Ten months and trillions of dollars after taking office, Barack Obama has finally found a way to make Republicans happy: Go to Europe, do a Bush impersonation, order Freedom Fries and tell those pusillanimous peace-mongers they would be toast if Americans weren’t always ready to come over there and kill bad people.
Dick Cheney hasn’t weighed in yet, but Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich are thrilled with the President’s Nobel speech.
“I liked what he said," says she about Obama’s proposal for terrorist death panels. "Of course, war is the last thing I believe any American wants to engage in, but it's necessary."
A ‘very historic speech,” says the author of the Contract with America, “having a liberal president who goes to Oslo on behalf of a peace prize and reminds the committee that they would not be free, they wouldn't be able to have a peace prize, without force.”
In the Age of Twitter, it may be that Palin and Gingrich never got to the second half of the President’s oration, the part where he said that “no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint...Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but the purpose of faith--for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.”
But Obama may have stumbled onto the secret of bipartisanship—give Republicans his views in very small doses, not 2000 pages of health care reform. Then they can do what they did with those big novels back in school, mark up the juicy parts and skip all that boring stuff between.
Tomorrow’s assignment: Tolstoy’s “War.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
As we strive to determine what form of Government subjection to burden ourselves with, the Foundation stood upon is Truth undenied. President Obama could have not said it better.
Let Peace be Found in the Paridise called Earth by this shared wisdom, but as President Reagan has said, "but varify".
"In the Age of Twitter, it may be that Palin and Gingrich never got to the second half of the President’s oration, the part where he said that `no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe....' "
Your post would make more sense if you provided a reason why you think Palin and Gingrich would disagree with that.
You just did what you accused Republicans of doing: you skipped over the substance and lept to the "juicy part."
There are many principles to which Gov. Palin & Senator Gingrich agree on, but they do differ on a basic level of limited Nationalism of the Federal Govt powers exercised, Newt being a Nationalist and Sarah being a Federalist.
Sarah and Newt do agree with President Obama on the statement of World peace being of it's own accord, in compliance with the Bible and with the Qur'an.
But from there, all three differ in approach, Obama and Newt being the closet entrenching the USA into Nationalism.
The juicy part, I may have missed your though again. Try again if you would. And now for my quote, "FairTax please"
To R. Robert Dunn: To clarify, my comment was not directed at your comment but at Robert Stein's bizarre claim that Palin and Gingrich both support "holy war."
that guy needs to go back and read what Obama said. None of the three have said this in this setting. Can't say about Obama, as my vetting of him leaves me lots of questions. Yet, in this speech, President Obama said it aobut as well as can be said.
Post a Comment