Newsweek Editor Compares Obama to God
(Obama
BY: NCViking
Yeah … no media bias here.
Newsweek editor Evan Thomas talks with Chris Matthews about Barack Obama and his unprecedented greatness. Mathews’ leg must have experienced another furrowing as he chimed in with an enthusiastic ‘Yeah’ to Thomas comparing Obama to God. If Obama is God and the Messiah, does that now make Bubba Clinton John the Baptist? According to Mathews, maybe so.
EVAN THOMAS: Well, we were the good guys in 1984, it felt that way. It hasn’t felt that way in recent years. So Obama’s had, really, a different task We’re seen too often as the bad guys. And he – he has a very different job from – Reagan was all about America, and you talked about it. Obama is ‘we are above that now.’ We’re not just parochial, we’re not just chauvinistic, we’re not just provincial. We stand for something – I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of – God.
MATTHEWS: Yeah.
Get a room.
- Economic Crisis of Confidence - February 8th, 2010
- Cato Analysis and Fact Check of SOTU Speech - January 28th, 2010
- State of the Union Déjà vu? - January 26th, 2010
- Purple Predestination - January 25th, 2010
- Prince Composes New Vikings Fight Song (Oh Yes He Did!) - January 22nd, 2010
Obama forgets his job description, or at least his supporters do. He was elected President of the United States, not President of the World… of the Universe. If they want him to achieve god-status, he needs to figure out his current job and work towards running against the Almighty in a few years.
Reagan had it right… as President, you should be all about AMERICA.
Piggy-backing on his world apology tour through the Muslim world, should we call him Yahweh or Allah?
Just throwing the question out there.
I have read Obama’s speech, and I have read world reaction to it. My question for you (specifically Arch), is what part of the speech was an apology?
Interestingly, even Fox did not describe it as an apology. I don’t question that you may think it may be one, just exactly what part? And did you listen to it or did you just hear someone else describe it as such?
I prefer Madman, but Arch will do I suppose.
I actually didn’t reference this particular speech in my brief comment. The tour in its entirety is the tone I was taking, but I can address a couple points in the speech if you wish:
Regardless of what anyone thinks of the Iraq action – good or bad – this war was a consensus from the beginning. It was only after the operation dragged on that nations started dropping out that participation started to wane. Approximately 40 countries participated in the initial operation. I think that constitutes an international consensus.
Translation: I’m deeply sorry that we invaded Iraq even though the Iraqi people are much better off now than they were. Sounds like an apology to me, but you can make your own judgment.
Fear and anger to what people? Islamic terrorists? Can’t say that as it would irritate and incite those that he was talking to in the speech. Much easier to blame American’s for thinking ill of the Muslim radicals. How many Christian or Jewish or __________ (fill in religion of choice) terrorists have we seen in the past? I’m sure they can be counted on one hand.
It seems that every time we see our President traveling overseas, especially in countries with a heavy Muslim population, he downgrades America. The problems with the Islamic extremists will not get better until the “peaceful Muslims” stand up and take charge of these loons. No President or leader on Earth will be able to broker peace in the Middle East. The best we can hope for is to reduce the violence and keep the problems over in that part of the world.
Here’s the entire Cairo speech, just for your reference.
Or his American Arrogance speech in France:
Now to be fair, the Cairo speech was very good overall. There were many great things that were said and I applaud those items. I would love for our country to have a better relationship with these countries and I really hope that will be the ultimate end, but the blame game has to stop. How easy would it be to leave out the “we did this and you did that” rhetoric and just state what needs to be done from this point forward?
Madman,
Thank you for the response. To be utterly fair, the interpretation that Iraq had an “international consensus” is, as you know, controversial. The premise is not accepted by everyone. GW I included support from Saudi Arabia (under threat), Egypt, and others.
GW II included UK, Spain, some other European countries. After you get past the top 5-6 the rest are Fiji, Tonga, Singapore, token forces like Hungary, Slovakia, Honduras, Japan.
For example, Poland had 500 troops. UK had 5,000. The next largest contingency is 2,500, all other countries combined contributed less than the UK.
You do have to admit that consensus in this case is mostly on paper and weak.
I do not interpret Obama’s comments on Iraq as an apology. I think instead that he is saying:
– “Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world.” Translation: it did, and still does provoked strong differences.
– “Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein,” Translation: We did good despite the divisions.
– “I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible.” Translation: use diplomacy and international consensus is our preference. We will not impose our will through force “whenever possible.”
Obama’s most masterful moment in the speech is precisely the paragraph you noted: “And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter our principles. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course.”
It addresses why we used Guantanamo, the events in Abu Gharib, etc… It places cause and blame on the perpetrators on 9/11. It does not blame Bush, it moves the blame to AQ. And it removes it as an issue because he plans to change course.
I did not follow why your reasoning at all on that paragraph.
Your statement that “he downgrades America” is completely unsupported by anything he says. He has never, EVER, said anything that downgrades America. It would be all over Fox if he did. He has said repeatedly he would not tolerate another terrorist attack.
I disagree that “No President or leader on Earth will be able to broker peace in the Middle East.” The consensus of the Saudi’s is that we need a Palestinian state soon. That will go a long way to check Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iran.
I do concur with the sentiment that “Peaceful Muslims” need to control and win over extremists. I think that was the sole and main purpose of the speech.
Controversial – maybe. I’m sure you remember why countries like France and Russia decided to bow out of Iraq. It had more to do with the extremely large oil contracts held by several French and Russian companies with Iraq. Follow the money.
Obviously I disagree but you’re welcome to your opinion on the matter.
The problems in the middle east are ancient. Christians, Jews and Muslims have never been close friends and I fail to see how this time will be any different. Let’s assume that Palestine is a state, what then? Do you really thing that they will live life and leave everyone alone? I know you are smarter than that as I’ve read most of your back and forth on this site.
It has been well documented that much of the news footage that we see here in the US is staged for the camera. All to garner sympathy for their “cause”. The Palestinians can lob whatever they want at Israel, but if Israel responds then they are the bad guy. “Peace Talks” are another way of saying “I want to put a feather in my cap for my legacy.” Sorry to be a downer, but nothing will change. These people want the elimination of all those that don’t follow their brand of Islam. I suppose when you live in the 12th century, you’re just going to stay pissed off most of the time.
Enjoy the video
I think it is a misconception of the West that the problems of the Middle East are ancient. Here’s my reasoning:
- Europe had wars from the end of the Roman Empire through WWII. The history of European wars are significant. They had the 100 yr war, the 30 yr war, and on it goes. Yet today, for the last 60 years, Europe is not only not at war, it is has a unified currency and Parliament.
- There is nothing to suggest that the ME is any more an ancient war torn strife land than Europe.
- The nations of the Middle East rarely fight each other. There was the Iran-Iraq war and there was the internal civil war in Lebanon. The remainder of the conflict is centered on the creation of Israel.
- The creation of Israel displaced a lot of families. There have been atrocities (murder, rape, torture) on all sides.
- War is wearing thin on these people. I know people on both sides. Some are highly anti-US. All agree that the US must be the broker of peace.
Trackbacks
More Christian Metaphors For Democratic Leaders | The Great Illuminator
Leave your response!
Our Growing Debt
Countdown Timer
in 32 months, 3 weeks, 3 days, 16 hours, 27 minutes, 48 seconds
Latest Illuminations
Subscribe to Posts
Categories
Authors
Archives
Center Links
Conservative Links
Great Forums
Liberal Links
The Great Illuminator
Most Commented
Tags