"Isolationists are bad, we need a bigger military, some troops should stay in Iraq to fight Al Qaeda, and we have to deal with loose Russian nukes, pandemics, global warming, all through corporate channels.  Also, 9/11 changed everything, trade agreements are complicated, Iraq was a dumb war.  Oops, our bad, can we get a do-over?  Kissinger told me we could."

That's what Stoller says Obama is saying. As anyone who has read the speech can attest, it's just an utter lie.

Allow me to break it down:
The first half is basically right: 'Isolationists... we have to deal with ... global warming,' are all elements of Obama's speech, and good for him - that's what a substantial foreign policy speech should be all about.

Then Stoller starts lying:
'all through corporate channels.' Where, exactly, Matt, does Obama say we should deal with Russian nukes through corporate channels? Huh? Or pandemic viruses? If my memory serves ("The United States should not leave the solution to private philanthropies" kinda sounds like the opposite, in fact), he actually says we should deal with those things through diplomacy, interational institutions, and multi-lateralism.

As for global warming, he also never says we should deal with it through a 'corporate channel'. Rather, he suggests a three-pronged approach: a cap-and-trade system on existing carbon emissions, raised fuel efficiency standards, and investment in alternative energies (specifically biofuels). What's so corporate about that? Cap and trade? Honestly, is there anything really so bad about cap and trade if it's part of a broader energy policy? I mean, we do live in a capitalist economy (sorry about that, Matt), so we may as well use captialism a little bit in our favor, right?

Which brings me to lie number 2: lies of omission. Stoller picks and chooses which parts of Obama's plans to reference (I assume that 'corporate channels' for nukes, pandemics, and global warming was all an allusion to the cap-and-trade sentence, since nothing else comes close to being corporate), and omits the ones which he knows progressives will appreciate (fuel efficiency, supporting the UN, World Bank, diplomacy with Russia, etc.).

Moving on to more lies:
'Also, 9/11 changed everything, trade agreements are complicated, Iraq was a dumb war.'

As a New Yorker, let me just say that 9/11 WAS kinda important, and Matt can fuck off and die if he thinks it was no big deal. Oh, and Obama DIDN'T use the Bush line '9/11 changed everything' - in fact, he makes reference to the 'horrific attacks' as an entre to attacking Bush's squandering of our international support after 9/11. Sorta different from what Stoller implies, eh?

As for trade agreements, this is where Obama has gotten the most heat for this speech, which is astonishing when you consider that he only makes one reference to trade agreements, and here it is:
"We cannot negotiate trade agreements to help spur development in poor countries so long as we provide no meaningful help to working Americans burdened by the dislocations of a global economy."  THAT'S IT! Can you believe it, that's the supposed pro-corporate free-trade agenda that Obama supposedly has. And I'm not sure where in there Stoller finds Obama suggesting that trade agreements are 'complicated'. Seems pretty straightforward to me. Maybe it's not as anti-trade as some would like, and I know that the socialists won't appreciate it, but it's not exactly a Wall Street talking point, now is it?

As for Iraq being a stupid war, well it was, but that's hardly a worthwhile synopsis of the 6 paragraphs of Obama's speech devoted to how bad the war has been for America and why we must end it.

And now the final two lies in Stoller's synopsis:
'Oops, our bad, can we get a do-over?  Kissinger told me we could.'

Well, as you probably expect by now, he doesn't say anything like that. The fact that he opposed the war in the first place probably negates any chance that he'd like a 'do-over' - he'd rather we didn't invade at all. Clinton's the only Dem in the 'do-over' camp right now.

As for Kissinger, Obama simply doesn't reference Kissinger at all with regard to Iraq, diplomacy, wars, or anything of the sort. He references Kissinger in a seperate part of the speech in a list of past Secretaries of State, Defense, and others who have said that our current programs for preventing nuclear proliferation are "simply not adequate to the danger. " What the hell does that have to do with Iraq?

Nothing, of course, unless you're in Matt Stoller's perverted mind.

Update: Reading through the comments, which I've participated in, it seems that the general sentiment is along the lines of 'well, Matt was being somewhat dishonest about Obama, but you are being too rude in response'. And, upon consideration, I think that may be true. Sorry - I'll try real hard in the future to cut Matt and everyone else a bit more slack for diaries and comments I find objectionable. There is very little that gets me this worked up, and really it's only baseless attacks on Democrats that can piss me off nearly this much. But I'm also somewhat glad that I let rip with both barrels this one time, even if I went a bit far - if it's vitriol that draws people's attention to the lies being posted on the frontpage, then maybe it was worth it just this once.