Posted on 06/26/2013 8:47:04 AM PDT by Kaslin
Its always interesting to notice what the mainstream media emphasizes when reporting on a speech delivered by Barack Obama and always even more interesting to notice what they choose not to bother questioning.
Heres ABC News on Obamas speech last week at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin: Today President Obama will invoke two of the most memorable presidential speeches in modern history Kennedys 1963 Ich bin ein Berliner speech and Reagans 1987 Tear down this wall speech both delivered here .The idea, White House officials say, is to tap into the energy and legacy of those great Cold War moments, calling for the kind of effort that won the Cold War to be made to confront todays major challenges especially climate change and nuclear proliferation.
Get it? We are supposed to think of Obama as in the same league with Reagan and Kennedy. And ABC News is not about to question the ridiculous assertion that climate change is a top, perhaps the top, challenge facing us today. So they dont report that the Obama White House claims that it is, as sound journalism would require, they instead fall in line and report it as fact. And, by the way, the invoking of Reagan to which ABC referred did not include quoting anything Reagan said in Berlin or anywhere else, did not even include mentioning him.
The New York Times noted: While Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton each gave memorable addresses there, Mr. Obama was the first to speak on the eastern side, long closed off by the Berlin Wall Mr. Obamas address came 50 years after President John F. Kennedy, in another celebrated speech here, spoke outside a town hall.
Ah! Notice that what the Times deems of such importance as to stress right upfront: Not anything important that Obama said in his speech. No, they take special notice of yet another first for their guy. He spoke at a different spot than those other presidents. Another first they can cite next time they claim their guy is historic. Only the Times seems to remember Bill Clintons Berlin speech as memorable, even giving it billing ahead of Kennedys, while nearly no one else even remembers he gave one there.
NBC News informed us: The hope for the Obama White House is that, hours from now, more are focused on what he said TODAY rather than what he said FIVE YEARS ago.
Give us a break! The last thing the Obama White House would ever hope for is that the American people would focus on what Barack Obama actually said in either his Berlin speech of last week or any other speech hes ever given.
If Team Obama truly wanted us to focus on what Obama actually says, NBC and the rest of the major media Obama cheerleader squad would simply salute and do so.
Theyd zoom in on what he actually says in his speeches, emphasize it -- as opposed to stressing such fringe foolishness as exactly where he stood as he said it, that he took off his coat, etc. -- and follow through by asking him to explain to the American people in detail exactly why he said what he said and give us in his own words without filter his full thoughts behind those words.
Heres a sampling of the sort of giddy gibberish Obama uttered in his Berlin speech and a sampling of questions the media somehow never thought to ask:
For all the power of militaries, for all the authority of governments, it is citizens who choose whether to be defined by a wall, or whether to tear it down
Obvious questions media forgot to ask: If these citizens were the ones who got to choose whether to tear down the Berlin Wall, what took them nearly three decades before they decided to do so? Why did they have such great difficulty making up their minds? Or are you saying that they kind of liked it for 28+ years but finally grew tired of it?
We can forge a new international framework for peaceful nuclear power, and reject the nuclear weaponization that North Korea and Iran may be seeking.
Obvious questions media forgot to ask: May? May be seeking? You saying you dont know if North Korea and Iran are seeking nukes? They may or they may not be? You indicate that whether they are or are not we can forge some new framework you have in mind that would enable us to reject this explain what exactly this framework is and how exactly it would insure rejection of nukes for North Korea and Iran? If we can do this, why havent we? Are you absolutely certain that one or both these two countries dont already have one or more nukes already? Youre not aware that some think North Korea already has a nuclear weapon and that the reason they test long-range missiles is because theyd like to use them to propel nukes at us?
We may strike blows against terrorist networks, but if we ignore the instability and intolerance that fuels extremism, our own freedom will eventually be endangered.
Obvious questions media forgot to ask: Eventually? You said our own freedom will eventually be endangered so right now its not being endangered with all these terrorist networks running around bent on killing Americans? But it might eventually be if we do not pay attention to instability and intolerance because its instability and tolerance that causes these terrorist to do what they do? Couldnt it be the other way around? Arent these terrorists causing instability? Isnt causing instability something they delight in doing? Are you suggesting terrorists become terrorists because we arent tolerant of them? You dont see the terrorists as being intolerant? Is that what you were thinking when you said in your speech in Cairo back in 2009 that, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance? Oh, by the way, we forgot to ask back then: Which words? Which deeds?
Our efforts against al Qaeda are evolving.
Obvious questions media forgot to ask: What in the world is this supposed to mean? We understand whats meant when it is said that war efforts are succeeding or failing but evolving? Is this like when you announced that you had al Qaeda on the run, weeks later they ran over and through US diplomatic posts? If our efforts are evolving they are changing from something to something else from what to what?
We must move beyond a mindset of perpetual war. And in America, that means redoubling our efforts to close the prison at Guantanamo.
Obvious questions media forgot to ask: So its our mindset thats the problem? Not the mindset of those who oppose us? And how many times can you close Guantanamo? Isnt that what you said you were doing when two days into your first term you issued an Executive Order requiring that it be closed down within one year? Didnt you state just two months into your first term, I closed Guantanamo. That was the right thing to do.? Didnt you let the closing date you had ordered come and go with no closing of Guantanamo? Didnt you then in 2011 issue another Executive Order regarding Guantanamo that became the justification for keeping it open indefinitely? So isnt talk of redoubling efforts just more talk with no real meaning?
"After a comprehensive review, I've determined that we can ensure the security of America and our allies, and maintain a strong and credible strategic deterrent, while reducing our deployed strategic nuclear weapons by up to one-third. And I intend to seek negotiated cuts with Russia to move beyond Cold War nuclear postures."
Obvious questions media forgot to ask: A comprehensive review? A president who says he learns about scandals breaking out around him through the media the same way the average American does, thinks we should believe that he is proposing this because he personally did a comprehensive review? You sure you werent just looking to change the subject and needed to find something to say in this speech that was somehow different? Why one-third? Isnt it true that even if the US and Russia each reduced by way more than that it would not make all that much of a practical difference? You spoke to Vladimir Putin just before you came here what did he say about this? You did mention it to him, didnt you? So you would have known his reaction before you announced your proposal, right? What do you think of the fact that Putin and other high level officials are now mocking what you said here? And what do you say in response to those who say that in todays world it is less of a danger that Russia has many nukes than that Iran gets any?
As Iran and North Korea prepare for a time when they can hurl nuclear weapons at the US and its allies; as radical Islam spreads across the globe; as the economy of our country and the economies of Europe swirl toward crash; as China and Russia increasingly seek to undermine us with both our friends and foes, there stood the President of the United States in Berlin last week speaking about wind power and solar power and declaring that we need to confront a changing climate...This is the global threat of our time.
It was a monumentally mindless speech. So badly conceived and delivered that not only did MSNBCs chief Obama propagandist Chris Mathews not get a tingle up his leg, he felt a need to apologize for it: I think a lot of the problem he had today was the late afternoon sun in Berlin ruined his use of the teleprompter.
True, poor ole Barack Obama is our first president to suffer from thought-crippling dependency upon the teleprompter, and perhaps we will be asked to accept that global warming is indeed the global threat of our time based upon the proof that the Berlin sun ruined Obamas speech last week but didnt ruin Kennedys 1963 speech or Reagans 1987 speech.
But just wait and chances are good theyll soon be telling us they have a solution: sun control.
Ich bin ein Dink
Erl, when has the dork NOT spoken giddy gibberish?
It’s amazing that such a low living ball of slime can speak at all.
But was it authentic frontier gibberish?
Ich bin ein Jelly Doughnut.
Of course you do realize why he went to Berlin, right?
To get tips from ex-Stasi agents.
Doesn’t anyone remember how that large crowd came be to at the July 24th, 2008 in Berlin? It was due to some rock concert that Obama rode the coat tails...details anyone???
Giddy Gibberish, sounds like a great nom de plume for The 0ne. lol
the way they use the word “evolve” expect to see Republican rinos pushing out pro al-qaeda legislation any day now talking about “my friends across the sand dunes”.
This is the way they think and speak.
When you are ignorant of facts, ideas, history, politics, policy, etc.... you are afraid of your own shadow - so to speak.
You sound JUST like this. It is words, incessant words that say nothing.
My brother was on the debate team in school and even at age 13 could (and did) write and deliver MUCH better speeches than this!
This is the way they think and speak.
When you are ignorant of facts, ideas, history, politics, policy, etc.... you are afraid of your own shadow - so to speak.
You sound JUST like this. It is words, incessant words that say nothing.
My brother was on the debate team in school and even at age 13 could (and did) write and deliver MUCH better speeches than this!
JFK didn’t say that in his speech. His German was correct. Debunking of that here;
http://urbanlegends.about.com/cs/historical/a/jfk_berliner.htm
Here it is:
Will Media Report Concert Before Obama’s Berlin Speech?
That wasn’t Gibberish. He was speaking in Austrian.
One of the original threads on the concert. Lead singer of Reammon claims that the crowd was just there to see Obama. Yeah, sure
http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-news/2050667/posts
For all the power of militaries, for all the authority of governments, it is citizens who choose whether to be defined by a wall, or whether to tear it downWell, the artists liked to paint on it.Obvious questions media forgot to ask: If these citizens were the ones who got to choose whether to tear down the Berlin Wall, what took them nearly three decades before they decided to do so? Why did they have such great difficulty making up their minds? Or are you saying that they kind of liked it for 28+ years but finally grew tired of it?
And at least one woman married it.
Certainly the Communist dupes loved it.
Add them up and you probably have at least the 30% of the public who always defend any action by Obama or Stalin without question.
JFK didnt say that in his speech. His German was correct. Debunking of that here;
Satire seems to be lost with some people.
Well, we can add this trick to the never-ending parade of coat-tails the nit-wit has been riding on. There was an article published within the last month or so - comparing and paralleling Obama’s accomplishments with previous WH administrations. Of course, the author had to really stretch the truth to make a lot of it work, but it made me sick to my stomach how they try to make Zero look like The One, the Messiah, the be-all to end-all. Blech........
This is classic ‘forked-tongue’ BS from bo.
He says things to appeal to both sides of an issue:
Typical example, template —
“There are those who say ....,
but we need to reach a balance ...
I read that his Law Review articles did the same thing, making both sides of an issue think he was appealing to them.
Same during the 2008 campaign. Both sides thought he was supporting them (or could imagine that he was, in the vagueness of his non-statements).
This article dissects this method.
Some analysts call this bo’s brainwashing technique.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.