This is the UN Conference on Climate Change?
September 24, 2009
|
Posted by Michael S. Langston
President Obama, among other distinguished guests, got together at the UN for a conference on Climate change.
This pressing issue, that Mr. Obama cares so much about – that issue which his party fights for daily was so important, that his words must have been strong and firm on our commitment to the environment, right? (here):
…”I have been in office for just nine months, though some days it seems a lot longer. I am well aware of the expectations that accompany my presidency around the world. These expectations are not about me. Rather, they are rooted I believe in a discontent with a status quo that has allowed us to be increasingly defined by our differences, and outpaced by our problems. But they are also rooted in the hope that real change is possible, and the hope that America will be a leader in bringing about such change.
“I took office at a time when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust. Part of this was due to misperceptions and misinformation about my country. Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others. This has fed an almost reflexive anti-Americanism, which too often has served as an excuse for our collective inaction.”…
Ok – so unilateral action in our interests are different from other unilateral actions other countries make how? And should we care why?
I know, this again will make me be seen as heartless and I do understand that we have to act in a way that is semi-consistent with international laws, but it’s not our job nor is it our responsibility. I would like to think that when despots are killing their own citizens, we can act unilaterally if we wish.
Please understand; I’m not for an expansion of foreign entanglements mind you, I’m only saying that when something is a just cause and others are unwilling to do anything, then unilateral action is the moral response.
But, he did go on to say that he wouldn’t apologize for defending the nation’s interests. So there’s that… but this as well:
…”We know the future will be forged by deeds and not simply words. Speeches alone will not solve our problems. It will take persistent action. So for those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions that we have taken in just nine months.
“On my first day in office, I prohibited — without exception or equivocation — the use of torture by the United States of America. I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed, and we are doing the hard work of forging a framework to combat extremism within the rule of law. Every nation must know: America will live its values, and we will lead by example. “…
Maybe the President is out the loop or something, but GITMO remains open, and without knowing the specific interrogation techniques which are now being allowed, “not allowing torture” is a joke. I think it’s obvious that both President Bush and Vice President Cheney didn’t believe they were “allowing torture”, but maybe he meant something else – like;
“I started a committee to look into closing GITMO, but I still support the Patriot Act, sending prisoners to other nations who torture, and really, most of my predecessors policies, with the exception of the committee and DOJ investigation.”
But this is politics, so he continues:
…”We have set a clear and focused goal: to work with all members of this body to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies — a network that has killed thousands of people of many faiths and nations, and that plotted to blow up this very building. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, we — and many nations here — are helping those governments develop the capacity to take the lead in this effort, while working to advance opportunity and security for their people.”…
Where’s Iraq? Oh, here:
…”In Iraq, we are responsibly ending a war. We have removed American combat brigades from Iraqi cities, and set a deadline of next August to remove all of our combat brigades from Iraqi territory. And I have made clear that we will help Iraqis transition to full responsibility for their future, and keep our commitment to remove all American troops by the end of 2011.:…
Well, that’s not really true. We’re pulling back troops and have a date to leave, but the Iraqi government can ask us to stay and we would likely oblige… but even without that, does this match the campaign promise?
…On Tuesday, Obama introduced the “Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007,” which calls for a goal of all U.S. troops to leave Iraq by March 31, 2008, in a phased redeployment worked out with military commanders….
It’s almost becoming too easy to poke holes in damn near anything he says, but remember first and foremost that this was a UN Conference on Climate Change.
To be fair, he did get there. Out of roughly 1000 words spoke, he spent 46 words on climate change. For an administration that recently published a report described as this:
…The report describes in vivid detail how our urban infrastructure will be placed in peril from intense hurricanes and storm surges, how heat waves, poor air quality, and insects will increase, and how a rapidly intensifying climate change will make it difficult for both society and the natural resources we possess to adapt….
His discussion on the world stage leaves a lot to be desired.
For real climate change discussions and solutions: I highly recommend the Copenhagen Consensus.
Categories: Environmentalism, People/Blogs, Political Philosophy, Politics, Science
| 
Tags: Climate Change, Copenhagen Consensus, Environmentalism, GITMO, Iraq, Obama, Obama Administration, People/Blogs, plublicity, Political Philosophy, Politics, Science, UN, War on Terror
|
Leave a reply
Trackbacks / Pingbacks