Video: Different Presidents, Different Responses

The video speaks for itself.


(Biretta tip:  Michael Medved)

6 Responses to Video: Different Presidents, Different Responses

  1. Anthony says:

    I’m not sure exactly what I’m supposed to deduce from this. I suppose your feelings on this greatly have to do with how you believe the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ought to be concluded…

  2. Tito Edwards says:


    Nice try at a straw man and outlandish speculation.

  3. Anthony says:

    Actually I was being totally genuine.

    “Supporting the troops” often means supporting war, or THE war, at least.

    I “support the troops.” I want them home safely with their families, etc. But I can’t, in good conscience, support the ill-defined mission they’ve been handed (by both administrations).

    So, hey, no straw man or speculation intended. I just don’t understand the value of saying the military loved Bush (why? because he was folksy?) versus disdain for Obama (why? because of his likely indifference?).

    Again, I’m just trying to understand your point, which as you say, is supposed to speak for itself.

  4. Todd says:

    Agreement with Anthony. The video means nothing. Our military men and women are professionals, not adolescents. Their likes and dislikes of the chain of command is irrelevant. They follow orders. They do their jobs. And when they return home, hopefully they have a federal government that recognizes their sacrifices and compensates them fairly for it all.

    Since Tito’s point is vague, I’ll substitute mine:

    Support the Troops: bring them home.

  5. Hank says:

    This is comparing apples and bananas.

    The first the troops were at “stan at ease” and couldd make personal responses and the President came in with an informal style. The second the troops were at attention the President came in with a formal approach, being good Marines they stayed at attention until told to sit. I suspect one of the reasons the second was more formal was that the local command did not want an incident, while in the first they were not worried.

    The military like every one else tends to react to others by the amount of respect they perceive and the attitude toward them.

    No one ever doubted that President Bush has great respect for the military, and even if they disagreed with him they felt he was acting in what he believed was their interests.

    Despite efforts to the contrary President Obama projects what is easily perceived as an air of distain for the military. It would not be difficult for them, even when they agree, to suspect the his decisions have nothing to do their interests

    The conclusion drawn in the post is probably correct, but the video does not support it.

  6. Ole Sarge says:

    Protocol wise, the second speech entrance is the one that an APOLITICAL (demonstrated bias towards NEITHER political party or for that matter ANY political party)
    Professional, restrained, the stuff you see the officer corps doing more than the enlisted ranks.

    That said, there was and is an overwhelming difference between the two men, more so than between Clinton and either Bush. And for as much as Obama is compared to Carter, Carter DID serve in the Navy, whatever else, he and Reagen both took their duties as Commander in Chief seriously.

    Obama has more disdain for those in uniform than even Hilary Clinton ever had her first year in the White House with her husband,

%d bloggers like this: