Obama Mentions ‘War’ 44 Times In Nobel Peace Prize Speech

video

by Glynnis MacNicol | 11:21 am, December 10th, 2009

» 23 comments

articleLarge It’s hard to imagine worse timing. President Obama flew to Norway today (according to Mark Knoller he is only the second president to do so) to accept his Nobel Peace Prize, nine days after announcing to the nation that he was sending 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. Has there ever been a more reluctant Nobel Prize recipient? And yet by most accounts Obama managed to pull it off.

The initial, general consensus seems to be that Obama exceeded expectations and that his “sober” acceptance speech — which required him to walk a very tricky tightrope — will please the conservatives as well as the liberals as much as any speech by the president can. That said, for a Nobel Peace Prize speech the president spoke an awful lot about war. In fact, he mentioned ‘war’ 44 times during the speech — a ‘just war‘ appears to be the main takeaway. To contrast he mentioned ‘peace’ 29 times. Sound like a strange tone to strike whilst accepting a peace prize? Well, maybe just imagine if he had he not chosen to address the elephant in the room. Says the Atlantic’s James Fallows:

As with his Philadelphia speech, he made the speech about the most awkward issue of the moment, rather than trying to avoid it. (In Philadelphia, the racially inflammatory rhetoric of Rev. Jeremiah Wright; in Oslo, his predicament as a war president getting a peace price.) I don’t think he provided even a five-second passage of the speech that could be isolated by U.S. opponents to show that he was “apologizing” for America.

Time’s Joe Klein thinks this passage from the speech is particularly worth noting as there is “something remarkably gutsy about using Martin Luther King Jr. as a foil before the Nobel Committee”:

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: “Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones.” As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there’s nothing weak — nothing passive — nothing naïve — in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

Meanwhile Politico’s Ben Smith felt Obama used the opportunity to “to sell his foreign policy at home and abroad without public reference to human rights, viewed by this White House as cheap — as used by Bush — and potentially counterproductive.” You can read the full text of the speech here and once we get video I will update. (Update: video below)

Afghanistan, barack obama, Ben Smith, James Fallows, Joe Klein, Mark Knoller, Nobel Peace Prize, Norway, Politico, The Atlantic, Time

RazorsEdge

Because Word Clouds of speeches “sometimes” can be telling. A word cloud of Pres. Obama’s speech this am Here: or

wordle.net/show/wrdl/1435321/Pres_Obama_Nobel_Peace_Speech
straitshooter

I’m not an Obama supporter, but I have to cut him slack for dealing gracefully with a no-win situtation. He knows that polls indicate most Americans don’t believe he deserved the peace prize, but he also knows it would have been offensive to the international community if he had politely declined.

By and large, he got the prize for the same reason he won the presidency, because he is black, and because he’s NOT George W. Bush. I applaud the President for recognizing the importance of our military in maintaining peace throughout the world.
m

> he got the prize for the same reason he won the presidency, because he is black

That’s an insanely racist claim.
straitshooter

Sure, it’s insane. Because a white inexperienced senator would have beaten Hillary for the nomination. Get real.
Jim R

I supported Obama because he wasn’t a Republican following failed conservative mantras, and recognized him from the start as at best a centrist Democrat.

He did well splitting the baby on this one, as he is wont to do on critical matters. I think the chances of gaining any begrudging acknowledgement from Republicans on his speech is nil, just barely below the level of faint praise he’ll receive from Democrats who weren’t listening and thought he was some kind of anti-war revolutionary.

The monied interests have all of our pols right where they want them, waffling precariously in the center while governing to please campaign contributors instead of the people; who busy themselves fighting amongst each other.
straitshooter

Jim,

I think a lot people voted for Obama because he wasn’t a Republican, and for that reason, I think Hillary would have won had she been the nominee. My queston to Obama supporters is this: If Obama had been a white senator from Illinois with 2 years of national political experience and no executive experience, would you have preferred him over Hillary Clinton?

I think a lot of people were enamored with the idea of voting for a smart black man who delivered great speeches, and that’s a perfectly valid reason to back a candidate. I just have a hard time believing Hillary would have lost to Obama if he were white.

Nice turn of phrase, by the way, on “splitting the baby.” That’s exactly what he did.
rmbltmbl

Somewhere around 36.. by not attributing the use of to someone else.. for “I”
Facebook User

Breitbart is willing to rock the boat, but only a little bit, and his brand of conservatism leans towards the Bush/NeoCon and teaparty/libertarian side of things (the “good for business” side) rather than other varieties. That explains why there’s only one (1) post in biggovernment.com/tag/illegal-immigration and only three (3) posts in biggovernment.com/tag/immigration, one of which lies about our policies (we admit over a million people per year). It’s only been around for three months, but in the same time period I’ve posted dozens of entries about immigration matters, and I don’t have any contributors. Breitbart is going have an effect on the MSM, but it’s not going to be as great as it could be because he’s not willing to strike at them where they’re weakest. They’re weak on that topic and others, but those topics aren’t exactly at the front of Breitbart’s mind or he’s got contributors who are themselves weak on the topic.
Jim R

straitshooter – I was a Hillary supporter, at least to the extent I viewed her as the best choice in a weak field, from a liberal perspective.

What a country, we’re always somehow picking the least worst nowadays, sigh.
straitshooter

Jim R, allow me to be your company in this misery. I’m conservative, but I thought McCain-Palin was a garbage ticket. I didn’t even vote. I liked Huckabee, but I’m sure he would have eventually disappointed me too.
libra blue

@Jim, I am an independent, but I have to admit that I also supported Hillary Clinton as “the best choice in a weak field.” She probably would have beaten McCain as well.

@straitshooter, I think your comment may have been racial, but not racist. Even those that voted for Obama suspect that it is the truth, they just don’t like it pointed out.

IMO, I don’t think anyone deserved the Nobel Peace Prize this year, so I think they decided they would give it to the first black president, qualified or not.
straitshooter

I would have given the peace prize to the Iranian people, specifically the women who was killed in the streets for protesting.

Libra, thanks for the semantic defense. I would agee my comment was racial. Racism would be saying he didn’t deserve to win because he was black. I have no problem with people voting for Obama based on his skin color. I’m sure a lot of women would have voted for Hillary because they were excited about helping a woman become president.
libra blue

@straitshooter, Just because someone mentions race in a negative way doesn’t make it racist. It is just a tactic used by some to discourage that type of discussion, nor matter how valid. However, it does bother me that people voted based on race, the same way that it would bother me if they voted based on sex. I also think that it is wrong if people voted against Obama based on race.

Having said that, I still think Obama was and is not qualified to be president, nor does he deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. His lack of qualifications should not be overlooked because of race either.
m

If you’ve spoken with anyone at the State Department, you’d know that as soon as Obama got nominated as a Presidential candidate, diplomacy got easier. When he *became* President, diplomacy even got viable. During the Bush years, relations with other nations – including our closest allies, had gotten real sour and bitter. Obama changed all of that.
ImNotBlue

m says:
December 10, 2009 at 8:31 pm

Obama changed all of that.

Yes, and now half the world views our leader as weak and ineffective. HOORAY! What progress!
marquis

I have it on good authority that this Jim R dude is on some of that Barney Frank type action
Snipzor

@ImNotBlue

Because to be considered a strong leader, you have to be a total dick and piss off the rest of the international community? I get the feeling you don’t know what diplomacy means. Or progress for that matter.
TfT

He has gotten a lot of praise in conservative circles for his speech. Although I am sick and tired of his garbage about torture and his refusal to acknowledge the success of Iraq, it was one of his better speeches.

Even Sarah praised it, which must drive Glynnis crazy.
dmbream

m, others-

In a period when the world supposedly “hated us” because of Bush, we saw continued movement toward and Right-leaning victories in elections in Germany, Italy, Israel, France and Canada. The U.K. would give Gordon Brown the boot at any minute, were it not impolite. The Eastern block countries are rather staunchly pro-U.S. Spain is one country where the more Conservative candidate didn’t win on the referendum vs. the Left.

So, who exactly then, hated us? The twits burning cars in the streets of Paris? The backward-facing extremists in the Middle East?

Take a look around. “If your friends are smiling, and your enemies not, you’re doing something right.”

Our friends aren’t smiling.

On the other hand:

Ahmadinejad:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_hntojuBOgo0/ShlH_OGmLBI/AAAAAAAAHD4/C3cewnlFUg8/s400/IranPresident.jpg

Chavez:

http://www.lucasblog.com/archives/cc14010e-f1c5-4bfb-b1ad-2fbcf80f1344.jpg

Putin:

http://english.pravda.ru/img/idb/putin_smiling.jpg

Bush pissed off the right people.

That “the world hated us” line is tired and quite inaccurate.
blueblogger

Jim R is correct. Elections seem to always be voting for the lessor of two evils. I voted for Obama and would have voted for him if he were the same person and was WHITE. I could not see Hillary in the White House but then I would never vote for anyone just because they are a woman. I never liked Hillary and could not imagine having to live with her and Bill for another 4 or 8 years. As an independent I always consider the Republican candidates but McCain/Palin was an impossible choice. McCain too old and she well let’s just say I would not her making any kind of decisions of any importance. I have watched Obama since his speech in 2004 thought he would be a candidate for president in the future. Never thought it would be this fast.

Obama’s speech will be another one remembered in history. It is refreshing to have someone as intelligent and well spoken in the White House for a change. I know this site is full of Obama haters but I am willing to give him some time because he has one HELL of a mess to clean up. It is hard to tell if you hate HIM or hate him because he is a democrat. Probably a little of both. But you are stuck with him for a couple more years. So you have lots of time to vent all of your hate and anger. I swear if he cured cancer you would be complaining about overpopulation. He can’t win with most of you so enjoy it while you can.
ImNotBlue

Snipzor says:
December 11, 2009 at 7:30 am
Because to be considered a strong leader, you have to be a total dick and piss off the rest of the international community? I get the feeling you don’t know what diplomacy means. Or progress for that matter.

No… I just think to be a strong leader… you need to, you know, accomplish something. I know that puts me at odds with the NPP Committee… and you, apparently. But that’s just my opinion. To be considered GOOD at a job, you have to actually DO something positive.

Thus far, what has Obama’s “diplomacy” gotten us? Iran said they’d let other countries enrich their uranium… but then changed their mind. We canceled the missile defense shield program, and Russia just tested new long range rockets. And what part about any of that is positive?!

Oh… some other countries “like” us more. Hooray! I always wanted to be liked! Sure, it would be better if they were willing to HELP us, or we able to parlay that into some sort of international cooperation… but instead, we’ll get taken advantage of. But at least they like us… kinda.

blueblogger says:
December 11, 2009 at 4:46 pm

With all due respect… honestly… how do can you say: As an independent I always consider the Republican candidates… but have the screen-name “blueblogger?” That seems a contradiction… unless the “blue” in your name is a reference to the actual color, not the political color.

I swear if he cured cancer you would be complaining about overpopulation. He can’t win with most of you so enjoy it while you can.

Awfully similar to the Democrats treatment of the Bush White House, and the past 8 years… no?
burghman2010

Obama promised his wacko followers an end to the war, now they suport his sending more troops, wow, what a bunch of mind control zombies. By the way Obama is Dick Cheney’s cousin, I dont care what color his skin is he still worships Lucifer and wants you all locked in concentration camps and cooked in ovens.
dmbream

m, others-

In a period when the world supposedly “hated us” because of Bush, we saw continued movement toward and Right-leaning victories in elections in Germany, Italy, Israel, France and Canada. The U.K. would give Gordon Brown the boot at any minute, were it not impolite. The Eastern block countries are rather staunchly pro-U.S. Spain is one country where the more Conservative candidate didn’t win on the referendum vs. the Left.

So, who exactly then, hated us? The twits burning cars in the streets of Paris? The backward-facing extremists in the Middle East?

Take a look around. “If your friends are smiling, and your enemies not, you’re doing something right.”

Our friends aren’t smiling.

On the other hand:

Google “Ahmadinejad smiling” and click the image results.

Google “Chavez smiling” and click the image results.

Google “Putin smiling” and click the image results.

Google “Kim Jong Il smiling” and click the image results.

Bush pissed off the right people.

That “the world hated us” line is tired and quite inaccurate.