WASHINGTON
Many service members are wondering what to expect from their new commander in chief - after all, he's never worn a uniform and he's vowing to change strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Those questions notwithstanding, about 2,000 servicemen and women had a chance to celebrate at the Commander in Chief's Ball, one of 10 which the new president was scheduled to attend Tuesday.
Held at the National Building Museum, the ball is a relatively new affair on the inaugural circuit - former President George W. Bush established the event in 2005, and President Barack Obama continued it this year.
Polls suggest Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, was the preferred candidate of a majority of military personnel.
For his part, Obama has worked to court the military in subtle and obvious ways.
His decision to retain Robert Gates as secretary of defense was a high-profile signal to the military.
More perfunctory, but appreciated nonetheless, were his recent visits to Arlington National Cemetery and Walter Reed Army Medical Center to meet with wounded soldiers.
"It's showing that he cares about the soldiers and the troops," said Sgt. 1st Class Nakeysha Jacobs of the National Guard Readiness Center in Arlington.
First lady Michelle Obama, meanwhile, has made the challenges of military families an area of personal focus. Last summer she met with several military spouses in Norfolk and has had similar sit-downs elsewhere.
During his inaugural address earlier Tuesday, Obama struck notes that surely appealed to some hawkish listeners.
"We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you," he vowed.
But he has also spoken in favor of a troop withdrawal from Iraq, even if the pullout comes later than initially advertised.
"Politics will be politics," said Sgt. Angel Robles, a Marine from Quantico. "That's never going to change. But to me, a pullout would be detrimental to the overall effort. And I know the new president knows that."
For one evening, military service members were able to let their hair down - figuratively, at least.
Attending the ball was "an indescribable feeling," said Petty Officer 2nd Class Marshall Cable, sporting a neatly shaved blond pate.
"It's just thrilling to see all these people," added Cable, who works in the presence of powerful leaders - he's a cook at the Pentagon, preparing meals for the secretary of the Navy.
Julian Walker, (804) 697-1564, julian.walker@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Yup, the grammatical standard has changed!
Like it or not (and this old-fashioned girl does not like it), it is now totally accepted to use the title "Obama" in a headline (or anywhere) in place of "President Obama" or "Mr. Obama." Check out Thursday's paper, two days after inauguration.
Conduct unbecoming
I am no fan of President Bush but he didn't deserve be be booed. Not only was it down right rude it was disrespectful. No matter what my feeling are for the him and his policies he was my President and I will respect him as such. I was hoping that people would "class up" and show some self control. And even though I am not a fan....thank you Mr. Bush for 8 years of service
Value of military service
One other value not previously mentioned is that even boot camp, which my nephew dropped out of due to dyslexia, can take a disorganized, cluttered, random person and turn him or her into someone who now makes neatness out of every space he or she inhabits!!! My sister could not believe this kid now cleans the kitchen after himself, or anyone else.
Before you laugh, there *is* a definite advantage to being organized (it goes hand in hand with setting and achieving goals while the rest of the world is still looking for their keys!).
And, yes, I believe President Obama is already organized, so he got that part somewhere other than the military!!!
Wow - Barney did say that
Mea culpa EvanJ. Granted his proposal went over like a lead balloon with Dems on the Armed Services Committee. But its BF's proposal alone, not BOs.
However, I do give Barney credit for actually thinking of how to pay for things, which is a novel approach considering the Bush tax cuts coupled with the "emergency & supplemental" Iraq war 'spend-forever' plan.
But Barney's misguided point highlights the epic folly of Bush/Cheney. If you take the $10 billion a MONTH Iraq expenditures that this country has been hemmoraging for the last 5 years you arrive at $120 billion a year. If the current military budget is $500 billion, $120 billion represents 24% of the yearly military budget. Thats an amazing figure. Funny how Iraq spending rarely gets a mention from the right.
lighten up
Sweetdaddy, quick looking for insult where there is none. The lead editorial in today's Washington Post, entitled Mr. Obama's Summons, refers to President Obama as Mr. Obama five times. It is traditional to refer to the President in writing as Mr. Obama, Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, etc. I would think your ire would be better directed at President Obama's supporters who constantly refer to him simply as 'Barack,' an informality that was inappropriate as soon as he sat in the Senate.
I also think your remarks about the lack of value of four years of military service are off the mark. I believe proponents of military service as a requirement for the Presidency (I am not) isn't so much that the President be a great strategic military thinker, but that he know about the unique experience of having served in the military. Additionally, it speaks to being willing to risk life and limb for the nation. In contemporary America that burden rests on the shoulders of very few.
lowest of the low
Sweet Daddy 72:
You're right - President Obama should be accorded all respect as POTUS and Commander-in-Chief.
Let's not be like the low rent scum (e.g. Kenye West and others)who dissed outgoing President Bush yesterday during the ceremonies.
Sweet Daddy
Deja vu moment. When ya'll were really dogging President Bush last summer, I pointed out that "Bush" with no title was not a really good, nor grammatical way to address a sitting president. Ya'll assured me the grammar had changed and, since then, I did see several hundred times that the Virginian-Pilot referred to him as merely "Bush." Just so you won't be surprised when they refer to this sitting president as "Obama." Me, I am military and older and old-fashioned, he will always be "President Obama" to me (and the other guy will always be "former president Bush").
Hmmmm
Quoted from an earlier post "Albeit I agree with your comment, this one in particular sticks out. Eventhough you did not vote for Pres. Obama, I do think/feel that you can atleast call him by his "Title". He does deserve that much."
And former President Bush did not deserve to be booed, he was the President, whether you liked him or not. And Pres. Obama should have stifled the boos out of courtesy.
Wow
Those cut proposal were only wall to all news for a week. Liberals really are out of touch. Just google "Barney Frank defense cuts".
Defense Cuts
To the educated one that said 25% defense cuts, oh really, then why are we going to add several battalions of Army and Marines, why are we going to have to replace worn out equipment for that useless war in Iraq, why did we just build the new carrier (H.W. Bush) which has not gone through sea trails, which is needed to work out the kinks (more defense budget) and in the works of building another 21st centry carrier so please check your facts don't listen to some right wing fear newspaper article (yes I saw it....ie Barney Frank which is not the prez or defense sec.
re: Wow!!!!
SweetDaddy72 wrote:
>>>What's actually cracking me up is that this article is/was specifically talking about service members attending the Commander in Chief's Ball.<<<
Yep, I agree. I'm just pleased they were able to attend as guests this time. During the last Democratic presidential term, they were used as wait staff...
re: Hmmmm
SweetDaddy72 wrote:
>>>Eventhough you did not vote for Pres. Obama, I do think/feel that you can atleast call him by his "Title". He does deserve that much.<<<
The media routinely called President Bush, Mr. Bush. Yet, when mentioning Clinton [during Bush's administration], he was always referred to as President Clinton.
I don't hear any complaints there...
EvanJ - cite your source
"The proposals to cut the defense budget 25% have already been made"
Cite your source. Otherwise people will think that you are continuing to make stuff up.
Don't bother
For all you right wing and conservative types don't bother arguing with the Obama fan club you will get nowhere. They have this guy hyped up as a fricken messiah and he has just took over office! I mean come on, they all believe this guy is right up there with Jesus Christ! I'm not an Obama supporter obviously, and he can talk a good game about all this change he's gonna do, but I'm not gonna believe it until I see it! I refuse to say this guy is the best or gonna be the best President ever just because he's black, wants change, or can give a good speech at times. Action speak louder than words and as far as I know he hasn't been in office long enough for any action to have taken place!! P.S. Trying to close down gitmo isn't a very good action either, but you libs and lefty types love terrorists anyways so I guess it's good action for you!
Proposals have already been made
The proposals to cut the defense budget 25% have already been made well before this election. Remember the Democrats have been in power the last two years and the only difference now is we won't have a veto to block these major cuts.
Wow!!!!
What's actually cracking me up is that this article is/was specifically talking about service members attending the Commander in Chief's Ball.
Since we choose to make this our topic. Let me also say that even if you enlist in the military for 4 years, it really shouldn't be a factor for the presidency. I mean, in (4) years you're either a commissioned officer (O-3 at the most) who doesn't know anything, or a E-4/E-5 whose just as lost. Service within your country is just as good. Besides, that is why your staff is selected for specific positions.
And yes, i'm in the Military (15+ years) and currently deployed.
Hmmmm
Submitted by Robert A on Wed, 01/21/2009 at 9:56 am.
...As far as Mr. Obama is concerned, I didn't vote for the guy, but he's there, so let's see what he can do before we start to dog him. I think we could all agree that some things need to change
Albeit I agree with your comment, this one in particular sticks out. Eventhough you did not vote for Pres. Obama, I do think/feel that you can atleast call him by his "Title". He does deserve that much.
Some arguments don't make sense
michaelc23657, I disagree. Adding more minimum requirements for the presidency will endanger our country MORE, not less. If you add more requirements to the presidency, you inherently disqualify vast segments of the population from serving, thereby creating a priviledged "ruling class" within our country. Our founding fathers wrote the constitution expressly to avoid that (they had just escaped that very thing when they left Enland). Also, you would transfer a great deal of power to those who would decide who is qualified to serve, thus removing our voices from the the process. "Of the people, by the people and for the people" would cease to exist.
Additionally, you contradict yourself with regard to Clinton. You deride his "idiotic policies", then go on to state that Obama "is not going to drop dont-ask-don't-tell when he finds out how many people will bail out of the military if he does it" (a Clinton policy). Which way is it?
Right on, Gooche!
The idea that military service should be a prerequisite for the presidency is ridiculous, and a typical rant among those who inhabit the culture of fear. (It seems to be a particular favorite among those who don't realize that Limbaugh and O'Reilly are just acts.) It's even more laughable in view of the smear job the right wing nuts did on John Kerry, a decorated war veteran, in defense of their candidates George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, both of whom avoided active duty military service.
Among the founding fathers, only George Washington had military service. John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe and John Quincy Adams were all dedicated patriots who distinguished themselves in other fields and shaped, far more than George Washington, the values and ideals that define the American model of democracy and the relationship between America and other nations.
Julian Walker and all you schlumps
Here's a quick look at the past Presidents and military service (if any):
Obama-nada; Bush-Air Force; Clinton-nada; Bush-U.S. Navy;
Reagan-U.S. Army; Carter-U.S. Navy; Ford-U.S. Navy; Nixon-U.S. Navy; Johnson-U.S. Navy; Kennedy-U.S. Navy; Eisenhower-U.S. Army; Truman-U.S. Army.
No other Presidents between Truman and Teddy Roosevelt (FDR to Taft) served in the military.
Who got us into the last two World Wars? Uhm...that'd be Wilson and FDR-neither had any military service.
What's military service have to do with being President? Uhh...NONE! You just need to be 37 and born in the U.S.
Consider yourselves SPANKED! Straight to bed-no ice cream tonight.