So some conservatives are offering (backhanded) praise to Obama for his "Bush-like" Nobel speech yesterday.
I'll concede there were lines in the speech Bush could have uttered, but the overall speech and Obama's overall point would have burned Bush's tongue if he tried to say them.
As for me, I might not have liked Obama's conclusions, but I find upon reflection that I agree with him about the use of military force in this imperfect world. Yes, I have a streak of idealism, but I try not to let my idealism get in the way of seeing the real world for what it is. And I can find no logical way to disagree with Obama's assertion that it took force to stop Hitler, and that sometimes the use of military force is morally and ethically justified.
Where there is (and must be) debate is about WHEN that use of force is justified.
I do think it's interesting that right wingers have latched onto only that part of his speech and dub it "the Obama Doctrine," as if that was all the president talked about. It's interesting that they're unable (or unwilling) to catch any of the nuance in what the president was saying about balancing the love of peace and nonviolence with the realization that there are still times when pacifism won't stop evil. Right wingers don't do nuance. And increasingly, some left wingers aren't doing nuance either.