OBAMA'S MOST DIFFICULT SPEECH

The President of the United States gave a historic speech last night from the Oval Office. It came as no surprise that the media pendants from both right and left were vigorously clawing at it trying to understand what the man said. The lack of understanding is the result of applying their interpretation of several simple words and not his interpretation. He used words and expression such as ‘moral’, limited strike, war weary and ‘proof’. An old debate technique is to change the meaning of the words then attack the new meaning. That is what happened. The unique thing about his speech was that different people changed the meanings in different ways; thus, both right and left are attacking him.

The word ‘moral’, for example, is not an easy word to understand when used by politicians. People from the right political spectrum believe deep that there is a moral order. In their mind that means they see what they believe in as being moral. The father is the head of the family unit or the United States is the leading nation in the world. It is amoral to believe that is not the case. It is morally correct to punish someone who does not believe this. It is OK, read morally correct, for a husband to beat his wife and children if they should be so callous as to dispute his leadership. It is morally correct to bomb Syria if they dispute the fact that we are their superior—the basis of U.S. arrogance. The fact that they, meaning al Assad, used a heinous weapon against their own people is important but is more important that we tell them they cannot do this and they disobeyed. The use of pronouns is important. They means the Syria people not just al Assad or his Alawites faction, or the Syria military; it means all Syrians and to others such as Mike Huckabee, it means all Muslims and to other such as Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) all Arabs. Various people have preconceived notions of “moral groups” based on church membership for example. The use of the word ‘moral’ is tricky; it does not simply mean good behavior.

President Obama emphasized the expression ‘limited strike’. He embellished the meaning of this with emphasis on the fact that he means no “boots on the ground”, to use a tired old trope. To some ‘boots on the ground’ means taking over the country or expanding the economic empire; to others it means huge war profits; but to most, it means war. Progressives abhor expansion of the great America Empire, which smacks of the Reagan top down economics the rich people favor; class warfare as part of the moral order: there always will be poor people so stop worrying about providing them opportunity.  I listened to several hosts and guest on talk show and not one of them accepted the definition of “limited strike”; without exception, everyone of them spoke of war; thus, they gave their interpretation of the President’s word ‘limited strike’ in simple terms; “Obama wants war”. He wants to embroil us in another war: another Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq.

Our President made the point that he and the American people are war weary; hence, war wary. The American people are distrustful of our President because of past executive misdeeds that did get us into wars of expansion Vietnam and Iraq, for example; endless killing fields. The sons and daughters and of working class people dying to make money for the military industrial complex is OK for some but not for the progressive among us that is the working people. Profit is not moral justification for war any more that “peck order” is justification for war.

If he would have said in his speech that he is “telling the truth” about the evidence showing that al Assad used gas and not the rebels, he would have been immediately been compared to George W. Bush who lied as everyone know he did and as detailed in my blog post, Liar, Liar Bagdad On Fire.  A president can no longer use the word ‘proof’ no matter his or her credibility. George W. Bush, Colin Powell and George Tenant did not change the meaning but they changed the use of that word. If Obama said he had proof, I would believe that he did have proof.  If John McCain or Rand Paul said they had proof of something, no matter what it was, I would not believe them; however, this president is different.

Obama is progressive who hates war as much as I do. He knows, as we all do, it is not “moral” to gas children even to retain power. He understands that limited strike does not mean war. He knows the American people are war weary but feels that a “limited strike” is not a war and that a leader, no matter who he is, Christian, Muslim, Alawites, Arab, Democrat or Republican, should be stopped.  Most important, he knows that killing and bombing, even as part of a limited strike, is a last resort and is willing to take any opportunity to avert that out come; even it in involves trusting Putin. His objective is to stop al Assad from genocide.  Who among us can twist the meaning of the President’s words “children going still on a cold cement floor”; those words say a lot. 

URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated