Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Obama speech to soldiers met with silence

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Obama speech to soldiers met with silence

    President Barack Obama was greeted with fleeting applause and extended periods of silence as he offered profuse praise to soldiers and their families during an Aug. 31 speech in Fort Bliss, Texas.

    His praise for the soldiers — and for his own national-security policies — won cheers from only a small proportion of the soldiers and families in the cavernous aircraft-hanger.

    The audience remains quiet even when the commander-in-chief thanked the soldiers’ families, and cited the 198 deaths of their comrades in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    The audience’s reaction was so flat that the president tried twice to elicit a reaction from the crowd.

    “Hey, I hear you,” he said amid silence.

    The selected soldiers who were arrayed behind the president sat quietly throughout the speech.

    CNN and MSNBC ended their coverage of the speech before it was half-over.

    The president’s speech to the soldiers is part of his constitutional duties as commander-in-chief.

    But Obama and his wife are also trying to reach out to military families in several critical swing-states, including Virginia and Florida. (RELATED: Obama warm to scientists, cold to soldiers)

    That outreach, however, has been damaged by repeated flubs from the White House, including its public emphasis on soldiers’ wounds rather than on their accomplishments, and Obama’s effort to distance himself from the anti-jihad campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    For example, Obama gave Vice President Joe Biden the task of developing a post-war agreement with Iraq’s government in 2009. The effort failed, reducing U.S. gains from the campaign that killed almost 4,500 troops, and as well as thousands of jihadis and Sunni insurgents seeking to regain power. The subsequent withdrawal of nearly all U..S. troops has allowed Iran to increase its influence in Iraq. In turn, that influence helps it support Syria’s dictatorship against Sunni insurgents.

    White House officials are trying to avoid additional flubs. On Friday, for example, White House officials rushed to debunk a report that the president had used an autopen to sign condolence letters to soldiers’ families.

    Throughout Friday’s speech, the loudest reactions came when the president name-checked the nicknames of the soldiers’ brigades. Major military units have their own rival cheers, and those could be heard from portions of the audience when he referred to individual units.

    The troops’ silence continued through several obvious applause-lines.

    There was isolated cheers when Obama said his withdrawal policy would ensure “fewer deployments … more time to prepare for the future, and it means more time on the home front, with your families, your home and kids.”

    The silence deepened when the president lauded his strategy of withdrawal from the war. “Make no mistake, ending the wars responsibly makes us safer and our military even stronger, and ending these wars is letting us do something else; restoring American leadership,” he said amid complete silence.

    When he said demobilized soldiers would find jobs because “all of you have the skills America needs,” he got little reaction.

    There was no reaction when he promised stepped-up recruitment of soldiers for police jobs.

    He won some applause when he announced his support for soldiers injured in combat.

    The most enthusiastic applause came when he lauded the soldiers’ military mission, and promised continued support for that professional task.

    An anecdote about his meeting with a wounded soldier was met with a tepid response, until he described the soldier’s determination to recover and return to his unit. “He’s where every soldier wants to be – back with his unit,” Obama said, generating applause.

    Similarly, his declaration that “around the world there’s a new attitude toward America, a new confidence in our leadership” yielded only silence, while his next sentence — “When people are asked ‘Which country do you admire most?’ one nation always comes out on top, the United States of America” — prompted relative enthusiasm.

    The White House’s video-feed cut off 10 seconds after the president finished his speech, before the audience’s reaction overall could be gauged by viewers.

    I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

  • #2
    id sit there in silence too.
    2011 Mustang GT
    sigpic

    Comment


    • #3
      why do people still show up for this clowns speeches?

      Comment


      • #4
        Because they're ordered too. Commanders get notification to send X amount of bodies to fill seats, normally ones who will provide the reaction the person wants. So these people in those seats? Most enthusiastic soldiers Obama could find.
        I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

        Comment


        • #5
          ^^^this when they need to fill seats it becomes an order to attend.

          Comment


          • #6
            Obama loses, by a big number.

            All the polls are polling dem by a +6/+12 point margin only to get to even or one point ahead. Theyresorted to giving away tickets to their national convention to fill seats, and his lapdog media are making themselves look like idiots by trying to spin the coverage to paint him in a good lijght.

            Come Nov 6, im gonna laaaaaugh.

            Comment


            • #7
              That story made me laugh. The closest they could come to all giving him the middle finger. I think their reaction to him is very telling of how they would respond if they ere ordered to do something to quell civil unrest of some sort.
              "It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by sc281 View Post
                Come Nov 6, im gonna laaaaaugh.
                Are you guaranteeing a Romney win?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by SS Junk View Post
                  Are you guaranteeing a Romney win?
                  Yeah, he is a fortune teller and can guarantee that, absolutely!
                  Detailing by Dylan
                  817-494-3396
                  Meticuloustx7@gmail.com
                  Ask about the Pre-Spring special

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by 89gt-stanger View Post
                    Yeah, he is a fortune teller and can guarantee that, absolutely!
                    This.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by sc281 View Post
                      This.
                      So what are you going to be laughing about?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        He hasn't earned any applause. And that is pretty funny, and telling. I've never heard of any President being treated that way by the troops.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by SS Junk View Post
                          So what are you going to be laughing about?
                          Obama's defeat, because I've already foretold it, because I'm a fortune teller.

                          Geez, haven't you been reading?

                          If you ask stupid questions like if I am guaranteeing an unknowable outcome, you are going to get stupid answers. But I'm sure you thought you were being clever.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Obama knows the military isn't behind him. That's why his admnistration is sueing to keep them from early voting overseas.



                            Obama, Democrats suing to block military voting in Ohio?
                            posted at 11:21 am on August 3, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

                            Well … maybe, but that depends on what remedy the lawsuit demands. The DNC, Ohio Democrats, and the campaign for Barack Obama’s re-election have indeed filed a lawsuit in Ohio over an exception for early voting for members of the military and civilians overseas, claiming it sets up an unconstitutionally “disparate” treatment from other voters. But does that mean eliminating the exception altogether, or extending it to everyone?

                            Fifteen military groups are opposing a federal lawsuit in Ohio brought by President Barack Obama’s campaign because they say it could threaten voter protections afforded to service members, such as the extended time they have to cast a ballot.

                            Obama’s campaign and Democrats filed the lawsuit last month against Ohio’s top elections official in a dispute over the battleground state’s law that restricts early, in-person voting during the final three days before Election Day.

                            The campaign, the Democratic National Committee and the Ohio Democratic Party contend the law unfairly ends in-person voting for most Ohioans three days earlier than it does for military and overseas voters.

                            Attorneys for the Democrats argue such “disparate” treatment is unconstitutional, and all voters should be able to vote on those days.

                            Breitbart’s Mike Flynn and these military groups assume that the lawsuits intend to restrict access to the military to the Friday deadline, the same as everyone else in Ohio:

                            On July 17th, the Obama for America Campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and the Ohio Democratic Party filed suit in OH to strike down part of that state’s law governing voting by members of the military. Their suit said that part of the law is “arbitrary” with “no discernible rational basis.”

                            Currently, Ohio allows the public to vote early in-person up until the Friday before the election. Members of the military are given three extra days to do so. While the Democrats may see this as “arbitrary” and having “no discernible rational basis,” I think it is entirely reasonable given the demands on servicemen and women’s time and their obligations to their sworn duty. …

                            I think it’s unconscionable that we as a nation wouldn’t make it as easy as possible for members of the military to vote. They arguably have more right to vote than the rest of us, since it is their service and sacrifice that ensures we have the right to vote in the first place.

                            But is the remedy sought by Democrats to force members of the military to adhere to the Friday deadline, or to eliminate the deadline altogether? Neither the KTVU nor the Bloomberg reports make it clear what remedy the plaintiffs seek — and that’s really the crux of the issue here.

                            Prior to changes in the law passed by the Republican-controlled state legislature and by Governor John Kasich, everyone could submit an early ballot in person or by mail all the way through Monday, but access over the weekend for in-person voting was inconsistent in Ohio’s 88 counties. The counties would have to pay overtime over these weekends to keep offices open, which is probably why some didn’t do so. The new law restricted early voting to the Friday before the election, but left an exception for military members to cast votes in person through Monday.

                            The question then becomes this: why not let everyone cast votes on Monday, too? What state interest is being served by having all the facilities for early voting open on Monday but only limiting access to them for those in the armed service? It’s certainly nice to give troops a perk, but if the polling booths are open, why restrict it at all? It’s a fair question, especially if the remedy sought is to extend that Monday deadline for everyone.

                            However, it’s a big mistake for Team Obama and the DNC to have gotten involved in the suit. No matter how reasonable the issue might be, it still looks like they’re objecting to an accommodation for military voting. If the state Democratic Party wanted to file the lawsuit, why not let them take all of the political flak for it?

                            Update: Like I said, the likely remedy proposed would be to remove the Friday deadline for everyone — and that’s exactly what the plaintiffs are proposing. Gabriel Malor forwarded me a link to the brief, and the relevant language within it:



                            WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request of this Court the following equitable relief:…

                            B. A preliminary and permanent order prohibiting the Defendants, their respective agents, servants, employees, attorneys, successors, and all persons acting in concert with each or any of them, from implementing or enforcing lines 863 and 864 of Sec. 3509.03 (I) in HB 224, and/or the SB 295 enactment of Ohio Revised Code § 3509.03 with the HB 224 amendments, thereby restoring in-person early voting on the three days immediately preceding Election Day for all eligible Ohio voters;

                            So no, they aren’t trying to block military members from getting to the polls, but arguing that since the polls will be open anyway, everyone else should have access to them as well. A couple of commenters think this will be a “logistical nightmare,” but the logistics aren’t really that scaleable. Having the polls open for a few would be the same as having them open for many. There may need to be few more election judges, but those positions are voluntary anyway.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Yet, he gave temp amnesty to so many illegals so they could vote for him.



                              Obama amnesty adds illegals to voter rolls

                              Jim Gilchrist: 'Message we're sending to society is that we're no longer a nation of laws'
                              Published: 06/26/2012 at 9:25 PM

                              It’s been more than a week since President Obama announced a unilateral plan to allow young illegal immigrants to stay in this country and legally obtain work permits, but critics are still fuming over what they see as an unconstitutional method to attain an overt political goal.

                              Jim Gilchrist is founder of the Minuteman Project – a group founded several years ago in response to what he considered the federal government’s abdication of border security responsibilities in the Bush administration. He is even more infuriated with what he sees as blatant political pandering now from President Obama through his executive order to implement key aspects of the DREAM Act.

                              The most significant changes would allow young illegals who were brought to the U.S. before the age of 16, and are currently younger than 30, to stay here and legally obtain work permits. Gilchrist rejects the compassion argument of going easy on young illegals since they didn’t consciously break the law. He asserts that breaking the law has consequences, and young illegals should have to be sent home and get in line for the legal immigration process before being allowed to enter the U.S. again.

                              Gilchrist says Obama is consciously encouraging illegal behavior in hopes of legalizing tens of millions of immigrants who shouldn’t be here. He says the ultimate goal is to turn the vast majority of current illegals into loyal Democratic voters.

                              Gilchrist has no love for Republicans, either, as he contends the GOP would be doing the same thing if it thought most illegals would vote for them. In fact, he believes that’s exactly why President George W. Bush was so lenient toward illegals during his administration.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X