-sponsored the Targeting Terrorists More Effectively Act of 2005:

Targeting Terrorists More Effectively Act of 2005 - Sets forth provisions with respect to: (1) Army special operations forces increases; (2) increasing foreign language expertise in the United States for the purpose of improving national security; (3) preventing terrorist financing; (4) prohibiting transactions with countries that support terrorism; (5) preventing the growth of radical Islamic fundamentalism, and promoting democracy and development in the Middle East, Central Asia, South Asia, and Southeast Asia; (6) advancing U.S. interests through diplomacy; (7) the treatment of detainees, including establishment of a National Commission to Review Policy Regarding the Treatment of Detainees; (8) strategy for the U.S. relationship with Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia; (9) non-proliferation programs, including Russian nuclear facilities and tactical nuclear weapons; (10) border protection, including border personnel increases; (11) seaport protection, including deployment of radiation detection portal equipment, tanker security, and acceleration of the Megaports Initiative; (12) first responders, including training for law enforcement personnel; and (13) prohibitions on war profiteering.

Sen. Obama was not one of the 12 co-sponsors.

She co-sponsored a bill to require that Homeland Security grants related to terrorism preparedness and prevention be awarded based strictly on an assessment of risk, threat, and vulnerabilities.

I don't mean to suggest this is all Hillary has done in this area. It's just a brief glance at her legislative record since 2005 when Obama became a Senator. Nor do I have any expertise on the military.

My question pertains to Barack Obama's readiness to serve as Commander in Chief. Again, what has he done, legislatively or otherwise, that shows his readiness to lead our country as Commander-in-Chief? Is it just that he expressed his opposition to the war back in 2002? I haven't researched his record. I'm hoping his supporters can enlighten us.