Krauthammer and Hayes Slam Obama's Weak Afghan Surge Speech

[mediaspin]

Charles Krauthammer and Stephen Hayes slam Barack Obama's weak Afghan Surge speech Tuesday night. Frankly, it was a well articulated and very accurate analysis. During Obama's speech you could almost hear the cadets seething as they sat in their chairs pretending to respect this Presidents flip-flopping, boorish speech!
Dittos Rush!: Krauthammer and Hayes Slam Obama's Weak Afghan Surge Speech
Comments?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Charles Krauthammer and Stephen Hayes slam Barack Obama's weak Afghan Surge speech Tuesday night. Frankly, it was a well articulated and very accurate analysis. During Obama's speech you could almost hear the cadets seething as they sat in their chairs pretending to respect this Presidents flip-flopping, boorish speech!
Dittos Rush!: Krauthammer and Hayes Slam Obama's Weak Afghan Surge Speech
Comments?

Well, you are a newby!

Welcome.

I saw the cadets doing the respectful thing.

I heard Krathammer, and Hayes, but, if you saw my thread, I thought that the speech could have been worse.

And, like having an English accident, President Obama's manner made it sound better.


But I was interested in Rep. Kusinich's point that this issue really reestablishes the 'left-right' view of politics.

Did you see it?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Ad Hom perhaps - but I think Charles Krauthammer is one of the least intelligent people EVER given a public forum.

Now, as to the substance of his criticism - it's his opinion. He heard whatever he wanted to as did so many others.

 

[Shogun]

Ad Hom perhaps - but I think Charles Krauthammer is one of the least intelligent people EVER given a public forum.

Now, as to the substance of his criticism - it's his opinion. He heard whatever he wanted to as did so many others.

seriously.

 

[uscitizen]

A political pundit did what a political pundit is supposed to do and we are supposed to be amazed and inspired?

 

[gautama]

Ad Hom perhaps - but I think Charles Krauthammer is one of the least intelligent people EVER given a public forum.

Now, as to the substance of his criticism - it's his opinion. He heard whatever he wanted to as did so many others.

nodoginthefightexceptIamaLiebtard, you are just another typical Liebtard. And, your remark about Krauthammer proves it.

 

[gautama]

A political pundit did what a political pundit is supposed to do and we are supposed to be amazed and inspired?

You are a self-confessed Commie/idiot. No one gives a fuck what you think you are supposed to be amazed, or inspired about.

 

[Claudette]

Au Contrair. I think Krauthammer and Hayes are pretty astute and I like to hear what they have to say. Of course being a none liberal I would.

 

[gautama]

Ad Hom perhaps - but I think Charles Krauthammer is one of the least intelligent people EVER given a public forum.

Now, as to the substance of his criticism - it's his opinion. He heard whatever he wanted to as did so many others.

seriously.

You are a stomped mudhole.....seriously.

 

[nodoginnafight]

well, obviously none here are able to keep up with the standard of intellect displayed here by guatama - maybe Krauthammer is the only human alive who can rise to that lofty peak.

 

[Truthmatters]

Charles Krauthammer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Krauthammer is generally considered a conservative;[26] he has also been called a neoconservative.[27] However, on domestic issues, Krauthammer is a supporter of legalized abortion;[28][29][30] an opponent of the death penalty;[31][32][33][34] an intelligent design critic and an advocate for the scientific consensus on evolution, calling the religion-science controversy a "false conflict;"[35][36] a supporter of embryonic stem cell research using embryos discarded by fertility clinics with restrictions in its applications;[37][38][39] and a longtime advocate of radically higher energy taxes to induce conservation

 

[nodoginnafight]

As to the "quality" of Krauthammer's assessment, he criticized the speech for not being inspirational enough. Said it was too dispassionate and compared it unfavorably to Bush's "more passionate" speech announcing the Iraq surge.

That's certainly his right to hold that opinion, but I disagree.

Some people do respond better to a "rah-rah" emotional appeal for war. But I think the people of Afghanistan, our allies, and many others around the world (including many here in the United States) were looking for an indication that this was NOT some emotional, trigger-happy, call to arms considering that so many feel prey to that appraoch when Bush used it to drag others into a situation they now rergret. I think they were looking for indications that this was a well thought out, somber, intellectual decision. Taking his time about making the decision also played well to this audience for that reason.

While I do not agree with Obama's decision, I can appreciate and understand the deliberative process that went into the decision and the tone he took in announcing the decision.

Since I personally am someone who responds better to intellectual arguments/decisions rather than emotional ones, I fully understand. And I can understand that those who like to operate more on feelings didn't like the tone. To each his/her own.

But I STILL disagree with the decision.

 

[Jay Canuck]

it never makes me laugh as hard as when a Iraq War cheerleader opens up their piehole and starts in on Afghanistan because of their partisan hatred of Obama.

 

[mediaspin]

Of course I watched it. However, I almost fell asleep several times and frankly this was due to the President's "monotonish" delievery.....just like the Krauthammer reflected. He was elected to lead and needs to do so intead of having all of these "summits".

Charles Krauthammer and Stephen Hayes slam Barack Obama's weak Afghan Surge speech Tuesday night. Frankly, it was a well articulated and very accurate analysis. During Obama's speech you could almost hear the cadets seething as they sat in their chairs pretending to respect this Presidents flip-flopping, boorish speech!
Dittos Rush!: Krauthammer and Hayes Slam Obama's Weak Afghan Surge Speech
Comments?

Well, you are a newby!

Welcome.

I saw the cadets doing the respectful thing.

I heard Krathammer, and Hayes, but, if you saw my thread, I thought that the speech could have been worse.

And, like having an English accident, President Obama's manner made it sound better.


But I was interested in Rep. Kusinich's point that this issue really reestablishes the 'left-right' view of politics.

Did you see it?

 

[JWBooth]

Charles Krauthammer and Stephen Hayes slam Barack Obama's weak Afghan Surge speech Tuesday night. Frankly, it was a well articulated and very accurate analysis. During Obama's speech you could almost hear the cadets seething as they sat in their chairs pretending to respect this Presidents flip-flopping, boorish speech!
Dittos Rush!: Krauthammer and Hayes Slam Obama's Weak Afghan Surge Speech
Comments?

It might mean something except that Krauthammer has a long record of advocating handing a M-16 to every ambulatory person in this country and sending them out around the world to shoot up everything that moves.

 

[jillian]

As to the "quality" of Krauthammer's assessment, he criticized the speech for not being inspirational enough. Said it was too dispassionate and compared it unfavorably to Bush's "more passionate" speech announcing the Iraq surge.

That's certainly his right to hold that opinion, but I disagree.

Some people do respond better to a "rah-rah" emotional appeal for war. But I think the people of Afghanistan, our allies, and many others around the world (including many here in the United States) were looking for an indication that this was NOT some emotional, trigger-happy, call to arms considering that so many feel prey to that appraoch when Bush used it to drag others into a situation they now rergret. I think they were looking for indications that this was a well thought out, somber, intellectual decision. Taking his time about making the decision also played well to this audience for that reason.

While I do not agree with Obama's decision, I can appreciate and understand the deliberative process that went into the decision and the tone he took in announcing the decision.

Since I personally am someone who responds better to intellectual arguments/decisions rather than emotional ones, I fully understand. And I can understand that those who like to operate more on feelings didn't like the tone. To each his/her own.

But I STILL disagree with the decision.

what he said ^^^^^^^^^

and fwiw, i don't like us having to do this, but i don't see a lot of options.

krauthammer is a idealogue who would never settle for anything less than "bomb bomb bomb iran"... (or afghanistan... or iraq... or any other state he doesn't like).

bush was just too stupid to ever question a decision his "gut" told him to make.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Of course I watched it. However, I almost fell asleep several times and frankly this was due to the President's "monotonish" delievery.....just like the Krauthammer reflected. He was elected to lead and needs to do so intead of having all of these "summits".

Charles Krauthammer and Stephen Hayes slam Barack Obama's weak Afghan Surge speech Tuesday night. Frankly, it was a well articulated and very accurate analysis. During Obama's speech you could almost hear the cadets seething as they sat in their chairs pretending to respect this Presidents flip-flopping, boorish speech!
Dittos Rush!: Krauthammer and Hayes Slam Obama's Weak Afghan Surge Speech
Comments?

Well, you are a newby!

Welcome.

I saw the cadets doing the respectful thing.

I heard Krathammer, and Hayes, but, if you saw my thread, I thought that the speech could have been worse.

And, like having an English accident, President Obama's manner made it sound better.


But I was interested in Rep. Kusinich's point that this issue really reestablishes the 'left-right' view of politics.

Did you see it?

The question was not did you watch the speech, but did you see Kucincich, and what did you think of his analysis re: the Afghanistan situation changes the conservative-liberal alignment.

 

[Mike458877]

As to the "quality" of Krauthammer's assessment, he criticized the speech for not being inspirational enough. Said it was too dispassionate and compared it unfavorably to Bush's "more passionate" speech announcing the Iraq surge.

That's certainly his right to hold that opinion, but I disagree.

Some people do respond better to a "rah-rah" emotional appeal for war. But I think the people of Afghanistan, our allies, and many others around the world (including many here in the United States) were looking for an indication that this was NOT some emotional, trigger-happy, call to arms considering that so many feel prey to that appraoch when Bush used it to drag others into a situation they now rergret. I think they were looking for indications that this was a well thought out, somber, intellectual decision. Taking his time about making the decision also played well to this audience for that reason.

While I do not agree with Obama's decision, I can appreciate and understand the deliberative process that went into the decision and the tone he took in announcing the decision.

Since I personally am someone who responds better to intellectual arguments/decisions rather than emotional ones, I fully understand. And I can understand that those who like to operate more on feelings didn't like the tone. To each his/her own.

But I STILL disagree with the decision.

Well, I don't care for fake rah - rah emotions, but, Obama had none!

Honestly any true leader speaking of the type of crimes and vicious attacks and people he was speaking about, addressing his men and women in arms, would show some emotion, if in fact, they themselves were the least bit passionate about their cause!

Obama left me feeling he wasn't, even though I liked several parts of the plan.

Had I been in uniform listening to my CiC and heard what was spoken last night, I would not be inspired or motivated about what was expected of me, based on that.

I hope I'm wrong, I hope his gut is burning with passion, it needs to be. It will make him strong and stiffen his resolve for what is to come. However, he did not project that, not even a little bit and I have heard him given passionate addresses!

I too appreciate the intellectual approach. I like well thought out hard facts and simple direct means of action, but, that and passion are two different things and they do mix, if the passion is there!

Mike

 

[nodoginnafight]

As to the "quality" of Krauthammer's assessment, he criticized the speech for not being inspirational enough. Said it was too dispassionate and compared it unfavorably to Bush's "more passionate" speech announcing the Iraq surge.

That's certainly his right to hold that opinion, but I disagree.

Some people do respond better to a "rah-rah" emotional appeal for war. But I think the people of Afghanistan, our allies, and many others around the world (including many here in the United States) were looking for an indication that this was NOT some emotional, trigger-happy, call to arms considering that so many feel prey to that appraoch when Bush used it to drag others into a situation they now rergret. I think they were looking for indications that this was a well thought out, somber, intellectual decision. Taking his time about making the decision also played well to this audience for that reason.

While I do not agree with Obama's decision, I can appreciate and understand the deliberative process that went into the decision and the tone he took in announcing the decision.

Since I personally am someone who responds better to intellectual arguments/decisions rather than emotional ones, I fully understand. And I can understand that those who like to operate more on feelings didn't like the tone. To each his/her own.

But I STILL disagree with the decision.

Well, I don't care for fake rah - rah emotions, but, Obama had none!

Honestly any true leader speaking of the type of crimes and vicious attacks and people he was speaking about, addressing his men and women in arms, would show some emotion, if in fact, they themselves were the least bit passionate about their cause!

Obama left me feeling he wasn't, even though I liked several parts of the plan.

Had I been in uniform listening to my CiC and heard what was spoken last night, I would not be inspired or motivated about what was expected of me, based on that.

I hope I'm wrong, I hope his gut is burning with passion, it needs to be. It will make him strong and stiffen his resolve for what is to come. However, he did not project that, not even a little bit and I have heard him given passionate addresses!

I too appreciate the intellectual approach. I like well thought out hard facts and simple direct means of action, but, that and passion are two different things and they do mix, if the passion is there!

Mike

I appreciate and respect your opinion. But I do disagree. I hope Obama's gut is NOT burning with a passion and I don't think it is necessary to be committed to a goal. I hope the shots are called with cold calculation and that those decisions are carried out by folks who are motivated by whatever it takes for them (as individuals) to be motivated and prepared by whatever it takes.

 

[nodoginnafight]

As to the "quality" of Krauthammer's assessment, he criticized the speech for not being inspirational enough. Said it was too dispassionate and compared it unfavorably to Bush's "more passionate" speech announcing the Iraq surge.

That's certainly his right to hold that opinion, but I disagree.

Some people do respond better to a "rah-rah" emotional appeal for war. But I think the people of Afghanistan, our allies, and many others around the world (including many here in the United States) were looking for an indication that this was NOT some emotional, trigger-happy, call to arms considering that so many feel prey to that appraoch when Bush used it to drag others into a situation they now rergret. I think they were looking for indications that this was a well thought out, somber, intellectual decision. Taking his time about making the decision also played well to this audience for that reason.

While I do not agree with Obama's decision, I can appreciate and understand the deliberative process that went into the decision and the tone he took in announcing the decision.

Since I personally am someone who responds better to intellectual arguments/decisions rather than emotional ones, I fully understand. And I can understand that those who like to operate more on feelings didn't like the tone. To each his/her own.

But I STILL disagree with the decision.

what he said ^^^^^^^^^

and fwiw, i don't like us having to do this, but i don't see a lot of options.

krauthammer is a idealogue who would never settle for anything less than "bomb bomb bomb iran"... (or afghanistan... or iraq... or any other state he doesn't like).

bush was just too stupid to ever question a decision his "gut" told him to make.

Well I'm convinced that folks around the world wanted some reasurances that this wasn't some ginned up, purely emotional, war whoop like Bush used to dupe everyone into Iraq.