When conservatives praised President Obama's speech at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony I was confused. Although I am sure that in personal settings these self-styled spokesmen(and women) of conservatism are charming individuals who know how to joke and laugh, are loving parents, like puppies and will be missed when they die on the National Stage they have done nothing but shit on the debates of the past 20 years by presenting misleading bullshit as fact, poll-tested talking points as original thought and selfish egotism the only character of politicians.
Now they say they like Obama's speech and a couple MSM outlets and Politico are gaga over presenting this fact.
Not everyone but I'm willing to bet the Sunday morning talk shows are going to refer to it many times.
Why are they saying how wonderful the 'Obama Doctrine' is? Because they want to define it.
Now that they've started this meme it needs to be challenged.
Firstly I would say it's wrong for society to ever care about what Newt Gingrich, Henry A. Kissinger and Sarah Palin say. A simple review of the truthiness of previous statements and easily judged probable motivations would show they have not be intellectually honest. The energy it takes to filter through their lies outweighs any insight they might provide. Of course they shouldn't be stopped but a responsible media wouldn't give them a platform. But responsible media we don't have. We have a corporate media: money, connections and viewing magnitude matter more then responsibility.
So we must be the responsible ones. The idea of the 'Obama Doctrine' is out there so before we fight to redefine it we must define it. Definitions are important, the Monroe Doctrine (1823), a policy of stopping military attacks by European Powers on any country in the Americas was warped 70 years later into a policy of 'nobody can bully these countries except us.' Big difference that completely subverts the original meaning. Conservative leaders are trying to focus attention on the parts of the Nobel Prize speech they can warp into defenses of their actions and ideas. The exact ideas that sent us into a ruinous war in Iraq.
If you don't think some future 'dumb war' can be justified by the 'Obama Doctrine' you are wrong.
Obama Doctrine in my words: (I'll add definitions presented in the comments)
America's goal is a better life for our people.
To attain this we strive for a better life for all people.
Better means cultural dignity, economic power, political rights.
Non-violent methods are the only perfectly moral methods.
Non-violent methods are the most powerful and best.
Force is only justified by self-defense and after a sincere
exhaustion of all other efforts.
Declaring, waging war is not glorious and no one should be rewarded for it.
Failure will be constant and so should effort
Please feel free to edit and rewrite 'Obama Doctrine' definitions in the comments.
The Politico article by Eamon Javers starts off with exactly what these losers wanted (paragraph 2)
It’s already being called the “Obama Doctrine” – a notion that foreign policy is a struggle of good and evil, that American exceptionalism has blunted the force of tyranny in the world, and that U.S. military can be a force for good and even harnessed to humanitarian ends.
The new definition removes all the humility and caution. It focuses on the military and forgets diplomacy. The power of non-violence is ignored. America is an instrument of God against evil. Anything can be justified as a force for good.
Sarah Palin about how great she is:
"I talked too in my book about the fallen nature of man and why war is necessary at times."
and the daily use of fear is good...
The former Alaska governor went on to say that former president George W. Bush "did a great job of reminding Americans every single day that he was in office" of the lessons of the 9/11 attacks.
It is absolute bullshit
To end on a positive note, I linked to it above in passing but this guy did good in his analysis of Obama's speech. It seems kinda weird to be that direct but that's how I want to say it.