Obama speech to soldiers met with silence

[Póg mo 1,749]

It's Bush's fault .... Will it never end.

The guy was president when all those wars were begun. I really don't understand your unwillingness to hold him responsible for them.

You know it's bad when the only defense you can offer of the Clown in Chief is, "they might not have cheered for someone else".

No, I am sure they probably would have cheered for Bush II even after all the failed wars.

[Póg mo 1,749]

Apparently, yes. Most American service personnel still have the opinion that BushBaby respects the military, as he has proven in his charitable activities since leaving office. He's still widely respected.

This election is predominately about the economy. The left already believes him to be eager to enter into an armed conflict with Iran. Why give them any kind of satisfaction?

Where did they get that idea from? Oh right, from etcha sketch's own mouth of course

[slim 1,530]

I wonder if they would still cheer for Bush II?

Absolutely!

Cheering for the president isn't about policy, it's about leadership. As long as the president enables and encourages the military to do their job, they will applaud him. When a president does things like considering cutting their pay and benefits, they will remain silent in public. Worse in private.

Obama lost almost every ounce of support he had when he didn't stand up for the troops. Any president that would consider cutting their pay (including their combat pay) is not going to be popular. Bush, on the other hand, actively worked to increase pay and benefits. He "cared" about the military. Obama does not. He only cares about advancing his political career through unpopular policies such as repealing don't ask don't tell.

.... and Bush is a vet. Obama is quite possibly a foreigner with no authority to be commander in chief. Huge difference there.

How about presidential candidate etcha sketch? The man couldn't even bring himself to mention the war, while accepting his parties nomination!

Obamalite is a douche.

Why the republican party chose to run the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama is beyond me. Are they really that scared of Ron Paul?

The guy was president when all those wars were begun. I really don't understand your unwillingness to hold him responsible for them.

The failed policy of late is why he's being held responsible. You don't announce a withdrawl time. You give your soldiers the opportunity to kick the sh!t out of their enemies and then you set up a puppet government and let them rebuild. That's how it's supposed to work. Not this CNN bullsh!t we see out there now. "Well, we're kind of fighting and kind of helping... but the bulk of the work is being done by the people themselves."

Bull. Quit trying to be political Quit trying to take credit for things our troops have done. Complete the mission then bring them home.

No, I am sure they probably would have cheered for Bush II even after all the failed wars.

It's important to remember wars aren't lost by the military. The "failed wars" aren't failures because the military didn't do it's job or the president that started the wars didn't finish them, etc.

The troops will continue to try to win no matter what. There was a little African place we fought a war in several years back. The media would have you believe we "lost" that one too. Ask any military member and they'll tell you we didn't lose that engagement. We lost that opportunity when our president pulled us out.

There's a little country in South East Asia that we "lost" as well. Ask any of those vets about losing that war.

The US military is undefeated. Always has been. Always will be.

[웃 910]

Why the republican party chose to run the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama is beyond me.

So they should run the guy that lost to the guy that lost to the guy that lost to Romney? Otherwise known as Ron Paul.

Ron Paul would lose all 57 states.

Just like he lost all 57 states in the primaries.

[slim 1,530]

Just like he lost all 57 states in the primaries.

He didn't lose all 57 states in the primaries.

What's probably more important is he did well with little to no media coverage and active media bias against him. I can only imagine how well he would do if the media had crowned him king from the start, the way they did Obamalite.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

.... and Bush is a vet. Obama is quite possibly a foreigner with no authority to be commander in chief. Huge difference there.

:rofl:

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Because a sympathetic press would consider it embarrassing to the incumbent and not report on it, thereby skewing the available sources for the story.

Actually local news sources, not the Communist News Network et al, also missed the silence alledged in the OP and picked up by others in the RWN blogosphere. Odd that? No?