It may end up being the worst decision in a series of bad decisions of the Barack Obama Presidency - his decision not to go to Berlin today for the 20th Anniversary of the fall of the Berlin.
Heads of State from Great Britain, France and Germany were at the wall today and spoke - but no Obama. Instead, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was at today's ceremony and introduced a videotaped message from the President - but it was too little, too late.
Telegraph Toby Hardnen wondered in today's Daily Telegraph if the event today wasn't enough about Obama for Obama's liking.
The White House has cited a packed schedule, though looking at it he had nothing much on yesterday (brief chat to reporters about healthcare – by far his biggest priority) and just blah briefings and a bill signing today until a meeting this evening with Benjamin Netanyahu. This time, Der Spiegel has reported it as “Barack Too Busy”.
Barack Obama wasn't too busy last year in heading for Berlin during his election campaign, when he was cheered by a crowd of 200,000 adoring Germans. President Obama was able to squeeze in a trip to Copenhagen last month to lobby, unsuccessfully, for Chicago to host the 2016 Summer Olympics. He plans to travel to Oslo next month to accept the Nobel Peace Prize, an award that even Obama has said he does not deserve. And this coming week, he sets out on a weeklong tour of Asia.
Past President's have made iconic speeches at the wall. John F. Kennedy’s “Ich bin ein Berliner” speech and Ronald Reagan's "Tear down this wall" speech are two for the ages.
Why on earth would a President who revels in big speeches pass up this opportunity? He was quick to apologize for America on a visit to Europe earlier this year. Maybe he didn't want to come off like a hypocrite in remembering the great gift Ronald Reagan gave Europe in winning the Cold War.
Nile Gardiner, again in the London Telegraph, wrote the following
It is shameful when the US president can’t even be bothered to show up at a ceremony marking one of the most momentous events of modern times. As Rich Lowry wrote in his column for National Review, “Obama’s failure to go to Berlin is the most telling nonevent of his presidency.” Newt Gingrich put it well when he described Obama’s foolhardy decision as “a tragedy”.
The Gardiner piece is a good one. He speculates that Obama is both uncomfortable with America's greatness and wants to appease Russia. But Gardiner argues that this is a time when the world needs a strong America - and more importantly - a strong American leader.
The striking absence of the leader of the most powerful nation on the face of the earth from ceremonies marking the fall of the Berlin Wall is yet another damning indictment of Barack Obama’s world leadership, or lack of it. The United States is currently faced with an array of challenges as great as those confronted by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, from the war in Afghanistan and the global fight against Islamist terrorism, to the rise of a nuclear-armed Iran.
America today badly needs Reagan’s vision of forceful US leadership if it is to remain as the world’s dominant power. Instead its position is being rapidly undermined by a foreign policy of weakness and indecision, one that will only strengthen the hand of its enemies.
This seems like an obvious segue to Sarah Palin's post on Facebook today entitled
"Commemorating a Victory for Freedom"
Twenty years ago, the ultimate symbol of the division between freedom and tyranny was torn down. The Berlin Wall was constructed for one purpose: to prevent the escape of East Germans to the freedom of the West. The Wall’s cold, gray façade was a stark reminder of the economic and political way of life across the Soviet Union’s sphere of influence in Eastern Europe.
Ronald Reagan never stopped regarding the Berlin Wall as an affront to human freedom. When so many other American leaders and opinion makers had come to accept its presence as inevitable and permanent, Reagan still hammered away at the Wall’s very premise in human tyranny, until finally the Wall itself was hammered down. Its downfall wasn’t the work of Reagan alone. Our president’s actions were joined with the brave acts of many individuals who stood firm and united in facing the Soviet Union. The Berlin Wall came down because millions of people behind the Iron Curtain refused to accept the fate of enslavement and their supporters in the West refused to accept that the “captive nations” would remain captive forever.
Though that long, tragic episode in human history had come to a close finally with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, it wasn’t the “end of history” or the end of conflict as some had hoped. New conflicts confront us today throughout the world which call for courage and resolve and dedication to freedom. The new democracies and market economies that have emerged in Central and Eastern Europe still require our friendship and alliances as they continue to seek security, prosperity, and self-determination. But as we reflect on present and future challenges, let’s take time to celebrate the anniversary of this awesome victory for freedom. The downfall of that cold, gray concrete Wall should be a lesson to us in hope. Nothing is inevitable. Tyranny is no match for the hope and resolve of those who work and fight for freedom.
- Sarah Palin
A now, for those too young to remember how a great leader acts when history calls, here is what Ronald Reagan did in front of the Berlin Wall. He demanded the wall be torn down - and so it was.
Heads of State from Great Britain, France and Germany were at the wall today and spoke - but no Obama. Instead, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was at today's ceremony and introduced a videotaped message from the President - but it was too little, too late.
Telegraph Toby Hardnen wondered in today's Daily Telegraph if the event today wasn't enough about Obama for Obama's liking.
The White House has cited a packed schedule, though looking at it he had nothing much on yesterday (brief chat to reporters about healthcare – by far his biggest priority) and just blah briefings and a bill signing today until a meeting this evening with Benjamin Netanyahu. This time, Der Spiegel has reported it as “Barack Too Busy”.
Barack Obama wasn't too busy last year in heading for Berlin during his election campaign, when he was cheered by a crowd of 200,000 adoring Germans. President Obama was able to squeeze in a trip to Copenhagen last month to lobby, unsuccessfully, for Chicago to host the 2016 Summer Olympics. He plans to travel to Oslo next month to accept the Nobel Peace Prize, an award that even Obama has said he does not deserve. And this coming week, he sets out on a weeklong tour of Asia.
Past President's have made iconic speeches at the wall. John F. Kennedy’s “Ich bin ein Berliner” speech and Ronald Reagan's "Tear down this wall" speech are two for the ages.
Why on earth would a President who revels in big speeches pass up this opportunity? He was quick to apologize for America on a visit to Europe earlier this year. Maybe he didn't want to come off like a hypocrite in remembering the great gift Ronald Reagan gave Europe in winning the Cold War.
Nile Gardiner, again in the London Telegraph, wrote the following
It is shameful when the US president can’t even be bothered to show up at a ceremony marking one of the most momentous events of modern times. As Rich Lowry wrote in his column for National Review, “Obama’s failure to go to Berlin is the most telling nonevent of his presidency.” Newt Gingrich put it well when he described Obama’s foolhardy decision as “a tragedy”.
The Gardiner piece is a good one. He speculates that Obama is both uncomfortable with America's greatness and wants to appease Russia. But Gardiner argues that this is a time when the world needs a strong America - and more importantly - a strong American leader.
The striking absence of the leader of the most powerful nation on the face of the earth from ceremonies marking the fall of the Berlin Wall is yet another damning indictment of Barack Obama’s world leadership, or lack of it. The United States is currently faced with an array of challenges as great as those confronted by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, from the war in Afghanistan and the global fight against Islamist terrorism, to the rise of a nuclear-armed Iran.
America today badly needs Reagan’s vision of forceful US leadership if it is to remain as the world’s dominant power. Instead its position is being rapidly undermined by a foreign policy of weakness and indecision, one that will only strengthen the hand of its enemies.
This seems like an obvious segue to Sarah Palin's post on Facebook today entitled
"Commemorating a Victory for Freedom"
Twenty years ago, the ultimate symbol of the division between freedom and tyranny was torn down. The Berlin Wall was constructed for one purpose: to prevent the escape of East Germans to the freedom of the West. The Wall’s cold, gray façade was a stark reminder of the economic and political way of life across the Soviet Union’s sphere of influence in Eastern Europe.
Ronald Reagan never stopped regarding the Berlin Wall as an affront to human freedom. When so many other American leaders and opinion makers had come to accept its presence as inevitable and permanent, Reagan still hammered away at the Wall’s very premise in human tyranny, until finally the Wall itself was hammered down. Its downfall wasn’t the work of Reagan alone. Our president’s actions were joined with the brave acts of many individuals who stood firm and united in facing the Soviet Union. The Berlin Wall came down because millions of people behind the Iron Curtain refused to accept the fate of enslavement and their supporters in the West refused to accept that the “captive nations” would remain captive forever.
Though that long, tragic episode in human history had come to a close finally with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, it wasn’t the “end of history” or the end of conflict as some had hoped. New conflicts confront us today throughout the world which call for courage and resolve and dedication to freedom. The new democracies and market economies that have emerged in Central and Eastern Europe still require our friendship and alliances as they continue to seek security, prosperity, and self-determination. But as we reflect on present and future challenges, let’s take time to celebrate the anniversary of this awesome victory for freedom. The downfall of that cold, gray concrete Wall should be a lesson to us in hope. Nothing is inevitable. Tyranny is no match for the hope and resolve of those who work and fight for freedom.
- Sarah Palin
A now, for those too young to remember how a great leader acts when history calls, here is what Ronald Reagan did in front of the Berlin Wall. He demanded the wall be torn down - and so it was.
14 comments:
My Daddy bled and died in WWII fighting to tear down that wall, and rather than commemorate his suffering, Obama just spits on his grave and the graves of all of his fellow soldiers. I hope Gov Mother Sarah Palin will finally wake up some eyes so people can see just how bad our country is being led
Rev Hibble, you would find something to criticize our President about if he did go. President Obama can do no right as far as you are concerned. Your Daddy did not fight to tear down the wall during World War II, it wasn't built yet.
Elle Leet
Thank goodness Obama is no Ronald Reagan. The right wing’s PR machine has been in high gear, trying to make a very bad President into an American hero. Reagan made a few people very wealthy, but another story deserves to be told.
Sometimes, it seemed that each day of his Presidency brought a new atrocity. He sold public lands at bargain prices to logging and mining interests. He ridiculed the Judeo-Christian ethic of caring for the poor, while slashing every social program in sight. Budget cuts forced institutions to throw the mentally ill out on the streets, college grants and loans disappeared, and he even stooped so low as to take food from the mouths of poor children . His administration tried to declare ketchup a “vegetable” to more cheaply meet the nutritional standards of the school lunch program.
After promising to balance the budget, Reagan recklessly ran up deficits with wild military spending and tax cuts for the rich. He presided over the largest transfer of wealth ever—from the poor and the middle class to the rich. He attack unions, helping to beat down the wages of working people, and even created a new tax on Unemployment Compensation benefits.
Reagan decimated regulatory agencies that protect the public from the excesses of big business, leaving the public to pay a steep price: $500 billion taxpayer-funded cleanup of the Savings and Loans, thousands of dead and crippled workers, and untold desecration of the environment.
And let’s not forget that he was nearly impeached for defying Congress by arming the murderous Contras in Nicaragua. It’s time to tell the truth about the Reagan horror film--and the painful sequel: the Administration of G.W. Bush.
Any working class people who still believe Reagan was a friend of workers should take a look at this. A lot of Joe Sixpacks are dead because of this nasty man...and Sarah Palin practically worships him.
The Film Ronald Reagan’s OSHA Didn’t Want You to See
Can't Take No More , 1979 (27 minutes). This quick paced history of occupational health and safety in the U.S. from the Industrial Revolution to the 1970s, narrated by Studs Terkel, was produced by OSHA and distributed in 1980.
In 1981, the newly-elected Reagan Administration's OSHA recalled the film and destroyed most copies. Organizations receiving OSHA training grants were threatened with a loss of funding if they showed this film to workers. Rare archival footage and photos touch on some of the major issues responsible for dramatic tragedies as well as on the day-to-day dangers that cause long-term health problems. It also connects the health and safety movement with the civil rights and environmental movements.
http://www.buildingtradesnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=170&Itemid=55
The legacy of Reagan and the Cold War and his overall legacy is one of mixed reviews and debate.
While he called the Berlin Wall an affront to freedom and it was, his administration supported the far right elements in El Salvador and Guatemala. In El Salavdor, the Savadoran Armed Forces (FAES) and its associates paramilitaries were alleged to be responsible for 35,000 deaths from 1980-83; 3 out of those years were the Reagan presidency.
While supporting dictators to contain communism was U.S policy from 1945 on, the Reagan administration was the first to apply containment in a more aggressive manner, which included use of non-official militia forces such as the Contras, UNITA and the Afghan Mujihaddin. In Guatemala in 1982-83, Guatemala's Jose Effrain Rios Montt carried out a counterinsurgency action that destroyed 600 Mayan villages and killed between 3,000 and 10,000 civilians. He had full support of the Reagan administration and even Reagan himself said:
"President Ríos Montt is a man of great personal integrity and commitment. ... I know he wants to improve the quality of life for all Guatemalans and to promote social justice."
The Guatemalan Military Project: A Violence Called Democracy. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 33. Author:
Jennifer Schirmer
As for Obama not going, gee, he has the murders of 12 U.S soldiers and the injuries to 31 at Fort Hood, health care and a slew of other issues to attend to. If he went to Berin, the nutcases would accuse him of neglecting his duties here, especially in the wake of the Fort Hood shootings. The memorial service is Tuesday so it may have been a tad difficult to be in Berlin Monday and be back in the U.S in time for the memorial for the casualties at Fort Hood. Plus, he had a meeting with Israeli PM Netanyahu Monday night.
No less an authority on the Soviet Union and communism than Richard Nixon was cautious about crediting Reagan with ending the Cold War; believing that the Soviets would have collapsed of their own dead weight because of internal failures and inability to keep pace with Western advancements; not giving speeches imploring the leader of the Soviet Union to tear down a wall. In all objective review, many political scientists are now saying if anyone deserves credit for ending the Cold War, it should be Nixon; the ex HUAC hatchet man who went to China and achieved the first arms reduction with the Soviets; laying the ground for their final demise.
JFK's remarks translated to "I am a jelly donut."
Handsome,
Mixed reviews? They are only mixed if you include the Republican Party's effort to make him into St. Ronald. Reagan's class war, pandering to the rich, deregulation, neglect of energy matters and infrastructure, and wild spending on the military led to the problems Obama faces today. Handsome, you are far too kind to this disastrous administration.
Anonymous said...
Handsome,
Mixed reviews? They are only mixed if you include the Republican Party's effort to make him into St. Ronald. Reagan's class war, pandering to the rich, deregulation, neglect of energy matters and infrastructure, and wild spending on the military led to the problems Obama faces today. Handsome, you are far too kind to this disastrous administration.
November 10, 2009 1:41 PM
___________________________________
My comments about mixed reviews are based on both the political scientist POV and the writings of many Reagan critics such as Richard Reeves, who wrote a book that articulated the positives and negatives of the Reagan period.
The biggest problem that came out of that era was not dergulation or tilting towards the rich but something more intangible; something that politicians like Sarah Palin embody to the core. That is, the United States should never be criticized and the hard choices should be put off. Prior to that period, the United States was like the Pittsburgh Steelers under Chuck Knoll or the Woody Hayes' Ohio State Buckeyes; great nation that occasionally had to take a good look in the mirror on issues like civil rights, women's equality, the environment and the approach to the Cold War and make adjustments.
The Reagan period did not produce this kind of reflectiveness and hard self examination a nation needs every so often. Whether that was by intent or coincided with the growing self esteem movement that arose during that era is up for debate. Out of the period was a blind cheeriness. Anyone who asked questions was deemed a self hating or unAmerican defeatist.
Now, the Berlin Wall. Many recall the speech directed at Gorbachev, even though Erich Honecker was the man in charge of East Germany and desired that he be asked to tear down his wall; deposed right before the fall. Also, according to
Foreign Policy Magazine, the Iron Curtain and the Wall fell because of internal factors and unrest at home more so than U.S actions.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/11/06/who_brought_down_the_berlin_wall
Also, Reagan's intent at the Wall was to raise domestic support for negotiations with Gorbachev so that the Cold War would finally end.
The world President Obama presides over is not so clean and neat. In 1987, "we" knew who "they" were. Obama's world is more complex and he is navigating a sea of issues, including the memorial for those killed at Fort Hood and meeting with Netanyahu. This may be callous but Mr. Obama needs to face the issues of NOW, not 20 years ago. The Wall fell, the USSR disintegrated and the U.S now has far more pressing issues, ranging from unemployment to an unstable yet nuclear armed Pakistan to managing a safe exit from Shrub's
Mesopotamian Mistake and dealing with Iran; more pressing than celebrations of an event driven by factors more complex than U.S policy actions or speeches.
Handsome,
What positives are there from the Reagan years? As far as I can tell, Reagan--like his follower G.W. Bush--spent 8 years in the White House without doing a single decent thing. Every action was aimed at enriching the few, and sticking it to everyone else.
I'm really interested, as I have seen no positives.
Anonymous said...
Handsome,
What positives are there from the Reagan years? As far as I can tell, Reagan--like his follower G.W. Bush--spent 8 years in the White House without doing a single decent thing. Every action was aimed at enriching the few, and sticking it to everyone else.
I'm really interested, as I have seen no positives.
_________________________________
The only positives one can attribute to the period is the growth from 1983 to 1990 and the R&D that was initially for defense purposes which under Clinton became civilian use consumer technology-cell phones, Internet, satellite and cable television. Whether that can be attributed to Reagan himself is up for debate.
My main point of my posts is that people need to stop comparing current leaders to past ones and comparing our current foreign policy challenges to the simplistic positions of the 1980s, which still reflected a bipolar world. Obama is not Reagan; he is Barack Obama. The Wall fell in
1989. He has 2009 challenges to tackle. Reagan's big accomplishment was making the U.S feel good about itself after Watergate and Vietnam. Self confidence is a positive but has to be balanced with self examination.
For Sarah Palin to compare Obama to Reagan is like comparing a new Blackberry or Palm Treo to a 1980s audio pager. She is stuck in a simplistic paradigm, where slogans and feel good equal policy. Obama is dealing with the present.
For Sarah Palin to compare Obama to Reagan is like comparing a new Blackberry or Palm Treo to a 1980s audio pager.
I think it is more apt to say that for her to compare Obama to Reagan is like comparing Obama to Davy Crockett--the legend far exceeds the deeds of the man.
Anonymous,
One positive thing about Reagan: For all of his direct and tough talk, when 241 Marines died in Beirut, he pulled out.
His ideological successor, George W. Bush never got that memo: Reagan pulled out. He did not "stay the course" or issue talking points and call them a strategy: When the Lebanese stand up, we'll stand down.
Also, Reagan does deserve some mention for opening the door to negotiations with the PLO; setting ground for the negotiations that resulted in Oslo Accords. While Oslo has not been a success, the precedent was set for the U.S and Israel to negotiate with figures they normally do not regard as legitimate political leaders.
Other than that, I can see your point. My point, as I said before, is that Palin and her ilk refuse to give Obama any credit for anything. He did not fulfill some cermonial obligation because he did have business here to take care of. Someone needs to ask Palin what is more important: Going to celebrate an event in which even many of the original participants did not credit Reagan or the United States or meeting with Ben Netanyahu over the Gordian Knot called the Israeli-Palestinian problem? Should Obama have missed the Fort Hood memorial service in order to be like past presidents or is it a more pressing obligation to deal with the challenges of today?
No matter what your politics are, right or left, you have to admit that President Reagan knew JUST what to do using a carrot and stick method to win the cold war- not only for West but for the people behind the iron curtain too. When President Reagan said that he no longer thought Russia was "an evil empire' and used his tremendous charm in winning their leadership over it built trust. On the other hand, and I do think he knew it was a bit of a bluff, when he refused to give up "Star Wars" missile defense at the Rejkavik summit the Russians knew the cold war could never be won. And his non-nonchalance and lack of visual stress worked in his favor. We can go on and on but Ronald Reagan is quite simply one of the great American Presidents of all time. The problem with Obama is this -- although he has leadership in his genes his parties pig fest in congress, and completely off-timed trillion dollar health care plan should not be seeing the light of day until unemployment starts going down. The person behind this funny dog avatar is actually a classic moderate who tends to dislike left or right extremism, and there is a chance I can vote Republican in the next several elections IF I see a real plan emerge to turn things around. Cause as much as I hate to admit it, it seems that no one knows what the hell they are doing at that white house.
Albert, you are one smart doggie.
No matter what your politics are, right or left, you have to admit that President Reagan knew JUST what to do using a carrot and stick method to win the cold war- not only for West but for the people behind the iron curtain too.
_________________
I think it's been pretty well documented that the USSR was falling apart, and Reagan happened to be there when it happened. Ron was good at claiming credit for stuff like that, but then ducking blame for things he was intimately involved in....
I recall him denying responsibility for the record-setting deficits he ran up, saying, "My budgets were dead on arrival at the halls of Congress." Yeah right.
First, Reagan never sent a balanced budget to Congress. Second, the GOP controlled the Senate for the first six years of Reagan's Administration, and the House rolled over and played dead and gave Reagan most everything he wanted.
We call it the "Reagan Revolution," but his budgets were dead on arrival????
The man was quite the liar.
Post a Comment