Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FM 22-5 Drill & Ceremonies Obama Style

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • FM 22-5 Drill & Ceremonies Obama Style

    Just amazing-

    "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
    "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

  • #2
    We gotta remember that he is a civilian, with no military background.

    Its unfortunate , but I've seen commissioned officers do the same.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
      We gotta remember that he is a civilian, with no military background.

      Its unfortunate , but I've seen commissioned officers do the same.

      There's an easy fix. If, as many have said, he is a civilian (not a concept with which I agree, but whatever), and doesn't rate a salute then do away with the Marine Corps, or other military members and units rendering honors and ceremonies. No more breaking of the Presidential flag at the foretop whenever he'a aboard a ship, no more eight bells and "United States arriving," no nothing. Problem solved.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
        Its unfortunate , but I've seen commissioned officers do the same.
        And GW Bush has done the same.

        I suppose it would different if Obama had any respect for the military to begin with.
        Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

        Comment


        • #5
          Gunny,

          I appreciate your tolerance but I don't see it that way-which is why I posted this. I don't spend my time on this board railing at all things Obama but this validates much of it. A term and one-half of being rendered honors and his casual disdain appears evident to me.

          I've honestly NOT SEEN commissioned officers do the same but, if so, they should have received a major smack-down from somebody above them whom matters.

          Still waiting for the flag rank to roll out of some vehicle with martini and hooker in hand.

          Now THAT would gain my applause.
          "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
          "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by S2 View Post
            Still waiting for the flag rank to roll out of some vehicle with martini and hooker in hand.

            Now THAT would gain my applause.
            Yeah it's rather run-of-the-mill when a Congressman does it
            Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

            Comment


            • #7
              Ben doing a bit of googling.

              No President before Reagan saluted military personnel.

              To salute or not to salute, that’s Obama’s question | Tales from the Trail

              Barack Obama went to a gym at a military base in Hawaii the other day and did something positively Reaganesque — he returned a Marine’s salute.

              In so doing, he wandered directly into the middle of a thorny debate: Should U.S. presidents return military salutes or not?
              USA-OBAMA/ [1]
              Longstanding tradition requires members of the military to salute the president. The practice of presidents returning that salute is more recent — Ronald Reagan started it in 1981.

              Reagan’s decision raised eyebrows at the time. Dwight Eisenhower, a former five-star general, did not return military salutes while president. Nor had other presidents.

              John Kline [2], then Reagan’s military aide and now a Minnesota congressman, advised him that it went against military protocol for presidents to return salutes.

              Kline said in a 2004 op-ed piece in The Hill [3] that Reagan ultimately took up the issue with Gen. Robert Barrow, then commandant of the Marine Corps.

              Barrow told Reagan that as commander in chief of the armed forces, he was entitled to offer a salute — or any sign of respect he wished — to anyone he wished, Kline wrote, adding he was glad for the change.

              Every president since Reagan has followed that practice, even those with no military experience. President Bill Clinton’s saluting skills were roundly criticized after he took office, but the consensus was he eventually got better.

              The debate over saluting has persisted, with some arguing against it for protocol reasons, others saying it represents an increasing militarization of the civilian presidency.
              A Senseless Salute - NYTimes.com

              A Senseless Salute

              By John Lukacs
              Published: April 14, 2003
              Soon after Ronald Reagan assumed his presidency, something new appeared with his image on the television screen. When given a salute by uniformed military personnel, Mr. Reagan would return it, shooting his right hand up to his bare head, his smile suggesting that this was something he liked to do. This unnecessary and unseemly habit was adopted by Mr. Reagan's successors, including Bill Clinton and especially George W. Bush, who steps off his plane and cocks a jaunty salute.

              This gesture is of course quite wrong: such a salute has always required the wearing of a uniform. But there is more to this than a decline in military manners. There is something puerile in the Reagan (and now Bush) salute. It is the joyful gesture of someone who likes playing soldier. It also represents an exaggeration of the president's military role.

              In the past, even presidents who had once been generals employed civilian manners. They chose not to emphasize their military achievements during their presidential tenure -- in accord with the American tradition of the primacy of civilian over military rule. Of their constitutional prerogatives these men were of course aware. Lincoln would dismiss and appoint generals, and Truman knew that he had the right to fire MacArthur. During World War II, while Churchill often wore a uniform or at least a military cap, Roosevelt remained determinedly in his civilian clothes. Indeed, none of the presidents who governed this country during its great wars defined themselves as commanders in chief -- not Washington, not Lincoln, not Wilson, not Roosevelt.

              Yes, Section 2 of Article II of the Constitution says: ''The president shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States . . .'' Thereafter that very paragraph lists other presidential powers that have nothing to do with military matters. The brevity of the mention of a commander in chief -- it is not even a full sentence -- suggests that the country's founders did not attach very great importance to this role.

              But about 20 years ago the militarization of the image of the presidency began. It started with Mr. Reagan, who had no record of military service and who spent World War II in Hollywood (something that he tried on occasion to obscure). There were his fervent, sentimental and sometimes tearful expressions when meeting or speaking to American soldiers, sailors and airmen. There was, too, his easy and self-satisfying willingness to employ the armed forces of the United States in rapid and spectacular military operations against minuscule targets and ''enemies'' like Grenada, Nicaragua and Libya. President Bush, too, enjoys immersing himself in the warm bath of jubilant approbation at large gatherings of soldiers.

              Like the boy soldier salute, the sentimentalization of the military is juvenile. Television depictions of modern technological warfare, for example, make it seem as if a military campaign were but a superb game, an occasional Super Bowl that America is bound to win -- and with almost no human losses. (''We'll keep our fighting men and women out of harm's way'' -- a senseless phrase that emerged during the Clinton years.) The exaggerated vesting of the president with his supreme role as commander in chief is a new element in our national history.

              When the Roman republic gave way to empire, the new supreme ruler, Augustus chose to name himself not ''rex,'' king, but ''imperator,'' from which our words emperor and empire derive, even though its original meaning was more like commander in chief. Thereafter Roman emperors came to depend increasingly on their military. Will our future presidents? Let us doubt it. And yet . . .


              I think its much to do over nothing.

              Comment


              • #8
                Hey, he's the prez and he has the option of returning a salute or not.

                But if you're going to return a salute at least take the friggin time to do it right.

                Comment


                • #9
                  You salute the rank, not the person.
                  Chimo

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
                    I think its much to do over nothing.
                    Quite clueless about military protocol. Being just a civvy myself.

                    Should he have been holding the coffee cup in the other hand?
                    Last edited by sated buddha; 26 Sep 14,, 12:55.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      As Gun Grape noted, the president saluting is a relatively recent development. Clinton sucked at it at first, Bush screwed it up sometimes, and now Obama did the same. The way this is running around the media is like a celebrity who's tit fell out of her dress. People are reading way too much into it.

                      Attached Files

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Clearly a step in the right direction. Dog (martini) in left hand. Chogy would tell you that's how every Air Force officer salutes.
                        "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                        "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Why can't we just be honest and have the Marines and president just flip each other off - we know neither likes the other.
                          "Bother", said Poo, chambering another round.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
                            [ATTACH]38083[/ATTACH]
                            I always liked President Bush.

                            That he is a dog lover to boot, reaffirms that some more.

                            I realise that this is a predominantly military crowd here on WAB, so the opinions and thinking would be likewise. But what I really want to know, seeing as I spend more time with this group of Americans than any of the others I interact with, is does it really make a difference whether a US President has served in the military in the past or not? Is a non-serving/civvy President (like Obama) automatically consciously or unconsciously put one rung lower in the public eye when measured up against past US Presidents who did serve? It would most probably obviously be so to a great extent amongst the military guys and their families and extended families and friends. But America is a country of over 300 million people. The former group would be max a few million. What does the larger majority think?

                            I hasten to add and reaffirm that no disrespect is meant here. I genuinely want to understand the psyche of the American public vis a vis their chosen leader.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by sated buddha View Post
                              I always liked President Bush.

                              That he is a dog lover to boot, reaffirms that some more.

                              I realise that this is a predominantly military crowd here on WAB, so the opinions and thinking would be likewise. But what I really want to know, seeing as I spend more time with this group of Americans than any of the others I interact with, is does it really make a difference whether a US President has served in the military in the past or not? Is a non-serving/civvy President (like Obama) automatically consciously or unconsciously put one rung lower in the public eye when measured up against past US Presidents who did serve? It would most probably obviously be so to a great extent amongst the military guys and their families and extended families and friends. But America is a country of over 300 million people. The former group would be max a few million. What does the larger majority think?

                              I hasten to add and reaffirm that no disrespect is meant here. I genuinely want to understand the psyche of the American public vis a vis their chosen leader.
                              The fact that they didn't serve doesn't bother me at all. LBJ and Nixon both served in the Navy and mostly spent their time cheating at poker and running various scams. So there is serving, and serving with honor. I worked in the Pentagon under the Clinton administration. I briefed his SECDEF several times, and his Vice President once. I loved the former and despised the latter . . . and he served in Vietnam. What bothered me about Clinton was not that he was a Democrat (although I am not one . . . nor a Republican), or that he didn't serve. No, what bothered me is that he protested against the Vietnam War, and in a foreign country into the bargain. I didn't like that war either, but being a Navy junior, I knew there were things one just does not do when people are fighting and dying in the field. People died because of what Clinton and others of his ilk did, because no matter how we want to rationalize or sugar coat it, from this side (the uniformed side that is) of the ledger, that's "giving aid and comfort to the enemy," and THAT I will never forgive. As far as I'm concerned, given who educated him (Alinsky et al.), the current occupant of the White House is just as bad, if not worse.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X