previous post next post  

Two Types of Receptions

By Boquisucio on December 4, 2009 | | Comments (16)
Compare and Contrast two types of reception by the Corps of Cadets at West Point.

One is polite:


Another is..., well you´ll see:

Boq

Share This Article:

Share |

Categories:

16 Comments

By Fred on December 4, 2009 9:39 AM
This old sergeant is a bit uncomfortable with that.
 
By Jon The Mechanic on December 4, 2009 10:00 AM
What makes you uncomfortable Fred? I see two groups of America's finest who are responding with heartfelt emotion to the character of the man who is standing before them.
 
By Fred on December 4, 2009 11:42 AM
The man standing before them is the President of the United States and their commander in chief. Now, which picture do you think I am looking at? Slippery slope, guys.
 
By Ret SFC on December 4, 2009 12:07 PM
Character?  The only character shown was by the current sitting President actually thinking about commiting troops to a conflict that will kill or injure a percentage of them. In earlier times, despots wanting to take/steal another country's valuble assets would commit their military to fighting and dieing for the depots, or their favored cronies, ability to profit from the death they caused.
As a former life-long Republican, I was digusted at the crude manipulation of a horrible crime, the craven lies and machinations to retain power, and the callous disregard of our citizen-soldiers for profit.
Maybe if the officers and newbie officers leading us had a backbone and told NCA ground truth instrad of what they wanted to hear, we would have completed the mission in Afghanistan with the troops wasted in Iraq. 
 
By Robin from Anchorage on December 4, 2009 12:36 PM
I saw one in which the students were respectful and interested yet not engaged with a commander in chief who observes the forms of his office yet has no demonstrable engagement with the military.  He signs letters to bereaved families, he visited Walter Reed, he paid respects in a photo op at Dover.  In the other I saw students responding to a commander in chief who invited them to laugh just a little at the decorum his visit mandated, yet who acknowledged the seriousness of their committment and contribution.  He was a commander in chief that visited with the breaved families, spent time at Walter Reed and Bethesda, and never made his time with those two groups into just a photo op.  He truly respected the military, and it came across in the warmth of his connection to the students.  It's pretty easy to respond positively to someone in those circumstances.
 
By John (not the Armorer) on December 4, 2009 12:44 PM
Imposter vs. genuine.

Words, only words vs. from the heart

Delivery vs. understanding the subject.

Me vs. us.

Avoidance vs. engagement.

Our troops deserve better than they have received since 1/20/09.
 
By olga on December 4, 2009 7:49 PM
I had them playing simultaneously.  The top one remainded me of my youth spent listening to the functionaries giving "correct" speeches.  The bottom one had me pumped up about what we as a nation need to do in order to achieve the victory. 
I am sorry but I cannot shake off the strong feeling of deja vu every time the current CIC is speaking...
 
By Oldloadr on December 5, 2009 10:40 AM
Olga - Your input here is very imprtant.  You see the "Back to the Future" paradigm that I worry about, because you lived it on the other side.  Thank you.
 
By Cannonshop on December 5, 2009 11:00 AM
It's the difference between a Commander in Chief who believes in you, and one who only considers himself and his career-you can tell when a boss is going through the motions and when they're serious about backing you up.

on an aside...

The phrase "Lifelong Republican" is an advertising phrase, empty of meaning, Ret SFC.  People don't go into political parties at birth (or before it),  and unlike the Catholic Church, the Republicans don't take you as soon as ythe afterbirth's been wiped off.  People generally don't become Republicans OR Democrats until they've learned the mechanical process of reading.

Also: Seniority only adds credibility in fields where there's work involved.  If you're going to be a schill for the Democrats, be a Democrat, we're not (collectively) as gullible as your IVAW chapter. Disingenuous talking-points claims don't build respect, standing up and honestly supporting the cause you support builds respect.

The fact is, the WP cadets were being Polite because that's their duty, but "The One" was and is unable to inspire these young people the way he inspires slackers and race-baiters out in the World.  This may be because the type of person drawn to an environment like West Point isn't looking for hand-outs.
 
By RetRsvMike on December 5, 2009 2:28 PM
AMNESTY...   for the Corps of Cadets, the quickest path for a CinC to win their hearts is a prompt and breezy mention of the magic word AMNESTY early in your speechifying....
 
By Oldloadr on December 5, 2009 7:09 PM
The CinC would have to know what Amnest means, or at least his speachwriters would have to know to put it on the tele-prompter...
 
By Mitch Miller on December 7, 2009 12:28 AM
Well Sarge, I guess we lost in Iraq, since we only went there to steal their oil and we didn't get any.
 
By BillT on December 7, 2009 6:12 AM
On 8 October, "[McChrystal] made it clear that his mission was to "defeat the Taliban and secure the population." This mission statement was challenged immediately by the administration on the grounds that it is impossible to defeat the Taliban. McChrystal noted, however, that this was precisely the mission he had been given, as enshrined in the Strategic Implementation Plan signed off on by the administration in March. Indeed, President Obama had said at that time that the U.S. would "defeat the the terrorists who oppose us."

From yesterday's Powerline. My emphasis.

The cadets *know* they have a Ditherer, rather than a Commander, at the top of their chain-of-command. They reacted accordingly: "Be polite, and sooner or later, he'll forget why he came here and go wandering off somewhere else."
 
By USMC Steve on December 7, 2009 10:59 AM
There is nothing wrong with either one of these "pictures"  that I can see.  They were obviously more enthusiastic towards Bush, perhaps because they felt they could trust him not to waste their lives and time with an ignorant foreign policy that has troops in contact.  That most certainly does not apply to Obama or the smartest man in the world, Joe Biden.

They behaved correctly, and there is no mandate in the UCMJ that requires them to kiss that idiot's socialist ass.
 
By BillT on December 9, 2009 7:47 AM
...the smartest man in the world, Joe Biden.

Waitaminnit -- since 1991, all the Libses have been saying *Hillary* was the smartest man in the world.

Now I'm *really* confused...
 
By Boquisucio on December 9, 2009 8:42 AM
Waitaminnit -- since 1991, all the Libses have been saying *Hillary* was the smartest man in the world.  
Nah - Nah, UnkaBill.

The smartest man in the WhiteHouse is Michelle.  And there's clear anatomical evidence of it.

HERE's the picture.