Early this morning, President Obama attended a brief dignified ceremony as the remains of 18 soldiers killed in Afghanistan were returned to Dover Air Force Base. There’s a picture of him saluting the casket of Army Sgt. Dale R. Griffin, 29, of Terre Haute, Indiana in this story in The New York Times after Sgt. Griffin’s family consented to have his casket photographed as part of the official rite the military conducts every time a soldier’s body is returned. From blip.tv:
(h/t for video to Jim Staro)
No doubt this is great news for Republicans.
(cont.)
Or as Glenn Beck might say, this is just another example of Obama’s use of Fascist techniques in his ongoing attempt to subvert the Constitution, create a permanent tyranny and destroy our Grand Republic, even though he didn’t give them the Nazi salute as the caskets were carried past him on the tarmac:
President Obama traveled to Dover Air Force Base early Thursday morning, where he met with family members and paid his respects as the bodies of 18 Americans killed this week in Afghanistan were returned to the United States. […]
As the Commander-in-chief stood on the darkened tarmac and saluted, the flag-draped case was unloaded from the cargo plane in what the military calls a “dignified transfer,” as six soldiers in white gloves and camouflage fatigues carried the remains in precision. Mr. Obama and uniformed officers stood at attention as the case was placed in a white mortuary van parked nearby.
The transfer of the bodies — a solemn, 15-minute proceeding — took place after Mr. Obama spent nearly two hours meeting privately with several family members in the chapel of the Air Force base.
Or as Michelle Malkin might say “How Dare HE!!!!!” The Greatest President Evah never stooped so low, after all.
On a serious note, the ban on photographing the return of those soldiers killed in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq was lifted by the Obama administration earlier this year. Initially there was a number of media outlets who would appear at the arrival home of these soldiers, but now only the Associated Press sends anyone to attend and photograph the returning war dead after obtaining permission from family members.
I don’t know the reasons why Obama chose to do this beyond a simple show of respect for those who surrendered their lives in service to their country, but I support any effort to publicize to the American Public the cost that these wars have inflicted on so many members of the military and their families. I’d like to believe it is a sign that this administration will not rush to judgment to escalate the war in Afghanistan, but only time will tell if that is the case.
This could be called a “cynical photo-op.” I wish Obama hadn’t taken Gibbs and press photographers with him. It would have been more subtle if we’d learned about it from family members.
On cable news today, the phrase “died in vain” will be used… repeatedly.
When Obama makes his speech about his decision, he’ll use this experience to justify a stand-down in Afghanistan… or a renewed committment… It could work either way.
I expanded the original story. I think that Presidents don’t make efforts like this without having political reasons, but I also believe that this was a sincere act of respect for the soldiers who died. I would hope that, the political justification for this trip is to give a sign and prepare the public for a decision against escalation of the war by sending more troops to Afghanistan (the preferred option of many at the Pentagon), but who really knows.
Just in case, anyone doesn’t know where I’m coming from… I actually cried reading this article in the NYT this morning. I wept with something like relief, feeling that the real cost of war was finally being acknowledged. But then, I imagined what my wing-nut brother would say…
by asking how many dead soldiers the wingnuts’ preferred president managed to honor in this way.
Does it really matter whether Bush or Obama “honors” the military more? Seems to me they both have placed the military atop the list of who to “honor”.
We don’t even consider the millions of lives we have snuffed out in the last 10 years, we only care about our “fallen heroes”.
Is the life of one U.S. soldier is worth more than the lives of 200 Muslims, according to both Bush and Obama. They both spent way more time honoring our dead over all else.
And who cares what’s in their hearts?
Isn’t what the president does more important than his symbolic expressions of “honor”?
The best way to honor our military is to stop ordering them to go to war.
The rest is just PR to fool gullible Democrats into ignoring the massive illegal and immoral killing being done in our name and to feed the U.S. war frenzy. No other nation has killed more or started more wars the last 50 years and here we are yet again patting a president on the back for his “honor” while he causes yet more death and destruction.
We are a sick nation. A nation of war criminals.
are you trying for a parody of an Anti-American leftist? You sound like a caricature dreamed up by Karl Rove.
It’s the real deal my man. I’m not happy the facts lead me to such conclusions about our actions. Has America not been responsible for millions of deaths over the last 10 years based on illegal wars? What do you call that? An honest mistake by good-hearted people? Now stand back while these Muslims suck on this!
And resorting to hurling the “anti-American” slur, eh?
You can mock people that are sick of death and destruction all you want. But you are the sick one if you make excuses for this continued murder.
You may be able to look at pictures of some of the hundreds of children we are ripping to shreds and have your first thought be, “oh now, this looks bad for Obama’s image”, but some of us want to stop the death and destruction.
Yeah. At a time when our country is going on the warpath again you continue to worry your pretty little head about how Obama is masterfully playing the politics.
Do you know anyone serving in the meat grinder? Have you been to the meat grinder? How fucking dare you call me anti-American. Do you know any of the little children ripped to shreds? Do you even care? What a little mind to resort to such tactics as calling people anti-American.
Go sing Obama’s praises about how he is gloriously fighting for peace little fanboy.
And that should read, “over a Million”, not millions. I want to be precise. It may indeed be millions over that period, but let’s just stick to Iraq and AF-Pak, which makes over a million.
I don’t need to hear you tell me about the senseless killing that has gone on in Iraq. I have a body of work on that subject.
As for Afghanistan, I don’t believe you’ll find a record of me being against our invasion of that country or our ongoing presence there after the invasion. You will, instead, see me asking Obama to show me some plan that makes sense, because my gut is telling me that we’d be better off getting out of there.
The people that we’re fighting in Afghanistan do not mean well. The good people of that country do not deserve to be terrorized by religious fanatics. What is going on in Waziristan and southern Afghanistan is troubling not only for Afghans, but for ordinary Pakistanis. My concern is not that Pakistan has invaded Waziristan or that we are patrolling in southern Afghanistan. My concern is that it is not working and I don’t see a way to make it work at an acceptable cost.
On a larger level, I don’t think we have the right model for how we go about dealing with issues like the Taliban or the slaughter in Sudan or the chaos in the Balkans or the situation in Zimbabwe. Our country bears too much of the cost and responsibility for sustaining order and stability and combating human rights abuses where they occur. We lost our credibility for that mission under Bush anyway, but even if we hadn’t, we need more shared responsibility.
The neo-cons are primarily concerned with perpetuating a system where no one can challenge our supremacy, but that also means that no one can share the legitimate burdens in a positive sense.
I don’t want to be the irreplaceable force for dealing with everything from the sovereignty of Iraq to the assistance to tsunami victims. We have to have more shared responsibility as well as less military activity.
that should read “the sovereignty of Kuwait.’
It’s not a slur.
When you say we’re a sick nation of war criminals, that’s hardly an endorsement.
Nice of SFHawkguy to break away from his Nader ’12 meetup (in sandals and love beads, I’m sure) and offer himself as a prime example of why idiots like Rove get so much mileage out of trashing liberals and progressives.
Nice attempt at humor/ridicule. That’s all you could come up with? Boy, these Obamabots are not a very clever bunch.
You’re still using the punch a dirty hippy approach? You puppies in the Dem party have been doing that for ages when the conservatives say mean things about you. Like little cowards. They call you girly boys and you say, no we’re not, let’s go start some wars to show them, and then when the public gets sick of your war you want to blame the dirty hippies. For wearing beads and being for peace.
But I’m not a dirty hippy (except for many of my beliefs)–you damn simpleton.
I tried to convince people not to vote for Nader and vote for Gore in 2000. (I’ve since changed my mind about 3rd parties)
I don’t wear sandals (okay, flip flops at the beach and sometimes around the house).
I’ve never had a tattoo or worn beads. The craziest “jewelry” I wore were friendship bracelets in elementary school, a few watches, oh, and the necklace with a cross on it that we had to wear after a retreat in High School.
I work in a mainstream “square” job and look like a very average Midwestern person (except the fat tummy). My hair has always been short. I maily wear suits or business casual.
When not wearing suits or business casual I tend to dress the same way I did almost two decades ago when going to my Catholic high school (with a little bit of a modern hippy hipster upgrade–I do have some style).
Oh, and I can probably kick your ass. I’m much bigger than most guys and currently in marathon-running shape (a little too lean for ass kicking, but the size–6,2 and ~195 lbs– and the marathon conditioning–makes up for lack of muscle bulk). And while I’m not proud of it I have been in fights and more importantly I’m not scared of yappy little pissants like you. So I would wager odds are I can kick your ass.
I watch my college football team every Saturday.
I fucking love apple pie.
Hell, I own a gun and have shot animals and may do it again (to eat).
Many in my family are very conservative and I try my best during family events (and generally in social settings) to be cordial to conservatives and remember that we are all human, and, that like you, they are bloodthirsty fools because they are only too human.
Some of them are in Obama and Bush’s wars and some are involved less directly.
I am not the stereotype that you resort to. Yet you are painting yourself as the perfect Obamabot simpleton. All yap and no heft.
The majority of Americans are against Obama’s war. You just suck his ass so hard you don’t see you can’t tell anymore what flavor of bullshit you’re swallowing.
You don’t get it. You’re the joke. Your Rove’s little pissant Obamabot dream.
There is something wrong deep inside you.
nalbar
What?
That I care about the fact we are the most warlike people on Earth and we continue to kill innocent people?
Isn’t this the sane approach to these events? What’s your solution?
you are outdoing yourself in your cynicism on this thread – as a few ponders have pointed out. it’s noticeable.
So you think the hippy/Nader stereotype was appropriate? People that criticize the war are embarrassing lefty hippies? Nice. Good to see the Dems are now reasonable and have people like bogerim and the gang to beat their chests for more war and mock those for peace on their left.
Or is it that I’m just too cynical about my take on Obama’s photo opportunity and we’re better off if people don’t make these types of comments, huh?
We should just clap louder?
I realize I’m more cynical than most. I see this event in the exact opposite way than you do, apparently. I don’t see it as good. Why does my observation of this event offend you so much? Or is it simply my exchange with boderim.
You win Errol. I’m done for the day/a while. I’m sorry to ruin the lovely party for yet another glorious achievement for Obama. He’s killing more people but he’s going to the right funerals . . . so we do have our priorities in place.
It is frustrating to see so many people be unable to take criticism of our permanent war footing. Others like Chris Floyd are much closer with my thinking on this. I guess the Obamabots are going to try to impose their own purity test and squash out any sort of criticism. Just like bogerim, you are joining forces to keep the party pure–on it’s centrist war-loving footing. Bombs away!
Sorry to rain on your parade and sorry for taking the bait from bogenrim to spoil Steven’s diary.
But you better get used to the fact that more and more of us will not be meekly clapping for Obama’s wars.
It’s pretty dishonest to portray yourself as taking criticism for being against the war. Calling Obama and all Americans war criminals is what got my attention, not being against war and for peace.
First, I must note that your initial Anti-American charge is what has led to your Obamabot fans jumping all over me. It encouraged bogenrim to follow through with the hippy/Nader charge. I really had no intention of starting a pissing contest (but hey, I must have been somewhat pissy because I partook).
Second, on the merits of your Anti-American charge, I was referring to our collective guilt for our war crimes. You yourself have admitted we committed war crimes under Bush, right? That’s we, because we all did it and we all accept it. American voted for it. It’s in our culture. It’s in our parades, the ribbons we wear, our flag decals, our funerals, and our photo ops that portray a solemn president honoring the war dead before he sends more to die. We are all responsible. It’s not a new concept. Look, many in the Muslim world have a more favorable view of the United States as a whole because we voted for Obama, who they thought would be better than Bush (that is changing under the same logic). We also punish other countries collectively. Just yesterday Hillary Clinton was in Pakistan arguing that the good Pakistanis weren’t doing enough to kill the bad Pakistanis and that’s why the U.S. has to wage a war on some of its people. Obviously, I’m not arguing average Americans go to jail for war crimes or that we should be bombed in retribution/punishment. I’m just saying that we bear some moral culpability for these crimes.
Third, others, like Arthur Silber, have made a pretty convincing case that Obama is indeed a war criminal. I was reluctant to hear that charge at first as well. He can make the argument much better than I can so maybe you can evaluate the charges on the merits and I would like to see your defense to his charges. So far, you and many of your readers can’t handle the charge and go apoplectic.
I’m off for a while. Sorry to see this ended so badly. Sorry to see all the jackals and group think that now predominates. I had higher hopes.
Here’s Silber’s essay on Obama and McCain the war criminals:
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2008/08/choice-of-war-criminals.html
And his more recent post on the same subject:
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2008/08/choice-of-war-criminals.html
You sure are good at throwing out the insults and names, and then playing victim when you get called out on it. You actually seem to react just like a typical wingnut (all piss and vinegar until given a taste of their own medicine, then get all indignant at the thought that someone could possible be so harsh to such a nice guy). Quit while you still look like a fool, lest you show everyone that you are an even bigger fool.
I don’t know how else to defeat this sickness in America were we unquestionably support killing and any dissenting voice is mocked for being a peacenik.
I was trying to provide some background about why these assumptions of his were wrong.
And to fight back against this tactic that is used to shout down voices for peace.
What’s your solution? To cheer for Obama and just hope he does the right thing and punch hippies on your left to give him cover? You know that just perpetuates war.
This is the best way I know how. And it does piss me off so yes, the anger reveals a sadness at what our country is doing. What we have become. And may reveal things about me.
But I find it odd that I’m the sick one in your mind for fighting against this madness yet you allow yourself to be deceived that this time, your man, obama, is slaughtering people for good reasons. Plus his heart is pure. So I’m the sick one and not those advocating murder?
I submit your moral compass is suspect if you think I warrant your disproportionate mock sympathy.
The “I can kick your ass” remark was truly the pinnacle of maturity (if you’re in the 5th grade, maybe) and and a sure sign of your vigorous debating skills, hardly worthy of even the most dedicated and unhinged wingnut.
Agreed, noting that I would probably beat you in a fight was a little over the top.
Maybe a challenge to a foot race would have been more gentlemanly?
The point was to share with you the fact that your assumptions were wrong. I remind you that you started this interaction by calling me a name and it’s pretty funny to see you scurry away crying foul because I called you a mean name in return and challenged you.
I know some think it better to turn the other cheek at the repeated slurs people like you make to those of us that are sick of war and are trying to stop it. But not all of us hippies react the same way when jabbed with the ConservaDem-fraidy-cat-hit-a-hippy stick. I don’t like being jabbed by your fucking hippy stick and I poke back . . . .
“A little over the top?” How about completely out of the box? Why don’t you just be the stand-up real (I even hunt defenseless animals with a gun, so there!) man that you claim to be and just apologize, and we can move on. Instead, you go off on an incoherent tirade justifying your boorish behavior. Sounds like someone can dish it out, but goes apopleptic when called out on his BS.
Well, I was only a little over the top. I was explaining the fact I probably don’t match the physical specimen you had in mind when you threw your insult at me. I should not have personalized it hypothecized a fight between you and me. Understand, I did it because I interpreted you as beating your little chickenhawk chest with your insult to me so it was natural to use you in the example.
I also was indeed also a bit boorish. But no more boorish than your comments. So I apologize for stooping to your level and being equally boorish back.
But, as explained, it’s important to fight back against the slur and stereotype you threw out there. It has the effect of cutting off debate about the sickness that has led us to glorify war and engage in war more than any other country on Earth. Real people are dying and sometimes people like you need to be offended. You are engaging in deadly propaganda.
I’m sorry it offends you to be called on your propaganda.
Do you eat meat?
If you do then . . .
So instead of doing the killing yourself you hide behind a system that methodically kills the animals so you don’t have to see it? The animals are still dying. Or are the cows you eat armed or something so that they aren’t defenseless?They live unhappy lives and if anything more of them die because cowards (presumably) like you don’t want to have to do the killing yourself.
Kind of like with our wars. Have you been to war?
Or do you just cheer for them from afar? Your somehow being humane by not seeing the real damage war is inflicting on people and you would rather see the photo op than the reality.
And to bring all this back . . . .
No, this photo op with the dead troops does not necessarily bring the reality of war closer to Americans. It’s reality wrapped in glorifying propaganda.
Reality would have us look at all the war dead. Including the thousands of innocent civilians and children that have died. We’re not getting that.
“Have you been to war?”
Yes, regrettably — I was in the military for 23 years.
I’m not deceived, and I certainly have my fair share of criticism about the status quo…I just choose not to shake my fist, throw a tantrum like a petulant two-year-old, and shout heated rhetoric like you at the top of my lungs. I still believe that elections and holding my representatives accountable still matters, instead of just incessantly whining about how the system is so corrupt and fucked up (like yourself and other ideological purists). You’ve got a pretty big set of balls to throw out shit like “nation of war criminals” and then cry like an infant when you get called out on it.
“I don’t know how else to defeat this sickness in America were we unquestionably support killing and any dissenting voice is mocked for being a peacenik.”
Let me offer you some heartfelt advice — the heated rhetoric and recriminations about people’s motives is not going to win any converts to your cause. Characterizing people as Obamabots, war criminals, etc. is a poor way to make your point. Believe it or not, many of us who post here are not for an open-ended engagement in Afghanistan or anywhere else, for that matter. I think the point BooMan was trying to make is that there is clarity in our mission there and that a realistic path for exit is in place. That did not happen while Bush was in office — at least Obama seems to be headed in that direction. It seems to me that Bush and his cronies seriously believed that a nation-building exercise in Afghanistan was possible. In my view, this is not realistic and never was. I also think Obama is inclined to determine the quickest way out while still ensuring that our security interests will be met. Nobody is mocking you for wanting peace, and I recommend that comments that were originally intended to be light-hearted not be taken at face value.
How exactly are you “fighting against this madness”? What exactly is it that you DO – not say or shout or bloviate on blogs – to fight against war and for peace?
How dare you assume that because people don’t agree with YOUR cynicism (and give your ego the little strokes you seem to be craving) that somehow that means that they are all warmongers or “advocating murder,” deluded specimens of humanity because they don’t agree with you that the President is a murderous duplicitous PR-craving warmonger!
Your shtick is getting to be entirely predictable: shrill AND boring at the same time, which is quite an accomplishment.
I’m so boring you decided to jump in and get your little punches in?
In this particular thread I was pointing out that Obama was indeed engaging in a photo opportunity and that it’s not wise to focus on Obama’s heart and how hard it must be for him to escalate a war. It’s a propaganda story. The fact is Obama will probably be sending more warfighters to the Middle East that Bush ever did. Obama has killed more people in Pakistan that Bush ever did. While Pakistan is burning, with Hillary in Pakistan making threats, the president getting ready to add troops to Afghanistan, this photo op did not sit well with me.
And I’m sick of your schtick too. You are all too typical of Booman’s new readership. You came around the day before bogenrim did.
You are nothing but simple-minded Obamabots. Look what happens when someone questions your Savior’s honor.
So I guess I am the odd man out here.
I don’t share your Obama love so I didn’t even think twice about my criticism. I wasn’t looking for ego stroking. I was just pointing out some basic facts that his was indeed a photo op and it’s not really that important for us about how hard it is on our leaders to send people to war. I didn’t think it was a big deal.
What do you call a country that has a hit list that no one can see and kills people by drone in a country they have no right to bomb? What is the legal justification for bombing Pakistani children? Or does that offend your precious honor?
Amen.
Yet another dittohead. Nothing of substance to add to nalbar’s cheap shot. Just mindlessly piling on to defend Obama’s honor and beat down any criticism.
You’re truly a pathetic specimen — ’nuff said…
Also a bit ironic that your absolutist peacenik rhetoric is accompanied by the “I can kick your ass” retort. Anyone else see the bitter irony here?
I haven’t been in a fight since the 8th or 9th grade.
I have had three or four close calls since then and all were associated with heavy alcohol use. I was never the original aggressor (I know they all say that) but I probably contributed to some of the heat.
Anyway, I wasn’t threatening you. I was saying I’m probably stronger than you and could probably beat you in a fight. Not that I have any plans on doing it. Or want to. I’m just pointing out I’m not the meek hippy you probably assume.
We were talking about war. I said we need to stop glorifying war. You called me a names saying I was a hippy, wearing beads, etc. It’s a stereotype we have all heard a million times.
You should check out George Carlin’s stand up routine where he talks about war coming down to guys standing in a field waving their dicks around. I don’t like war but I have been a red-blooded American guy and so I have been around my fair share of dick waving in fields. Hey, I played football. So I’m trying to counteract your implied charge that arguing for peace is a wimpy, hippy, and ridiculous thing to do.
It’s pretty funny you take such umbrage at being challenged to a hypothetical online duel, bogenrim.
Since your very first comment here, in Booman’s “Vent” post nevertheless, you have been beating your little chickenhawk wings against your small little chickenhawk chest (I’m too lazy to link–just click the name and see his comments) and using tough guy language and calling those that disagree with you sissies and babies:
Your very first comment:
“Constructive criticism is fine, but I’m worried about all of the malcontents that get their panties in a wad”
two comments down thread you continue the tough guy routine:
“. . . . if you can’t take a punch every now and again . . . “
more tough guy:
“Actually, I don’t throw pies — I throw poop (makes more of a statement)… “
And yet another:
“your childish bellyaching and idle “analysis” comes as no surprise, really. Time to change the diaper and pop the pacifier back in your blowhole, baby Sue — it’s starting to stink from both ends. “
Seriously. How small is your dick?
No wonder I hit a cord with the physical comparison.
You keep on shaking that tambourine and smoking your doobie , Ira. The rest of us who are anchored in reality will be waiting whenever you decide to bring your sorry, deluded ass back to the real world. You sure can talk a lot of shit, but seem to get a little wound up when someone (several people, so far) calls you out on your empty rhetoric. Grow the fuck up…
To call it a “cynical photo-op” is to hold Obama to a different standard than any preceding president.
What it is is a public display of respect meant to encourage respect in public opinion. It is one of the symbolic aspects of leadership.
By the same standard, full military funerals with a gunfire salute and the playing of “Taps” could be considered a “cynical photo-op” for the war machine. And what are we to make of the public funerals of political leaders? Cynical attempts to force their way into history?
Often cynicism is in the mind of the observer rather than the actor. It is, for example, epidemic in the Village.
It seems pretty self evident that the pomp and circumstance associated with military parades, honors, and funerals does indeed fuel the war machine.
It just has become so commonplace in America that we blindly accept where we are: that we value war more than any other people on Earth right now. It goes unquestioned, as your comment suggests.
As Mark Twain recognize almost a century ago:
Man is the only Patriot. He sets himself apart in his own country, under his own flag, and sneers at the other nations, and keeps multitudinous uniformed assassins on hand at heavy expense to grab slices of other people’s countries, and keep them from grabbing slices of his. And in the intervals between campaigns he washes the blood of his hands and works for “the universal brotherhood of man”- with his mouth.
– “The Lowest Animal”
We teach them to take their patriotism at second-hand; to shout with the largest crowd without examining into the right or wrong of the matter — exactly as boys under monarchies are taught and have always been taught. We teach them to regard as traitors, and hold in aversion and contempt, such as do not shout with the crowd, and so here in our democracy we are cheering a thing which of all things is most foreign to it and out of place — the delivery of our political conscience into somebody else’s keeping. This is patriotism on the Russian plan.
– Mark Twain, a Biography
There’s a reason Tom Friedman drives around playing the Battle Hymn of the Republic. This type of public relations that Obama is engaging in, honoring war, may very well be commonplace and accepted, but it doesn’t make it right or good.
.
“The president, wearing a dark suit and long overcoat, left the White House at 11:44 p.m. 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.”
Remember Bush and his photo-fraud opportunities…
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Yes, Bush engaged in Pr. Obama is just better at it.
Remember, it worked for Bush for a while. Remember how Washington went all a twitter for Bush in his dreamy flight suit?
Bush was a God in this country for a while because he was manly and wanted to smash him some Muslims. And most cheered wildly for it or caved in and enabled Bush because they didn’t want to seem weak (many Democrats).
.
Lose their plush seats in Congressional Election 2002.
He noted that Congress had authorized Mr. Bush “to use appropriate force to respond to the attacks of Sept. 11,” but it emphasized that “absent a clear finding that Iraq participated in, aided or otherwise provided support for” the attackers, “the president is constitutionally required to seek additional authority to embark on a new major military undertaking in Iraq.”
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."“A small contingent of reporters and photographers accompanied Mr. Obama”
Don’t you think this increases the dramatic nature of the event? The president leaving the WH in the middle of the night?
And the accompanying photo from Obama’s event (literally a photo opportunity the press was given) was a lot prettier than the pictures you post above.
Obama solemnly rose from the WH to meet the fallen dead at night and saluting next to military men (I think in battle fatigues). Against a night sky. It’s a pretty picture.
Obama is better a PR than Bush! He kept it simple and left the turkey out of the shot.
But Obama did learn one thing from Bush. He used the surprise photo op trick that Bush used. Didn’t varios Bush officials and Bush himself steal away during holidays, the night, etc. to make a surprise visit to the troops? Isn’t this the same type of deal? Last minute?
A photo op?
When you are saluted, you salute back. The president is the commander-in-chief. What’s your problem?
My understanding was that is was not customary to salute.
Maybe I’m wrong on that. I know recent presidents have but I thought the longer tradition was not saluting.
Same with wearing a uniform. Bush was the first one to don a fucking costume, I think, with that flight suit. But starting with General Washington presidents have eschewed wearing military garb. But Bush Sr. had a little jacket made, didn’t he? Wasn’t that really the start of wearing costumes?
The fact the president can’t get away with not saluting, like other presidents have done, just shows how wrapped up by war fever in this country.
But I bet he could get away with it. He needs to try to reign in this beast and yet he is kicking as hard as he can and riding the beast faster.
The president is essentially the same as a senior officer. Any soldier is supposed to salute him. He can ignore their salute if he wants, but it’s definitely more polite to salute back and end the process.
Reagan started the tradition:
All previous presidents didn’t salute in honor of the fact we have supposedly have civilian control over the military.
Yes, you are wrong about that. Period.
Link jackass? Of course not.
You’re wrong. Again. See my comment above.
Right. You don’t think for yourself so you wouldn’t have a link, would you?
You just regurgitate what Obama or your blogging betters tell you to regurgitate.
And you demand an apology from me for giving back a little of the bluster you’ve been dishing out. Ha.
I would say you should do penance by having to write an essay on the history of presidential military garb and salutes but I think that punishment is way too severe as you would probably break something in the attempt.
“Barrow told Reagan that as commander in chief of the armed forces, he was entitled to offer a salute — or any sign of respect he wished — to anyone he wished, Kline wrote, adding he was glad for the change.”
Why don’t you read the article that you cited, assplug. Every president since Reagan has returned the salutes of military personnel. Reality is my link, dipshit. How about you?
Didn’t you just give me advise about name-calling? What did you write again . . . that it is more effective to avoid name-calling?
You have done nothing but name calling since you started posting. Your one comment in this thread that even comes close to a comment on the merits (and that’s being charitable about your contribution) is just as filled with diarrhea as your other name-calling comments. You’ve got diarrhea of the mouth and brain. I think it’s terminal. Shit for brains.
I know this is beyond your abilities but try to read what I wrote up thread:
“I know recent presidents have [saluted] but I thought the longer tradition was not saluting.
You started out calling me a dirty hippy, and here you are with assplug.
And you’re completely fucking wrong. Idiot.
Did you read the link? It supports exactly what I wrote. Reagan was the first to salute back. It’s a new tradition. The tradition of not saluting is an older and longer-standing tradition.
You added nothing to the conversation except to jump in and beat down any criticism of your Dear Leader. With name-calling.
You are the embodiment of simple-minded Obamabot.
.
Q. How many funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq Bush had attended?
A. None. … Instead he offered this excuse:
“Because which funeral do you go to? In my judgment, I think if I go to one I should go to all. How do you honor one person but not another?”
This is the same avoidance behavior and callous attitude exhibited toward the troops through the beginning of last year by Donald Rumsfeld when he had a machine sign letters of condolance to families of fallen soldiers:
Although the charge was initially denied by the Pentagon, Mr Rumsfeld issued a statement acknowledging the practice and promising to halt it. “While I have not individually signed each one, in the interest of ensuring expeditious contact with grieving family members, I have directed that in the future I sign each letter,” Mr Rumsfeld said in the statement.
TOP SECRET
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."I’d rather see a photo of Obama welcoming back the last of the returning soldiers from Afghanistan.
But this war has been created and is being continued by the permanent government, something above and beyond Obama’s control. All he can do is put the best spin on it and hope it doesn’t drain the country’s resources dry. The war is being fought for Big Oil, not for the Afghanis, for Pakistan. Not for freedom, not for democracy, not for human rights or feminism. Not to smite the jihadists. For Big Oil.
I’m so glad he did this. Here, the BBC shows the repatriation ceremony when the plane lands. It’s a very moving ceremony, and the least of what men and women who’ve given their lives deserve.
I was always so disappointed that American servicemen didn’t get the same honor. I blogged about it right after I moved here, when Bush was effectively sending soldiers to Ignoreland.
I wonder, tho, why I haven’t seen anyone refer to it as “repatriation”. Is that simply a British term? Even Mark Knoller was using the term “processing”. Ugh.
It may be cynical (who knows what drives any politician), but that does not mean is does not have meaning.
It not only shows respect to those who have paid the ultimate price, it pays respect for all those in the military, and their families. And they WILL notice.
I am not comfortable with our militaristic society (sick and tired of it might be better), but living in a huge military area I am struck by one thing … most are so freaking young! On TV we see the general officers, all older. On the street you see the privates and corporals, all pretty much kids. We send young men and women to fight for old mens pride.
They have earned a salute when they return.
Politically speaking, the republicans better step lightly. If they go nuts on this, they are on thin ice. I live in a rock solid conservative strong hold, but even here any criticism on this will go down bad.
nalbar
When did the president start saluting?
I thought the American tradition of civilian oversight of the military was the reason that presidents didn’t engage in symbols such as saluting and wearing military costumes.
I guess now that the president is the decider and gets to declare war we’ve done away with these quaint notions of civilian control of the military.
And as far as signs of not rushing to war . . . Don’t fall for the bait. It’s so obvious this is a PR campaign before the slaughter begins (the slaugter has already began but Dancing with the Stars is on). I wouldn’t hold your breath that Mr. Peace is going to do anything other than offer more death and destruction. He has expanded the illegal and immoral drone wars on the people of Pakistan and Afghanistan, he will probably be sending more troops to the Middle East than Bush ever will, the torture state and illegal detention of Muslims will continue, the U.S. will continue to arm dictators and Israel in the Middle East, and we will continue to badger Iran into until there is more war.
It’s just as bad or worse than under Bush.
It’s worse because Obama is better at PR and pretends that he cares about our “fallen heroes”. Isn’t that cute that Mr. Peace is carefully considering all sides before he blows people up. Yeah right (do liberals think they need to couch their criticism of the Dear Leader so as not to imply he is doing anything wrong–kind of how the Russians were only sort of allowed to petition the Czar?).
How about the hundreds of little children and innocent civilians he has ordered blown up? Did he salute when he made that order? Did your heart fill with patriotism and pride that we have such a good-hearted man as president that will pretend to carefully consider all options before he salutes the fascists within the military and order yet another illegal and immoral bombing of little children?
No. He’s a monster and this is ridiculous PR. Just like Bush landing on the carrier.
Go USA. Let’s kill some more! Isn’t Obama dreamy? what an improvement that he is willing to spend 15 minutes on a PR campaign to make his killing seem more benign.
Whatever the Republicans say at least it can never be as bad as Rumsfeld and his autopen…
http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=26085
If you are sending soldiers to war be man enough to see the consequence of your decisions.
Great post.
And I can already hear what the Repubs will find to carp about this time — “how dare Obama salute when he was not in the military! He’s insulted the REAL troops! He’s just a fake …”
the policy of NOT photographing the war dead returned home should NEVER have started. It’s past time we see the RESULTS of what war can bring, in actual, not theoretical terms.
Damn! It was an obvious sign that he is accepting responsibility for this War moving forward.
There are always official photos taken of what a president does. That’s why they were there with Obama.
He cared enough to go and honor the dead. He also spoke with their families.
After the neglect of Bush, Obama has an awful task to set any of the Afghanistan mess to rights.
And why is HRC over there in Pakistan saying that Pakistan isn’t doing what it can about terrorism. That doesn’t seem to be how Obama speaks to other leaders in other countries.