I did not hear the president’s speech yesterday in Oslo when he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize, so cannot comment on his delivery.
When I started reading snippets on conservative blogs, most singing the speech’s praises (with slight quibbles for some of the language), I thought I was reading something from a speech by John McCain or Joe Lieberman. So, I printed it out to read at my leisure.
Now that I have read it, I agree that it is very strong speech, if a bit overlong. My biggest quibble was that he didn’t acknowledge those great warriors throughout history who have secured the peace, whether it be generals like George Washington and Ulysses S. Grant or leaders like Winston Churchill and Ronald Reagan. When the president mentioned the Gipper, he didn’t mention his arms buildup which put the U.S. in a position to promote peace through strength, but cited instead his “efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika“.
That said, the Gipper would have appreciated the better part of this address.
I absolutely loved his beginning when he acknowledged the “considerable controversy” of his selection. He called “the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened cynics . . . far more deserving of this honor than” he.
Then, he was wise to describe the war in Afghanistan as “a conflict that America did not seek”. A great way to introduce the notion of a just war. Then, in perhaps my favorite passage in the speech (because it relates to some of my dissertation research):
Now these questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease — the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.
And over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers and clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a “just war” emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.
Well said, very, very well said. Later, after expressing great admiration for Mohandas Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., two advocates of non-violence, he reminds us that their strategy cannot always work:
But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.
He went on to praise the United States for helping
underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest — because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.
And without uttering the word, “Iraq,” he included words which could be used to justify the liberation of that nation from Saddam’s tyranny: “if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable.” He even called out Iran and North Korea for gaming the system.
On the whole, it was a strong speech which spoke to the best in America and acknowledged the (occasional) necessity of war. Does this signal, as some have suggested, a change in his foreign policy? It’s too early to say, but one can hope.
Perhaps, this address to the international community indicates Obama intends to be more aggressive toward Iran and to stand firm in his commitment on Afghanistan. The person who wrote this speech likely didn’t have a hand in the president’s address last month to the cadets at West Point. Maybe it’s because that writer was too busy working on this one.
If so, it was well worth his effort.
But his WH won’t use the word “Jihad”.
Hallalujah! On the rare occasions that he speaks about taking personal responsibility for our children’s educations and for his shocking revelation that war is occasionally necessary against evil people, I get a tingly thrill up my leg!
Those who don’t study history often quote “violence is the last refuge of the incompetent”. The reality of history is that it’s often most efficient to use or at-minimum threaten force long before all other options have been exhausted. Only an incompetent waits til his back is against the wall to act.
Looks like Chairman Maobama’s keen on castrating us of our nuclear weapons and lets everybody else keeps right on building:
http://tinyurl.com/ybz9pmc
Keep right on insisting, chumpy.
Actions speak louder than words.
If his spin occasionally “speaks” to conservatives, it will have to be followed up with concrete evidence of action to garner support from this old skeptic.
Obama is a passionless, programed speech reader and ideologue. I am not looking for a way to admire him. When he stops the endless, meaningless platitudes and the whining and looks me in the eye and tells the truth, then I will consider considering his words.
Just like poor old Tiger Woods, Obama is a manufactured media personality who has left a trail of dirty laundry, but wants us to continue to worship his potential.
He is still the puppy that chased and caught the UPS truck. When he starts to be Presidential, I will start to pay him some respect. Being “The Won” does not cut it with me, no matter what words make it into a speech.
There is nothing in this speech which Sarah Palin could not have said, and with more conviction.
Well…well… well….. At last, by Norwegian proclamation, and proffering his bona fides before the minions of Wynken, Blynken and Nod, Obama must now think he’s been given the go ahead to rush through his agenda, secretly under the guise of hope, while appealing to the messianic expectations of the time.
While camouflaged by a veil of gratitude and humilty, Obama trageted through transferred intent the chauvanism of past administrations, and with malice aforethought purposfully labeled his prediscessor morally substandard. That being said, the pieste resistance went undetected by most of the MSM..including yourself, Mr Blatt. How is it you all failed to notice Obama saying, “Compared to the giants of history, who have won this award, my accomplishments are slight”….. Say what…did the dude just say SLIGHT???? The man ain’t done a damn thing but talk and talk and talk and talk…Oh and did I say talk ??? Mr & Mrs America, can you please tell me how you’ve totally disregarded Obama’s shady suggestion his name be linked with the likes of King, Mandella, Rev.Mother Theresa etc etc etc …
Sad to say, what started out with a bang could/should have been one of the greatest speeches delivered on foreign soil by an American President. Instead it slowly began to implode after the first 3rd of the speech. As Obama continued it became evident he was not about to disappoint as he ramped up the usual esoteric excesses and self flagellation we’ve grown accustomed to.(“audacity” you betchya …. this guy’s are made of brass and should be hanging from the rear of the presidential limo.)……… Fa..la..la..la..la…lala…..la…..la…….and the band plays on…
The End.
Just for the record–Jesus didn’t compromise or negotiate with terrorists, either. He lost.
Not resisting an evil person, as Jesus suggests, means knowing that you are going to let that person win. You recognize that the person is incapable of responding to reason, negotiation, or compromise. You are going to lose and evil is going to win. If you fight, you become as evil as the person you are fighting.
Evil wins. Good is crucified. That’s what Jesus would do.
Interesting how the most widely praised speech by Obamas teleprompter could have been given by GW Bush.
I like to judge a polititians actions not just their words. This speech was very out of character for Obama.