Obama's reception at West Point commencement (1 Viewer)

[Tchula]

http://www.glennbeck.com/2014/05/29/shocking-and-dangerous-glenn-reacts-to-president-obamas-chilly-reception-at-west-point/

"During his commencement address at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point on Wednesday, President Obama sought to lay out the key components that would define his Administration’s foreign policy goals for the remainder of his presidency. Instead, a large majority of the media coverage surrounding the speech focuses on the less than warm reception he received when taking the stage and throughout the address.

“Let’s go from Snowden to the reception at West Point for the President, which is shocking and tragically sad,” Glenn said on radio this morning. “If you look at the stadium, it is full… There’s a few people that stand up and start to give him a standing ovation – but it’s maybe 5% of the audience – and nobody follows.”

Many have described the reception the President received upon taking the stage at West Point as “icy.”

In terms of audience response, the speech really just went downhill from there. President Obama paused several times during the address at moments that he most likely expected to be applause lines – but those in attendance largely had no response. The few points at which the audience did applaud were lackluster at best.

“He’s giving his speech, and he’s waiting for applause, and it never comes,” Glenn said. “And when it does, [it makes his entrance] seem like an outrageous ovation. It really does.”

On radio this morning, Glenn played some of the most cringe worthy moments of the speech from both a policy and audience response perspective. As Glenn explained, the lack of enthusiasm is both sad and dangerous given this was a situation in which the commander in chief was addressing the U.S. military.

“We don’t do this with, honestly, any joy because we think this is very dangerous for the United States of America to have its commander in chief so separated from its soldiers, but we are. The soldiers are disconnecting now from the President,” Glenn said. “He didn’t address the VA scandal. He should have. I don’t know about anybody else, but I’m so sick of the teleprompter. Just speak from the heart, man. Can you not just speak from the heart?”

During his speech, President Obama wandered through a weird maze of policy goals that included everything from climate change to the closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention center. It was a bizarre subject matter for a speech given in the audience of servicemen and women.

“There you are talking to the military about that,” Pat said disgusted. “Listen to this.”

“It sounds like a Rotary Club meeting,” Glenn concluded. “That is absolutely incredible. I have never heard anything like this. It is extraordinarily dangerous to have our military disconnect and no longer trust and believe in the president of the United States – so sad and so dangerous.” '

(Do you get the feeling they know he hates the military?)

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

From what I heard, they cheered loudly when he said they wouldn't have to go to Afghanistan.

Seems like a great speech from what I saw.

 

[butcher boy]

Benghazi birth certificate obamacare ACA ARRA fart

 

[3C's]

Glenn Beck is shockingly and tragically sad.

 

[avoiding injuries]

I read that there was an issue with the teleprompter, and that was the reason for the pauses and scattered content.

 

[The_Man]

BREITBART LIVES!

 

[Slapdash]

(Do you get the feeling they know he hates the military?)

 

[DiStefano]

CNN military analyst observed Obama wasn't a "commander-in-chief speaking to his troops," got "icy reception" from West Pointers as result.

 

[DiStefano]

Obama's speech was also panned by the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, and the Wall Street Journal -- left, center and right. The man, for once, is a uniter.

 

[timschochet]

Just speak from the heart, man.

 

[Mister Martie]

CNN military analyst observed Obama wasn't a "commander-in-chief speaking to his troops," got "icy reception" from West Pointers as result.

Nice copy paste job, @NoahCRothman via townhall.com.

 

[Fennis]

I wish Obama had given the military a real reason to hate him.

 

[Fennis]

From what I heard, they cheered loudly when he said they wouldn't have to go to Afghanistan.

Seems like a great speech from what I saw.

Those crazy ovations were the troops on the ground in Afghanistan.. you know the ones that actually do the fighting. This speech Glenn Beck is talking about was to the guys who will be stationed in Tampa.

 

[HellToupee]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/05/7-harsh-reactions-to-obamas-west-point-speech.html?mid=google

"Mushy," "largely uninspiring," "not exciting," "weak," "fell short of its target" — no, not the new Adam Sandler movie. Reviews of President Obama's commencement speech at West Point yesterday, which he used as another opportunity to define his foreign-policy doctrine, have been mostly negative, and not just from the usual critics like John McCain and Lindsey Graham, the Statler and Waldorf of war hawks."American isolationism is not an option," said Obama, calling the U.S. "the one indispensable nation." However, he cautioned in a familiar tone, "U.S. military action cannot be the only — or even primary — component of our leadership in every instance. Just because we have the best hammer does not mean that every problem is a nail."

If there were a Rotten Tomatoes for political speeches, Obama might topBlended's 14 percent but not by much. Here's what the experts are saying, from faint praise (a Peter Travers–style thumbs up) to the harshest, A. O. Scott–like pans.

At Slate, Fred Kaplan rejected the knee-jerk negativity: "The ensuing cable pundits' complaints — that it was insufficiently 'muscular' or 'robust' — only proved how necessary this speech was," he wrote, highlighting Obama's uncommon common sense. But Kaplan acknowledged, as did many others, "Obama does have a tendency sometimes to demolish straw men, and he indulged it most blatantly on Wednesday morning when discussing Syria."

In a fair, level analysis, Peter Baker of the New York Times called the speech "a sustained rebuttal" to doubters, but noted that the big ones came away cold:

He did not convince his critics. Peter D. Feaver, a former aide to President George W. Bush and a professor of political science at Duke University, said the speech seemed “highly partisan and defensive in tone.”
Richard N. Haass, who also worked in the Bush administration only to break with it over the Iraq war, said the speech tried to “split the difference” between those who think America is doing too much and those who think it is doing too little. “But it didn’t articulate a rationale for what we should be doing,” said Mr. Haass, now president of the Council on Foreign Relations.
The left-leaning Times editorial board was even less impressedand used the word "ludicrous" in reference to Obama's call for transparency with drone strikes. More generally:

The address did not match the hype, was largely uninspiring, lacked strategic sweep and is unlikely to quiet his detractors, on the right or the left. [...] he provided little new insight into how he plans to lead in the next two years, and many still doubt that he fully appreciates the leverage the United States has even in a changing world. Falling back on hackneyed phrases like America is the “indispensable nation” told us little.
Usually safe and cautious in the center, Bloomberg View also saidmeh, because it knew that's what everyone else would think:

In laying out his vision for the U.S. role in the world, the president aimed for the well-trod high ground between isolationists and interventionists. His last effort to get there, a peevish exposition at a news conference in the Philippines, wasn't very convincing. His presentation was more polished today, but it's unlikely to tamp down criticism of his conduct of foreign policy as weak, indecisive and unconvincing.
CNN White House correspondent Michelle Kosinski was bored:

This was a sweeping speech that kind of covered everything and was a chance for the President to list what seemed like every accomplishment of his administration. But it came across at times as a defensive, lawyerly answer to critics.
And the network's chief national security correspondent Jim Sciutto concurred:

... the speech fell short of its target. The President instead delivered a familiar defense of current strategy with virtually no new policy announcements.
More predictably, The Wall Street Journal editorial got snarky:

We know that no foreign policy speech can cover the entire world. But listening to Mr. Obama trying to assemble a coherent foreign policy agenda from the record of the past five years was like watching Tom Hanks trying to survive in "Cast Away": Whatever's left from the wreckage will have to do.
And the only thing more unsurprising than the Journal making a 14-year-old pop-culture reference was the reaction of **** Cheney, who left his cryogenic chamber to give his emphatic thumbs-down onHannity.

"We've got a problem with weakness, and it's centered right in the White House," said the former vice president. "It's as though he wasn't even around when 9/11 happened."

 

[HellToupee]

So Obama had a bad day. I just don't get the rump swabs defending him at all costs. The guy is not infallible.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

From what I heard, they cheered loudly when he said they wouldn't have to go to Afghanistan.

Seems like a great speech from what I saw.

Those crazy ovations were the troops on the ground in Afghanistan.. you know the ones that actually do the fighting. This speech Glenn Beck is talking about was to the guys who will be stationed in Tampa.

No, I'm pretty sure it was from the West Point speech yesterday. He said something like "this is the first graduating class from West Point since 9/11 that won't get sent to Iraq or Afghanistan." Crowd cheered.

 

[FlapJacks]

I wish Obama had given the military a real reason to hate him.

should have been recent college grads, minorities and the poor booing then....

 

[timschochet]

it's very difficult to be middle of the road with regard to foreign policy and that's what Obama has been. Progressives and isolationists hate the NSA and the drone strikes. Neo-conservatives think he's been weak and yearn for Reagan/Bush Jr. toughness. You're never going to please any of these people.

Obama has been moderate, cautious, firm when he's had to be, and visionary when he can be. He hasn't led us into any wars. In 30, perhaps 50 years from now historians will look back at his handling of foreign affairs and give him an outstanding grade.

 

[cstu]

it's very difficult to be middle of the road with regard to foreign policy and that's what Obama has been. Progressives and isolationists hate the NSA and the drone strikes. Neo-conservatives think he's been weak and yearn for Reagan/Bush Jr. toughness. You're never going to please any of these people.

Obama has been moderate, cautious, firm when he's had to be, and visionary when he can be. He hasn't led us into any wars. In 30, perhaps 50 years from now historians will look back at his handling of foreign affairs and give him an outstanding grade.

 

[Paulymaggs]

From what I heard, they cheered loudly when he said they wouldn't have to go to Afghanistan.

Seems like a great speech from what I saw.

Those crazy ovations were the troops on the ground in Afghanistan.. you know the ones that actually do the fighting. This speech Glenn Beck is talking about was to the guys who will be stationed in Tampa.

Tampa is Florida's Warzone, man.

 

[poopdawg]

it's very difficult to be middle of the road with regard to foreign policy and that's what Obama has been. Progressives and isolationists hate the NSA and the drone strikes. Neo-conservatives think he's been weak and yearn for Reagan/Bush Jr. toughness. You're never going to please any of these people.

Obama has been moderate, cautious, firm when he's had to be, and visionary when he can be. He hasn't led us into any wars. In 30, perhaps 50 years from now historians will look back at his handling of foreign affairs and give him an outstanding grade.

Are you ####### kidding me?

 

[Hang 10]

it's very difficult to be middle of the road with regard to foreign policy and that's what Obama has been. Progressives and isolationists hate the NSA and the drone strikes. Neo-conservatives think he's been weak and yearn for Reagan/Bush Jr. toughness. You're never going to please any of these people.

Obama has been moderate, cautious, firm when he's had to be, and visionary when he can be. He hasn't led us into any wars. In 30, perhaps 50 years from now historians will look back at his handling of foreign affairs and give him an outstanding grade.

 

[jon_mx]

it's very difficult to be middle of the road with regard to foreign policy and that's what Obama has been. Progressives and isolationists hate the NSA and the drone strikes. Neo-conservatives think he's been weak and yearn for Reagan/Bush Jr. toughness. You're never going to please any of these people.

Obama has been moderate, cautious, firm when he's had to be, and visionary when he can be. He hasn't led us into any wars. In 30, perhaps 50 years from now historians will look back at his handling of foreign affairs and give him an outstanding grade.

.....oh Tim.

 

[jon_mx]

The reason the speech went over like a wet noodle is that Obama is completely tone deaf. Why in the world would he give a politico speech exposing his left-wing policy to an audience that is more than likely very right leaning? Obama consistently alienates the right. It is like Obama does not acknowledge that people on the right exist. It is a commencement speech where Obama should be throwing out positive uplifting encouragement to graduating future military leaders, not a time to promote a controversial agenda which most in attendance would oppose.

 

[jon_mx]

Obama at West Point: A Foreign Policy of False Choices

The president says he's steering a sensible course between uber-hawks and do-nothings. Don't believe it.
DAVID FRUMMAY 28 2014, 3:32 PM ET


Reuters/Joshua Roberts
An old joke describes the action memos the State Department prepares for the president:

Option A: Do nothing

Option B: Global thermonuclear war

Option C: Preferred State Department policy

On the evidence of President Obama’s commencement address at West Point on Wednesday, he’d have made an outstanding State Department memo-writer.

The president outlined a Washington policy debate occurring in three corners. Over in Corner 1 are those who believe in “a strategy that involves invading every country that harbors terrorist networks.” Huddled in Corner 2 are those who insist that “conflicts in Syria or Ukraine or the Central African Republic are not ours to solve.” Between these obviously stupid extremes is a sensible third way, which happens to coincide perfectly with the policy of the Obama administration.

If Obama had met his stated goals in Afghanistan … if the Russia “reset” had worked … if Iran talks were indeed producing nuclear disarmament … if the president's “red line” in Syria was not being crossed and recrossed like center-ice in an exciting hockey game … if his Libyan intervention had not resulted in Libya becoming a more violent and unstable place … if his administration had sustained the progress toward peace in Iraq achieved during George W. Bush’s second term—if all this had been the case, the president would have been content to simply present his impressive record. But it is not the case.When politicians set up false alternatives in this way, it’s an early warning that their own record of achievement is less than stellar. “Some say that our forces should never land on any beaches at all. Others would have us invade every beach on earth. I reject both extremes” is not how President Roosevelt announced the success of D-Day.

Obama’s core defense of his record is this:



y most measures, America has rarely been stronger relative to the rest of the world. Those who argue otherwise—who suggest that America is in decline, or has seen its global leadership slip away—are either misreading history or engaged in partisan politics. Think about it. Our military has no peer. The odds of a direct threat against us by any nation are low, and do not come close to the dangers we faced during the Cold War.

Here, Obama is offering not a false alternative but a false claim. In 2014, China will overtake the United States as the world’s largest economy, as measured in terms of purchasing power parity. Measured in nominal currency terms, the overtaking may be postponed until the 2020s. However measured, the economic primacy the U.S. has maintained since the 1890s is rapidly nearing its end.Rarely stronger relative to the rest of the world? No.

Notice too the slippery, multi-conditional form of the president's boast about national security. “The odds of a direct threat against us by any nation are low.” That statement reveals the imprint of editing by aides who understand that indirect threats (such as the implosion of Western-oriented Arab regimes since 2010), threats against allies (such as the Russian threat to the Baltic republics or the Iranian threat to Israel), and threats by subnational actors (including all those al-Qaeda affiliates that attacked the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya) are all worse today than they were when the president took office.

As for the claim that U.S. global leadership is not “slipping away”—well, that judgment is more impressionistic. But to offer the testimony of just one individual observer: During two recent visits to Ukraine, I was startled by how seldom anybody I spoke with made reference to the actions of the U.S government—or to the example of American society. It was to the European Union that Ukrainians looked for help and inspiration. They took utterly for granted America’s lack of interest in their situation and inability to help. The United States remains ascendant for now. But it can’t plausibly be claimed that America is as ascendant today as it was 10 or 20 years ago.

“We can’t call on others to make commitments to combat climate change if so many of our political leaders deny that it is taking place.” Can’t we? If unanimity at home is a precondition for achieving international objectives, then no international objective will ever be achieved. It’s in the nature of democracy that many things the government of the day wishes to do will be opposed by other political leaders. Successful presidents find ways to surmount wrong-headed opposition. Unsuccessful ones don’t. If Obama feels strongly about climate change—and he should!—then he has to devise a plan (and accept the risks) of action and persuasion. If he can’t persuade and won’t act, then he can’t shift blame for the failure of his office onto the obstinacy of other leaders. The other leaders are always there, and are always obstinate.Obama might personally think that America’s relative loss of clout is a trend beyond his control or correction. He would not be the first statesman to guide the foreign policy of a declining power. He would not even be the first American president to believe that such was his lot. Under adverse conditions, the responsibilities of leadership become even heavier than when times are easier. Yet embedded in the president’s West Point speech is a remarkably passive view of his office.

And sometimes those “other leaders” even turn out to be more astute and farseeing than the president they oppose. At West Point, Obama opened his discussion of Iran by claiming credit for the sanctions regime against Tehran. “[A]t the beginning of my presidency, we built a coalition that imposed sanctions on the Iranian economy,” he said. Yet the most effective of those sanctions—the Kirk-Menendez measures that isolated Iran from the international-payments system—were strenuously opposed by this president. He signed them into law only after the Senate attached them to the 2012 defense-authorization bill by a vote of 100-0.

Obama praised those who ask “tough questions.” But he himself escapes some of the toughest questions by offering pleasing but unreliable assurances: “America must always lead on the world stage. If we don’t, no one else will.” Must it? The evidence of the past few years shows that oftentimes America won’t or can’t. Nobody else will? That’s half -true: Nobody else will lead the world in directions that most citizens of most democracies still want to go. But there are plenty of other candidates who will lead the world in other, less congenial, directions. In recent years, those dangerous candidates have enjoyed disquieting success. The president’s speech at West Point inadvertently exposed how they have gotten away with it.

 

[Freelove]

I'm gonna need to hear Ann Coulter's opinion too, before I make up my own mind.

 

[Abraham]

Wow! This is sure going to hurt his reelection h

chances.

 

[NCCommish]

David Frum? I wonder how they managed to get him off W's long enough to write anything.

 

[Hang 10]

If Obama had met his stated goals in Afghanistan … if the Russia “reset” had worked … if Iran talks were indeed producing nuclear disarmament … if the president's “red line” in Syria was not being crossed and recrossed like center-ice in an exciting hockey game … if his Libyan intervention had not resulted in Libya becoming a more violent and unstable place … if his administration had sustained the progress toward peace in Iraq achieved during George W. Bush’s second term—if all this had been the case, the president would have been content to simply present his impressive record. But it is not the case.

 

[NCCommish]

Hey how those rape skits going Glenn?

 

[Hang 10]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/05/29/reporters_mock_state_dept_spokeswoman_for_saying_obama_doesnt_give_himself_enough_credit.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/05/29/engel_hard_pressed_to_find_country_where_relations_have_improved_under_obama.html

This sums it up pretty well.

 

[TPW]

There's a reason for the icy reception. The man giving the speech is an empty suit.

With the possible exceptions of Cuba and Myanmar, I challenge anybody on this forum to name a single nation with which the United States has had substantially improved relations under the Obama administration. Most of his foreign policy initiatives have in fact turned into unmitigated disasters. The costs of the instability they have created around the globe will likely have to be borne by this group of West Point graduates and others to come.

 

[dozer]

And you know what bugs me? The guy wasn't even born here. That should be illegal.

 

[The_Man]

“We don’t do this with, honestly, any joy because we think this is very dangerous for the United States of America to have its commander in chief so separated from its soldiers, but we are. The soldiers are disconnecting now from the President,” Glenn said. “ It is extraordinarily dangerous to have our military disconnect and no longer trust and believe in the president of the United States – so sad and so dangerous.”

What's the danger? Is Beck insinuating that the military will disobey direct orders? Or that they will rise up and take arms against the United States?

What a grievous insult to suggest that the brave men and women who risk their lives to preserve our freedom would ever break their sacred Oath of Enlistment.

 

[dozer]

Can one of you guys chime in on how brilliant Glenn Beck is? I love that schtick!

 

[Freelove]

“We don’t do this with, honestly, any joy because we think this is very dangerous for the United States of America to have its commander in chief so separated from its soldiers, but we are. The soldiers are disconnecting now from the President,” Glenn said. “ It is extraordinarily dangerous to have our military disconnect and no longer trust and believe in the president of the United States – so sad and so dangerous.”

What's the danger? Is Beck insinuating that the military will disobey direct orders? Or that they will rise up and take arms against the United States?

I wouldn't say "insinuating," so much as "indulging in masturbatory fantasy."

 

[Bogeys]

The reason the speech went over like a wet noodle is that Obama is completely tone deaf. Why in the world would he give a politico speech exposing his left-wing policy to an audience that is more than likely very right leaning? Obama consistently alienates the right. It is like Obama does not acknowledge that people on the right exist. It is a commencement speech where Obama should be throwing out positive uplifting encouragement to graduating future military leaders, not a time to promote a controversial agenda which most in attendance would oppose.

The problem is both sides demonize the other. The left and right imply the worst possible motives to the other side (racist, commie, bigot, etc) instead of actually talking about the issues and just saying we have policy or philosophy differences. I don't particularly care for Obama (didn't think all that much of GWB either) but I personally believe they both did/are doing what they think is best for the country and not out of some evil motive.

As long as the public eats this crap up both sides will continue and we will get the government we deserve.

 

[timschochet]

Those of you who are critical of the speech: any specifics? Please name a sentence or phrase in the speech you did not like and explain why.

 

[Stinger Ray]

Those of you who are critical of the speech: any specifics? Please name a sentence or phrase in the speech you did not like and explain why.

You never know when to stop!

 

[Stinger Ray]

it's very difficult to be middle of the road with regard to foreign policy and that's what Obama has been. Progressives and isolationists hate the NSA and the drone strikes. Neo-conservatives think he's been weak and yearn for Reagan/Bush Jr. toughness. You're never going to please any of these people.

Obama has been moderate, cautious, firm when he's had to be, and visionary when he can be. He hasn't led us into any wars. In 30, perhaps 50 years from now historians will look back at his handling of foreign affairs and give him an outstanding grade.

.....oh Tim.

 

[dozer]

Those of you who are critical of the speech: any specifics? Please name a sentence or phrase in the speech you did not like and explain why.

The right doesn't like the part between "Hello everybody!" and "God bless America!"

 

[Freelove]

Go give a listen to David Foster Wallace's commencement speech at Kenyon, or Vonnegut's at Agnes Scott. Those are regarded as some of the best-received commencement speeches of all time. They mostly engender polite laughter and a smattering of applause.

Just gave a listen to highlights of the Obama one. The crowd wasn't even remotely icy, nor did the speech go over like a wet noodle. It went over like a commencement speech. Like it was one more damn thing the uncomfortable, ludicrously-dressed crowd had to get past before indulging in an orgy of bacchanalian celebratory delights.

Just another incidence of talking heads trying to make the reality fit the narrative, instead of the other way around.

 

[Greggity]

The military doesnt like Obama, deal with it....

 

[Stinger Ray]

The military doesnt like Obama, deal with it....

He doesn't seem to like them too.

 

[Greggity]

The military doesnt like Obama, deal with it....

He doesn't seem to like them too.

They know that, so his not so warm greeting shouldnt have come as a shock to anyone.

 

[timschochet]

Those of you who are critical of the speech: any specifics? Please name a sentence or phrase in the speech you did not like and explain why.

You never know when to stop!

Sp you have no specific criticism to offer? As to your comment, you're correct, I don't know when to stop. I think President Obama has been a mediocre President overall, but a terrific foreign policy President. I have consistently listed specific reasons why in this forum. If you disagree then I ask that you do the same. If you're unwilling or incapable of doing so, then I can only conclude that you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[timschochet]

The military doesnt like Obama, deal with it....

Link to a military authority who has either said this or implied it in any way?

 

[Stinger Ray]

Those of you who are critical of the speech: any specifics? Please name a sentence or phrase in the speech you did not like and explain why.

You never know when to stop!

Sp you have no specific criticism to offer?As to your comment, you're correct, I don't know when to stop. I think President Obama has been a mediocre President overall, but a terrific foreign policy President. I have consistently listed specific reasons why in this forum. If you disagree then I ask that you do the same. If you're unwilling or incapable of doing so, then I can only conclude that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Tim is a little testy today.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

The military doesnt like Obama, deal with it....

Link to a military authority who has either said this or implied it in any way?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/robert-gates-former-defense-secretary-offers-harsh-critique-of-obamas-leadership-in-duty/2014/01/07/6a6915b2-77cb-11e3-b1c5-739e63e9c9a7_story.html

 

[BeaverCleaver]

Those of you who are critical of the speech: any specifics? Please name a sentence or phrase in the speech you did not like and explain why.

You never know when to stop!

Sp you have no specific criticism to offer?As to your comment, you're correct, I don't know when to stop. I think President Obama has been a mediocre President overall, but a terrific foreign policy President. I have consistently listed specific reasons why in this forum. If you disagree then I ask that you do the same. If you're unwilling or incapable of doing so, then I can only conclude that you have no idea what you're talking about.