Posted on Saturday, 12th December 2009 by Roland_Melnick
President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech was a well written piece that must have been a team effort…not just any team, but a team composed of divergent backgrounds and viewpoints. Oddly, however, the tougher the talk gets, the more uneasy I feel.
Obama opened with a verbal bow of humility. In this early paragraph, he put to rest any debate over whether this was a Prize deserved…it wasn’t…and I agree with his reasoning:
Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize — Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela — my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened of cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women — some known, some obscure to all but those they help — to be far more deserving of this honor than I.
Following this paragraph, he immediately slaps the attendees with a reality check by reminding them:
…the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars.
A painfully obvious point, but perhaps one that had escaped the body of intellects honoring President Obama.
Obama sets the table for a series of contradictions with this bit where he trots out the hardline Left position on the post-9/11 Iraq War:
One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by forty three other countries — including Norway — in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.
Two wars…the “bad” one in Iraq…and the “just” one in Afghanistan. His language is subtle here. He leaves this point only to come back to it later.
To begin with, I believe that all nations — strong and weak alike — must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I — like any head of state — reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards strengthens those who do, and isolates — and weakens — those who don’t.
The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. 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.
Furthermore, America cannot insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don’t, our action can appear arbitrary, and undercut the legitimacy of future intervention — no matter how justified.
What Obama did in those three paragraphs was to say: we all need to follow a “standard”…the US followed a standard in Afghanistan and in the first war with Iraq (but not the second). His distinction between the two Iraq wars was purposeful and finishes the point in the third paragraph by saying we didn’t follow the “rules of the road” in Iraq II without directly saying so.
Delegitimizing Iraq II incurs all the old revisions of history from 1991 forward that grew tiresome during George W. Bush Presidency. Whole volumes of historical texts that documented the dozen or so UN Resolutions mocked and ignored by Saddam Hussein. The countless politicians across the American ideological spectrum who agreed that Hussein was developing WMDs. Texts the Left in this country must have burned to ashes along with their American flags and effigies of GWB so as to be able to go out and say with a straight face that the only reason we invaded Iraq in 2003 was so Bush, Cheney and their pals could take control of oil fields to enrich themselves.
Still, Obama does not strictly cater to his far-Leftist base. Some of the material could have come from George W. Bush himself…but seriously, in reading this next passage I would not be surprised to learn that Colin Powell made a contribution here.
I know there is nothing weak, nothing passive, nothing naive in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King…. 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 is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.
I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower.
Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions — not just treaties and declarations — that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: the United States of America has helped 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 other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.
The third paragraph reminded me of this part of an address to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland on January 26, 2003 by then-US Secretary of State Colin Powell:
There is nothing in American experience or in American political life or in our culture that suggests we want to use hard power. But what we have found over the decades is that unless you do have hard power — and here I think you’re referring to military power — then sometimes you are faced with situations that you can’t deal with.
I mean, it was not soft power that freed Europe. It was hard power. And what followed immediately after hard power? Did the United States ask for dominion over a single nation in Europe? No. Soft power came in the Marshall Plan. Soft power came with American GIs who put their weapons down once the war was over and helped all those nations rebuild. We did the same thing in Japan.
So our record of living our values and letting our values be an inspiration to others I think is clear. And I don’t think I have anything to be ashamed of or apologize for with respect to what America has done for the world.
We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last hundred years and we’ve done this as recently as the last year in Afghanistan and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in, and otherwise we have returned home to seek our own, you know, to seek our own lives in peace, to live our own lives in peace. But there comes a time when soft power or talking with evil will not work where, unfortunately, hard power is the only thing that works.
I prefer Powell’s words to those which are merely reminiscent of him. I don’t agree with 100% of Powell’s politics or some of his actions after leaving the Bush Administration, but the man is a true patriot. Had Powell become the first Black American President, I doubt we would have seen him on a world apology tour.
Okay, maybe you’re feeling better about our current CINC…not so fast. Before you can bat an eye, Obama’s moral pendulum swings back to the left and the Bush-bashing resumes:
Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe that the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America’s commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. And we honor those ideals by upholding them not just when it is easy, but when it is hard.
This paragraph contains an interesting contradiction to the words and actions of Obama and his administration prior to this speech. He admits this is a war in which our country is engaged, yet his Attorney General is going to prosecute an enemy combatant from this war, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, in an American civilian court. A ridiculous juxtaposition forced on the American people, not because Obama wants to see justice served but as a reproach against his predecessor. Politically pandering to his hardline-Leftist base that, I would argue, will be a costlier payoff than any and all non-stimulating Stimulus Packages proffered by this Administration.
In addition, I would ask this of our President…who was tortured and who administered the torture? Isn’t it the rule of law in this country to free those who have suffered in such a way and to prosecute those who commit such deeds? If you really believe what you say, what are you doing about it?
Moving right along the twisty road, Obama returns to tough talk.
One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: all will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work toward disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I am working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia’s nuclear stockpiles.
But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war. [emphasis added]
This part of his speech leaves me with the most concern for the security of our country and its allies. On one hand, Obama seems to profess to comprehend the dangers associated with Iran and North Korea working toward nuclear weapons. The last sentence (in bold) is a pretty firm statement, yet I have to ask: What are you prepared to do Mr. President?
According to you and everyone Left of Senator Joe Lieberman, a dozen UN resolutions “flouted” by Saddam Hussein were not enough to justify removing him from power by force. This is the drumbeat from the Left we’ve endured since 9/12/2001, yet we are expected to believe you stand behind your tough words today? It took 10 months just to decide on additional troops to support the troops you already have in Afghanistan!
I’m sorry Mr. President, but I just don’t believe your tough talk when you are also capable of saying this:
…in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to change behavior — for 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. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure — and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.
It is dangerously naive to expect the world to stand together as one. By your own words, you are making matters of our national security and that of our allies, contingent upon international consensus. I fear for our country. I question your resolve, Mr. President.
Posted in Barack Obama, Home, Liberal Hypocrisy | Comments (1) |
One Response to “Obama Peace Prize Speech…Full of Eloquent Contradictions”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
December 12th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
I was just reading this morning about new rules of engagement for our troops in Afghanistan. Supposedly our troops are not allowed to shoot if there are civilians around.
Here we go again - a liberal Democrat pretending to fight a war. What was it Pres. Johnson said, something like, “They can’t so much as blow up a ****house over there without my say-so.”