Barack the neocon

NY Post ^ | September 1, 2010 | John Podhoretz

[Scanian]

Last night, President Obama did something amazing. He delivered -- dare I say it? -- a rather neoconservative speech, in the sense that neoconservatism has argued for aggressive American involvement in the world both for the world's sake and for the sake of extending American freedoms in order to enhance and preserve American security.

Perhaps Obama did not even realize it, but when he said that "as the leader of the free world, America will do more than just defeat on the battlefield those who offer hatred and destruction -- we will also lead among those who are willing to work together to expand freedom and opportunity for all people," he was echoing ideas developed in neoconservative journals over decades of argument about how the United States can best project its power for its own sake and for the sake of the betterment of the world.

When he said that "we must use all elements of our power -- including our diplomacy, our economic strength and the power of America's example -- to secure our interests and stand by our allies," he was speaking in the voice of those neocons who argue that American geopolitical power is enhanced when we use it to bind our friends closer to us.

And when he said that "we must project a vision of the future that is based not just on our fears, but also on our hopes -- a vision that recognizes the real dangers that exist around the world, but also the limitless possibility of our time," Barack Obama was offering a more secular version of George W. Bush's assertion that liberty is not something unique to the American constitution, but is "God's gift to humanity."

[I still care]

The moment I heard this speech, I thought, he knows he’s in trouble and trying to run to the right.

You know, Carter at least was honest about it. Obama knows he’s got to do something and is pulling what he did while campaigning - trying to pretend he’s something he knows he isn’t.

I despise this man.

[I still care]

A while ago he gave an interview where he said he “would rather be a good one termer than a bad twotermer” (paraphrased).

At that time I thought, this job is harder than he thought and he really doesn’t like it. It cuts into his golf.

The presidency is no fun and I have the strongest feeling that he really didn’t understand what he was getting into. There is a reason all presidents finish their terms gray and tired looking, and it’s not because of too many parties and too much golf.

I think he was sending signals he may not run for a second term.

[MortMan]

To say that Bush loves the troops (which is true), while zero himself takes credit for executing Bush’s status of forces agreement (which is false credit) is hardly “neocon”.

It’s the same old con - Barackicide of America.

[gussiefinknottle]

i chose to skip it and read various threads about the dr. in bakersfield ca.,
who tried to enter her boyfriend’s home via chimney and perished.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

we will also lead among those who are willing to work together to expand freedom and opportunity for all people

>

[arkady_renko]

With all respect to John Podhertz, I think he needs to put Obama's words into the context of his recent actions. For instance John writes:

Perhaps Obama did not even realize it, but when he said that "as the leader of the free world, America will do more than just defeat on the battlefield those who offer hatred and destruction -- we will also lead among those who are willing to work together to expand freedom and opportunity for all people,"...(I add by observation of Obama's actions) "that is why my Justice Department is suing the State of Arizona over their discriminatory immigration law. That is why I am mandating that each and every American must purchase health insurance or go to jail. That is why I have taken hard earned money from workers to support corrupt Unions and prop up failing corporations. We must expand freedom around the world."

The question, John, is who defines what freedoms are allowable, or fair, or, even freedoms at all? Obama seems concerned with spreading 'freedom and opportunity' everywhere but in the Nation he leads. Trouble is, he and Nan and Harry and Joe are defining what freedoms we get to keep.

[Cheetahcat]

“Yep! Two birds of a feather.

Don’t forget the liberals on cable all praising Bush for being pro-islamic and asking him to stick up for Obama.”

He was and brought them in here in Hordes! His constant carping “a great Religion” I wonder if he is actually that stupid?

[Tigerized]

“And popcorn does not go with wine, it just is so wrong, white or red.”

Normally I’d have the popcorn with a Dr. Pepper and Jack Daniels, but I’m outta Jack.

Desperate times calls for desperate measures!

[Tigerized]

“...who tried to enter her boyfriend’s home via chimney and perished.”

Y’know, I saw that article, too. And I tried to find a photo since I was curious, but to no avail. But I couldn’t help but hearing Melanie’s “Brand New Key” echoing in my mind as I read about this woman.

And every afternoon I have a moral dilemma at two. Do I watch Beck, or drift over to Maury to answer the burning question “who da baby daddy”?

At least Beck repeats in the evening...

[gussiefinknottle]

actually, there are pictures of her and of chimney, but not
her in chimney. she was a very attractive woman and much
loved by her patients. it is a compelling story. i have
never seen a story where anyone but a burglar has tried
to use the santa claus method. she should have just driven
car through front door.

[Renderofveils]

I'm not sure if you realize it, but your reasoning completely backs my point. The Secretary General doesn't have power. He is a figurehead. Apart from graft and corruption, there is significant income for the UN. (See: Koffi Annan appointing the "independent" group to investigate his own son.) As a side note, there is no serious responsibility or accountability for the position. These are the three points that would most likely draw the classic narcissist to want the job. Yes, the UN is disliked in the United States, but it is loved by tyrants of all breeds... something again that appeals to zero.

"They are just a talking shop of collectivism, disguising a rent-seeking agenda...(snip)....it is just a popularity contest among professional bureaucrats who pose as one-worlders while actually being in the business of self-aggrandizement." Sounds like someone's cup of tea, neh? As for the convention that a former president of the United States would not be held to the office of secretary general, what would make the dark forces of the world shine their black-toothed grin any wider than appointing the anti-American president to a position where they can trot him out at any photo op and ridicule both him and us at their leisure?

[reformedliberal]

We do agree.

My real point is:
Who cares if zerO (or Clinton or Carter, etc) becomes any sort of high muckety-muck at the UN? I totally agree that it is the perfect place for a self-involved globalist looking to make money off pushing the agenda.

Nothing will change because of the UN. Wanting power is not achieving power. We shouldn’t expect Russia or China or even the EU to back the UN except in those instances that enhance their own sovereignty and economic gain.

I have no use for the UN, as you can tell, but I don’t fear them. They play off the progressive/liberal desire to feel good about themselves while personally intercepting as much cash and personal power as possible from the donations of the various nations. They enable the NGOs and give the journos loads of ideas to push, most of which won’t work for anything except scaring the few who understand the nightmares they are propagating. But they cannot do much until and unless they become as powerful as a major nation state, something the major nation states will not allow to happen.

So they trot zerO out and use him to bash the US. If not zerO, they have all sorts of useless fools, some of them former POTUS, who eagerly do the same thing with no official position.

They hate us as we are because, so far, we are the only policeman on the planet. They love the UN because they can be used to make it appear there is a Global Government while there is actually the perfect anarchy that allows the various kleptocracies to flourish. The will hate us and try to undermine us until we are gone and then, they will turn on each other, in fine Mad Max fashion.

So, zerO and the rest can, as you suggest, go there and personally prosper. It keeps them out of national political and economic matters while allowing them to be seen by those who care about American values as the evil that they are.

Everyone hates the real talent, the real beauty, the real achiever. It is actually a mark of honor to be hated by thieves and empty suits. I get the impression here on FR that some folks cower in fear of the UN. There is no need. They exist to give a face to invidious ineptitude.

Which, as you say, sounds like zerO.

[Ben Ficklin]

This NeoCon article wasn't written for the reading pleasure and discussion of republicans or freepers.

It was written to agitate the lefties and pacifists in the democratic party who are already irritated with Obama's foreign policy.

I would imagine that there is a hot thread on this article over at DU.

[bootless]

This is cracking me up!

I’ll tell you what popcorn goes VERY well with: champagne. And a concession speech by John Kerry, circa 2004.

It was deeelicious! ;-)

[bootless]

He definitely looked fatigued. After being surrounded by yes-men and ideologues his entire life, he assumed this would be a skip in the park, complete with rose petals thrown at his feet everywhere he went.

He’s lost everyone to the right of HuffPo, DU and the MSM, and he knows it. But he’s demogogued himself into a corner and there’s nowhere to go, short of continued alienation of most of the U.S.... or a conversion on the road to Damascus.

(And why I haven’t stroked out, listening to him, I’ll never know.)