The Nobel address was Obama at his worst or near-worst. Let’s count the ways.
Obama:
I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations – that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.
And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. 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.
But perhaps 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. 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. (Bolding added.)
First Obama tells us how humble he is. Then he tells us that he is bending history in the direction of justice – a phrase that associates himself with Martin Luther King. Charming.
But it gets worse. The slightness of Obama’s achievements is (the president says) only a partial and lesser reason for the controversy over the prize. The “most profound” reason that the award has been so disparaged is … George W. Bush! Yes, Obama’s prize is controversial because the country is fighting two wars, one of which it did not seek – but the other of which we apparently did seek. Or rather – that George W. Bush sought.
While the one war is an effort of self-defense , the other is … not.
While the one war mustered an international coalition deserving of respect, the other mustered an international coalition that is … not.
When Barack Obama got word of the prize in October, he said he would accept “as an affirmation of American leadership.” But in Oslo he did not speak as leader of all America, but as leader of a party – and as a party leader who cannot refrain from snide insituations against the motives – not only of his opposite-party predecessors – but of all who worked with them, including the leaders of many allied governments.
* * *
The Nobel address highlights President Obama’s inability to share credit with any identifiable human being – or to speak of his nation’s accomplishments in any but the most round-about and apologetic ways.
Listen to this:
The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty, self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.
“Of generations past?” Did those “generations” not contain any names? People – Americans! – who did brave things at risk and often at cost of their lives?
The memory of the crowd dismantling the wall is a lovely one. But the great events of November 1989 could only occur because of the successful defense of the Western world over half a century by the armed power of a military alliance headed by the United States. (NB – nor did the Cold War end in November 1989. It ended almost two years later, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union.)
Notice the abstractions and passive verbs: “commerce” “have been lifted.” Unless the sentence begins with an “I”, there are no antecedents, no doers, no causes.
* * *
The sentence I am about to quote may well have begun as an attempt to pay tribute to another:
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.
But on the way to the tribute, Obama managed to insert two references to himself in a sentence that found room for only one reference of King. And there are surely ways to praise Dr King without exalting yourself even higher. As is, it seems that King is a great man because he made Obama’s career possible. One wonders: surely there must have been at least one or two other beneficiaries of King’s work as well?
This tendency to present the person of Barack Obama as the magnificent culmination of history is growing into a bad habit. It was displayed at the United Nations in September, when the president opened his address with the most intense barrage of “I”s since the Iran-Iraq war.
* * *
A little before the midpoint of the speech, the president arrives at his tribute to the American soldier. It’s fine as far as it goes, but awfully minimal – and immediately followed by more barbs and more awkward silences.
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 president then proceeded from this praise of the US fighting soldier to a repudiation of that soldier’s most recently concluded fight: Iraq.
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.
The word “Iraq” does not appear in the address, yet again and again the president flails out against that war. That is his opinion and his policy. Fine. Elections have consequences, as the saying goes. But Oslo is a horribly inappropriate venue for such criticisms. If he wants to argue with other Americans, let him do it in America, not in the course of accepting an award from some non-Americans for joining with them in their criticism of other Americans.
It’s human nature to prefer compliments to criticism, flattery to dissent. In that respect, Barack Obama is a very human man. But here he has gone too far: He has allowed an international organization to exploit his weakness to drive a wedge between this president and half his country – the half, ironically, whose support he most needs to sustain his ongoing foreign policy.
* * *
Toward the end of his address, the president acknowledged a previously unspoken cause for the questions about his award: his weak record on democracy and human rights.
He offered this self-defense:
And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear to these [democratic] movements that hope and history are on their side
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.
“Painstaking diplomacy”? Obama gives himself too much credit. There are a range of adjectives to describe his approach to Iran, from naive to bungled to (most generously) unsuccessful. But a diplomacy based on disregard of all adverse information can hardly be described as “painstaking.”
How about this rewrite of the president’s sentence: “The promotion of human rights cannot be only about pathetic appeals to the tyrant’s supposed reasonable interests. At times it must be coupled with effective sanctions and forceful statements.” Reads different, yes?
* * *
This should in itself knock the president’s approval rating among U.S. Jews below 50%:
We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden.
There’s something about this remark that reminds me of the line, no doubt apocryphal, attributed to a Nazi commandant as the Second World War drew to a close: “It’s time for us Germans and you Jews to bury the hatchet.”
And could somebody please note that the Iranian mullahs building nuclear weapons with the avowed intent of incinerating the Jewish state are not Arabs?
71 responses so far
1 bdespain // Dec 10, 2009 at 11:26 am
David I think you are being overly harsh here. And indeed the Iraq war was a war of choice. I am sorry you cannot accept that. I was wondering. South Africa the only example you can think of where sanctions have worked? They have failed miserably in Cuba.
2 MI-GOPer // Dec 10, 2009 at 11:30 am
David, at least Obama Messiah didn’t dig the ditch any deeper with his speech. For that, I’m grateful.
He could have begun by praising our enemies for their “determined action for social justice in the light of western capitalist oppression” that has “impoverished billions in the 3rd world”. He could have returned to his muslim roots and decried what he thinks was a racially motivated War on Terror.
He could have spoken about the brave leadership at the Nobel to give this award to the world’s first US leader to break the bonds of 17th C slavery on the citizens of the world. He could have tied his celebrity to mark the occasion of the 1st time that the world should feel good about America.
He could have noted that America is still a coward when it comes to racism and share a beer with everyone there so he could have Beer Summit to End Racism Part Deux. I’m sure there’s enough onboard Air Force 1 to take care of the partiers… even if it is a foreign brand.
He could have taken the time to say that far Left groups like Nobel need to stick together in light of the recent scandal involving far Left global warmerists fake science and redouble efforts to bankrupt the world, while redistributing US incomes abroad. It could have been a moment to rally the Left and urge a complete forgiveness of all 3rd World debt.
Obama could have done a lot worse, David. That he did about as badly as he could, doesn’t diminish the simple fact that it could have been worse. Let’s take little successes, even it was unintended.
Speech writers of your or even Dame Peggy’s level couldn’t put this Humpty-Dumpty Prez back together again. I say it’s time to fire up the stove and make some scrambled eggs with Obama and the democrats. It’s the only thing that might be marginally worthwhile from all the waste of his time in Europe.
And what’s it say when our prez is more welcome in the far Left salons of Europe than on Main Street USA? Gheesh, how low America sank from the days of Geo W Bush.
3 MI-GOPer // Dec 10, 2009 at 11:36 am
bde-spain offers: “They (sanctions) have failed miserably in Cuba”.
Really? Because I thought Cuba would be an excellent example of how America-only sanctions can cripple a nation to the point where aging buildings, built with Russian capital, can’t replace their gapping windowless facades. A country where the only cars running are those last imported in 1961. A country where the failing leader has to import doctors to save his miserable life and then appoint his brother to suceed him for fear of being off’ed in a coup? A country where foreign investment over the life of sanctions hasn’t, in totality, reached the level of investment documented in the last two years before sanctions?
Yep, those Cuban sanctions have been a failure. Obama’s actions on that score rival his mentor’s, JimmineyCricketCarter, give away of the Panama Canal.
Read Pravda much, bde-spain?
4 RioRancho // Dec 10, 2009 at 11:41 am
Explicit praise in the speech for two Republicans presidents – why didn’t you mention that?
“In light of the Cultural Revolution’s horrors, Nixon’s meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable — and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty and connected to open societies. Pope John Paul’s engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan’s efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There’s no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.”
5 balconesfault // Dec 10, 2009 at 11:51 am
“In light of the Cultural Revolution’s horrors, Nixon’s meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable — and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty and connected to open societies.
Well, using Frums decoder ring he cited above, wouldn’t that also come out :
“The promotion of human rights cannot be only about pathetic appeals to the tyrant’s supposed reasonable interests.”
6 ottovbvs // Dec 10, 2009 at 12:03 pm
“Then he tells us that he is bending history in the direction of justice – a phrase that associates himself with Martin Luther King. Charming.”
…….Frum is reverting to type and showing distinct signs of Bush neocon speechwriters paranoia with this one…….the frustrated housewives stuff suggests that under the large urbane sophisticate lurks a rather small and bitter man…..oddly disappointing
7 MI-GOPer // Dec 10, 2009 at 12:03 pm
You gotta love the far Left concept of Obama praising the GOP!
Nixon’s meeting with Mao –while Nixon avoided domestic pressures at home– “appear(s) inexcusable” to the Great Left Hope. Reagan’s “effort on arms control” empowered dissents –which allows the Great Left Hope to avoid the truth again… Reagan’s real contribution on Soviet affairs wasn’t arms control, it was the threat of Star Wars and crippling the Russian economy to the point that it had to skeeter back to Moscow in shame and disgrace.
But, hey, in the minds of Obama and our FF Village Idiots, that’s fair “praise” indeed for GOP presidents. Gotta love those decoder rings on the far Left.
8 MI-GOPer // Dec 10, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Martin Luther King was a modest man with an insaitable appetite for ego-centrist moments. Obama is proving to be an opportunitistic ego-centric with a penchant for parasite-like attachment to men who were actually important.
Just like when Democrat prez wanna2B John Edwards tried to wrap himself in the wheelchair and plight of disabled actor and democrat activist Chris Reeve when speaking about stem cell research, Obama is willing to wrap himself up in any greater man in order to make his sinking stock appear attractive once again.
The self-serving nature of Obama is pathetic.
9 RioRancho // Dec 10, 2009 at 12:12 pm
otto:
“Compared to some of the giants of history who’ve received this prize — Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela — my accomplishments are slight.”
Raving egomanic if I’ve ever seen one.
10 MI-GOPer // Dec 10, 2009 at 12:27 pm
RioRancho-BarryS-BlankHead-MrFace et al, even bad speech writers toss in the self-deprecating, humility fest comments. It’s expected at these far Left events intended to improve the ideology’s failing brand.
Plus, Obama knows what America thinks about getting the Nobel. More than 2/3rds of Americans don’t think he deserved it. A majority of Democrats don’t think his actions warrant it. The only ones who do are the far Left who thought he’d be getting it for cutting & running from Iraq… and even that doesn’t look likely.
Glad to see you come out and reclaim your share of the TrollTribe’s manufactured characters… and as a member of the far Left, I’m sure you think Obama deserved it. You’re one of the few inside the US.
11 ottovbvs // Dec 10, 2009 at 12:28 pm
RioRancho // Dec 10, 2009 at 12:12 pm
” Raving egomanic if I’ve ever seen one.’
……….Totally out of control, as the usual suspect has already taken about 14 column inches and untold quantities of spittle to explain………….does he wear foul weather gear when typing, do you think?
12 ottovbvs // Dec 10, 2009 at 12:29 pm
ottovbvs // Dec 10, 2009 at 12:28 pm
” the usual suspect has already taken about 14 column inches”
……Correction: make that 16 inches
13 txanne // Dec 10, 2009 at 1:25 pm
David, perhaps you should listen to your own advice and read the speech again. Just like your initial reaction to his Afghanistan speech at West Point, you have once again got it totally wrong.
14 pnwguy // Dec 10, 2009 at 1:26 pm
David:
You lost me on this one. At least one other reasoned (i.e. not-partisan warfare) conservative looked favorably on it as an eloquent delivery of something the President certainly didn’t seek out (the Nobel itself).
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/obamas-nobel-speech
15 bdespain // Dec 10, 2009 at 1:33 pm
MI Goper – You sure are an ass. So sanctions have effectively change the regime in Cuba? So sanctions have taken Castro out of power? Nope. Not after 45 years have they been effective in changing the Cuban government.
16 ottovbvs // Dec 10, 2009 at 1:35 pm
pnwguy // Dec 10, 2009 at 1:26 pm
…….As Douhat remarked:
“He didn’t give the address that American neoconservatives would have written for him, obviously”
……Hence David’s pique……..but I was rather surprised at his immature tone since he considers himself one of the pillars of the moderate right……it really is an exceptionally petty set of sentiments that could just as easily have been uttered by Limbaugh, Inhofe, Bachmann or any other usual suspects
17 bdespain // Dec 10, 2009 at 1:36 pm
The point in sanctions is to change the behaviour or change the government in the sanctioned target. Clearly they have been effective in hurting the economy of Cuban. Have they been effective in the stated policy goal of changing the Cuban Government?
18 MI-GOPer // Dec 10, 2009 at 2:12 pm
bdespain complains “MI Goper – You sure are an ass”. Now be careful, there. C-pansie says he doesn’t read any comments that begin with gratuitous snipes.
I can see why you think that, though. Like many of the far Left democrat activists who comment on this blog, you probably aren’t use to having common folk question your elitist, far Left pronouncements. And when a Joe Wilson stands up and says to you, as I did above, “You Lie”… well, that’s going beyond the pale to you and your ilk.
Sanctions have worked in Cuba, my Pravda reading friend. Eisenhower didn’t engage sanctions in the summer of 61 because he wanted to topple Castro –he had other plans for that task. He imposed sanctions, and Kennedy and all presidents up-to JimmineyCricketCarter kept them, because Cuba stole billions in US assets. Simple enough math for even a guy like you to grasp, no bdespain?
I know the far Left loves it’s Wikie citations so here’s one for you: “The United States Embargo against Cuba (described in Cuba as el bloqueo, Spanish for “the blockade”) is a commercial, economic, and financial embargo partially imposed on Cuba in October 1960. It was enacted after Cuba expropriated the properties of United States citizens and corporations and it was strengthened to a near-total embargo in February 1962″.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba
My uncle was the political officer at the US Embassy just before the embargo. He was stopped on the way to the airport and pistol whipped by a group of uniformed, Castro revolutionary guard thugs. 4 fractures of the head, lost his spleen, crippled for life. You may think, sitting behind your keyboard, that sanctions didn’t work in Cuba… but you’d be wrong on so many counts, it’d put you in line with vying for AutomaticBS’er’s claim as the Village Idiot.
No one wants that, right? There’s nothing wrong with holding an uninformed opinion –you’re just one of many TrollTribe activists on this blog who make it a claim for fame.
19 rbottoms // Dec 10, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Republicans sure are jerks.
20 MI-GOPer // Dec 10, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Mr Obama would have been better served distancing himself from this award he didn’t earn and didn’t warrant from the far Left international community.
The tribute only serves to underscore he didn’t deserve it, he didn’t earn it –just like he doesn’t deserve to be President… even with all the vote fraud.
21 MI-GOPer // Dec 10, 2009 at 2:20 pm
rbottoms, trolls sure are jerks too but that has never stopped you from commenting at blogs dedicated to the rebuilding of the conservative movement and returning the GOP to majority status.
Hey, have you gotten banned, booted and bounced from anymore GOP blogs lately? You had quite a streak running there for a while. Phew, like 7 or 8 in a month?
22 MI-GOPer // Dec 10, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Why does the far Left find it so necessary to defend Obama’s indefensible acceptance of an award he didn’t earn, didn’t deserve and freely admits same?
What’s the message sent to all those young people in society being told to work hard, work smart and you’ll be rewarded one day? Obama’s acceptance of this non-prize says “Celebrity pays, baby”.
What a thuggish rapster value to teach our youth.
23 JJWFromME // Dec 10, 2009 at 2:42 pm
“While the one war mustered an international coalition deserving of respect, the other mustered an international coalition that is … not.”
You mean what was referred to as “the coalition of the bribed?” I’m not saying that those allies didn’t deserve respect, but it was pretty much the US, the UK, and a fig leaf of other participants, mostly from “New Europe” (to use Rumsfeld’s phrase)–nations that wanted to nestle up to the last remaining superpower for various, shall we say, self-interested reasons.
Or, as George Bush complained to John Kerry, “you forgot Poland!”
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-october-5-2004/mess-o-potamia—you-forgot-poland
24 sinz54 // Dec 10, 2009 at 2:44 pm
David Frum:
I believe you’re being overly harsh here.
When receiving a Nobel Peace Prize, it would be inappropriate to recall American triumphalism. In fact, I remember that when the USSR collapsed, Bush 41 said explicitly that “I don’t want to plant the American flag on the Kremlin”–meaning that we didn’t want to rub Russia’s nose in her defeat.
As for Iraq: The Iraq War really was a war of choice. It was a war fought for theories and intelligence estimates, not because we had been attacked from there. Conservative that I am, I cannot defend all the decisions that were made there myself–so why should we expect Obama to do so?
I keep coming back to the statements and speeches Eisenhower made about Korea. He always explained the need to prevail–but he didn’t exactly congratulate Truman on how he had chosen to fight it. Ditto for Nixon on Vietnam. Nixon was never supportive of LBJ’s war policy. He just tried to get beyond it.
25 sinz54 // Dec 10, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Here’s one well-known conservative who is supportive of Obama’s speech AND his war policy:
26 ltoro1 // Dec 10, 2009 at 4:32 pm
I’m not surprised Obama showed a lack of grace and I would argue that every war is a war of choice. I know this violates my typical gripe about blanket statements with few supporting details, but hopefully everyone will forgive me.
27 CentristNYer // Dec 10, 2009 at 4:40 pm
There seems to be an excess of nitpicking here, David, that isn’t becoming. When Newt Gingrich can provide a more reasonable and fair critique of Obama’s speech, I think something is wrong.
28 ottovbvs // Dec 10, 2009 at 4:47 pm
I would argue that every war is a war of choice.
……in a narrow sense maybe …..but the French in 1914 or the Poles in 1939 didn’t have much choice did they……although Iraq and Afghanistan both certainly were
29 bdespain // Dec 10, 2009 at 6:06 pm
MI -Goper. So tell me when were elections held in Cuba? That’s right they haven’t been. I merely pointing out that sanctions alone don’t change governments. The point of the sanctions at this point is to change the Cuban government. In that regard they have completely failed. If the Cuban government returned the property would sanctions end? Of course not. The purpose of the sanction have shifted.
Why do you feel the need to vent so much venom? I hate to break this to you but the far left doesn’t post on the Frum Forum. I realize that you are doing a poor Rush imitation but that doesn’t work in a forum. You are convincing no one but your own ego. Anonymous posting does that.
30 jruss89 // Dec 10, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Mr. Frum, I must say that with this post, my confidence in you to regard situations and speeches rationally and objectively has greatly diminished. I can understand a healthy scepticism of the president, and even a dislike of major points, but the degree into which you read into his statement is, in my opinion, overly paranoid and unnecessarily critical.
“First Obama tells us how humble he is. Then he tells us that he is bending history in the direction of justice – a phrase that associates himself with Martin Luther King. Charming.”
- There was no suggestion that Obama was considering himself equal to or greater than Dr. King. He was merely say that as a result of Dr. King’s triumphs over racism and inequality, he had the opportunity to fully participate in American culture and eventually become president of the United States. Since you were associated with the Bush Administration, then why don’t you go ask General Powell and Secretary Rice whether they could have attained their positions of prominence had Dr. King not helped eliminate much of the structural racism in American culture. Under your logic, if I were to say that “because of Descartes’ Meditations, and my having read it, I am now able to consider this world from a purely rationalist point of view” I am considering myself Descartes’ equal. (Hint: it’s not the case) This is a cause and effect relation, because of Descartes’s actions, I can know how to reason from a purely rationalist point of view; because of Dr. King’s actions, Obama can become elected president of the United States.
“One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek”
- For clarification, the former is Iraq and the latter is Afghanistan. Notice that instead of saying something like “one of these wars, which was stupid, misguided, and wasteful, is winding down…” he just said that it was winding down. His quote is a statement of fact without offering any judgement, whereas what I propose could reasonably considered a swipe at President Bush. I do not think that your fear of him using this to criticize President Bush is anything but paranoia–a blatant paranoia that needs to dissolved if conservatism is to have any credibility in the future.
“Notice the abstractions and passive verbs: “commerce” “have been lifted.” Unless the sentence begins with an “I”, there are no antecedents, no doers, no causes.”
-And unless the sentence begins with “America is great”, it has no value. That’s the same unreasonable standard you’re applying. Imagine how crass it would have been for Mr. Obama to outright say that America drove post-war growth (which was true at least insofar as the Marshall Plan worked–arguing into the ’60s and ’70s would require more analysis, but let’s just take it as fact for now).
That’s all I feel like writing for now; take it as you will.
31 MI-GOPer // Dec 10, 2009 at 6:38 pm
bde-spain, move the goalposts all you want with this non sequitur: “MI -Goper. So tell me when were elections held in Cuba?”
Elections weren’t the purpose in the original sanctions that Eisenhower established and most presidents, up to Jimmy-Give-Up-the-Canal-Carter, enforced… even though Kennedy waited ’til he had his stockpile of Cuban Petit Upmanns delivered by a WH staffer. We already covered the reasons for the sanctions; that you can’t or won’t agree doesn’t mean reality doesn’t properly exist here.
The sanctions were for Cuba’s unilateral seizure of American assets and investments… hundreds of billions stolen. When Bush 41 became special envoy to China, he wouldn’t step foot in China until that country had settled its debts for the seizure of American assets by the Kung Tsiang Tang and Mao Tse-tung. It’s a big, big deal, bde-spain, except when Democrats get into power and the key strategy becomes “Let’s Just Hug” or, as Obama spins it now: “BigHugsHeal”.
Move the goalposts, flip reality… it’s the sole province of the Trolls around here. But never try advancing the nonsense that Cuban sanctions didn’t work… because they did and there are a hundred ways to Havana to prove you fundamentally wrong. Absent reading Pravda op-ed pieces; put down the HuffPo and grasp a little reality for once. OK?
As for this equally nonsensical blather: “I hate to break this to you but the far left doesn’t post on the Frum Forum” -well, that is so laughable that even Balconesfault, automaticBS’er and PracticalGrrrrl are wincing in shame. Yeah, the far Left posts here –in fact, up til a few weeks ago, they were about the only ones who posted here. In fact, it was the far Left democrat activists that invented a dozen or more manufactured characters in order to appear that, after posting supportive comments in multiple names, the dynamic of the conversation agreed with their far Left views.
As in:
Balconesfault: “I think that’s very true, otto.”
Otto: “Yes, but not only that it’s that republicans are killing their future with Palin”
Mr Face: “This is exactly right; the GOP will never grow until it cuts off the fundamentalists”
Moderate: “Republicans can’t because they need wingnuts for phone banks”
HardlyConservative: “I wonder if David Frum realizes no one agrees with him”
BarryS: “It’s because he’s a birther”
Balconesfault: “I think that’s true, David is a birther but he can’t say that for fear of alienating people”
…and on and on and on it goes in some threads. Always the same thoughts echo chambered by manufactured characters for the purpose of appearing to be dominant.
Your role has been one of an enabler. That’s ok. But I still wonder what you’re doing on a blog dedicated to rebuilding the conservative movement and returning the GOP to a majority party status? Sport? Fun? Balconesfault, rbottoms and other TrollTribe members have offered those reasons for being here.
32 Moderate // Dec 10, 2009 at 6:39 pm
This analysis is David Frum at his worst. Petty, insecure, undiplomatic. Obama went out of his way to downplay his own achievements – yet he’s an “egomaniac”? He’s the opposite of an egomaniac!
Obama gave credit to Republican predecessors, yet Mr. Frum seems upset that he didn’t give praise to George W. Bush. The temerity! Ignoring that Obama’s election and the Democratic victories of 2006-2008 were repudiations of Bush’s unwise foreign policy, surely Mr. Frum realizes that the entire reason for Obama’s Nobel Prize is that he has consistently condemned the Iraq War.
Sour grapes from Mr. Frum.
33 MI-GOPer // Dec 10, 2009 at 6:41 pm
and bde-spain, while you’re deep in thought of how to spin away from reality, let’s look at this line of yours
“Why do you feel the need to vent so much venom?”
and contrast/compare with an earlier line of yours
“MI Goper – You sure are an ass.” That’s a healthy dose of hypocrisy even for snake-tongued guy like you.
34 MI-GOPer // Dec 10, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Ahh, someone brought back Moderate for some light-hearted and quick to dismiss reading!
Glad to see you got the Code 5 Alert at the DemocratUnderground and keyed in the exact talking points of the TrollTribe.
Really guys, can’t you be a little more original. Now you aren’t even changing the talking points of the day; just spitting ‘em out like a robot.
35 Moderate // Dec 10, 2009 at 6:45 pm
MI-GOPer,
Oh no, my ruse has been discovered! Time to send the hammer-and-sickle distress signal to my comrades.
36 ottovbvs // Dec 10, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Moderate // Dec 10, 2009 at 6:39 pm
“Sour grapes from Mr. Frum”
I’m afraid Frum, and the totally deranged like gopher are eating their hearts out….and it’s showing……President Barack Obama: Nobel Laureate along with other notable Americans like Theodore Roosevelt, George C. Marshall, Martin Luther King, James Carter…….if the term graceless could be applied to anyone today it’s Frum, gopher and co….pretty sad really
37 bdespain // Dec 10, 2009 at 6:55 pm
MI-GOPer – I was responding to your attacks on me. I started this thread by commenting that sanctions alone have proven ineffective in numerous cases. You felt it necessary to through this little tidbit my way.
“Read Pravda much, bde-spain?”
Look if you are gonna through insults around don’t be surprised when someone pushes back. Look at your latest post.
“even for snake-tongued guy like you.”
I just joined this forum. You don’t know me from Adam. The reason I joined this forum because I like David’s ideas. I am interested in conservative solutions to improving government and reducing the size of government. I am interested in market driven solutions to health care. I was a Romney supporter during the primaries. If you think your approach to engaging people is going to help re-build the party and return us to majority status, you are wrong.
38 MR FACE // Dec 10, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Mi-Gopher
Mr Face: “This is exactly right; the GOP will never grow until it cuts off the fundamentalists”
I have never typed that. You lie.
39 MR FACE // Dec 10, 2009 at 7:59 pm
bdespain-
Just ignore Mi-Gopher. He’s not worth responding to. It is pointless. He lives in an alternate wingnut reality.
40 gmckee1985 // Dec 10, 2009 at 9:39 pm
It was a decent speech. Definately not an award he deserved though.
41 Chekote // Dec 10, 2009 at 9:47 pm
I liked the speech. Especially, the following passage:
Bravo Mr. President.
42 The Obama Doctrine:What we heard articul… « Legislative Aid // Dec 10, 2009 at 10:02 pm
[...] David Frum: When Barack Obama got word of the prize in October, he said he would accept “as an affirmation of American leadership.” But in Oslo he did not speak as leader of all America, but as leader of a party – and as a party leader who cannot refrain from snide insituations against the motives – not only of his opposite-party predecessors – but of all who worked with them, including the leaders of many allied governments. [...]
43 anniemargret // Dec 10, 2009 at 10:33 pm
chekote: I thought Obama’s speech was both eloquent and pragmatic in the face of what lies ahead. I think Frum is being childish and unfair in his criticism calling it ‘graceless.’
I think you deserve a bravo, too, for yours and sinz’s fair assessment despite your political leanings .
Bravo.
44 Socrates // Dec 10, 2009 at 11:27 pm
graceless, indeed, is Frum’s comment!
45 JJWFromME // Dec 10, 2009 at 11:41 pm
From Mr. Frum’s post: “If he wants to argue with other Americans, let him do it in America, not in the course of accepting an award from some non-Americans for joining with them in their criticism of other Americans.”
Actually, it’s very smart diplomacy for an American leader to call attention to his dissent against a disastrous, internationally unpopular elective war that caused a 100,000+ deaths, according to the most conservative estimates.
It’s a way of saying “don’t worry, the old America is back.” It gives a sense of proportion, a sense of just how anomalous that war was. It renormalizes American foreign relations. It relights the beacon and says we’re the good guys.
Remember, Barak Obama ran for president on as an antiwar candidate (anti-Iraq War anyway), it’s kind of his calling card, his mandate from the people who put him in the White House.
Elections have consequences. Thank God for that.
46 Turnabout is Fair Play - Conor Friedersdorf - Metablog - True/Slant // Dec 11, 2009 at 6:50 am
[...] here is David Frum reacting to that part of the speech: The word “Iraq” does not appear in the address, yet again and again [...]
47 Toddtheconservative // Dec 11, 2009 at 7:08 am
I think we all should be proud of the speech,our president and our country. This link says it all and I agree with it 100% because it is well said:
http://americaspeaksink.com/2009/12/obama-prince-of-peace/
48 athensboy // Dec 11, 2009 at 7:09 am
With all due respect Mr. Frum I heard a totally different speech than what you heard. I heard humility and strength, not the fantasy interpetation bouncing around your head. Go back and listen to it again and give a unbiased account, not a Rush Limbaugh account. Good day sir!
49 MI-GOPer // Dec 11, 2009 at 7:43 am
David, it turns out for the far Left, democrat activists here –yes, Susan-the-Avoider, there are far Left democrats who post on FrumForum– agree mostly with the Company Line (aka DailyKos-sack talking point), namely:
A DailyKos-sack writes for all Kos-sacks: “…here are my summaries, in no particular order, of some of the most serious philosophical criticisms (such as they are) from the right, as found on memeorandum, leaving aside the usual juvenile sniping and name calling (which as you might expect makes up most of it)”.
Mi-GOPer editor’s note: are these the same people who called Bush “Chimpy” as few months ago? Called McCain “McChimpy”? Called patriots “chicken hawks”? Called Rove “Hitler”? Called Cheney “Voldemort”? Yeah, well maybe we should label them hypocrites extreme.
My Kos-sack friend continues: “David Frum: Bush was Good, Republicans are Good, the Iraq War was Good, and Ronald Reagan was Good, and failing to sufficiently glorify their achievements or (God forbid) criticizing them, makes Obama Bad. It’s unbearably gauche for the first African-American president to imply in any way that he, personally, as an African-American, embodies any of the successes that have flowed from Martin Luther King, Jr.’s lifelong struggle for civil rights. No amount of praise for Our Glorious Military is sufficient, especially if your name is Barack Obama, and especially if you don’t mention that they won the war in Iraq. A good ten months into his presidency, he still hasn’t given up on diplomacy with Iran and nuked them yet. Stating any kind of equivalence between Arabs and Jews in the Middle East conflict is reminiscent of something a Nazi once said.”
Now there’s the trifecta of the far Left trolls: 1) get Frum on being a racist, 2) get Frum on arab-bashing, 3) get Frum on overt militaristic jingoism. Wow, the DailyKos and our TrollTribe pals at FrumForum sure know how to invent stuff when reality falls short of expectation.
Meanwhile, on the farLeft, former professor Zbigniew Brzezinski thought Obama gave a wonderful speech before the Nobel Committee of international Left Groupies… there’s a guy who should be sued by America for foreign policy malfeasance.
Yep, David Frum, according to the farLeft at DailyKos and with the TrollTribe here, got the Obama Nobel Speech all wrong. Who’d have figured that would be their Company Line “spontaneous” reactions, eh?
50 Sarah Palin Hits ‘Em Where It Hurts | Right Wing News // Dec 11, 2009 at 8:27 am
[...] homeland safe, his passion for respecting – honoring our troops."Well, then. If Sarah approves….David Frum must disapprove:When Barack Obama got word of the prize in October, he said he would accept “as an affirmation of [...]
51 Sarah Palin Hits ‘Em Where It Hurts « Blog Entry « Dr. Melissa Clouthier // Dec 11, 2009 at 8:33 am
[...] then. If Sarah approves….David Frum must disapprove: When Barack Obama got word of the prize in October, he said he would accept “as an affirmation [...]
52 sinz54 // Dec 11, 2009 at 9:55 am
JJWfromME:
Where was that in his speech?
All I heard was that he didn’t endorse the Iraq War, which is not quite the same thing.
53 sinz54 // Dec 11, 2009 at 9:58 am
Moderate:
Yes, and that is what rankles Frum and all those other conservatives here in America who remain proud of Bush for going to war in Iraq and for the toppling of Saddam by U.S. military force. Obama is being rewarded by the world for sticking it to Bush.
And don’t call him Shirley.
54 sinz54 // Dec 11, 2009 at 10:08 am
David Frum:
So far, Obama has given no indication that he “needs” Republicans or conservatives for anything.
It will be fun to watch Obama trying to convince his own left-wing “netroots” supporters that they should support his Afghan war policy.
55 MI-GOPer // Dec 11, 2009 at 10:34 am
Sinz54 pings back another of Moderate’s false claim: “(Moderate) Surely Mr. Frum realizes that the entire reason for Obama’s Nobel Prize is that he has consistently condemned the Iraq War. Sinz54: Yes, and that is what rankles Frum and all those other conservatives here in America who remain proud of Bush for going to war in Iraq and for the toppling of Saddam by U.S. military force. Obama is being rewarded by the world for sticking it to Bush.”
Except, my ping happy echo chambered pals, isn’t true.
The Nobel Committee picked The Great Left Hope because of his “… extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.” -Nobel Committee 09 Oct 09.
Can you guys at least embrace reality once in a thread?? Just once would be dandy.
The unearned and undeserved award had nothing to do with Obama opposing the War in Iraq.
It had nothing to do with helping push Obama toward unilateral disarmament in Afghanistan.
It had nothing to do with Obama as the 1st Black President of the USA.
It had nothing to do with Obama once being a muslim.
Gheesh –and sinz54 used to be considered the “conservative” commenter on this site? Compared to some of the TrollTribe, sure. But I think Joy Behar would be conservative compared to some of the TrollTribe here.
Can we just embrace a little truth and reality for once in the comments sections?
56 sinz54 // Dec 11, 2009 at 11:21 am
MI-GOPer:
Then why is Frum so upset with the speech?
Frum didn’t say that Obama was wrong to advocate “international diplomacy and communication between peoples.”
57 0bama Nobel acceptance speech: Mixed reviews « Spin, strangeness, and charm // Dec 11, 2009 at 11:47 am
[...] Update: Vaclav Havel is not impressed. Neither is wannabe-moderate David Frum. [...]
58 MI-GOPer // Dec 11, 2009 at 12:18 pm
sinz54 inquires: “Then why is Frum so upset with the speech?”
Move goalposts, much sinz54? You were the guy bouncing like a blue racquetball inside the TrollTribe’s echo chamber with agreement over Moderate/MrFace/BlankHead/HardlyCon et al statement that Frum was mad because they gave Obama the award for standing up against the War in Iraq.
I called “bullsh!t” on you and your new found pals in all those manufactured trolls that carry many names but only one author… you were wrong. Obama didn’t get the award for fighting for peace in Iraq or any other of the usual reasons pegged to his prize by self-serving chatterers.
You should have begun with “Sorry, I was wrong”.
David Frum takes exception to a really bad speech by our Teleprompter Prez because –get this–it’s a really bad speech. Frum notes why above; that you can’t remember or read isn’t my problem.
Your echo chambered agreement that Obama got it because he fought against the Iraq War and that made the Nobel Committee gleeful with 1960s era peace-nik tie dye wonderlust wasn’t true. Sometimes you but into the TrollTribe’s fancy fantasy faster than Obama can text on his taxpayer provided Blackberry.
59 MI-GOPer // Dec 11, 2009 at 12:19 pm
make that “sometimes you buy into the TrollTribe…”
60 garlic // Dec 11, 2009 at 12:28 pm
why did he get the prize, MI-GOPer?
61 MI-GOPer // Dec 11, 2009 at 12:43 pm
garlic, you seem to have caught the OttoBS’er Syndrome… you suspend thinking at the first novel idea to cross your inflexible democrat mind.
You ask “why did he get the prize”?
Read #55. Glad the TrollTribe brought you back… your name hasn’t been used here much lately.
62 garlic // Dec 11, 2009 at 12:50 pm
I apologize — I skim many of your comments to skip the insults.
63 MI-GOPer // Dec 11, 2009 at 1:02 pm
I think it’s more like you are another party writing under another name in yet a different thread… but you go with whatever lie let’s you sleep at night, garlic.
64 oldleft // Dec 11, 2009 at 2:09 pm
to JJWFromME re the Coalition in Iraq
It’s a media cliche about the coalition of the bought or bribed – but it was always ignorant nonsense. As is the idea that it was mostly “new europe”
As well as Britain, you had Spain, Italy, Netherlands, Denmark – none of which are “new” in any sense and all of which put significant numbers on the ground. Plus Australia, Korea, even Japan.
Yes France, Germany and Russia weren’t in, and indeed opposed the war (unsurprising given their financial ties to the Sadddam regime) but they are not older nor more significant than Britain, Spain, Italy etc! Very strange this snobbery that mocks Poland and the New European states — and that ignores all of old europe except France and Germany…
65 ltoro1 // Dec 11, 2009 at 6:47 pm
ottovbvs , thanks for the good examples to counter my premise. I was thinking more in terms of Afghanistan, but as you pointed out there are choices and then there are choices.
66 sinz54 // Dec 12, 2009 at 10:36 am
MI-GOPer:
Have you looked at just who is on that Nobel Committee?
They had to come up with a cover story to rationalize awarding the prize to Obama. But it’s clear from WHO THEY ARE, what they really cared about.
67 sinz54 // Dec 12, 2009 at 10:40 am
MI-GOPer:
It wasn’t the format, the wording, or the delivery, which bothered Frum.
What bothered Frum was this:
It’s pretty clear to me that Frum was bothered by Obama’s steadfast refusal to defend the Iraq War to this audience–or, failing that, to just say nothing that might imply a condemnation of that war.
Why isn’t that clear to you?
68 reason // Dec 12, 2009 at 10:40 pm
It seems to me that Mr. Frum is guilty of the very thing he is accusing Obama. His problem is that Obama disparaged his beloved Iraq war. Although, the president never once directly criticized the Iraq war, every omission, and every possible allusion (even if only implicit) of Iraq stung sharply like a slap in the face. He’s taking it rather personally so much that he misrepresents the president’s speech.
The president actually did mention names like FDR, Marshall, Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon. He referred to our military underwriting the security of the world, the soldiers who stand their ground when outnumbered by the enemy, etc..
But what Frum actually heard most loudly was the omission of and perceived implicit slights at the Iraq war. His beloved. Self-centered much?
69 SpartacusIsNotDead // Dec 13, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Sinz wrote: “Obama is being rewarded by the world for sticking it to Bush.”
This is true, but why are so many on this site critical of this? After all, the rest of the world is doing nothing more than follow in the footsteps of the American electorate. At the end of the day, it’s simply a universal condemnation of the Bush presidency.
70 La Doctrina Obama: el discurso de los premios Nobel « Sarah Palin en Español // Dec 13, 2009 at 7:52 pm
[...] curiosidad, el conservador y partidario de Bush hasta el absurdo David Frum, y que además considera a Palin como una ignorante peligrosa, piensa que el discurso de Obama [...]
71 Eunomia » Opposing The Iraq War To Preserve Interventionism // Feb 5, 2010 at 9:34 pm
[...] It’s human nature to prefer compliments to criticism, flattery to dissent. In that respect, Barack Obama is a very human man. But here he has gone too far: He has allowed an international organization to exploit his weakness to drive a wedge between this president and half his country – the half, ironically, whose support he most needs to sustain his ongoing foreign policy. ~David Frum [...]
You must log in to post a comment.