 |  |
 
October 2011
September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
     |
 Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! October 29, 2009 Honoring the fallenBy GreyhawkAs the Obama administration debated resource requirements, October became the deadliest month for U.S. forces in Afghanistan since the beginning of the war. Even before the "record numbers" the president's approval ratings on Afghanistan were in free fall: In previous polls, Obama received some of his highest ratings in relation to his dealings with Afghanistan, including 63 percent approval in April of his handling of the situation there. In the latest poll, 45 percent approve, down 10 percentage points in the past month alone, and 47 percent disapprove, an increase of 10 points. Nearly a third of those surveyed say they strongly disapprove.How to turn the situation around? Some say more troops, some say change strategy, others say withdraw - but someone in the White House got the bright idea that now would be a good time for a photo op. A small contingent of reporters and photographers accompanied Mr. Obama to Dover, where he arrived at 12:34 a.m. aboard Marine One. He returned to the South Lawn of the White House at 4:45 a.m.It should have been a "good" day for the project; "This week alone, about two dozen soldiers have died in attacks and accidents." But while the remains of 15 soldiers and three federal agents arrived at Dover while the president was there, only one family elected to participate: The other families chose not to, officials said, under a new Pentagon policy that lifted an 18-year ban on media covering the return of U.S. service members killed in action if families provide permission.  In the six months since the Obama administration lifted the Dover photo ban "258 families were allowed to choose whether they wanted the media present, 60 percent said yes, according to the military." But just because families consent to coverage doesn't mean news organizations are always interested. After First Amendment advocates fought for the right to document the arrival of the flag-draped metal caskets, dubbed "transfer cases" by the military, there are often just a handful of journalists on hand. More than a third of all ceremonies open to the media in the first six months were covered only by the Associated Press. Perhaps better days lie ahead. 
 Photo of the Day for October 29, 2009. Members of the press pool study inscriptions on ceremonial shovels prior to a Presidential commemorative tree planting on the North Lawn of the White House, Oct. 28, 2009. October 28, 2009. (Official White House Photo by Chuck Kennedy) More - someone ensured no angle on this story was left unexplored in the global coverage of this event. England: Under George Bush, who launched the conflict in retaliation for the terrorist 9/11 attacks, news media were barred from observing the return of fallen troops through Dover airbase. In a pre-dawn chill, he boarded the C-17 cargo plane that transported the remains of one soldier, US Army Sergeant Dale Griffin. An air force chaplain led a prayer on board and Mr Obama then stood at attention at the base of the plane's loading ramp as Sergeant Griffin's family arrived.Still more - a good question from Matt: If the family of Sergeant Dale Griffin hadn't approved the media to photograph his remains returning to the United States (they were the only family that gave approval), would the President have still made the trip the Dover?A good question for the White House, that is - and I'm certain that's who he's asking, even if it's not answerable. As for the family, they (like so many others) leave me humbled and amazed: Griffin, who was a part of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, joined the Army immediately after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, according to his mother, Dona Griffin, who was interviewed by the Tribune-Star earlier this month. At the time of that interview, Dona Griffin and husband Gene were leading volunteers at the Terre Haute Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints making about 40 blankets for U.S. servicemen and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Final update - here's video of the event. Nice camera work. And never say final update: The original press release from the Air Force announced two families had authorized media coverage - but today it was updated to list only one. Here's why: Bates' name was on an Air Force list released Wednesday of soldiers whose families had authorized media coverage of a soldier's return. It did not list his unit. The family later reversed the decision. PFC Brian Bates is survived by his wife, 2-year-old daughter and 1-year-old son. And while others may debate the act, as each of the fallen were "come before Obama" in their turn an AP reporter was clearly impressed by the man at the center of attention: Next day update: The New York Times has rewritten their story, deleting some of the quotes at the beginning of this post. (Hat tip: Nice Deb) And: The wife of Army Pfc. Brian Bates, who died Tuesday in Afghanistan, said she changed her mind and decided against allowing coverage after learning by phone around 11 p.m. EDT Wednesday that Obama would attend. Posted by Greyhawk / October 29, 2009 8:41 AM | Permalink 2 TrackBacksOn the day of the president's visit to Dover the original press release from the Air Force announced two of 15 military families had authorized media coverage - the day after it was updated to list only one. Here's why:Bates' name was on an Air Force l... Read More Pres'ent B-rawk, quoted at Blackfive:"First time I saw 10th Mountain Division, you guys were in southern Iraq. When I went back to visit Afghanistan, you guys were the first ones there. I had the great honor of seeing some of you because a comrade of y... Read More 61 CommentsLeave a comment |
November 26, 2010America@war [Greyhawk]
I think anyone who's ever pondered the "comment" option - once only available on blogs and bulletin boards, now ubiquitous on almost any web site - will appreciate this:
The so-called faculty of writing is not so much a faculty of writing as it is a faculty of thinking. When a man says, "I have an idea but I can't express it"; that man hasn't an idea but merely a vague feeling. If a man has a feeling of that kind, and will sit down for a half an hour and persistently try to put into writing what he feels, the probabilities are at least 90 percent that he will either be able to record it, or else realize that he has no idea at all. In either case, he will do himself a benefit. That's wisdom from the past, captured for posterity at the US Naval Institute, shared via the web on the institute's 137th anniversary. From their about page:
"The Naval Institute has three core activities," among them, History and Preservation: The Naval Institute also has recently introduced Americans at War, a living history of Americans at war in their own words and from their own experiences. These 90-second vignettes convey powerful stories of inspiration, pride, and patriotism. Take a look at the collection, and you'll see it's not limited to accounts from those who served on ships at sea, members of the other branches are well-represented. I'm fortunate to have met USNI's Mary Ripley, she's responsible for the institute's oral history program (and she's the daughter of the late John Ripley, whose story is told here). She also deserves much credit for their blog. ("We're not the Navy nor any government agency. Blog and comment freely.") We met at a milblog conference - Mary knew (and I would come to realize) that milbloggers are the 21st-century version of exactly what the US Naval Institute is all about. Once that light bulb came on in my head, I mentioned a vague idea for a project to her - milblogs as the 21st century oral history that they are. "Put that in writing," she said (of course - see first paragraph above!) - and here's part of the result. Shortly after the first tent was pitched by the American military in Iraq a wire was connected to a computer therein, and the internet was available to a generation of Americans at war - many of whom had grown up online. From that point on, at any given moment, somewhere in Iraq a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine was at a keyboard sharing the events of his or her day with the folks back home. While most would simply fire off an email, others took advantage of the (then) relatively new online blogging platforms to post their thoughts and experiences for the entire world to see. The milblog was born - and from that moment to this stories detailing everything from the most mundane aspects of camp life to intense combat action (often described within hours of the event) have been available on the web... And et cetera - but since you're reading this on a milblog, you probably knew that. And you know that milblogs aren't just blogs written by troops at war, that many friends, family members, and supporters likewise documented their story of America at war online in near-real time, as those stories developed. The diversity in membership of that group is broad, the one thing we all have in common is the impulse to make sense of the seemingly senseless, and communicate the tale - for each of us that impulse was strong enough to overcome whatever barriers prevent the vast majority of people from doing the same. Everyone at some point has some vague idea they believe should be shared - we were the people who, from some combination of internal and external urging, found and spent those many half hours persistently trying to write it down. But where will all that be in another 137 years? Or five or ten, for that matter. That's something I've asked myself since at least 2004 - when I wrote this:
Membership in the ghost battalion has grown in the years since, and an ever growing majority of those abandoned-but-still-standing sites are vanishing. Have you checked out Lt Smash's site lately? How about Sgt Hook's? If you're a long-time milblog reader you know the first widely-read milblog from Operation Iraq Freedom and the first widely-read milblog from Afghanistan are both gone from the web. If you're a relative newcomer to this world you may never even have heard of them - or the dozens upon dozens of others who carried forth the standard they set down. If you have a vague notion that something should be done about that, (a notion I've heard expressed more than once...) then you and I and the good folks at the US Naval Institute are in agreement. Preserving the history documented by the milbloggers is just one of the goals of the milblog project, the once-vague idea that we're now making real. And it's a big idea, if I say so myself - too big to explain in one simple blog post, so stand by for more. Likewise, it's too big a task to be accomplished by just one person. So if you're a milblogger (and exactly what is a milblogger? is a topic for much further discussion on its own) I'm asking for your help. All I'll really need is just a little bit (maybe just one or two of those half hours...) of your time, and your willingness to tell the tale. We've already made history, it's time to save it. (More to follow...) Posted 4:02 PM | Permalink |
Comments (0) |
|
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
 
 
 Furthermore, I will occasionally use satire or parody herein. The bottom line: it's my house. I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email. Original content copyright © 2003 - 2011 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed. Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com  Tending Distant Far from hearth and home, watching What tales we'll tell When things grim Some distant sunset, vision fading Saluting fallen friends whose names - Greyhawk, Baghdad, December 2004 |
I waded into the comments section at the NYT in hope that some of the readers saw how incredibly crass Obama's photo op of this. If he had visited quietly without cameras, I'd have been very impressed. But the photos... I am literally ill with the thought of the Commander in Chief using a dead soldier as a PR photo op.
I perused the first page of comments and most people thought it was "fantastic" and "showed more empathy than the Bush-Cheney administration ever did." They called him a hero and a man of great integrity for doing this.
I want to cry.
So if he goes to pay his repsects, he's just looking for a photo-op.
Or if he doesn't go pay his respects, he's dishonoring their service.
Without the photos, there IS no respect. Without the photos there's nothing to care about, and no coverage of the soldier's return home. If he visits "quietly," so what? Nobody cares, and nobody remembers.
By showing up, Obama guarantees press coverage and reminds all the head-in-the-sand lazy, fatbody Americans that there's actually two wars going on.
So yeah, it's a photo op. It did its job, and it got people's attention.
I don't care about whether people see it as "empathy" or "integrity" or any nonsense like that. They rationalize their way if they want. It's not about Obama, or any politican.
He could have gone any time he wanted since the day he was sworn in. instead, he picks now? What is different between then and now? ANSWER: Then, he was still playing gung-ho about Afghan being 'the real battle.'
Now? Not so much, so get the press gaggle in tow and put on a show.
I'm (grudgingly) willing to give the President the benefit of the doubt and believe that he would've "gone to Dover" anyway. But it's hard for me to read this - "Bush spent time with grieving military families but never went to Dover" - from the Guardian and not infer that the Guardian was taking a slap at Bush... when the salient fact is that Bush was unstintingly attentive to military families and chose not to turn their private tragedies into circuses, however inadvertently. (Being a President tends to gain you an entourage, however little you may want one.)
I would've liked Obama's choice better if he had, say, "gone to Dover" but had assiduously avoided the cameras. However, since he's never assiduously avoided the cameras, I recognize my sentiment as bootless...
NS Webster, I couldn't disagree with you more. If there had simply been a press release from the WH detailing his visit, and no cameras on him, it would have meant just as much to his supporters and would not have offended families of service members like myself. It is telling that only one family agreed to allow cameras when usually more than half do so. The families saw this for what it was, and you are naive to not realize that.
I'm sorry, but in context of the hits he's getting for dithering/waffling about strategy while Americans are dying for lack of backup, it can be nothing but a photo op to his own personal benefit. Just read the comments at the NYT and you'll see it played exactly as intended: "Oh, look at his compassion, I can see why he's taking so long to decide! Oh, this is so special, see how much he cares? Oh, oh, oh, he's such a leader!"
Meanwhile the physical embodiment of a family's love, and now-dashed hope and dreams, touches back down in the country for which he gave his life. I guarantee you, 99.9% of the people commenting there know not a thing about that man, nor will they ever think of him again. If the point was to drive home the "reality of war," it failed miserably.
"The images and the sentiment of the president's five-hour trip to Delaware were intended by the White House to convey to the nation that Mr. Obama was not making his Afghanistan decision lightly or in haste."
I'm not seeing anything about honor, empathy, or integrity in that quote.
Actually, I haven't been in the least offended that he hasn't "paid his respects" at Dover before. That is a deeply personal and intimate thing, and something that it never occurred to me Bush or any other president should attend. The ceremony associated with it, being carried by bothers in arms, etc.... He may be the Commander in Chief, but on occasions like this he is an outsider. And as president, his visit could never be anything other than a photo op unless he did it privately.
As Commander-in-Chief he is NOT an outsider and obviously took great care to make sure he did what he did correctly. He rendered a very good salute, he stayed in step and formation, and by being prepared he did his best to honor their service. I respect him for doing so.
Right on, Sarge! It was DESIGNED to make HIM LOOK GOOD, not to make people aware that there's a war on.
As a commander in chief, he's a disgrace. Lead from the front, not from the funeral. Get off the golf course and go to A-stan. You want the ground truth? Get your Brooks Brothers butt over to where the men are fighting and dying.
It bugs the crap out of me that he got a photo op out of this... but I am glad to see that he's finally paying respects to those who have given all for our country. He could have done this a long time ago, but waited until we had a terrible day, with 14 dead, to do so. The fact that only one of the 14 families gave photo consent says a lot to me about the remaining 13.
Bush met with MANY families of the fallen- and wounded- during his two terms, but he never made a big deal about it. I respect the hell out of that decision. Those who know... know. And those who do not make silly comments like "he showed more empathy than the Bush-Cheney administration ever did."
I cannot fault him for showing up or spending time with the families. Press coverage of the event was not planned by Obama- it was granted by one of the families. I will, however, tear him to shreds if he falters and becomes too weak-kneed to issue the orders to get the job done in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Of course he got a photo op out of it. Do you honestly believe the most media-savvy president ever would have done it if no families had agreed?
Without the photos, there IS no respect. Without the photos there's nothing to care about, and no coverage of the soldier's return home. If he visits "quietly," so what? Nobody cares, and nobody remembers.
Mr Webster, This is what it is, using our fallen as a prop for a photo-op.
The only respect he needs to earn is from the families of the fallen and they don't need a camera because they're right there. Trust me, they care and they remember.
This press coverage is not getting the attention of the "head-in-the-sand lazy, fatbody Americans" they're at the mall and don't care.
This is ALL about Obama.
How does this make him look good? It's not exactly a feel-good image.
All the hippies who were demanding Bush go to funerals would have said the exact same thing if he had ever actually gone to one - that it's a cynical photo-op, blah blah blah.
Believe me, I have no respect for the people who are saying this somehow proves Obama's "integrity" - it has nothing to do with Obama, and they're just using him to make themselves feel better about their faux patriotism. It's not his moment - he's sharing someone elses, the returning soldiers. It's not like he was a campaign speech there. He showed up, saluted the soldiers, and left. He's the President, and he gets to do that.
As for the quote: "The images and the sentiment of the president's five-hour trip to Delaware were intended by the White House to convey to the nation that Mr. Obama was not making his Afghanistan decision lightly or in haste."
Who said that? It's not a quoted remark, it's a news reporter's analysis. And I don't even know what it means, anyway. What's one got to do with the other?
"How does this make him look good? It's not exactly a feel-good image."
I think it was a bad idea from the get-go, but in the minds of many it does make him look good - so what I think doesn't matter.
And unless he pulls out of Afghanistan he'll have plenty more chances to look good for them in the years to come. The question in my mind is how long does he think they'll continue praise his caring nature? And what will he do when they stop?
What can I tell you? If it's "ALL about Obama," then it was "ALL about Bush."
It's just two sides of the same coin, and it's always cynical and it's always bitter. It's sad, is what it is.
What can I tell you? If it's "ALL about Obama," then it was "ALL about Bush."
But Bush didn't position himself behind caskets for photo ops! Nor did he invite press cameras into his meetings with families of the wounded and fallen!
He should have! A picture of his meeting with Cindy Sheehan would have gone a long way to dispel her claims that he refused to meet with her.
No one believes that, everyone knows that he met with her, she has even admitted it.
For my part, I always thought the decision to let families choose whether or not they wanted photos was the best one the DoD could have made.
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the blog post From the Front: 10/29/2009 News and Personal dispatches from the front and the home front.
As I said when I opposed repealing the ban on photographing the coffins: If it takes a photo of a flag-draped coffin to "honor" the dead, then honoring the dead is not their intention." How effective to the political statement the WH was making would this have been if "A small contingent of... [WH advisors] accompanied Mr. Obama to Dover, where he arrived at 12:34 a.m. aboard Marine One. He returned to the South Lawn of the White House at 4:45 a.m." after paying his respects to the war dead would have been buried on page 10??
As I also said then, "Is there a political or monetary profit to be made [from lifting the ban]? Yes, I see." I still see.
"But Bush didn't position himself behind caskets for photo ops! Nor did he invite press cameras into his meetings with families of the wounded and fallen!"
If that's how you see it, that's fine, because I think any CinC needs to sometimes stand in front of the caskets of the men he sent to battle...so we just agree to disagree...I personally believe Bush owed it to the soldiers - as their commander - to show up when some, not all, returned home at Dover. BUT, I'm not at all upset or irate that Bush didn't, and I don't see political calculation in that decision. He made a choice that he felt was appropirate with the situation. I have an opinion, but I'm sitting on my couch. Bush had to make a real world choice, same as Obama.
And of course the hippies used it against him - "oh Bush is disrespecting the dead, oh why can't he go to a funeral, oh it's so terrible!" Which is absurd.
So there's really no difference between that, and to seeing cynical intentions when Obama actually shows up. Switch the words around and it's basically the same partisan argument.
You see it that Bush should have stayed in the background, despite that left-wing criticism. No problem. As long as you're consistent that Clinton, Nixon, Johnson, Reagan should also have never appeared at these return ceremonies, I have no problem with your point of view critiquing Obama. I know that Reagan was there when the Marines came back from Beirut, and I think he should have been. So, we simply disagree philosophically and we're obviously never going to come to the same position.
To me, it's not a political issue. It is ANY CinC's choice of how to honor the dead, and I'll take their intentions at face value. People want to call me naive? Whatever. There's a million other things to be cynical about.
Considering the timing, its hard not to be cynical and see a political motive in Obama's visit to Dover. Charges of dithering on making a decision about Afghanistan, while getting in 22 rounds of golf in 9 months have been making the guy look pretty bad. It has also been coming out that Bush gave up the game when the shooting started, as he did not want a family to see photos of him on the course on the day that they received news of their loved one's death. It appears to me that considering the timing, and how unusual this type of gesture is from Obama, the visit was pure damage control.
If it wasn't political then we wouldn't have known it happened.
" As long as you're consistent that Clinton, Nixon, Johnson, Reagan should also have never appeared at these return ceremonies, I have no problem with your point of view critiquing Obama."
Look out, it's someone with some intellectual integrity. Quick, everyone find a reason not to acknowledge this.
I bet that'll go down as well as me pointing out that if the idea is that bodies of fallen soldiers shouldn't be used for partisan political point scoring, you'd have made a far more compelling case if you'd disabled the comment function.
I'm sorry but I have a hard time seeing any non-veteran like Obama rendering a salute. Bush served, Obama didn't and that tells me all I need to know about the latter.
Well on Imus this morning it was all-
"That creep Bush never did anything like this"...
Well duh!
The ban was just lifted six months ago and but since President Bush didn't telegraph meeting with the families all over the world-it never happened. That's not just how The I-Man thinks that's about how everyone thinks.
If the press never told them it happened-it didn't happen. That's the danger of a bias or lazy press.
On the same show, Thomas Freidman was presented as a big "expert" on Afghanistan-because he "visited" three times.
He according to Friedman has thought seriously and long about Afghanistan and because he studied the Middle East during college he was able to draw certain conclusions and wrote a piece for the paper.
Ghee how many military people did Friedman consult?
Friedman talked to Obama for five hours over golf. How much time has McChrystal had with Obama?
But, even on he FOX Business Channel-during the Imus show-
Friedman is the expert.
Friedman,is the go to guy because-he's dedicated three visits to the area-of perhaps a couple of days a piece.
Never mind the military who have done three tours...
Beside the point that most of Friedman's nouvelle observations where based on parallels to old nation state conflicts and not the new parameters of terrorism.
The arrogance of the media in full bloom-and the Presidency that loves them.
FbL
"Do you honestly believe the most media-savvy president ever would have done it if no families had agreed?"
I think that question was answered way back when Obama took his triumphal campaign march through Europe, where he actually cancelled his visit to Landstuhl, when he discovered he couldn't drag a photographer along. He decided to pass the time in his hotel gym instead.
Let's do the math in Obama Time-
McChrystal-
15 minutes on the tarmac in Copenhagen.
Friedman the Arrogant Poseur five hours.
It's the Maholo/hollow Presidency.
I despise Obama, but this is a shitty report - let the man be President for God's sake. He is honouring dead American soldiers. He isn't campaigning, for once. This kind of reportage should be left to the lefties - you should be ashamed of yourself.
I do not appreciate the President's actions. Can, or should, he be there every time a fallen member is brought home? Why does any one service member or group "deserve" his personal attention and honor more than another?
President Bush's decision to not attend ceremonies at Dover or funerals was because due to the requirements of the office he could not guarantee he could show the same respect to all fallen members. What he could, and did, guarantee, though, was to make time in his schedule to personally meet the NOK for any who desired.
He also managed to meet with his commanders in the theater a bit more frequently than every seventy days.
The great lie in the media's coverage is the explicit implication that Bush avoided dealing with the war dead. In fact he was a regular visitor to families all across the nation after the bodies had been returned. See this from 2003 in the LA Times
http://articles.latimes.com/2003/nov/25/nation/na-bush25
Here is the truth
"White House officials say Bush eschews public memorials in favor of private meetings with families, which he feels show more respect for their grief.
"The president believes that this is an appropriate way to meet with them, to meet privately with them, to express his appreciation both as commander in chief and on behalf of the American people for all that these families have sacrificed," White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said on the way to Ft. Carson."
How about this story from 2005
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2005/08/15/bush-meets-with.php
Here is the truth
"Privately, Bush has met with about 900 family members of some 270 soldiers killed in Iraq or Afghanistan. The conversations are closed to the press, and Bush does not like to talk about what goes on in these grieving sessions, though there have been hints."
I'm pleased President Obama went to Dover to pay his respects, but given how little he's done so far, the media hosanna's are disgraceful when measured against President Bush's behavior.
I know when I first heard it this morning all the BREATHLESS reporting about the "surprise" visit I thought I was going to hear he was in Afghanistan but NO he crawled out in the dead of night to witness his failure to ACT in person!
This jerk BEAT up on President Bush every single day and made the war in Iraq DRAG because of politics here but this is the "good" war and the one he was going to win but he is too lily livered to WIN IT!
Obama's having the time of his worthless life; junkets, AF-1, golf, date nights, WH parties - and 'best' of all, dismantling the very foundation of this once-great country.
And why the Scots-Irish of the DoD sit by like catatonic zombies while Obama campaigns on the graves of our fallen soldiers, that's the mystery, and the insult.
"As long as you're consistent that Clinton, Nixon, Johnson, Reagan should also have never appeared at these return ceremonies"
I won't criticize a President for going to a return ceremony, nor for not going. Turning them into photo ops is another matter, and any President (of either party) can legitimately be subject to criticism for doing so. The photo op makes it about them, and not about the fallen servicemember(s).
I recognize that this is a generality, and that there can be exceptions... for example, attending a return ceremony on Memorial Day could be a legitimate and powerful message.
In my opinion, of course.
This bastard has as little use for the military as Clinton did. He used this dead serviceman as a prop to try and convince the gullible that he actually cares about the military who sacrifice so much for the nation. Sorry, this man's not buying it. I know too much about this liar.
I'll ask the same question I've seen asked lots of other places: If Obama truly hated the country and wanted to destroy it totally, WHAT WOULD HE HAVE DONE DIFFERENTLY TO THIS POINT?
My answer: nothing. Thanks 52%.
What I noticed is that his Marine guards have taught him how to render a proper salute. Notice the contrast between his hand salute and the Navy/Army/Air Force dude next to him.
Semper fi!
My understanding is the original plan was for the president to raise the fallen there on the ramp, but Republicans opposed the measure.
US Troops and American allies,
prepare to be abandoned
The strategy he devised in March is a failure. His dithering caused this, then he has the gall to salute the death he caused, for a photo op. Sickening.
We shouldn't be surprised though. He did say in his book, he Would Stand Muslim when the political winds shifted. I would say they have shifted.
I made the error in looking at what the Obama fan club was saying about this stunt - it was appalling. You'd think he turned water into wine. Yet, not one word about the troops, the DEA agents or the families. Their insults against Pres. Bush did outweigh their congratulations to Obama though. It was like a sporting event. I have been annoyed all day.
Of course it was a political gesture; the President is a politician. But it was also the right thing to do. Whatever hay Obama hopes to make from the photo-op, at least he got this right: showing respect to a fellow American who sacrificed a whole lot more than he ever has for the country. By no means am I a fan of the current commander-in-chief, but we ought to give him credit where it's due.
I was appalled by the photo op of a man saluting who not only did not serve (some presidents didn't) but who I think we can all agree would never have served and would have escaped to Canada had the Draft ensnared him. He hates this country and he loathes our military. I am in a large group of friends on FB (many of whom are retired military, as is my husband) and the opinion is uniformly negative on this photo op. The most common complaint was the picture makes them want to puke!
One can argue it was the right thing to do, it's about the fallen and their service, not Obama, yada yada yada. A huge swathe of the country ain't buyin' it and are outraged. And that's the truth.
I couldn't disagree more.
I am former military and married to a retiree, and we both found the President's honoring the service of the military members he commands comforting and well executed. He is not required to salute if he has not had former military experience, but as Commander-in-Chief he has the option to do so and he obviously took the time to learn to do it right and not render a sloppy salute or awkward steps. I respect him for trying, and just plain being there.
Many commenters here find Obama's appearance at Dover offensive based on their impression it was just a photo op. Others suggest such a presidential visit was long over due.
Bush 43 made a practice of meeting privately with family. We know what he did and his stated reason for doing so. If Obama now makes a practice of being present to witness the return of our fallen we will know this is the observance he has chosen to make. If we never see or read of him being in attendance in Dover again we will know this was just a crass attempt to burnish his image with the public.
Only time will demonstrate the truth behind this visit.
The 'never served' crowd here seems very unmilitary to me. Very uniformed. Must be a bunch of commenters who don't understand the U.S. military, or have zero experience with it.
Every American President serves.
Reagan went to Dover. Clinton went to Dover. Bush's dad went to Dover. Obama went to Dover. It's all about the chain of command and respect for those who serve under you.
Obama is not fit the shine the shoes of the newest military recruit.
In mind mind, meeting the return of American service members who have died in a terrorist attack (as Reagan did) at a time when we are not at war is a very different context than Obama's visit amid a politically-charged America and debate about the war and questions about his leadership of it. I would've been appalled if Bush had done it, too. Actually, I'd have been shocked, as that was not Bush's style (as has been pointed out above).
@Ed Garland - your comment is offensive to the entire military community.
The President is fit to shine a recruit's shoes, to give him his orders for battle, and to mourn his passing.
As was the President before him, and the one before him.
It's called the American form of government, our way of life, embodied in the flag those men died for.
I wonder if the families were inconvenienced by all the extra security that goes into a Presidential visit. It had to have added to their stress at least, one more thing to deal with. I understand Obama met with the families, including the ones who didn't authorize media coverage. Did they have a choice? Did they feel pressured in any way to spend time with him? (Bush only met with families who wanted to meet with him.) Maybe the families were happy having Obama there, I don't know. Who can know? It's not enough to refuse media coverage if the President and his entourage decide they want to show up anyway and share in the moment.
The NYTs must have received a friendly phone call from someone at the WH.
They changed this quote:
The images and the sentiment of the president's five-hour trip to Delaware were intended by the White House to convey to the nation that Mr. Obama was not making his Afghanistan decision lightly or in haste.
to this:
The image of the commander in chief standing on a darkened tarmac, offering a salute to one of the soldiers, highlighted the poignancy of a decision he is facing.
I read an earlier NYT article that said Obama had saluted one of those soldiers. Later in the article it was noted that only one family approved the photo op. I wonder if it's coincidence that he saluted just one soldier and it was the soldier whose family approved the photo op.
"Turning them into photo ops is another matter, and any President (of either party) can legitimately be subject to criticism for doing so. The photo op makes it about them, and not about the fallen servicemember(s)."
"Can" is a useful word, isn't it.
I recall seeing Bush standing on the rubble of the WTCs talking into a bullhorn and not once wondering how fortunate it was that the cameramen got a good footing just in time to catch that speech, for obvious reasons.
Now I won't criticize him for doing that, because that was the whole point of him being there, to be seen doing that. But I sure as shit know you never did then or since pal.
This being the pitfall of the after-the-fact invented principle to be applied to the team you don't like. It only works if your team didn't play the last game and won't play the next.
John | October 30, 2009 2:06 AM | Reply
"I read an earlier NYT article ... I wonder if it's coincidence that he saluted just one soldier and it was the soldier whose family approved the photo op."
Why would YOU wonder about this if you're the only source of this ridiculous lie ?
Just say he pissed on the coffins as they rolled off and get it over with you pissweak little coward.
The president was there for every soldier. He saluted each. The media was only authorized to cover one. Media coverage is at the discretion of the family of the soldier.
The rightness or wrongness of the story is up for discussion, reasonable folks can disagree (some without Party politics involved) but facts are facts.
Taking the cameras along ruined the whole thing as true gesture of respect for the fallen, as far as I am concerned.
We'll see if this was a one time thing - or perhaps he will meet with familes, ala the last POTUS.
I guess the real question is: would he have gone or has he already gone there without permission for a photo op?
I don't know what was in Obama's mind when he started this trip. No one but him knows for sure. The best I can hope for is that the whole episode becomes a learning experience for him. He needs to know that as President his words and actions have serious, profound consequences. At times he seems to forget what office he holds. It's past time he stops playing at President and starts being a real leader. He can't vote present for the next three years and he needs to learn that asap. A flag draped coffin is a stark reminder.
Fucking GHOUL!!!!
When you think that he can't sink any lower....