Turnabout is Fair Play
Here is President Obama in Oslo accepting the Nobel Peace Prize:
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.
And here is David Frum reacting to that part of the speech:
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.
If it is inappropriate for Barack Obama to argue against the Iraq War in front of an international audience, due to the wedge it supposedly drives between a president and half his country, was it equally objectionable when George W. Bush and officials in his administration spoke to foreign audiences about the righteousness of the Iraq invasion?
For example, he told a London, England audience this in 2003:
The United States and Great Britain have labored hard to help make the United Nations what it is supposed to be — an effective instrument of our collective security. In recent months, we’ve sought and gained three additional resolutions on Iraq — Resolutions 1441, 1483 and 1511 — precisely because the global danger of terror demands a global response. The United Nations has no more compelling advocate than your Prime Minister, who at every turn has championed its ideals and appealed to its authority. He understands, as well, that the credibility of the U.N. depends on a willingness to keep its word and to act when action is required.
America and Great Britain have done, and will do, all in their power to prevent the United Nations from solemnly choosing its own irrelevance and inviting the fate of the League of Nations. It’s not enough to meet the dangers of the world with resolutions; we must meet those dangers with resolve.
Later in the same speech he said this:
We must shake off decades of failed policy in the Middle East. Your nation and mine, in the past, have been willing to make a bargain, to tolerate oppression for the sake of stability. Longstanding ties often led us to overlook the faults of local elites. Yet this bargain did not bring stability or make us safe. It merely bought time, while problems festered and ideologies of violence took hold.
As recent history has shown, we cannot turn a blind eye to oppression just because the oppression is not in our own backyard. No longer should we think tyranny is benign because it is temporarily convenient. Tyranny is never benign to its victims, and our great democracies should oppose tyranny wherever it is found.
Now we’re pursuing a different course, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East.
Would it be fair to object to President Bush’s speech by saying, “The Iraq invasion is his opinion and his policy. Fine. Elections have consequences, as the saying goes. But Britain 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 addressing an audience of some non-Americans for joining with him in a military campaign and democracy spreading agenda that other Americans abhor”?
Would it be fair to complain that President Bush kept apologizing for America by repeating in speech after speech the lines about flaws in our Middle East policy stretching back through the generations?
I don’t think so.
President Bush plainly believed that invading Iraq was in America’s best interests — and that the country would benefit insofar as he could convince the rest of the world that his vision had merit, a proposition that included apologizing for past American policies that plainly contradicted that vision.
President Obama believes that the Iraq War wasn’t in America’s interest, that it ought to be ended as soon as responsibly possible, and that the country will benefit insofar as he can convince the rest of the world that his vision has merit, a proposition that includes apologizing for past American policies that plainly contradict his vision.
But Conor…..Obama always is speaking to at least six different audiences…….how did you miss the dogwhistle subtext of Bush’s Iraq speeches…..
GOD wanted us to invade and occupy Iraq and cause hundreds of thousands of civilian muslim deaths.
Like Bush said so to Chirac……..
“Incredibly, President George W. Bush told French President Jacques Chirac in early 2003 that Iraq must be invaded to thwart Gog and Magog, the Bible’s satanic agents of the Apocalypse.
Honest. This isn’t a joke. The president of the United States, in a top-secret phone call to a major European ally, asked for French troops to join American soldiers in attacking Iraq as a mission from God.
Now out of office, Chirac recounts that the American leader appealed to their “common faith” (Christianity) and told him: “Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East…. The biblical prophecies are being fulfilled…. This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins.”
This bizarre episode occurred while the White House was assembling its “coalition of the willing” to unleash the Iraq invasion. Chirac says he was boggled by Bush’s call and “wondered how someone could be so superficial and fanatical in their beliefs.”
— matoko_chan · Dec 11, 01:27 PM · #
Perhsps you’re right, Conor, but Frum is probably as sick of Obama blaming everything on Bush as the rest of the country is. I doubt this would rate a mention in Frum’s column if not for Obama’s serial apologizing and childish, pathetic blaming of Bush for everything. Face it, everyone is starting to get the joke that is the Obama presidency. Unfortunately, it’s deadly serious.
— jd · Dec 11, 02:12 PM · #
Conor,
I am confused by your analysis. I think you are leaning towards Frum’s position, but the comparision with Bush and Obama is largely irrelevant and makes the view of your position fuzzy.
Frum is clear in the intent of his criticism. It is perfectly valid – and indeed, necessary – for the President, his supporters, or any American citizen to hold distinct policy disagreements. These debates should be aired vigorously; we most likely will be better off if they are.
However, the President is wrong to express his policy preferences in front of an international body while accepting an award for “peace” voted on by foreigners, as if to say “hey, we’re on the same page.” While he may be sincere, the President has a political reality – he represents Americans. He is not on the same page, team, or wavelength as the Nobel committee, no matter how much he sincerely wants to be.
— Matt C · Dec 11, 02:14 PM · #
Conor,
I think you’re really starting to overreach in your efforts at keeping conservative pundits in line. Bringing up Bush to criticize Frum’s comments strikes me as very beside-the-point. Why not do something a bit more relevant, like directly address what our president had to say?
Best,
Bernard
— Bernard · Dec 11, 04:06 PM · #
“However, the President is wrong to express his policy preferences in front of an international body while accepting an award for “peace” voted on by foreigners, as if to say “hey, we’re on the same page.””
Here’s a radical idea. Let’s stop obsessing over what Democrats and liberals say to foreign audiences because we think we can score some cheap political points or because we think Democrats and liberals aren’t “real patriotic Americans”.
And by the way, considering that Bush II handed Obama two unfinished wars and a collapsing economy, I’d say that Obama has been incredibly restrained in handing out blame to the previous administration.
Mike
— MBunge · Dec 11, 04:48 PM · #
I wonder…..what the long lens of history will make of Bush…the Torture President that fought a biblically inspired war that cost us a trillion taxpayer dollars and 5000 soljah lives, and left Iraq an Islamic state with shariah in their constitution?
The Surge that didnt work, and was never supposed to, but only a face-saver for slinking off like a whipped cur in Iraq?
— matoko_chan · Dec 11, 05:00 PM · #
So … uh, where’s Noah Millman blogging these days?
Because I would like to go to there.
— CPM · Dec 11, 08:03 PM · #
If punditry were sex, Conor would limit us to the missionary position. He’d say no to anything with the number 3, and he’d even deny us the pleasant surprise of a sudden and slippery pinky.
Seriously, TAS management. How hard is it to find interesting people with interesting angles? Just from today’s headlines, TAS could have published 1) a post looking at one child policy through the prism of Sulloway’s Born to Rebel, or 2) a post demonstrating why Obama’s statement (“America cannot insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves”) is consistent with evolutionary game-theoretic models of Axelrodian cooperation and the emergence of norms, and then analyze whether it’s in America’s interest or power to maintain itself as the ethical center of gravity in the international arena; or 3) a post asking, “Does God exist, and is he happy with gay people?”
Seriously, please dilute Conor’s bed wetting with some solid shit. I want to think, I want to procrastinate, and I want to like this place. Service me.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Dec 11, 09:21 PM · #
KVS, Conor is just part of the public ritual intellectual seppuku of conservatives these days……
from Helen’s Apostates of Conservatism Are Rude to Den Bestes No The Liberals Are the Teleogical Anti-Science-Luddites Not You Noble Godbothering Teabaggers to Reihan’s Cheney Is Just Mr. Rogers With Nukes and Continetti’s Palin Is A Secret MENSA Member and Suderman’s District Nine is an Anti-Hispanic Immigration Parable the gorry embarressing disembowlments continue with gross slippery piles of eviscerated entrails building into small mountains all across Know Blogspace.
— matoko_chan · Dec 11, 09:41 PM · #
I’m just playin’, Conor. Your posts are rad compared to Matoko’s sophomoristries.
And yes, Matoko, that means you suck monster balls.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Dec 11, 11:35 PM · #
merci mille fois pour tous vos infinities des complimentes, KVS.
Perhaps one of your madshamans can scry the future of the conservatives in those steaming piles of entrails and brains?
Behold, a cultural event…… a harbinger of the New Improved American Attitude to Foreign Adventurism.
Conservatives Stroke Out Over Cameron’s Avatar.
Can’t wait for Suderman’s crude neolithic spin on how Avatar is RELLY about illegal immigration…or sumthin.
lol
— matoko_chan · Dec 12, 12:47 AM · #
Do you know the best thing about Avatar, TAS?
Its PG-13.
All your base are belong to us.
— matoko_chan · Dec 12, 02:35 AM · #
See the historic moment captured in a 360 degree panoramic image.
I right-clicked to select full-screen mode.
There is also a FullScreen Icon at bottom center of the image.
Mouseclick and drag, or arrow keys on keyboard, to pan and tilt.
Control-Shift zoom doesn’t work for me in FullScreen mode, but mouse Scrollwheel zooms OK.
The image is extremely zoomable.
Image Norway’s Dagbladet newspaper.
Requires Adobe Flashplayer.
Impressive hall.
— Kied A · Dec 13, 06:48 AM · #
jd- kindly find examples of Obama blaming Bush for his problems. The only people who blame Bush for Obama’s dilemmas are RightWing nutjobs making straw man arguments.
— Ray Butlers · Dec 13, 06:03 PM · #
How many should I find? Would 5 satisfy you? 10? 20? Can you possibly be any more intentionally ignorant?
And when the hell do “rightwing nutjobs” blame Bush for Obama’s dilemma’s? How stupid are you?
— jd · Dec 14, 01:10 AM · #