The strange consensus on Obama's Nobel address

[Costa Rican Gopher]

This is an excerpt from a longer article (Attached & a little long but worthwhile) on the subject of why both NeocCons and San Fran Liberals were equally happy with Obama's "War doctrine" speech while receiving a Nobel Prize.

"Most of the neocons celebrating Obama's speech yesterday made exactly that point in one way or another: if even this Democratic President, beloved by liberals, announces to the world that we have the unilateral right to wage war and that doing so creates Peace and crushes Evil, and does so at a Nobel Peace Prize ceremony of all places, doesn't that end the argument for good?

Much of the liberal praise for Obama's speech yesterday focused on how eloquent, sophisticated, nuanced, complex, philosophical, contemplative and intellectual it was. And, looked at a certain way, it was all of those things -- like so many Obama speeches are. After eight years of enduring a President who spoke in simplistic Manichean imperatives and bullying decrees, many liberals are understandably joyous over having a President who uses their language and the rhetorical approach that resonates with them.

But that's the real danger. Obama puts a pretty, intellectual, liberal face on some ugly and decidedly illiberal polices. Just as George Bush's Christian-based moralizing let conservatives feel good about America regardless of what it does, Obama's complex and elegiac rhetoric lets many liberals do the same. To red state Republicans, war and its accompanying instruments (secrecy, executive power, indefinite detention) felt so good and right when justified by swaggering, unapologetic toughness and divinely-mandated purpose; to blue state Democrats, all of that feels just as good when justified by academic meditations on "just war" doctrine and when accompanied by poetic expressions of sorrow and reluctance. When you combine the two rhetorical approaches, what you get is what you saw yesterday: a bipartisan embrace of the same policies and ideologies among people with supposedly irreconcilable views of the world."

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/12/11/obama/index.html

[diehard]

Just to add some 'bellicose commentary' (FMTT), 911, it's global aftermath, and follow on threats have had their affect on Obama much sooner than I expected. Our intelligence has apparently improved enough from the Clinton rape job that Obama has adapted some of his security views very quickly. These are views that the Clintons have also learned (too late, but they have learned them) and why I supported Hillary over Obama. The reality is the there is no defense adequate against terror. The very real problem is fighting the right fights at the right time (one reason I could not support McCain). That is an impossible skill set to perfect. A true dilemma as no one wants to be President during the next 911. I pray Obama can walk this difficult line. It will require luck as well as skill.

[Costa Rican Gopher]

You've been hoodwinked by the Military-Industrial-Complex into living in fear. Like many Americans you've been duped into believing they hate our "Freedom" and "Liberty" when in actuality they hate us being in their countries, forcing our beliefs on them, knocking off/inserting their leaders for them. The media is able to create all manner of hysteria whether real or imaginary. SARS, Bird Flu, Swine Flu, Montauk Monster, AIDS, African Killer Bees, Terror, Global Warming and 911. All based in reality and expounded on to sell weapons/drugs/advertising/make more money.

[bga1]

Actually this "concensus" is easily explainable. Obama has obviously been coached that apologizing for America has gotten really, really tiresome for most Americans. He's getting slaughtered in the polls which hurts his ability to get his agenda through. So he gave a speech that he doesn't believe in order to cater to the polls. The right side applauded it because they know he is stuck with these words in the political sense. Meanwhile the left side is okay with it because it's Obama, they are proud of his Nobel, and they know now not to believe a word he says. They know what he's going to do. It's a magic act. He misdirects with words while he is doing something totally the opposite.

[diehard]

You've been hoodwinked by the Military-Industrial-Complex into living in fear. Like many Americans you've been duped into believing they hate our "Freedom" and "Liberty" when in actuality they hate us being in their countries, forcing our beliefs on them, knocking off/inserting their leaders for them. The media is able to create all manner of hysteria whether real or imaginary. SARS, Bird Flu, Swine Flu, Montauk Monster, AIDS, African Killer Bees, Terror, Global Warming and 911. All based in reality and expounded on to sell weapons/drugs/advertising/make more money.

CRG, you are right that they hate us having a presence in Islamic Lands. That is certainly part of it. The core of the hate is based in the Islamic Faith. The hate that is taught in the Madrassas. Another erroneous assumption is that it is wholly based in poverty. Certainly not, although it is a factor in some cases. This is very complicated, but I am not hoodwinked in my beliefs. I have had the pleasure on hands on experience. I am not a primary conspiracy theorist here.

[Costa Rican Gopher]

Diehard, I understand your position and it's one point we differ on. I think that since you've been a part of the military machine most of your life that you have a hard time stepping away and seeing it for what it has become.

The Military Industrial Complex (Like many scientists/Global Warming alarmists) intentionally creates threats so they can fund themselves and maintain their position of power/importance. We attack Iraq and it makes them rich and gives them job security. We attack Afghanistan and they get rich and it givs everyone job security. As long as there's a war to fight (Real or imaginary) business is good. This business of indefinitely being at war against "terror" was a stroke of brilliance by BushCo.

Business>good of the country.

[Gopher4Life]

Costa,

I hear you and I'm on record as opposing the Iraq conflict for the past several years on the grounds that it is accomplishing nothing long term and at outrageous cost.

Are you saying there are no legitimate threats out there (they're all invented) or that there are threats but we should be ignoring them?

How should the US have reacted to 9-11?

[diehard]

Diehard, I understand your position and it's one point we differ on. I think that since you've been a part of the military machine most of your life that you have a hard time stepping away and seeing it for what it has become.

The Military Industrial Complex (Like many scientists/Global Warming alarmists) intentionally creates threats so they can fund themselves and maintain their position of power/importance. We attack Iraq and it makes them rich and gives them job security. We attack Afghanistan and they get rich and it givs everyone job security. As long as there's a war to fight (Real or imaginary) business is good. This business of indefinitely being at war against "terror" was a stroke of brilliance by BushCo.

Business>good of the country.

The military machine I was a part of (I won't mention at what level as someone may blow an aneurysm over my 'bellicose commentary') is not in any way as you describe it. I won't speak for big government or for big business, but the military hates war more than anyone else. They are the ones that first hand know the price and pain of war. Top to bottom ready to do what they must, but never craving the blood and suffering. Look to the civilian leadership, not career military leadership for war mongers (see Obama re: AFPAK, Bush re: Iraq, Johnson re: Vietnam).

[Costa Rican Gopher]

Costa,

I hear you and I'm on record as opposing the Iraq conflict for the past several years on the grounds that it is accomplishing nothing long term and at outrageous cost.

Are you saying there are no legitimate threats out there (they're all invented) or that there are threats but we should be ignoring them?

How should the US have reacted to 9-11?

There are very few legitimate threats to attack inside the Unites States. The Soviet Union were one, they had nuclear weapons. China concerns me. They could attack us out without ever firing a shot. Same with Saudi Arabia (+ Al Queda is Saudi Arabian). I believe Il-Jong Kim (Whatever his name is?) in North Korea is a "nut job" & a threat, but not a threat to the United States. Iran & Venezuela are regional threats as well, not USA threats. As for terror attacks, we're so wide open with the Bush/Obama open borders policy that until that's fixed I'm not buying any "We have to be over there" rhetoric? If you've got a hole in your boat you fix the hole, you don't drain the lake. We're trying to drain the lake.

How should we have reacted after 911?

Launch an investigation, question people of interest, find out who attacked us and bring them to justice.

[Costa Rican Gopher]

The military machine I was a part of (I won't mention at what level as someone may blow an aneurysm over my 'bellicose commentary') is not in any way as you describe it. I won't speak for big government or for big business, but the military hates war more than anyone else. They are the ones that first hand know the price and pain of war. Top to bottom ready to do what they must, but never craving the blood and suffering. Look to the civilian leadership, not career military leadership for war mongers (see Obama re: AFPAK, Bush re: Iraq, Johnson re: Vietnam).

Perhaps I was unclear. Eisenhower warned the US was in grave danger of succumbing to the Military Industrial Complex and that if unchecked it would threaten our very foundation. He was right and it has. I don't blame soldiers for that. I think most soldiers are for the most part trained to follow orders and believe what they're told.

[Gopher4Life]

>>If you've got a hole in your boat you fix the hole, you don't drain the lake. We're trying to drain the lake.<<

I don't see that we're draining the lake. I see a serious effort to locate the cause of the first hole and prevent a second one from happening.

>>Launch an investigation, question people of interest, find out who attacked us and bring them to justice.<<

I think we've been doing all of that. The last item has been a slow, ongoing task.