Obama's Speech To The U.N.: Bookerista Perspectives

Clifton B.: "Notes On Obama's Speech To The U.N."

The conservative blogger discusses U.S. President Barack Obama's speech yesterday before the United Nations: "I followed my old rule and read Obama’s speech rather than watch it. I suggest everyone should do the same. Reading Obama’s speeches are far more revealing than listening to them. You can find a transcript of the speech here. A contradiction: I was immediately stuck by contradictions early on. In the opening paragraphs Obama says; 'Now, like all of you, my responsibility is to act in the interest of my nation and my people, and I will never apologize for defending those interests' (yeah right) and then in the very next paragraph he tells the assembly that we must 'embrace a new era of engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect'. So which is it? Will Obama act in America’s best interest or will we only act mutually with the world?"

He zeroes in on President's Obama comments about nuclear weapons: "This is laughable, as Iran and North Korea seem to be able to move faster and faster to achieve their nuclear goals. His focus on disarmament with Russia seems like something that was better suited for the Reagan Era than anything that is going on in the world today. If achieving a nuclear free world is your goal why not first stop the two nations that are desperately seeking entry into the nuclear arms club, rather than put all your efforts on disarming the US and Russia? Counting on the world to come together to stop North Korea and Iran is naiveté at its highest. China and Russia have their own agenda for not taking action against these two."

Mr. B. questions the efficacy of the United Nations, which is well-known for its totalitarian regimes: "The fact that Qaddafi or Ahmadinejad can get an audience at the UN, should really bring to question why the United States is involved with the UN at all.....If Obama could only realize that so long as the UN treats crazy regimes legitimately, he will never get the cooperation he is looking for. What is needed is not more engagement with the UN, but a better UN! In an era when our destiny is shared, power is no longer a zero-sum game. No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold. The traditional divisions between nations of the South and the North make no sense in an interconnected world; nor do alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War. A plug for a global socialist order or the end of American exceptionalism?"

On the president's comments on Israel: "Israel meet Obama’s bus, Obama’s bus meet Israel. It is hard to see how Israel will continue to exist if there is a contiguous Palestinian state. I think Israel is being herded into a lose-lose situation. Clearly Obama wants to sit back and wait for Israel to strike Iran. Once they do that, I have little doubt that Obama will come down on the side of condemning Israel for their actions. Israel is clearly on their own for the next 3 years."

More commentary from Mr. B.: "An Observation: What I found interesting is that Obama never addressed human rights abuses in a room jammed pack full of human rights abusers. It is interesting to note that Sarah Palin pinged China for these while standing on Chinese soil, yet Obama on his own nation’s soil, with Qaddafi and Ahmadinejad speaking the same day, could not utter a word on the issue. Conclusion: This speech, like Obama's past world speeches, indicates to me that Obama thinks that if he just checks off a few items from the world’s wish list, that the world will all of a sudden cooperate with American goals. Nothing could be further from the truth. Anti-Americanism is reflexive in the UN, it is independent of whether the president is right or left. Many of these nations will simply find new gripes for reasons not to cooperate with America so that they are free to pursue their own agendas."

Erik Rush: "O's Narcissism On Display At U.N."

The conservative Republican commentator opines: "Like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, Obama expounds upon cooperation and peace, but, as with so many other issues, his actions contradict his exposition. In his twisted vision, a weakened America is a good thing. It is most certainly in keeping with the political doctrine he followed prior to running for the presidency, and the character of his confederates. If one factors out the manner in which the product was presented to the electorate in 2008, it makes perfect sense."

He continues his commentary: "There isn't much reason to belabor all that was wrong with President Obama's address to the United Nations General Assembly this week and the feeble message it conveyed to our enemies. To those enemies, no doubt it was the cherry on the sundae behind Obama's resolution to halt deployment of the anti-missile shield in Eastern Europe and his abysmal telegraphing as regards the campaign in Afghanistan, as well as selling out Israel.

We'd be content and happy if Obama can stay president forever.… – Moammar Gadhafi, Sept. 23, 2009

And is it any wonder? Do you suppose Gadhafi and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad were snickering up their sleeves as Obama droned on with his trademark smug, peremptory cadence, extolling the virtues of cooperation and (very Western, I might add) concepts of shared responsibility? I'm no psychologist, but I think that this propensity for weakening us on the part of our leaders is a manifestation of their narcissism. They believe that these foolish overtures to enemy nations display magnanimity and transcendent character on their part. Given that Obama is the narcissist's narcissist, it obviously figures that his efforts in this area outstrip those of other American presidents."

More: "To many of us, it is clear that Obama is dragging America toward global socialism; as I have indicated before, probably farther to the left than that. Interestingly, it is worth noting that all of the world's other socialist and Marxist regimes differ in a fundamental aspect from the one Obama is desperately trying to create. They look out for their own interests."

Chrystopher Smith: "Why Obama's Foreign Policy Helps Pundits, Potentates, Pimps Even Putin... Just Not Us?"

The conservative Republican blogger: "Electing a radical president was problem enough here. It sends a clear message to thug communities around the world that the Cloward-Piven chaos theory is on... overload the system with threats of violence and actually try to carry them out to overburden them. Obama is not ignorant, this is a calculating black liberation theology devotee on a mission to dismantle America's good standing globally an[d] inspire revolution and sow the seed of dissent. Barrack Hussein Obama is no FDR... he is more like Che' Guevara. The MSM [mainstream media] is so in love with him why don't they make a '[F]riends' off-shoot and call it 'Frenemies'... every fist pumping, latte sipping, coffeehouse revolutionary would surely tune in...at their friends house. Meanwhile, our own troops have to suffer indignancy of a petulant Obama about to down another waffle on Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal is standing firm on what he needs - he isn't the insane one. It's all the back-pedaling on so-called forward thinking in the White House that has heads spinning in disbelief. Whatever happens, we must protect American lives on the ground."