1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Conservative Praise for Obama Nobel Speech - What's the difference from Bush?

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Sweet Lou 4 2, Dec 11, 2009.

  1. Sweet Lou 4 2

    Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    37,715
    Likes Received:
    18,914
    http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=79BD6E2B-18FE-70B2-A85D3CF476223A56

    Conservative praise for Nobel speech
    By: Eamon Javers
    December 10, 2009 12:56 PM EST

    President Barack Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize speech Thursday is drawing praise from some unlikely quarters – conservative Republicans – who likened Obama’s defense of “just wars” to the worldview of his predecessor, Republican George W. Bush.

    It’s already being called the “Obama Doctrine” – a notion that foreign policy is a struggle of good and evil, that American exceptionalism has blunted the force of tyranny in the world, and that U.S. military can be a force for good and even harnessed to humanitarian ends.

    “There will be times,” Obama said, “when nations – acting individually or in concert – will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.”

    The remarks drew immediate praise from a host of conservatives, including former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

    “I liked what he said," Palin told USA Today. "Of course, war is the last thing I believe any American wants to engage in, but it's necessary. We have to stop these terrorists."

    Gingrich told The Takeaway, a national morning drive show from WNYC and Public Radio International, “He clearly understood that he had been given the prize prematurely, but he used it as an occasion to remind people, first of all, as he said: that there is evil in the world."

    “I think having a liberal president who goes to Oslo on behalf of a peace prize and reminds the committee that they would not be free, they wouldn't be able to have a peace prize, without having [the ability to use] force,” Gingrich said. “I thought in some ways it's a very historic speech.”

    The context was striking. The president is enormously popular in Norway – a crowd of several thousand waited at his hotel chanting “Obama. Obama. Obama.” And “yes we can. Yes we can. yes we can.” Still, he spoke to the Nobel committee in a room packed with European dignitaries – including the Norwegian royal family — on a continent where skepticism of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan is strong. And despite the sentiments in the room, Obama defended the American war effort there and told the Europeans that their reflexive pacifism may be self defeating.

    “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,” Obama said. “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.”

    And Obama’s comments came just nine days after the president stood before cadets at West Point and told them that American values are “the moral source of America's authority,” as he ordered an additional 30,000 troops into Afghanistan. His decision to push for a surge also garnered Obama comparisons to Bush, who had done much the same thing in Iraq three years earlier. The Oslo speech, too, reminded some of Obama’s predecessor – with a twist.

    “The irony is that George W. Bush could have delivered the very same speech. It was a truly an American president's message to the world,” said Bradley A. Blakeman, a Republican strategist and CEO of Kent Strategies LLC who worked in the Bush White House.

    Added Walter Russell Mead, Henry A. Kissinger senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations: “If Bush had said these things the world would be filled with violent denunciations,” said “When Obama says them, people purr. That is fine by me.”

    Obama’s remarks were a historical counterpoint to the speech made by Martin Luther King Jr., on another tenth of December, 45 years ago. On that day, King told the Nobel committee in Oslo that their award to him was “a profound recognition that nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral question of our time - the need for man to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to violence and oppression.” King rejected violence for all time: “Civilization and violence are antithetical concepts.”

    But Obama broke with King on the issue of non-violence, drawing an implicit distinction between King as the leader of a movement, and himself as the leader of a nation. “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,” the president said. “I know there is nothing weak –nothing passive – nothing naïve – 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.”

    As a candidate, Obama was somewhat more wary of framing America’s political battles in terms of good and evil – though he said then as he did today that evil exists.

    At a civil forum with John McCain at the Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., in the summer of 2008, Obama said, “Now, the one thing that I think is very important is for us to have some humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil because, you know, a lot of evil has been perpetrated based on the claim that we were trying to confront evil.”

    As he accepted the Nobel in Oslo, the doubts about confronting evil weren’t evident. “For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world,” Obama said. “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.”

    “Wow. what a shift of emphasis,” said Robert Kagan of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a former policy advisor to McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign. Kagan said. “I don't know what to say about an ‘Obama doctrine,’ because based on this speech, I think we are witnessing a substantial shift, back in the direction of a more muscular moralism, ala, Truman, Reagan.”

    Liberals, too, offered quick praise for the speech.

    “This was no tie-dye peace prize,” said Christine Pelosi, an attorney, author and Democratic activist, writing in POLITICO’s Arena. “The President laid out the ‘right makes might’ Obama Doctrine: securing a just peace takes both the nonviolent teachings and military traditions of quiet heroes who fight for human rights as civilians and service members.”

    Democratic strategist Lanny Davis said, “Simply: all Americans should be proud.” But Davis also took a shot at Bush, the man on the minds of so many conservatives Thursday morning. “We and our president are once again viewed positively by most peoples of the world,” he said. “A sea change from recent years.”
     
  2. Sweet Lou 4 2

    Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    37,715
    Likes Received:
    18,914
    While I am not surprised Conservatives are happy with this speech, I am surprised that they are surprised he delivered it.

    Do conservatives think that Liberals are solidly against the use of force?

    What's the difference with Bush is what this article muses at the end.

    Bush expressed the same idea - that there are just wars and moral causes to fight.

    What Bush forgets is that no one agreed on his JUSTIFICATIONS for war.

    Iraq was not a moral nor a just war.
     
  3. pgabriel

    pgabriel Educated Negro

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    42,755
    Likes Received:
    2,987
    Obama is not a liberal, or a peacenik or an american apologist or whatever other misconception out there that leads to surprise about this speech
     
  4. uolj

    uolj Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Messages:
    906
    Likes Received:
    60
    Here are three of the major differences he has with Bush on foreign policy, described within the speech:[rquoter]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.

    ...

    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.

    ...

    Let me also say this: the promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach - and condemnation without discussion - can carry forward a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.[/rquoter]
    The first section is an indirect but clear slight towards the Iraq War. The second is an obvious repudiation of other Bush-era policies and occurrences regarding human rights. The third is a distinction between Obama's policy of engagement and the differing attitudes of the Bush administration.

    Those are three distinct differences that were right there in the speech. Those are the differences he campaigned on. There really should be no surprise at the content of his words, nor should there be any confusion that he is different from his predecessor.
     
  5. basso

    basso Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    29,579
    Likes Received:
    6,293
    Darker Looking Bush Accepts The Peace Prize

    [​IMG]

    [rquoter]OSLO — President George Bush, looking quite thin, tall and tan, accepted the Nobel Peace Prize Thursday, defending his ability to seek peace while fighting two wars abroad.

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

    While espousing the moral standard of nonviolence as practiced by 1964 Nobel laureate Martin Luther King, Jr., Mr. Bush described its limits.

    “But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone,” he said, speaking in the cavernous marble Oslo City Hall.

    “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,” he said. “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.”[/rquoter]
     
  6. Invisible Fan

    Invisible Fan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    43,239
    Likes Received:
    25,277
    If they're both similar but with different skin tones, why do you hate Obama but love Bush, Basso?
     
  7. basso

    basso Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    29,579
    Likes Received:
    6,293
    Bush was sincere.
     
  8. glynch

    glynch Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    17,781
    Likes Received:
    3,392
    Sadly Obama is too much like Bush when it comes to war, torture, secrecy in government and giving it all away to Wall Street. On the other hand you won't see him giving tax breaks to encourage gas guzzlers or feeling it is Christian to kill 45,000 Americans a year through denial of health care. He won't start stupid wars, just merely continue them.

    Not much audacity or hope, but Obama is definitely the lesser of two . I hesitate still to call Obama "evil".
     
  9. bingsha10

    bingsha10 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2006
    Messages:
    3,118
    Likes Received:
    308

    by the government not giving you something it has never given you, it is murdering you.

    you're a dumbass
     
    1 person likes this.
  10. FranchiseBlade

    FranchiseBlade Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    48,748
    Likes Received:
    17,391
    Actually, Obama is ending the Iraq war sooner rather than later, and has laid out the plans to end the war in Afghanistan. He hasn't ended them yet, but he is in the process of doing that.

    He has made huge mistakes regarding secrecy, but has a far better record regarding torture, and has ended it. The main problem with torture is that he won't pursue all the legal actions he should to prosecute those that tortured before him.
     
  11. Bandwagoner

    Bandwagoner Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Messages:
    26,727
    Likes Received:
    3,476

    No he is in the process of escalating the war. To say anything else is foolish.
     
  12. FranchiseBlade

    FranchiseBlade Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    48,748
    Likes Received:
    17,391
    No, unlike Bush he's set an actual end goal, and exit strategy as well as a time frame to do it.

    I also guess you are only referring to the Afghanistan war. Iraq is definitely coming to a close.
     
  13. Sweet Lou 4 2

    Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    37,715
    Likes Received:
    18,914
    Bush lied to America to get us into war.

    Obama admits he doesn't deserve Nobel Peace Prize.

    Hmmmmm, you sure about what you just wrote?
     
  14. basso

    basso Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    29,579
    Likes Received:
    6,293
    yes.

    and you lied in your post quoted.
     
  15. Sweet Lou 4 2

    Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    37,715
    Likes Received:
    18,914

    Did a liberal run over your cat or something?
     
  16. rhadamanthus

    rhadamanthus Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    14,304
    Likes Received:
    596
    Thanks for that post uolj. I'd rep if I could.
     
  17. Bandwagoner

    Bandwagoner Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Messages:
    26,727
    Likes Received:
    3,476
    Obama has nothing to do with Iraq so yes of course I am talking about the non- "Stupid war"

    But saying nice things about when you plan to leave while at the same time sending tens of thousands of troops in is not ending a war. If you think it is you are tard'ed.
     
  18. Northside Storm

    Northside Storm Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    11,262
    Likes Received:
    450
    I agree with you. I support the limited continuation of the war but you have to call a spade a spade. A "conditional withdrawal date" should not mask the fact that this represents a massive escalation. It's looking a bit like Nixon season out here.
     
  19. FranchiseBlade

    FranchiseBlade Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    48,748
    Likes Received:
    17,391
    I'm not pretending we aren't escalating at present. There isn't any question about that. However there is an end goal, and even an end date. That is new. I never had a problem with going into Afghanistan. I had a problem with neglecting it while we were in Iraq. I had a problem with not having any exit strategy which we now have.
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now