Did White House pressure NYT into changing Dover story?
posted at 10:12 am on October 30, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Originally, the New York Times reported on President Barack Obama’s visit to Dover AFB and the arrival of fallen serviceman by explaining that the White House wanted Obama to be seen as concerned and aware of the sacrifices made in America’s war policies:
A small contingent of reporters and photographers accompanied Mr. Obama to Dover, where he arrived at 12:34 a.m. aboard Marine One. He returned to the South Lawn of the White House at 4:45 a.m.
<…>
The images and the sentiment of the president’s five-hour trip to Delaware were intended by the White House to convey to the nation that Mr. Obama was not making his Afghanistan decision lightly or in haste.
Following that link now, the second paragraph quoted is nowhere to be seen. The Jeff Zeleny report contains no editorial announcement of changes after its publication, and no indication of any retraction. Greyhawk at Mudville Gazette and Nice Deb both noticed the change, however, and Greyhawk also noticed that the NYT didn’t quite redact that paragraph from everywhere on its servers. The story now reads like this:
The trip was a symbolic one for Mr. Obama, given the gravity of his coming announcement of a new strategy for Afghanistan.
The image of the commander in chief standing on a darkened tarmac, offering a salute to one of the soldiers, highlighted the poignancy of a decision he is facing.
But even after the redaction, this came up in a search on the NYT site:

So who changed the story, and why? The original Zeleny report with that paragraph gave credence to the accusation that Obama made the Dover trip for a photo op, picked up by bloggers to criticize the White House. Its mysterious disappearance post-publication indicates that someone was unhappy with that kind of criticism and removed the paragraph to curtail it — and didn’t do a very good job of it, either.
The editors of the NYT could have removed it on their own without prompting from anyone, but that doesn’t make a lot of sense. The editors approved the piece for publication in the first place, and besides, the NYT isn’t exactly adept at quickly responding to blogospheric criticism, at least not on its news pages (their blogs are a different matter). It would appear that someone other than bloggers brought this to the attention of the Times and pressed for the removal of the offending paragraph. That might also explain why the Times changed the article without acknowledging it, a big red flag in itself.
The NYT should answer for why this change was made, and why they attempted to fly it under the radar. If the paragraph was inaccurate, a retraction should have accompanied it. If it wasn’t inaccurate, then who pressed them to remove it?










Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
State-controlled media.
JammieWearingFool on October 30, 2009 at 10:16 AM
I’ve alway felt that it was nothing but a photo op to try to change the President’s image. Epic fail.
kingsjester on October 30, 2009 at 10:17 AM
They want to retain their reputation as an independent and serious news organization..
the_nile on October 30, 2009 at 10:17 AM
Rahm has this direct line setup in his office to correct “errors” like this.
WashJeff on October 30, 2009 at 10:18 AM
NYT arm of the White House Press Office. Just call Obama and Gibss boss Times reporters.
taney71 on October 30, 2009 at 10:18 AM
The gray lady is seriously corroded and tarnished.
OmahaConservative on October 30, 2009 at 10:19 AM
Ah, the NYT – now *there’s* a real, honest-to-goodness NEWS organization the WH can approve of.
Midas on October 30, 2009 at 10:19 AM
What a bunch of losers. You are not supposed to include the reason for the propaganda in the propaganda piece.
Joe Caps on October 30, 2009 at 10:19 AM
They woke up with a dead fish.
Kissmygrits on October 30, 2009 at 10:19 AM
The NYT is one of those “real news organizations” Obama like so much.
It was obviously a photo op and in bad taste if you ask me. This cover up makes it all the more disgusting, the new story reads has a dramatic prose to it, feeding into the Obamessiah imagery we usually see in the media.
Hopefully Fox picks this up.
Daemonocracy on October 30, 2009 at 10:20 AM
They retracted it because there’s no way a president of the USA would go to Dover for a photo op to give the illusion that he gave a $hit about Service members. Oh, wait….I retract this.
I’ve seen President Bush at Walter Reed with no press and no entourage beyond Secret Service. Rumsfeld also. Nothing ever in the news…as it should be.
Dingbat63 on October 30, 2009 at 10:20 AM
Why do we have all of these inefficient, carbon contributing news organizations?
Why not, for the sake of efficiency and to save the planet, boil them all down to one, SUPER information exchange.
The Democrat National Committee has helpfully stepped up to the plate here.
And since they already dictate the news to 95% of “news” organizations, they have vast experience in this area.
NoDonkey on October 30, 2009 at 10:20 AM
FAIL.
On a similar spin note, I flip over to msnbc for a few minutes of comedy every so often. Olbermann is such a clown with that crazy scowl. LOL. Anyway, on a serious note, MSNBC doesn’t say “Fallen Soldiers” or “Fallen Heroes”. They call the troops that made the ultimate sacrifice for our country “THE WAR DEAD”. They’re despicable.
marklmail on October 30, 2009 at 10:21 AM
The Obama Times
cubachi on October 30, 2009 at 10:22 AM
Obama must have been watching West Wing reruns on Bravo. President Bartlet did the same thing after a failed hostage extraction in Columbia. It was even in the middle of the night too.
tarheelcon on October 30, 2009 at 10:22 AM
That’s a nice newspaper you’ve got there. It would be a shame if anything were to happen to it. – Rahmbo
kingsjester on October 30, 2009 at 10:22 AM
I never read the NYT article or any blogger criticism. But I did think it was a photo op the moment I saw the image on TV.
dont taze me bro on October 30, 2009 at 10:23 AM
You know I posted on this and I purposely did not make any judgment calls, being the rabid, teabagging, neocon that I am I was still trying to give him the benefit of a doubt.
Now…..
Just A Grunt on October 30, 2009 at 10:24 AM
Or they were delivered a horse’s head?
BuckeyeSam on October 30, 2009 at 10:24 AM
Jake Tapper mentioned something on Twitter that Obama has been wanting to do this since he lifted the ban on photographing dead service members returns.
So it’s pretty obviously a photo-op.
jacrews on October 30, 2009 at 10:25 AM
Obama-fellating media.
Like Rush said, they are stenographers for this administration. Lord knows, the Slimes need every penny they can scrape together and having the white house provide their copy will save them the cost of an actual reporter.
SKYFOX on October 30, 2009 at 10:25 AM
“All the news that’s (not caused a) fit (at the White House) to print.”
Patrick S on October 30, 2009 at 10:25 AM
The purpose of news is not to inform but rather to serve the state.
MB4 on October 30, 2009 at 10:26 AM
If this was really a somber moment for Obama, then why were there photographers in the first place? Because it is what it is, a photo op.
moonsbreath on October 30, 2009 at 10:26 AM
AKA Govt Media Complex.
Way to go Pinchy… FAIL.
davek70 on October 30, 2009 at 10:29 AM
So a photo-op can be arranged in haste with the phoniness of a three dollar bill. If Obama had true concern for service members he could prove it with the nation by honoring the living by giving them what they need.
fourdeucer on October 30, 2009 at 10:30 AM
It’s nice that we at HA have NYT readers who actually read the NYT for us. It saves us the pain and suffering that accompanies this activity. I’ll read individual articles at times but it is the U.S. equivalent of “Pravda.”
The New York Times, all the news
fit to printchanged to fit.Mojave Mark on October 30, 2009 at 10:31 AM
Heh. Geraldo was on Fox and Friends talking about how great of a moment and picture it was of Obama. Then, he called Obama Osama bin Laden. LOL! The full name. I remember hearing Obama/Osama getting mixed up but he used his full name. I was listening on the radio and there was def a awkward silence, then he just kept going without correcting himself. Hilarious.
Joe Caps on October 30, 2009 at 10:31 AM
“Get me some dead guys for a photo op before I hit the links.”
This is how the MSM would have played it if the President had a W instead of an H for a middle intitial.
The kneepads media shuffles onward.
profitsbeard on October 30, 2009 at 10:32 AM
It’s more like we have our brains all over the contract instead of our signature.
turfmann on October 30, 2009 at 10:32 AM
What would the headlines have been if President Bush had his photo taken with dead bodies?
“Murderer Faces Victims”?
faraway on October 30, 2009 at 10:32 AM
Well… whether the NYT was pressured or whether some “enlightened” editor caught it, it should be clear to the Times by now that if they want that bailout money… Obama had better smell like a rose, at the end of every story they print. Or else.
RD on October 30, 2009 at 10:35 AM
The NYT can’t even do a cover up right…
d1carter on October 30, 2009 at 10:37 AM
All the HTML that’s fit to delete.
LibTired on October 30, 2009 at 10:38 AM
More than you think JWF…..
The Great Newspaper Bailout
President who gave us Government Motors now wants to give us Government Media
Executive Summary
Rovin on October 30, 2009 at 10:38 AM
I seem to recall, since it was only yesterday, that there was a school of thought that we shouldn’t have been questioning the filthy lying coward’s motives since he was CINC doing proper honors to fallen soldiers. There was also a good deal of skepticism that the event was nothing more than a photo-op.
It’s both satisfying and saddening to learn that the event was indeed nothing more than a photo-op. That the fallen soldiers and their families were indeed props to convey a message of caring from a rat bastard traitor who loathes the military no matter how many speeches he gives at Naval bases and how many times his fat-assed wife shows up at V.A. facilities.
For those of you people who were ascibing this trip to Dover as something noble and approprite- What the $%*( were you thinking. You should know better than to think that this bastard cares about honoring the troops.
highhopes on October 30, 2009 at 10:39 AM
That’s funny in a really geeky way.
faraway on October 30, 2009 at 10:40 AM
Yeah, it’s a shame that the Chicago Jesus couldn’t even force himself to be sincere about the deaths of American soldiers. It had to be a choreographed event for the cameras, with the accompanying “approved” message from the press.
UltimateBob on October 30, 2009 at 10:42 AM
Eek, wish I’d seen it. Any time I hear those kids singing the “mmm” song, I can’t help but hearing:
“Mmm mmm mmm – Saddam Hussein Osama!”
RD on October 30, 2009 at 10:42 AM
The fact that there were photographers there at all tells you about intent. If the President wanted to go someplace without the media knowing, it would happen. Obama wanted this photo op so that he could convince someone that he cares. Remember the photo op with the sailors just days ago? Those guys didn’t look so happy. This way (somberness of the occasion) guarantees that those sad looks are appropriate.
texabama on October 30, 2009 at 10:43 AM
Hah! I saw that too, as I was getting ready for work this morning. Spewed toothpaste all over the mirror, I laughed so hard.
Geraldo sucks.
UltimateBob on October 30, 2009 at 10:45 AM
Hopefully, some enterprising person who was there captured an image of President Paper Mario yawning while gazing at our fallen sons.
Priceless.
BobMbx on October 30, 2009 at 10:45 AM
That’s just gotta go up on YouTube!!! Someone keep an eye out? I can’t while I’m at work. Can’t stream video.
Phil-351 on October 30, 2009 at 10:45 AM
Obama and SRM
MISSION UNACCOMPLISHED
fourdeucer on October 30, 2009 at 10:46 AM
I’m waiting for the video to show up on HotAir. :-)
UltimateBob on October 30, 2009 at 10:46 AM
Let’s keep it above board. I smell Killgore Trout’s presence here trolling for material for his boss Chuckie.
JammieWearingFool on October 30, 2009 at 10:47 AM
This is exactly why the White House wants to control Internet content and blogs.
TXUS on October 30, 2009 at 10:48 AM
The poignancy?! The hell?
There’s absolutely nothing poignant abuout it. He needs to stop dithering and lead – sh*t or get off the pot. Unfortunately he is far smaller than his office and is dithering like the over-promoted rabble-rousing nincompoop he is.
Anders on October 30, 2009 at 10:48 AM
LOL. Obama does not have to “pressure” anyone in the MSM to change a story.
Team Obama just goes to their computer – with a direct line to the various news agency computers- and does a rewrite.
albill on October 30, 2009 at 10:50 AM
The internet is really great. American Pravda can’t hide their lies any longer. The media and our elected officials live under a microscope now and they do not like it.
Until the internet, the washington cesspool flourished within its impenetrable, opaque walls, completely secure from the scrutiny of an ignorant populace.
Sunlight as they say, is the best disinfectant.
Did anyone doubt that Bozo went to Dover for anything other than a photo op? He hates US servicemen and women. He is letting them die by the score, while he hosts swank parties, goes golfing and campaigning.
dogsoldier on October 30, 2009 at 10:50 AM
Photographers follow the President everywhere he goes. Permission to be photographed was granted by the soldier’s family. He has been meeting privately with families, without press, throughout his presidency. It was utterly appropriate for him to go to Dover and it underscores the shallow cavil’s launched by his opponents. He has to make a decision that may result in many more somber flights to Dover, and is right to take his time makeing it. His critics don’t, rendering their criticism cheap and easy. Using the lives of brave soldiers as props for your own personal attacks is shameful.
Bleeds Blue on October 30, 2009 at 10:51 AM
Dude, this happens all the time… news organizations should not be allowed to get away with this… I wish one news org would switch to a wiki model where changes are tracked…
ninjapirate on October 30, 2009 at 10:54 AM
Watched it too. It was almost like the moment when Geraldo opened up Capone’s Vault
yoda on October 30, 2009 at 10:55 AM
We have always been at war with Eastasia.
mojo on October 30, 2009 at 10:56 AM
Nice paper you got here. Be a shame if anything happened to it. Let us know if you need government help.
antisocial on October 30, 2009 at 10:57 AM
And the dumbasses who voted for Obama think Bush didn’t care about our wounded and dead soldiers, because they never saw him on TV with them.
Axelrod knows his audience.
rockmom on October 30, 2009 at 10:57 AM
Give me a break, the story is the changing of the news story without announcement… it’s well known the Obama administration pressures news orgs…
ninjapirate on October 30, 2009 at 10:58 AM
the troubling thought here is that it is symbolic. He isn’t going because he cares, he’s going because he cares how people will vote – it isn’t real, it’s an evil stunt meant to manipulate those people who REALLY care. What can be more callous than that?
WashingtonsWake on October 30, 2009 at 10:58 AM
Wow, he went to Dover and stared at the flag draped coffins of our fallen comrades who his indescision helped to get killed. And… and he let the press take pictures of it. He really, really does love us. sniff…
I wonder if he pondered the new and improved ROE while he was there.
(PS, President Bush never made it a habit to allowed the press to accompany him or his administration when he visited Dover or the wounded in the various hospitals. Motives)
hawkdriver on October 30, 2009 at 10:58 AM
And I’m sure you had exactly the same response when President Bush met with families of fallen soldiers, didn’t you? I’m sure you were just as critical of the sniping on the Left about Bush’s photo-op visits to Iraq, weren’t you?
rockmom on October 30, 2009 at 11:00 AM
FIFY, you blind idiot.
UltimateBob on October 30, 2009 at 11:00 AM
He controls everything in his immediate surroundings with his security detail. He could have done this without photos and you know it.
thomasaur on October 30, 2009 at 11:03 AM
I thought the Thanksgiving turkey visit to Iraq was a little stagy, but I supported his meeting with soldiers and families. Who wouldn’t?
Part of the job of being President, any president, is symbolic. Whether a President marches in a Labor Day Parade, speaks on Memorial Day, wears a flag lapel pin, hosts a prayer breakfast or whatever doesn’t change the way he actually feels about labor rights, defense spending and veterans affairs, patriotism or Jesus. But is does send a public signal that needs to be sent. So yes, of course it was a symbolic trip to Dover, but it was an important symbol and if you weren’t overcome by derangement you’d support the president telling our troops that yes he is viscerally aware of the sacrifices they make and takes the decisions he makes that touch their lives very seriously.
Bleeds Blue on October 30, 2009 at 11:11 AM
Liberals have protested our every action on the battlefield. Your journalists (the honest ones) have openly said they do not support the troops. You have attacked our young recruiters at college job fairs. You have attacked our recruiting stations. You have organized to not allow us to even visit high schools where your children go to school as if we were storm troopers. You demand to see pictures of our solemn ceremonies on tarmacs and demanded our suffering and dead be photographed and published for all to see, as you still censor the images of 9-11 victims jumping to their deaths. Your peers have asked me in the Philadelphia Airport as I traveled home on emergency leave, “How I can live with myself knowing so many “civilians” are being killed”.
You don’t speak for us and never have. Stop pandering to us. To you and those like you, we are pawns and we resent you. If you had any courage, you would answer the active duty military here on Hot Air that refute your comments.
hawkdriver on October 30, 2009 at 11:13 AM
Which is why people were skeptical. You might have noticed that there wasn’t a whole lot of press attention to this photo-op when I’m sure the filthy lying coward was hoping that the story line yesterday was going to be all about the stress and agony of having to be a wartime President. In short the bastard stepped on his own storyline by bringing all that media.
highhopes on October 30, 2009 at 11:16 AM
Translation: “I can’t defend what the NY Times did so I will try and change the subject.”
BTW, I had to laugh at your last sentence. Your side was the one giving us breathless countdowns to 1,000 killed in Iraq, 2,000 killed in Iraq, 3,000 killed in Iraq, and 4,000 killed in Iraq.
Epic FAIL, as usual.
Del Dolemonte on October 30, 2009 at 11:19 AM
That is besides the point. You are supposed to respond to the following:
“How did the paragraph got changed on a NEWS article? Without any explanation of why.”
You might consider reading through that article again and then respond.
BTW… Why is he taking 2 months to reconsider his own strategy? Did you miss the memo that he had a carefully considered strategy for Afghanistan in late march this year? It is shameful for a Commander In Chief to drag his feet and delay resources for troops on the ground and in the process put the forces on the ground in greater risk. You don’t take 2 months to make a decision. 2 months could actually turn an imminent victory into a sure defeat.
antisocial on October 30, 2009 at 11:20 AM
Telling the troops he supports them…while he cuts defense spending and funnels money to his union buddies, dithers on sending much needed troops, and changes ROE so the troops in the theater of war are sitting ducks. Do you thinks conservatives are as stupid as you liberals ?
runner on October 30, 2009 at 11:21 AM
Wow! Could you be more of a drama queen?
Bottom line, the filthy lying coward used fallen soldiers as props. That’s just wrong and offensive as well.
highhopes on October 30, 2009 at 11:23 AM
Then the next time I hear Bush Lied, Soldiers Died, I’m gonna find your dumb ass and knock your stupid head down your windpipe. Name or point to a single soldier’s family who has reported that Obambi met with them in private. There are scores of reports of Bush doing this. Not one report of Obama doing so.
The First Amendment protects you from the government, not from me. You can spout whatever silly ass propaganda you want out there. But it gives me and every other former serviceman the right to kick your ass if you ever come within my reach.
Maybe you better think before you lie again, boy.
Subsunk
Subsunk on October 30, 2009 at 11:24 AM
Glad to see you are still with us, son. We were all worried about you after the helo accidents in AFG. Glad to hear from you.
Subsunk
Subsunk on October 30, 2009 at 11:26 AM
FYI, Jeff Zeleny is the same guy who offered this incisive question during Obama’s first presser:
I’m guessing today’s Zeleny edit enchanted the president.
Exurban Jon on October 30, 2009 at 11:27 AM
No, only your side saw it that way. See UK’s Independent, who whined at the time, in their howler called “The Turkey Has Landed”
And it was your side who immediately cried that the turkey Bush was holding was a fake. However, that was totally false as well.
Del Dolemonte on October 30, 2009 at 11:28 AM
U.S. Condemned For Pre-Emptive Use Of Hillary Clinton Against Pakistan
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “You Must Not Have Heard About Me” Video from the Onion, The Pakistanis have kind of been asking for it, we tried to be nice LOL!
Dr Evil on October 30, 2009 at 11:29 AM
Down the memory hole.
loudmouth883 on October 30, 2009 at 11:29 AM
The fact that Obama waited until now to visit Dover, at a time when he is taking alot of well deserved heat for his foot dragging indecision on Afghanistan, and the fact that he made sure it was photographed and publicized, all prove that this was a political show designed to give Obama cover when he finally announces his decision.
Frankly, I’m offended and angry that he used the bodies of our brave, fallen men and women in this way, for his own personal benefit. And I’m not feigning outrage to score cheap points on this. To me this is disgusting behavior. If he wants to go to Dover, fine, but don’t photograph and publicize it then use it as a shield.
OxyCon on October 30, 2009 at 11:29 AM
Regarding the change to the Times story, I have no idea why it was edited, and neither do you. The difference is thta I don’t have a platform from which to feed by paranoid fantasies to a credulous public as reasonable theories. Until some sort of fact is posted, this is malicious speculation.
Kiss off, punk.
Obama considers his interaction with disabled veterans and families of the fallen as “sacred,” and leaves the meetings “contemplative” about his overall war strategy, said Matt Flavin, director of the White House Office of Veterans and Wounded Warrior Policy.
The White House doesn’t seek publicity for the private meetings, which often don’t appear on the president’s public schedule.
Getting Insight
Bleeds Blue on October 30, 2009 at 11:31 AM
Thanks. We’ve worked with the Marine unit that lost the two helos near Dwyer but I don’t know any of them. The folks that flew the MH47 and their passengers were folks my detachment worked closer with. My guys are all still fine though. Thanks for the concern.
hawkdriver on October 30, 2009 at 11:32 AM
God bless you Hawk, and keep you safe. How is your father doing?
lovingmyUSA on October 30, 2009 at 11:32 AM
We can tell just how seriously he takes our request for reinforcements by the time he has taken to approve the request, and by the excuses he has made for why he shouldn’t send them. Citing Joe Bidne, Rahm Emmanuel, Tom Friedman, or anyone EXCEPT a General or former General with counterinsurgency experience on this just means he disregards the opinions and judgment of professionals in favor of politicians.
And soldiers, active and former, to a Man, despise a leader who refuses to listen to his subordinates. I have served with dozens of Commanding Officers who had only one way, their way. Their troops lived in constant fear of the Captain. And as soon as he was wrong, his command failed. The US military is a team. When one man doesn’t have the answer, others do. However, no one on his nibs team is a team player. He routinely disregards military advice from his subordinates.
That makes his policies the biggest failures in military history, unless he is 100% correct in every choice. And so far, he’s been wrong on every military decision he’s never made.
You disgust me.
Subsunk
Subsunk on October 30, 2009 at 11:33 AM
Inaccurate or not, we know he thought it so it must be true.
See how that works media.
ted c on October 30, 2009 at 11:33 AM
It’s a political calculation. It failed. Although, when he meets with the Joint Chiefs of Staff today I’m sure every other sentence will begin with “When I was at Dover AFB yesterday….”
highhopes on October 30, 2009 at 11:34 AM
Nice try, TinkerBelle: I was about to say that the trolls avoid threads like this because there’s no opening for any possibility of scoring any points, but then you pop up like a Whack-a-Mole troll to totally destroy any lingering credibility you might have.
This was so blatant that it’s already disappeared from media coverage.
Janos Hunyadi on October 30, 2009 at 11:39 AM
Okay, live in your delusional world. Ignore the comments of us here actually fighting in this war (which BTW, he said he could prosecute so much better than Bush or McCain. Why so long to make a decision on the troop level increases? I thought he said during the campaign he knew exactly what needed to be done?) To the vast majority of us though who live and die by his rules, your CinC is an epic fail and has already instituted policy and a ROE that is getting us killed daily.
hawkdriver on October 30, 2009 at 11:40 AM
Amateur hour. Winston Smith would have been a lot more careful in covering the Party’s tracks.
Firefly_76 on October 30, 2009 at 11:41 AM
Guys, this happens almost every day, I’m glad you’re taking notice. I noticed this morning that the AFP story on Hillary’s Bush bashing which The Corner sourced yesterday omits the portion cited. AP and the NY Times are notorious for this, cleaning it up when it’s been used as a criticism of the Obama administration.
Speechlesstx on October 30, 2009 at 11:41 AM
Let me just say that President Bush did not need a “White House Office of Veteran and Wounded Warrior Policy.” That is something only a clueless White House with no actual veterans in its midst would need to create. It’s another propaganda post designed to repackage an anti-military President as pro-military. We aren’t fooled. You chose poorly.
rockmom on October 30, 2009 at 11:42 AM
Your link, BlueBreeder. Even Bloomberg’s article can’t bring itself to say that he supports his generals or the troops in prosecuting this war. He has sympathy for the wounded, sure. I’ve never been one to complain that this was a photo op for his own purposes and not respectful of the troops who died. But I’m damn tired of it being used by the media and Dhimmicrats to justify his lack of urgency in approving reinforcements. Good Men are dying and he refuses the reinforcements which are clearly available and recommended by the professionals.
Your own link shows that Bush, and other Presidents did at least as much for wounded soldiers as Obama. That these meetings have not spurred him to follow the advice of his own military Generals is what kills us, literally.
Pucker up, pissant. I’ll kiss you where it hurts. In your conscience, if you had one.
Subsunk
Subsunk on October 30, 2009 at 11:45 AM
The worst part for me is that even during the photo-op at Dover, the filthy lying coward showed no emotion or empathy with those sent in harm’s way. He didn’t care about the soldiers in those flag-draped coffins. He didn’t even have the good manners to properly salute.
All he cares about are his poll numbers and the troops deserve so much better. Stay safe and God bless all those serving in combat.
highhopes on October 30, 2009 at 11:46 AM
New York Times to Reduce Costs and Increase Transparency By Not Using Ink and Paper on Reports Critical of Administration Agenda http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/09/new-york-times-to-reduce-costs-and.html
Mervis Winter on October 30, 2009 at 11:47 AM
Glen Beck nailed this clown and the people he surrounds himself with perfectly yesterday. Let me be clear, I mean perfectly.
bluegrass on October 30, 2009 at 11:50 AM
Admission of defeat duly noted.
Del Dolemonte on October 30, 2009 at 11:50 AM
I thought it was a move straight out of Southside Chicago and a bit tacky. Of course, our soldiers deserve encouragement from their CINC on Thanksgiving when most Americans are with their families. But this was too casual.
If he took their needs seriously, he would have made a decision months ago and treated our allies better, ensuring their cooperation. That’s the reason the apologist was elected; he was supposed to renew relations with our allies and put an end to cowboy diplomacy. I think Poland, France and the UK would appreciate that cowboys can at least make decisions when lives are at stake.
alliebobbitt on October 30, 2009 at 11:50 AM
Not only there, but my alarm goes off with talk radio in the AM…
Yesterday, on the tick, the news started with:
Pure, intentional, scripted propaganda and photo op by Cry Baby in Chief, using dead soldiers as political props…
By the next half hour news broadcast, the story was gone…
… this was not just the NY Times, but a TOTAL blackout was in effect.
This story has to get out!
Seven Percent Solution on October 30, 2009 at 11:52 AM
I miss President Bush
faraway on October 30, 2009 at 11:53 AM
It is the American version of Paliwood.
I thought I was being pessimistic as to how bad the Obama administration would be, ha! This man makes President Buchanan look brilliant.
18-1 on October 30, 2009 at 11:54 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »