Dionne on Obama’s speech.
Just posted to the homepage:
By insisting Tuesday evening that “it’s time to turn the page,” President Barack Obama was talking about more than the Iraq War, and doing much more than reviving one of his most effective slogans from the 2008 campaign.
He was also trying to turn the page on a period in which he has found himself on the defensive, his party in a perilous position for November’s elections, and his reputation for political mastery in doubt.
Obama’s speech was resolutely nonpolitical in form but profoundly political in its implications. To rescue his party, Obama had to begin rebuilding his own popularity, offer hope in a time of economic despair, and restore confidence in the course on which he has set the nation.
Read the rest right here.
In case you missed the address:
A good speech, although I would suggest that because our Dignity as Human Individuals is endowed to each one of us from God, our Sacred Trust as leader of the Free World is anchored in our belief that we are One Nation Under God with Liberty and Justice for all.
Nancy, I really hate to complain but do you have any idea just how arrogant what you wrote reads to a non-American. America’s rounded off population of 300 million is only 5% of the World’s 6 billion inhabitants. The leadership mantle is a very fleeting thing and as history demonstrates change is inevitable. So too is Humility needed to share Dignity with all humans. Just something to keep in mind.
John, you make it sound as if our Founding Fathers did not believe, from The Beginning, that all Human Individuals have been endowed by God with the unalienable Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness and thus any Nation, if they so desire, can become one Nation under God. Just something to keep in mind.
I also was glad to hear President Obama’s words of respect for President Bush.
As a number of commentators have pointed out, the withdrawal can be understood as President Obama fulfilling a commitment made by President Bush to the people and government of Iraq.
Many of President Obama’s supporters in 2008 wanted a ‘narrative of rupture’ in the trajectory of our involvement in Iraq, but in many ways, what we’ve been given is a ‘narrative of continuity.’
I think the President gave a good speech.
I am certainly glad we are leaving Iraq and applaud the President. I wish we would get out of Afghanistan as well. I would also like to see troops brought home from Europe; the Russians are not a threat anymore; let the EU foot the bill for standing soldiers.
In general I prefer that we take a more isolationist approach of “avoiding foreign entanglements” attitude type of foreign policy; that we tend matters closer to home. Let Europe and China carry some of the weight of the world on their shoulders; we have done so since ~ 1950 and frankly we Americans are a bit tired and need a rest. I also think we should raise some tariffs in order to help the American manufacturing sector jobs situation, but that is part of another discussion altogether.
All of that being said; why does president Obama pronounce Afghanistan and Pakistan differently? I noticed he uses the long a (“Ahh”) for Pakistan pronouncing it as “Pahkistahn”, but he uses the sort “a” sound for Afghanistan.
Any ideas on why he does this?
Thanks
” — let the EU foot the bill for standing soldiers.”
Interestingly enough, Germany is about to disband the draft, reduce the size of its military, and rely on the euphemistic “citizen soldier.” Or dare I call it a “well-ordered militia?”
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Editorial-Board-Blog/2010/0831/Germany-considers-another-step-toward-normalcy-dropping-the-draft
“I also was glad to hear President Obama’s words of respect for President Bush.”
Once again, the hand reached out to his opponents. Wonder if it will be shaken or slapped away?
For what it’s worth, I thought the speech was very lackluster — he seemed to be sucking all the energy out of the room. I hope this was intentional — he thought that was the proper tone for this kind of occasion — and not a reflection of his state of mind!
A typically (and truly) fair and balanced column from Mr. Dionne.
I got the sense that Obama, both by making this speech and in what he said in the speech, was laying the groundwork for:
1. the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks,
2. Congress’ return to business—with a focus on jobs and the economy—after Labor Day,
3. the fall campaign to save a Democratic congressional majority in November,
4. the continued withdrawal of troops on schedule from Iraq, and
5. the scheduled reduction of US troops in Afghanistan next summer.
Mr. Pauwels, I agree we’ve been given a “narrative of continuity” about Iraq, and that Obama reinforced that narrative in his speech. For the historical record, it’s worth recalling that the 2008 Status of Forces agreement signed under the Bush administration was driven, in large part, by the Iraqi government’s favorable reaction to Obama’s campaign proposals.
(I hope I’m right on all counts…although it wouldn’t be the first time I’ve been wrong if I’m not.)
Why did president Obama pronounce Afghanistan and Pakistan differently?
I noticed he used the long “a” (“ahh”) for Pakistan pronouncing it as “Pah-ki-stahn”, but he used the sort “a” sound for “Afghanistan”.
Any ideas on this?
Ken: Just a theory, discard it if somebody knowledgeable offers another.
The first letter of “Afghanistan” and the second letter of “Pakistan” are the Arabic letter “alif.” But in “Afghanistan” it is a consonant, betokening a glottal stop. In “Pakistan” it represents a long vowel. If the vowel were short it would not be written at all. The vowel in the first syllable of “Afghanistan” is short, and therefore unwritten.
In Obama’s case, obviously, he pronounces them differently because somebody spelled them out in a transliteration on his teleprompter.
Felapton, it may just be a “theory” but it sounds very knowledgeable and plausible to me.
Nancy, where did you get your ideas about “Human Individuals”? The God of the Jewish and Christian Bible(s) (upon Whose Word the American documents of freedom are clearly based) clearly neither views nor addresses humanity as a conglomeration of individuals. Sure, He calls certain individuals as representative ministers (priests, prophets & kings, e.g.) but He deals with His creation as a whole. Nations are addressed as individuals, not persons.
The “inalienable rights” referred to in the Declaration of Independence are not endowed upon each individual (wo)man; they are granted to His creation as a whole. Unless one remains in proper relationship with the rest of Creation, s/he cannot expect to enjoy those rights. Read your Bible.
@Michael Patrick King: “Nations are addressed as individuals, not persons.”
What I meant to say was, “Nations, not persons, are addressed as individuals.”