I was thinking the other day that if the president were to make an appearance in Berlin, there would be no mention of communism, or liberty or tyranny. I should have made a note of it, because I would be proven correct. As is usually the case, the subject of the speech was his favorite one:
Obama’s brief remarks are an exercise in bowdlerization, circumlocution, evasion. Omitted from the remarks, among other things, is any mention of the Soviet Union or Communism, Harry Truman or Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher or Pope John Paul. Obama neither decries the villains nor salutes the heroes of the story. Rather, Obama celebrates himself. He is an agent of destiny. He is the fulfillment of history.
It’s always, first and foremost, about him.
Hmmmm. I disagree Rand. You might have been distracted while watching the video. The subject of Obama’s remarks were tyranny and liberty. He only mentions himself in one quick clause in which he also marvels at the idea that an East German would leading Germany. Yes, he didn’t mention the Pope or Margaret Thatcher in his brief remarks, but he certainly discussed the history of the occasion while making his remarks about liberty and tyranny applicable to the present and future, and not just in Europe but around the world.
Bob, you cannot sensibly and accurately discuss a history of the Cold War and how it ended without mentioning the Pope and Maggie Thatcher (was Ronald Reagan involved, or was he skipped as well?). Your post only shows how historically ignorant both you and the president (or his teleprompter) are.
I’ll ask you the same question I asked Chris. Why do you feel such a need to knee-jerkingly defend the president from any criticism? I was perfectly happy to bash George Bush often. I see no such “post partisanship” from you or Chris. We won’t even talk about Jim.
I’ll answer your question as honestly and as completely as I can, but I want to ask you a question in return: did you actually watch the video?
I just watched the video again. The subject of the video was not Obama, and it was not really Germany, Europe, or the cold war. The subject of video was this: people are still living under tyranny and oppression, behind walls, and November 9, 1989 and its anniversaries are for them , to give them hope, to remind them that their walls will come down too.
Obama’s delivery was not that great, but his words were terrific, completely in keeping with the philosophy expressed regularly by you on this blog. I’ll stop and post this, and then I’ll think about how to answer your question.
No, Bob, I did not watch the video. Life is too short for me to waste it in watching videos of Barack Obama. I let Scott Johnson do it for me. If I were a German, I’d be insulted that he sent a video, but then, if I were a German, maybe I’d still be enthralled with him as so many Germans foolishly are or at least were.
I repeat, no matter how much you liked his speech, to send a video of a speech to the twentieth anniversary of the taking down (it didn’t just “fall” on its own) of the Berlin wall and not discuss the three people most responsible for that event is an affront to the liberated, and history. As is any comparison between his election, which merely validated the fundamental exceptionalism of this country, and that event, which liberated millions after decades of tyranny, a tyranny supported almost to the end, and whose end is still regretted, by many people who think just like him (including his parents were they still alive).
Color me unimpressed.
Rand,
Out of curiosity, I popped over to powerline to watch the video…and…there was a two line mention of himself out of an almost three minute speech. It wasn’t perfect, but it really does make me wonder if you were watching the same video I did. I wouldn’t have voted for Obama unless someone put a gun to my head, but I thought he did a decent job.
~Jon
Jon, as I said, I didn’t watch the speech. Perhaps if he had said something about the three people who ended the Soviet Union, a brief mention of himself might have been acceptable. But not when the only person mentioned is someone who had nothing to do with the event, and who was probably unhappy about it at the time…himself.
I was fortunate enough to attend a (rare) speech by Neil Armstrong a few years ago, when he gave a commencement address at one of his alma maters, USC.
Do you know what he didn’t talk about?
He didn’t talk about himself. And if anyone is entitled to discuss his life’s accomplishments, I would think that it’s the first man to walk on the moon.
So why didn’t he? Because he understood the significance of the occasion, and who it was about.
That’s the difference between Neil Armstrong, and Barack Hussein Obama. Hmmmm…hmmmmm…hmmmmmm…
Uh Rand, considering the video at the link you posted is like 3 minutes long, it would be common sense to watch it before commenting on it. I mean, it probably took you as long to read the news item and post your comment here.
He did speak against tyranny and in favor of freedom. Tyrannical regime which didn’t allow freedom blah blah… Iron curtain blah blah… Unlike our constitution which is all about life and the pursuit of happiness blahblah…
He did not use historical figure names and inserted a shameless plug for himself in the middle of the speech. In that part you are correct. He probably thinks he is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
I was alive and my father was STOKED! about what was happening under Reagen.
I can’t say what I was doing when Reagen was gave that speech but I remember my father making sure I saw the speech.
To neglect Reagen in the speach is an act of narcissistic pettiness.
I did watch the whole speech. It will take me a while to recover. The narcissism was not at all misinterpretation by “obama haters” it was obvious throughout a great portion of the speech. It was blatant arrogance and selfish attitude as spoken by someone who thinks they are so much smarter than everyone else.
And Hillary was a Disgrace.
Already knew Obama was, but I thought Hillary would have a few more nuts, than the think skinned in chief.
I watched the speech. It was indeed narcissistic for Obama to mention himself the way he did, and it is indeed characteristic of him to do so. What you missed by not watching it, Rand, was that the speech was primarily on the theme of freedom vs. tyranny. His comments on that subject were appropriate, but vague, generalities. I agree that he could have, and should have, made more specific reference to actual historical facts that were being celebrated. While he mentioned the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain, he did not specifically speak to the fall of Communism and the liberation of Eastern Europe from its clutches. That is, he never identified the source of the tyranny that plagued them. I believe you are correct that his failure to do so is consistent with a general left wing soft-pedaling of Communism that we so commonly see in the media and the statements of Democratic politicians. Also, since he wants to “engage” Putin he is probably afraid to make indelicate mention that Russian Communists were the source of that tyranny.
BHO mentioning himself is his stock in trade. He’s a tireless self promoter. The fact that he didn’t go to to Berlin, with the wall down, and didn’t mention those people is proof. He’d have been upstaged by the city the people and Brandenburg Gate WITHOUT the wall there.
What great part in that event did he play?
NONE.
In 1989, he was still in law school. And try as I might, I can’t find any evidence that the law classes of that time, at Hah’vud, played any significant role in bringing down the wall.
I do find it odd that he mentions life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and Kennedy’s remarks about people being enslaved.
He may really believe in those things. But with the caveat that the GOVERNMENT should get to dole out any corporate profits as they see fit, should split up major manufacturers to the tireless unsung heroes of the unions while pushing out the stock holders and of course for our own good, HE’LL controls health care across the board.
It all comes done to simple facts. Barack Hussein Obama is a nightmare as a President, a fool with no true knowledge of history and a liar if his lips are moving.
He’s such a JFK fan, someone needs to book him a trip to Dallas.
Schumpty, that last statement is inexcusable.
Agree with Mr. Hensley.
This is one time when I have to say that the criticism is a little excessive. Obama mentioned a black of African descent and a woman leading their respective countries, which was at worst an expression of a triviality. His non-specificity was, to me, one of the strong points of the speech. He cited our rights from the Declaration of Independence, deplored tyranny, and lauded freedom. One got the impression that he lauded America’s brand of freedom, and deplored any and all tyranny. That was good. The rest was a little bland.
It was an adequate speech, not a resoundingly bad one. The fact that he’s actually working assiduously to establish tyranny in the United States may color our judgment of everything he says, but his treachery isn’t implicit in this little speechette.
“He’s such a JFK fan, someone needs to book him a trip to Dallas.”
Come on Rand, agree with that. You know you want to. I wouldn’t expect any less.
Come on Rand, agree with that. You know you want to. I wouldn’t expect any less.
I think it an odious comment. I’m sorry to disappoint you in your profound ignorance of my views and what I agree with.