Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
Unlike peeing on Jesus, that statement clearly crossed the line of propriety.
The NYTs has a vested interest in making Obama look good. It is part of the deal.
I'd guess that the NYT reporter got that line from an Obama administration official in an informal conversation and innocently put it in his story, not knowing it was news that wasn't fit to print.
"...to convey to the nation that Mr. Obama was not making his Afghanistan decision lightly or in haste."""Message: I care."
Why do they even bother? No one who reads the New York Times is going to have any idea that this incident could have shown Obama in a bad light.Whoever changed this would have been put to better use checking for grammar errors.
Notorious left-wing apologist Michael Ledeen had this to say:If I had been free to blog earlier, I would have added my voice to those, starting with Kathryn, who praised the president's dignified trip to Dover Air Force Base to comfort the families of our fallen, and honor the dead. It was well done, and the right thing to do, and I'm delighted.Moreover, he has continued his regular visits to the wounded vets at Walter Reed and Bethesda Naval. I had worried, in the first days of his presidency, that he might use these occasions as photo ops and promos for his presidency, but he has not.Morale of our soldiers suffers when he dithers, and soars when they see he understands and honors them. Which he clearly does. Good on him.http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDBhOWFmZDE4OWY2Y2MyNmEwMWVlYWFjYmM0NTEzODQ=I think the President deserves the benefit of the doubt on this one, until he does something that clearly shows he doesn't.
Gabriel Hanna - I don't see anyone bashing Obama on this thread. The post is about the NYT...why do you think they changed their story?
I have it on good authority that there was no dithering here by either the WH in ordering the NYT to remove the offending sentence without acknowledging such removal or the NYT in obeying.OK: I made my story up - it's fake but accurate.
The NYT has reported that this change has saved 100 jobs on its paper.
Maguro said..."Gabriel Hanna - I don't see anyone bashing Obama on this thread. The post is about the NYT...why do you think they changed their story?"That's true. A number of us bashed Obama in a previous thread.We were right in the bash, it seems.President Obama: It's not about you, it's about the soldiers. Only about them.Get some new advisors, Mr. President. The current ones are making you look like an insensitive hack.
That is the problem, really. The idea that he used the trip to Delaware as a photo op to show his seriousness about not making the Afghanistan decision lightly or in haste. It shouldn't have been about him or a photo op to show his seriousness and concern. The people there had loved ones who had paid the ultimate price, and it should have been about them. And, in his callousness, he made it about himself.
David said... President Obama: It's not about you, it's about the soldiers. Only about them. Get some new advisors, Mr. President. The current ones are making you look like an insensitive hack.Ain't it the truth!! Not sure on protocol, but, since the President (any President)is a civilian, he isn't supposed to perform a military salute, I believe.To have Obama emulate the precision of the 3rd Infantry at the Tomb of the Unknowns and end up in a pose trying to look like Douglas MacArthur at the raising of the flag over Corregidor after it had been retaken from the Japanese is, as they say, a new high in low.More to the point, has any President - Nixon, LBJ, FDR, even Lincoln - even Polk pulled such a stunt?Obama is stalling on A-stan, praying something will happen so he can cut and run without a 20 point drop in the polls. He's had 10 months. Even McClellan didn't need that long!
he idea that he used the trip to Delaware as a photo op to show his seriousness about not making the Afghanistan decision lightly or in haste.Bruce, you hit the nail on the head. This was of course a photo-op - but WHAT Obama wanted to show was that he "cares soooo much" for the troops unlike the evil... (you know who), who sent young soldiers to die for a "dumb war" and Halliburton.What would Obama do if Bush suddenly died (touch on wood)?Would this man have the decency to stop blaming him and try to pose as a contrast to Bush ?What a disgusting narcissist,this country has for President.
The NYT has covered for far worse communists ( paging the ghost of Walter Durranty)Covering for Obama is like second nature for these hacks.I wonder what Mickey Kaus would say to this - saw him arguing on blogging heads that Fox News was taking "orders" from the Bush White House while liberal news media is always "independent" even if biased (heh, riddle me that !)I guess the NYT demonstrates its "in-dependence" here.
Independence, codependence, what's the difference.
It shouldn't have been about him or a photo op to show his seriousness and concern. The people there had loved ones who had paid the ultimate price, and it should have been about them. And, in his callousness, he made it about himself.To be fair, I think that's less likely to be a framing driven by him personally than by the cretins who worship him as a kind of god. Or the PR men who are trying to spin him as such. In their hands, even genuine expressions of human feeling would be amplified into something cold, ringing, and unreal, in the effort shape and control the media image of the President.
Obama didn't ask to get a Nobel Prize he doesn't deserve, and he wasn't taking the photos at Dover.He's not responsible for the behavior of his lackeys in the press.Might as well blame Bush for Jesus Camp.If Obama really tried to use dead soldiers for a photo op, that was a crass thing to do. Not being telepathic, I don't know what his secret intentions were, but I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.It is also crass to use dead soldiers to try to score points on Obama. Bush showing up at Dover would have been called a photo op by people such as Alpha Liberal, who so vociferously takes Bush to task for NOT showing up at Dover. It's not right or fair to do it to Obama.
And how is this different than Bush trumpeting out military families and troops on camera, obviously against their will, to support the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Obama is stuck with Bush's quagmire and is trying to save our soldiers lives in a war that Obama knows is being fought for nothing more than oil and to raise Haliburton's stock price and because those indigenous peoples aren't reading the Bible and worshipping that Jesus fella everyday.And, maybe the New York Times made an editorial decision because that sentence wasn't accurate upon reflection. Fox News, on the other hand, is a right-wing peopaganda outfit that gets it marching orders from Karl Rove. Of course, none of you are complaining about that.
I detest Barack Obama.However, appearing at Dover certainly falls within the privileges and duties of the president of the United States. Can any president do anything that is (1) not a photo op or (2) is without political effect? Going to Dover may be a sin, and not going to Dover may also be a sin. I give him credit for picking the one that gives credit where it is actually due.
Brian--You don't sound like a Kool-Aid drinker. You sound like the guy who invented Kool-aid.
Could not the 6 hours to dover been better spent actually making a decision on afghanistan, rather than trying to appear concerned about the consequences of any decision he makes on afghanistan. BTW Mr. President, if you want to honor the troops who have died for this country? Succeed in Victory in Afghanistan and Iraq, and if you cant figure out what that is, then how about take a poll of fighting Americans on the ground....
Why do people keep repeating the canard that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are "illegal"? By what law? According to whom? They were authorized by the United States Congress, and there is no other authority to whom the US is subject in these matters.
Brian mentioned "illegal wars". Brian - FYI- that term is a 100% reliable litmus test used to detect far left liberal kooks like you.
Well, that's how it goes when you're angling for a bailout.-jcr
I never took his visit to Dover as anything other than a photo op.
edutcher said... Not sure on protocol, but, since the President (any President)is a civilian, he isn't supposed to perform a military salute, I believe.I'll give him a pass on the salute, other presidents have done it and at least it looked like he took a minute to find out how to render it properly.
I finally get it. The NYT is doing now what they accused (and probably believed) Fox News of doing under Bush. What's good for the goose...etc. Only fair in their biased minds.
I never took his visit to Dover as anything other than a photo op.He apparently took the White House press corp along, and that is why some have suggested that it was done as a photo op. I do think that he has every right, and maybe even duty to have gone. He is the one who, in the end, ordered the fallen into harm's way. The issue is not that he went, but how it was handled. And, yes, it may not have been his idea on how to handle it, but rather, his people's.
What you said makes good sense, Tyrone. Sometimes it is hard not to view media like the NYT as separate from Obama himself these days. But we should try to.And I was curious, so I clicked on your profile. Nice pic! I giggled out loud. :)
Sorry. I'm not buying any of this. I think he's waiting until after the Afghan run off election to announce that he's pulling troops. He's putting on a show to prove that he's making a carefully calibrated and solemn decision. Meanwhile the casualties mount, making it easier to announce that he's bringing them all home. He probably thinks this will score some points for sincerity with Putin and the Mullahs. I hope I'm wrong, but I can't believe that a disciple of Saul Alinsky, or someone whose concept of smart diplomacy is doing everything The U.N. Way, has any respect for the military or national defense. I mean this is the twenty-first century!
IKf he goes, he is damned. If he doesn't go he is damned. Give it a rest.
Is the NYT relevant? I quit paying attention to them years ago.
Ahh, now we know where that red phone on the President's desk connects.
fred--This post was about A sentence that was in the NYT before it was not.Pay attention. To go, or not to go, that's not the question.
Those who actually remember a Bush visit to surviving families will also recall he usually met in private with them. Not before a camera.
"If he goes, he is damned. If he doesn't go he is damned."Works for me! :-)
Meh.The New York Times is not a real newspaper. They're not a real news organization. They're just the official organ of the Democrat Party.We can safely ignore everything they do. When Republicans get back into power, they should remove all NY Times reporters' press passes.Oh, they'll whine and complain and write stories about how the Gestapo is now in charge.But that will only last a week or so before it will get boring to everyone - including their own readers.So Republicans ... when you get into power, remember the precedent set by Barack Obama: Any news organization such as the NY Times that toes the Democrat Party line can be excluded from your press conferences and reporter pools.
I hate Obutthead with a passion, but....It is the responsibility of a President of the United States to render honors upon our gallant dead. He gets a thumb's-up for showing up. That's what Presidents do.He then gets a thumb's-down for dragging the Press Corps along, and then going through the obviously-rehearsed and exquisitely-staged, march-and-salute routine. This was in extremely poor taste.Show up and pay your respects, certaily, but then show some class and receede into the background.
Brian wrote: "Obama is stuck with Bush's quagmire"Wait just a cotton pickin minute. It was your Obama who said that Bush was wasting his time in Iraq when the REAL war was in Afghanistan. That was Obama talking you short memoried twit. Bush drained his quagmire that wasn't. Now Obama is showing his resolve that isn't.Your problem is that some of us here recall facts while you are just polishing Obama's halo.Trey
Dudley wrote: "The NYT is doing now what they accused (and probably believed) Fox News of doing under Bush"Dudley, progressives typically are involved in the very activities that they falsley accuse others of doing. It is uncanny how often that is the fact. I think it stems from their deep hypocrisy as posing as freedom loving when they are in fact fascists.Trey
The Old Gray Lady has become the Old Gray Whore. Apart from her little clutch of true believers on the Upper East Side and in the West Wing, nobody takes her seriously anymore.
"A small contingent of reporters and photographers was quietly called to follow him to Dover,"The above from the original NY Times articles says everything that needs to be said
Holy Crap - how can ANY of you fools defend his taking the press-corps along?I APPLAUD him for going - he SHOULD see first-hand the results of his dithering.Had he gone without bringing along his lap-dog propaganda-ministers, he'd get nothing but props from me and anyone I know - it's the fact that he made the whole thing into a cynical photo-op that makes me puke.Every time I think he can sink no lower he digs down another strata.That anyone can defend this narcissism is simply staggering.Can your messiah do *ANYTHING* wrong?!DD
Post a Comment