stay connected

FrumForum Facebook FrumForum YouTube Update Twitter FrumForum Flickr

The President Honors the Fallen at Dover

October 29th, 2009 at 10:20 am David Frum | 71 Comments |

Share
| Print

Give the man credit: This was the right thing to do, but it cannot have been easy -- especially as he is making the decision that may lead to more such sad homecomings.


Recent Posts by David Frum



71 Comments so far ↓

  • VA Shepherd // Nov 1, 2009 at 7:46 am

    Other Presidents confer with our allies and visit recovering veterans in hospital, but not this one. In the year that the Taliban mounted their biggest counter-offensive since we removed them from power, this President shows his leadership skills by saluting a flag-draped coffin. Nothing like that to inspire victory! If he sincerely wanted to defeat the Taliban he would have granted the professionals’ requests for reinforcements made so many months ago. It was a calculated decision that this picture, so rich with symbolism, was taken at this time. With this picture, the President is deliberately setting the stage for ultimate mission failure in Afghanistan, and it will come to define the Obama Adminitration’s approach to Afghanistan (although “withdrawal from” will be more accurate). However, expect some increase (25,000?) in troop levels before B.O. pulls them back – otherwise he’d look bad leaving Afghanistan with a resurgent Taliban in place. This strategy is called “Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory”.
    http://seanlinnane.blogspot.com/2009/10/riddle-me-this-batman.html

    The President’s visit to Dover AFB would have been honorable if he had ditched the press in D.C. Instead the press were notified (on condition of secrecy!), and B.O. used a dead American as a prop for political purposes. The visit was choreographed from start to finish, including lessons on how to salute http://seanlinnane.blogspot.com/2009/10/salute.html. That the families (17 out of 18 reportedly) refused to allow B.O. to have his picture taken saluting the flag-draped casket of their fallen family member shows that they saw through his cheap stunt. If the President were sincere, wouldn’t he have visited Walter Reed since taking office? Certainly he could make time for a visit between interviews and golf.

  • sinz54 // Nov 1, 2009 at 11:53 am

    ottovbs: are you willing to make the kind of committment necessary to have any chance of turning Afghanistan around (Summary: 20 years, 600,000 troops, $3trillion plus)……..if you’re not then you’re for disengaging……all the rest is bs……so which is it?
    Obama should go with McChrystal’s plan.

    McChrystal has a much better track record than Joe Biden does.

    But you’re right about one thing: McChrystal’s plan will require increased military spending. After eight years of war, our force is strained and needs new recruits; the equipment is wearing out and needs replacement.

  • sinz54 // Nov 1, 2009 at 11:56 am

    mi-goper: you guys are in for a real ass-whooping in 2010.
    We don’t need a “real ass whooping”–though it would be sweet to get one.

    Look at how close the votes on health care reform are.

    A net pickup of 2 seats in the Senate and 25-30 seats in the House would put an end to Obama’s plans. He’ll never get anything through Congress again after that. He can focus on the Afghanistan War, since he’s Commander-in-Chief.

    Anything else is just icing on the cake.

  • ottovbvs // Nov 1, 2009 at 2:26 pm

    mi-goper // Oct 31, 2009 at 10:06 pm

    “nice try with spin, ottoBS, but you’re still the New Majority’s Village Idiot… “Obama’s approval average from Pollster not your cherry picked poll although that’s in their average”.

    …..More from the rodent …….I just try to stick with the facts and avoid poll shopping which what you’re reduced to:

    Obama approval 56.1 disapproval 37.1…..here’s the link:

    http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/fav-obama.php

  • ottovbvs // Nov 1, 2009 at 2:35 pm

    sinz54 // Nov 1, 2009 at 11:53 am

    “Obama should go with McChrystal’s plan.”

    …….Actually as has been reported in several venues that go beyond soundbites McChrystal has put forward several options with additional deployments ranging from 10,000 to 80,000……..but all of them are just the slippery slope to what will likely be needed……This is 1963 deja vu all over again…..as ever all the enthusiasts for continuing this nonsense avoid the tough questions

  • sinz54 // Nov 1, 2009 at 9:01 pm

    ottovbs: all the enthusiasts for continuing this nonsense avoid the tough questions
    You’re accusing General McChrystal of “avoiding the tough questions”???

    I’m sure he, and General Petraeus, and the NATO commanders who endorsed their recommendations, have given a lot more thought to it than either you or I.

    And I don’t see anyone else whose judgment on this we should trust more.

    Certainly not Joe Biden, with his bizarre plan for partitioning Iraq into three parts (which fortunately no one else took seriously).

    Not Rahm Emanuel, who is unqualified to discuss anything in foreign policy.

    One thing is unacceptable: Leaving al-Qaeda entrenched in South Asia and elsewhere in the world, while we cower here with our shoe inspections, backpack inspections, SWAT teams on roofs, and other paraphernalia of living in an armed camp. For the world’s greatest superpower to have to cower on its home soil would be absolutely pathetic. I wouldn’t want to live in an America that was that craven.

  • MI-GOPer // Nov 1, 2009 at 10:23 pm

    automaticBS offers: “This (Afghanistan) is 1963 deja vu all over again”.

    I hope not. In 1963, a bunch of Cut & Run cowards were in the White house prepping to ditch our allies to the snares of their enemies, our military was quickly being outclassed by superior technology and determination by our foe, the American underbelly had grown fat and lazy in its political sloth, we were deep in a presidency which many had come to appreciate as being a bad choice, Americans were questioning whether or not there was a Manifest Destiny and our enemies were laughing at our incapacity to maintain resolve in the face of adversity.

    Well, maybe it is more like 1963. Now, just like then, politics and the self-interest of a Camelot fuzzy prez were more important vectors in resolving any crisis than natl interest or the People’s Business, the Left was ascending and pressing its immorality and relativism throughout the culture… wow, it does seem like 1963 all over again.

    And the Left still has Gore Vidal as its poster boi. 1963.

  • MI-GOPer // Nov 1, 2009 at 10:28 pm

    automaticBS contends: “Obama approval 56.1 disapproval 37.1″

    Well, Rasmussen has it Strongly Disapprove passing those who Strongly Approve by 11%. And the President’s approval rating is now close to 46%, a plurality of Americans disapprove of Obama’s job performance.

    The difference in our polls, automaticBS?

    My poll is of real voters. Your poll is of anyone the pollster can find at home on a Saturday night… by definition, a loser. Like you.

  • MI-GOPer // Nov 1, 2009 at 10:36 pm

    txanne, I think you make my point, sweetness. Obama brought a bevy of cameras & correspondents with him for his impromtu little political theatre of self-absorption. I said 24 “reporters” from 14 outlets. You say the same and add a bit of indignant huffiness to the outrage? Like Obama, you’re a fake txanne.

    I also noted, btw, that usually 60+% of these KIA events have military families present; the Obama Show only netted a single, that’s 1, family. At least the military families didn’t let the Obama Show use their fallen heroes as props for the stage of Obama.

    I don’t know why you take issue with the truth? Is your love and worship of the All Mighty Magic Obama so intense you can’t embrace the truth…. hey, you aren’t the first O-bot to discover that demerit. Probably won’t be the last, either, sweetness.

  • txanne // Nov 2, 2009 at 2:28 am

    mi-goper you are not only a sleaze but a dumb one at that. You do not understand basic grade school punctuation.

    When you write ABC reports, and then frame the next sentence with quotation marks, that indicates an exact quote from the report. But as I said, this is Hannity, Beck style selective editing.

    Have you considered that maybe, just maybe, this family wanted as much press as possible? It is not inconceivable, is it?

    The fact that our lost soldiers have been ignored for the better part of the last seven years is a shameful thing.

  • ottovbvs // Nov 2, 2009 at 10:09 am

    MI-GOPer // Nov 1, 2009 at 10:28 pm

    “My poll is of real voters. Your poll is of anyone the pollster can find at home on a Saturday night… by definition, a loser. Like you.”

    …….Er…… Pollster is a poll aggregator……that means it produces an average of all published polls…….stop circling the drain

  • ottovbvs // Nov 2, 2009 at 10:16 am

    MI-GOPer // Nov 1, 2009 at 10:23 pm

    “I hope not. In 1963, a bunch of Cut & Run cowards were in the White house prepping to ditch our allies to the snares of their enemies, our military was quickly being outclassed by superior technology and determination by our foe, the American underbelly had grown fat and lazy in its political sloth, we were deep in a presidency which many had come to appreciate as being a bad choice, Americans were questioning whether or not there was a Manifest Destiny and our enemies were laughing at our incapacity to maintain resolve in the face of adversity.”

    ……….This would explain why LBJ the next year won depending on your definition the first or second largest landslide in US history……. And the US was being outclassed by the superior technology of the Viet Minh?…..really?

    ……….And you’re a lawyer in MI……right?

  • sinz54 // Nov 2, 2009 at 10:40 am

    mi-goper: In 1963, ….the American underbelly had grown fat and lazy in its political sloth
    If anybody had “political sloth” in 1963, it was our South Vietnamese allies. Again and again, the South Vietnamese army (ARVN) broke and ran rather than standing their ground and fighting. Their generals were political appointees, and were often incompetent. Yet it was the policy of the JFK administration that the South Vietnamese had to fight for their own country. Unfortunately, at this point in time, they could not or would not do that.

    The JFK administration began to realize that the Diem government in Saigon was not doing the job. But the assassination of Diem in 1963 didn’t improve the situation; rather, it further destabilized the South Vietnamese government.

    With the accumulated experience of 40 years of counterinsurgency warfare, experts like Petraeus now know this is no way to fight a counterinsurgency war. But in 1963, the U.S. Army had never fought this kind of war before. I do not blame them, or our civilian leadership, for being baffled as to how to win. We lost, fair and square; the enemy had a better strategy, and they beat us.

    I’m glad that we have learned our lessons since then.

  • sinz54 // Nov 2, 2009 at 10:43 am

    MI-GOPer: In 1963, a bunch of Cut & Run cowards were in the White house prepping to ditch our allies to the snares of their enemies
    Instead of criticizing, tell us what they SHOULD have done instead.

    Suppose Nixon had beat JFK in 1960 and become President. What do you suppose President Nixon would have done?

    I really would like to hear how YOU think the Vietnam War COULD have been won. And at what cost.

  • Independent // Nov 2, 2009 at 1:14 pm

    ms. txanne, i think you’re hacking on mi-gop too much and for the wrong reason. he (she?) was correct that obama brought a ton of celebrity documenters to preserve the moment for obama’s political use to offset drops in the polls over “dithering” as the cheneys put it. you basically criticize him (her) for telling the truth. what is that all about? if you’re mad about the obama being so transparent on something that should have been more finessed and not so blatant, tell his lackluster communications staff who stage-crafted this affair. put down the kool aid and think for yourself, ok?

    the other fact that kills your partisan argument is that mi-gop right about the absence of other military families at dover. according to d.o.d., these transfer cermonies draw 60 percent of the dead soldiers and this one drew a single family that the obama spin machine used without shame.

    in our house, where both my wife and i served and our oldest is now serving, we think it was a staged media moment for obama to capitalize upon like bush did with the uss lincoln celebration. but unlike bush’s many visits to injured troops or meetings with military families, obama chose to do this one and all others in the glare of media lights, milking it for whatever political cover he can gain.

    i agree with mi-gop, it does say something adverse about obama’s character to use a dead soldier as a prop for his falling in the polls. next time you see shots or clips of obama at military events, look around. the majority of faces are of minorities, not a minority of faces. he’s drawing a narrow, small band of supporters to his military events or he’s attending events where military attendance is mandatory. our household isn’t faked out by obama pr stunts. and the person who wrote that this is just what presidents do is all wrong, too.

    it’s kind of like a comedian who begins their act with “true story, true story…” and then tells an outlandish joke? obama is someone who is practiced at looking sincere, but there’s no reason or record for believing what he says is true. like the comedian, we know obama doesn’t really care about the military or the sacrafice these coffins represent. obama is just using them as a prop to help him offset his fall in the polls or help his leftward democratic party base feel good about finally doing what they’ve wanted to have done for a long time -show the dead soldiers, show the coffins, undercut the american perception of the value of the war in afghanistan.

    txanne, you’re hacking on mi-gop for all the wrong reasons. he’s (she’s) just speaking truth to power.

  • txanne // Nov 2, 2009 at 5:05 pm

    Independent, you fail to get my point. Mi-goper is entitled to his opinion just as I am. However, when you misquote the report you are slanting the facts. This is the way Hannity operates. He takes a snippet of video that seems to cast the president in a negative light, but fails to continue the very next sentence of the video, which disproves that assumption.

    All I am saying is that there is a perfectly legitimate argument for more press coverage of the returning soldiers dignified transfer. It is not in and of its self a bad reflection of the character of President Obama. I see it as something we all need to be aware of: the great and final cost of these wars.

  • ottovbvs // Nov 2, 2009 at 5:25 pm

    65 Independent // Nov 2, 2009 at 1:14 pm

    …….So you’re normally a supporter of the president?

  • MI-GOPer // Nov 3, 2009 at 8:49 am

    Independent, txanne and automaticBS can’t undestand you criticizing the President, the Messiah. To them, anything he does is always to be greeted with superlatives, glowing high praise, political poetry and idol worshiping children chanting songs of glorious revolution! Didn’t you get the memo from David Alexrod???

    Thanks for re-re-re-making my points. Unfortunately, no one around here has been able to get through their tin-foil hats yet… I’m hoping that election results today will drive the Democrats and Obama back from the brink of insanity, toward calmer, cooler, more prudent ground.

    And give us some new Republican office holders that the far Left trolls here will have to spend lots of time spinning into some sort of vindication of Obama Messiah.

  • MI-GOPer // Nov 3, 2009 at 8:51 am

    Best line of the thread: “txanne, you’re hacking on mi-gop for all the wrong reasons. he’s (she’s) just speaking truth to power.”

    Damn txanne, he nailed you.

  • txanne // Nov 3, 2009 at 12:47 pm

    Mi-goper, you and Independent sure “nailed” me.

    With all the talk of Messiah and me being such a kool aid drinking disciple, I will assume that is “to the cross”.

    There you go.

  • iveyguy // Nov 3, 2009 at 5:45 pm

    Lest we forget.

  1. Pages:
  3. 1
  4. 2
  5. 3

Leave a Comment

You must log in to post a comment.