A Great Speech
President Obama makes sense, at Camp Lejeune, out of the hash that Iraq has been. Stirring.
“There are many lessons to be learned from what we’ve experienced. We have learned that America must go to war with clearly defined goals, which is why I’ve ordered a review of our policy in Afghanistan. We have learned that we must always weigh the costs of action, and communicate those costs candidly to the American people, which is why I’ve put Iraq and Afghanistan into my budget. We have learned that in the 21st century, we must use all elements of American power to achieve our objectives, which is why I am committed to building our civilian national security capacity so that the burden is not continually pushed on to our military. We have learned that our political leaders must pursue the broad and bipartisan support that our national security policies depend upon, which is why I will consult with Congress and in carrying out my plans. And we have learned the importance of working closely with friends and allies, which is why we are launching a new era of engagement in the world.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/27/barack-obama-speech-iraq-war-end
If you prefer a U.S. source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/us/politics/27obama-text.html?pagewanted=all
I thought the most interesting part of the speech was Mr. Axlerod’s mention of a “civilian national security capacity” again. I think it will be very informative to see the OLC and AG’s recomendations on the implications for Posse Comitatus and vice versa.
This president has no objection to hash being made of more precious things:
February 28, 2009
Obama Set to Undo ‘Conscience’ Rule for Health Workers
By DAVID STOUT – New York Times
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration moved on Friday to undo a last-minute Bush administration rule granting broad protections to health workers who refuse to take part in abortions or provide other health care that goes against their consciences….
The rule prohibits recipients of federal money from discriminating against doctors, nurses and other health care workers who refuse to perform or assist in abortions or sterilization procedures because of their “religious beliefs or moral convictions.” Its supporters included the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Catholic Health Association, which represents Catholic hospitals.
In praising the Bush administration last fall, Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association, said that in recent years “we have seen a variety of efforts to force Catholic and other health care providers to perform or refer for abortions and sterilizations.”
Great speech, truly. From the State of the Union to the budget to this, it’s a relief to see plain sense spoken, and eloquently. I see the NYT Sunday Magazine cover is “The Return of Newt Gingrich.” An unlikely savior, I would think. But the GOP needs something, or someone.
He out-Reagened Reagan.
Mr. Hanley – there are two sides to the “conscience clause”:
a) it has only been moved to a 30 day comment period – no decision yet;
b) Obama is NOT in favor of forcing health care workers to go against their consciences;
c) he is concerned with Bush’s ruling that is poorly written, unclear, and could be used in a broadended capacity for the wrong purposes;
d) in efffect, it could be used to resist and curtail social programs such as birth control, family planning, etc.
I have read the speech and heard most of it. It’s a curious fact–and perhaps more to do with me (a reader rather than listener) that the speech seemed more moving than the delivery.
Or was it the straight-faced Marines behind Obama that influenced my response? Do we dare say, “how typically American” that they cheered when he promised a raise, but didn’t seem to respond to promises of diplomatic and other initiatives to bring the situation under control? Were they under orders?
He was interviewed by Jim Lehrer on the Newshour after the speech. What a difference from the previous administration. He had ideas, facts, his own questions at his command. Everyone keeps remarking on his confidence. Let’s talk about his competence.
“…is NOT in favor of forcing health care workers to go against their consciences;…”
There is absolutely no basis in fact to make such a statement and in fact, such an assertion contradicts the recorded votes on the topic of free exercise of religion by the person in question, public statements made by their surrogates, as well as treatment of free exercise in their proposed FY10 budget.
“…in efffect, it could be used to resist and curtail social programs such as birth control, family planning, etc.”
I think by “social programs” you mean “women’s reproductive health”. Or at least I very sincerely hope you did.
I thought the speech was very fine and the interview on “The News Hour” most impressive.
Here is one section of the speech I found particularly moving:
“You make up a fraction of the American population, but in an age when so many people and institutions have acted irresponsibly, you did the opposite – you volunteered to bear the heaviest burden. And for you and for your families, the war does not end when you come home. It lives on in memories of your fellow soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who gave their lives. It endures in the wound that is slow to heal, the disability that isn’t going away, the dream that wakes you at night, or the stiffening in your spine when a car backfires down the street.”
And I wondered whether it would cause those Ivy League schools that have banned ROTC to reconsider.
“There is absolutely no basis in fact to make such a statement and in fact, such an assertion contradicts the recorded votes on the topic of free exercise of religion by the person in question, public statements made by their surrogates, as well as treatment of free exercise in their proposed FY10 budget. ”
Matt and Craig,
Which way do you want it? It is okay fot the America of W Bush to go against the consciences of the rest of the world by not funding birth control but not alright for Obama to go against the concsiences of others? Or does it depend on whose goose is beign cooked?
I will delete any further comments not on topic: the topic is Obama’s speech at Camp Lejeune, the policy changes it foresees, and further discussion of the U.S.’s policies there.
I, for one, appreciated this short section from President Obama’s speech:
And so I want to be very clear: We sent our troops to Iraq to do away with Saddam Hussein’s regime – and you got the job done. We kept our troops in Iraq to help establish a sovereign government – and you got the job done. And we will leave the Iraqi people with a hard-earned opportunity to live a better life – that is your achievement; that is the prospect that you have made possible.
It seemed a bit at odds with statements made during the Presidential campaign, but, whatever, good is good. Thank you, Mr. President.
Do we agree here, Mr. Schwartz? Wow!
Obama has not made the mistake that many anti-Vietnam war citizens made. He doesn’t blame the troops who serve and have served. Back then, too many did blame the soldiers, instead of looking to the politicians and policy makers who made so many bad decisions. Of course, I think it will be a cold day in hell (and it is very cold right now in NYC!) before the politicians (Dems and Repubs alike) get called on for their many bad decisions; congressal as well as executive level decisions makers.
I agree. I think one of the major moral responsibilities we have as a country — whatever one thinks of the war–is to make sure that returning soldiers get the absolute best medical and psychological care, and honor for having served their country.