Comments on: A Graceless Nobel Speech

By: Thoughts on the Nobel Speech, Pundits | Penn Political Review

Thoughts on the Nobel Speech, Pundits | Penn Political Review — Sat, 11 Sep 2010 20:51:27 +0000

[...] which is what Nobel Laureates do in their speeches. So, in short, I’m really surprised by David Frum’s take: When Barack Obama got word of the prize in October, he said he would accept “as an [...]

By: Eunomia » Opposing The Iraq War To Preserve Interventionism

Eunomia » Opposing The Iraq War To Preserve Interventionism — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 02:34:33 +0000

[...] 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 [...]

By: La Doctrina Obama: el discurso de los premios Nobel « Sarah Palin en Español

Mon, 14 Dec 2009 00:52:46 +0000

[...] 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 [...]

By: SpartacusIsNotDead

SpartacusIsNotDead — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 00:30:27 +0000

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.

By: reason

reason — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 03:40:35 +0000

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?

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 15:40:29 +0000

MI-GOPer:

David Frum takes exception to a really bad speech by our Teleprompter Prez because –get this–it’s a really bad speech.

It wasn't the format, the wording, or the delivery, which bothered Frum. What bothered Frum was this:

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 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 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?

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 15:36:24 +0000

MI-GOPer:

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.

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.

By: ltoro1

ltoro1 — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 23:47:08 +0000

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.

By: oldleft

oldleft — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:09:19 +0000

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…

By: MI-GOPer

MI-GOPer — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:02:03 +0000

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.