About Obama’s speech on Iraq

September 1, 2010

I didn’t watch, but I read it. There isn’t much to say about this singularly unimpressive speech, but here are a few observations.

  • A lack of grace and courtesy: Sure, he mentioned Bush, but gave him no credit for the strategy change -the “surge”- that enabled Obama to take credit for leaving a relatively stable Iraq on schedule. No admission that he, Barack Obama, was wrong in his opposition to the surge. And once again he treats our volunteer citizen-soldiers primarily as victims, while nearly ignoring their successes. Our President has no class.
  • Perfunctory: When you look at the speech, it’s clear Iraq and the accomplishments of our military and diplomats merely were the framework for his real goal – another sell-job for his economic program.
  • Boring. Come on, we were sold a “golden orator” in 2007-08, the greatest speaker since Pericles delivered his funeral oration. This flat thing is the best he can do for an address from the Oval Office?

LINKS: For more thorough analysis, have a look at Hot Air; Roger Kimball wonders why they didn’t call for a rewrite; Jim Hanson says Obama has learned nothing about being Commander in Chief; Moe Lane demands Obama be held accountable; Power Line called it limp and boring. Sarah Palin offered some advice Obama would have been wise to take.