White House’s version of narcissistic poseur’s speech on “security and values”
Posted by danishova on May 21, 2009
A speech given in front of a copy of The Constitution. By a man who believes that “empathy” is what’s needed on the resume’s of Supreme Court nominees – something in direct violation of the judicial oath.
Unadulterated crap edited for our short attention spans. Even the short version is hard to take, but here’s the full transcript at the New York Times if you’re so inclined. Some particularly offensive highlights of the short version:
- The birth of The One was made possible because of our Constitution.
- Prisoners surrendered to American soldiers because they knew they would be treated well.
- We “outlasted the Iron Curtain”.
This morning the President spoke at length on the values that guide his foreign policy decisions, including the closing of Guantanamo. He began by speaking of the importance of robust national security efforts and upholding American’s core identity and Constitutional principles, explaining how each can enforce the other:
For the first time since 2002, we are providing the necessary resources and strategic direction to take the fight to the extremists who attacked us on 9/11 in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We are investing in the 21st century military and intelligence capabilities that will allow us to stay one step ahead of a nimble enemy. We have re-energized a global non-proliferation regime to deny the world’s most dangerous people access to the world’s deadliest weapons, we launched an effort to secure all loose nuclear materials within four years. We are better protecting our border, and increasing our preparedness for any future attack or natural disaster. We are building new partnerships around the world to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates. And we have renewed American diplomacy, so that we once again have the strength and standing to truly lead the world.
Now these steps are all critical to keeping America secure. But I believe with every fiber of my being that in the long run we also cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values. The documents that we hold in this very hall – the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights – these are not simply words written into aging parchment. They are the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality and dignity around the world.
I stand here, today, as someone whose own life was made possible by these documents. My father came to our shores in search of the promise that they offered. My mother made me rise before dawn to learn their truths when I lived as a child in a foreign land. My own American journey was paved by generations of citizens who gave meaning to those simple words – "to form a more perfect union." I have studied the Constitution as a student; I have taught it as a teacher; I have been bound by it as a lawyer and legislator. I took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief. And as a citizen, I know that we must never – ever – turn our back on its enduring principles for expedience sake.
Your father came here thanks to the generosity of American expatriate Gloria Hagberg, the “Granny of the Airlifts”! What the hell did that have to do with “The Constitution”? Moreover, your polygamist father was an avowed Communist, so its hard to argue that he cared a whit about our “values” or our Constitution. As for your mother, for all practical purposes she was a Communist too. Buy hey, it’s always easy to be a Communist when you have a bank v.p. for a grandmother, you collect food stamps, and send your kid to the most expensive, elite school in Hawaii, and go on to marry an Indonesian oil executive.
But why mention this in the first place? Why does everything have to be about you? That’s a rhetorical question; it’s because you are a contemptible narcissist.
I make this claim not simply as a matter of idealism. We uphold our most cherished values not only because doing so is right, but because it strengthens our country and keeps us safe. Time and again, our values have been our best national security asset – in war and peace; in times of ease and in eras of upheaval.
Yes! We liberated millions of people from tyranny, using the full force and power of the United States military.
Fidelity to our values is the reason why the United States of America grew from a small string of colonies under the writ of an empire to the strongest nation in the world.
Those values included concepts like courage, risk, free-markets, and devotion to the rule of law, all of which you reject – so don’t try to hide under the founder’s cloaks.
It is the reason why enemy soldiers have surrendered to us in battle, knowing they’d receive better treatment from America’s armed forces than from their own government.
What nonsense! They surrendered because we won and they lost.
It is the reason why America has benefited from strong alliances that amplified our power, and drawn a sharp and moral contrast with our adversaries.
It is the reason why we’ve been able to overpower the iron fist of fascism, and outlast the iron curtain of communism, and enlist free nations and free peoples everywhere in common cause and common effort.
Ha! You yourself use Alinksy’s thuggish, fascist tactics, knee-capping executives, reminding them that you’re “the only thing standing in the way of the pitchforks”. You spent your childhood being indoctrinated by Communists. Moreover, we did not “outlast the Iron Curtain” we defeated it, thanks to Reagan and Thatcher.
The President summarized what he believes happened in recent years:
And during this season of fear, too many of us – Democrats and Republicans; politicians, journalists and citizens – fell silent.
It’s a “season of fear” alright. Here’s one reason why. A tanking economy with no end in sight thanks to your idiotic policies is another. Fearing a universal health care system with rationed care is another. We “fear” terrorists in our midst even in our most secure prisons, because we don’t want our children to end up as pawns in a hostage crisis like at Beslan.
In other words, we went off course. And this is not my assessment alone. It was an assessment that was shared by the American people, who nominated candidates for President from both major parties who, despite our many differences, called for a new approach – one that rejected torture, and one that recognized the imperative of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.
Um, John McCain lost the election. Do you think it’s possible that being on the wrong side of this issue had something to do with it? Not that his idiotic suggestions were as rash and reckless as your hasty presidential directive.
He recounted and explained the decisions he has made as President to date in that context, discussing his banning of torture, his closing of Guantanamo, and the ordering of a comprehensive review of all cases there. He went into detail about the five categories these cases were likely to fall into, closing on what he described as by far the most difficult: "detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people," including those for whom evidence may have been tainted. He explained that every avenue to prosecute them would be exhausted, and only then would questions of further detainment would have to be addressed with the most thorough Congressional and Judicial oversight. The President went on to directly address the politics that are so often played on these matters:
Now, as our efforts to close Guantanamo move forward, I know that the politics in Congress will be difficult. These are issues that are fodder for 30-second commercials, you can almost picture the direct mail pieces that are designed to frighten the American public. I get it. But if we continue to make decisions from within a climate of fear, we will make more mistakes. And if we refuse to deal with these issues today, then I guarantee you that they will be an albatross around our efforts to combat terrorism in the future. I have confidence that the American people are more interested in doing what is right to protect this country than in political posturing. I am not the only person in this city who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution – so did each and every member of Congress. And together we have a responsibility to enlist our values in the effort to secure our people, and to leave behind the legacy that makes it easier for future Presidents to keep this country safe.
The President spent the latter half of his speech discussing matters of government secrecy, recalling that "whether it was the run-up to the Iraq War or the revelation of secret programs, Americans often felt like part of the story had been unnecessarily withheld from them. That caused suspicion to build up. That leads to a thirst for accountability." Acknowledging that often in such decisions there is not a singular clear cut principle to guide decisions, and almost always there are competing concerns, he made clear that this need not prevent an honest relationship between the American people and their government:
I will never hide the truth because it is uncomfortable. I will deal with Congress and the courts as co-equal branches of government. I will tell the American people what I know and don’t know, and when I release something publicly or keep something secret, I will tell you why.
Sure you will. Don’t forget to consult the teleprompter.
Fittingly, the copy of the Constitution he used as a backdrop was fake.
And isn’t the point of the Declaration and the Constitution–and of the various oaths we swear, the pledges of allegiance we make–that our individual backgrounds should recede as we assume the duties of public office or when we exercise our rights as citizens? Perhaps not in the eyes of Barack Obama. Even by the standard of political types, he seems strikingly self-preoccupied and self-referential.
Doesn’t Obama’s self-regard sometimes seem greater than his regard for the position he occupies? Does he understand that the office of the presidency is bigger–much bigger–than he is? Or does Obama think of the presidency primarily as a vessel through which to exercise his political gifts and pursue his personal achievements?