I give you Sheryl Gay Stolberg in the New York Times here today (on Obama giving a speech in Phoenix about increasing our troop strength in Afghanistan; I’ll debate the wisdom of such a move another time)…
As a commander in chief who has never served in the armed forces, Mr. Obama is still working to establish his bona fides with the military. His predecessor, George W. Bush, typically received wildly enthusiastic receptions from military audiences; Mr. Obama’s speech was interrupted only occasionally by polite applause.
As an occupant of An Oval Office who never left Texas during the Vietnam War – actually, there were periods when he was unaccounted for during his stateside service, as noted here (and whose presidential campaign still managed the “God damn, were the people who voted for him morons, or what?” feat of maligning an actual war hero on his way to another term in office) – our 43rd president was a virtuoso when it came to exploiting our military for political gain (or, as noted here)…
We have a commander-in-chief who does very well when he is unscripted, unrehearsed and engaging with soldiers. But too often those who handle his performances try to turn the American fighting man and woman into a political prop for the scenery.
And by the way, a sympathetic reaction to Bush isn’t “news” anyway when you consider the following, as noted here.
Also, I wonder if Warren L. Henthorn and John Scripsick would agree with Stolberg’s sympathetic treatment towards Obama’s predecessor; you can learn how these men are from here, and why they deserve our sympathy, respect and eternal gratitude.
In closing, I sincerely hope the next time Stolberg or one of her corporate media brethren decide to invoke Obama’s predecessor and his faux military “cred,” they come to their senses instead. Doing so on this occasion was repulsive enough – to continue it in the future would dishonor the sacrifice of those who have fought, suffered and died for our freedom.