I
Illegal Smile
Guest
Word is the honor guard that carried the coffins has said they could feel the body spinning in there as Obama saluted.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
ok I see that Illegal never came back with a source...so I have to write this down as just Obama bashing...but please could you at least keep our dead service men out of it...That is a horrible way to show some respect for someone who just dead for this country Illegal....I think it was remarkable for Obama to be there to show respect to these soldiers....Don't recall Bush doing it and it was his war.....Most people who commented on this agreeing with this post probably never served a day in the service as a matter of fact what have you done for this nation ????? look yourself in the mirror and ask yourself that....At first you guys happy we didn't get Olympics because of Obama ...Now you mad because he came to show respect for dead soldiers....WOW hate and stupidity never cease to amaze me.....Coffins with dead U.S. soldiers is not a photo-op for a U.S. President if you ever had served you probably would have realize that....
Name some other things Obama has said he was gonna do and then did?
End war, create jobs, make sure unemployment did not go above 8%, save the economy, transparency, hold those responsible accountable for their actions etc etc etc etc. Or perhaps he has fixed all those things, we just haven't heard it due to all the disinformation?
londonfog
Well-Known Member
So when did Obama alert the Media ???? Did he pick up the phone and say "hey watch this" he's the President when ever he move the Media move....now I thought you were better then this Drama but I guess I was wrong...
ObamaSanta
New Member
If he didn't alert the media and didn't want photos taken, then congrats to the Pres. If he did, or if it was "leaked" accidentally on purpose, then to hell with him. And I did serve in the US Army during Desert Shield. Signal Corps, 84 Bravo, Combat Still Photographer, hope that reserves my right to comment.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
Yup it sure does IMO ......I really think this is something that he had to do...Shows the type of man he is...Hate him for his policy...that's cool...but don't bash him for being caring and wanting to do something that was just the right thing to do
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
I couldn't agree more.
Which begs the question: Why did he do it?
A private moment honoring the fallen is one thing.
Inviting photographers along to record it is quite another.
The cameras were there. Surely someone noticed them. At any point, an advisor could have said, 'No cameras, fellas. This is private.'
Watch the video, pay attention to what she says at :13 into the vid
http://www.theweek.com/article/index/102297/Video_Obama_salutes_fallen_troops
"with no fanfare, telling only a small group of reporters. President Obama left the White House just before Midnight"
Sounds to me like he wanted just the media to be there. A group of reporters, not just a reporter or a journalist, but a whole group of them.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
Not to many pics ...just the same ones over and over...so it was not like this Media blitz was there, but hey I realize RIU political section is loaded with folks that anything and I do mean anything this man does is not right so have at it and I hope it makes you feel better...me I support my President until I see why I shouldn't.....
londonfog
Well-Known Member
Do you know what "no fanfare" means ...see you left that unhighlighted...dude bottom line when our fallen come home WE ALL SHOULD BE OUT THERE....so thank you President for showing such an honor....to you guys again who has never served in the service maybe you should see if you can go do the same it might help you understand the cost of war...
CrackerJax
New Member
Beyond Dithering
Posted 10/29/2009 07:48 PM ET
Events move swiftly as excuses pile up. AP
Leadership: As the fire grows in Afghanistan and U.S. troops suffer their worst casualties since Fallujah, the commander in chief remains AWOL on his intentions, delaying the tough decisions. Is he opting for defeat?
Afghanistan commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal warned in August that time was short to win this war. Now October is ending as the deadliest month in the Afghan war. With 55 dead since August, McChrystal's warning now stings.
Even so, each day brings a new excuse from the White House for delaying a decision on troop reinforcements McChrystal has sought. The goal posts move almost daily. This isn't leadership.
Last week, the administration refused to make a decision on McChrystal's recommendation for 44,000 new troops until Afghanistan's Nov. 7 electoral runoff election produced a valid election.
No word on what to do if it doesn't.
This week, the president is delaying an Afghanistan decision again. Ten months into office, he suddenly wants an analysis of all 36 Afghan provinces, with information about which areas are governed effectively and which aren't. This is Jimmy Carter stuff, micromanaging details instead of delegating and taking his eye off the goal. It also signals a lack of trust in the troops.
The distrust is visible in his dismissal of some defense advisers. On Friday, he'll discuss strategy with politicos like Vice President Joe Biden, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Bob Gates and National Security Adviser James Jones. Military men included earlier are now banished.
Now Obama wants to delay a decision yet again because he must take an unrelated trip to Asia on Nov. 11, according to the Washington Post, citing anonymous administration sources. Our troops will have to wait for that, too.
Uglier reasons are around too: on Foreign Policy's blog, respected defense correspondent Thomas Ricks wrote that one of his sources thinks the tight Virginia and New Jersey governors' races will also come before a decision on the war.
But as the excuses pile up, events are moving swiftly.
The Taliban has taken the lead in the Afghanistan war offensive, forcing U.S. troops to hunker down. "The Taliban controls the military initiative," wrote Der Spiegel, blasting Obama's leadership.
The Taliban also has begun a violent new campaign to ensure Afghanistan's Nov. 7 runoff election fails. This week they blew up a hostel full of U.N. election observers, killing six, to send a message to any Afghan who would vote they'll kill them, too.
Meanwhile, Pakistan next door has launched its biggest military offensive since 1971, crushing the Taliban on its side. Many of those terrorists will flee to Afghanistan. Yet, Clinton, in Karachi Thursday, lectured Pakistan about missed opportunities to get al-Qaida, forgetting that Pakistan is fighting while the White House dithers.
Meanwhile, U.S. troop morale is low, our allies are discouraged, and key personnel are beginning to turn in their resignations.
The continued lack of a strategy and the endless excuses points to a disturbing lack of leadership. Out on the campaign trail, Obama spoke of finishing off al-Qaida with a gung-ho gusto, calling Afghanistan the necessary war. Today, he couldn't be further from that will to win. Witting or not, it amounts to a choice to lose.
Posted 10/29/2009 07:48 PM ET
Leadership: As the fire grows in Afghanistan and U.S. troops suffer their worst casualties since Fallujah, the commander in chief remains AWOL on his intentions, delaying the tough decisions. Is he opting for defeat?
Afghanistan commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal warned in August that time was short to win this war. Now October is ending as the deadliest month in the Afghan war. With 55 dead since August, McChrystal's warning now stings.
Even so, each day brings a new excuse from the White House for delaying a decision on troop reinforcements McChrystal has sought. The goal posts move almost daily. This isn't leadership.
Last week, the administration refused to make a decision on McChrystal's recommendation for 44,000 new troops until Afghanistan's Nov. 7 electoral runoff election produced a valid election.
No word on what to do if it doesn't.
This week, the president is delaying an Afghanistan decision again. Ten months into office, he suddenly wants an analysis of all 36 Afghan provinces, with information about which areas are governed effectively and which aren't. This is Jimmy Carter stuff, micromanaging details instead of delegating and taking his eye off the goal. It also signals a lack of trust in the troops.
The distrust is visible in his dismissal of some defense advisers. On Friday, he'll discuss strategy with politicos like Vice President Joe Biden, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Bob Gates and National Security Adviser James Jones. Military men included earlier are now banished.
Now Obama wants to delay a decision yet again because he must take an unrelated trip to Asia on Nov. 11, according to the Washington Post, citing anonymous administration sources. Our troops will have to wait for that, too.
Uglier reasons are around too: on Foreign Policy's blog, respected defense correspondent Thomas Ricks wrote that one of his sources thinks the tight Virginia and New Jersey governors' races will also come before a decision on the war.
But as the excuses pile up, events are moving swiftly.
The Taliban has taken the lead in the Afghanistan war offensive, forcing U.S. troops to hunker down. "The Taliban controls the military initiative," wrote Der Spiegel, blasting Obama's leadership.
The Taliban also has begun a violent new campaign to ensure Afghanistan's Nov. 7 runoff election fails. This week they blew up a hostel full of U.N. election observers, killing six, to send a message to any Afghan who would vote they'll kill them, too.
Meanwhile, Pakistan next door has launched its biggest military offensive since 1971, crushing the Taliban on its side. Many of those terrorists will flee to Afghanistan. Yet, Clinton, in Karachi Thursday, lectured Pakistan about missed opportunities to get al-Qaida, forgetting that Pakistan is fighting while the White House dithers.
Meanwhile, U.S. troop morale is low, our allies are discouraged, and key personnel are beginning to turn in their resignations.
The continued lack of a strategy and the endless excuses points to a disturbing lack of leadership. Out on the campaign trail, Obama spoke of finishing off al-Qaida with a gung-ho gusto, calling Afghanistan the necessary war. Today, he couldn't be further from that will to win. Witting or not, it amounts to a choice to lose.
Do you know what no fanfare means ...see you left that unhighlighted...dude bottom line when our fallen come home WE ALL SHOULD BE OUT THERE....so thank you President for showing such an honor....to you guys again who has never served in the service maybe you should see if you can go do the same it might help you understand the cost of war...
Yeah throwing a big party as a precursor to go see US troops dead bodies being transferred sure seems like an odd thing not to do. We better make sure everyone knows we didn't throw a big party about it.
I have 8 years active duty Marine Corps service, 2 years reserve service and 3 years of National Guard service. All of it was wartime service.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
I believe that like I believe you black...... you are still black today right
CrackerJax
New Member
Purplekrunchie
Well-Known Member
Here we go again, if you are against Obama you are automatically a repub, because theres no way people can have a mind of their own. Is this why libs in office are doing so poorly? Because they assume there are only 2 types of people in the world, repubs and dems? Its the kind of thinking that holds us all back, its all donkeys and elephants, lets join the human race about now please. Theres way more diversity then that out there. Will someone please fukin explain to me why everything is based on 2 corupt political parties, its like people would die for this, puzzling to me.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
In 2008, candidate Obama called for additional troops in Afghanistan, the so called 'good war.' Now he dithers, why?
The military leadership is near unanimous in calling for increased troop strength. Is he simply indecisive, or is the delay political in nature? The timing of his decision will answer the question.
Regardless of personal feeling on the necessity of the war, I think the U.S. should pull out as soon as practicable. Like LBJ, Obama has no stomach for this. In short, he's not up to the job.
The military leadership is near unanimous in calling for increased troop strength. Is he simply indecisive, or is the delay political in nature? The timing of his decision will answer the question.
Regardless of personal feeling on the necessity of the war, I think the U.S. should pull out as soon as practicable. Like LBJ, Obama has no stomach for this. In short, he's not up to the job.
CrackerJax
New Member
It's one retreat after another..... we will all pay in future violence against us.
When will they learn?
Wanted: A Commander In Chief.
When will they learn?
Wanted: A Commander In Chief.
CrackerJax
New Member
Love ur avI JO... 
So how many US soldiers has Obama killed so far?
So how many US soldiers has Obama killed so far?