The Case of the Missing Applause

The NY Times is wondering why the lack of applause the other night when President Bush made his speech at Ft. Bragg. Was it because our nation's military is turning against it's commander in chief?

WASHINGTON, June 29 -

So what happened to the applause?

When President Bush visits military bases, he invariably receives a foot-stomping, loud ovation at every applause line. At bases like Fort Bragg - the backdrop for his Tuesday night speech on Iraq - the clapping is often interspersed with calls of "Hoo-ah," the military's all-purpose, spirited response to, well, almost anything.

So the silence during his speech was more than a little noticeable, both on television and in the hall. On Wednesday, as Mr. Bush's repeated use of the imagery of the Sept. 11 attacks drew bitter criticism from Congressional Democrats, there was a parallel debate under way about whether the troops sat on their hands because they were not impressed, or because they thought that was their orders.

With Iraq once more atop the political agenda, the Senate on Wednesday gave hasty approval to an additional $1.5 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs, to cover a budget gap caused in part by unexpected demands for health care by returning Iraqi veterans. The administration has reversed itself, and now plans to seek emergency money from both the House and the Senate. Before the Senate voted unanimously to raise the spending for health care, the head of the veterans administration returned to Capitol Hill on Wednesday to tell House members that, contrary to his testimony the previous day, the agency needs emergency financing for this year and the administration will be submitting a request.

Democrats had seized on the veterans' spending issue as another example of the administration's mishandling of the war.

Republicans moved quickly to respond to what was becoming a significant embarrassment.
Capt. Tom Earnhardt, a public affairs officer at Fort Bragg who participated in the planning for the president's trip, said that from the first meetings with White House officials there was agreement that a hall full of wildly cheering troops would not create the right atmosphere for a speech devoted to policy and strategy.

"The guy from White House advance, during the initial meetings, said, 'Be careful not to let this become a pep rally,' " Captain Earnhardt recalled in a telephone interview. Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, confirmed that account.

As the message drifted down to commanders, it appears that it may have gained an interpretation beyond what the administration's image-makers had in mind. "This is a very disciplined environment," said Captain Earnhardt, "and some guys may have taken it a bit far," leaving the troops hesitant to applaud.

A better question may be- Why can't the NY Times stop whining and report the news instead?

There is no question about the military's loyalty. They have a mission and its to protect their country and their families. Besides do you really think they want the Democrats in office considering how well they treat the armed services?

Captain Ed is right when he says the Times would equally be pooh pahing if there had been applause. The reasoning being the event was rigged.

Outside the Beltway notes his being uncomfortable when politicians use the military, firemen, police etc at public events. Saying its often cynical. All politicians do these groups or others. Like mothers and their children, minorities etc when it fits the message they want to get across.

This 'controversy' will last at most three days.