Obama at the UN: Since I’m not George W. Bush, I can make everything right (but it will take a little work)
After having read the President’s address yesterday to the United Nations, I fear that the next three-and-one-half years will not only be difficult for the United States, but also for the world. And while Mr. Obama may claim he is looking forward, he sounded like he was doing his utmost to looking back in order to distinguish himself from his predecessor. Indeed, at times, that seemed the animating theme of the speech.
In order to make sure he distinguished himself adequately from George W. Bush, his rhetoric seemed at cross purposes. At one point, he reminds us that the “Assembly’s Charter” reaffirms
. . . the freedom to speak your mind and worship as you please. . . ; the ability of citizens to have a say in how you are governed, and to have confidence in the administration of justice. For just as no nation should be forced to accept the tyranny of another nation, no individual should be forced to accept the tyranny of their own people.
And while he opposes the tyranny of their own people, he wants to make clear he’s not promoting democracy as did his predecessor:
Democracy cannot be imposed on any nation from the outside. Each society must search for its own path, and no path is perfect. Each country will pursue a path rooted in the culture of its people and in its past traditions. And I admit that America has too often been selective in its promotion of democracy. But that does not weaken our commitment; it only reinforces it. There are basic principles that are universal; there are certain truths which are self-evident — and the United States of America will never waver in our efforts to stand up for the right of people everywhere to determine their own destiny.
This paragraph reads like a mishmash of empty rhetoric, noble notions and anti-Bush broadsides (only semi-cleverly concealed Bush-bashing). So, how does a people go about determining its destiny if it suffers under the tyranny of its own people? Is there a means other than fee elections? He didn’t say nor did he include self-determination in his four pillars of U.S. foreign policy (and left out security, though one could say that was implied under the pillar of peace).
It seemed he thought that if we just ended the “misperceptions and misinformation about my country,” well, then the United States would be a force for a good. He just doesn’t understand that some nations further such misperceptions and generate such misinformation to further their own ends. Extending an olive branch to Iran has done nothing to soften their hostility to the United States (nor their repression of their own people). The leaders of that regime believe they need the ideology of the “Great Satan” to survive.
No wonder Nile Gardiner wonders if this speech were Obama’s most naïve ever.
Former United States Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton was beyond wondering; he found the speech most naïve:
It was a speech high on the personality of Barack Obama and high on multilateralism, but very short in advocating American interests.
It was a very naïve, Wilsonian speech, and very revealing of Obama’s foreign policy. . . . Overall, it was so apologetic for the actions of prior administrations, in an effort to distance Obama from them, that it became yet another symbol of American weakness in the wake of the president’s decision to abandon missile sites in Poland and the Czech Republic, and his recent manifest hesitation over what to do in Afghanistan.
Also noting how frequently he apologized for his country, Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Anne Bayefsky thought the president was playing “to his audience, which was largely an undemocratic one. . . [and in] In that way, he succeeded“:
The contrast between this reaction and the hostility that generally greeted Pres. George W. Bush was stark. At its core, the difference is based on how each president challenged the U.N.
In contrast to President Bush, President Obama clearly sees the U.S. as the source of U.S.–U.N. friction. He may have intended his speech to come across as earnest and humble, but it instead came across as if he were trying to justify America’s worthiness to be a member of the U.N. Giving the impression that the U.S. should aspire to be worthy of acceptance by the likes of Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Russia, China, Cuba, and other repressive regimes is appalling.
Agreeing with Bolton that the speech was extradordinarily self-referential, I just have to end with a line from the beginning of the speech, perhaps its absolute cheesiest “the expectations that accompany my presidency* . . are rooted in the hope that real change is possible”. (Emphasis added.) How self-serving and how redolent of his rhetoric last fall. It’s as if he’s still on the campaign trail.
Maybe that’s where he really wants to be.
——–
*Yes, I know he goes on to qualify that by saying, “These expectations are not about me.” But, that line wouldn’t be necessary if it didn’t sound like the expectations were about him.
28 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I must say I’m really disappointed by O’s gravity defying hubris. He sounds more like Mugabe and Gaddaffi than a western leader. I do not say this lightly because I’m African. Here I was hoping that his election would make the point to us Africans that background and race do not really matter; only for his election to prove the point that it’s really whom you know ( just like on my home continent). The press did not bother to question him on his unsavoury relationships with Ayers and the like.
He came all the way to Ghana to lecture Africans on good governance and the like. Hell we’ve always known that. He should have gone to the Congo or Zimbabwe.
What a pity
Comment by L — September 24, 2009 @ 7:30 am - September 24, 2009
John Bolton pointed out on Beck last night how the master of parsing referred to a ‘contigious’ Palestine and not ‘accepting settlements’ and Israel returning to the ’1967 borders’. (other Bolton Comments here. So he’s wanting to divide Israel apparently, have them give up the heights to Syria (note how he had no mention of Syria in there) and to dismantle any settlements.
Anne Bayefsky sums it up here.
Also Andy McCarthy does point out that he’s ‘inherited‘ this from Condi Rice.
Though I did like his ‘pledge that America will always stand with those who stand up for their dignity and their rights — for the student who seeks to learn; the voter who demands to be heard; the innocent who longs to be free; the oppressed who yearns to be equal.’ Offer void in China, Iran, Syria, Honduras, Cuba, Venezuela, Columbia…
Comment by The_Livewire — September 24, 2009 @ 8:09 am - September 24, 2009
Adonis clap trap.
Obama walks on imaginary water and eats humble pie larded with humming bird tongues and served by six and twenty hand maidens.
He can not get enough of himself and he is anxious for the world to have him before them. His brother in the hut and his illegal alien aunt in the projects are necessary bangles on his charm bracelet. For Obama they show the failure of the state and his dedication to creating a cradle of welfare for everyone.
This is a man who believes he has overcome messy bodily functions and who sees himself as having mastered all he surveys. Even when he admits to some error, he frames it as a necessary part of polishing his crown.
He is the biggest float in the Macy’s Thanksgiving day parade. But he is also the only float that blew himself up with his own hot air.
Comment by heliotrope — September 24, 2009 @ 8:09 am - September 24, 2009
This is SUCH a telling statement. It has been an oft-repeated sentiment on the left, and it illustrates who these people are.
Democracy can never be imposed PERIOD. Democracy is self-rule, self-rule is freedom and freedom cannot be imposed — people can only be LIBERATED. Unless you believe that freedom is not a natural God-given right, but is itself an imposition! Unless you believe that people are better off under dictatorship as Obama and the left believe. Sure, they want a benevolent dictator, but they want security more than they want freedom nonetheless. Democracy is a frightening imposition to them.
And it is such a repugnant position!
His wife’s own ancestors were slaves, subject to tyranny until we imposed freedom and democracy on them from the outside.
We imposed freedom and democracy on Imperial Japan, the French, the Germans (twice), the Soviet Union. Iraq is irrefutable proof that Obama is flat wrong. Iraq is now free and Democratic, and they love and value their freedom. Freedom that was not imposed, they were LIBERATED!
This man loathes everything the United States stands for.
Comment by American Elephant — September 24, 2009 @ 8:35 am - September 24, 2009
[...] Read the whole thing. [...]
Pingback by At the U.N. « Intrusion Alert — September 24, 2009 @ 10:14 am - September 24, 2009
As an introduction to Quadafi I thought Obamteleprompter did pretty well. Does anyone know if Obama stayed for Quadafi speech? I just wonder if he sat nodding his head like a boob during that rant.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — September 24, 2009 @ 10:57 am - September 24, 2009
I found it interesting that Obama apologized for our first 230 years and said it’s taken him 8 months but he is setting things straight now.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — September 24, 2009 @ 10:58 am - September 24, 2009
Well done as usual Mr. Blatt.
The deeper we sink into Obama’s term as president, the more I find myself going back and thinking about the Enlightenment philosophers, especially John Locke. In your post above, there is at least one reference to the in inalienable rights of man. I wonder how much we are still committed to the enumeration and protection of inalienable rights?
My leftie friends look at me funny when I tell them that the government does not grant rights, but only recognizes them, but they generally do nod eventually. And when I use that truth to argue against the wanton seizing private property by the feds, they cock their heads like a confused spaniel.
Comment by John Mark — September 24, 2009 @ 11:12 am - September 24, 2009
Dan, nice commentary and insights –and those of the other commenters, to date.
I thought his speech at the UN sounded a lot like a speech that JimmyCarter could have given 30+ years ago, before he helped empower the radical Islamists in Iran. It was narcissistic as much as it was absurdly campaign-styled rhetoric… I think in the first few moments, Obama said something like “this isn’t about me” and then he went on to claim all the great & wonderful things that he’s done like appointing a czar for Middle East peace, stepping to the forefront of global climate change and becoming the world’s Green Czar, and joining the Human Rights Council, the Millennium Development agreement, etc.
He can’t stop talking about himself even in front of what, arguably, is an adoring fan base. Like Carter, he misreads the world and the actors and despots on the stage. Like Carter, he thinks that an era of good feelings will usher in peace and prosperity –even tho many in that room make their lives based on war and conflict. Like Carter, he thinks that America must begin by apologizing for whatever slight the audience thinks worthy of scorn and he gives into it. Readily. Happily. Willingly.
It was a speech more to remind the people inside that chamber that he’s one of them, not one of us. That America has changed now and will continue to address important UN issues rather than call upon the UN to engage the real world. Talk about needing affirmation as a narcissistic person, Obama gleefully coveted the applause when he announced “America has paid it’s UN debt”.
Where was the concern over African refugees raped by UN troops and never brought to account? Where was the concern for German, French, Russian and Chinese efforts to avoid economic sanctions against Iran and NKorea? Where was the concern to call out UN finances and demand they get their house in order? Words without deeds is an important distinction –rhetoric without responsibility would be more instructive to the UN gathered, tho. But that’s a speech Obama could NOT deliver; only Bush 43 could. And did on many occasions.
Obama is great in being able to craft comments that address whatever that particular audience thinks is more important. Granted. He’s great at that skill. But in almost all speeches, it is still all about him. The 24 hr campaigner, the ultimate narcissist. Like Narcissus, Obama is in love with self –that is his core value, that is the true measure of his character. We see it when his audience marvels at his pronunications of French words in Paris, he quotes the Qur’an in perfect Arabic to agroup of Cairo college students, or dazzles the UN Assembly with his gleaming stars of accomplishment on the path to socialism.
JimmyCarter could have given a similar speech 30 yrs ago, before he plunged the world into the terrors of daily life with an Islamic Republic.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 24, 2009 @ 11:20 am - September 24, 2009
The only governmental system where the people have any kind of choice is Democracy. All those theocracies are not chosen by the people.
I was under the impression, especially having seen the the latest protests in Iran, that the people there desperately want change – but with the help of Obama, they won’t be seeing any anytime soon. Change for the better that is.
Comment by Leah — September 24, 2009 @ 12:03 pm - September 24, 2009
American Elephant,
What on earth are you trying to say?
Obama says democracy cannot be imposed from the outside.
And you say democracy cannot be imposed period.
You find those two statements contradictory?
Then you say: “We imposed freedom and democracy on Imperial Japan, the French, the Germans (twice), the Soviet Union.”
Are you trying to be sarcastic or something? You can’t really mean that, do you – since you just claimed that you cant impose demoracy period. You cant claim that Obama believes that, since he just said democracy cannot be imposed from the outside.
What on earth do you mean?
“Unless you believe that people are better off under dictatorship as Obama and the left believe’
What kind of a totally asinine comment is that?
Comment by Tano — September 24, 2009 @ 12:21 pm - September 24, 2009
“he wants to make clear he’snot promoting democracy as did his predecessor”
But the quoted passage you offer says nothing of the kind. He speaks of every culture finding its own path to democracy. He speaks of how America could be faulted for supporting democracy selectively (rather than universally), he reasserts the universality of these values, and he reinforces the US commitment to stand up for these universal rights.
If anything he makes it clear that America will always promote democracy.
What he will not do is seek to impose it by force from the outside.
” He just doesn’t understand that some nations further such misperceptions and generate such misinformation to further their own ends.”
Huh? Where does that come from? The President attempts to clarify the misperceptions, and counters the misinformation spread by those who act in bad faith, and you conclude that he doesnt understand why they do that? You just making stuff up again. There is NO evidence whatsoever that he doesn’t understand why countries spread misinformation. What other reason do you imagine anyone would think of, other than they feel it is in their interest to do so?
“Extending an olive branch to Iran has done nothing to soften their hostility to the United States …”
Threatening and blustering for 8 years accomplished nothing, other than to make them more paranoid, and possibly convince them that their survival depended on getting nukes. Even the Buah administration, once Cheney had been sent to the doghouse, came to understand that, which is why it was Bush who started the process of engaging with Iran.
Comment by Tano — September 24, 2009 @ 12:33 pm - September 24, 2009
I tried to watch some of the speech the other day. It was standard boilerplate and I turned it off.
Now I have to ask a question. OK, why does anyone care what the President says at the UN?
IT’S THE UN PEOPLE. It’s a mostly irrelevant organization. Whether its George Bush or Barrack Obama addressing the diplomats, Iran is going to do what it wants. North Korea is going to do what it wants. The Chinese are going to do what they want. Israel will do what it thinks is necessary to stop the Palestinians from launching missiles, and the Palestinians will respond by launching missiles. It doesn’t matter if the President challenges the UN to do better, or preaches to the choir, The majority of the nations will hold us in disdain because we’re better off than they are, we cause global warming, we have more resources, and are rightly or wrongly perceived as pillaging theirs.
Let Obama have his fun. Hey after the last few months, he needed a moral boost, and I bet he got it.
Comment by Sonicfrog — September 24, 2009 @ 12:38 pm - September 24, 2009
Tano, you can repeat your left-wing talking points until you;e blue in the face, but you continue to generate misinformation. Bush’s policy was not threaten and bluster. And it hardly served to make Iran more paranoid. Just go check out the rhetoric of some of their leanding mullahs before 9/11.
To argue with your previous point is like arguing with someone who tells us a house is not on fire, while his back is to the house and he refuses to turn and look at the flames. Evidence? Huh? Obama’s clear belief, by the tone of his speech and his repated apologeticsa is that America has acted poorly, generating misperceptions and spurring hatred.
You can say there “is NO evidence whatsoever that he doesn’t understand why countries spread misinformation.” And maybe there’s not. You know that thing about proving a negative (and you’ve got a double one in your sentence. But, he has heretofore, provided no evidence that he understands that hatred of America is central to their ideology. And has been, even with [then-President BIll] Clinton extended olive branches to the regime.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — September 24, 2009 @ 12:48 pm - September 24, 2009
Ah Tano… We can impose ‘freedom’ you omitted that part, by liberating people from dictators. AE may have misspoke that we brought democracy to Japan and Germany. We did what was right and brought them freedom. They chose to use that freedom to embrace democracy. If they’d chosen tyrany, we’d have smacked them down again. Palestine chose their freedom to vote to embrace tyrany, which is why we should smack them down again. Despite what Dhimmy Carter and President Obama believe, there is no reason to talk with Hamas except to tell them to come out with their hands up.
If, after we leave Iraq, it fragments into ‘stans’ and Kurdistan falls into corruption but Shia-stan doesn’t, we embrace Shia-stan and condemn Kurdistan.
As you have been shown President Obama loves dictators.
Obama said “No one nation can or should try to dominate another.”
To quote Charles Krauthammer:
“This speech hovered somewhere between embarrassing and dangerous. You had a president of the United States actually saying: “No [one] nation can or should try to dominate another.”
I will buy the “should try to” as kind of adolescent wishful thinking. But “no [one] nation can dominate another”? What planet is he living on? It is the story of man. What does he think Russia is doing to Georgia?”
See Tano, Barack Obama wouldn’t have sent troops to Normandy, we shouldn’t try to dominate those Nazi’s after all. He’d have sent a strongly worded complaint to Japan after the Rape of Nanking, not Pappy Boyington. He’s have upgraded it to a stern rebuke after Pearl Harbor, maybe delivered with an apology for breaking their diplomatic code. Because heaven forbid we try to dominate them?
Comment by The_Livewire — September 24, 2009 @ 1:04 pm - September 24, 2009
If anything he makes it clear that America will always promote democracy.
Except when it comes to a country like Honduras that actually exercises it, follows their constitution, and kicks out of office the idiot leftist who was trying to subvert it.
What he will not do is seek to impose it by force from the outside.
Except when it comes to a country like Honduras, when he will cut off their promised aid, try to go back on free-trade treaties, revoke their visas, illegally fly the democracy-subverter they removed back into the country, and scream about how awful it is that the people there read their own constitution and applied it, all to force them into submission to the leftists.
So it’s quite safe to say that Obama lies again. But that’s not atypical, now is it?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 24, 2009 @ 1:21 pm - September 24, 2009
“Tano, you can repeat your left-wing talking points until you;e blue in the face, but you continue to generate misinformation. Bush’s policy was not threaten and bluster”
Oh really? Axis of evil. All the neocon buzz about, first Iraq, then Iran?
“And it hardly served to make Iran more paranoid.”
Oh, was it just a coincidence then, that they replaced the relatively more moderate president with someone who so perfectly embodies the notion of paranoia?
“Obama’s clear belief, by the tone of his speech and his repated apologeticsa is that America has acted poorly, generating misperceptions and spurring hatred.”
But America has often acted poorly. Why are you people so terrified at acknowledging that we in America, especially our political leadership that you have no problem bashing on a daily basis, are capable of making mistakes? We are human beings, with normal human limitations, operating in a highly complex world in which unintended consequences arise all the time, in anything we do. People in the rest of the world can see it plainly. Denying it doesnt make it all go away. Acknowledging it is a hallmark of maturity and self-confidence, and does have an effect on those in the rest of the world. They know we are the powerful ones, they know we are going to get our way in the end on most things. That isn’t going to change. What makes it tolerable for other countries is to sense that we really do try to do the right thing – to have some sense of fairness. What really hurts us in the eyes of the rest of the world is to come off as so boorishly arrogant that we can never acknowledge our own missteps.
I know this is all hard for you to actually think about, since it gets in the way of the accepted rightwing mantra – that Obama must be painted as “weak” and “feckless”, and so everything he says must be interpreted as an “apology”, and all that must be bad.
“he has heretofore, provided no evidence that he understands that hatred of America is central to their ideology.”
I guess you are speaking here of Iran, not the world community as a whole.
The Iranians use America-hatred as a political strategy. They know that to rally their base, they need an enemy, and they try to use us. America hatred is not central to their ideology, it is central to their political strategy. But whatever,,, how do you think you effectivly counter that? By putting forth a bellicose face and refusing to engage Iran? That just works to support their anti-Americanism. The less we engage with them, the more they are able to control the image of America to their own people. The more we act bellicose, the easier it is for them to make the case to the people that we really do mean them harm.
The more the Iranian people know about America, the more they like us. We should being driving that advantage forward, pushing engagement every way we can. Give the government there the burden of trying to keep us, and our influence out.
Comment by Tano — September 24, 2009 @ 1:21 pm - September 24, 2009
Yes, Tano, America-hatred is central to the ideology of the Iranian regime and their political strategy.
You fail to address the central point of the comment to which you reply about Obama not showing that he understands the above (or even the half of the above that you understand). Instead, you use the word “neocon” as a slur without showing any understanding of what it means.
As to the replacement of a more supposedly “moderate” cleric, with “with someone who so perfectly embodies the notion of paranoia,” you’re assuming elections in Iran are conducted as those here. They exclude candidates and doctor results. We now have clear evidence of their fraud (in the most recent election) and reporters (no, not conservatives) I have talked to who have been in Iran say there is strong evidence that there was significant hanky panky in the first election that brought that paranoic to power.
And yes, the more the Iranian people know about America, the more they like us–this even happened when W was in charge.
And where did I say America never made mistake?
So, please quite it with your recitation of left-wing talking points and actually address the points I make in response to the criticisms you level. But, then again, it does seem to be a pattern with some of our critics, to refrain from addressing the rebuttals to their argument and to choose instead to launch into yet another broadside (from an entirely different angle) against Republicans and conservatives.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — September 24, 2009 @ 1:48 pm - September 24, 2009
Sorry Dan, but I really don’t follow your points.
“You fail to address the central point of the comment to which you reply about Obama not showing that he understands the above”
Your charge was that Obama fails to understand that other nations use misinformation to further their ends. I said I see no evidence of that, and I wonder what on earth you imagine he thinks the reason is for some nations to use misinformation. It seems obvious to me that everyone understands that misinformation is deployed to further the interests of those who do it. What else could it be?
You are the one who then failed to address this issue. You try to sidestep it by claiming that the evidence of Obama not understanding this is the fact that he acknowledges we make mistakes. Rather a non sequitor…
You seem to take issue with me saying that the Iranians replaced the relatively more moderate leader with the paranoid. But all you do is talk about how phony their electoral process is. How does that argue against my point? If anything, it makes it even stronger. To the extent that the mullahs control the outcomes of elections, the selection of the paranoid is even stronger evidence that they became more paranoid during the Bush administration. How on earth can my words be taken as revealing an assumption that the elections are run like ours?
“And where did I say America never made mistake?”
Where did I charge you with that? I said y’all seem incapable of admitting mistakes – by trashing Obama whenever he says anything that could be interpreted as an apology. And by constantly making the case that apologies themselves are bad – a wrong thing to ever do.
I certainly assume that you believe we make mistakes (when Democrats are in power) – its just you are allergic to honesty about them. Or afraid.
Comment by Tano — September 24, 2009 @ 2:22 pm - September 24, 2009
#17: “The more the Iranian people know about America, the more they like us. We should being driving that advantage forward, pushing engagement every way we can.”
Tano, what does that even mean? What is your definition of “engagement” with Iran? All Obama had to say about Iran’s recent presidential election was that he was excited about the “robust debate” going on, that the election was for the Iranians to decide, and that he was “deeply concerned” about the violence against protesters (and he had to be pressured to make any statement at all). Obama is on the record stating that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable. If Iran ultimately refuses to stop its development of nuclear weapons after Obama has exhausted diplomatic efforts to stop the program, would you support military action to ensure that Iran does not acquire or finish building nukes?
Comment by Sean A — September 24, 2009 @ 3:40 pm - September 24, 2009
What kind of a totally asinine comment is that?
The truth.
See Cuba
See the Soviet Union
See Cambodia
See Honduras
See Iraq
See Iran
etc. etc. etc.
Liberals LOVE dictators and other murderous bastards while hating America and freedom.
You said the other day that you thought Chairman Obama is a great leader. Tell me, what kind of “great leader” trashes his own country at every turn and how on God’s green Earf can you stand for it and applaud it?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 24, 2009 @ 3:42 pm - September 24, 2009
#11: “Unless you believe that people are better off under dictatorship as Obama and the left believe’ What kind of a totally asinine comment is that?”
Well, Tano, our current Secretary of State believes it, at least with regard to Iraq’s women:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1086691/posts
Comment by Sean A — September 24, 2009 @ 3:52 pm - September 24, 2009
Or maybe, just maybe they decided on a “president” who would do his damndest to destroy Israel?
What really hurts us in the eyes of the rest of the world is a colossal PUSSY apologizing for everything. They’re NOT applauding because they agree, they’re applauding because now we have a chump that will bend over and grab his ankles for them.
Can you name all the great leaders in world history who apologized all the time and spent every waking moment telling the world how much the people he leads suck? I’d really like to know if you can.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 24, 2009 @ 6:36 pm - September 24, 2009
Tano finally understands the Bush doctrine and the importance of building a democratic state in Iraq:
Comment by heliotrope — September 24, 2009 @ 7:19 pm - September 24, 2009
Ah hah!
Those pesky Jewish agents must be zapping Tano’s brain as well as Manuel Zelaya. It makes sense!
Comment by The_Livewire — September 24, 2009 @ 10:21 pm - September 24, 2009
I said I see no evidence of that, and I wonder what on earth you imagine he thinks the reason is for some nations to use misinformation.
That is because neither you or Obama recognize it as misinformation. After all, aren’t you the ones who support and endorse calling Americans “little Eichmanns” and screaming “God damn America”?
If you weren’t such a silly idiot, Tano, you would realize that your Barack Obama’s incessant bashing of the United States reinforces and repeats what the mullahs and the terrorists are saying about us. The people of Iran have figured out quite nicely on their own that the United States is not the Great Satan — that is, until Barack “God damn America” Obama started blabbering how awful it was and how evil it is to anyone who would give him a microphone.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 25, 2009 @ 12:40 am - September 25, 2009
Those pesky Jewish agents must be zapping Tano’s brain as well as Manuel Zelaya. It makes sense!
No wonder Tano and Chairman Obama want him back in power.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 25, 2009 @ 1:14 am - September 25, 2009
Tardo,
It doesn’t surprise me in the least that you wouldn’t get my point, because you agree with Obama that freedom is an imposition.
Freedom and democracy can no more be “imposed” upon someone than I can “impose” life upon you.
The word Obama should have used is liberated — to free an oppressed people is not “imposing democracy” it is liberating people. His statement assumes that some people just don’t want to be free, and democracy would be an imposition upon them. That they would rather be taken care of by government than be free. He believes it, you believe it, your entire repugnant movement believes it. Indeed, it is the central idea behind your entire loathsome ideology. That people are children, as one of Obama’s cabinet members said the other day, and need government to tell them what to do.
Comment by American Elephant — September 25, 2009 @ 2:42 am - September 25, 2009