Again, the man lacks credibility. His "caveat" is simply his way of hedging and giving himself an out when he finds out he cannot substantively appease his wacko base; like his "closing" gitmo...
Obama accepts Peace Prize for doing nothing
- Thread starter MonsterMark
- Start date
Again, the man lacks credibility. His "caveat" is simply his way of hedging and giving himself an out when he finds out he cannot substantively appease his wacko base; like his "closing" gitmo...
Which makes a set date meaningless.
You really are in love with this double talker, aren't you? You certainly don't recognize when he tries to ski around both sides of the tree at once.
Tell me, why do you think Obama isn't comfortable with using the term "victory?"
No the set date isn't meaningless - it is a goal - like all goals - you are better off setting them, than not.
Victory - really - you think there has been any victory regarding that part of the world in the last oh couple of millennium? All they do over there is fight. I think you might be able to start setting up a democratic type government - but maybe not - they don't understand military or police in Afghanistan. They understand nomad and terrorist - not a great combo with Democracy.
I wouldn't use the world 'victory' in that part of the world -
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
A goal is not a set date. Obama was setting a date. Get your facts right. You can't have it both ways.
So, you don't believe our military can have victory in this war?
Obama's War of Words
Eloquence without action is soon forgotten.
by William McGurn
Whatever else he may be, Barack Obama is a gifted orator whose words will be remembered by generations. Or will they?
In the first two weeks of this month, President Obama has delivered two critical war speeches. At West Point he outlined a new policy for Afghanistan, committing 30,000 additional troops to deal with the threat that militant Islam continues to pose to the American people. In Oslo scarcely a week later, he used the occasion of his Nobel Prize to deliver a bracing reminder that the reality of evil requires nations willing to confront it.
Now comes the question put to all presidential speechwriters when a wartime president gives a major address. What did you think? Did he make his case? How will these speeches be treated by history?
The answer, surely, is that the measure of a speech goes beyond words. When it comes to the English language, the speechwriters around President Obama enjoy more than their share of talent. Still, ultimately a war speech will be judged as much on the success of the war as on the eloquence of the words.
Think of the great war speeches, starting with the Gettysburg Address. When Abraham Lincoln delivered those words at a cemetery for the Union fallen in 1863, he justified the terrible human toll on the promise "that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
Ask yourself this: Had Lincoln not committed himself so single-mindedly to that effort, had he given in and sued for peace, would schoolchildren still be memorizing his words today?
Or consider Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Historians are still debating his decisions. But there can be no debate that his exhortations resonate even today because they were backed by policies that defeated totalitarian threats across both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
Ditto for John Kennedy. In his memoir "Counselor: A Life at the Edge of History," Kennedy adviser and speechwriter Ted Sorensen did not dismiss the power of the spoken word, but neither did he confuse it with action. "[A]fter all is said and little is done, a speech—even an elevated, eloquent speech—is still just a speech," he wrote. "Saying so doesn't make it so."
Kennedy is sometimes compared with Ronald Reagan, often thought to have been a great presidential speech-giver because of his gifts as an actor. No doubt the Gipper understood the stage. But the point about Reagan is that when he spoke, he wasn't acting. When Reagan declared that the "last pages" of communism were being written or called for the Berlin Wall to come down, he believed it—and his policies reflected those beliefs.
"Nobody remembers "Tear Down this Wall" because I did an OK job of stringing the words together," says my speechwriter friend, Peter Robinson. "We remember the speech because Reagan meant it, because it expressed the principles that he acted on, and because history proved him right. We remember Reagan at Berlin because the wall did come down—and he did his part to help bring it down."
As the chief speechwriter who helped President George W. Bush draft his remarks on the surge in Iraq, I've been amused these past few days by hearing people compare that speech favorably to President Obama's recent announcement of the surge in Afghanistan. It's amusing because that's not the tone many of these folks were taking back when President Bush delivered those remarks.
If that speech holds up well today, it's because of more than words. It's because President Bush burnished those words with actions—insisting that we could still win in Iraq, backing that up with more troops at a time when many Americans wanted them home, and, most of all, by refusing to countenance an end game that would see our men and women in uniform leaving Iraq from the ignominy of an embassy rooftop.
In wartime, people soon tire of lofty words that do not seem borne out by events. In September 2001, with the twin towers still smoldering and the Pentagon wounded, President Bush delivered a war address to a joint session of Congress (which I had no part in, so am free to praise) that ranks with the best of FDR. Whether that speech ever receives its full due depends in part on how this war ends.
The same goes for President Obama. At West Point and Oslo, he spoke to the challenge of defending our freedom against hard men with no moral limit on what they are willing to do to crush it. The irony is that whether these fine speeches are remembered by history depends on a word he didn't use in either one: victory.
Eloquence without action is soon forgotten.
by William McGurn
Whatever else he may be, Barack Obama is a gifted orator whose words will be remembered by generations. Or will they?
In the first two weeks of this month, President Obama has delivered two critical war speeches. At West Point he outlined a new policy for Afghanistan, committing 30,000 additional troops to deal with the threat that militant Islam continues to pose to the American people. In Oslo scarcely a week later, he used the occasion of his Nobel Prize to deliver a bracing reminder that the reality of evil requires nations willing to confront it.
Now comes the question put to all presidential speechwriters when a wartime president gives a major address. What did you think? Did he make his case? How will these speeches be treated by history?
The answer, surely, is that the measure of a speech goes beyond words. When it comes to the English language, the speechwriters around President Obama enjoy more than their share of talent. Still, ultimately a war speech will be judged as much on the success of the war as on the eloquence of the words.
Think of the great war speeches, starting with the Gettysburg Address. When Abraham Lincoln delivered those words at a cemetery for the Union fallen in 1863, he justified the terrible human toll on the promise "that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
Ask yourself this: Had Lincoln not committed himself so single-mindedly to that effort, had he given in and sued for peace, would schoolchildren still be memorizing his words today?
Or consider Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Historians are still debating his decisions. But there can be no debate that his exhortations resonate even today because they were backed by policies that defeated totalitarian threats across both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
Ditto for John Kennedy. In his memoir "Counselor: A Life at the Edge of History," Kennedy adviser and speechwriter Ted Sorensen did not dismiss the power of the spoken word, but neither did he confuse it with action. "[A]fter all is said and little is done, a speech—even an elevated, eloquent speech—is still just a speech," he wrote. "Saying so doesn't make it so."
Kennedy is sometimes compared with Ronald Reagan, often thought to have been a great presidential speech-giver because of his gifts as an actor. No doubt the Gipper understood the stage. But the point about Reagan is that when he spoke, he wasn't acting. When Reagan declared that the "last pages" of communism were being written or called for the Berlin Wall to come down, he believed it—and his policies reflected those beliefs.
"Nobody remembers "Tear Down this Wall" because I did an OK job of stringing the words together," says my speechwriter friend, Peter Robinson. "We remember the speech because Reagan meant it, because it expressed the principles that he acted on, and because history proved him right. We remember Reagan at Berlin because the wall did come down—and he did his part to help bring it down."
As the chief speechwriter who helped President George W. Bush draft his remarks on the surge in Iraq, I've been amused these past few days by hearing people compare that speech favorably to President Obama's recent announcement of the surge in Afghanistan. It's amusing because that's not the tone many of these folks were taking back when President Bush delivered those remarks.
If that speech holds up well today, it's because of more than words. It's because President Bush burnished those words with actions—insisting that we could still win in Iraq, backing that up with more troops at a time when many Americans wanted them home, and, most of all, by refusing to countenance an end game that would see our men and women in uniform leaving Iraq from the ignominy of an embassy rooftop.
In wartime, people soon tire of lofty words that do not seem borne out by events. In September 2001, with the twin towers still smoldering and the Pentagon wounded, President Bush delivered a war address to a joint session of Congress (which I had no part in, so am free to praise) that ranks with the best of FDR. Whether that speech ever receives its full due depends in part on how this war ends.
The same goes for President Obama. At West Point and Oslo, he spoke to the challenge of defending our freedom against hard men with no moral limit on what they are willing to do to crush it. The irony is that whether these fine speeches are remembered by history depends on a word he didn't use in either one: victory.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
What exactly would have to happen for a "victory" in Afghanistan?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
For one thing, our troops wouldn't be forced to turn tail and run by our weakling commander in chief.
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
Obama without his teleprompter.
http://www.freedomslighthouse.com/2009/12/high-speed-video-of-obama-speech-in.html
http://www.freedomslighthouse.com/2009/12/high-speed-video-of-obama-speech-in.html
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Marines don't retreat, they just attack in a different direction.
Mechanicboy
Dedicated LVC Member
You nailed the problem right there on the head. He's a figure head that probably doesn't have an original thought in his head, or at least that's how it seems to me...
He promised so much, but so far his batting average is too low.
He's certainly the front man, the face.
He's representing legislation and policies that I think he has little to do with crafting.
I think he's gotten more through the congress this year than we are aware of. There is all kind of bureacracy and framework in the omnibus bills that the Congress has passed. It'll take years for us to discover the ramifactions of what he's done.
People are getting upset with him because he hasn't address the little, high profile issues, like 'gays in the military." In the meantime, he's expanded the government and it's involvement in our lives like no other President before him.
What's incredible is that they clearly didn't anticipate the push back from the internet and talk radio. They were counting on the liberal monopoly in the traditional media. Had it not been for that push back, the tea parties, they'd have signed a bigger "health reform bill" six months ago. Cap and trade would be done. A second stimulus would be done. The agenda would be flying through.