LA Times: Barack Obama gives weird Oval Office addresses

What can you say to that comment which was the first paragraph in the LA Times article, Obama speech: Official end to U.S. combat in Iraq, but so many But's?

No one we knew watched the speech of Obama last night so we are relying on comments from various websites which are not kind to Obama's speech. The days of the 95% of media fawning over Obama seem to be drawing to a close except for Chris Matthews and others at MSNBC. We don't exactly consider the LA Times or Huffington Post conservative sources -- far from it. We have included media comments, a short website comment and comments from members of Congress. The comments from the Democrat members of Congress are few and far between -- we are still looking.

We will start with the LA Times:

After becoming the first president ever not to address fellow citizens from that strangely clear desk during his first year in office, the Democrat gave his second Oval Office speech in 11 weeks Tuesday night to mark the scheduled end of U.S. combat ops in Iraq after seven years and 4,421 American deaths.

Obama had to mark the occasion because his entire Democratic political personna was based on opposition to the Iraq war. (Also closing Guantanamo; but that's another story.) And there are midterm elections looming Nov. 2 with polls predicting a stateside surge in Republican troops....

American presidents speak from the Oval Office for momentous events: The Russians are putting missiles in Cuba and that's gotta stop (Kennedy, 1962). I will not seek and will not accept the re-nomination of my party (Johnson, 1968). I am resigning as president (Nixon, 1974). The Challenger loss leaves us all looking to the heavens for consolation (Reagan, 1986). As I speak, American military forces are kicking ass in some foreign place (too numerous to mention).

You had a sense that Tuesday was momentous more to Obama and his Chicago crowd than anyone trying to follow him....

The result was the Real Good Talker didn't talk real good. He tried to touch way too many bases. And missed most. Much the same occurred in his June Oval Office address when the nation wanted to know How he was going to stop its worst environmental calamity and, instead, got a pitch for green energy and more windmills. Does his 747 ever touch ground?

Jacob Heilbrunn, Huffington Post:

It's hard not to examine President Obama's speech on Iraq and the economy without experiencing a sinking feeling. Obama employed a number of nautical metaphors about sailing through turbulent seas and storms in his speech, but even he seemed a little queasy about it all. Nothing could have made clearer the extent to which he remains a hostage of the Bush era, both in domestic and foreign policy. His speech did not chart a path to the future but remained mired in the past.

It is hard to top this short and to the point comment:

Internet Scofflaw.com

Oh geez

President Obama says we owe it to the troops to adopt his domestic agenda?! Wow.

Jim Hanson, Big Peace Obama Has Learned Nothing About Being Commander in Chief:

President Obama’s biggest problem as Commander in Chief is that he is not a leader. He is detached from the troops who fight our wars and they will never feel about him the way they did about George W. Bush. He is uninspiring and it is obvious that he considers the fight against Islamic extremists to be a distraction from his true mission, fundamentally transforming and rescuing America from its failed past. There was not a single moment in his speech where he spoke to the troops about their mission. He spoke about them in reverent tones, but he never articulated what we were fighting and why it really mattered. There is a reason for that, he has absolutely no rapport with them, he doesn’t understand them, and he has absolutely no clue how to lead them. Hell he really wishes he didn’t have to. Obama is a politician and that is where he feels comfortable. he even felt obligated to remind us that “ending” the Iraq War was a campaign promise of his.

Susan Jones, CNS, After the Speech: Obama’s Commitment to Victory Questioned

CNSNews.com) – President Obama’s prime-time speech to the nation announcing the end of combat operations in Iraq is getting generally poor reviews from Republicans and conservatives, not only for what Obama said, but for what he did not say.

By injecting the economy – a domestic issue – into a major speech on the end of combat in Iraq, Obama signaled where his real interests lie, one analyst said. One Republican questioned Obama’s comments on Afghanistan. And several Republicans objected to Obama not giving President Bush his fair share of credit for the successful Iraq surge strategy.

We also found some comments from members of Congress:

Senator Inhofe (R-OK):

"We owe a debt of gratitude to the 1.5 million men and women who answered their nation's call and have served in Iraq since operations began in 2003. President Obama was wrong to be against the war in the first place, he was incorrect about the surge and he still fails to recognize the strategic importance of the United States being in Iraq. Our effort to liberate the people of Iraq from the grip of one of the most dangerous and brutal dictators in the world cannot be overstated. In so doing, we have taken steps toward putting Iraq on the road to a democratic form of government that will provide stability to the region.

"While the United States still has 50,000 combat troops in harm's way in Iraq, it is misleading for the commander-in-chief to declare combat operations over simply to tout a fulfilled campaign promise. With Iraqi Security Forces being increasingly targeted and with a still-to-be-formed Iraqi government, it is premature for President Obama to make this speech from the Oval Office. We must continue to be committed to the people of Iraq as we continue forward as strategic partners."

Senator John McCain (R-AZ):

“The part that really disturbs me the most,” McCain continued – I’m not surprised that he wouldn’t give George Bush credit; that’s just in the DNA of the individual, apparently. But when he (Obama) said [about Afghanistan] -- our withdrawal will be conditions-based, and then contradicted that by saying, we will begin to withdraw in the middle of 2011 – that’s an ambiguity… that could cause us to fail.”

McCain said it’s up to the president to press for victory in any war the U.S. undertakes: “It takes the president of the United States to say, unequivocally, that we’re going to win, and then we’re going to withdraw. Just like we were able to do in Iraq with the success of the surge – which he unalterably opposed and now seems to be taking credit for.”

Congressman Pence (R-IN):

Two things, Sean. Number one, he didn't give credit where credit is due to his predecessor, who against withering domestic criticism refused to accept defeat in Iraq. And secondly, he used the word “victory” at the tail end of the speech, but it’s not at all clear he was actually referring to Iraq when he did it. It was something about “there are no ceremonies for surrender.” I thought this speech was wanting. I thought it lacked gratitude toward his predecessor. He said tonight that he and President George W. Bush disagreed about the war. Well, Sean, the American people know they didn't just disagree about the war. They disagreed about the surge. And then-Senator Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi were wrong about the surge and they were wrong to oppose it and the American people know it.

About 95% or more of the reviews of the speech have been that his delivery was weak, inserting the economy into the speech was wrong, and his lack of giving President Bush the credit for surge Obama and Biden vehemently opposed was missing. Bottom Line was another failed Oval Office speech from the newly decorated Oval Office which also failed. Could not feature sitting at a desk looking at those striped walls all day, but when is the last time that Obama spent all day in the Oval Office? Has anyone ever seen any paperwork on his desk except the desk top?