. . . I really disagree.

This was a eulogy, and it was appropriate for the speech to look no further over the horizon than the event itself. There was the predictable, conventional, boilerplate, but can any funeral oration avoid it?

Like a husband telling his wife, "I love you," it's not especially original or striking, but that's not what's required, and it doesn't detract from the profundity of the truth so banally expressed.

I would have been surprised--and I wouldn't have blamed those attending if they were offended--had he used this as an occasion to try to socialize the nation towards more multi-cultural awareness.

It was what it was, it articulated what lot's of people were feeling, it was about them, not about him or any agenda.

For that, I'm thankful. I think we all should be.

Tackled political correctness in what respect? Given the frankly dangerous rhetoric boiling over because of the shooting, I think Obama got about as close to the edge as he could with this remark: "It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy. But this much we do know -- no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor. For what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice -- in this world, and the next."

Between that and an extended riff on how today's sacrifices compare to yesterday's ("there's not always a simple ceremony that signals our troops’ success"), I doubt he could've strayed any further from a straight up eulogy without drawing ire.

Unity is a strong force and there have been few opportunities to exploit it lately; there's something to say for simultaneously getting Charles Krauthammer and your supporters to praise a eulogy that highlights our immigrant culture, is critical of America, and at least hints at the cultural/religious undertones here. Applying his campaign rhetoric to a national tragedy is a more difficult task than it might seem, I think, when half of America is conditioned to dislike it - "In an age of selfishness, they embody responsibility. In an era of division, they call upon us to come together. In a time of cynicism, they remind us of who we are as Americans."

Considering that the larger tragedy of Fort Hood is the division that immediately sprung up in its wake, what might seem boilerplate is actually difficult to get just right and rather essential.

The quality of Obama's speech is in the ears of the beholder. I happened to believe that it was very good for precisely the reason you didn't.

It could have been an opportunity to make political points, advance a policy agenda or argue for political correctness, among other things. That it focused on the men and women who lost their lives at Fort Hood was entirely appropriate.

There are 364 other days in a year to do the other stuff.

I have to agree with the other posters. This wasn't a time to lay out policy, break new ground or do anything beyond lowering the heat and trying to make things better, as if that would be remotely possible for the people affected by this insane act.

Tom - sometimes I think your impatience with this sort of speech has something to do with your being in the DC bubble, even though you do get out more often than some. What I mean is that you seem to expect everything that emanates from the guys' mouth to be political and to break new ground or to change some bad policy or to just DO SOMETHING. I think it's too much to ask, even from Obama, who has a level of political pressure on him that no other recent president has had to deal with.

Tom, you are a keen observer but to me Obama’s speech seemed most appropriate for this solemn occasion. There is a great deal of unhappiness in this nation over this tragic event and the wars in general. Sensitive to that undercurrent I think Obama threaded the needle just right in carefully reaching out to the hearts of his listeners and at the same time not lowering the gravity of the occasion by reverting to more divisive and mundane political themes.

I agree with those who say a memorial service is not the place for a policy discussion. That does not mean it should include politically correct rhetoric that is false such as:

"no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts;"

Who made Obama an expert on Islam? Hasan's former Imam said these acts make him a hero. He is not alone. That doesn't mean that most Muslims approve but there are certainly some who do.

You've read Lynch's post, right?

Do you really want to be on the FOX News side of this debate? That's my comment at Lynch's post. Naturally I think it's pretty good, so I'll repeat one point here:

Rather than show PC-ness is rampant in our military, Major Hasan's case illustrates a different point. The warning signs had to be ignored, because if he got a discharge, it would be an admission that we are at war with Muslims. Hasan had advocated letting Muslims out of their service commitments because they would be forced to kill other Muslims. Any capitulation at all to his position, including not deploying him to Afghanistan or Iraq, would be damning.

Mr Ricks,
I'm a big fan of your site. I check it every day, as I learn much from your perspective as well as your reader's comments. However, I must protest your use of a Golfing Photo to frame a discussion of the president's speech. Did you use photos of Bush's famous blank stare when you dissected his many clueless pronouncements? Or, how about using Bush's famous statement, "I don't do nuance," when you analyze the messes we have in Iraq and Afghanistan?

"Rather than show PC-ness is rampant in our military, Major Hasan's case illustrates a different point. The warning signs had to be ignored, because if he got a discharge, it would be an admission that we are at war with Muslims. Hasan had advocated letting Muslims out of their service commitments because they would be forced to kill other Muslims. Any capitulation at all to his position, including not deploying him to Afghanistan or Iraq, would be damning."

The pc line is that Islam as a "religion of peace" and has nothing to do with any violence. Any negative comment on a Muslim would be considered prejudiced.

I don't see how recognizing that some Muslims don't want to kill other Muslims is damning. Do you think that letting Hasan claim conscientious objector status would have been worse then shooting up his fellow soldiers?

The only people who should consider it damning are those who think most Muslims are happy that the US is fighting Muslims in three countries.

Academic and critical appraisals indifferently reduce his presence to a debate perspective. Let the fallen rest for a few moments.

...on this thread, and with most of the others.

Apart from the vague unseemliness of giving out scores for each Presidential address the day after it was given like some Olympic gymnastics judge, I don't think Ricks takes into account here that then Sen. Obama's campaign race speech addressed a subject he'd been thinking about his entire life. The Ft. Hood shootings just happened over the weekend.

Ricks is also making an assumption that national attitudes toward Muslims, or even military attitudes toward Muslims in the ranks, are at the core of the Ft. Hood murders. It's premature to reach that conclusion, and for the President to have stated it in what amounted to a eulogy of the victims would have been insensitive bordering on reckless. It would also have been premature of the President to suggest a more likely idea, that individual or institutional reluctance to become involved in damaging an officer's career because of something he said might have put soldiers at preventable risk. Though more likely, this has not yet been proven.

I can remember a Presidential speech to which I reacted much as Ricks does to Obama's yesterday. It was President Reagan's mawkish television address to the nation after the Challenger blew up. Rockets, especially those lifting people into orbit, don't disintegrate right after launch for no reason, and Reagan's goopy salute to the disaster's victims -- for that was all they were -- as heroes omitted any reference to something having been done badly wrong, an indifference that got reflected in NASA's response to the incident and burdened the space program for years afterward. President Obama's speech in Texas was given in an entirely different context. It reflected, to be sure, some of his weaknesses as an orator, particularly his habit of trying at all times to live up to his reputation for eloquence, a doomed quest for anyone. With that said, Obama did no harm, and gave what comfort he could to people who had just suffered cruelly and unexpectedly. That isn't a bad thing for any President to have done.

I hope that Obama et al have discovered Leah Farrall in Australia.

"thanks for another fabulous speech. Now, what are you doing?"

At some point, giving speeches isn't going to work anymore. We saw this with President Bush--he kept going out there and giving speeches about Iraq, using the troops as his hostile audience and backdrop, and that was how he marked time until he could leave office. Marking time is a poor substitute for leadership.

As an example of what I think he should do, I'll say this. Why hasn't the director of the FBI been fired?

So far, it really boils down to that. President Obama can give all of the speeches he wants, but something must be done here, and I would start with firing the director of the FBI. His agency failed those troops.

I think he needs a new speechwriter. A 27 year old just isn't cutting it.

I've felt this way for a long time. There were unnecessary cringe-worthy cliches in his inaugural address. His Olympics speech was just amateurish in its construction.

Save for a few disconnected good lines, this speech felt uninspired. There was no wisdom in it that is felt in good speeches.

I remember how impressed I was with McCain's concession speech and the professionalism and intelligence of its construction. By contrast, I often feel that Obama's speeches are amateurish and lack the profundity of thinking that great speeches incorporate.

My advice: Demote Favreau. Get a wiser and more experienced speechwriter. A 27 year old is not cutting it.

I realize you have retracted this at least with respect to the venue. But if what you expect from this president is a jeremiad at any point in time against 'political correctness' in any institution, especially the military, then you have seriously misjudged the man and misread his message, and might as well give up hope that he will achieve the 'greatness'-by-your-lights that you wrongly think he is capable of.

Womens Roll-Top Timberland Boots
$143.00 $83.00
Save: 42% off
Timberland Roll-Top Boots womenPremium, full-grain, waterproof leather for comfort, durability and abrasion resistance ; Direct-attach, seam-sealed, waterproof construction keep feet dry in any weather ; Quarter panel crafted with rich shearling leather and is unconstructed so it can be worn up or rolled down ; Durable laces with Taslan? fibers and rustproof hardware for long-lasting wear ; Inside of shoe is lined with shearling - up to the toe box which is lined with breathable fabric ; Rubber lug outsole for traction and durability ; Embossed Timberland tree logo on the side ; Steel shank provides maximum support ; Waterproof

http://www.brawbuy.com/
http://www.myjerseysky.com/
http://www.ghdprincess.com/