« Obama Surrounding Himself With Proponents Of "Soft Power"? | Home | Obama: Gates Will End The War In Iraq »

Obama: My National Security Team Is Uniquely Suited To Help America Lead By "Moral Example"

Here, in the form of a statement from Obama transition headquarters, are President-elect Barack Obama's first public words confirming and explaining his picks of Robert Gates as Defense Secretary and Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State:

"In this uncertain world, the time has come for a new beginning -- a new dawn of American leadership to overcome the challenges of the 21st century, and to seize the opportunities embedded in those challenges. To succeed, we must pursue a new strategy that skillfully uses, balances, and integrates all elements of American power: our military and diplomacy; our intelligence and law enforcement; our economy and the power of our moral example.

"The team that we have assembled here today is uniquely suited to do just that. They share my pragmatism about the use of power, and my sense of purpose about America's role as a leader in the world."

As noted below, Obama's picks are heavy proponents of sinking more resources into the use of American "soft power" abroad, and this statement's references to diplomacy and "moral example" attest to that dimension of the shared foreign policy vision between the principal and his new national security team.

Obama's presser announcing his picks is set to start soon: We'll have video and more.

Late Update: Here's some more from Obama at his presser, expanding on his vision:

America must also be strong at home to be strong abroad. We need to provide education and opportunity for our citizens, so every American can compete with anyone, anywhere. And our economic power must sustain our military strength, our diplomatic leverage, and our global leadership.

The common thread linking these challenges is the fundamental reality that in the 21st century, our destiny is shared with the world's. From our markets to our security; from our public health to our climate -- we must act with the understanding that, now more than ever, we have a stake in what happens across the globe. And as we learned so painfully on 9/11, terror cannot be contained by borders, nor safety provided by oceans alone.

And here's Obama's explanation of his pick of Hillary:

I have known Hillary Clinton as a friend, a colleague, a source of counsel, and as a campaign opponent. She possesses an extraordinary intelligence and toughness, and a remarkable work ethic. I am proud that she will be our next Secretary of State. She is an American of tremendous stature who will have my complete confidence; who knows many of the world's leaders; who will command respect in every capitol; and who will clearly have the ability to advance our interests around the world.

Hillary's appointment is a sign to friend and foe of the seriousness of my commitment to renew American diplomacy and restore our alliances. There is much to do -- from preventing the spread of nuclear weapons to Iran and North Korea, to seeking a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians, to strengthening international institutions. I have no doubt that Hillary Clinton is the right person to lead our State Department, and to work with me in tackling this ambitious foreign policy agenda.

Obama's full prepared remarks after the jump.

Late Late Update: Another key moment at the presser: Obama reiterates his commitment to pulling out of Iraq.

Remarks of President-Elect Barack Obama

Announcement of National Security Team

December 1, 2008

Chicago, Illinois

Good morning. Last week, we announced our economic team, which is working as we speak to craft an Economic Recovery Program to create jobs and grow our struggling economy. Today, Vice President-elect Biden and I are pleased to announce our national security team.

The national security challenges we face are just as grave - and just as urgent - as our economic crisis. We are fighting two wars. Old conflicts remain unresolved, and newly assertive powers have put strains on the international system. The spread of nuclear weapons raises the peril that the world's deadliest technology could fall into dangerous hands. Our dependence on foreign oil empowers authoritarian governments and endangers our planet.

America must also be strong at home to be strong abroad. We need to provide education and opportunity for our citizens, so every American can compete with anyone, anywhere. And our economic power must sustain our military strength, our diplomatic leverage, and our global leadership.

The common thread linking these challenges is the fundamental reality that in the 21st century, our destiny is shared with the world's. From our markets to our security; from our public health to our climate -we must act with the understanding that, now more than ever, we have a stake in what happens across the globe. And as we learned so painfully on 9/11, terror cannot be contained by borders, nor safety provided by oceans alone.

Last week, we were reminded of this threat once again when terrorists took the lives of six American among nearly 200 victims in Mumbai. In the world we seek, there is no place for those who kill innocent civilians to advance hateful extremism. This weekend, I told Prime Minister Singh that Americans stand with the people of India in this dark time. And I am confident that India's great democracy is more resilient than killers who would tear it down.

And so, in this uncertain world, the time has come for a new beginning - a new dawn of American leadership to overcome the challenges of the 21st century, and to seize the opportunities embedded in those challenges. We will strengthen our capacity to defeat our enemies and support our friends. We will renew old alliances and forge new and enduring partnerships. We will show the world once more that America is relentless in defense of our people, steady in advancing our interests, and committed to the ideals that shine as a beacon to the world: democracy and justice; opportunity and unyielding hope - because American values are America's greatest export to the world.

To succeed, we must pursue a new strategy that skillfully uses, balances, and integrates all elements of American power: our military and diplomacy; our intelligence and law enforcement; our economy and the power of our moral example. The team that we have assembled here today is uniquely suited to do just that.

In their past service and plans for the future, these men and women represent all of those elements of American power, and the very best of the American example. They have served in uniform and as diplomats; they have worked as legislators, law enforcement officials, and executives. They share my pragmatism about the use of power, and my sense of purpose about America's role as a leader in the world.

I have known Hillary Clinton as a friend, a colleague, a source of counsel, and as a campaign opponent. She possesses an extraordinary intelligence and toughness, and a remarkable work ethic. I am proud that she will be our next Secretary of State. She is an American of tremendous stature who will have my complete confidence; who knows many of the world's leaders; who will command respect in every capitol; and who will clearly have the ability to advance our interests around the world.

Hillary's appointment is a sign to friend and foe of the seriousness of my commitment to renew American diplomacy and restore our alliances. There is much to do - from preventing the spread of nuclear weapons to Iran and North Korea, to seeking a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians, to strengthening international institutions. I have no doubt that Hillary Clinton is the right person to lead our State Department, and to work with me in tackling this ambitious foreign policy agenda.

At a time when we face an unprecedented transition amidst two wars, I have asked Robert Gates to continue as Secretary of Defense, and I'm pleased that he's accepted. Two years ago, he took over the Pentagon at a difficult time. He restored accountability. He won the confidence of military commanders, and the trust of our brave men and women in uniform, and their families. He earned the respect of members of Congress on both sides of the aisle for his pragmatism and competence. He knows that we need a sustainable national security strategy - and that includes a bipartisan consensus at home.

As I said throughout the campaign, I will be giving Secretary Gates and our military a new mission as soon as I take office: responsibly ending the war in Iraq through a successful transition to Iraqi control. We will also ensure that we have the strategy - and resources - to succeed against al Qaeda and the Taliban. As Bob said not too long ago, Afghanistan is where the war on terror began, and it is where it must end. And going forward, we will continue to make the investments necessary to strengthen our military and increase our ground forces to defeat the threats of the 21st century.

Eric Holder has the talent and commitment to succeed as Attorney General from his first day on the job, which is even more important in a transition that demands vigilance. He has distinguished himself as a prosecutor, a Judge, and a senior official, and he is deeply familiar with the law enforcement challenges we face- from terrorism to counter-intelligence; from white collar crime to public corruption.

Eric also has the combination of toughness and independence that we need at the Justice Department. Let me be clear: the Attorney General serves the American people. And I have every expectation that Eric will protect our people, uphold the public trust, and adhere to our Constitution.

Janet Napolitano offers the experience and executive skill that we need in the next Secretary of Homeland Security. She has spent her career protecting people - as a US Attorney, an Attorney General, and as Governor of Arizona. She understands the need for a Department of Homeland Security that has the capacity to help prevent terrorist attacks and respond to catastrophe - be it manmade or natural.

Janet assumes this critical role having learned the lessons - some of them painful - of the last several years, from 9/11 to Katrina. She insists on competence and accountability. She knows firsthand the need to have a partner in Washington that works well with state and local governments. She understands as well as anyone the danger of an unsecure border. And she will be a leader who can reform a sprawling Department while safeguarding our homeland.

Susan Rice will take on the crucial task of serving as Permanent Representative of the United States to the United Nations. Susan has been a close and trusted advisor. As in previous Administrations, the UN Ambassador will serve as a member of my cabinet and integral member of my team. Her background as a scholar, on the National Security Council, and Assistant Secretary of State will serve our nation well at the United Nations.

Susan knows that the global challenges we face demand global institutions that work. She shares my belief that the UN is an indispensable - and imperfect - forum. She will carry the message that our commitment to multilateral action must be coupled with a commitment to reform. We need the UN to be more effective as a venue for collective action - against terror and proliferation; climate change and genocide; poverty and disease.

Finally, I am convinced that General James Jones is uniquely suited to be a strong and skilled National Security Advisor. Generations of Joneses have served heroically on the battlefield - from the beaches of Tarawa in World War II, to Foxtrot Ridge in Vietnam. Jim's Silver Star is a proud part of that legacy. He will bring to the job the dual experience of serving in uniform and as a diplomat. He has commanded a platoon in battle, served as Supreme Allied Commander in a time of war, and worked on behalf of peace in the Middle East.

Jim is focused on the threats of today and the future. He understands the connection between energy and national security, and has worked on the frontlines of global instability - from Kosovo to northern Iraq to Afghanistan. He will advise me and work effectively to integrate our efforts across the government, so that we are effectively using all elements of American power to defeat unconventional threats and promote our values.

I am confident that this is the team that we need to make a new beginning for American national security. This morning, we met to discuss the situation in Mumbai and some of the challenges that we face in the months and years ahead. In the coming weeks, I will be in close contact with these advisors, who will be working with their counterparts in the Bush Administration to make sure that we are ready to hit the ground running on January 20. Given the range of threats that we face - and the vulnerability that can be a part of every presidential transition - I hope that we can proceed swiftly for those national security officials who demand confirmation.

We move forward with the humility that comes with knowing that there are brave men and women protecting us on the front lines. Troops serving their second, third, or fourth tours. Diplomats and intelligence officers in dangerous corners of the world. FBI agents in the field, cops on the beat, prosecutors in our courts, and cargo inspectors at our ports. These selfless Americans whose names are unknown to most of us will form the backbone of our effort. If we serve as well as they do, we will protect our country and promote our values.

And we move forward with respect for America's tradition of a bipartisan national security policy, and a commitment to national unity. When it comes to keeping our nation and our people safe, we are not Republicans and we are not Democrats: we are Americans. There is no monopoly of power or wisdom in either party. Together, as one nation, as one people, we can shape our times instead of being shaped by them. Together, we will meet the challenges of the 21st century not with fear, but with hope.


53 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

I imagine it's not an easy job to write headlines, but he's also saying this team is going to lead by its use of power...outside of the election of Obama, the US hasn't been any sort of moral example in the last seven years, and the claim that we're going to lead by moral example now seems a bit jarring.

user-pic

It should be jarring and I'm sure it was intended to be jarring and soothing all at once. George W. Bush is but one President. His legacy is that of abject failure, incompetence, and cronyism. How Obama elects to lead in the years ahead will go a long way toward toward determining the scope of the impact of the Bush years. If he governs and leads effectively (as I believe he will), over time, the Bush regime will be one, awful, bloody period in our history. A dreadful period, but only one...

user-pic

Worldwide enthusiasm for Obama's victory was based in large part on the assumption that he would restore America's moral standing. His statement today reinforces that this is a promise he intends to keep.

user-pic

I'm not debating that. I think the more important statement had to do with how power is going to be used in the Obama Administration. How power is used will allow the United States to again lead by moral example.

user-pic

The message is one of reassurance. Even Bush talked the talk. The world believes Obama can walk the walk. It will be up to the new administration to justify that faith.

In that context, I'm not sure I'd describe it as "jarring." But I absolutely agree that it points up the astonishing moral vacuum we've operated in over the past eight years.

user-pic

Missed your previous comment, CT Voter. But I absolutely agree.

user-pic

It's "jarring" in the sense that for the last seven years, the U.S. has been the opposite of a moral example. It's not "jarring" in the context of a future Obama Administration but most certainly is in the context of the current Administration.

user-pic

Let's hope that "moral example" talk is followed up with action.

user-pic

he just reiterated that he's asked gates to pull out of iraq

user-pic

That does not mean we *will* be out of Iraq. Arguements can be made on both sides why these are good/bad picks. Personally, I would have liked to see newer, more progressive personalities in the Obama administration. Then again, I'm a proud member of the angry far left, so what do I know?!

Obama talks about implementing his "vision". We will only know if that vision is effective and on the right course after 6 months.

user-pic

"I would have liked to see newer, more progressive personalities in the Obama administration."

Can you be more specific? Who would you like to have seen?

user-pic

I think that's one campaign promise he knows he has to keep and I think he will. He opposed the war from the start and he campaigned on ending it and he will. Like you said, Greg, the devil is in the details. But Obama hasn't backed off his commitment to ending it. It was always a matter of timing and how.

I missed the presser, dammit.

user-pic

!

O/T: I've been away for awhile: missed your comments.

user-pic

But does "ending" really mean "ending'?

Obama just reiterated his committment, but hedged his bets ("...but I will listen to my commanders...may need to maintain a residual force...").

user-pic

Would it be prudent to be more definitive than that? If he announces that troops will out by such and such a date, and then events dictate that it's not possible, his credibility (and future ability to direct policy) would take an enormous hit.

user-pic

While I agree, I see no events that would dictate not pulling out. Completely. Going into Iraq was a mistake. We should pull out fully, issue formal apologies, make reparations and (hopefully) never make that kind of disatrous blunder again.

Suggesting that we may have to be.."leaving residual forces" makes me suspicious.

user-pic

You make it sound so easy. It really never is that easy. That's one reason people who opposed the war in the first place were so appalled - everyone knows once you're in, it's damned difficult to get out. Look at Vietnam. We left abruptly, just like you want us to do in Iraq. We left abruptly with Vietnamese who worked with us hanging onto the helicopters -

It would be better if we could get out of Iraq without that kind of mess, if it's possible.

user-pic

It would be better if we could get out of Iraq without that kind of mess, if it's possible.

That is not possible. Iraq was a mess, is a mess and will most likely continue to be a mess whether or not we stay or go. We had no business attacking and I would like to see our troops start pulling out January 21st. I don't think comparisons to Vietnam are appropriate.

user-pic

If you woke up in the morning confronted by the realities staring Obama in the face regarding Iraq, you'd not be anywhere near so cavalier.

He's going to deal with it. And comparisons to Vietnam are apt. If you think this is any easier or more straightforward than Obama is indicating, you're simply mistaken. He's surrounded by adults now who have lived this stuff. Let them do their jobs without the misconception that what they have to do is akin to some kind of "The Nation" foreign policy cruise.

This is not about pronouncements and parades of liberal credentials. This is about getting us out of one serious motherfucking mess.

user-pic

I have no doubts that Obama will do his best. That's one of the reasons I voted for him.

There are a lot of "cavalier" Americans out there who firmly believe we had no business going into Iraq and we have no business staying.

user-pic

You're wrong - Iraq was not a mess until we messed it up. It was a secular dictatorship that had the freest women in the Muslim world, an educated middle class in Baghdad and was not a mess.

You start from a false premise and you are far too callow with peoples' lives.

user-pic

Depends on your definition of "Muslim World", if you mean the middle east, then parts of the UAE, Lebanon and Jordan have more or equal women's rights to Iraq.

If you mean everywhere where Islam is the national religion, then Malaysia and Indonesia certainly have way more women's freedom than Iraq.

As for your other points, you're right. Iraq is plagued with the fact that is divided into 3 sectarian groups, the sunni, shi'a and kurds - but Saddam Hussein, uniquely in Iraq's history, was able to actually forge a reasonably stable nation out of it. Almost all other attempts, including this attempt, have failed to do this as successfully.

user-pic

Well, then you should not have voted for him because during the campaign Obama clearly said he would remove combat forces and leave a residual force.

user-pic

There was no choice but to vote for Obama. Leaving a residual force is a mistake.

user-pic

And there's no choice but to wait and see what he's going to do before talking about how suspicious you are and nitpicking him to death before he's even sworn in.

You mentioned the "residual force" comment as if Obama had changed his position when he repeated what he'd said during the campaign.

I know you're invested in disappointment and kvetching but give us a chance to enjoy this tremendous triumph. At least let the prez get sworn in and screw you over before you pee in my corn flakes, OK?

user-pic

unless you live in a state where the Green and Libertarian parties weren't on the ballot, then you did have other choices. I'm guessing there were other third parties or write-in possibilities as well.
I don't have much patience for people who are already demanding more than Obama ever promised, especially at this early date.

user-pic

Sez you.

And who died and made you the leading expert on Iraq? Or any occupied country?

You're already wrong about Iraq to start with - it was not a mess at all until we broke it.

So you started off from a false position.

user-pic

Last thing you want him to say is no matter what we're coming home in 16 months.

user-pic

I'm still waiting for you to name those "newer, progressive voices" you want to see in an Obama administration.

user-pic

I think anyone but Noam Chomsky or Dennis Kucinich is unacceptable for some people. Maybe they believed the Republican claims that Obama was the "most liberal" Senator--which should serve as reminder to never believe Republican propaganda.
So far, I've seen no evidence that Obama won't follow through on his campaign promises--the ones he actually made, not the ones that some people wish he had made.

user-pic

I strongly believe Obama is assembling one of the best and most talented administrations since Kennedy. And, I don't think anyone who has been selected was selected primarily on the basis of their ideology or political persuation. My rationale is this: I've closely observed Obama during the campaign, and have noticed that he is, above all else, a pragmatist with a liberal bent. I believe Obama will carefully but steadily guide the nation leftward, but not necessarily "left." He will establish the policy themes, make the policy decisions, issue guidance for the implementation of those policies, and expect the policies to be put in place as he has directed.

What more can we ask from a President?

user-pic

Gates wouldn't have signed up if they didn't resolve that bit of a difference. Obama gave himself wiggle room so it is what it is.

user-pic

Clearly I have earned a resounding "fthbtzzzz" for predicting the Hillary for SOS was an elaborate head fake to prod the MSM over their leaks. I would've liked to have seen Bill Richardson in that position, but I've learned to believe that our zen master PE likely knows MUCH better than me.

user-pic
I've learned to believe that our zen master PE likely knows MUCH better than me.

That's my view, too, at least until proven otherwise. He's more than earned the benefit of the doubt.

And what a relief it will be to have the grown-ups in charge again.

user-pic

For about 4 decades Republicans and Democrats agreed that the spread of nuclear weapons was a bad thing, and tried to stop it. Then came Bush 43, who announced that 'the world's most dangerous weapons' were a threat in the hands of 'the world's most dangerous people'. In other words, nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people. Proliferation can be good if we like the proliferators. Then today, the President-Elect says:

"The spread of nuclear weapons raises the peril that the world's deadliest technology could fall into dangerous hands."

It's probably just that his speechwriters know a good line when they hear one, and don't realise that they are endorsing a truly dangerous policy in using this language. I hope so. And I hope the language vanishes soon. perhaps the confirmation process for SoS and SoD can be used to state clearly and firmly that the spread of nuclear weapons is dangeous per se, and not just when we happen to dislike those doing the proliferating.

user-pic

That language does exactly what you said you wanted. If you're going to be critical you have to read critically. The placement of the word "raises" means everything in that sentence. The sentence doesn't say "The spread of nuclear weapons to terrorists raises the peril..."; it says "the spread of the weapons [PERIOD] raises the peril..."

Lugar-Obama much?

I swear if I have to spend the next four years watching people nitpick the hell out of Barack Obama the way they've been doing it before he even gets inaugurated, I'm going to lose my ever-loving mind.

user-pic

I don't know about anyone else, but my mind is just reeling from seeing a new president appoint people based on their qualifications for the jobs at hand. It seems like forever since I have seen that happen.

As far as Iraq goes, the first most important step seems to have been taken - to put the withdrawal of US military personnel from Iraq as the first priority, ahead of maintaining Iraq as a bastion of US military power in the Middle East. With that first step it becomes possible to withdraw, something that wasn't even thinkable under Bush.

user-pic

I totally agree. I must admit the carping about the lack of progressives in the Obama Cabinet annoys me. The last thing we need is a new set of ideologically driven people running the show. We need sound governance, stature, and maturity if we are going to recover from the Bush legacy. We have all harped on the terrible consequences of Bush, we cannot expect the cure to be either painless or quick.

Obama's agenda appears to be solidly progressive: multi-lateral foreign policy; orderly withdrawal from Iraq; sensible homeland security; the elimination of most of Bush's egregious attacks on human rights; and the focus on linking security and domestic policy [e.g. education; trade; environment etc].

This coherence is all a stark contrast to the gun slinging, yahoo neocon nonsense we have just suffered through. At the same time it is not disengagement: it is an attempt to re-establish America as the center of a morally based democratic coalition on progressive issues like global warming as well as things like anti-terrorism.

The fact we have a leader who can see the linkages between security and domestic policy issues gives us progressive folks a chance to dominate and re-frame foreign policy discussions.

It's time to settle in and stop complaining. We're not campaigning any more. We're governing!

user-pic

Thank you. I concur, and nominate your post as Comment of the Month.

user-pic

Agree. I'm an unabashed liberal but I'm also a practical realist and I have ZERO patience for these lefty pricks who have spent the last few weeks whining and nitpicking everything Obama has done.

I mean, where the fuck have these people been the last 8 years? We've elected a guy who believes in the fucking constitution, wants to end torture, close Gitmo, end the war, address climate change and give us healthcare and these assholes are griping because some of his appointees have worked in the Clinton adminsitration?

Those who keep repeating "nothing will change" are the same people who, in 2000, said there was no difference between Bush and Gore so they voted for Nader because Gore wasn't "pure enough." You'd think after watching Bush flush the country down the crapper, they'd stop letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. But noooooo.

user-pic

Those who keep repeating "nothing will change" are the same people who, in 2000, said there was no difference between Bush and Gore so they voted for Nader because Gore wasn't "pure enough."

I consider people who think that way to be dangerous, as well as being proven very wrong. I hope the lesson is never forgotten in future elections. I really don't want to see another Democratic president put this country on the right track, only to have everything destroyed by a Republican.

user-pic
I consider people who think that way to be dangerous...

Nader voters may be dangerous, but not as much as Bush voters.

I really don't want to see another Democratic president put this country on the right track, only to have everything destroyed by a Republican.

Al Gore "lost" (I know, but that's another argument) in large part because he was sooooo boring.  Kinda like Walter Mondale.

I don't think Joe Biden will present that problem in 2016.  He'll be too old to run.

user-pic

Well said FreeRider!

user-pic

I believe Obama has selected the members of his team on the basis of their competence, and not their political persuation. In the Obama administration, the President will hear all sides to an arguement, meet with his inner circle, make a decision, and ensure that his decision is carried out appropriately. I think that when we categorize a person as "liberal" or "conservative" we lose sight of the nuances in the person's vision, beliefs and priorities.

user-pic

Obama has assembled a very impressive team of brilliant minds. But i wish the MSM would drop this Obama-Clinton rivalry nonsense already, its old and played-out.

user-pic

Co-sign. Did you see Peter Baker bring up comments Obama and Clinton had made during the campaign and ask "what part of that do you now disagree with?"

The campaign is over and the press is scrounging around for some gossip. It's so lame.

user-pic

Dido. We've moved on, America has moved, now, the idiots in the MSM need to do the same.

user-pic

Not.  Gonna.  Happen.

user-pic

my hunch/theory is that gates is responsible for a secret peace with the sunni insurgents. he is a scowcroft bush senior type. they were all pro sunni anti iran pragmatists back in the day. almost as soon as rumsfeld left the war cooled down. and the attacks on americans all but stopped abruptly. there was much talk of the awakening councils. but what are they? they are sunni insurgents. they are al quaeda in iraq. so why did they rename themselves and make nice? they were bought off. that is the real story not the surge. so gates engineered this. he knows what they were promised and obama plans for him to carry out whatever those secret promises were. because obama can not afford to have the sunnis go crazy all over again. we will find out in time what they are all up to.

user-pic

gates is hoping to achieve sunni cooperation on modest terms. but can the sunni ever be trusted? will they press for total control again when the cat goes away? or have they accepted iraq as a shia state? or are they hoping to coopt america's support in overthrowing the religous shia?
the level of the conversation in the media seems as stunted as ever.

user-pic

Greg, I appreciate that you didn't use the term "soft power" in your headline on this story, but on the front page it is being used. Frankly, that's misleading because of course Obama never used that term. Second, unless you're a foreign policy wonk, most people don't know what the term means and it sounds terribly squishy. It's obviously not your job to make Obama look good. But may I suggest that you've taken his speech and written a headline that detracts from it. If he had used the term, that would be one thing, but this is your own characterization.

user-pic

Here, here!

"I'm an unabashed liberal but I'm also a practical realist and I have ZERO patience for these lefty pricks who have spent the last few weeks whining and nitpicking everything Obama has done."

We really didn't need to trade one administration with idealogical blinder for another.

Ross Douthat and Matt Yglesias had this great conversation on Blogging heads about why the GOP needs realists. Ross later expanded it on his page with a reference to a chart Noah Milliman drew up. http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/11/the_millman_chart.php It worked around Walter Russel Meades theory of the 4 archetypes of American foreign policy with Jacksonian, Wilsonian, Hamiltionian, and Jeffersonian.

Bush did this bizarre mix of Jacksonian brutality and introversion and Wilsonian idealism. Everything else they ignored. The result was disaster.

The thing is that the most successful presidents are the ones that get closet to landing right square in the middle of this chart. That's what Obama is aiming for. He understands the need for balance.

user-pic

To the citizens of Iran and North Korea- my name is solomon azar, an american citizen with an unquestionable love and devotion for my country and the

founder of a new ideology of power generation which shall lead to an end of the energy crisis and talks of greenhouse gases-

both of your countries are starving for energy- thus- your pursuit of a nuclear power division in which the west is scared of is understood- i have the

solution- i propose safe clean nuclear fusion and if you grab hold of this ideology and implement it before the west- you will demonstrate clearly to

the world you are even if not greater in pursuit of nobility than the west-

I believe america is brain dead- selfish and arragant. i dont know it anymore- i grew up with the duke and all the things great about america. i grew up

FULLY aware this country is built upon the blood sweat and tears of many in america but by far the greatest generation that has sacrificed for this

country- I speak of those who endured the great depression of america- who then marched off to war and defended freedom and secured an energy policy and

richness this country has lavished in since and to this very day. but without question the baby boom generation of the fifties and sixties surely seen

the best times of this country as they have squandered the bounty off.

it is understandable to spoil your children- but the gluttony of America and its policy of 'he who has the most toys wins" or "dog eat dog" has sold off

our assets- moved all major manufacturing over seas for corporate greed in which the ceos made billions as the middle class erode- etc-etc-


the media and fantastic device of the internet only devised within this decade are grounds for playrooms and stupidity-

I am an American proposing clean unlimited energy as the world burns for energy and screams for greenhouse gases- and I am ignored by the vast majority

who just hear me scream and do nothing- arrogant scientists who get paid so much for comfort dont care - peer review specialists dont care to follow up

your inquiry and direct you- no one cares about energy- regular citizens in social forums dont care about nothing except sex-drugs-and rock and roll- or

philosophy the way they want it--the so called enlightened ones just watch like a timid rabbit and do nothing-ENERGY is the key to civilization-PERIOD

thus- as your people know what it is like to have electricity to shut off throughout the day AND you are the back water tribe of the American intellect-

here is your golden opportunity-

take my science and spread it amongst your scientists- everything is in my website of noblefuse- all of it to the trained eye- finish it and make a

complete clean fusion power plant- no more need for dangerous fission reactors- no more west breathing down your back -more importantly- you will teach

all America- as the Russians did with the early space race- how far behind this country has become- AMERICA HAS ITS HEAD UP ITS ASS_

the majority of American citizens are arrogant- selfish-and only care for themselves.

THUS, take this Americans idea and implement it to teach the citizens of America a golden lesson-

Leave a comment

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address