If I want to point out something I did not agree with, I will, if you want to accuse me of something, that is fine.

Also, if I wanted to challenge Obama politically I would have done so in far more colorful ways as the Democrats did with Bush. This post was not politically motivated.

But alas, it is only “political” to you as you MIGHT be in political agreement with Obama and any criticism is seen as such. I am not. I looked at this from a different perspective.

C

It is a shame so much name calling got involved in all of this.

The article, as it stands, indicates that the invitation to visit Normandy came as a diplomatic ploy on the part of the French. The US administration did not discuss suggest it, and avoided it because they saw perceived that Germany might perceive it as a slight. I think it is important to bear in mind that it appears that Sarkozy wanted Obama to visit Normandy not so much to honor American war dead, but as a kind of diplomatic protocl one-upmanship. Note that this appears as a typical political trap – present Obama with a choice that either gives the French prestige (visit Normandy) or hurts him domestically (arguments that he disdains the sacrifices of American soldiers during World War II). Perhaps it is germane to note here that I have not noted anyone calling for Obama to visit service gravesites in the United Kingdom. And Chris, your line of thought makes everything clear: “it would have been, in my opinion, an appropriate visit to take the time to honor something good we Americas have done for Europeans.” For you, as with the French, none of this has anything to do with the honoring the war dead, but scoring political points. All of this is fine, but please don’t reduce our war dead to pawns in whatever disagreements you might have with the course Obama has chosen.

My viewpoint from my earlier post came from the experience of being one of those veterans. I’m not WW II, nor even Korea – though I know a number of these men and women. I’m more of a late-Vietnam era vet.

I am conservative, but I believe in giving every politician a fair chance to establish themselves in what they do as it pertains to my particular viewpoint – just as I am sure the rest of the world does.

No politician can meet everyone’s expectations. That is a given. No man/woman living can do that. However, I also reserve the right to express my opinion in a civilized, more-or-less rational manner.

People complain about the military – and often with justification. However, to follow orders and to risk life and limb to storm the beaches, whether it is Normandy, Guadalcanal, Anzio, Iwo Jima – or the bridgeheads in Iraq or Afghanistan, if that is where a soldier is ordered to go – is absolutely heroic.

To have a President deny visiting a region as significant in the history of this nation’s efforts to win the war in Europe in order not to offend someone is – to me – wrong. It not only denies the memory of what what done there, but those living veterans (I happen to know a couple) who were there.

On top of that, to propose to cut federal health benefits for war related injuries – as was proposed by the current Administration – to me (one lone voice in the world) a trend that concerns me.

As far as I’m concerned, the jury is still rightfully out on Obama. He’s simply not had the time in office to clearly indicate the path he is going to take. He’s done some things I like, and some I don’t. So did Bush, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, and Eisenhower (the one’s I lived through with a memory of their administrations).

Because I don’t like some of things done was not intended to provide a flash point for off-topic discussion, name calling, and swearing. If I offended you, I’m sorry.

But I still don’t intend to change my opinion.

Bush drove people nuts with the things he did. Obama just seems to drive people nuts because why? Its not based on anything he’s actually doing.

This is aside from legitimate criticism of the bailout plan, the changes in foreign policy and the changes in military procurement. Any leader who does something is going to be criticized for it, and sometimes that criticism has merit. But the weird tone coming out of outlets like Fox News is just disconnected with reality.

C

Peter, I won’t speak for Mike. I did not say is was a “slap” to anyone, I stated I was disappointed by this non-move on Obama’s part.

I understand that Sarkozy’s invite could have been a move to get more “alone time” with Obama. I have to ask, so what? I also noted that the offending part had to do with Obama visiting with the French privately and not the Germans.

The President indeed is not obligated to do anything. That’s kind of my point. And no, I am not suggesting he visits gravesites whereever he goes. However, Normandy is not an ordinary graveyard, can we agree on that?

My point is during a trip where our President was clearly in apologetic mode for America (and I’m not going to review everything he apologized for and I noted I agreed with his “humble” approach), it would have been, in my opinion, an appropriate visit to take the time to honor something good we Americas have done for Europeans (and the world).

But like I said, if he goes back for the 65th anniversary, I will be happy to post a rebuttal. You might not care if he does, that’s fine. You have that right.

If this line of thought does not help, than we have to agree to disagree.

C