Obama Accepts the Nobel Peace Prize
[Guest post by DRJ]
President Barack Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize today in Oslo, Norway. The Prize was awarded for Obama’s “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.”
I’m sure this award is a high point in Obama’s already honor-filled political career but I doubt this is the write-up he dreamed of:
“President Barack Obama entered the pantheon of Nobel Peace Prize winners Thursday with humble words, acknowledging his own few accomplishments while delivering a robust defense of war and promising to use the prestigious award to “reach for the world that ought to be.”
A wartime president honored for peace, Obama became the first sitting U.S. president in 90 years and the third ever to win the prize – some say prematurely. In this damp, chilly Nordic capital to pick it up, he and his wife, Michelle, whirled through a day filled with Nobel pomp and ceremony.
And yet Obama was staying here only about 24 hours, skipping a slew of Nobel activities. This miffed some in Norway but reflects a White House that sees little value in extra pictures of the president, his poll numbers dropping at home, taking an overseas victory lap while thousands of U.S. troops prepare to go off to war and millions of Americans remain jobless.”
The full text of Obama’s speech is here.
To me, the cost of leadership weighs heaviest in these words — words I agree with — that must have been very hard for a liberal to speak and for his anti-war supporters to hear:
“Just nine days after ordering 30,000 more U.S. troops into battle in Afghanistan, Obama delivered a Nobel acceptance speech that he saw as a treatise on the use and prevention of war. He crafted much of the address himself and the scholarly remarks – at about 4,000 words – were nearly twice as long as his inaugural address.
In them, Obama refused to renounce war for his nation or under his leadership, saying defiantly that “I face the world as it is” and that he is obliged to protect and defend the United States.
“A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaida’s leaders to lay down their arms,” Obama said. “To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism, it is a recognition of history.”
It’s not easy to be President in good times but it’s very hard to be President in bad times.
— DRJ
Color me unsympathetic – Obama ran against the economy and the war full – tilt, but now he’s got the job, and it doesn’t seem so rosy now. I also don’t believe that any sitting POTUS would have ever possessed the narcissism and extreme navel – gazing (even Clinton) as this one does that would allow them to accept a Nobel prize before their first year isn’t even completed yet. Instead, he should have gracefully refused the honor and asked the committee to please consider worthier individuals – but of course, that would go completely against his actions so far. Couple that with his incessant and classless blaming of his predessor for all of his current troubles and you’ve got a first – class Lonesome Roads.
Dmac (a964d5) — 12/10/2009 @ 12:22 pmActually he ran against the Iraq war but For the Afghanistan one. Of late both the left and right seems to be forgetting this.
imdw (e66d8d) — 12/10/2009 @ 12:25 pmHas there ever been a Nobel Peace Prize winner other than Yasser Arafat who was more two-faced on the issue of peace? Well I mean Yasser wasn’t two-faced the Nobel Committee was just as insane then as they are now, but honestly, you’re accepting the Nobel Peace Prize and you make a self-justifying speech about how war is sometimes necessary. Obama’s image is being trashed and the man is doing it himself. The charm is gone. All he does is insult everyone who isn’t part of his cabal, intentionally and unintentionally.
chaos (9c54c6) — 12/10/2009 @ 12:26 pmIt would be very difficult for this clown to be President in good times or bad.
JD (533be4) — 12/10/2009 @ 12:26 pmWar is peace.
Official Internet Data Office (0a4bf0) — 12/10/2009 @ 12:29 pmHe ran against the Iraq war because it could be pinned on Bush (with the media’s help in hiding the role of Congress in it), and “for” the Afghan war because he intended to suddenly find it “lost” upon takig office, so he would not have to follow-through on his words.
But to say that Obama ran “for” or “against” anything would mean that he actually had a commitment to a specific course of action, an assumption that is totally false.
His only commitment was to anything anyone wanted to hear at anytime, if he thought might vote for him if they believed it.
sherlock (bbc421) — 12/10/2009 @ 12:39 pmChoas
> how war is sometimes necessary
Are you denying this? Do you think there was a peaceful solution to the Hitler problem? Yeah, I guess we could have all kneeled, and those who were of the right ethnicity could have lived under the boot of a dictator, while the inferiors would happily march into the ovens, but for most sane people that is not an option.
AQ killed 3,000 Americans in cold blood. And the Taliban sheltered them. If this war isn’t justified in your mind then you must not believe in any war at all.
I mean what good has war ever done? I mean besides ending slavery, ending the holocaust, liberating afghan women from their burqas, liberating Iraqis from, well, everything. Yeah besides all that war is no good at all!
Seriously, did you eat paint as a child?
A.W. (b1db52) — 12/10/2009 @ 12:40 pmFrom the Nobel committee: “Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.”
From Bee Ho: “reach for the world that ought to be.”
— There you go, folks. John Lennon’s “Imagine” as a basis for foreign policy.
Icy Texan (dccb58) — 12/10/2009 @ 12:46 pm“…Seriously, did you eat paint as a child?”
Comment by A.W. — 12/10/2009 @ 12:40 pm
Evidently, too much, but not enough!
“…It’s not easy to be President in good times but it’s very hard to be President in bad times.”
AD - RtR/OS! (281bb6) — 12/10/2009 @ 12:48 pmParticularly true when those difficulties can be traced directly to the philosophies of your Party, and the actions of your Administration.
Icy texan,
Did you seen den beste’s article about all this fits into a strain of thinking of the left.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/06/government-by-wishful-thinking/
Its really interesting. I am not sure i 100% buy that obama thinks this way, but it certainly explains alot of flakiness from the left.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 12/10/2009 @ 12:51 pmOf course he thinks this way, A.W. What do you think he meant when he said “we’re going to re-make America”? Hopey-changey!
Icy Texan (dccb58) — 12/10/2009 @ 1:05 pmRead the article if you haven’t already and see what den beste thinks he thinks. then look at his life. obama is much more materialistic than den beste gives him credit for.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 12/10/2009 @ 1:13 pmAW, I agree. Perhaps out of psychological necessity on my part, that Obama has some idea that his policies won’t produce the results he promises (such as, in this Nobel case, a world with zero nuclear weapons. I mean, come on.)
But he certainly understands the idealism and wish it away theology of his political supporters. I honestly think he’s just very confused about how to handle all the complicated problems and angry advisers and imminent problems. He doesn’t have any idea how to handle them, but he does know that promising everything will be fixed, while being very vague, will get him through his presidency, one day at a time.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/10/2009 @ 1:21 pmI often wonder what Obama will be like after his presidency is over. He’ll probably be alive in 50 years. Can you imagine if Harry Truman or FDR were alive today to discuss the full effect of their policies?
Obama will be jetting around the world, much like Al Gore only much bigger, for 50 years. Will he be a relative rags to riches like Gore? Will he get a lot of prizes and produce films condemning American life like Gore? Will he even live in the United States?
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/10/2009 @ 1:23 pmRead the article, and I think you’re both right. It’s probably no coincidence that Bee Ho’s most ardent public supporter —
Icy Texan (dccb58) — 12/10/2009 @ 1:24 pmOkraOrcaOprah — was also the biggest promoter of the book “The Secret”, which is all about the same kind of wishful-thinking positive-energy bullshit. But then, the shrewd operator is not above using and manipulating the material world in order to achieve his pie-in-the-sky Utopian dreams.Oh, I did read it. It’s excellent. Everyone should look at it.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/10/2009 @ 1:27 pm“Particularly true when those difficulties can be traced directly to the philosophies of your Party, and the actions of your Administration.”
This is a great way to describe the Afghanistan situation.
imdw (c3c479) — 12/10/2009 @ 1:28 pmimdw, Obama endorsed the counter-insurgency strategy that was developed late last year.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/10/2009 @ 1:30 pm“imdw, Obama endorsed the counter-insurgency strategy that was developed late last year.”
Could be. Then again, up above someone said:
“But to say that Obama ran “for” or “against” anything would mean that he actually had a commitment to a specific course of action, an assumption that is totally false.”
So you guys sort out which one is wrong or lying and then get back to me.
imdw (e3093c) — 12/10/2009 @ 1:44 pmIn fact, didn’t candidate Obama mention something about an over-mountain invasion of Pakistan?
Techie (482700) — 12/10/2009 @ 1:45 pmObama wants to win in Afghanistan the same way that he wants to rid the world of nuclear weapons — by making a token effort & then picking up his marbles and going home.
Icy Texan (dccb58) — 12/10/2009 @ 1:50 pmAbject mendoucheity from the twatwaffle extraordinaire, imdw.
JD (5375e6) — 12/10/2009 @ 1:52 pmTwo cheers for Obama for having the sand to stand up there and tell the Nobelniks that the Afghanistan War is worth fighting in spite of a liberal intelligentsia who wanted it to end yesterday.
What is really galling about his speech, though, is that Obama has joined the leftist establishment in their attempt to rewrite the history of the end of the Cold War. Did anyone else notice this part of his address:
This is the ongoing attempt to try and convince future generations that the Soviet Union crumbled because we reached out to them and helped along their noble reformers like Gorbachev. It is pretty different from the reality, which is that by the time Ronald Reagan was inaugurated we had an entire major political party, up to one-half of the other major political party, and the academic, media, and entertainment elite of this nation arguing that Soviet-style communism was here to stay and the best we could hope for is accommodation with it. They believed that the average Soviet citizen was at least tolerant of life under the hammer and sickle, and there were even those lefties such as the masthead of The Nation who told us that the average Soviet citizen was much happier than the average American citizen. The greatness of Ronald Reagan wasn’t that he was willing to cuddle up to Gorbachev and wait for the Soviet Union to embrace democracy on their own terms; it was that he was bold enough to envision an ending to the Cold War where, in his memorable words, “we win and they lose,” and to engage in defense and foreign policies to bring about that result. Barack Obama is the inheritor to the ideology that totalitarian socialism is actually relatively benign, so he has no credibility to re-cast Reagan as a latter day Neville Chamberlain blindly pursuing peace at all costs.
JVW (0fe413) — 12/10/2009 @ 1:52 pm“So you guys sort out which one is wrong or lying and then get back to me.
Comment by imdw”
Do you really think there’s a contradiction? Obama endorsed the COIN strategy. And he said he wasn’t committed to it.
In other words, I will sort out who was wrong or lying: Obama. He tried to be all things to all people, and there’s nothing wrong with pointing out that he endorsed the fight in Afghanistan while also pointing out that no one should believe he is all that serious about anything.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/10/2009 @ 1:53 pmIcy – He wants to win by giving a speech about winning. The actual work of winning is tough. And he doesn’t want to win, or he would use words like win and victory. He just wants to get out.
JD (5375e6) — 12/10/2009 @ 1:53 pmDustin
Den beste is brilliant. He used to have an amazing blog a few years back. Forgot its name. Then he kind of quit, started writing endlessly about anime, but every now and then he comes along and writes something like that. He’s one of those guys who only writes when he has something to say and what he has to say is pretty f—ing brilliant. Even if you don’t agree, its pretty f—ing brilliant.
Now on that topic, I will say this. Sometimes envisioning, etc. has a real and practical material effect, so there is some overlap. I mean Martin Luther King went down to DC and said he had a dream. And to this day that speech has alot of sway over alot of people’s thinking, which in turn translates into action. So in that sense, dreaming of a world without racism, helped to bring us alot closer to that goal.
And you know, I will say this, too. I think the biggest problem that aftican americans have in achieving equality is themselves. I don’t mean that in a negative blaming kind of way, but I have known too many bright young african americans who were convinced that our society would never give them a fair shake, and so they didn’t try at all. It was depressing.
And actually I can personally relate to that. I have mentioned before I am handicapped. I have learning disabilities to be more exactly. And, I grew up before the ADA and when I was in high school, it just got to be too much. I looked at the thought of going to college, etc. and I said, “its just not possible.” It wasn’t the failure to provide even mild accommodations (most of my problems literally disappear when I have access to a computer), but also the constant discrimination I faced. So I dropped out, literally months before the ADA went into effect, and stayed away from it all for years.
And then my brother discovered in the middle of college that he was disabled, too, and to my shock they were really cool with him. It made me think that maybe colleges were different. So I gave it another go. I don’t want to brag, but I do want to communicate the dramatic difference so I will just say I am probably the only high school drop out to go on to graduate from Yale Law School. And I realized looking back that I lost a lot more time than I had to, that if I kept fighting, if I kept my faith, that I might have been able to make it. I hampered myself by letting myself be defeated.
And even as I voted against Obama last year (did anyone vote FOR John McCain, as opposed to voting against Obama), I recognized that one of the benefits we would have from an obama presidency is that millions of minority children would be inspired to believe that maybe things are so stacked against him. I still voted against him, because I was worried he would turn out to be… pretty much what he turned out to be: inexperienced, naïve, incompetent and yet amazingly arrogant at the same time. But on election night I thought about the inspirational factor, and said, “well, at least some good will come out of it.”
Of course its silly as a rule to think that wishing for something will make it happen. But inspiration and persuasion materially matter as they drive behavior.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 12/10/2009 @ 1:53 pm“And he said he wasn’t committed to it.” is obviously a typo
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/10/2009 @ 1:53 pmSometimes I think he should wait a few years and declare the mission accomplished and hand this off to the next administration. But I realize this would be bad.
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
imdw (f0a5b2) — 12/10/2009 @ 2:08 pmBtw, i have a better title for this post.
“Obama Accepts the Nobel Peace Prize. I just threw up a little in my mouth.”
A.W. (e7d72e) — 12/10/2009 @ 2:17 pmReagan had a dream of the Berlin Wall toppling, and all of the Soviet satellite states gaining their independence . . . and then he did what he had to do in order to make that dream a reality. He didn’t just keep hoping that it would happen; he didn’t sit there and think real hard at the problem. He took decisive, bold action — and did not relent until the results, even though they occurred after he left office, were achieved.
Icy Texan (dccb58) — 12/10/2009 @ 2:20 pmThat last comment courtesy of someone that voted FOR John McCain AND Sarah Palin.
Icy Texan (dccb58) — 12/10/2009 @ 2:21 pmIcy, #29 agreed.
As for #30, well, i did vote for palin. but mccain, it was more like he was the acceptable alternative, rather than someone i was actually enthused about.
And when people said mccain might die in office and make palin president, i was like, “and that is bad, how exactly?”
A.W. (e7d72e) — 12/10/2009 @ 2:26 pm‘The Prize was awarded for Obama’s “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.”’
The only thing the mighty O has done is mouth a bunch of empty platitudes and just about all of his callow diplomatic overtures have been flatly rejected.
He hasn’t done anything to bring peace to the world or any particular part of it.
The idea that a world without nuclear weapons will be more peaceful is dubious at best.
Naturally, this sort of blithering nonsense is exactly what one expects from the Nobel boys.
Dave Surls (0c02e4) — 12/10/2009 @ 2:28 pmdang typo fair struck again. at #26
wrote:
” that maybe things are so stacked against him.”
meant:
” that maybe things are NOT so stacked against him.”
sigh.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 12/10/2009 @ 2:41 pmTo be honest, when it comes to foreign policy and the war effort, Mccain wasn’t a compromise candidate for me. On immigration or spending or free speech or virtually any domestic issue, yeah, I can’t trust him, but Mccain would have been a great president when it comes to war and peace.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/10/2009 @ 2:42 pm#7 A.W.:
Who are you talking to? The O!ne?
Because it certainly wasn’t chaos making that speechification to the Nobel award presenters.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 12/10/2009 @ 2:45 pmActually he ran against the Iraq war but For the Afghanistan one. Of late both the left and right seems to be forgetting this.
Actually, he ran against whatever was convenient for him at the time, which was purely political in nature. He doesn’t seem to believe in anything or anyone other than himself, and the number of “I’s” and “me’s” in his every speech and the incessant other self – love he exhibits never ceases to amaze.
Could be.
So you’re admitting that you don’t know the answer, either. Douche.
Dmac (a964d5) — 12/10/2009 @ 3:19 pm“Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait — a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.”
Hold on a second there Barcky, didn’t the Democrats vote against the First Gulf War? Then they voted for the socond one and couldn’t stop whining about it. Wrong both times. Perfect record!!11!!eleventy!!
daleyrocks (718861) — 12/10/2009 @ 3:44 pmWorking towards a goal…
AD - RtR/OS! (281bb6) — 12/10/2009 @ 4:38 pmRR believed that the World would be better off without the Soviet Union, and Marxist-Leninist Communism, and virtually everything he did was to reinforce the struggle towards that goal.
Progressives, particularly those infesting the Clinton and Obama Administrations have an ephemeral dream, and believe that voicing the desire for a program is the same as implementing that program and working to ensure its’ success.
It can be boiled down to “Style over Substance”.
Conservatives believe in doing something worthwhile;
Progressives just talk about it.
And, what they usually accomplish is to destroy rather than to build.
I think AW misunderstood. Or his sense of irony is MIA.
Chaos (7c068a) — 12/10/2009 @ 4:50 pmI liked President Obama’s speech. He did three things:
— He admitted that evil exists in the world.
— He also mentioned the word “Liberty” in a respectful manner.
— He abandoned his normal apologist theme and mentioned our nation and our history in a respectful manner.
These are huge steps for President Obama — unprecedented 😉
Pons Asinorum (be690a) — 12/10/2009 @ 4:50 pmBut Pons, he still found a way to crap on his predecessor’s conduct of war – something that in this context is unforgivable, and shows that even when he figures out he needs to talk strong talk, he is a shallow and mean-spirited man who is much fonder of appeasment.
I was giving him kudos from what I read on the web too, until I saw the clips of his speech and not just the parts where he talked about the necessity to confront evil. After that he went on to explain how much more wonderful America is to do it now that he is showing the way. To Hell with him.
sherlock (e1e91e) — 12/10/2009 @ 5:51 pmI both read it and listened to it. Obama’s speech in Oslo was far better than I had any reason to hope for. Agree with what #40 said.
However, Michelle’s outfit was hideous. Was it unexpectedly cold? Did she have to borrow some Norwegian pensioner’s sweater?
elissa (289571) — 12/10/2009 @ 5:57 pmChaos, I think he was saying the people who don’t agree with you are eating paint chips.
AW and you are obviously of like mind on this, though.
I was really surprised by this speech. not only did it make sense, but it simply was a well crafted speech.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/10/2009 @ 6:01 pmObviously I was agreeing with Pons at #41—sorry! (But, did the numbering in the thread change, somehow?)
elissa (289571) — 12/10/2009 @ 6:03 pmi thought that parts of it were good and parts of it were your typical whiny self-justifying self-aggrandizing obama speech
Chaos (7c068a) — 12/10/2009 @ 6:07 pmThat was probably me releasing some comments from the moderation filter. We had several in there at once and I usually make sure I understand why they went in there before releasing them. One in particular on this thread took me a while to track down the cause. Using a comment number will frequently get confusing because of this, that’s why I usually reference the comment using a blockquote like I did for yours.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 12/10/2009 @ 6:14 pm#40 Chaos:
I thought so too.
We have enough problems in the world without the complication of friendly fire.
#41 Pons Asinorum: I’ll trust your judgment about the speech, but is the apparent progress real or imagined?
I think only time will tell. Meantime, I think the guy is a fervent Marxist so it will take a long time to undo the image he has presented thus far.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 12/10/2009 @ 6:14 pm#47 Stashiu3:
Boy, you sure know how to take the fun out of watching people go “WTH happened to the comment I was just commenting about?!!? Am I losing my mind?”
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 12/10/2009 @ 6:18 pmYep, those were the days. Now I’ve got to be better behaved. 😉
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 12/10/2009 @ 6:36 pmCough , cough, choke.
Machinist (9780ec) — 12/10/2009 @ 6:52 pmMac,
I know CPR, can I help? 😉
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 12/10/2009 @ 6:54 pm(I said “better behaved”, not “well-behaved”)
#50 Stashiu3:
Crap. Well, I suppose. 😉
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 12/10/2009 @ 6:55 pm#52 Stash:
Hell, looks like Machinist needs to self-inflict a Heimlich.
/Always hated doing CPR on old people.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 12/10/2009 @ 6:56 pmYou called Mac old? I will have you know that he’s… wait… nevermind.
*snort*
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 12/10/2009 @ 6:59 pm#55 Stashiu: Er, no, didn’t mean to call Machinist old.
At my age, arrant thoughts intrude: I just hate the way old people tend to Snap! Crackle! Pop! during external cardiac massage.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 12/10/2009 @ 7:07 pmI know, I just couldn’t pass on the opportunity to zing you both at the same time. 😉
I’ll skip the Code Blue stories from when I worked with Oncology patients. My “DNR” and living will are current though.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 12/10/2009 @ 7:12 pm“my accomplishments are slight.”–Obama
Duh.
Dave Surls (957163) — 12/10/2009 @ 7:18 pm– He admitted that evil exists in the world.
– He also mentioned the word “Liberty” in a respectful manner.
– He abandoned his normal apologist theme and mentioned our nation and our history in a respectful manner.
It was a speech that George W. Bush could easily have given. The difference of course being that we would have expected him to say something like this. Obama? Not so much. And that is indeed why it’s surprising…and yes, unprecedented.
Dana (e9ba20) — 12/10/2009 @ 7:28 pm“I just hate the way old people tend to Snap! Crackle! Pop! during external cardiac massage.”
Unfortunately, I’m well padded.
Shut up, Stash!
Machinist (9780ec) — 12/10/2009 @ 7:33 pmI heard you smirking in your mind!
Machinist (9780ec) — 12/10/2009 @ 8:01 pmim sure ole billy ayers gave the wun an earful about how liberty is an imperialist patriarchal construct and the only good wars are commie wars.
chaos (7c068a) — 12/10/2009 @ 8:07 pm#57 Stash: My own fault for hanging the fruit so low.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 12/10/2009 @ 8:26 pmI think the consensus is that President Obama gave a good speech, although a bit long. KillTruck has the first draft that begins like this:
DRJ (84a0c3) — 12/10/2009 @ 8:47 pm“A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaida’s leaders to lay down their arms,” Obama said. “To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism, it is a recognition of history.”
Well, even a broken clock tells the correct time twice a day.
When Obama said the lines above, I wonder if he actually wasn’t crossing his fingers behind his back and envisioning people beyond the King of Saudi Arabia and the Emperor of Japan he can bow to.
Mark (411533) — 12/10/2009 @ 9:12 pm#65 DRJ:
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 12/10/2009 @ 9:12 pm
Oh well, so much for hotlinking a smiley. 🙁
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 12/10/2009 @ 9:14 pmIt’s a funny link, isn’t it?
DRJ (84a0c3) — 12/10/2009 @ 9:41 pm#69 DRJ:
Well, it was supposed to be!
LOL!
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 12/10/2009 @ 9:43 pmI love how he, once again, managed to tie himself to Martin Luther King in the same sentence, suggesting that he was finishing the work King started, by becoming president.
He always seems to manange to make himself to focal point of the discussion somehow.
Given that this was the Nobel prize acceptance speech, I suppose that’s unavoidable, but still, humility isn’t this man’s strong suit.
Steve B (5eacf6) — 12/10/2009 @ 11:10 pm#42 — Comment by sherlock — 12/10/2009 @ 5:51 pm
But Pons, he still found a way to crap on his predecessor’s conduct of war – something that in this context is unforgivable, and shows that even when he figures out he needs to talk strong talk, he is a shallow and mean-spirited man who is much fonder of appeasment.
All true Sherlock; it was just so shocking (and unexpected) to hear our President say something good about our Country, especially to a foreign audience.
(Agree that his personal character leaves much to be desired.)
Pons Asinorum (6adc3d) — 12/10/2009 @ 11:33 pm#48 — Comment by EW1(SG) — 12/10/2009 @ 6:14 pm
#41 Pons Asinorum: I’ll trust your judgment about the speech, but is the apparent progress real or imagined?
I think only time will tell. Meantime, I think the guy is a fervent Marxist so it will take a long time to undo the image he has presented thus far.
Good question EW — I am not holding my breath, but parts of this speech were way out of character for him.
(Yeah, I’m guessing Marxist too…)
Pons Asinorum (6adc3d) — 12/10/2009 @ 11:35 pm#59 — Comment by Dana — 12/10/2009 @ 7:28 pm
It was a speech that George W. Bush could easily have given. The difference of course being that we would have expected him to say something like this. Obama? Not so much. And that is indeed why it’s surprising…and yes, unprecedented.
Totally agree — it was right out of President Bush’s playbook. Of course President Bush would be speaking from his heart. Not certain where President Obama found those words.
That part of President Obama’s speech was just odd for him.
Pons Asinorum (6adc3d) — 12/10/2009 @ 11:37 pmThe Afghanistan decision and the 1st third of the Nobel speech contradict Dear Leader’s(as I suppose) world view. How did he come to make these two decisions? He doesn’t want to win in Afghanistan or fight wars on our behalf.
Call me callous and cynical, I’m thinking it’s the old saw: Keep your friends close, your enemies closer.
gary gulrud (75a696) — 12/11/2009 @ 5:36 amThe Afghanistan decision and the 1st third of the Nobel speech contradict Dear Leader’s(as I suppose) world view. How did he come to make these two decisions? He doesn’t want to win in Afghanistan or fight wars on our behalf.
Call me callous and cynical, I’m thinking it’s the old saw: Keep your friends close, your enemies closer.
gary gulrud (75a696) — 12/11/2009 @ 5:36 amChaos
Dude, if you were being ironic, yeah, I totally misunderstood.
Although frankly my practice on the net is to clearly label my jokes like that, because it can be so hard to tell. I mean I know you thought what you were saying was so ridiculous that no one would take you seriously. But dude, do you know how ridiculous people are these days? Have you ever watch Olberman’s show, for instance.
I mean crap, Steven Speilberg said Saving Private Ryan was an anti-war movie. Anti war, huh? This is the guy who made schindler’s list, okay? And he is anti war, in the context of WWII? How exactly did he expect anyone to stop the holocaust if he didn’t want them to go to war?
A.W. (e7d72e) — 12/11/2009 @ 7:18 am“He always seems to manange to make himself to focal point of the discussion somehow.”
At the speech accepting a prize too!
imdw (603c39) — 12/11/2009 @ 8:15 amimdw, you didn’t quote the next sentence. I wonder why… let me look. Ah, I see why now.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/11/2009 @ 8:17 amI am starting to think imdw is actually a conservative using this forum to poke fun at liberals. Most liberals are not so shallow or stupid to write such insipid comments.
Corwin (ea9428) — 12/11/2009 @ 8:26 amThat sounds like a hell of a lot of fun.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/11/2009 @ 8:31 am#80 Corwin:
Hogwash.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 12/11/2009 @ 8:33 amInteresting, our president carrying polices of empire, gets the Peace prize. I now have no respect for those that present it, unless it was rescinded.
Get out the popcorn, this one will hold your attention, but will be a worthwhile investment of your time. Yes it’s long. PNAC Attack !
http://world911truth.org/the-new-american-century-pnac/
humanity's patriot (ae1d2a) — 12/11/2009 @ 9:10 pmblu, it approaches certainty that any link you provide will be the opposite of worthwhile. I’m sure it’s just another insane conspiracy video and completely off-topic.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 12/11/2009 @ 9:29 pmI now have no respect for those that present it, unless it was rescinded.
Something I can agree on with blu.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641) — 12/11/2009 @ 9:39 pmIf blu leeps spilling the beans on what actually happened, the government might have to silence her. She should be careful.
daleyrocks (718861) — 12/11/2009 @ 9:50 pmkeeps
daleyrocks (718861) — 12/11/2009 @ 9:50 pmHistory, with Eisenhower the brilliance of foresight, documention galore. Hitorical documents. Amazing really, for those that dare to learn.
humanity's patriot (ae1d2a) — 12/11/2009 @ 9:51 pmblu reveals secrets
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641) — 12/11/2009 @ 9:57 pmsee the black helicopters
spirit her away
That is just srsly f*ckd up.
blu, you need to seek counseling.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 12/11/2009 @ 10:05 pmHey, give the Neo-cons a chance. Hear their perspective too. Watch it.
humanity's patriot (ae1d2a) — 12/11/2009 @ 10:06 pmFor those of you who said I need help from a psychiatrist, I HAVE STATEMENTS FROM PSYCHIATRISTS, and more statements if you so request from more of them, but for now…here:
Ralph H. Speken, MD – Psychiatrist. Clinical Instructor, Mount Sinai School of Medicine. Former Assistant Professor, Albert Einstein College of Medicine.
* Charter Member: Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth Association Statement:
“As medical professionals, we are trained in science and logical reasoning. We are appalled by the lack of scientific rigor and the substantial omissions and blatant distortions in the official account of 9/11 as embodied in the 9/11 Commission Report and related government documents. We join with other organizations of professionals, such as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, and Lawyers for 9/11 Truth, and millions of individual citizens in demanding a thorough, impartial, open and transparent reinvestigation of the terrorist acts of 9/11.”
* Testimonial for Crockett Grabbe, PhD:
“Dr. Crockett Grabbe is a preeminent member in the top science & engineering ranks who couples his skills with the strong ability to communicate these issues in ways that non-scientists can quickly understand. As a psychiatrist in New York City honored by Mayor Blumberg for my work in counseling victims and families in the days and weeks following the tragedy, these experiences of 9/11 are seared into my memory. Initially becoming aware of Dr. Grabbe through internet articles & videos on 9/11 issues, I then heard him at the 9/11 Conference in New York City in 2007. Of all the presentations during this 2-day conference, his lecture was clearly the most significant. Many in the audience stated Dr. Grabbe had clarified the fundamental issues in ways that others had not. Detailing in a most interesting manner the essential facts and evidence, he showed clearly how the government NIST reports are not credible, but make claims that defy several fundamental principles of physics.” http://www.sealane.org/speak/index1.html
* Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:
Regarding the collapses at the WTC: “The speed and symmetry of the collapse seems improbable. There are numerous other issues that need more study.” http://www.ae911truth.org
* Signatory: Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11, signed by more than 950 Architects and Engineers:
“On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 – specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe that there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore that the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that may have been the actual cause behind the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC Building 7.” http://www.ae911truth.org/joinus.php
* Editor’s note: WTC Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories. It would have been the tallest building in 33 states. Although it was not hit by an airplane, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11, seven hours after the collapses of the Twin Towers. However, no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission’s “full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.” Watch the collapse video here. Finally, on 11/20/08, more than seven years after 9/11, the Federal government published its final report on the collapse of WTC 7, which “found that the fires on multiple floors in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event.” Despite the absence of any visible fire at the time of collapse, the government report alleges WTC Building 7 is the first and only steel-framed high-rise building in the history of mankind to collapse simply as the result of a fire.
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
humanity's patriot (ae1d2a) — 12/12/2009 @ 11:14 amI have psychatrists that say the same thing I say, so I have help from psychiatrists.
humanity's patriot (ae1d2a) — 12/12/2009 @ 11:16 amIt was a speech that George W. Bush could easily have given.
He did.
A companion piece to the Den Beste post is this one.
the belief that, regardless of what the ruler does, the polity he rules must necessarily continue. This is perhaps the most essential, if seldom acknowledged, insight of the post-modern “liberal” mind: that if you take the pillars away, the roof will continue to hover in the air.
Gorbachev seemed to assume, right up to the fall of the Berlin Wall and then beyond it, that his Communist Party would recover from any temporary setbacks, and that the long-term effects of his glasnost and perestroika could only be to make it bigger and stronger.
There is a corollary of this largely unspoken assumption: that no matter what you do to one part of a machine, the rest of the machine will continue to function normally.
A variant of this is the frequently expressed denial of the law of unintended consequences: the belief that, if the effect you intend is good, the actual effect must be similarly happy.
Very small children, the mad, and certain extinct primitive tribes, have shared in this belief system, but only the fully college-educated liberal has the vocabulary to make it sound plausible.
Mike K (2cf494) — 12/12/2009 @ 11:52 am