Inaugural Address of President Barack Obama

[SWJED]

Transcript posted here (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2009/01/inaugural-address-of-president/) by SWJ, as well as links to the new official White House web page, White House blog and new agenda items.

The address was impressive - I elected to listen to it on WTOP Radio so as to focus just on the words. I'm glad I did.

[Bullmoose Bailey]

Friends, desite being a lifelong Republican, as a patriotic American who has ever supported all of our country's elected officials I was inspired as I viewed the address on AFN today.

I am happy to make the following observation & to promise continued prayers for this administration.

I'm staying on the Presidential Prayer Team.

"I thank President Bush for his service to our nation as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition."

I'm thankful too. I humbly suggest that GW Bush will go down as one of the great ones.

"Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath."

I must think it's more, David Rice Atchison did, I'm fairly convinced, take the oath since the President refused to be sworn in on a Sunday.

"Our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred."

Glad he admits these essential facts which many Democrats have obscured.

"We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things."

Very appropriate, from I Corinthians 13 by St. Paul The Apostle, I believe.

"We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.

We will restore science to its rightful place and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its costs.

We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age."

The call to duty for Obama's "New Age".... very well spoken & I agree.

"Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched."

Capitalism confirmed...hallelujah

"We will not apologize for our way of life nor will we waver in its defense.

And for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that, "Our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken. You cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you."

quite frankly, awesome language I was moved by this portion of the speech


God Bless Our President.

[Steve Blair]

He's got good speech writers. Gotta give them props for that. But I retain a healthy level of skepticism of all politicians, no matter how well they speak. One thing I will say, though, is that the expectations for this president have been raised to a level that will be hard to meet.

[Cavguy]

He's got good speech writers. Gotta give them props for that. But I retain a healthy level of skepticism of all politicians, no matter how well they speak. One thing I will say, though, is that the expectations for this president have been raised to a level that will be hard to meet.

That said, when taking over from someone who was widely panned, pretty much any improvement he makes will be considered brilliant.

My first few jobs in the army were like that - when you take over an org with major problems almost anything you do is considered great in comparison.

Much harder to take over a well running organization, because you are judged versus your predecessor. That said, if you're also squared away, it's a lot of fun.

[SWJED]

... the expectations for this president have been raised to a level that will be hard to meet.

Yep.

[Steve Blair]

That said, when taking over from someone who was widely panned, pretty much any improvement he makes will be considered brilliant.

My first few jobs in the army were like that - when you take over an org with major problems almost anything you do is considered great in comparison.

Much harder to take over a well running organization, because you are judged versus your predecessor. That said, if you're also squared away, it's a lot of fun.

Concur to a degree, but what I'm sensing is that the expectations have been jacked well beyond the level of a few simple improvements. I think Obama senses this, as he seems to have been making a major effort to downplay or reduce some of the more wild expectations...although with what seems to be little success. What I'm waiting for is backlash, both within his own party and the electorate at large. It may not happen, but often when people chain their hopes to a leader they tend to react badly when those hopes aren't met quickly. And there are some subtexts as well (read international attention) that could come into play. It's one thing if he disappoints those who elected him, but what about the horde of fellow-travelers who seem to feel some sort of investment in the process?

Sorry if I sound cynical, but I tend to be suspicious of cults of personality.

[120mm]

I was especially impressed by his "enemy advancing on Valley Forge" comment. Very historic. Very accurate.

Ya think he could afford a historian to actually vet the speech for facts. But the speech was reflective of his experience/campaign.

[Schmedlap]

In watching the gushing media coverage that the President has received and the "hope" and "healing of wounds" that is apparently sweeping the country (according to reports), it is easy to forget that he lost 20 states, even though he was not running against an incumbent. Judging from the media coverage, you'd think this was a repeat of 1980, with a challenger beating an incumbent in a 44 to 6 landslide. I think that President Obama is going to have a lengthy honeymoon with the media. They just seem way too happy that he won to turn on him anytime soon.

In the long run, his fall from grace seems inevitable. First off, Presidents generally see their favorable rating decline during their term. See here (http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-presapp0605-31.html). Second, he was elected for three reasons that do not bode well for his long-term political strength:

1. He was the first black candidate with the political skill to make a serious run (saying that during the campaign earned scoffs and dirty looks, but now there is no end in sight to the "first black President" hoopla). Who won American Idol in 2006? Not sure? Likewise, the novelty of the first black President will wear off quickly - particularly once he has to actually start making decisions; especiallyonce he has to make some tough decisions.

2. There was too much anti-Bush fervor for anyone to overcome, if even remotely related to President Bush. But the anti-Bush fervor is a two-way street. Once the spotlight completely fades and former President Bush retires to his Presidential library and ranch, the anti-Bush fervor will not generate much energy. It will completely dissipate. There goes your villain and your swing vote.

3. The left-wing base was energized by Obama's anti-war appeal. Now that he is actually in office and no longer just a speech-giver and campaigner, his options are going to be narrowed by reality. The most energetic activists of the left-wing base simply have unrealistic expectations. There are a significant number of them who will not be satisfied if our troops stay in Iraq for one day longer or if former President Bush is not perp-walked and imprisoned for war crimes. Some are upset that Robert Gates is still SECDEF simply because he is a "Cold Warrior." (I guess he should have had the foresight to have been born in another era so that his service to his country would not have coincided with the Cold War). Some are even upset with Clinton being nominated for Secretary of State - and not because of her questionable qualifications, but rather because she's not anti-war enough for them.

I really want the next 4 years go well. There is a lot at stake. But I don't feel good about it. And it's not cynicism. It's just a recognition that the political campaign had more in common with American Idol than with a job interview.

[Rob Thornton]

Steve, I'm with you wrt skepticism - the truth exists, we just don't have it... yet.

Like Schmedlap I also want the next 4 years (and the ones after that) to go as well as they can. As such I wish the President and his administration, as well as our legislators who stand where they sit, the best wisdom and judgment possible - my standard is the country's success is their success, not necessarily the other way around.

Like Steve said it will be hard to resist the power of set expectations - "courage" and "will" then are two other characteristics that will be required - of course they always are for leaders. They have also been known to be in short supply when confronted with the requirements to get re-elected. Its hard for me to show any sympathy however, when politicians campaign they often make promises that only the desperate, the uniformed and the idealists could believe - we seem to have many of those - even they have some right to hold politicians to the promises they make - even the ones which may appear out of keeping with other requirements (yep Steve I've got some cynicism as well:wry:)

As I said, as a citizen and as a soldier, I wish the President well, his actions or in-actions will affect my family, and my country. It is now time for him to take on what I think is the toughest job in the world - may he serve our country well.

Best, Rob

[Voodoun]

I had some serious problems with his speech, actually. There were several uncessary subtle jabs at the Bush administration, but his ideology was spelled out in a very clear fashion, and wholly ignored by the media. His concern is with a government that works, no matter how big or how small. That's simply not a position a Constitutional Lawyer should feel comfortable taking. PROMOTE the general welfare is not the same as PROVIDE. If the federal government could save all the stray kittens for $1 per year, there would simply be no Constitutional justification for that action. Obama has wooed me tremendously since the primaries, due soley to his rhetorical shifts and proposed policy moderation. He is too smart to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq at this point. He won't allow himself to free a prisoner at Gitmo only to have that fellow return to visit another 9/11 on us. His finely honed political savvy will protect him, and therefore the country.

What worries me intensely is the failure of the media to provide accurate coverage over his policies though. Rendition won't stop, secret prisons in Europe wont be closed down, warantless surveillance won't stop, but I suspect the average anti-Bush American will not consider these identical programs to be as heinous as they were under Bush.

Historical accuracy is so crucial to our policy development, yet the media deliberately allows history to be manipulated in order to support political maneuver.

I wrote a fairly well received research paper comparing the Bush security policy to the historical character of US security policy, if anyone's interested. Its pretty long, 25+ pages.

[J Wolfsberger]

are with President Obama. He wasn't my choice, but he is now my President and the Commander in Chief.

He ran a brilliant campaign. (And I say that from the experience of having been to a campaign management school and run an (unsuccessful) Congressional campaign.) He projected a blank canvass and invited everyone to put whatever they wanted on it. I was, to say the least, extremely apprehensive about him prior to the election. Since then, in his actions, executive team choices, and speech, I am considerably reassured.

He will also inevitably disappoint the vocal and extreme left of the Democratic party. What I suspect he knew, and they are clueless about, is that there are severe limits to the power of the Presidency. A President is almost always presented with nothing but poor options, and a very small set of them. In fact, he often finds himself presented with one distasteful course of action he must pursue. The fringe will not be happy when he doesn't wave a magic wand to enact their fantasies.

I think the first set of disappointments will occur surrounding:

1. Gitmo. Some of the people there are truly evil. Releasing them leads to the stone cold certainty of their engaging in more terrorist activity. Pres. Obama and his advisers know this. They may (probably will) close Gitmo, but they will also keep the bad actors in some form of permanent lock up.

2. Global Warming. This hoax has just about run its course. There is, indeed, a scientific consensus on the topic: periods of warming and cooling are normal to the climate, most likely driven by the Sun, and mankind has minuscule effect on them. Dr. Chu, the new Energy Secretary, has already signaled that he isn't going to dismantle the nation's energy grid to accommodate a fantasy.

3. The War on Terror. I agree it's a stupid name, but the threat is real. Radical Islamic fundamentalism isn't going to go away - ever. As long as it preaches suicidal murder as a central tenet, the U.S. and other nations will have to actively and aggressively counter it. This will require all the policies put in place by President Clinton that President Bush was blamed and pilloried for. The policies may be renamed, tweaked, etc., but their essence will stay in place.

It looks to be an entertaining and eventful few months.

[Voodoun]

I disagree - I think radical fundamentalist Islam is an abberation, and in time it will absolutely go away, the same way violent Christian movements have faded away.

[William F. Owen]

I disagree - I think radical fundamentalist Islam is an abberation, and in time it will absolutely go away, the same way violent Christian movements have faded away.

Whoah there! Violent Christian Organisations have not gone away. How do you think some folks (Taliban) view NATO and the EU. - only one Muslim nation in NATO. Just because you define yourself as secular, it does not mean that you are in the eyes of the other side.

I think radical fundamentalist Islam is an aberration as well, but it's been with us for 1,000 years or more so I'm not that hopeful.

That all said, I wish President Obama well, but I culturally predisposed to mistrust skilled orators! :)

[Voodoun]

its very hard to call the Salafi movements 1000 years old, because they did not become popular until the 20th c, and were only really developed in the mid-late 19th c. But even most Salafi influenced Islamic sects are not prone to violence. I absolutely do not consider NATO to be a violent Christian organization because it has no Christian doctrine or objectives, and has been employed against Christians to protect Muslims. I also reject the notion that definitions are relative, I dont care what Islamic Jihad calls me, I am not a crusader. What I am in the eyes of the other side is only relevant to my interactions with them, its not relevant to the truth.

At one time violent Christian movements, self defined by their non secular nature and adherence to some belief or another derived from the New Testament, were the characterizing force of conflict in the West. That has faded away.

My point is that through the proper application of smart power, we can marginalize these groups until they no longer exist, the same way that say, the Inquisition no longer exists.

Well, unless you read the Da Vinci Code

[William F. Owen]

its very hard to call the Salafi movements 1000 years old, because they did not become popular until the 20th c, and were only really developed in the mid-late 19th c.

OK, but you may want to view it in the context of "religions spread by the sword," - which easily covers an odd 1,000 years, give or take a century here and there.

I'm not arguing with your moral or religious view point, or even historical detail.

I just don't see violence borne of religious belief as being a thing of the past, and somehow less likely in our future. Northern Ireland had plenty of Christian religious overtones, as did the wars in Bosnia and Croatia.

I have no expectation that violent Islamic organisations will ever go away, while the current geo-political context, which gives rise to it's current expression, remains in place. You create your own enemy, do you not?

[Rank amateur]

My point is that through the proper application of smart power, we can marginalize these groups until they no longer exist, the same way that say, the Inquisition no longer exists.

Well, unless you read the Da Vinci Code

A.) I concur, but the proper application of smart power is never going to happen. Put bluntly, there are always going to be dead Palestinian civilians shown on Arab TV and there are always going to be millions of people who think that's wrong and the US government is always going to say that while regrettable, the dead civilians are completely justified. That conflict isn't going away.

AM. more or less makes the same point today. (http://abumuqawama.blogspot.com/2009/01/factoring.html)

B.) Angels and Demons: coming soon to a theater near you.

[William F. Owen]

A.) I concur, but the proper application of smart power is never going to happen. Put bluntly, there are always going to be dead Palestinian civilians shown on Arab TV and there are always going to be millions of people who think that's wrong and the US government is always going to say that while regrettable, the dead civilians are completely justified. That conflict isn't going away.


...and why would the positions of the Palestinians be unique?

Do dead Afghans or Iraqis not count? More than enough collateral damage to go around, last time I checked.

[Voodoun]

Palestinians have a far more robust propaganda machine than the Iraqis or Afghans, so in effect, they do matter more, because their ability to manipulate public opinion is fascinatingly effective.

As far as religions of the sword go, I think I simply utilize a more narrow set of guidelines - political expansion under the Umayyads was hardly religious, anymore than Napolean's wars were religious. The Crusades on the other hand, we distinctly religious, but Salahdin's defense was not. The jihadi today may have political ambitions, but those political ambitions are shaped and driven by a religious fervor.

Northern Ireland was most certainly religious, no doubt, but couldnt you well argue that the NI issue has been 'fading away', and the religious context has played less of a role in the last 20 years?

Will Christians always bomb abortion clinics? Well, not apparently - hasnt been one in nearly 10 years. Does that mean it won't happen next week? Not necessarily, no.

Boy, I sure hope it doesnt, or I'm going to feel real bad.

[J Wolfsberger]

As far as religions of the sword go, I think I simply utilize a more narrow set of guidelines - political expansion under the Umayyads was hardly religious, anymore than Napolean's wars were religious. The Crusades on the other hand, we distinctly religious, but Salahdin's defense was not. The jihadi today may have political ambitions, but those political ambitions are shaped and driven by a religious fervor.

Or, one could say, and probably with more accuracy:
1. The Umayyads may have had political ambitions, but these were shaped and driven by their religious fervor.
2. The Crusades was driven by the economic situation in Europe, a surplus of younger sons of nobility and landed gentry, a very real threat from the Umayyad Caliphate, and religion was merely a motivating pretext.


Will Christians always bomb abortion clinics? Well, not apparently - hasnt been one in nearly 10 years.

:eek:

Did you really intend to conflate ALL Christians with a very small number of violent abortion protesters?

[jmm99]

a broader approach than this.


As far as religions of the sword go, I think I simply utilize a more narrow set of guidelines - political expansion under the Umayyads was hardly religious, anymore than Napolean's wars were religious. The Crusades on the other hand, we distinctly religious, but Salahdin's defense was not.

Both the Islamic expansion and the (partial) Christian reconquests were very much influenced by religion - cuz in those times governments were intertwined with religion . They also were very much influenced by personal and collective politics and by economics.

While the troubles in NI were often phrased in terms of religious differences, they were based on the fractionation of Ireland arising out of the rebellions of the mid-1600's - and, yes, some plantation policies. In short, the "bloody shirt" (based on events of 400 years past) fed the propaganda on both sides. The true ideologies of the various factions were fed more by current personal and collective politics and by economics.


Today, this is still the view of those Muslims who want Sharia Law in one form or the other. As you have correctly suggested, they cannot be classed as Salafist extremists simply because of that. Islam is not a monolith.

[Voodoun]

Wolfsberger, sorry, your comments are simply not accurate. The Umayyads were distinctly political more than religious, which is why they were overthrown by the 'Abassids, LONG before the First Crusades. To claim that religious ferver was the driving force behind the Umayyad geopolitical expansion is to contradict everyone from Bernard Lewis to Edward Said, and to claim that Pope Urban II called a Crusade to resist the long-ended Umayyad Caliphate is to call into question the linear nature of time.

Hitler was a Christian, was the Nazi expansion a religious matter? Not by most accounts.

The point I made, and which still stands, is that violent Christian movements have faded away. Where they once dominated the course of Western conflict, they are now a tiny abberation that manifests its self VERY rarely in the actions of a few individuals, not large scale movements.

[Voodoun]

and as far as conflating ALL Christians with anything, I simply did no such thing, you added the modifier "all" on your own accord, creating a false representation of my statement, a straw man. The history of abortion clinic bombings is entirely Christian, no Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, or Scientolgists have been implicated in that sort of behavior. This is no way implies that all Christians bomb abortion clinics. Praying five times a day in the direction of Mecca is a distinctly Muslim characteristic - this in no way implies that all Muslims pray five times a day in the direction of Mecca, does it?

[jmm99]

that:


Praying five times a day in the direction of Mecca is a distinctly Muslim characteristic - this in no way implies that all Muslims pray five times a day in the direction of Mecca, does it?

But, those that don't are missing one of the five pillars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salah) of their faith - not cited for your benefit - you know this - but for others who may not.

And, agreed as a matter of baptism,


Hitler was a Christian... [in fact a Roman Catholic]..

But, how often did he confess and commune in his adult life. These are simply argumentative - and move far off topic from the President's speech. Plus, this is beginning to sound like something from a Christian-Atheist board.

[TristanAbbey]

I've so far stayed out of most of the discussions, but I was listening to a conversation (http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=N2FiNjg0NDk1NmY2ZmM0YzFjYTM4ODM4OTMxM2FmOGY=) between a few conservative pundits about Obama's speech, so this thread piqued my curiosity.

Arguing about one caliphate being more religious than another is pretty subjective. I agree with the earlier posters -- this separation of Church and State is a recent invention not universally accepted even today. Consider Hosni Mubarak's Egypt: a secular government, but can anyone say with a straight face that Islam doesn't play an enormous role in Egyptian society and therefore necessarily in Egyptian politics?

I would argue that the desire to pretend religion is just a personal private practice contributed -- to a large extent -- to the failure to understand what was going on in Iraq.

[Ken White]

I would argue that the desire to pretend religion is just a personal private practice contributed -- to a large extent -- to the failure to understand what was going on in Iraq.There's also the fact that a slew of 'Middle Eastern experts' in the west put a more religious slant on "what was going on in Iraq" than was actually the case. Their overstatement of the schism between Sunni and Shia was picked up by our rather ignorant news media and broadcast -- thus it almost became a self fulfilling prophecy.

All that ignored the deep grievances of a subjugated group. One that was subjugated on several grounds -- and religious sectarianism happened to be a somewhat minor contributor, particularly in relation to tribalism. Many tribes had members of both sects (and more) and those members were not penalized if the tribe was in good standing with the government of the day.

Regardless, our egos, lack of knowledge and the unwillingness of those in power to talk to anyone with significant local knowledge contributed to some really dumb mistakes. :mad: