I yearn to be able to respect a president I have political differences with. To be able to find common ground as fellow Americans and on occasions such as Memorial Day, out of respect for the office of the presidency, applaud his speech and say, “Well done, Mr. President; well done! We may differ politically, but today I stand with you!”
So why am I finding such difficulty in doing so, you ask? Why did his speech today get stuck in my butt? Did he gaffe? No….that was last year, before he was president. Big deal. I didn’t consider him presidential material then; but now that he is president, I expect better from a “leader” who promotes himself as a “reach across the aisle” uniter, bridging himself across the partisan divide. As Powerline in 2008 noted of Obama’s Memorial Day speech:
He continued with a town hall-style question and answer period that cast veterans in the only role with which the Democrats are comfortable–victims–and sought to politicize the holiday.
What’s become clear, is that this campaign-mode partisanship is the only style of speech deliverance President Obama seems to know. He seems oblivious to the fact that he is expressing partisanly divisive rhetoric. It probably sounds reasonable and down-the-middle to him; centrist. But this isn’t the case.
Here’s what left a bad taste in my heart from his 2009 speech (up to this point, his speech was fine):
I know that there is nothing I will not do to keep our country safe, even as I face no harder decision than sending our men and women to war — and no moment more difficult than writing a letter to the families of the fallen. And that’s why as long as I am President, I will only send our troops into harm’s way when it is absolutely necessary, and I will always provide them with the equipment and support they need to get the job done. (Applause.)
Narcissism at its finest laced to partisan campaign rhetoric. What else does that last portion serve, other than as a slam against the previous Administration? The implication is, “President Bush sent our children into harm’s way to fight a war of choice, and did not give them proper body armor and support.”
It might not be intentional; but the mindset is stuck on campaign-mode.
He did this during his speech at the Naval Academy. And he does this in EVERY speech.
That’s not leadership for America. That’s leadership for liberal Democrats.
President Obama’s notion of bipartisanship is “we’ll unite the country by YOU rallying around MY values and MY politics.”
Seriously, when has he ever reached across the aisle?
I would love to rally behind an American president- regardless of party affiliation- on national occasions like Memorial Day.
I just wish President Obama felt the same.
*UPDATE* 22:46
Speaking of outfitting them with the proper equipment to get the job done, check out CJ’s post regarding the same speech substance in the president’s weekly radio address:
This weekend has brought a lot of talk from the Executive Branch of government on military and national security issues. I hate to keep pounding the Obama drum, but I can’t let this one go. During Obama’s weekly radio address today, Obama said,
…all too often in recent years and decades, we, as a nation, have failed to live up to that responsibility. We have failed to give them the support they need or pay them the respect they deserve. That is a betrayal of the sacred trust that America has with all who wear – and all who have worn – the proud uniform of our country.
And that is a sacred trust I am committed to keeping as President of the United States. That is why I will send our servicemen and women into harm’s way only when it is necessary, and ensure that they have the training and equipment they need when they enter the theater of war.
So, I find it interesting that we’re sending in over 20,000 troops into Afghanistan WITHOUT proper equipment.
At a news conference this week in Kabul, Secretary of Defense Gates said, “I heard this on several occasions today, that the equipment is coming in behind the troops and is not here and available for them when they arrive.”
You know, I seem to recall when this happened on Rumsfeld’s watch that the country was shouting loudly in protest at this sort of travesty. Rumsfeld remarked quite honestly that “you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want.” What’s different now? The Messiah is in office, so now it’s okay to send our troops into combat unprepared and underequipped?
Gates attributed the delays to “the amount of equipment that has to be brought in and, frankly, the relatively limited infrastructure in terms of airfields and so on of how to get it in here.”
When Gates met with Marines, some complained they didn’t have communications equipment. Others complained about vehicles. And yet, where’s the drum beat of opposition to this “travesty?” Nancy Pelosiraptor (to use the Tygrrrr Express term) even called for Rumsfeld’s resignation because of equipment shortages to our troops.
I just find it disingenuous for the President to publicly state one thing when the reality is quite different as stated by his Secretary of Defense. Maybe fighting a war isn’t as simple as the idiots in Washington think?
Print This Post
Trackbacks
19 comments so far
Leave a reply
Identity Verification: If you wish to verify your commenter identity, so no one can steal it, click the below button: