Obama’s willingness to flip-flop has earned him the moniker Backtrack Obama. He betrayed progressives by voting for the FISA legislation; he promised to expand Bush’s faith-based initiatives; he equivocated on choice by saying that “mental distress” should not be a factor in abortion.

Obama’s newest flip flop was not over a matter of public policy important to progressives, but rather the United State’s historic role in confronting evil. During the debate at Saddleback, Rick Warren asked, “Does evil exist and, if it does, do we ignore it, do we negotiate with it, do we contain it, or do we defeat it?”

OBAMA: "Evil does exist. I mean, I think we see evil all the time. We see evil in Darfur. We see evil sadly on the streets of our cities. We see evil in parents who viciously abuse their children. And I think it has to be confronted. It has to be confronted squarely. And one of the things that I strongly believe is that, you know, we are not going to, as individuals, be able to erase evil from the world. That is God’s task. But we can be soldiers in that process. And we can confront it when we see it."

"Now, the one thing that I think is very important is for us to have some humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil. Because, you know, a lot of evil’s been perpetrated based on the claim that we were trying to confront evil."


Think about Obama’s words. He’s talking about the United States. During the last century, the United States ended the bloody morass of World War I, freed Europe from genocidal Nazism and freed the Pacific Rim from the horrors of Imperial Japan. We held off Soviet expansionism and our policies eventually freed hundreds of millions who lived under the iron fist of communism.

Our country has undoubtedly made grievous errors confronting evil. We’ve entered conflicts, like Vietnam, where we had only a cursory understanding of the nationalistic feelings of the population. But to accuse the United States of being evil when we confronted communist expansionism in Korea or Vietnam or dictators elsewhere, like Iraq — regardless of how unwise the war policies may have been — is an inaccurate and shameful explanation of our history. It is the typical far-left canard which describes bad policies as having evil intentions.

The men responsible for our entry into Vietnam — Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson — were idealists who were responding to the pressures of their era. They collectively made many mistakes, but they were not evil men. Similarly, the men who had to deal with Saddam Hussein — Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II — were all criticized for their actions or inactions but all of them, I believe, wanted to make the best decisions for the security of their country. So while mistakes were made, colossal mistakes, it was not on par with the evil we confronted, as Obama suggests.

When Warren asked the same question to McCain, he responded:

MCCAIN: "Defeat it."

(APPLAUSE) "A couple points. One, if I’m president of the United States, my friends, if I have to follow him to the gates of hell, I will get Osama Bin Laden and bring him to justice. I will do that and I know how to do it. I will get that guy. No one, no one should be allowed to take thousands of innocent American lives."

This one question put into stark relief each man’s attitude towards the United States. McCain is a man who personally sacrificed in a war which lasted far too long, but he does not ascribe evil to his own country. He knows evil exists and he is ready to confront it. McCain is an old-fashioned patriot, and Obama believes in the moral relativists values of the extreme left. In Obama’s flip flop, the good guys become the bad guys. No wonder he felt at home at Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity Church!

Nietssche : he who fights too long against dragons becomes a dragon himself.

You write :

"Our country has undoubtedly made grievous errors confronting evil. We’ve entered conflicts, like Vietnam, where we had only a cursory understanding of the nationalistic feelings of the population. But to accuse the United States of being evil when we confronted communist expansionism in Korea or Vietnam or dictators elsewhere, like Iraq — regardless of how unwise the war policies may have been — is an inaccurate and shameful explanation of our history. It is the typical far-left canard which describes bad policies as having evil intentions. "

The above tells me you understand weel enough what BOH is driving at.  US intentions may not have been evil, but the actions and the consequences of some of those actions, well, it's up for debate, and we'll leave it to history to decide.

Senaor BHO, as you quote him :

""Now, the one thing that I think is very important is for us to have some humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil. Because, you know, a lot of evil’s been perpetrated based on the claim that we were trying to confront evil."

This  seems to be as much a comment about effects and consequences, as it is about intentions.  You and the Senator appear to be closer in spirit than you imagine.

Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson idealists?  Stop, you are killing me.  All were American patriots who loved thier country and were forced to wage cold war in defense of it, but idealists?  I think not.  Of the 3, the closest to an idealist was Eisenhower, which ought o tell you something.

There is a big difference between an evil entity (usually a country) that initiates evil conduct and an entity that does some bad things in response.

Soldiers tend to be kids who may get carried away in the emotion of battle and fatigue.  This is not intended to excuse them, only explain and mitigate.  It is far less bad to kill someone in the heat of passion than to do so in cold blood.  The cold blood, deliberate action is evil. The mitigated is a flaw in the person.

Perhaps the clearest example I ever saw was in Normandy where they have the various graveyards of the various nations.  

I stumbled across the German cemetary that had a sign saying that the Germans were also mostly young men who had families and loved ones and were only soldiers.  

That is all true, but they came to conquer.  The Americans came to liberate and then left without taking anything.  (Actually, after we won a war we didn't start, we not only didn't ask for reparations, we paid to rebuild the countries.)

I have no doubt that US soldiers did some bad things in liberating France.  But while the Germans were evil in their intent to conquer, the lack of that motive would render the Americans possibly flawed, but not evil.

Obama was obviously referring to acts committed by U.S. soldiers in war.  He fails to see the difference in the two types of acts, which is typical of the left which has a "We are all guilty. We are no better then them" attitude.

Very cool.

I agree with your post and only wanted to add a couple thoughts.  

In the military you kill because you have to kill or be killed.  You kill to protect yourself, and your troops.  Not because you want to kill.  I don't believe that killing for self preservation, or preservation of those around you is evil.  Killing because you want to kill is evil.  People who kill because they want to, have no place in society let alone the military.

Yes, a lot of the enlisted soldiers tend to be young men and women, who may not be emotionally equipped to deal with the horror of war.  It is their officers job to help them, especially in combat situations.

It's very hard for a 19 year old kid from Oklahoma
to have much sympathy for a Iraqi soldier after he has just seen a home with the tiny bodies of Kuwaiti children murdered by these same soldiers.

Evil does have a face, and the United States has been fighting it a long time.

"He's talking about he United States." And, you narrow that to policy and conditions of war. I heard him cast a much broader net regarding evil. He mentioned Darfur, our city streets, and in our families. I heard nothing about policies or conditions of war. Nor, did I hear, from him, that the way we confront evil was limited to our role, as a nation, in wars. I'm certain, plenty of the people in the audience thought he could be talking about evil done to others in the name of Christianity, or even evil they had personally perpetrated on others, and made them feel a bit uneasy.

McCain is right regarding Osama Bin Laden, though by just mentioning him he seemed to limit evil to one person, over there, away from us.

That definitely made me feel better in the moment, but I know better.

Blackbelt, that brings to mind the famous photo of the Colonel in charge of the South Vietnamese National Police shooting the VC prisoner in the head at close range, during Tet, 1968. The media roundly accused the Colonel as being a 'war criminal' for 'executing' the prisoner. What they failed to mention was that the VC prisoner was a terrorist, as were all VC, and that, just prior to his capture, he had participated in the mass killing of an ARVN Major and his entire family, including his parents, in the family's home. The Major had the misfortune of being an interpretor with the US Army, at MACV HQ's, in Saigon. Does that make the Colonel evil? I don't think so....Most of the reporting on the Vietnam War was pure bullshit, especially by CBS, and  Walter Cronkite. Is lying to the American people during a time of war to achieve your goals an act of evil? You bet it is, I don't care who you are.

I think when Obama mentioned evil arising in the attempt to fight evil it is clear that he was talking about US soldiers who allegedly have committed crimes in Iraq.

With all due respect, just putting that statement in the current context, the first thing one would think about would be the slew (I lost count) of Hollywood movies where the U.S. soldiers rape, murder, and commit attoricities.

Hollywood has done all it can to portray our troops as murderers, never showing any good that they do or any evil that they overthrew.  

If Obama is going to be kissey/kissey with Hollywood, the way to justify this portrayal of our soldiers is as evil, but being part of fighting evil.

Yes, it is true that this happens in other contexts, but none are so current that they would be what people think of if you said, "Give me a quick example."

Indeed, do you think he was just being vague or do you think he had anything in particular in mind?

"I think when Obama mentioned evil arising in the attempt to fight (his word was confront) evil it is clear that he was talking about US soldiers who allegedly have committed crimes in Iraq."

I'm not certain where you started from and how you got there. Seems like a very big leap. I cannot recall hearing him declaring our troops as being evil, nor can I even recall him being critical of our troops. Being critical of the war does not equate with being critical of our troops.

I think you are exercising what is commonly called mind-reading. It is reasonable to attempt to discern one's intentions based on what they are saying, or doing, but you cannot say for certainty what they are thinking or referring to, without them explicitly saying so.

"With all due respect, just putting that statement in the current context, the first thing one would think about would be the slew (I lost count) of Hollywood movies where U.S. soldiers rape, murder, and commit atrocities."

I've not seen any of the movies you refer to so my mind did not go there as you declare one's thoughts would do. Again, mind-reading, this time, on a grand scale.

"Yes, it is true that this happens in other contexts, but none are so current that they would be what people think of if you said, 'Give me a quick example.'"

It might be a good study for you to do; asking a large number of people that question. My mind went to the guy who beheaded the guy sitting next to him on the Greyhound bus traveling through Canada.

Once, again mind-reading on a grand scale.

"Indeed, do you think he was just being vague or do you think he had anything in particular in mind?"

I think he was answering the question in general and personal terms, but I would like to have the chance to ask him if he had anything particular in mind. Would you?

Also, he used the inclusive use of "We".

"a lot of evil’s been perpetrated based on the claim that we were trying to confront evil."

Do you think he was including himself among the Spanish Inquisitors?

Then there is his use of the term "a lot", putting evil committed by those with good intentions on somewhat of a par with true evil.

Of course, I would love to have the chance to ask him what he was referring to.  However, I don't think he will accept my call. (I would also love to be able to take a survey, but, I regret that I have to do my real work which takes most of my time.)

Of course, he is not going to declare our troops "evil," in any overt sense.  That would end the campaign in one step.  I am old enough to remember Viet Nam, when the left did brand the soldiers as "baby killers murderers," and other negative labels.  The left has never fully recovered from the bad feelings that were generated from that type of tactic, and no one would dare say that type of thing in a political race.

But it can't be denied that the anti-war movement of today has many of the same philosophical and emotional aspects of the anti-war movement then.  (Ah, the follies of my youth as a member of SDS.  Anyone here old enough to remember SDS.)

Of course, they "support the troops" even if every popular movie is negative.  Funny how Hollywood supports the troops, but can't find one inspirational story.  Every conflict has at least one.

I don't think your example of the person beheading someone on the bus is an example, because the person who beheaded the victim was not "fighting" evil.  He was just evil, so that was not a good example.

I do admit that I am extrapolating somewhat, but I don't think that is necessarily improper, and people do it all the time.  

For example, if someone you know is a right winger and very religious and starts talking in generalities about "the value of life" and the "sanctity of life," it would not be a huge, illogical jump to assume he is talking about abortion, since the religous right often talks about the sanctity of life in that context.  

Similarly, the left always accuses the right of "code words" which are supposed to be subtle references to hot button issues.

Likewise, Obama does have a place on the political spectrum that is undeniable, and when he speaks it is in the context of those positions.  (I am not saying this to bash him.  It is true of everyone, and there is nothing wrong with that.)

I have tried to think of other examples of fighting evil generating evil.  Maybe cops who get carried away, but that is pretty close.  Other than that, I just can't think of any
other examples that might fit what he is talking about.  

Also, I think what ever examples he was thinking of they should not be too obscure, because that would lessen the value of his point - he cites a general principle for which no one can think of an example.  

You say you didn't think of that when you heard it.  Did you think of anything other than the bus beheading which was not really and example of getting carried away fighting evil?

I grew up in the SF Bay area in the sixties and remember it well. My politics have also come a long way since then. It's amazing what running a business and living in the real world will do to your perspective.

FWIW I follow your train of logic and come up with the same conclusion. Of course Obama can't say it, but he and his racist, antiamerican cunt of a wife do feel that way. I bet if he weren't running for POTUS he'd actually say it out loud, but of course that would be political suicide, and the man isn't THAT stupid.

-- Modified on 8/19/2008 4:43:08 PM

Is that a legal, philosophical or religious concept? In opposed to just evil. I didn't find "true evil" in my dictionary, and there seemed to be no requirement for intend in the definition of evil.

Nor, does Scott Peck believe so, the author of "A Road Less Traveled." In his book, "People of the Lie: The Hope of Healing Human Evil," he gives an example of a couple he saw, who's first son committed suicide with his gun. And, inspite of their second son being very depressed, gave him his brother's gun for a Christmas Present. They appeared clueless as to what meaning he would give that act (pg. 57).

If you're talking about "true evil" from a religious perspective, I doubt that Peter, Jesus' disciple, identified with, nor though of himself as doing evil when he tried to talk him into avoiding dying on the cross. That is until Jesus addressed him as Satan (Matt. 16:23). What a shock.

You're right. I missed the part about doing evil in fighting evil. But given that question my mind does go more to the context that Obama spoke in, the church. And, given that my mind goes to the many people that I have known that had serious but remedied psychiatric disorders, but were treated by clergy as having evil spirits. This caused tremendous damage to these individuals, and significantly delayed their final recovery. And, since I've seem much regarding church affairs, I've seen plenty of evil done that cause churches and families to split, and sometimes fall apart. Sorry, that's just where my mind is at.

"running a business and living in the real world."

One of the things that turns people from the left.  It is no wonder that 80% of civil servants are on the left.  Just increase the budget and you will grow.

Likewise, it is no shock that people who never left academia are on the left.  Get tenure and no matter how bad you are, you have a job for life.  To get tenure, make sure you don't offend those who have it and will be voting on you.

You are also very correct when you mention "I've seen plenty of evil done that cause churches and families to split, and sometimes fall apart."

A lot of churches do cause some bad, and a lot of athiests are good, although I think that generally religion does promote good.  NOT ALWAYS, just generally.

I just don't think he was referring to that. Sorry. Just my read. I am not saying it's right, just what I thought of. (Old Southern saying, "opinions are like ass holes. Everybody's got one.")   Me too.

Well, I guess each of our minds went to two different places. Perhaps, someday we'll have a meeting of the minds. Oh! Perhaps it's happened already. Check PM.

Well, OK. You did mention intent. Still. I can't fathom a person would be called evil that commits an act of negligence, that has a result appearing heinously evil.

-- Modified on 8/19/2008 6:17:03 PM

Obama:  Think before acting.  Analyze the situation.  Weight the costs and benefits.  Try not to do more harm than good.  Think first.

McCain:  Someone not like me on lawn.  Break head with big rock.  Beat chest.  Measure penis.

Gosh, what a profound analysis of the difference between the two candidates.

I am just impressed with the fact that Obama did a great job on the first "crisis" to pop up, namely Georgia/Russia.

First, he calls for both parties to use restraint, like an invading army is going to listen to calls for restraint.

Next, he thinks some more and suggests that the UN get involved, not analyzing the situation to realize that Russia, one of the two parties to the dispute, will have a veto on the security counsel, thereby making any neutral resolution impossible.

Yes, good solution in a crisis.  Ask for a negotiated resolution, giving one party a veto power over any suggested resolution that the other party does not have.

In his eagerness to appear responsible and level headed, he proposes absolutely nothing. I can just imagine what he would do when Iran starts it's inevitable sabre rattling. I doubt that Ahmadinejad will test McCain, he is already a known quantity, but if Obama were elected? You can bet your last dollar that Ahmadinejad would push him to the very limit just to see what he how far he could go.

I am just thankful that there are still a couple of months left for the American public to see what their Messiah is really made of. I know many are still so blinded by their hatred of all things Republican that they will never see him for what he is, but thankfully most people will eventually see him for what he is.

The problem is that there are only two people on earth who have the "experience" to be president who are eligible to be president:  Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush.  For everyone else, it is always OJT.

I truly don't hate all things republican.  I just don't like what the party has become in the last twenty years or so.  Too fundamentalist christian / "black and white" social warriors.  The republicans of my younger days (who I voted for occasionally) used to be more pragmatic (sort of), but now its like they're on a crusade to convert us all to their way or the highway by any means necessary.

Obama has his faults, but they are faults of individual features of his proposed policies, not character.  Like McCain, he is basically a very decent person.  He wasn't my first choice (although my first choice recently got caught with his dick in the cookie jar, so to speak, so maybe its for the best).  At least he pronounces the word Nu-cle-ar (to be fair, so does McCain).

I just wish the republicans would stick to the issues rather than turning every criticism back on the person asking the question:

"I don't think your energy policy will work well, Senator McCain."

"As your advisor, I'll handle this one, Senator.  What kind of person questions an American hero's thoughts on energy?  How long have you worked for al Qaeda?  Why do you hate the troops?"

I think McCain is a reasonably honest upright fellow.  I would trust him with many things.  I just think his general policy direction is wrong (it hasn't worked well for the past eight years), and honest disagreement isn't "un-American" damn it.  Unfortunately, his campaign is shifting into full Karl Rove / Lee Atwater scumbag gear, and I would rather try the other guy.

Obama just has no idea of how things work outside of academia.

My former field of study was Soviet affairs.

Obama's first response to Georgia was to ask for "restraint" on both sides.  This is meaningless.  I mean, when two countries are at war, they are really going to give a rat's ass when someone asks for "restraint."

And the Russians, from Ivan to Uncle Joe to Vlad just laugh when someone asks them to restrain themselves.  

If Obama said anything about either side it would have at least meant something.

But what he said was like giving a lecture to the Bloods and the Crips saying, "Please be nice. Don't fight."

We almost went to nuclear war in the 60's over Cuba because Krushchev thought Kennedy would be wishy-washy.  If the most someone can say is, "Please use restaint," you can bet your sweet ass that the day he takes office everyone you can name will be raising Cain just to test the new guy.

Personally, I want Michael Corleone for President

As for the "Republicans sticking with the issues," I didn't know that the number of houses that McCain has was one of the big issues.  I didn't know that the fact that he doesn't use e-mail was a major issue. I could go on and on and on about the Dems going silly.  

Of course, I don't get upset when they do.  That is the nature of the business.  Just don't get upset when the Republicans go "off track."

In any event, a major part of the president's job is personality.  JFK, Reagan, FDR, and others were as much personality as substance.