Via Ben Smith, an utterly baseless claim by Sarah Palin that Obama does not "acknowledge the sacrifices" of US military:
“There’s been a lack of acknowledgment by our president in understanding what it is that the American military provides in terms of, obviously, the safety, the security of our country,” Palin said during an interview with Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren. “I want him to acknowledge the sacrifices that these individual men and women — our sons, our daughters, our moms, our dads, our brothers and sisters — are providing this country to keep us safe.”“They’re making sacrifices,” said Palin, who visited the Army base at Fort Bragg on Monday as part of her ongoing book tour. “They’re putting so much on hold right now so that the homeland can be safe and they can fight for democratic ideals around our world. I want to see more acknowledgment and more respect given to them.”
Mrs. Palin, let me Google that for you -- here are just a few examples from the first page of search results:
February 27 (speaking to the troops in Iraq): "Under enormous strain and under enormous sacrifice, through controversy and difficulty and politics, you've kept your eyes focused on just doing your job."
Memorial Day address: "These are some of the ways we can, must, and will honor the service of our troops and the sacrifice of their families."
June 30: "Through tour after tour of duty, our troops have overcome every obstacle to extend this precious opportunity to the Iraqi people. These women and men are not always in the headlines, but they're in our hearts and prayers, and we will forever honor their selfless service and sacrifice, as well as the service and sacrifice of their families."
November 20 (speaking to the troops in North Korea): [W]hile you made sacrifices that few Americans will ever truly understand, I want to assure you -- every American appreciates what you do. I say today, on behalf of the American people: We thank you for your service. We honor you for your sacrifices. And just as you've fulfilled your responsibilities to your nation, your nation will fulfill its responsibilities to you.
I could go on (feel free to peruse the results), but the point is clear -- Palin's suggestion that Obama hasn't "acknowledge[d] the sacrifice" of US troops is simply false.
"Palin's suggestion that XYZ is simply false"
FIFY
Posted by: Eskimohorn | November 25, 2009 at 10:47 AM
Oops. I believe you meant that he spoke to the troops in SOUTH Korea on November 20. It'd be pretty big news if he was speaking to troops in North Korea.
Posted by: Chaz | November 25, 2009 at 11:00 AM
I disagree with Brendan's interpretation of Palin's comments. He evidently thinks she said Obama has given NO acknowledgement of the troops; I think she said Obama has given NOT ENOUGH acknowledgement of the troops.
Teasing out three allegations from Palin's quote:
1. There’s been a lack of acknowledgment...
2. I want him to acknowledge the sacrifices...
3. I want to see more acknowledgment...
#1 is ambiguous. The first definition of "lack" is a deficiency, but the 2nd definition is something missing.
#2 seems to imply that Obama has not acknowledged the troops, although it doesn't directly say so.
#3 clearly indicates that Obama has acknowledged the troops, but she wants to see more of it.
Palin didn't speak with actuarial precision, but I think a fair reading of the entire paragraph is that in her opinion Obama's acknowledgment of the troops was insufficient, rather than non-existent.
Is Palin correct that Obama has given insufficient acknowledgement to the troops. That's a subjective opinion, but I agree with her. Obama's delay on making a decision regarding Afghanistan harmed morale. I don't think he did enough to offset that. Compare Obama's record with Bush's efforts to motivate the troops and one can see a dramatic difference.
Posted by: David | November 25, 2009 at 11:57 AM
David: Interestingly, while I am not in the military myself, and thus lack first-hand perspective, I would argue that Palin's comments and efforts would harm troop morale significantly more than Obama's.
Posted by: Tom Anderson | November 25, 2009 at 12:41 PM
Perhaps we should be examining the more fundamental question: what is this obsession with Sarah Palin on the part of the media and media observers like Brendan? She's assumed the mantle once held by Lee Atwater, Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove, John Ashcroft, Dick Cheney and of course George Bush--the focus of lefty contempt, the white-hot center of liberal hatred. Quite an accomplishment for this private citizen whose only offense against liberalism is that she's spoken her mind from time to time.
To be sure, I'm not blaming Brendan. He's only reflecting what he hears as he sips his tea in the U of M Faculty Lounge, concentrating on not extending his pinky finger and thereby giving away his Eastern elitist background. If he wants to fit in, he's got to harrumph about this upstart Palin just the way the country club set used to do about FDR. Some things never change.
Posted by: Rob | November 25, 2009 at 12:55 PM
Brendan - Pretty sloppy post.
You can't disprove a "some" opinion with a list of "some".
The last sentence of her comments makes this clear:
"I want to see more acknowledgment and more respect given to them.”
This implies there has been some, but not enough respect and acknowledgment - her opinion.
Your definition of the level she should be satified with doesn't make her opinion "simply false".
And like Rob, I find the obsession with Palin somewhat baffling and amusing.
Posted by: MartyB | November 25, 2009 at 05:20 PM
Tom -
I am curious why Palin's comments would harm troop morale?
If the troops agree with her, wouldn't it raise their morale to feel someone understands them. Their morale would only be hurt by the way they feel the Resident is treating them, not by her pointing it out.
And if they don't agree with her, why wouldn't they just blow her off since they feel treated well by the President?
Posted by: MartyB | November 25, 2009 at 05:27 PM
Rob: while the fascination with Sarah Palin certainly reeks of a schoolyard "point and laugh" situation, there's no doubt that Palin has tried her damnedest to earn that by continually thrusting herself into the spotlight. And to compare her to shrewd and cunning bastards like Atwater and Cheney is superficial and specious. She's a dolt and a liar, and it's evidently more because she doesn't know (and doesn't want to know) better, rather than because she's trying to manipulate her audience (and, really, like that's much of a challenge).
Also, your continued "elitist" caricatures are sophomoric. You were more interesting when you pretended to be a libertarian, instead of showing yourself as a true FOXhole.
Posted by: rone | November 25, 2009 at 06:21 PM
Today's editorial from WaPo relates indirectly to the question of whether President Obama has done enough to maintain troop morale. It says in part;
Yet once he has chosen his [Afghanistan] strategy, it's vital that the president commit himself fully to its success....in a way that will convince Afghans, allies, the Taliban and the leaders of neighboring Pakistan that the United States is determined to succeed. It also means avoiding hedges and conditions that could doom the escalation before it begins.
...Experts concur that a large majority of Afghans do not wish to see a resurgence of the Taliban but that many will be inclined to support the side that they believe is most likely to prevail. Pakistan's military commanders, too, will carefully measure U.S. resolve before deciding to break irrevocably with the Afghan Taliban leaders based in their country. If the new American strategy is cluttered with "exit ramps" or closely linked to timetables, the effect of the additional troops will be undermined.
WaPo is concerned that the President may not convince the world that he is committed to victory. Our military also should be convinced. A soldier will be less willing to risk his life if he believes the effort is futile. As John Kerry said in 1971, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"
In short, speeches praising the military are fine, but they alone are not sufficient to fulfill the Commander in Chief's responsibility of motivating our military people.
Posted by: David | November 29, 2009 at 03:58 PM