Haven’t You Read Obama’sSpeech in Oslo?

History records speeches that mark the politician who makes them. Some of them are well known, with certain phrases being repeated over and over again as time passes, which causes the speech and the politician to maintain their validity.

Furthermore, some leaders give speeches that create milestones in their careers, perhaps without even intending to. I believe this is the case with Obama, president of the United States, and the speech he made six days ago.

With the intention of accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, Barack Obama gave a speech that dared me to mark it as the most important of his career, a piece of oratory that, from today onward, will, without a doubt, mark him as president of the U.S. It is not the speech he made upon being inaugurated as president, but rather – as I said – the speech he gave six days ago in Oslo. From this we, get the question in the title [of the article].

I earnestly recommend that you read it, not once, but multiple times. Try to ask yourself why he said what he said at precisely this place in time. How is it possible to point out the the particulars of “political correctness,” without having read the speech that, during his acceptance of the prize, spoke of the war in such a way?

(You may see the speech at this url: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/12/10/war-and-peace-oslo; if you prefer to read it in Spanish, you may view it here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/declaraciones-desl-presidente-al-aceptar-el-premio-nobel-de-la-paz)

We also need to ask some questions about the content of the speech, which I hope you read with the same interest that I did. Things being as they are, you are witnessing one of the great speeches that a true head of state should make, without fear or concession to those that demand that the leader cowardly and hypocritically yield to political correctness.

Why be afraid to talk about the role of war in the world? For having received a prize that does not substitute, in any way, for the responsibility the winner has to his citizens and his country? Perhaps for a medal and a little over a million dollars, a leader should forget his fundamental responsibilities.

Who are these opportunists, alleviated from responsibility of government, who pretend to dictate the norms under which a responsible and conscious head of state should conduct his affairs?

The most frequent kinds of decisions a head of state must make are neither easy nor popular, nor are they innocuous. The act of governing, especially when dealing with the military of a superpower, obliges one to make painful and unpopular decisions. There is no room for weakness in this position. A head of state cannot spend his days accommodating opportunists and the politically correct.

President Obama has given an invaluable lesson on what a true head of state should be, do, and say. He has shown that, above prizes and tributes, the conferred responsibility is and should be above all others.

Will those who spend their time trying to stay on the good side of God and the Devil be able to learn this? Can someone learn this, whose only decision, to date, has been choosing Bylcreem instead of Wildroot and Glostora?