TPMDC

Obama's Nobel Speech: Seeking Peace, While Explaining The Reality Of War

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Share

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

President Obama accepted his Nobel Peace Prize earlier today in Oslo, Norway, with a speech in which he addressed both the yearning for peace and the importance of pursuing it -- and the responsibility of fighting necessary wars.

Obama acknowledged the criticism that it is too early for him to receive this honor -- and said that the skeptics are right:

In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. 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.

One line in particular -- in which Obama recognized the implications of accepting a peace prize at the same time as he is escalating a war in Afghanistan -- should be regarded as especially important because of what he says about America's other war:

But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars. 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.

By identifying Afghanistan as "a conflict that America did not seek," the obvious implication is that the Iraq War is a war that America did seek -- that America was the aggressor, violating the laws of war that have developed through the centuries.

Obama discussed the evolution of the laws of war:

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.

Over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers, 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 it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the forced used is proportional, and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.

Obama discussed the efforts after the two World Wars to establish international institutions to prevent war, such as the United Nations, and how those institutions have been strained by the challenges of modern weapons, terrorism, and ethnicity-based civil wars:

I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations - acting individually or in concert - will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

Obama also paid tribute to the work of men such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King to promote peace. "As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life's work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence," said Obama. "I know there is nothing weak -nothing passive - nothing naïve - in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King."

But Obama also made the point that this same creed is not always good enough -- that military power is necessary, and that American power specifically has done good for the world:

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.

Obama discussed the need for action to preserve peace, to promote democracy and openness, and to engage with countries in order to avert conflicts and improve the lives of people. And he stressed that the struggle for peace is one that must be pursued:

So let us reach for the world that ought to be - that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. Somewhere today, in the here and now, a soldier sees he's outgunned but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, who believes that a cruel world still has a place for his dreams.

Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of depravation, and still strive for dignity. We can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that - for that is the story of human progress; that is the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.

Comments (96) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (2)

December 10, 2009 10:05 AM   

Shorter Obama: "War is peace, Freedom is slavery, Ignorance is strength!"

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 11:49 AM    in reply to Why oh why

This wins the Obtuse Reference to a Book I've Never Actually Read Award for this week.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 1:45 PM    in reply to Why oh why

Hint: when employing the "shorter" format of snark, it helps if your summary bears even the slightest relationship to the longer work you're summarizing. When it doesn't, it just makes you look like someone who wasn't paying enough attention to understand the material but wants to make themselves sound insightful anyway.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 3:20 PM    in reply to Why oh why

First class trolling, right there.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 8:10 PM    in reply to Dorn76

NO...this is first class trolling.
The neo liberal globalist corporately manufacture scion of the Clintonian CFR junta is as slippery as his political father Bill. "A war we didn't go looking for" I believe was his reference to our geopolitical "imperative" in Afghanistan. See Brzinski for details. Our military buildup during the "cold war" was out of "enlightened self interest"...that was the best one! Oh it was sooooo smooth and slick.

Let me paraphrase the entire speech. The "never ending war on brown people" continues and this award, won for speaking not acting" legitimizes almost anything I pull in the next three years. Thanks. You are great enablers.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 4:06 PM    in reply to Why oh why

I think it was an outstanding speech, and only birthers, ODS sufferers and idiots who think cowboy diplomacy is the answer to everything would dismiss it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 10:31 AM   

A nuanced response to a complex topic, with a little humility on top...no wonder some people don't get it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 10:42 AM   

Would Ghandi or King have given such a speech? They would have been morally justified to fight back, but they chose the road of non-violence. There is a reason Obama won't be mentioned with those giants ... Obama's no giant, he is a man who missed the opportunity to become a giant.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 11:51 AM    in reply to CranialRectalLoopback

If the worst thing you can say about Obama after eight years is that he was no Gandhi, I'll take it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 1:13 PM    in reply to CranialRectalLoopback

Because only the anti-war presidents were considered great: Washington, Lincoln, FDR. Oh, wait . . .

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 1:29 PM    in reply to FreeRider

Dear Free-Rider:

There's a great difference between WWII, a war of necessity, and the escalation in Afghanistan, which is largely a war of military contractors/outsourcing.

Just a few of the more obvious points:

1) We had a draft during WWII
2) We had rationing during WWII
3) We had our taxes raised during WWII
4) Russia and China fought by our side, and the casualties sustained by the Soviets did in fact make our job a great deal easier. In effect, all those Russians served as a giant sponge to soak up so much Nazi blood. Which you have either forgotten, or never realized.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 1:37 PM    in reply to again

Dear Again:

(a) There are many people who believe that Afghanistan is a war of necessity, including the president.

(b) The other things you mention have nothing to do with Obama.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 1:41 PM    in reply to FreeRider

They may not have anything to do with Obama, but they do have something to do with the war that you alluded to when you offhandedly tossed off FDR's name.

What sacrifice, "FreeRider", will you make in this war?

Will you serve?

Will you care for returning vets?

Will your taxes be raised?

Will you be asked to ration your fuel use? Your sugar consumption?

If this is so important, why then is the burden placed on a tiny fraction of the US population who must fight it?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 1:57 PM    in reply to again

You're confused. (Nothing new there.) I never said I supported the Afghanistan war but I voted for Obama knowing he would escalate it since he promised he would do just that during the two-year campaign. Why would I be angry with him about that now.

All of the whining from the left about it is just stupid bullshit.

The original post claimed that Obama would never be considered "great" because he is now a war president. That's a stupid analogy since most of the "great" presidents were war presidents. Obama never claimed to be an anti-war candidate. He said he was only opposed to "dumb wars."

If you voted for Obama, you did so knowing he would escalate in Afghanistan. Therefore, you should just STFU. If you didn't vote for Obama, just STFU. Either way, STFU!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 2:07 PM    in reply to FreeRider

Wow, how many times can you type STFU before you completely debase your point of view?

For the record, Obama did campaign on an escalation. If I recall correctly, he cited a number far short of 30,000.

(But like any Presidential candidate, he did say a lot of diffferent things in a lot of different places.)

You may have noticed that in between his campaign-era formulations for Afghanistan and this escalation, there was a wee little problem with the global credit markets, which resulted in a severe - a very severe - economic downturn. This put into question our continuing ability to borrow the money we need to borrow to pay the interest on the money we borrowed.

It is difficult in the extreme for many of us to see the situation as "unchanged." That is not an invalid concern, it will not be an invalid concern in 2010 and 2012 elections. Your insistence that it is invalid does not change this.

Then again, why should anyone need to respond to someone who closes with multiple invocations of "STFU!" Good Lord.... try to be civil.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 3:48 PM    in reply to again

I don't know why you would respond to my STFU but you did. Only you can explain why.

The global markets did not change the calculations of Afghanistan. Obama pushed for healthcare reform despite the economic collapse but that's OK with you? I see, you want him to give up on the things you don't like, using the financial crisis as a crutch.

Dude, STFU!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 3:21 PM    in reply to CranialRectalLoopback

It's true, his 11 month term is up soon. Opportunity lost, indeed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 10:59 AM   

By Obama's standard, President Franklin D. Roosevelt deserved the Nobel Peace Prize far more than Obama ever will.

When is TPM going to wake up to the fraud Obama is?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 11:52 AM    in reply to Poetry

"When is TPM going to wake up to the fraud Obama is?"

Just as soon as you wake up to the fraud Obama isn't.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 12:13 PM    in reply to brewmn61

Sip ... sip ...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 12:34 PM    in reply to Poetry

Drinking the Koolaid. That's a good one. Totally original, too. In fact, that's the first time I've heard a reference to Koolaid drinking. This morning, anyway.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 12:44 PM    in reply to brewmn61

I, too, was accused of kool-aid drinking during the campaign. I shrugged it off.

But I thought Glenn Greenwald's piece yesterday was excellent. I recommend it.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/12/08/obama/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+salon%2Fgreenwald+%28Glenn+Greenwald%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 1:05 PM    in reply to again

Already read it. One extended piece of strawman-bashing relying, hilariously, on the comments of ONE PERSON as the linchpin for his thesis. Greenwald's method of argument resembles no one else's in the media more than Sean Hannity, in style if not in substance. Bullying, relying on oversimplification and distortion of opposing arguments, and always, absolutely convinced of the unimpeachable rectitude of their own position.

The argument that those arguing for patience, an acknowledgment that Obama is facing political pressures that we may not fully understand, or for enough humility from his critics that their preferred solutions may not be the silver bullets they believe them to be, are "Kool-Aid" drinkers is as tiresome and simpleminded as those of that one commenter nutpicked from Andrew Sullivan's inbox.

Fail.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 1:22 PM    in reply to brewmn61

Obama has already retained and supported these Bush policies and practices:

(1) warrantless wiretapping of American citizens http://tinyurl.com/6d3ako

(2) legal immunity for the telecoms giants that spied on us without warrants http://tinyurl.com/6d3ako

(3) the continued rendition of "enemy" prisoners to foreign countries (where they can be tortured) http://tinyurl.com/atjwtb

(4) decided prisoners in America's Bagram military prison (in Afghanistan) have NO rights that we (or he) must respect http://tinyurl.com/az926f

(5) uses the ruse of "state secrets" to terminate trials against those who are accused of torturing prisoners http://tinyurl.com/d234ux

(6) nominated tax cheats and lobbyists to run government agencies http://tinyurl.com/d6mbdy

(7) refused to allow prisoners in American jails to use DNA evidence (even if they pay for the tests) to prove their innocence http://tinyurl.com/dfgcnt

(8) without Congressional authorization, Obama ordered the bombing of a country we are NOT at war with (Pakistan) http://tinyurl.com/djlpum

(9) stonewalled media requests for access to court records in the ongoing Guantanamo detainee litigation. http://tinyurl.com/dltxot

(10) Obama consolidated powers at the White House that are constitutionally Congress's powers (ask Sen. Byrd) http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19303.html

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 1:26 PM    in reply to brewmn61

I'm sorry, did you really read the piece. Greenwald did not use the word "kool-aid" at all. Nor did I, for that matter.

And I have no idea why you respond SO vociferously to such name-calling.

This, from Greenwald, is far more nuanced that you've tried to imply, as evidenced by reading the entire piece (which you apparently didn't do):

"These outbursts include everything other than arguments addressed to the only question that matters: are the criticisms that have been voiced about Obama valid? Has he appointed financial officials who have largely served the agenda of the Wall Street and industry interests that funded his campaign? Has he embraced many of the Bush/Cheney executive power and secrecy abuses which Democrats once railed against -- from state secrets to indefinite detention to renditions and military commissions? Has he actively sought to protect from accountability and disclosure a whole slew of Bush crimes? Did he secretly a negotiate a deal with the pharmaceutical industry after promising repeatedly that all negotiations over health care would take place out in the open, even on C-SPAN? Are the criticisms of his escalation of the war in Afghanistan valid, and are his arguments in its favor redolent of the ones George Bush made to "surge" in Iraq or Lyndon Johnson made to escalate in Vietnam? Is Bob Herbert right when he condemned Obama's detention policies as un-American and tyrannical, and warned: "Policies that were wrong under George W. Bush are no less wrong because Barack Obama is in the White House"?

"Who knows? Who cares? According to these defenders, it's just wrong -- morally, ethically and psychologically -- to criticize the President. Thus, in lieu of any substantive engagement of these critiques are a slew of moronic Broderian cliches ("If Obama catches heat from the left and right but maintains the middle, he is doing what I hoped he would do (and what he said he would do) when I voted for him"), cringe-inducing proclamations of faith in his greatness ("I am willing to continue to trust his instinct, his grace, his patience and his measured hand"), and emotional contempt for his critics more extreme than one would expect from his own family members. In other words, the Leave-Obama-Alone protestations posted by Sullivan are fairly representative of the genre. How far we've fallen from the declaration of Thomas Jefferson: "In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

"With regard to many of the above-referenced criticisms -- as well as ones I haven't included -- there are reasonable disputes over the validity of the critiques, and many Obama defenders voice those on substantive grounds. Obama admirers like the ones featured above are a minority, albeit a vocal one. But far too many have an emotional attachment to him and investment in him that is deeply unhealthy, particularly when it translates into intolerance for the very act of objecting to his decisions and policies, as one sees on vivid display in the responses Sullivan posted."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 1:56 PM    in reply to again

Sorry. Fail again. They cherry-picked quotes to claim there is a "minority, albeit a vocal one" of Obama supporters, one of "far too many [which] have an emotional attachment to him and investment in him that is deeply unhealthy, particularly when it translates into intolerance for the very act of objecting to his decisions and policies..." In the parlance of the internet, Greenwald is talking about those who have "drank the Kool-Aid," whether he uses that overused and abused phrase or not.

Frankly, I don't see this "vocal minority" anywhere on the internet. The anti-Obama commenters in Left Blogistan outnumber the Obama defenders by a significant margin. The fact that Greenwald devotes a post to these largely anecdotal supporters and uses them in a thinly veiled attempt to smear any defenders of Obama, is what caused my reaction. It's a stupid, dishonest column, regardless of whether you agree with it.

And it's of a piece with other Greenwald writings. He got his panties in a bunch when the DNC stated that the only groups criticizing the award of the Nobel were the Republicans and Al Quaeda, clamiing an equivalency with Bush-era attempts to paint war skeptics as anti-American. Hopefully, anyone with a functioning irony gene can see the difference between attempting to stifle dissent about matters of war and peace and a rhetorical tweak of the opposition over a largely ceremonial matter.

I've been reading Greenwald for years. I know where he's coming from. He wrote a stupid, dishonest column, regardless of whether you agree with it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 2:14 PM    in reply to brewmn61

"They cherry-picked quotes to claim there is a "minority, albeit a vocal one" of Obama supporters, one of "far too many [which] have an emotional attachment to him and investment in him that is deeply unhealthy, particularly when it translates into intolerance for the very act of objecting to his decisions and policies..." In the parlance of the internet, Greenwald is talking about those who have "drank the Kool-Aid," whether he uses that overused and abused phrase or not."

Greenwald did not "cherry-pick" quotes - he merely responded to the quotes that Andrew Sullivan posted.

"The anti-Obama commenters in Left Blogistan outnumber the Obama defenders by a significant margin."

I'm not "left" nor am I "anti-Obama." As a supporter of the President, I have valid concerns about many of the decisions he's made. These are reasonable to bring up, especially for those of us who would like to throw the full weight of our support behind him in 2012, and before that, behind the Democrats in 2010. But right now, many of us (and I am a Democrat, and not a Progressive) are feeling very, very uninspired and very, very disappointed.

Perhaps it would be reasonable for you, instead of repeatedly telling us to "STFU!", calling us "little brain" and calling us "armchair quarterbacks" to consider that our concerns have some merit, and our support will be very important in 2010 and 2012.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 2:39 PM    in reply to again

I'm not telling you to STFU or calling you little brain. I would simply ask you to acknowledge that you aren't in possession of all of the information needed to pronounce final judgment on his actions, and that there is at least the possibility that he is taking unpalatable actions now in service of goals he, you and I share. A little patience and humility might be in order, given the magnitude of the problems requiring immediate attention that he inherited.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 2:52 PM    in reply to brewmn61

Actually, you have called me "little brain" and you have called another who disagreed with you "armchair quarterback" and you have further written repeatedly that those who disagree with this decision should "STFU."

Here is your direct quote:

"If you voted for Obama, you did so knowing he would escalate in Afghanistan. Therefore, you should just STFU. If you didn't vote for Obama, just STFU. Either way, STFU!!"

You also wrote this to me:

"To be fair to your little brain, Candidate Obama always made it clear that he did not want to dismantle the current employer-based system."

And to another reader you wrote:

"More armchair quarterbacking from someone who couldn't get elected to their local school board."

So your statement that you never said those things is false. Do you not remember what you wrote in this thread, or are you just lying?

Further, we have considered that the President might be right. But we have had to weigh that notion against a significant body evidence that his decision is deeply wrong.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 3:02 PM    in reply to again

Those were both comments from somebody else, dumbshit. and yes, I AM calling you "dumbshit."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 3:08 PM    in reply to brewmn61

I'm sorry, I confused your name-calling with Freerider's name-calling. I placed an apology to you at the end of the thread.

But I think it's fair for us to ask that both of you stop calling anyone who asks questions either an "armchair quarterback" as you have, or telling them to "STFU!", or calling them "little brain" as "Freerider" has.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 2:58 PM    in reply to brewmn61

As I recall this was exactly the same kind of excuse we got during the Iraq WMD fiasco. Oh, we didn't find any? give it some time, we've only just invaded. Then months later we were told they may have been hidden, then finally that they could have been taken out of the country. All the while ignoring the obvious possibility that they simply never existed. To some of us, it was obvious from the beginning that the whole thing was a scam, just like it's obvious now that Afghanistan is a mistake.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 1:16 PM    in reply to Poetry

Poetry is sip, sip, sipping on that haterade.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 2:21 PM    in reply to FreeRider

More typical bot behavior: unable to come up with anything positive to say about Obama, bots take to making personal attacks on the people who bring them factual information.

All over the Internet, former bots are waking up and expressing their disappointment in The Lightbringer, but here at TPM they have their last stronghold.

Fire away, bot, I'm immune to your nonsense.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 3:52 PM    in reply to Poetry

You're an anti-ObamaBot but still a bot. You don't think. You just spout ridiculous anti-Obama crap.

Sip, sip, sip. Keep sipping on that anti-Obama haterade.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 4:16 PM    in reply to FreeRider

FreeRide:

It's time for your nap.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 4:26 PM    in reply to Poetry

I don't take instructions from anti-ObamaBots. Keep sipping on that haterade. You should be good and drunk by now.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 11:06 AM   

"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."

Well at least he didn't say something like "America single-handedly saved the world" or I would have thought he was channeling Reagan.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 11:33 AM   

TO ALL OF YOU OBAMA HATERS - ENVY WILL KILL YOU,

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 11:43 AM    in reply to lousgirl84

You misunderstand. I can only speak for myself, but this isn't hate, this is disappointment. I worked to elect him. I believed in him. I was happy beyond belief when we finally got an intelligent person in the white house. I knew we did not always agree, and on some positions we were actually polar opposites. But I knew that as a rational thoughtful person he would consider all points of view and make a logical decision. His "just war" position is NOT logical. And if your president does what you think is a boneheaded move, you call him out on it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 12:16 PM    in reply to maven81

Rational and thoughtful people do not make boneheaded moves when it comes to huge problems like this. Disagree with his decision, that's fine but I wish people would stop making it seem as if this was a decision he made flippantly.

It's so easy to say what you would and would not do if you were in a specific situation, but once you are in that situation everything can change. Anyone who says that has never happened to them is a liar. Anyone who says they would know what to do if they were in Obama's shoes is delusional and arrogant. No one knows. No one knows what to do in Afghanistan - that is the absolute truth. Hundreds of critics have made their case using history, common sense and current data, yet not one of them can guarantee the outcome of their proposal. No. One. Knows. So you can call it boneheaded, I'll just wait to judge the results.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 12:37 PM    in reply to Viva!America!

"Rational and thoughtful people do not make boneheaded moves when it comes to huge problems like this."

You mean like Hillary's (among others) decision to support the invasion of Iraq? Bill Clinton's adventure in Somalia? Johnson's escalation in Vietnam, etc etc etc? All were intelligent people, all were merely human, but all should have known better.

"It's so easy to say what you would and would not do if you were in a specific situation, but once you are in that situation everything can change."

I'm sorry, but this excuse isn't going to fly. The whole reason to elect someone to such a high post is the hope that they are more educated, more qualified, and more prepared to make such decisions. People forgot this during the bush fiasco when for some reason a portion of the population thought a guy they could have a beer with is good enough. If what you say is true then his decision would be no better then yours or mine. I expect more from a president. And in fact I do believe outcomes are predictable to some extent. Obama's problem here is that he sees things not how they are, but how he wants them to be.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 11:49 AM   

WTF is up with these reactions? I thought it was a brilliant speech: intelligent, nuanced, beautifully crafted, worthy of a Nobel Prize winner. For whatever disappointment many of us feel with the caution he's shown in some of his actions in office, to me at least, this speech is reminder that he still has the potential to be a transformative president.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 12:17 PM    in reply to Moose49

Quite a few children in Afghanistan and Pakistan are already transformed. They would certainly applaud this speech, if they had two hands!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 12:29 PM    in reply to Why oh why

And when we leave Afghanistan -- as we surely will, some day (maybe even as early as July 2011) -- what will happen to any of the Afghan people who had adopted American values and lifestyles?

The Taliban will roll back into Afghanistan and serve up Taliban-style justice.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 12:40 PM    in reply to Poetry

Mullah Omar, accepting the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize: "As a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the Afghan people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 12:31 PM    in reply to Moose49

Obama frequently gives great speeches; too bad his actions seldom follow his words.

FISA ... state secrets ... rendition ... (the list is long)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 12:07 PM   

While many here are unnecessarily critical, clearly it was a wrong time in history for him to win the Nobel prize. While it seemed somewhat reasonable in October when it was announced, on the heels of 30,000 U.S. troops leaving for Afghanistan I just thought much of ceremony was a charade.

I'm not questioning his judgement on Afghan troop surge, but both the Nobel committee and Obama himself seemed like bit of a farce this morning- or at least the entire Nobel Peace Prize excersise seemed a little less important.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 12:43 PM    in reply to kash79

The smart move would have been to graciously refuse the prize, citing his compassion for the victims of these wars on both sides.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 1:07 PM    in reply to Kali Star

More armchair quarterbacking from someone who couldn't get elected to their local school board.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 1:38 PM    in reply to brewmn61

Let me get this straight:

If you can't get elected to the Presidency or the school board, you're not allowed to criticize the President of the United States when he escalates in Afghanistan?

Excuse me, sir, but are you just completely ignorant of the demands of a participatory democracy? Are you unaware that our tax dollars will, in part, along with more cash from the Chinese, pay for this war? As taxpaying citizens and as citizens who serve those in the military, we're just supposed to shut up?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 1:57 PM    in reply to again

Yes. Completely unaware.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 2:01 PM    in reply to brewmn61

Apparently so. BTW, isn't armchair quarterbacking better used to describe people who cheer the war but don't fight it?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 12:40 PM   

Obama's words may sound good but they have little relationship to his actions.

Here is a list on one day's worth of Obama campaign promises, ONE day's worth, mind you.

1.) So when I'm President, I'll shut down the corporate loopholes and tax havens,

1a.) and I'll use the money to help pay for a middle-class tax cut that will provide $1,000 of relief to 95% of workers and their families.

2.) We'll also eliminate income taxes for every retiree making less than $50,000 per year, because every senior deserves to live out their life in dignity and respect.

3.) if you're a family making less than $250,000, my plan will not raise your taxes – not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.

4.) I'll also help families who are struggling under the crushing burden of health care costs by passing a plan that brings the typical family's premiums down by $2500

4a.) and guarantees coverage to everyone who wants it.

5.) I'll establish a Credit Card Bill of Rights that will ban unilateral changes to credit card agreements;

5a.) ban rate hikes on debt people already had;

5b.) and ban interest charges on late fees.

6.) I'll also reform our bankruptcy laws to make sure that if you can demonstrate that you went bankrupt because of medical expenses, you can relieve that debt and get back on your feet.

7.) To make saving easier, we'll automatically enroll every worker in a workplace pension plan that stays with you from job to job.

8.) And for working families who earn under $75,000, we will start that nest egg by matching 50 percent of the first $1,000 you save

8a.) and depositing it directly into their account.

9.) To make a college education affordable for every American family, we'll provide $4,000 of tuition if students will provide community or national service when they graduate.

10.) To make it easier for families to own their own home and stay in that home, we'll crack down on predatory lenders,

11.) help more Americans refinance their mortgages,

12.) and provide ten million homeowners a mortgage tax credit that will take ten percent off their interest rate.

13.) To help those mothers and fathers who are juggling work and family, I'll expand the Child Care Tax Credit,

14.) extend the Family Medical Leave Act,

15.) and make sure that every worker in America has access to seven days of paid sick leave.

16.) I'll make sure that women get equal pay for an equal day's work.

17.) And to help those families who own small businesses that are the engine of prosperity in America, I will eliminate all capital gains taxes on start-ups and small businesses to encourage more innovation and job creation.

18.) all my new spending proposals would be more than paid for by spending reductions.

19.) I have a plan to responsibly end the war in Iraq

20.) and reduce overpayments for private plans in Medicare

21.) I would also curb subsidies to banks making student loans,

22.) return earmarks to their 2001 levels

23.) and reform no-bid contracts.

http://thepage.time.com/obamas-full-remarks-for-charlotte-north-carolina-speech/

This list does not include all the campaign promises Obama made on other days, to other audiences.


Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 1:34 PM    in reply to Poetry

I guess I missed the point where he said this would all by accomplished by Christmas 2009.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 2:13 PM    in reply to brewmn61

It's not just a question of what Obama has not done, equally important is what Obama has already done.

In May of 2009, "the Obama administration (Obama appointees, presumably with Obama's approval) gave the green light for forty-two more mountaintop removal permits, dealing a victory for the coal industry" ... and creating a serious loss of mine-worker jobs. Nice touch there, Obama, while unemployment is devastating this country.. http://tinyurl.com/yzuw2lq

And what had been Obama's stance on mountaintop removal when campaigning? "President Obama campaigned with the idea that we have to find another way to get our coal instead of blowing up our mountains."

Obama's words are nice but meaningless.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 2:30 PM    in reply to Poetry

I'm not going to defend everything the guy has done (or hasn't done). I will question the grasp of reality and emotional maturity of those who think the American government would be instantaneously transformed into a champion of every policy preference of every voter simply by the election of a Democratic president.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 2:59 PM    in reply to brewmn61

That's a very unfair characterization of Democrats like myself who have brought forward legitimate complaints and questions about his handling of everything from the banking sector to Aghanistan.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 3:58 PM    in reply to brewmn61

Nobody twisted Obama's arms to make him commit to those promises and pledges; he chose to make those promises and pledges to GET VOTES, even though he should have known it was unlikely he could ever fulfill those promises. And the naive bots bought it hook, line and sinker.

No other candidate claimed to have "a plan to get our troops out (of Iraq) by the end of 2009," but Obama did because he wanted those Super Tuesday votes NO MATTER WHAT.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 12:41 PM   

I'm not a pacifist - I wouldn't even exist without the allies' involvement in WWII. But there are useful applications and futile applications of war.

I thought the speech was very good, and was something of a balm for those of us who felt burnt by the escalation.

But therein lies the problem. Obama's intelligence and speaking skills are no match for standing up against the vested interests of military contractors and others. In a way, this brilliant man is too clever for his own good - able to convince himself, like LBJ did with Vietnam, that what is politically convenient is also what is necessary.

I disagree with the President on the escalation in Afghanistan- Matthew Hoh and Rory Stewart reinforced my concerns that eight years of failure in Afghanistan does not justify a troop surge because the entire exercise is futile.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 1:36 PM    in reply to again

"In a way, this brilliant man is too clever for his own good - able to convince himself, like LBJ did with Vietnam, that what is politically convenient is also what is necessary."

Another mind-reader. And you know that he has so convinced himself how, exactly?


Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 1:48 PM    in reply to brewmn61

And you know he has made the right decision how? Because he said so?

I can only judge the President by a combination of his words and his actions, and by comparing his behavior and choices to that of other leaders in similar situations, especially earlier US presidents.

Have you listened to the tapes of LBJ's conversations about Vietnam? It was a painful decision. It was also the wrong decision. I can't know for certain (nor can you) but I can look at how overstretched our military is, how little detail Obama has provided, how little communication has apparently gone on between himself and Clinton and Gates even on the details of the withdrawal, and I am not comforted. And that's but a small list of my entirely legitimate concerns.

For you to continually state that "he's right" does not make him right. More importantly, it will not convince those of us who worked very hard for him in 2008 to support him again in 2012. That is a reality that needs to be addressed, and it won't be addressed by your repeated denials of the fact that there is cause for concern.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 2:09 PM    in reply to again

"Have you listened to the tapes of LBJ's conversations about Vietnam?"

No. Have you?

"I can't know for certain..."

That was my point. But, yet you state with absolute certainty that he is letting political considerations outweigh doing what is "necessary." Which is it?

"For you to continually state that "he's right" does not make him right."

I have never said "he's right." I'm saying "you're wrong."

"More importantly, it will not convince those of us who worked very hard for him in 2008 to support him again in 2012."

Unlike you, I'm willing to make my decision to support him in 2012, and not spend every second second-guessing his every move until then.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 2:27 PM    in reply to brewmn61

I wrote: "Have you listened to the tapes of LBJ's conversations about Vietnam?"

You responded: "No. Have you?"

Yes, I have. And I recommend you listen to them too. You can hear them on the Bill Moyers Journal. (Moyers, as you no doubt know, worked in the Johnson administration.)

I wrote: "I can't know for certain..."

You responded: "That was my point. But, yet you state with absolute certainty that he is letting political considerations outweigh doing what is "necessary." Which is it?"

My point is that neither of us can know for certain. But it is patently ridiculous for you to take such extreme personal offense when some of us question the wisdom of sending an additional 30,000 troops into harm's way in a region that has never been amenable to occupation.

You continued: "I have never said "he's right." I'm saying "you're wrong."

But simply saying that I'm wrong does not make me wrong. Nor does it make Matthew Hoh or Rory Stewart wrong.

"Unlike you, I'm willing to make my decision to support him in 2012, and not spend every second second-guessing his every move until then."

Why is asking valid questions about strategy, how we will afford this, and why the burden is so unfairly distributed amongst the population necessarily "second-guessing" the President?

I feel you're going so far out of your way to caricature your own position that you may in fact be a non-Obama supporter posing as an Obama supporter to prove Greenwald's point.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 2:50 PM    in reply to again

No. You ARE wrong. You stated as fact that he was letting political considerations, rather than what is "necessary," drive his decision-making in Afghanistan. You don't know that. Therefore, you're wrong.

Don't overdo the LBJ/Vietnam analogy. They are different men, in different times, with different wars, and you have the benefit of hindsight as to LBJ's motivations and the end result of his decisions. You don't have the same information available to you regarding Obama and Afghanistan.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 3:09 PM    in reply to brewmn61

"You don't know that. Therefore, you're wrong."

He's only wrong if there's a 0% chance of him being right. Unless you have some evidence you can't make a call like that.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 3:21 PM    in reply to maven81

"Unless you have some evidence you can't make a call like that."

Exactly. 'again' is wrong.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 3:28 PM    in reply to brewmn61

There is plenty of evidence and study into the issue of what to do in Afghanistan.

From Patrick Lang to Matthew Hoh to Rory Stewart, there are many voices from within the military and diplomatic corps that question what our goals are, and if they are achievable.

Perhaps you do not agree with these men, but it does not make them wrong and the President right.

Again, it is the responsibility of those of us who will fund the war with our taxpayer dollars, and those of us who will tend to the injured soldiers, to ask why this is necessary.

Perhaps you think that is wrong, but simply saying that does not make it so.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 3:46 PM    in reply to again

"Perhaps you do not agree with these men, but it does not make them wrong and the President right."

What I'm objecting to is your characterization as Obama acting out of political considerations rather than his perception of military necessity. I happen to oppose the escalation myself. But I am not willing to go so far as to say that Obama is sending American soldiers to die purely out of concern for his approval ratings in the latest Gallup poll.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 4:31 PM    in reply to brewmn61

You wrote: "What I'm objecting to is your characterization as Obama acting out of political considerations rather than his perception of military necessity. I happen to oppose the escalation myself. But I am not willing to go so far as to say that Obama is sending American soldiers to die purely out of concern for his approval ratings in the latest Gallup poll."

Brew,

Thanks for that explanation. It's a lot more useful (and less inflammatory) than referencing "armchair quarterbacks."

As you and I both oppose the escalation, perhaps we can agree on one thing: that the reason he made this decision that we both oppose is less important than the fact that he made this decision to incur further costs in a part of the world that has NOT proven amenable to occupation under far tougher armies than ours - armies that in fact enjoyed the benefit of a draft, and thereby a surfeit of available soldiers.

But let's at least clarify what I originally wrote. I didn't reference Gallup polls in that initial comment (in fact, I think I later pointed out that polls show only a very slim margin of approval for the escalation.)

I DID reference political convenience, which is not entirely a matter of polls, but of pressures a President can face from military contractors and members of congress who serve the interests of military contractors and may very well have boxed him into a tight corner. Here's what I actually wrote, and which provoked such a strong response from you:

"I thought the speech was very good, and was something of a balm for those of us who felt burnt by the escalation.

"But therein lies the problem. Obama's intelligence and speaking skills are no match for standing up against the vested interests of military contractors and others. In a way, this brilliant man is too clever for his own good - able to convince himself, like LBJ did with Vietnam, that what is politically convenient is also what is necessary."

And somehow that provoked a comment from you that I am a "mind-reader."

What might have served your argument better (and it appears that you might feel more urgent need to sway those of us who are holding back than the other way around) would be to address those details that would reassure those of us with questions that this is in fact a sensible decision.

Unfortunately, it's difficult for you to do that because the President himself has not provided those details. What is more, the President has apparently not been able to resolve amongst Clinton and Gates just what the details of the withdrawal are.

It did not reassure any of us that the President's statement about the withdrawal date was later contradicted by his secretary of state and his secretary of defense.

I think the word you repeatedly used was "Fail." (at 1:05 and 1:56)

Well, for many Americans, the escalation is a "fail." We would like it not to be. We would like to hear more details. Not to be told we are "armchair quarterbacks" merely for asking legitimate questions.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 12:49 PM   

More Obama empty words . . .

Whatever happened to Obama's "plan" to have all the troops out of Iraq "by the end of 2009"?

Just in time to persuade Super Tuesday primary voters to vote for him, Obama said at the Jan. 15, 2008 Democratic debate:

"I have put forward a plan that will get our troops out (of Iraq) BY THE END OF 2009." http://tinyurl.com/67nhtg"

In July of 2008 (having won the Super Tuesday primaries he needed to win), Obama changed his mind and said he was going to "refine" his thinking on this: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/04/us/politics/04policy.html

First, Obama said he would have the troops OUT of Iraq within ELEVEN months of taking office.

Then, Obama altered his Iraq withdrawal timeline to be SIXTEEN months.

Now, who knows how much longer Obama will take to get our troops out of Iraq?

Do you see any of our troops leaving Iraq?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 1:07 PM   

Speaking to the Illinois AFL-CIO, June 30, 2003, Obama said:

- - - - -
"I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program...I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that's what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that's what I'd like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House."
- - - -

The Democrats took all three, but Obama abandoned single-payer.

Words are like soap bubbles to Obama: pretty at first, but then they cease to exist.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 1:09 PM    in reply to Poetry

You should probably write your own blog on this, instead of hogging the thread with a bunch of irrelevancies. Just saying.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 1:57 PM    in reply to brewmn61

Typical bot response. If I mention things Obama has already done that look an awful lot like the same things Obama criticized Bush for, or promises Obama made that he has already broken, you describe those statements of fact as "irrelevancies."

I don't know what hallucinogenic you are on, but best you stay on it or you're going to be sadly disappointed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 2:43 PM    in reply to Poetry

While I have enjoyed the occasional "trip" in the past, I'm not the one currently so delusional that I think a president has the power to transform every action a government of 300+ million people into my preferred course, or to think that a politician overstates their power to act during a campaign.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 2:57 PM    in reply to brewmn61

But you are delusional enough to insist that everyone who brings forward a legitimate question about the wisdom of this should "STFU!"

There was plenty of support to draw down in Afghanistan, and today's polls indicate that there is only a slim majority of approval for the escalation.

So you're quite wrong to imply that Obama was forced into this decision by "300+ million" Americans.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 1:15 PM    in reply to Poetry

Pssst: those words ceased to exist long before he ran for president. The fact that you have to quote from a speech he gave when he was an IL state senator proves you're full of shit.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 1:21 PM    in reply to FreeRider

To be fair to the original poster, "Poetry", this is from 2008.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/08/19/obama-touts-single-payer-system/

In it, Obama both touts single payer and says let's build on the system we've already got.

Which I guess explains his generous giveaways to corporate insurers and pharma. The ability to say one thing and do another is, as V.S. Naipaul once wrote, the special talent of the West.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 1:39 PM    in reply to again

To be fair to your little brain, Candidate Obama always made it clear that he did not want to dismantle the current employer-based system.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 1:53 PM    in reply to FreeRider

Wow, you're offended that someone other than myself called you a kool-aid drinker, so you insult me with "little brain"?

I'm afraid you're not a very good emissary for the President.

But... I'm getting used to it from overly touchy supporters of the President.

For the record, I too supported and still support this President, but that does not mean that I would withhold reasonable criticism.

In fact, those of us who bother to criticize are probably serving both the President's promised goals and the country better than those who approve of whatever he does.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 3:46 PM    in reply to again

I'm not offended by being called a kool-aid drinker. I consider it a badge of honor since it's the last refuge of a know-nothing loser who wants to shame people out of supporting the president.

Not. Gonna. Happen.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 4:04 PM    in reply to FreeRider

Fair enough, but can you at least admit that I am not the one who called you a kool-aid drinker and that I did not deserve to be called names by you?

In fact, what I wrote was that I myself was called a kool-aid drinker last year, but I shrugged it off.

It's unreasonable to characterize people who ask legitimate questions as trying to "shame" other people out of supporting the President.

Either you agree with the policies or not. It's not personal, but you seem to make it so.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 4:24 PM    in reply to again

Here's the problem. It seems like a board full of 18 year-olds who believed that Obama had a magic wand and would give us all a pony in the first month. They have been whining "this isn't the change I voted for" since January 21, 2009.

It's stupid and I have no patience for it.

Honestly, I used to be like that 20 years ago. I used to think it made me more of a pure liberal because my mantra was always "it's not good enough" or "that's not pure enough." I bashed Clinton relentlessly because he wasn't any different from the Republicans. I saw what bullshit that was with 8 years of Bush!

Now, after 8 years of the most draconian governmental you could imagine, I have no patience for liberals pissing and moaning that healthcare reform isn't good enough because there's no public option or that Obama hasn't repealed DADT in the first 8 months in office. Or that he's going ahead with his promise to escalate in Afghanistan.

I want more liberal things at a faster pace. But whenever I'm tempted to whine, I flash back to the last 8 years of torture and incompetence and preventive war and fall to my knees and say "Thank you for President Obama."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 4:42 PM    in reply to FreeRider

"Here's the problem. It seems like a board full of 18 year-olds who believed that Obama had a magic wand and would give us all a pony in the first month. They have been whining "this isn't the change I voted for" since January 21, 2009."

Most of us knew that change would be hard-fought, and hardly immediate. But many of us thought that we would at least have in Obama an ally. And the fact that we're not seeing even a move toward the reform we need doesn't make us "18-year-olds" as you imply. Further, we disagree that the way to achieve change is to sit quietly and wait for the President to save us.

"It's stupid and I have no patience for it."

Interesting. Many of us have run out of patience with your insults and your inability to have a civilized conversation with people who have in fact brought up legitimate questions.

"Honestly, I used to be like that 20 years ago. Nobody should care what you were I used to think it made me more of a pure liberal because my mantra was always "it's not good enough" or "that's not pure enough."

For us, purity isn't the issue. We're pragmatic, but we're not getting even an indication of the reform we voted for.

"Now, after 8 years of the most draconian governmental you could imagine, I have no patience for liberals pissing and moaning that healthcare reform isn't good enough because there's no public option or that Obama hasn't repealed DADT in the first 8 months in office. Or that he's going ahead with his promise to escalate in Afghanistan. I want more liberal things at a faster pace. But whenever I'm tempted to whine, I flash back to the last 8 years of torture and incompetence and preventive war and fall to my knees and say "Thank you for President Obama."

Fall to your knees, if it's your tendency, but I'd prefer personally to address my President and his decisions from a standing position. That is what makes me a Democrat. That is what makes me an American. And that is what makes me an inheritor of classical ideas that go back 2500 years, and which I was very lucky to inherit and to understand on a deeper level than it appears you do.

I swear, all of us deserve better fellow citizens than FreeRider.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 6:02 PM    in reply to again

1. Do you really think what you post here is "addressing the president"? If the answer is "yes", then you're beyond hope.

2. You post screed after screed after screed about what's wrong with Obama. It's a yawn because I've heard it all before. That's every single headline at HP.

3. You say he's not even giving an indication that he's going to deliver what you voted for. I call bullshit on that. With the economy in the crapper, he could have easily said "healthcare, energy and education will have to wait." But he pushed ahead with those things.

He gets NO credit for saving us from another Great Depression. A year ago, everybody was shaking with fear because the economy was going over the cliff, we had lost most of our 401/retirement funds in the stock market and we were losing 750K jobs a month. They were crying "do whatever it takes to turn this around!"

Now that the economy has stabilized and the stock market is back to 10,500 and we only lost 11K jobs last month, all I hear is "fuck him. He's done nothing for me. He's too nice to Wall Street."

He's banned torture. He's trying to close Gitmo. He's going to try the terrorists in Federal Court. He signed SCHIP. He passed the most progressive budget since LBJ.

But you dismiss that as irrelevant and whine about a fucking public option (as if he himself can cast 60 votes in the senate) or about Afghanistan which he promised to escalate.

That's why I think you're all just posting bullshit here to polish your liberal bona fides.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 1:28 PM   

The simple fact that Norway itself has troops in Afghanistan is the best example of the need to stabilize that part of the world. Do you all-or-nothing folks get that a true international force of troops is not some big delusion on the part of every country involved? A lot of problems in the world are not solved by sitting on your hands and claiming you see a perfect world. Obama makes the point that the fight for a better world never ends. Point well taken.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 2:33 PM    in reply to hollywood

Patrick Lang has made the point that our "coalition" is notably missing some necessary players.

I think it's a fair point.

But to your point that "the fight for a better world never ends":

How will you, Hollywood, participate in that fight? What will your sacrifice be? What sacrifice has the President asked of you? Please be specific.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 3:07 PM    in reply to again

I am an old man. I began protesting the Vietnam War and working to elect George McGovern as President in 1972. Like the man said, the fight for a better world never ends. I now believe the fight against global warming is the single greatest challenge humans have ever encountered. Even if wars ended today the continued burning of fossil fuels will bring about a nightmare of plant and animal extinctions, and massive human dislocations. Afghanistan is a small distraction in a global environmental meltdown.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 3:14 PM    in reply to hollywood

I agree that global warming is a huge challenge - perhaps the biggest.

So why are we sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, at considerable fuel and emissions cost? Do you have any idea how much plastic waste and fuel waste you generate when you send even 10,000 more troops? Do you have ANY IDEA how much plastic and fuel waste you generate when a soldier is injured? If those injuries are serious, you will continue to generate more plastic and fuel waste for the rest of that soldier's life.

Why did we sink money into a cash for clunkers program so that people could buy nominally more fuel efficient SUV's instead of pouring the money into light rail? (Or just giving the money to auto workers to STOP making inefficient cars?)

Where are the big infrastructure projects that will make us more efficient?

Where is even the talk of these upcoming infrastructure projects?

How can you dismiss this escalation as a "small distraction?"

How is it a small distraction for the fraction of the population that will have to serve?

Where, Hollywood, where is the long-term planning?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 3:26 PM    in reply to again

It's sad you don't see how your ideology makes you as blind as the so-called "Obamabots".

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 3:32 PM    in reply to Dorn76

How does asking questions about the absence of a long-term vision or the absence of even the beginning implementation of a plan to deal with global warming constitute an "ideology"?

How does asking questions constitute "blindness"? Didn't Plato suggest that it's the people who don't ask questions who are blind?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 5:48 PM    in reply to again

Questioning Obama's decisions is fine. No one has a problem with that. It's clear that our POTUS also questions himself on a regular basis. It's one of his character flaws that I like the most, we've had more than enough kneejerk pols (both from the right and left) in my lifetime.

But when you post 25 times (in this thread alone, give or take a few) repeatedly making the same points, it gets tiresome. Not everybody agrees with you--that's just the way life is. Get over it already. Please.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 3:05 PM   

Apologies to brew - it was freerider who repeatedly insisted that those who disagree should "STFU" and called me "little brain" for asking questions.

Separately, it was "brew" who called those who criticized those who asked legitimate questions about the wisdom of the escalation "armchair quarterbacks."

But to both of you - can you hold off on the name-calling for anyone who disagrees that the escalation is a good idea?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 10, 2009 5:40 PM   

You missed a money quote.

"A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaida's leaders to lay down their arms."

Correlating the box cutters with Hitler's armies. Gee, where have we heard that before?

And I have to ask, does anyone with a modicum of history really buy this sort of American Exceptionalism pablum anymore? At least on the left?

"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."

"We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest"

Yeah, about those mistakes...

Not that its reasonable to expect POTUS to publicly acknowledge post WWII American imperialism. But considering the setting, the farce of it all is really laid bare.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 11, 2009 12:44 AM   

I thought the speech was appalling. It was hypocritical in the extreme I feel as though Obama's head has been grafted on George Bush's body. His refusal to attend the Nobel dinner, the press conference and other Nobel functions is exactly what Bush would have done. He was afraid that hecklers would call him out for hs hypocrisy. It was a meandering and disingenuous attempt at justifying the US position as a full time war state.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 11, 2009 2:55 PM   

Obama is basically saying that we invaded and continue to occupy Afghanistan (eight years later) because we are bringing peace to the world.

I seem to recall that George W. Bush essentially said the same thing.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on