Barack Obama | George W. Bush | News

BigGayDeal.com

Obama Sees Fallen Soldiers Arrive Home at Dover

Obamawar

Obama makes a pre-dawn visit to Dover to witness the bodies of soldiers returning from Afghanistan.

Watch, AFTER THE JUMP...

On FOX News radio's John Gibson show yesterday, Liz Cheney suggested Obama did it for the publicity. Said Cheney:

"I think that what President Bush used to do is do it without the cameras. And I don't understand sort of showing up with the White House Press Pool with photographers and asking family members if you can take pictures. That's really hard for me to get my head around...It was a surprising way for the president to choose to do this."

Actually, Bush never bothered to go see the fallen troops arrive home.

Watch the ceremony, AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Liz Cheney has as much credibility as Miley Cyrus. Having a famous (or in her case, infamous) father does not make one's opinions worthy of a media spotlight.

    She should shut her piehole.

    Posted by: The Milkman | Oct 30, 2009 4:15:28 PM


  2. I'm surprised it took them this long to open their stupid pie holes.

    Posted by: Maverick69 | Oct 30, 2009 4:15:43 PM


  3. Right, Like W. with the "Mission Accomplished" banner with a war that's gone on for nearly 7 years with 4,000 plus service men & women killed.

    Posted by: Vince | Oct 30, 2009 4:19:23 PM


  4. Poor Liz Cheney. Neither she nor anyone in her blighted psychotic family can understand the concept of simple human decency.

    Posted by: Roscoe | Oct 30, 2009 4:26:42 PM


  5. What it shows, Liar Liz, is that there are very real and human consequences to war, including death, something her father and the rest of the Bush administration covered up for 8 years by insisting that the dead be kept invisible.

    Posted by: Ernie | Oct 30, 2009 4:29:56 PM


  6. The headline should read, "Obama Sees Fallen Soldiers Arrive Home at Dover, and Still Doesn't Get It". What's worse, a president who covers his eyes and says, "I don't see no dead people," or a president who salutes them and says, "Ehh?"

    Posted by: Gary | Oct 30, 2009 4:41:23 PM


  7. Well, at least none of them are gay.

    Posted by: Roscoe | Oct 30, 2009 4:46:26 PM


  8. Afghanistan is a tremendous waste of resources and time. It's collapsing, and there's nothing we OUGHT do about it. It's not about the treatment of women and gays there--as both of those demographics are far more at risk now than when the taliban was in control. We need to be fighting al qaeda, and move on pakistan.

    He can show his concern not by these symbolic gestures, but by ending our involvement with a lost cause.

    Posted by: TANK | Oct 30, 2009 4:49:31 PM


  9. Yeah right Liz, that George Bush, he was just a paragon of virtue.

    Posted by: Sean | Oct 30, 2009 4:58:19 PM


  10. Fuck you Dick Cheney and you're stupid fucking family. Fuck your cunt wife and your stupid cunt daughters.

    Go the fuck away.

    Posted by: Mark | Oct 30, 2009 5:03:18 PM


  11. the most evil family. ever.

    Posted by: r | Oct 30, 2009 5:55:35 PM


  12. As Jonathan Rauch wisely noted earlier today, the real issue Obama faces on the Afghanistan question is not one of military strategy but of political sustainability. The road to a stable Afghanistan (and Pakistan for that matter) is much, much longer than Americans realize. Judging by the substance of the comments here, clearly we all would benefit -- as an educated citizenry and polity -- to understand why Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Iraq, Haiti and other "failed states" are the way they are. Go online and find the brilliant Frontline report that aired on PBS a couple of weeks ago. Just even watching a few minutes will jolt the senses in the right direction. Obama gets it. And contrary to the erroneous BBC report a couple of weeks back, he hasn't made up his mind. Now, the question turns to the public. Whatever decision is made re the Af-Pak war, are we ready to back it politically.

    I'm glad Andy Towle shared this clip. Just one of the reasons why Towleroad is on my daily must-read.

    Posted by: Les | Oct 30, 2009 6:20:25 PM


  13. i think the president should be there every single time a fallen soldier comes home, and it should be photographed and video'd for tv. Once the president does it ohhh say 4,000 times and it's shown 4,000 times.....

    Posted by: Rolph | Oct 30, 2009 6:22:03 PM


  14. If anyone is the antichrist, it's Dick Cheney. Dick was worse then J.Edgar Hoover who through everyone including his own people under the bus. Bush sucked as president but Cheney was evil incarnate. Dick, do the world a favor and go crawl back under the rock you came from.

    Posted by: Harry | Oct 30, 2009 6:33:11 PM


  15. Liz Cheney is a piece of chit who, like her father, spews nothing but diarrhea from her big mouth. She can't wrap her head around it? Any fool who thinks for a minute understands why he went and why he took the press with him. It's about time a light was shown on the realities of war and the hardships faced by our military and the loved ones who support them. Cheney needs to shut her stupid, ratings whore mouth. What an idiot.

    Posted by: Boone68 | Oct 30, 2009 6:56:56 PM


  16. Like Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps, the Catholic League and the Family Council, Liz Cheney needs to be shunned by the press. They are non-sensical (I know, not a real word), completely partisan, non-thinking and redundant mouthpieces. I have ZERO idea why Liz C is competent to comment on ANYTHING related to whats going on in government. I know she's done some really low level work in government related cabals, but how in the world she's merited appearances on NATIONAL TV, I just cant 'get my head around'. Shes a know-nothing shill and adds nothing valuable to the conversation.

    Posted by: princely54 | Oct 30, 2009 7:13:57 PM


  17. Tank,

    Just how do you propose the U.S. "move on to Pakistan"? Other than predator drones, do you think the U.S. should drop troops in country? If you do, you're clueless!

    Pakistan is a nuclear power, a very politically volatile one at that. Do you think that American troops on the ground en masse would go over well with the locals??? Do you know anything about the Pakistani Army's adventures in helping some not so nice folks? Just who controls the nukes?

    READ A BOOK!!

    Posted by: henry alden | Oct 30, 2009 11:31:09 PM


  18. Herny Alden...this attack is borne of being a bitter old queer, I think. I think you're a lonely drunk.

    The fact is that al qaeda and significant portions of the taliban are now in pakistan. Afghanistan is no longer home to terrorism and the threat it poses. Pakistan is. They have fled there, and are being protected. The fact that Pakistan is a nuclear power, and unstable one at that--provides even more incentive for the u.s. to stabilize the region, extirpate the occupying terrorists and secure its nuclear arsenal, you dumb...dumb cunt. Unless you suggest we just continue to pour billions of dollars and sacrifice troop lives in afghanistan--where neither al qaeda nor significant taliban are.

    Jesus, go pay for a whore or something, you toxic old fag.

    Posted by: TANK | Oct 31, 2009 12:10:02 AM


  19. There are in fact significant Taliban elements in Afghanistan. They do not run across the border every night to Pakistan.

    As Les has indicated, ensuring stability is a long-term process, mandating considerable involvement in the region for at least a generation. This is unlikely to happen, of course. The more likely solution for Afghanistan is an initial troop surge, followed by a gradual withdrawal. The carnage will continue in Pakistan.

    Of course, the preferable solution would be to negotiate with the more moderate Taliban leaders, buy them off where possible, and divide Afghanistan into more manageable territories. A negotiated settlement would cede territory to the Taliban in return for the free movement of peoples into ISAF-supported zones and the cessation of violence.

    Posted by: Zach | Oct 31, 2009 3:18:27 AM


  20. Unfortunately, none of the reports of taliban concentrations nor significant concentrations of actual terrorist cells comport with your fantasy, zach. Terrorism really no longer exists in afhganistan, and it is a lost cause. Many of the troop casualties are the response of local villagers, not affiliated with the taliban or terrorist cells. They are simply not going to have americans in their country anymore, and are resentful of the continued occupation. This situation won't improve. Afghanistan no longer represents a mission objective, and our continued focus and commitment in the region cannot be justified by any benefit to the u.s. We've lost enough life, wasted far too much money, and the payoff is nonexistent.

    Posted by: TANK | Oct 31, 2009 3:32:25 AM


  21. Cheney lied, thousands died...and are still dying because of him. Dick Cheney killed more Americans than the Saudi Arabians.

    Posted by: woodroad34 | Oct 31, 2009 7:18:33 AM


  22. dumbest criticism ever!

    Liz Cheney is making a transparent attempt to score a purely partisan political point (pppp - yes i am trademarking that phrase, thanks) by criticizing Obama for doing something that she would criticize him for if he didn't do it.

    I would like to see one journalist point this out to her, but they are mostly all a bunch of lapdogs.

    Posted by: Andrew K | Oct 31, 2009 10:24:20 AM


  23. If they hadn't allowed the press pool there, the wing nuts would have said it didn't happen.

    Posted by: St. Theresa of Avila | Oct 31, 2009 3:38:58 PM


  24. While I appreciate Zach's nod toward my initial comment, Tank's blunt assessment is much, much closer to the mark. I defer to my former grad school roommate who states it eloquently:

    'I believe the president is doing the right thing by examining whether the political elites in Afghanistan are ready to support the inevitable U-turn in history that any alliance with the US and NATO is going to present.

    'While many people dismiss the notion of Afghanistan as a “graveyard of empires” to be just so much wine-soaked poetic nostalgia – liberal naysayers brooding over the futility of hubris – the strategic truth is that the struggle in Afghanistan is a war over the vision of a people living in two very different worlds. And if they don’t see what Obama sees, or if Obama doesn’t see what they see, there are going to many a eyes lost in this traditional grudge match – where an eye-for-an-eye can so easily blind an entire nation of Ivy-league soothsayers.'

    http://winesandwars.wordpress.com/2009/10/29/obama-becomes-witness-to-afghan-war/#more-144

    Absolutely right!

    Posted by: Les | Oct 31, 2009 5:18:31 PM


  25. Gee, Tank. I was on your side based on your sensible posts re the beating death of the Pakistani man. Then, you come here and attack someone for being "a bitter old queer" and a "lonely drunk", ending with the zinger "you toxic old fag". So, may I assume that you are young, beautiful, optimistic and sober? I missed where Henry Alden gave his age and his outlook on life. I think the only "bitter old fag" here is you. Some people are born old and bitter. I guess you must be one of them.

    Posted by: mike | Nov 2, 2009 2:04:37 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «News: Ken Cuccinelli, Detroit, Rumer Willis, Malaysia, Britney Spears« «