Different Presidents

"you can tell these guys love him". Of course they do. He's promised to get them all out of Iraq so they won't have to fight anymore or do all the evil things Bush forced them to do. Right?

Sure, they support BEFORE he was elected, now that he is in office and they know he will cut their spending and impliment SOCIALISM, they are not as supportive as the above video displays. Just because you WANT socialims or are still blind to the obvious, doesnt mean it is not true.

And what about the CNN correspondent's comment about the "tepid" response? CNN is not really well known for their criticism of Democratic presidents.

If the Marines had been this quiet during a Bush speech, it would be 24/7 on the MSM about how they no longer support Bush and his tired polices in a war that can't be won, blah blah.

I had the same sort of feeling. Obama's visit was much more formal and so the Marines were quiet and respectful. Marines will do what the President orders whether or not that President is somebody they personally like.

I would hate for liberals (or non-military conservatives I guess) to think that Marines and other service people would do their jobs any differently, or with some sort of political agenda, depending on who the CINC is. They do as they are ordered by the leaders we elect. And they do so magnificently.

Semper Fi

The Military has and will always respects the office, respect of the man on the other hand is earned.

I hardly think that anyone in uniform is going to respect a cheap, crooked, lying Chicago politician. Were I back on active duty I sure as hell would not.

Perhaps he will earn the respect of the military, though nothing in his history would indicate this happening.

The military will do its job, though this is totally different in how they view BHO.

Ron Snyder

No doubt the video comparison is unfair. The settings are different, and there are different protocols.

However, I've always been blown away by the amount of raucous enthusiasm troops always displayed when Bush spoke to them. Even in Iraq, and he being the man who sent them on that grim assignment that no doubt had killed many of their friends. I really have no way of knowing this for sure, but something tells me that if there comes a time when we are presented with an honest comparable situation, Bush will win that contest easily.

But this video comparison does not in any way malign the military, or imply that the troops wouldn't do their usual excellent job regardless of who's president. It's merely an attempt, albeit a flawed one, to gauge/compare the troops inner feelings toward the two men, for whatever that's worth.

As RLHII said, their respect needs to be earned. Obama may yet do that, (somehow I doubt it) but he's hurt himself badly in their eyes already by not supporting their MISSION in Iraq. He won the presidency in large part by in effect working against what they were trying to accomplish. He's got a lot of catching up to do.

Perhaps a game of horse with each soldier, and let them all win.

How come most of the marines in the second footage of Obama are black? That doesn't fit the demographics of the corp. Was this a locality thing?

I re-checked the maligned video, found further on the Camp Lejune visit by our current President. Our current President comes in "Hail to the Chief" and that pomp while our previous CiC just kinda walked into the room. Departures were equally disonant, Bush hugging and talking and Barry going off to more marshal music and talking to Oak Leafs and/or Four Stripers.
As far as our current CiC's visit to Kuwait, I truly didn't see the love there. Even male WWE wrestlers got more love in theater than Barry did.
Oh, wait, is logistic/admin Kuwait "in theater"?
Compare Bush Thanksgiving in Iraq (and no, the turkey was not plastic) to Obama Xmas in Hawaii.
Previous commenter said it all, "Obama may yet do that" (gain the troops respect)but he, along with me, doubts it.

Papa Doc Obama has already declared that he believes the Constitution to be flawed.

Our forces take an oath to defend that Constitution, as BO did.

The difference is that our fighting forces will actually defend the Constitution while BO tries to destroy it.

Would you fight with this defeatist weasel as your Commander In Chief?

Sorry, Greyhawk, but I think you misread this one. Of course Marines will do their duty regardless of who is in command. But it is not their DUTY to explode with enthusiasm for any president -- that is a spontaneous response. Are you trying to tell me that those who greeted Bush had NOT been called to attention?

One of the biggest differences, as someone pointed out, is that Obama entered to the sounds of Hail to the Chief -- I'll go ahead and be cynical, and suggest that this was a pompous little piece of cover to make him look "Commandery" in front of real soldiers and patriots, and to veil the underwhelming welcome. Same for his exit. I found his speech at Lejeune repugnant insofar as he is patently clueless about what is and has been going on in Iraq -- the idea that HE can tell these people when the war will end! Buy a paper, Sugar -- it's OVER. And the idea that HE will initiate the supplanting of combat by training and civil affairs duties! What does he think the military has been doing? The civil affairs work has been happening to one degree or another since 2003, but especially since 2006! In fact, it's fair to say that our military are the world's most successful practitioners at COMMUNITY ORGANIZING. They could teach this Chicago phony a thing or two about that. What an empty-headed sham.

Greyhawk's "analysis" is interesting not for what she points to but in what she leaves out.

Was talking to one of my buddies about this:

Greyhawk specifically ignores the fact that the Marines Bush is talking to are at "parade-rest" and in formed ranks, a position in which military protocol ALSO forbids free motion and applause; same rules for "uh-ten-hut!"

So if the Marines at Lejeune weren't supposed to cheer because they were at "attention",
then the Marines in Iraq weren't supposed to cheer because they were at "parade-rest".

However, the real gist of this matter isn't the specific position of whether the Marines are allowed to cheer or not: the gist is whether the the Rank and File, the INSTITUTION, respects the man in the office, not just the office itself. And it is here that Greyhawk is lying through her teeth.

I don't care what justification she uses or what "evidence" she purports. It doesn't even have anything to do with the obama/dubya video.

Nobody I've talked to in the Marine Corps is confident about Obama. The reasons are varied, of course, but the result is still the same; few have any confidence that he will back them up when the chips are down. It has less to do with political affiliations than with the "warrior culture" of the Marine Corps; in that, I agree that Obama has no idea how to identify with them or their comrades in the other services, let alone lead them during a war.

That is no trivial chasm to bridge.

And what's worse, the Marines don't think Obama feels the need to make an attempt to bridge it.

They will follow his orders in accordance to their constitutional duty. Beyond that is a matter for each Marine to decide, AS IS THEIR RIGHT (which will be seen in re-up/re-enlistment ceremonies and morale in the years to come).

What you saw, Greyhawk, was, at best, a Marine Corps that wasn't quite sure what to make of its new CINC.

You say that any Marine that does not support Obama as much as they supported Bush is an insult to the "integrity of the US military, and in my mind reflects both wishful thinking and ignorance on the part of anyone making the claim."

I think it is you who are ignorant if you expect Obama to get the same embrace from the military as Bush got.

I think you are the one involved in wishful thinking if think you heard an applause as boisterous and genuine as the one Bush received. As if Obama's choregraphed visits were equivalent to the spontaneity that Bush received even when the cameras weren't rolling.

I think you owe an apology to the Marines, soldiers, sailors and airmen who you think are "an insult to the integrity of the US Military" because they suspect that their lives are nothing more than political abstracts to Obama (it's more unanimous the closer you get to the trigger-pullers and the red-button pushers).

We have so few videos of Obama with the troops that it's really hard to say what kind of reaction should be deemed indicative of how they really feel. I think the video was really more an attempt at a funny ha ha and wasn't intending to make anyone think the Marines would be disloyal and not follow orders because they think Obama is a buffoon (if they do think that). It's okay to laugh at Obama, isn't it? That's the point of the video. Kind of refreshing after months of Obama adoration we've had to endure from the media. Everybody looovves Obama, everybody...oooohhh....

And is it really such a stretch to think that the military found Bush more simpatico than Obama? At least with Bush you got the feeling he actually liked being around the military and wasn't only using them as a prop (maybe using them as a prop, yes, but not just that). Obama? Who knows? But nobody thinks they aren't going to do their jobs regardless of who's in charge.

"No doubt the video comparison is unfair. The settings are different, and there are different protocols."

It's not about protocol.

I know American civilians have been conditioned to think that the military is full of by-the-book stick in the muds with iron poles up their ass.

To be sure, we have our share of those, but we also have plenty of good CO's, NCOs, Desrons, Staff, Stars who, when they call the crew, company, what-not to the assembly area, fantail, whatever, can relate easily to the troops, are open to questions and jokes and simply emerse themselves with the people under their command.

It's about reading the command climate and that atmosphere is heavily dependent on the man in charge, or at the podium (yes, even ships and hangars keep podiums with unit insignias in their storage for such occassions).

It really shouldn't take a military background to be able to understand this synergy and what's happening in that video.

You might think, "Well, Greyhawk proves that even someone with a military background can get it wrong."

That's just the thing.

I can't imagine anyone in the military misreading the Obama reaction THIS badly. Christ, even the brass and the suits BEHIND Obama were trying to encourage the Marines to clap. And the Marines only applauded tentatively after he said some things that he probably didn't believe in anyway (read the speech he gave to see why the Marines might have liked some of his teleprompter points).

And then there's her claim that the Marines like Obama; that's the kicker.

Greyhawk didn't "err".

She's lying.

Period.

Sorry Grayhawk, but I must disagree with you on this one. My son, a Marine, called me from Iraq after the election. The feeling from his fellow grunts was "Is America nuts?"

Yes, as Marines, they will respect the rank, But they also have a pretty strong BS detector and they know when an officer cares about the men and when he cares about his career. I would bet that we will see fewer and fewer photo ops with the Marines.

I'm surprised no one has pointed this out before, as I'm sure I'm not the only former Marine to read here. :)

There are a few pieces of music that Marine Corps protocol demands rigid attention for, and one of them is "Hail to the Chief". It it was playing when Obama was entering, that plays a role in the Marines' reaction.

I believe that having a Marine say "Let's welcome our Commander in Chief" (as happens for Bush) makes for a different introduction than the one Obama got. Spontaneous? Not exactly. As always, it must be asked: how were the troops in the audience chosen? Were they ordered to appear, offered the opportunity, or hand-picked? It makes a difference. I'd need to see unedited footage to determine whether or not the Revovideo's claim is as authentic as a ShamWow! advertisement, but I think I already know the answer.

Also: apple, meet orange. Orange, apple.

I believe that having a Marine say "Let's welcome our Commander in Chief" (as happens for Bush) makes for a different introduction than the one Obama got. Spontaneous? Not exactly. As always, it must be asked: how were the troops in the audience chosen? Were they ordered to appear, offered the opportunity, or hand-picked? It makes a difference. I'd need to see unedited footage to determine whether or not the Revovideo's claim is as authentic as a ShamWow! advertisement, but I think I already know the answer.

Also: apple, meet orange. Orange, apple.

"There are a few pieces of music that Marine Corps protocol demands rigid attention for, and one of them is "Hail to the Chief""

Indeed, that's the protocol while the Marine Band is playing it.

And to avoid moving or talking, let alone cheering, Marines are called to "attention". You're not supposed to move or clap...

Just as you're not supposed to move or clap at "parade-rest".

So if Obama's audience wasn't "supposed" to cheer, neither was Bush's audience.

All of which is beside the point. If you understood that alot of this is about servicemen be familiar with and knowing what to expect from your Commander (the biggest hurdle of any change in command), the answer to all this is pretty obvious.

This is not about protocol. This is about whether the Marines feel confident enough to give the chief a raucous welcome or a neutral salute. It's the equivalent of "We respect the office. The man....well, we're not sure about him yet".

And just as importantly, it's about whether Obama has himself has confidence in his own troops. I know many Marines will scoff at any suggestion that they have anything to prove to an empty suit.

That's not what I mean.

I mean does Obama have enough confidence to enter a room packed with Marines in Iraq with the big media watching. In confidence that they will whoop it up for him?

Greyhawk says "absolutely".

I think she is full of it and the response is going to be far more muted.

And I think Obama and his handlers know it, which is why I think we'll be seeing Marines at "attention" alot on the few occassions that he talks to any of them.

"how were the troops in the audience chosen? Were they ordered to appear, offered the opportunity, or hand-picked? It makes a difference. I'd need to see unedited footage to determine whether or not the Revovideo's claim is as authentic as a ShamWow! advertisement, but I think I already know the answer."

Spoken like a true left-wing conspiracy theorist.

They were "mustered", called to assembly in ranks and waiting at "parade-rest" in formation.

When things like that occur in the military, it's less about "being ordered" than it is about "knowing it's what you're expected to do".

Do you think any Marine would be UA from a presidential gathering?

Well, I can guess quite a few who wouldn't want to be a part of Obama's audience, but they'd still form up. That's what they're supposed to do.

But you think the Marines in Bush's audience were "faking" it because they were "ordered"?

Have it your way. You clearly don't know any Marines if you think that's even remotely true.

Did the officers and NCOs from the battallion down to the squad leaders tell their fellow Marines?

"OK, when Commander in Chief walks in, we're going turn this place into the Thunderdome".

Absolutely.

"Stay in ranks, look official, everyone, especially front and center, should be in "parade rest", it IS the President, but when he comes in, you can give him the big "Oorah!"

Yep.

And do you think those officers and NCO's would have told their Marines that if they thought their Marines didn't already want to cheer.

Absolutely NOT.

Do you think these instructions came from Bush? That those Marines would have been able to fake that enthusiasm under orders? That the officers and NCO's down to the PFCs would have gone along with it?

That Bush and his "cronnies" would have issued such "orders" believing the Marines would go along with it?

Who are you kidding?

Dependent upon all this is the presumption that Obama didn't want the Marines to cheer him as they did Bush.

Yeah right.

Of course this media creature wanted the adoration and political advantage of being cheered by "the troops." with cameras rolling.

However, whether he thought he could get it, and whether the Marines would have given him anything near Bush's reception, is not open to question;

That would be a big "negative".

And Greyhawk knows it.

Bush, of course, was no media figure and didn't care for the press.

Good grief.

I just saw Instapundit say that the Marines were "at ease".

If someone can't understand the basics of military formations that you can find anywhere on the internet, how are they going to understand the complexities (well, they SHOULD be SIMPLE to understand) of what is happening on the video?

Instapundit says that the Marines with Bush were "at-ease" because someone claiming to be a "naval officer" told him.

Even when they miss the point entirely, they're STILL wrong on their facts.

"At ease"?

"At ease" allows the Marines to move about, but the Marines with Bush are NOT "at ease".

They may be emotionally at ease, but they are NOT in the military POSITION of "at-ease".

They are at "parade-rest" with both hands folded behind their back.

Not only that, but in that semi-formal gathering, the Marines would use the semi-formal "at ease" position of both hands folded IN FRONT of them, especially those front and center.

Everything which (AGAIN) is beside the point.

These people still don't get that the gist of this episode is not about about whether the Marines are in "attention" or cheering, but WHY they're in "attention" and cheering and how the decisions to do it came to be.

The Marines in Bush's audience were not terribly concerned about having their feet the correct number of inches apart (I need to check the blue book to see how many, but my buddies can tell me off the top of their heads) and their hands folded high on the belt which is extremely uncomfortable during extended periods of time like a speech. Servicemen and booters typically pass out if left in that position for too long.

Aside from the fact that Instapundit and this "naval officer" are just plain wrong (and every servicemen knows it), the main point in this episode can be boiled down to:

The Marines know and trust Bush.

They don't know and many don't trust Obama.

End of discussion.

Good Night.

I don't think there's any question that the military was generally enthusiastic about Pres. Bush. I believe that they're less so about Pres. Obama, but I think Greyhawk is correct when he points out that this is a different situation.

I'm just speculating here, but the impression I'm getting is that in the video, Bush was there to address the troops. They obviously appreciated it, and were probably told it was okay to go a little nuts.

Obama, IMO, was there to give a speech, with the Marines as a backdrop. The situation was more formal, as shown by "Hail to the Chief" (and, IIRC, the National Anthem right before that). The Marines were probably told to act more... formally? dignified? Not sure what word I'm searching for here.

Oh, and "semi-formal" at ease? Is that a Marine thing? I don't remember that from the Army. Our "semi-formal" version would probably have appeared to be a relaxed version of parade rest.

This is embarrassing. Those marines at the Bush speech are NOT at parade rest. They are moving, have their heads cocked to the side, eyes not front, etc. Hands folded behind your back is not all there is to parade rest. Just look at the group directly below the podium.

The events were of different types. Obama was giving a speech, Bush was giving a pep talk, and the formalities of the two and the audiences were vastly different. The comparison shown in the video is as authentic as a ShamWow! informercial.

I'm not saying the troops love Obama universally, nor was that the case with Bush. I'm not saying there isn't any truth to the idea that many in the military distrust Obama. All I'm saying is that the comparison given tells me nothing about the facts and a lot (that's two separate words, by the way) about the maker of the first video. It's not convincing me of anything, so it's an utter failure as propaganda.

First, let me say that Rykehaven is a rude pompous ass and that Greyhawk deserves better than to be called a "liar".

That being said, Ryke is correct on alot of the details about how we received these 2 VIPs. Even if I think he got unnecessarily detailed and bitchy for normal people to digest.

As for the trivial question of at ease and attention, he's got a pretty strong case. I'm a marine myself and those marines aren't in the at-ease position, they're at parade rest. The fact that they're moving only proves that they're relaxed about it.

I think that's the entire disagreement here.
Jrman and Greyhawk use the letter of the regulations and are missing something more profound. Something that'd be clear to any marine watching this because we've all had VIPs give speeches in front of us.

It's not just about their position, as Ryke stated, is this or that, or that they're not at-ease which involves locking your thumbs with your hands in front of your crotch.

It involves the relationship the Corps has as a warfighter institution with the man charged with sending them to war.

Nobody commanding men in the field would be tone-deaf enough to watch that video and say that those reactions were a result of "regulations".

Considering all the griping I've heard in Helmand, I find the notion that the Marines "like" Obama rather mysterious.

One other thing I'd like to note:

I can imagine any number of squad leaders in my battalion revving up his troops to give Bush a good sendoff to show their appreciation.

Can any Marine out there who's served in Iraq or Afghanistan imagine the same thing happening if they heard they were supposed to show appreciation for Obama.

And if they say they can, the follow up is :

appreciation for what?

I think a lot of people here are letting their emotional response to Obama overload their rational, better selves. The marines have a 234 year record of being awesome, which is 100 years more than any existing political party. Obama sees more Marines than anyone else, since they fly his helicopter. Long after Obama has his term or two the Marines will still be there doing the hard work, and all the popularity contests will have moved on to the next guy.

Meh - if my patience with commenters isn't legendary it should be. That said, google "rykehaven" for some insight. Common thread: Rykehaven invariably is spokesperson for "buddies" who hate the Germans, the English, and Obama. This phenomenon appears limited to milblogs.

Aight, I don't want to get deep into this point, but there is no protocol wherein it's acceptable to have a room/formation "called" to Parade Rest for the entry of a commander. Period. End of story.

However, generally when I stand I tend to clasp my hands behind my back at a parade rest type position. It's pretty much habit now, after years of not standing around with my hands in my pockets.

From reading the comments, it is heartwarming to read that regardless of who is in the office, it is understood that it is the Marine's job to follow the orders of your commander in chief.

At the same time, it scares me that these same people have no comprehension that people can totally disagree with their mission, think it wrong, think it a mistake, and still respect their service, still realize that it is a GREAT thing to have such a proud group of great men and women protecting us regardless.

I completely agree that respect is earned not given, and completely respect the average Marine's apprehensiveness to their change in leadership.

I do however ponder how Mr. Bush ever earned that respect with this group to begin with.