Obama’s Nobel speech: This was a good one
I didn’t have time until last night to read President Obama’s speech accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. I have been critical of the Nobel committee’s decision, but let’s give credit where credit is due: The speech was one that Americans ought to be proud of.
There was appropriate humility, acknowledgment that “compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize…my accomplishments are slight.” He nodded to more obscure seekers of peace and justice in repressive regimes around the world, and said “I cannot argue with those who find these men and women…to be far more deserving of this honor than I.”
For once, Obama did not speak as a president burdened with atoning for decades, centuries of American sins. He spoke forthrightly about how “America led the world” in building the post-World War II peace, “a legacy for which [America] is rightfully proud.”
He had nuance in the right places and spoke plainly in the right places. That goes double for his words about facing “the world as it is” — a world where “evil does exist,” and where sometimes “the use of force [is] not only necessary but morally justified.”
He spoke about these things not gleefully, as some people imagine American neo-cons, but matter of factly. He called attention to our correct uses of force and referred only obliquely (and rather neutrally) to the Iraq war for which he has pilloried his predecessor so often. The examples he gave of leaders who had helped to open up repressive regimes were decidedly conservative: Nixon, Pope John Paul II and Reagan. And in discussing the threats that Iran and North Korea pose, he warned: “Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.”
It was not a speech that will have had European leaders sitting comfortably throughout. For Americans, it was an instance, rare in recent years, of politics stopping at the water’s edge.
As a sort of test of my reaction, I imagined the speech in George Bush’s voice — not out of some pro-Bush or anti-Obama fetish, but because I thought I saw in it concepts that have remained constant across presidencies. And you know what? This was a speech, unlike so many others, that works in the voice of Obama, Bush and many of their predecessors.
As further testimony to that notion, Peter Feaver writes at Foreign Policy magazine’s Web site that this was Obama’s least partisan speech to date. And Robert Kagan, a neo-con if there ever was one, describes the speech as “a substantial shift, back in the direction of a more muscular moralism, a la, Truman, Reagan.”
If nothing else, this was a verbal funnel through which Obama’s sometimes muddled and inconsistent foreign policy could be drawn and focused. The key of course is going beyond words and acting on these beliefs. But these words are a good start.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
84 comments Add your comment
Joan
December 11th, 2009
9:14 am
Of course you can never believe a word the man says, but he does give a good speech.
Joel Edge
December 11th, 2009
9:14 am
Right on the nose, Mr. Wingfield. This speech is really confusing some liberals. Which is a good thing. Now all we need are tax cuts and some real work on getting actual jobs back to this country. We may be looking at Barack F Kennendy.
Hard Right Hook
December 11th, 2009
9:19 am
The man says nothing better than anyone I’ve ever heard. I suppose it’s really the teleprompter, now that I think about it.
Peter
December 11th, 2009
9:19 am
The rebuilding of America is on track, and American’s can be proud.
Intown Lib
December 11th, 2009
9:38 am
This speech only confuses conservatives that never stop from beating up their straw man version of a Democrat to actually listen and look at what Democrats really stand for. For left of center Dems, this is right on the money and is stuff that is considered a given and obvious. Perhaps that’s what confuses dimwit right-wingers and Republicans the most … Dems assume themselves to be patriots, proud of America, and clear-eyed about the necessity and cost of war. that’s why we start foreign policy debates from a different point in the conversation than you do.
Joel Edge
December 11th, 2009
9:39 am
Peter, I don’t know if I would go that far. If Obama strays to far from the liberal path, he’ll be facing a hostile congress. Of course, I think that will be cured in 2010.
Fix-It
December 11th, 2009
9:55 am
I guess giving a good speech qualifies you to be president, whether you are lying or not…
JF McNamara
December 11th, 2009
9:58 am
Be careful Kyle. You’re on notice that your membership in the Republican party is now in probationary status for a positive comment about Obama.
GEORGE AMERICAN
December 11th, 2009
10:03 am
OBAMA AND REAGN SHOULD NOT BE MENTIONED IN THE SAME BREATH!!!
OBAMA IS A FAR-LEFT HIPPIE LIBERAL WHO IS STEALING OUR FREEDOMS AND LIBERTIES THROUGH HIS RADICAL AGENDA.
OBAMA HATES AMERICA!!!
ohmy
December 11th, 2009
10:15 am
considering the circumstances it was a good speech. and on another subject, it looks like the free market will soon be returned to its pseudo regulated self…so–recently vilified/beloved corporate America (you know, the one that must be only slightly regulated/taxed so that the economy will recover) can once again walk hand in hand with vilified/beloved big government (the socialists). As hyperbole swirls, everything remains the same.
Chris Broe
December 11th, 2009
10:21 am
Caffinated Gaffs.
Today’s piece is entitled, “Spelunking for the Jihad”
President Obama was the right man in the White House yesterday. The last time the world was so moved by a speech was W’s post 911 masterpiece. The right man was in the White House on that night, too.
The price of freedom is death. Kings taught us that. (Okay, it was Mel Gibson, in Braveheart).
.It’s a grim reality about sacrifice, duty, and why we fight: for our great grandchildren’s liberty. If cyber-hatespeak can induce young men into whimsical spelunking for the jihad in Pakistan, then Obama’s acceptance speech should convince the world to join us in the war on terror.
JFK had the most pleasing delivery of any president in our lifetimes. Reagan’s delivery could rally the peace doves and the surrender monkeys into charging up San Juan Hill. Nixon’s could fool most of the people most of the time. FDR’s could steady any nation’s resolve. Obama has surpassed all of those presidents.
Obama has opened up a new era in leadership, because his timely message, amidst a global credit crunch, was to ask the world to lend him an ear. The world will respond with arms.
This speech has legs.
Obama ‘12 – don’t go changing
jorge centro americano de nicaragua
December 11th, 2009
10:24 am
recuerdo my bien presidente reagan
jorge centro americano de nicaragua
December 11th, 2009
10:25 am
perdon–muy bien
BOX
December 11th, 2009
10:25 am
Obama is a Centrist… always was. He will not pander to left when they are wrong (the anti-war movement) or the right when they are (teabaggers). The reason Obama confuses the political extremes is because they view the world in stark black and white. Obama will do that is logical and not what is blindly ideological or partisan. While the far right prop up idealist cowboys and soccer moms in 2012 I will help re-elect the closest thing to a Vulcan we have in DC.
Peter
December 11th, 2009
10:28 am
Hey GEORGE AMERICAN……Please note that Reagan sold Drugs for arms…….
Something to be proud of as a Republican ?
The American People
December 11th, 2009
10:35 am
An unprecedented disgrace.
Peter
December 11th, 2009
10:39 am
The real reason for the Iraq War came public today !!!!!!
BAGHDAD (Reuters) – Royal Dutch Shell and Malaysia’s Petronas on Friday won the rights to develop one of the world’s largest remaining untapped oilfields as Iraq staged its second auction of oil contracts since the 2003 U.S. invasion.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Iraq-holds-oil-auction-Shell-rb-1623368616.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=6&asset=&ccode=
Free the Oil for profit.NOT Free the Iraq people !
David Axelfraud
December 11th, 2009
10:40 am
Peter wrote: Please note that Reagan sold Drugs for arms…….
Right arms or left arms? There must have been a lot of one armed men and women running around back in the 80’s.
Kyle Wingfield
December 11th, 2009
10:41 am
Yes, Peter, you’ve nailed it. We invaded Iraq for Malaysian oil profits. How did we all miss this one??
Peter
December 11th, 2009
10:43 am
Must have been that “Faulty Intelligence” Kyle……. Today we do see “Mission Accomplished” !
David Axelfraud
December 11th, 2009
10:46 am
Peter, your middle name is Faulty Intelligence.
Just Peachy
December 11th, 2009
10:48 am
Whether you hate President Obama or you love him you have to admit the speech was good. Its feels good to have an educated president in office and not one that is a disrace at home and abroad. Remember the shoe! I was embarrassed as an American to have that done to our sitting president. That has never happened and hopefully it never will again.
Peter
December 11th, 2009
10:48 am
David……..typical Republican…….back to name calling !
Peter
December 11th, 2009
10:50 am
For David…….
Contents of the report
The contents of the actual report was largely ignored by the national media. In the 623rd paragraph, the report described a cable from the CIA’s Directorate of Operations dated October 22, 1982, describing a prospective meeting between Contra leaders in Costa Rica for “an exchange in [the United States] of narcotics for arms, which then are shipped to Nicaragua.”[11] The two main Contra groups, US arms dealers, and a lieutenant of a drug ring which imported drugs from Latin America to the US west coast were set to attend the Costa Rica meeting. The lieutenant trafficker was also a Contra, and the CIA knew that there was an arms-for-drugs shuttle and did nothing to stop it.[10]
The report stated that the CIA had requested the Justice Department return $36,800 to a member of the Meneses drug ring, which had been seized by DEA agents in the Frogman raid in San Francisco. The CIA’s Inspector General said the Agency wanted the money returned “to protect an operational equity, i.e., a Contra support group in which it [CIA] had an operational interest.”[10]
David Axelfraud
December 11th, 2009
10:50 am
Peter, when did I name call?
Just Peachy
December 11th, 2009
10:50 am
David: Thanks for watering down this adult debate with childish rubbish!
David Axelfraud
December 11th, 2009
10:54 am
Just Peachy, I’m sure you’ll have a few shoes thrown at you in the near future.
Just Peachy
December 11th, 2009
10:55 am
For the record, Im 29. So what was the point of your stupid comment again?
Please add something of substance to the debate. Oh I forgot once facts enter the debate you rethuglicans start with the straw man arguements and idiotic name calling.
If you cant add something meaningful to the debate go the the “thingking right” blog. You will be a shoe in there.
Kyle Wingfield
December 11th, 2009
11:10 am
Axelfraud, Peachy, Peter: Let’s not go down this path today.
DAVID
December 11th, 2009
11:20 am
OBAMA did not believe a word he spoke…..good Lord man…
Kyle Wingfield
December 11th, 2009
11:27 am
If you’re right, David, then Obama has made a big mistake. Because these words will be sprayed back at him every time he doesn’t live up to them. That’s why these prizes are usually given to people who have already acted out the principles they talk about in their acceptance speeches.
Chris Broe
December 11th, 2009
11:32 am
Walk softly boys.
Just Peachy
December 11th, 2009
11:54 am
Kyle: Thats fine. I would love to have a great debate with anyone on this blog. David has brought out the worst in me.
I have yet to see anyone that disagrees with the speech offer any facts to why they feel that way.
hatin' on the stupid
December 11th, 2009
12:26 pm
Thanks for the credit given the speech, Kyle. As someone here has already stated, Obama has always been a centrist as are most Democrats, or at least slightly left of center. Look at the team surrounding him. It’s only the hyperbole of the right since Gingrich that has portrayed anything to the left of apple pie as “dangerously liberal” or worse.
Joan
December 11th, 2009
12:27 pm
Hey, anybody notice how now about 20% of government employees are making more than $100,000?? Up from 14%. I guess that is politicians taking care of their own. And they say get a good education in math and science. Heck, it doesn’t take any education to be a politician–just a strong stomach.
Peter
December 11th, 2009
12:34 pm
Kyle, I have not gone down that path at all……
ohmy
December 11th, 2009
12:34 pm
most government employees are not politicians
Joan
December 11th, 2009
12:36 pm
ohmy. You missed the point. How is it that the government can continue to hire and give raises, while the private sector is suffering rampant unemployment. Looks to me like the pain ought to be shared and government employees take some salary cuts and job losses too.
dewstarpath
December 11th, 2009
12:40 pm
- President Obama’s speech was pragmatic, as it
should have been. Straight talk.
You Distort, We Deride
December 11th, 2009
12:43 pm
The only reason this speech has been a surprise to you teabaggers is that you’ve been mischaracterizing the man since the day you realized he was about to trounce your fannies.
It’s easy to defeat a liberal when you demonize a straw man that bears his name.
dewstarpath
December 11th, 2009
12:45 pm
- Joan – just because science and math doesn’t curry
favor with a lot of young people and politicians make a
lot (like those in the financial sector, particularly Goldman
Sachs employees), does not mean it’s not important.
Try this: Go around your house, look at all of the
elctronic appliances, and check the labels to see how many
of those items were Made In China.
Citizen of the World
December 11th, 2009
12:46 pm
I just read the speech, and it was a great speech. It’s interesting to note which aspect of it that Republicans tend to appreciate most — the part about “the use of force.”
The part that I liked best was when he talked about the concept of “just war,” in response to aggression or in self defense, which was the ideal we strayed from with our preemptive war against Iraq, for which I think we are paying dearly and will continue to pay for generations to come.
He also spoke about intervening on behalf of human rights as an international community and peaceable means of conflict resolution — Kyle and Karl don’t seem to be getting all excited about that.
And while Kyle might be able to imagine President Bush’s voice delivering the words, I bet there’s no way he could picture President Bush actually writing such a speech.
Peter
December 11th, 2009
12:48 pm
Kyle did you miss this one ? Perhaps it was while you were out of the country !
Greenspan: Oil the Prime Motive for Iraq War
Sunday, September 16, 2007
America’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.
In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W. Bush’s economic policies.
However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.
dewstarpath
December 11th, 2009
12:49 pm
- The private sector IMO has to stop being obsessed
with “Dancing with the Stars”, “Housewives”, reality TV
and the like, playing 8-hour “World of Warcraft” and
“Call of Duty” type videogames, and start “building”
things that sell not only in America, but abroad as well.
David Axelfraud
December 11th, 2009
12:49 pm
Kyle Wingfield, you gotta admit. My 10:40 comment on drugs for arms was hilarious!
Peachy, no, you bring out the worst in yourself.
Peter
December 11th, 2009
12:53 pm
Yes David was hilarious making a joke out of a US President involved in Drug dealing for Arms !
Seems the Reagan War on Drugs was for Profit !
David Axelfraud
December 11th, 2009
12:57 pm
Peter, did you not read Kyle’s comment to “cut it out?”
If so………STHU!
Peter
December 11th, 2009
1:11 pm
Cut what out David…….?
You are being hilarious making jokes about a US President, and his drug dealings…….I concur.
I appreciate the in site of the Republican mind set.
Drug dealing is OK from a Republican point of view, if it involves War, or Imperialistic actions.
ohmy
December 11th, 2009
1:28 pm
I am a government employee. Because of cost cutting, we have had no raises for two years. We have had a hiring freeze for the same amount of time. We have cut costs in every area. Prior to this job I worked for an airline. I lost my job (and health insurance) as a direct result of 9/11 and could not find another for nearly two years. I have a particular perspective on these things. Giving credibility to an article you read in the paper that arouses some pre-conceived notion, does not mean you comprehend the reality of that situation. Ease up Joan.
ba77
December 11th, 2009
1:37 pm
You know what’s hilarious about this entire farce of the Nobel Prize? Obama dissed all the ceremonies he was supposed to attend and those idiotic Norwegians were actually disappointed and offended! The GALL of our Dear Leader showing his true Chicago arrogance!
What else is hilarious about this mindless liberal boondoggle known as the Nobel Peace prize is that while everyone over there in Norway knows that Obama was chosen in part because he wants to rid the world of nukes, the Russians had a spectacular ICBM rocket failure that lit up the night sky with a real neat looking spiral effect as it spun out of control.
Liberalism always proves its stupidity sooner or later. Unfortunately for us, in nearly three years of demotards running congress and nearly a year running the white house, it’s proving itself sooner.