Obama Makes Surprise Trip To Dover To Honor Fallen Troops
President Obama made an unscheduled, overnight trip to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware overnight to observe up close a “solemn dignified transfer movement,” the event which marks the return to the US of the remains of fallen service members.
Military and White House officials said this particular movement involved the incoming remains of 15 service members and 3 Drug Enforcement Administration agents who were killed in Afghanistan on October 26th. This is the first time President Obama has participated in this type of military event. The president also met with the families of the fallen.
The president arrived at Dover AFB at 12:34am after 40-minute chopper ride from the White House. An Air Force C-17 carrying the 18 fallen U.S. personnel had arrived at Dover before the president. Among the dead on board were 7 U.S. Army soldiers and 3 DEA agents killed when their MH-47 Chinook crashed at Darreh-ye-bum, and 8 U.S. soldiers killed when their STRYKER personnel vehicle was struck by IED blast in the Arghandab River Valley.
It’s a very sad and solemn reason to have the president visit our state.
Comment by nemski on 29 October 2009 at 6:53 am:
Hmm, it looks like Obama is giving some real serious thought about Afghanistan. It reminds when Carter took Sadat and Begin to Gettysburg during the negotiations of the Camp David Accords.
Comment by Delaware Dem on 29 October 2009 at 7:33 am:
I give props to Dave Burris of all people for posting this on DP as well. Indeed, he linked to the Times article that contains the single most moving picture of any President I think I have seen in my lifetime.
With apologies to the NY Times, I have to repost it here:
Comment by MJ on 29 October 2009 at 7:38 am:
The President is a mensch.
Now wait. You know it’s coming. One of our wingnut readers is going to post something about how Obama shouldn’t be saluting because he never served. And it will also be a sign of how he’s leading us into socialism.
Comment by Rebecca on 29 October 2009 at 7:42 am:
Perhaps he was seeking some perspective on the human cost as he makes his decision on Afghanistan. What a powerful photo. Thanks for posting it DD.
Comment by PBaumbach on 29 October 2009 at 8:08 am:
I don’t see a flag pin on his lapel. What a socialist!
Comment by Unstable Isotope on 29 October 2009 at 8:31 am:
Beautiful picture.
nemski,
I am glad that Obama is taking time to make a decision on Afghanistan. I know the preference is to get out as soon and orderly as possible. But what does that mean? We would like to leave a stable government that is an ally of the United States. I know the fear is that it will return to the lawless Taliban-run warlord state that is was before, and we know this is a problem. Unfortunately Afghanistan was neglected by the Bush administration (why Cheney is listened to at all on this issue is a mystery to me) so we’re almost at square one there.
Comment by Unstable Isotope on 29 October 2009 at 8:48 am:
Some videos now:
Comment by anonone on 29 October 2009 at 9:29 am:
“The hardest task that he has on any given day is signing the condolence letter to a loved one who’s lost a son or a daughter or a husband, a wife, in Iraq or Afghanistan, or serving our country overseas,” Mr. Gibbs said.
Thank you, George W. Bush, who never went to Dover and tried his best to cover-up and hide the bodies returning from his disastrous and unnecessary wars.
Comment by delacrat on 29 October 2009 at 9:56 am:
Unstable,
Re: “I know the fear is that it will return to the lawless Taliban-run warlord state that is was before, and we know this is a problem.
Know that the real problem is the lawless US-run vassal state that Afghanistan is today.
Comment by G Rex on 29 October 2009 at 10:36 am:
I find it significant that of the 15 fallen soldiers’ families, only one gave consent for their son’s flag-draped coffin to be used as a prop for a Presidential photo-op. Can’t the man do something honorable without making sure everyone can see him doing it? Or is it that Americans don’t register that something has happened if they can’t see a picture or a videoclip of it happening?
Comment by Delaware Dem on 29 October 2009 at 10:38 am:
It is obviously the latter, G Rex. That is why Bush banned the press from Dover. If we don’t see the coffins, no one died.
Comment by Delaware Dem on 29 October 2009 at 10:41 am:
And G Rex, take your cue from a more reasonable conservative, Mr. Burris (I cannot believe I just typed that). You are really going to criticize the President of the United States for attending a return cermony for our honored dead? Really?
Comment by Unstable Isotope on 29 October 2009 at 10:43 am:
I’m no longer surprised by the lows to which some people will sink in order to criticize Obama.
Comment by Geezer on 29 October 2009 at 10:49 am:
“is it that Americans don’t register that something has happened if they can’t see a picture or a videoclip of it happening?”
Bingo. That’s why I refuse to accept the existence of “G Rex”
Comment by Delaware Dem on 29 October 2009 at 11:02 am:
I must add that G Rex is of course lying in his criticism of the President. This was an unscheduled and unannounced trip. If the President wanted a photo op, like you say, then why wasn’t it announced? Why was there no lighting at the ceremony (as the videos above prove, there wasn’t)?
Comment by RSmitty on 29 October 2009 at 11:08 am:
G Rex – the only reporters that joined him were apparently from the WH press corps who pretty much always get in a tizzy when they feel a tremble in the presidential-force, which includes getting up to use the bathroom. This was an unannounced trip. If he was seriously going for the photo-op, there would have been much, much more of a presence than a small group of pencil pushers and photogs. Word I hear is that there were some in Dover that were given a tip from their associates in DC. I sincerely don’t think this was PR at all. I also appreciate the accountability. Every sitting President is accountable for skirmishes/conflicts/wars.
Of course, he could have always waited and gone to a funeral where the media is always present and the President is guaranteed face time for extended periods, not that GWB did that (*cough* rigggght). FTR, I don’t have a problem with that, either, but if you want to criticize the President for last night, then you need to consider this as well.
Comment by anon on 29 October 2009 at 11:14 am:
Accountability sometimes means accepting responsibility for other people’s fuckups.
Comment by liberalgeek on 29 October 2009 at 11:18 am:
From Jake Tapper:
Comment by lizard on 29 October 2009 at 11:37 am:
dd, the photographs prove it wasn’t a photo op???
my cynical side can’t help but notice that his trip to Dover allowed him to display his concern/compassion for our fallen heros without having to face their families.
But I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. The President of the United States went to Dover to mark the return of our fallen warriors.
Comment by liberalgeek on 29 October 2009 at 11:42 am:
Actually, he spent time with the families while he was there. See the Tapper link above.
Next criticism…
Comment by Delaware Dem on 29 October 2009 at 11:48 am:
Yes, lizard, as ironic as that sounds, because if it was a professional and planned photo op, there would be lighting for the cameras. Here, you have the flash of the press pool camera, who always travel with the President everywhere.
Comment by G Rex on 29 October 2009 at 12:01 pm:
From the NYT article: “The trip was a symbolic one for Mr. Obama — intended to convey the gravity of his decision as he moves closer to announcing whether he will send more troops to Afghanistan.”
See, even the Times agrees with me.
Comment by Delaware Dem on 29 October 2009 at 12:06 pm:
So NOW you believe the NY Times. Is that a quote from an Administration official or the Times’ own opinion of the trip’s significance.
Comment by Progressive Mom on 29 October 2009 at 12:08 pm:
Rex –if it was so symbolic (and thus, by your standard, meaningless), why are you whining about it so much?
Of course, it did get you to read that bastion of liberal thought, The New York Times, so the president’s effort did some good….
Comment by pandora on 29 October 2009 at 12:35 pm:
So… symbolic is going the way of empathy. And, allow me to point out, that pledging allegiance to the flag and wearing a cross around your neck are also symbolic. Seriously, conservatives love them some symbolism.
Comment by Delaware Dem on 29 October 2009 at 12:37 pm:
…except when they are the ones not doing the symbolizing. In the end, this is all about power. Conservatives like G Rex oppose …no…. HATE Obama because he is President and one of their own is not. That is all it is.
Comment by liberalgeek on 29 October 2009 at 12:42 pm:
The visit was symbolic, for it to be otherwise it would have had to be because Dover was a little short on pallbearers, so they asked the President to come give them a hand.
Comment by pandora on 29 October 2009 at 12:52 pm:
Guess what? Bush speaking in NYC after 9/11 was symbolic. And there’s nothing wrong with it… other than typical Republican hypocrisy.
Comment by cassandra_m on 29 October 2009 at 1:07 pm:
The flyboy dressup was symbolic — symbolic of Mission Accomplished which declared victory way too early — but it was symbolic.
Wearing a flag pin is symbolic and you wingnuts howl at the moon when the President doesn’t wear one.
Comment by pandora on 29 October 2009 at 1:10 pm:
Oh my, this is almost too easy.
Comment by nemski on 29 October 2009 at 1:10 pm:
This photo of GWB in New Orleans was symbolic.
Comment by Delaware Dem on 29 October 2009 at 1:13 pm:
He is not really “in” New Orleans, nemski. He was above it, which is symbolic of how Republicans feel about the people.
Comment by nemski on 29 October 2009 at 1:13 pm:
Cheney shooting Harry Whittington was symbolic.
Comment by nemski on 29 October 2009 at 1:14 pm:
DD, oh I know, that’s what makes it symbolic or is it ironic. What ever it is, it is icky.
Comment by G Rex on 29 October 2009 at 1:27 pm:
Problem: President is criticized for “dithering” over decision on Afghanistan strategy.
Solution: Send photograph of President honoring fallen warrior to New York Times. Nemski declares, “Hmm, it looks like Obama is giving some real serious thought about Afghanistan.”
Success! Decision can be postponed for another month, off to the golf course!
Comment by nemski on 29 October 2009 at 1:30 pm:
Laughable G Rex. Obama was criticized by Cheney for “dithering”.
Comment by cassandra_m on 29 October 2009 at 1:31 pm:
This is another stupid deflection, G Rex. Even your boy bush took plenty of time to decide on the surge. And your boy Bush refused any accountability for the lives he sent into that boondoggle.
Doing the work to think about a long term strategy is not a liability. No matter what he decides, at least the guy will own his decisions — and getting a first hand view of the price paid for whatever policy he puts up counts as honorable. Except in wingnutland looking for whatever failure they can gin up.
Not that we’d expect any better from you, of course.
Comment by Miscreant on 29 October 2009 at 1:31 pm:
“Thank you, George W. Bush, who never went to Dover and tried his best to cover-up and hide the bodies returning from his disastrous and unnecessary wars.”
Bullhit, as usual. For each of the families of the soldiers who died in the Iraq War, Bush wrote every family a personal letter. He just didn’t *sign* a letter. During his presidency, he met with nearly one third of the soldiers’ families, and went out of his way to ensure that this would not receive media attention out of concern that his acts may seem less genuine and would also become politicized.
President Obama’s contempt and disrespect of the military is widely known, especially from within the military. His decision to not make a decision in Afghanistan until he knows which way the wind is blowing clearly demonstrates that, and his treatment of McChrystal seals it. Actually supporting our troops may also may also diminish that Nobel Peace Prize glow around his head. And, the fact that he had a photographer(s) and press with him, and published the pictures and videos, indicate that it was, yet another, contrived photo-op to create the illusion he even gives a flying fuck about the deaths of our soldiers in,what is now, *his* very own “disastrous and unnecessary” war.
And, before you get your panties in a wad, Bush had his bullshit photo-op moments too, but he was never as blatantly disingenuous as our current President.
Comment by cassandra_m on 29 October 2009 at 1:32 pm:
President Obama’s contempt and disrespect of the military is widely known, especially from within the military.
This is the bullshit right here.
Comment by nemski on 29 October 2009 at 1:33 pm:
Miscreant wrote President Obama’s contempt and disrespect of the military is widely known, especially from within the military.
You lie!
Comment by RSmitty on 29 October 2009 at 1:36 pm:
President Obama’s contempt and disrespect of the military is widely known, especially from within the military
Wait a second. Didn’t another commenter say this exact thing earlier this week? Has this become a talking-point response now?
Comment by nemski on 29 October 2009 at 1:37 pm:
Yes, it was Protack, I believe.
Comment by nemski on 29 October 2009 at 1:41 pm:
Confirmed, http://www.delawareliberal.net/2009/10/26/obamas-promise/#comment-156257
Lying whores.
Comment by Unstable Isotope on 29 October 2009 at 1:42 pm:
It’s widely known in their circle-jerk, they mean.
Comment by nemski on 29 October 2009 at 1:43 pm:
I’ve always had respect for Miscreant, sometimes he/she is freaking funny and even makes a point. But with that lie, no more.
Comment by RSmitty on 29 October 2009 at 1:46 pm:
Herein lies what I think is one of the most effed up things with partisan politics, which is exactly where these rebuttals are rooted. No matter how good or how bad any given politician acts, whether it be pure in intent or self-absorbed, it will never, N-E-V-E-R be good enough for any opposition. This falls on all parties, too. Yes, there are individuals who are exceptions, but most of them aren’t on the front-lines of partitics (partisan-politics), popping veins and causing themselves strokes. It’s constantly about party over all else in these kinds of arguments. Neither party is even near perfect, which is why party-over-quality is nothing but bullshit. Give me a leader with decisiveness and confidence, albeit humility. Save your party-over-all-else crap for where it belongs: the shitter. You may not like the hand your dealt, but you need to work with it. You don’t slam your hand down, whine, bitch, and try to turn the table over. You work with it. Grow the fuck up, this is real life, not a fucking game of Axis and Allies, politics edition.
Comment by G Rex on 29 October 2009 at 1:51 pm:
“This is another stupid deflection, G Rex.”
Yes, that’s precisely what I was saying. A deflection of criticism performed by an administration that can’t bear any criticism whatsoever.
Comment by Scott P on 29 October 2009 at 1:53 pm:
Yes. Apparently now putting great thought into how best to keep our soldiers and sailors out of unnecessary harm shows disrespect and contempt. I would have gone with “Throws them into unnecessary wars under false pretenses”, but to each his own.
Comment by cassandra_m on 29 October 2009 at 1:58 pm:
Apparently. And I imagine not being able to defend your deflective bullshit is the behavior of the day for these drooling wingnuts.
Comment by Miscreant on 29 October 2009 at 2:11 pm:
Yet another holier-than-thou diatribe (non-partisan) from RSmitty. For what it’s worth, simpleton, I’m not affiliated with any party. I just recognize duplicity when I see it and, unlike you, am not afraid to call it lest you upset your new *progressive* comrades.
Comment by Miscreant on 29 October 2009 at 2:13 pm:
“And I imagine not being able to defend your deflective bullshit is the behavior of the day for these drooling wingnuts.”
Ahem… I believe it was those drooling moonbats who predictably (and reflexively) deflected to Bush, and assert that if more than one person shares a similar, dissenting view, it’s a wingnut or conservative “talking point”.
Comment by cassandra_m on 29 October 2009 at 2:17 pm:
There was no deflecting to Bush here. But I understand that you wouldn’t want anyone noting that the “symbolic” critique was awfully one-sided as well as stupid.
But no matter who you vote for, it is pretty clear that you aren’t above just repeating what your radio handlers say to you.
Comment by RSmitty on 29 October 2009 at 2:21 pm:
You don’t have to be registered to be partisan, numbnuts (see, I can do names, too). Party, ideology, whatever, it’s interchangeable. The press corp latched onto that flight last night, as they normally would have regardless of what he did. The word is he stood at attention for all soldiers last night, not just the soldier whose parents approved of the photo, as was insinuated by GRex and the start of this pathetic argument chain. That’s a partisan-inspired rant, whether it be because of party or because of ideology. What would PRESIDENT Obama have to do that you’d approve, resign?
and, unlike you, am not afraid to call it lest you upset your new *progressive* comrades.
numbfuck (see, I can still do names), I’ve called them out before and it’s reciprocal. I also call them out constructively, not because I am in a snit. Crap, we’ve gone on a while about CRI in the past. I think they’re inspiration is vastly different from what they say it is, but that’s all perception. I can argue it until I am out of breath, but that won’t change, because it’s my perception vs. theirs, or more simply, a matter of opinion.
your new *progressive* comrades.
See? I can STILL do names!
Yeah, well, probably surprising to you and many others who can’t accept an opinion that didn’t form within their own skull, they like diversity of thought, especially when presented with reason and not spittle. It certainly doesn’t mean they fall over and agree, nor would I expect it to, but it makes for good conversation and…ready for this…friendship. Bugger off, ideological-facist!
Comment by nemski on 29 October 2009 at 2:24 pm:
Miscreant wrote For what it’s worth, simpleton, I’m not affiliated with any party.
Since Miscreant lied before, I’ll assume he’s lying here.
Comment by Miscreant on 29 October 2009 at 3:40 pm:
I should have realized the concept of someone who doesn’t march in lockstep with a support group is quite foreign to you, Nemski.
“You don’t have to be registered to be partisan, numbnuts (see, I can do names, too). Party, ideology, whatever, it’s interchangeable.”
You’re living proof of that. What’s your Ideology/Party du Jour? Yes, I did notice you can do names, too. Mine, however, seem less obsessed with male body parts.
Comment by nemski on 29 October 2009 at 3:42 pm:
Miscreant, did you read my Cuba post today?
Comment by RSmitty on 29 October 2009 at 4:06 pm:
Mine, however, seem less obsessed with male body parts.
Damn, he’s got me there. Can I help it if mine constantly gets tangled with my feet?
What’s your Ideology/Party du Jour?
Ideology is what it’s always been: fiscally right-of-center and socially-moderate. Party? Well, that cetainly can be a moving target when parties tend to give themselves up to those who are loudest and not to much of principle. Until this past June, nutbreath (wow, I do do that a lot), I was a lifelong Republican. In June, I switched to UNAFILLIATED due to the fact that someone (me) who truly would rather see the advancement of the populace over the advancement of partisan beliefs. I wasn’t willing to blindly line up and bitch about how anything to the left of Rush Limbaugh was destroying this country and my personal life. Rather, I’d prefer to take the challenge of dealing with what is in front of me and making it work. It doesn’t mean I have to agree with it, but it does mean I work with what I have. Funny that…used to be something Republicans believed in.
Comment by Miscreant on 29 October 2009 at 4:27 pm:
“Miscreant, did you read my Cuba post today?”
No, but I may give it a look after my workout. I lived in south Florida for a few years, and worked with, and was friends with many Cubanos. I loved the people there, and thier culture.
Hasta luego, oveja.
Comment by Alberta Crowley on 29 October 2009 at 5:12 pm:
I love Obama, but, lets not make this story about him. It is about the fallen hero coming home and all the others.
Comment by Rhymes With Right on 29 October 2009 at 6:17 pm:
There are many things to criticize Obama about — and I do frequently — but this is not one of them.
Comment by lizard on 30 October 2009 at 1:51 pm:
ABC News’ Pentagon correspondent Luis Martinez reports that Barack Obama brought twenty-four reporters, photographers and videographers from fourteen media outlets to Dover Air Force Base to cover his ’surprise’ visit there early Thursday morning.
draw your own conclusions.
Comment by MJ on 30 October 2009 at 1:59 pm:
Has anyone wondered why lizard uses this nom de blog? Snake would be more appropriate.
Comment by cassandra m on 30 October 2009 at 2:05 pm:
lizard AKA RICO AKA whatever is here under multiple noms de blog. He is just as ill-informed under each and every one of them.
Comment by Von Cracker on 30 October 2009 at 2:10 pm:
shit – for some folks, it’s damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
to new-wave conservatives, it’s just damned if you do. If you don’t, you’re an accomplice in hiding their shame.