Skip to main content
Home2012 Articles2011 Articles2010 Articles2009 Articles2008 Articles2007 Articles
 
 2009 Articles 
Saturday, October 03 2009

Wouldn't it be nice if we had a president who was willing to go before a watching world and defend the honor of his own country and countrymen?  Of all the disagreements and disputes I have with the current administration, this is perhaps the greatest.

 

Just a week ago, the President of the United States had an incredible opportunity to say a few things that need sayin' when he stood before the utterly corrupt United Nations.  And for a brief, fleeting moment, I thought he was about to do it.  After a dramatic pause, President Obama began his sentence by cautioning, "For those who question the character and cause of my nation..."  I moved to the edge of my seat awaiting that "hero moment" when the leader of the free world would scold the dictators, tyrants, and crooked regimes that have built their pathetic thugocracies on the shallow rhetoric of anti-American posturing.

 

Time stood still for a brief second, suspended in mid-air as I envisioned the words that Americans past and present desperately desire and definitely deserve to hear their leader speak to the world.  Here's what I imagined:

 

"For those who question the character and cause of my nation, perhaps you should take a moment and consider where the world would be - where you would be - without the leadership, goodness, and benevolence of the American people.

 

To our friends from Africa, my nation has poured its treasure into combating the rampant spread of the debilitating AIDS virus throughout your entire continent.  You are aware that had it not been for the long hours of our scientists, the ingenuity of our technology, the perseverance of our medical personnel, and the sacrifice of our life-saving envoys to your people, the death tolls would have been unimaginable.

 

To the good people of East Asia, you too have seen the heart of my nation.  It was less than a decade ago when your shores were ravaged by the waters of an unrelenting tsunami that killed untold thousands and devastated your economies.  The outpouring of aid you received not just from the American government, but far more significantly from private American citizens and institutions, speaks volumes about our character.

 

Consider that American Christian churches give $8.8 billion in aid to developing nations throughout the world.  That alone is over $1.5 billion more than the private donations of all the other 30 most industrialized nations combined.

 

To our European brothers and sisters, may I remind you that your beaches are still stained with the blood of many American GIs who paid the ultimate price for your liberation from the Nazis and communists.  And as if that weren't enough, when your war-torn countries saw famine and depression following the World Wars you initiated, the United States was there to pour $13 billion into the Marshall Plan, which literally saved your continent from ruin.

 

Much has been said in these halls about America's go-it-alone philosophy and our imperialistic attitude.  Let it be remembered that never before has a nation on this earth possessed the power that we have held in our hands for nearly a century.  Consider our military prowess, our nuclear arsenal, and then consider the manner in which we have used them - not to subjugate, annihilate, or pillage, but liberate and protect.

 

Before condemning the imposing hand of the American empire, consult the texts of history and recognize that never before has a people been so strong...and simultaneously so restrained by their own sense of virtue.

 

Without the United States, the world would be a darker place...a much darker place.  We do not suggest that we are perfect.  Indeed, more than any other country, we put our faults and failures on full display, holding them up to the light of day in order that we might correct them in our ongoing pursuit of creating a more perfect union.  Some of you take advantage of that reality to mock and belittle us.  But perhaps you would do your citizens a greater favor by modeling our openness and imitating our willingness to correct our mistakes.

 

My fellow citizens of the world, I don't come here today to ask for your respect.  Rather, I come here to remind you that generations of Americans have already earned it.  Thank you."

 

But our president didn't say that.  Instead he implicitly agreed that all the vitriol, animosity, and anti-American hatred so prevalent amongst these corrupt regimes was justified and well-grounded.  But, he assured them, now that he had ascended to power there was reason for hope.

 

Wouldn't it be nice if we had a president more interested in defending the honor of his country than in polishing his own global celebrity?

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:05 pm   |  Permalink   |  54 Comments  |  Email
Comments:
Are you really bashing President Obama for that speech? Really?? I think Obama's informed, realistic response is way more meaningful than the USA USA USA rhetoric you are looking for, Pete. It is genuine; it acknowledges history. You can hear it in his speech, he's an educated man, and he is not pandering to the lowest common denominator in intelligence.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 10/03/2009 20:55:25
Are you really defending President Obama for that speech? Really? Obama's self-aggrandizing, self-absorbed, messianic blather was so meaningless that the French President...THE FRENCH...chastised it for its empty rhetoric. He is pandering to the hate-America crowd in an attempt to make nice with the various regimes that seek to destroy us - and will regardless of what Obama says. His naivete threatens us all...including you and your children, NGav.
Posted by peterheck on 10/04/2009 21:39:45
So because he craps on America he's "not pandering to the lowest common denominator in intelligence"? Sadly, he is pandering, it's just to the lowest common denominator in intelligence. When he makes the case to the world of the flaws of our nation for the umpteenth time, he's saying exactly what the ignorant fools who don't recognize all the good our nation has done long to hear. All this for "world opinion" and the chance to pat himself on the back yet again. So, who's really pandering here?
Posted by Asburystrider on 10/04/2009 21:44:23
First, I would simply like to address the quote from the President's speech in its entirety: "For those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months. On my first day in office, I prohibited -- without exception or equivocation -- the use of torture by the United States of America. I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed, and we are doing the hard work of forging a framework to combat extremism within the rule of law. Every nation must know: America will live its values, and we will lead by example."
Posted by Chelise on 10/04/2009 22:55:56
You certainly began the quote nicely starting with "For those who question the character and cause of my nation." but then you summed it all up in the end with "he implicitly agreed that all the vitriol, animosity, and anti-American hatred so prevalent amongst these corrupt regimes was justified and well-grounded." It is quite transparent that you equate humility for Guantanamo Bay as agreeing that other countries have complete and total reason to hate America.
Posted by Chelise on 10/04/2009 22:58:52
I'm also sure that you have searched diligently as to whether or not the "enhanced interrogation techniques" should have been considered permissible under the Bush Administration and have decided for yourself if water boarding is torture or simply "enhanced interrogation." Make no mistake: other countries understand this to be torture and they are outraged by it. And can we really blame them?
Posted by Chelise on 10/04/2009 23:00:08
If North Korea, China, or really any other country were to capture supposed American terrorists and hold them without trial for an indefinite amount of time only to use such enhanced techniques as water boarding to retrieve information, you and I and every other American would be screaming for their blood. We will not stand for this. How dare they treat an American citizen that way! And if they kept it up, we might even go to war. The way you and I would view this incident is the way every other country is viewing us, and the argument I keep hearing as to why we have the right to do this is simply this: American citizens deserve the right to a trial and deserve other "unalienable" rights.
Posted by Chelise on 10/04/2009 23:02:31
These men are not American citizens; they are suspected terrorists whose rights must be sacrificed to preserve the safety and peace of mind to America. What are we saying by this statement? Do Americans deserve certain rights that others who do not share our history do not also deserve? Are we a higher race of mankind that we should receive these rights while denying them to others? Under this logic, China could detain American citizens without trial if they believed they were a "threat to national security." This is why so many nations condemned the prison at Guantanamo; it is because we are preaching "unalienable rights" but only to Americans.
Posted by Chelise on 10/04/2009 23:03:52
It comes off as proud. (I know how you despise ‘arrogant' applied to Americans so I chose a different adjective for your benefit) The President was simply trying to reassure the other nations that that chapter of our history has ended, and what rights we offer American citizens will now be recognized for all people when it comes to this country.
Posted by Chelise on 10/04/2009 23:05:02
So what would have happened if the President had delivered your eloquent speech instead of the modest, American-hating speech he did deliver? Well, you started off by hoping that he would properly "scold the dictators, tyrants, and crooked regimes." Forgive me if I have misinterpreted your words, but are you really suggesting that we first scold them and then ask them to please put away their weapons and play nice? In what universe would this logic possibly work? No country, especially not the United States, would take that kind of disrespect and then turn around and take advice from the same country.
Posted by Chelise on 10/04/2009 23:07:16
If we are going to do that, we had might as well also add "by the way, we don't need you guys anyway," because what country would be willing to work with us after that and willingly become our footstool? You then proceed to offer every nation a long list of ‘you owe us because.' At times, you even use such loaded language as "Some of you take advantage of that reality to mock and belittle us. But perhaps you would do your citizens a greater favor by modeling our openness and imitating our willingness to correct our mistakes." So they "mock and belittle" while we are "open and willing to correct our mistakes?" No country will ever be willing to submit to us if we address them through pride rather than humility.
Posted by Chelise on 10/04/2009 23:08:59
It just won't work, and the proof is in the past. While I am immensely proud of our nation for its good works, I don't believe we should boast incessantly and constantly remind the other nations that "Without the United States, the world would be a darker place." It is in words like yours that I understand why other nations would believe we are arrogant. In setting out to dissolve the illusion of our arrogance, you have fortified it instead.
Posted by Chelise on 10/04/2009 23:10:23
This will probably be the most harshly criticized portion of my comment (or should I say at this point essay?) because the counterpoint is a good one, but I still feel that it needs to be said and has certain amendable and applicable qualities. My plea is simply to remember this: "pride goeth before the fall." Many, many, many countries have made the mistake of resting on their laurels and becoming drunk and disillusioned through their own pride, and achieving with all of this a sense of infallibility. We are not so great a country that we cannot fall, and it is not wise to make international enemies when we could be making allies instead.
Posted by Chelise on 10/04/2009 23:11:41
Although, I can see the obvious reason for debate over this next statement, I still feel that the words ring true (to me at least). Proverbs 29:23 states "A man's pride brings him low, but a man of lowly spirit gains honor." And yes, I do understand that this statement was meant for individuals, but I do believe that you can see it in countries throughout history as well. Every country that becomes so vain of itself that it will not validate threat from others has fallen or at least fallen behind. Every country that became a world power has done so from a lowly, underdog position; they know they're in for a power struggle and they aren't taking any kickbacks. They will go to any measure to secure even an inch on another country.
Posted by Chelise on 10/04/2009 23:13:52
All I am saying is this: Yes, it is true that we are humbling ourselves before other nations of the world, but if we don't, we will sacrifice any kind of progress on our long term goals with foreign leaders such as ridding ourselves of nuclear arms. This is the President's motive for delivering this speech which in your opinion is too far beneath our honor to stand behind. As for myself, I am joyful to have a President who understands the power of gentle words and a persuasive tongue.
Posted by Chelise on 10/04/2009 23:14:47
Sorry I wrote so much; once I got started I just couldn't stop. You seem like a nice enough person, I just don't understand the constant Obama bashing. I mean, honestly, to hear you talk about him you would think he was the next Hitler lol
Posted by Chelise on 10/04/2009 23:17:41
Exactly what points of Peter's imagined address, N. Gavelis, do you find inaccurate and/or offensive? Out of curiosity, how would the world look in your imagination if America had not worked these many years to project the ideals of freedom into the many totalitarian strongholds around the world?
Posted by ChucksChants on 10/05/2009 07:08:06
Hey Chelise, thanks for the comments. There is a difference between national humility and national humiliation. National humility is when you don't use your force, power, and greatness to subjugate others. The U.S. is the epitomy of a nation that has exercised humility. What our president naievely seems to believe is that by humiliating or degrading ourselves on the world stage is going to cause evil regimes that want to destroy us to like us more. Weakness has never proven to appease aggressive evil. It only makes it stronger. I see from your email address you are an FDR fan. Obama could learn quite a bit from FDR's understanding of this issue. Remember it was FDR that referenced our "righteous might."
Posted by peterheck on 10/05/2009 10:32:18
I agree with the principle that "pride goeth before the fall," but let's keep something in context. America should always remember the source of its strength - the just and Holy God upon whose principles our Founders protected the very freedoms we enjoy (incidentally that is something Obama disagrees with and actively seeks to undo). The greater concern is the pride of our leader. Obama is apparently of the belief that his high flown rhetoric and ability to transcend normal men is going to win over those who deny the holocaust, reject civilized relations, and who pledge a nuclear armeggedon. That kind of pride - the kind that ignores the realities of the world because of self-worship - is what endangers us all.
Posted by peterheck on 10/05/2009 10:35:34
While it's fine if you want to dismiss my criticisms of the current administration as "Obama bashing," please don't assume that counts as disproving my concerns. I do criticize this administration quite frequently because this is a dangerous administration. It is one that has proven - by their policies - to be anti-freedom, recklessly naieve, and dangerously in over their heads. Our enemies are exploiting this weakness and Americans must be made aware of it. If you want to defend Obama, begin by defending the policies I criticize rather than following NGav's path and assuming that calling such criticism mindless "Obama bashing" is providing any form of a counter-point.
Posted by peterheck on 10/05/2009 10:40:35
The idea that denigrating America is akin to statesmanship and international cooperation is complete and utter nonsense. As one who maintains a "conservative" worldview, I believe that America should very much seek to work and cooperate with other nations to accomplish our mutual goals of peace and prosperity and betterment of humanity. There are no calls from rank-and-file American conservatives to engage in wanton imperialism. There is certainly no need for it.
Posted by ChucksChants on 10/05/2009 13:15:12
We must recognize, however, that power plays a significant part in real-world, real-life diplomacy. If anyone out there truly believes that America would continue to exist if we unilaterally disarmed, please contact me personally; I want to make you some wonderful deals (shares of the Brooklyn Bridge, for instance).
Posted by ChucksChants on 10/05/2009 13:18:53
Peter Heck, I love you! The column was spectacular but the responses to N.Gavelis and Chelsie were PRICELESS. You are the man! Oh, you too Asbury and Chuck!!!
Posted by JoSuKu on 10/05/2009 13:19:32
President Obama may think that he is buiding utopian bridges with the international community, but he is actually creating a much more dangerous international environment. In case folks on the left have not figured it out yet, let me clue you in on something: even after our last presidential election, there are still folks out there who want to kill Americans and destroy America.
Posted by ChucksChants on 10/05/2009 13:21:37
By signalling his willingness to compromise and cooperate with any number of unspecified nations, ideologies, and attitudes, the President of America offers hope to those same enemies. They know that Americans grow weary of long-term entanglements, so their willingness to engage in more suicidal ventures is given new breath. Take Iran. The entirety of their international diplomacy is driven by a psychopathic ideology.
Posted by ChucksChants on 10/05/2009 13:26:09
It is an ideology that is obsessed with bringing destructive chaos in order to prepare the way for their 12th imam. It is an ideology that instructs followers to lie and deceive in order to attain their goals. It is an ideology that demands blind obedience to the state. It is an ideology that seeks to discover and exploit any weakness in its foe. Intentionally or not, President Obama gives them the openings, however small, that they seek.
Posted by ChucksChants on 10/05/2009 13:30:25
Mark Steyn recently observed that when you mix dog do with ice cream, it ruins the ice cream and does not improve the flavor of the dog do. His comparison was to the U.N. where international tyrants and thugs are given equal footing with nations that seek liberty and peace. President Obama's speech to the U.N. did not taste like ice cream.
Posted by ChucksChants on 10/05/2009 13:34:38
President Bush is still being excoriated for daring to identify some nations as part of an "axis of evil," even though the reason for making such a statement was valid. So now consider the conclusion to an article from the Democrat & Chronicle, Rochester, NY, which had high regard for President Obama's U.N. speech: "Of course, the issue of nuclear arms in the hands of IRAN and NORTH KOREA remains troubling." Well, duh.
Posted by ChucksChants on 10/05/2009 13:42:37
Besides... if the results of his pitch to the IOC is any indication, President Obama speeches to the world community don't carry much water anyway.
Posted by ChucksChants on 10/05/2009 14:57:01
Chelise writes, "We are not so great a country that we cannot fall, and it is not wise to make international enemies when we could be making allies instead." America has had allies: some for a very long time and others more recently. Sad problem is that our new President has set about shafting those allies. (Since our President doesn't lie, he must just be insincere.) So who do you propose we ally ourselves with since President Obama doesn't like the ones we have?
Posted by ChucksChants on 10/05/2009 21:48:16
May I politely ask when did the President's speech come off as degrading? I can comprehend that some may have found his words "I ask you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months," to sound egotistical. However, it is not the entirety of U.S. history that is causing this tension between us and the foreign nations. The current dismay comes from the work of recent administrations who sent troops into a foreign country under the premise of 'weapons of mass destruction' and found none and the administration that holed away suspected terrorist in Guantanamo Bay without trial.
Posted by Chelise on 10/05/2009 22:10:51
He is not saying that this country has been a wreck until he came along; he is simply saying that he is setting right the recent problems that have sprung up between us. He is not degrading us; he is simply saying 'now that these problems are out of the way, you don't have an excuse not to work with us anymore.' As one of my other favorites would say "speak softly and carry a big stick." The other nations are not unaware of our military might; we don't have to flex our power in every speech and gesture. And now nations have no false sense of injustice to hide behind. All of their previous excuses have been handled and dealt with.
Posted by Chelise on 10/05/2009 22:12:00
As to Obama's pride, I do believe you are not giving him enough credit. Allow me to please quote some very interesting sentiments "Here is a man with more attention being paid to him than a rock star, and receiving media adulation as though he were already the president. (this is pre-election of course) Yet when given the opportunity to communicate with God privately, he humbly thought of his family first and asked the Lord to help him fight the evil of pride. Pretty remarkable." I agree. Pretty remarkable. He is just trying to take on the role of a strong and able president; I wouldn't mistake that as prideful.
Posted by Chelise on 10/05/2009 22:13:29
As to the "Obama bashing" comment, I will refrain from using the phrase if you so desire. Let there be no prejudices, but open debate.
Posted by Chelise on 10/05/2009 22:15:23
For those of you who are naively and/or foolishly rooting for some kind of weakend & humiliated America, forces appear to be converging that may grant you your wish. I don't know that you will like the results; maybe you will. After I just finished watching a web broadcast from Weiss Market Research concerning "The Government's Secret War Against the Dollar," I read the following headline from a different source, MarketWatch:
Posted by ChucksChants on 10/06/2009 13:00:45
"Gold futures hit a new record high at $1,038 an ounce, lifted by weakness in the dollar fueled by higher interest rates in Australia as well as a U.K. media report that Gulf-area oil producers, along with China, Russia, Japan and France, are planning to eventually end dollar-based oil pricing." (MarketWatch Mid-day Report, 10/6/2009)
Posted by ChucksChants on 10/06/2009 13:02:16
America's arrogant pride (hubris) is not derived from speeches or even military might; it is coming from the refusal of our politicians to deal with out-of-control spending and its resultant debt. Our debts to foreign countries exceed $7 TRILLION! At the same time, to manage these debts as well as funded and unfunded obligations (ie, medicare, medicaid, social security, pension funds, & other porkulus stuff), our government is stealthily devaluing the dollar.
Posted by ChucksChants on 10/06/2009 13:06:30
This translates into our creditors deciding that they don't want to fund our debt anymore, since the value of their dollar debt holdings is decreasing. It means that they don't want to trade the dollar as a world reserve currency anymore. It means that they are shifting from U.S. dollar assetts to natural resource assetts (which is driving up the price of natural resource assetts... Now, which nations are going to best weather THAT economic storm? Nations with SURPLUSES; ie, China, or nations with debts; ie, America?)
Posted by ChucksChants on 10/06/2009 13:10:28
In essence, in spite of the warning from several reliable sources over the span of decades, Americans have overall arrogantly spent more than they produced in their households, local, state, and, without doubt, federal governments. We have demanded that the Constitution be ignored and that the Founders' ideals of limited government be ignored and that more Americans be provided government entitlements without any reckoning of cost.
Posted by ChucksChants on 10/06/2009 13:14:45
Problem is, that reckoning is coming. The Weiss Research seminars are usually posted as transcriptions later. I'll provide a link to it when it becomes available. As I said, those Americans who are clamoring for America's humiliation may very well get there wish in a few short years. I suspect, however, that the results of this shift will be very different than you imagine.
Posted by ChucksChants on 10/06/2009 13:17:45
Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Chelise. What Peter is getting at, and I completely agree with, is that in his speech President Obama asks the world to judge America on its actions over the past nine months. Nine months does not a nation make. For those who question the US, its character should be judged over the course of 200+ years, not just the self-congratulatory actions of his nine month presidency. We have sacrificed more lives for other nations than any country in world history. If nations question the quality of our character we need to remind them of our charity and sacrifice, not pander to thug nations, legitimizing their false beliefs.
Posted by Asburystrider on 10/06/2009 13:19:43
In fact, I won't even wait until I receive a transcript. Here is a link to another article I read after posting my last comments here: http://www.moneyandmarkets.com/three-government-reports-point-to-fiscal-doomsday-4-35722 I have never been given to economic "gloom-and-doomers." Over the course of my investing lifetime, they have been often wrong.
Posted by ChucksChants on 10/06/2009 13:24:01
And I'm not a "gloom-and-doomer" now. Neither are these analysts at Weiss Market Research. But they are not stupid, either. They have been watching this stuff for years and predicting most of it - good & bad times - accurately. Our government, regardless of party, has been setting us up for a long time with this fiscal irresponsibility. American citizens who refuse to pay attention to financial issues and economic reality have been setting us up for a long time.
Posted by ChucksChants on 10/06/2009 13:28:02
As I've told others, I hope that my concern is wrong. I would love for anyone to tell me in 5-10 years time that I was completely wrong. Nevertheless, taking some reasonable steps now and over the course of time to possibly protect yourself from this irresponsibility would be - shall we say? - a responsible thing to do. Besides, whether predictions are right or wrong, there is nothing wrong with taking more personal responsibility for your own financial household.
Posted by ChucksChants on 10/06/2009 13:32:58
An evening news program just broadcast a segment of a speech our President delivered to a security agency. He said that we would seek and root out al-quaida and terrorists wherever they roost. Didn't former President Bush say the same thing? What gives?
Posted by ChucksChants on 10/06/2009 17:19:25
"The current dismay comes from the work of recent administrations who sent troops into a foreign country under the premise of 'weapons of mass destruction' and found none..." A couple of corrections to this incomplete and inaccurate mantra. First, evidence of WMD were uncovered. Just because Big Media chose to under-report and belittle what was found does not mean that it did not happen.
Posted by ChucksChants on 10/06/2009 17:25:14
Second, WMD was just one of several factors leadinf to the decision to intervene militarily. The primary reason came from Iraq's continuing violation of U.N. (you know, that august world body) sanction upon sanction. Saddam could have avoided military intervention at any time. So now, Iran is facing those dreaded UN sanctions for allegedly moving toward nuclear weapon capability. So how do we know that they have or will have wmd? I guess we don't know, so I have an idea... let's let it slide.
Posted by ChucksChants on 10/06/2009 17:30:45
Chelise wrote: "If North Korea, China, or really any other country were to capture supposed American terrorists and hold them without trial for an indefinite amount of time only to use such enhanced techniques as water boarding to retrieve information, you and I and every other American would be screaming for their blood. We will not stand for this. How dare they treat an American citizen that way! And if they kept it up, we might even go to war."
Posted by ChucksChants on 10/07/2009 06:46:40
Chelise, your comparison makes no logical connection or sense with the Gitmo reality. First, we are already at war. Those "detained" at Gitmo are POWs. When the war(s) is (are) over, they will be repatriated. That's sort of how these things go. In the meantime, none of them have been subject to any treatment even resembling the treatment that our forces captured in combat have received.
Posted by ChucksChants on 10/07/2009 06:50:09
No deaths have resulted from their treatment, even the dreaded waterboarding. In fact, take a look back at the history of the war. Take a stab at when al-qaida attacks subsided... during the release of the so-called Abu-Ghraib atrocities. The enemy didn't want to be captured, so they laid low. When did the attacks pick up? After they observed that we weren't going to stand for such abusive treatment.
Posted by ChucksChants on 10/07/2009 06:54:22
Second, some of these POWs were captured not during standard military operations, but in attempts to infiltrate our forces and conduct suicide or other attacks. That is called sabotage, and such acts are expressely not protected under the Geneva Convention (of which our enemies are not a part). As such, those captured in the act of sabotage can be legitimately executed under the guiding rules of warfare. We haven't been doing that; but we could.
Posted by ChucksChants on 10/07/2009 06:58:05
Third, it has been documented that many who have been released (an action I cannot fathom) have gone back to pursue their previous occupation of attempting (and sometimes succeeding) to kill American service men and women - you know, the folks who return to Dover in a flag-draped coffin. So thanks, Chelise, for your concern for America's enemies for whom we are paying good money to take care of in Gitmo. Again, who is it that you are concerned about America being allies with?
Posted by ChucksChants on 10/07/2009 07:01:50
From Bloomberg, 10/9/09: ***** President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for "extraordinary efforts" to strengthen global diplomacy and cooperation less than a year after taking office... "The Nobel Committee has in particular looked at Obama's vision and work toward a world without atomic weapons," Thorbjoern Jagland, chairman of the five-member Nobel committee, said. "Obama has as president created a new climate in international politics." *****
Posted by ChucksChants on 10/09/2009 09:02:30
Out of curiosity, does this "world without nuclear weapons" include North Korea and Iran?
Posted by ChucksChants on 10/09/2009 09:03:26

Post comment
Name
 *
Email Address

Message
(max 750 characters)
*
* Required Fields
Note: All comments are subject to approval. Your comment will not appear until it has been approved.

    common sense makes a comeback
    site designed by Keith Parker   --  sign up for Peter Heck Mailing List here