Org Mobile Site
Does anyone know where to find a fully documented video of this speech?
Should be able to get it here in a little while, but it doesn't seem to be up yet:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/
It was a fabulous speech. I urge everyone to watch it in full.
Originally Posted by TinCow:
It was a fabulous speech. I urge everyone to watch it in full.
Yup,This guy is exactly what the world needs,very very badly.It was a fabulous speech. I urge everyone to watch it in full.
Originally Posted by TinCow:
It was a fabulous speech. I urge everyone to watch it in full.
.It was a fabulous speech. I urge everyone to watch it in full.
Agreed. Heard most of it live on CNN. Switched to Jumong after about half an hour but the essence of the speech had already been delivered by then.
He does know how to say what, where and when.
.
Video here, audio here.
Reactions on da webs regarding the Israeli angle:
National Review, which is anti-Obama ground zero, is being strangely quiet. One of their bloggers did manage to squeeze out this nugget of wisdom:
Fox News, with its usual truthiness, has the following headline:
Reactions on da webs regarding the Israeli angle:
A wise Israeli Prime Minster such as we don't have, would have gone on air two minutes after Obama's speech and said "As the elected leader of Israel and foremost political figure in the Jewish world, I welcome President Obama's speech wholeheartedly. He speaks for us, too, in our joint aspirations for peace dignity freedom and well-being in the Middle East and everywhere. We will do whatever we can to assist him in realizing his fine vision". Let the Arabs wriggle and squirm. Why should we be defensive after such a positive speech? Of course much of what he asked for will never happen. Let the enemies of the vision stand forth and reject it. How did we paint ourselves into their camp? — Yaacov Lozowick
The world is the worse for this speech because it was not honest about the situation in the Middle East, not honest about the threat from Iran, not honest about Israel's deep desire to be allowed to live in peace, and not honest about the determination of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran to destroy Israel and to gain the weapons necessary to do so in an instant. No speech so deeply dishonest in its omissions or so rhetorically misleading its its assumptions and arguments can do anything other than communicate extraordinary weakness on the part of the United States. It will indeed be a famous speech, for all the wrong reasons. — Hugh Hewitt
An African-American President with Muslim roots stands before the Muslim world and defends the right of Jews to a nation of their own in their ancestral homeland, and then denounces in vociferous terms the evil of Holocaust denial, and right-wing Israelis go forth and complain that the President is unsympathetic to the housing needs of settlers. Incredible, just incredible. — Jeffrey Goldberg
The world is the worse for this speech because it was not honest about the situation in the Middle East, not honest about the threat from Iran, not honest about Israel's deep desire to be allowed to live in peace, and not honest about the determination of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran to destroy Israel and to gain the weapons necessary to do so in an instant. No speech so deeply dishonest in its omissions or so rhetorically misleading its its assumptions and arguments can do anything other than communicate extraordinary weakness on the part of the United States. It will indeed be a famous speech, for all the wrong reasons. — Hugh Hewitt
An African-American President with Muslim roots stands before the Muslim world and defends the right of Jews to a nation of their own in their ancestral homeland, and then denounces in vociferous terms the evil of Holocaust denial, and right-wing Israelis go forth and complain that the President is unsympathetic to the housing needs of settlers. Incredible, just incredible. — Jeffrey Goldberg
National Review, which is anti-Obama ground zero, is being strangely quiet. One of their bloggers did manage to squeeze out this nugget of wisdom:
[W]hat the president said was damaging, wrong, and at times simply shameful.
His speech was rife with moral equivalence. The Iranian Revolution was bad, but so was the U.S. overthrow of Mossadeq in 1953. The Holocaust was bad, but “on the other hand” so is the Israeli occupation of Palestine. The events are not comparable. [...]
Also little noticed was the fact that Obama announced a major shift in U.S. policy in the Holy Land. In 2002, President Bush declared in his Rose Garden address that America would only engage “Palestinian leaders not compromised by terror.” In Cairo today, Obama reversed this policy, declaring that Hamas has “to play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people.” This is naïve and dangerous.
His speech was rife with moral equivalence. The Iranian Revolution was bad, but so was the U.S. overthrow of Mossadeq in 1953. The Holocaust was bad, but “on the other hand” so is the Israeli occupation of Palestine. The events are not comparable. [...]
Also little noticed was the fact that Obama announced a major shift in U.S. policy in the Holy Land. In 2002, President Bush declared in his Rose Garden address that America would only engage “Palestinian leaders not compromised by terror.” In Cairo today, Obama reversed this policy, declaring that Hamas has “to play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people.” This is naïve and dangerous.
Fox News, with its usual truthiness, has the following headline:
well said by Obama on Israel, and i agree with him completely. 
I think he glossed over some finer points with respect to Hamas, but all in all, it was a good speech and a good step forward.
Quite a superb speech, exactly what was needed. Common sense and real understanding.
/waits for the nonconformists to blast Obama...
I thought the speech was very nice, for the most part.
Wonderful speech, I felt some genuine emotion watching and listening + both sides of the fence are very fortunate to have such a person as Obama come forward at this point in history.
But as they once said in the Simpsons: "...will Homer's fence-mending eggs bear fruit? Or will his olive branch be torn apart by woodpeckers of mistrust?"
But as they once said in the Simpsons: "...will Homer's fence-mending eggs bear fruit? Or will his olive branch be torn apart by woodpeckers of mistrust?"
Naturally, I couldn't disagree more with Obama's speech.
I suspect Obama of being a non-believer. He doesn't dare say so to his American electorate. He doesn't dare say so to the world at large. Alas, in his speech, he didn't find the courage to call a spade a spade.
Obama should have castigated the Islamic world for caving in to the demands of this violent religion. Several decades ago, the Islamic world was governed mostly by secular states. These governments discredited themselves with corruption, abuse and incompetence. Islamofascism could fester, and raise its ugly head.
Like fascism proper, it is not backward, mediaeval. It is a modern alternative to modern challenges. But the wrong one.
The Islamic world should go the way of China, of Singapore. The way of Malaysia or Turkey - predominantly Islamic countries. Not the way of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan.
Development, not a retreat into backwardness and unfreedom.
In America, a Muslim is a free man. He can provide for his family. In safety and in dignity.
Whereas, where the Islam rules, the life of a Muslim is held anything but sacred. He is tortured. His children are kept away from education. His wife is property.
Obama held his speech in Cairo university. An ancient institution of higher learning. Older than Bologna, Paris and Oxford. Three decades ago, unveiled Egyptian women studied law and medicine here. Today, with virtually no exception, female students, under great threat, wear the hijabh.
I suspect Obama of being a non-believer. He doesn't dare say so to his American electorate. He doesn't dare say so to the world at large. Alas, in his speech, he didn't find the courage to call a spade a spade.
Obama should have castigated the Islamic world for caving in to the demands of this violent religion. Several decades ago, the Islamic world was governed mostly by secular states. These governments discredited themselves with corruption, abuse and incompetence. Islamofascism could fester, and raise its ugly head.
Like fascism proper, it is not backward, mediaeval. It is a modern alternative to modern challenges. But the wrong one.
The Islamic world should go the way of China, of Singapore. The way of Malaysia or Turkey - predominantly Islamic countries. Not the way of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan.
Development, not a retreat into backwardness and unfreedom.
In America, a Muslim is a free man. He can provide for his family. In safety and in dignity.
Whereas, where the Islam rules, the life of a Muslim is held anything but sacred. He is tortured. His children are kept away from education. His wife is property.
Obama held his speech in Cairo university. An ancient institution of higher learning. Older than Bologna, Paris and Oxford. Three decades ago, unveiled Egyptian women studied law and medicine here. Today, with virtually no exception, female students, under great threat, wear the hijabh.
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
Naturally, I couldn't disagree more with Obama's speech.
I suspect Obama of being a non-believer. He doesn't dare say so to his American electorate. He doesn't dare say so to the world at large. Alas, in his speech, he didn't find the courage to call a spade a spade.
He's the president of America, where the flaunting of your religious devotion is important standard stuff by some obscure reason. (I don't know the religious devotion of our prime minister and most or our ministers, nor do I care).Naturally, I couldn't disagree more with Obama's speech.
I suspect Obama of being a non-believer. He doesn't dare say so to his American electorate. He doesn't dare say so to the world at large. Alas, in his speech, he didn't find the courage to call a spade a spade.
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
Obama should have castigated the Islamic world for caving in to the demands of this violent religion. Several decades ago, the Islamic world was governed mostly by secular states. These governments discredited themselves with corruption, abuse and incompetence. Islamofascism could fester, and raise its ugly head.
Like fascism proper, it is not backward, mediaeval. It is a modern alternative to modern challenges. But the wrong one.
While I agree on the analysis, do you really think that open castigation would make the Islamic world less Islamofascistic? People usually react better to a friendly advice than an insult, however true that might be.Obama should have castigated the Islamic world for caving in to the demands of this violent religion. Several decades ago, the Islamic world was governed mostly by secular states. These governments discredited themselves with corruption, abuse and incompetence. Islamofascism could fester, and raise its ugly head.
Like fascism proper, it is not backward, mediaeval. It is a modern alternative to modern challenges. But the wrong one.
In speaches that are going to be viewed by the world making diggs at one's host is a sure-fire way of making them less likely to budge as open condemnation has already happened. A quiet word that if things aren't loosened the USA might not be so overtly friendly would probably achieve more.
It seems that in many parts of the world Muslims would like to be more free, and it is the leadership that are able to point at the hostility of the West that keeps them in power (e.g. Iran - Axis Of Evil was a Godsend to the leadership). Villifying a guardedly welcoming power is much harder.
Christianity was its most ruthless when loosing against the Moors and the Ottoman Empire, and conversely Islam was the most open. Now as Islam feels besieged they as a religion are battening down the hatches and retreating to the better times that never really were about 500 years ago.
It seems that in many parts of the world Muslims would like to be more free, and it is the leadership that are able to point at the hostility of the West that keeps them in power (e.g. Iran - Axis Of Evil was a Godsend to the leadership). Villifying a guardedly welcoming power is much harder.
Christianity was its most ruthless when loosing against the Moors and the Ottoman Empire, and conversely Islam was the most open. Now as Islam feels besieged they as a religion are battening down the hatches and retreating to the better times that never really were about 500 years ago.
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
Alas, in his speech, he didn't find the courage to call a spade a spade.
Is this the second, third or fourth time you've managed to use that metaphor in relation to our President? Bit of a pattern forming ...Alas, in his speech, he didn't find the courage to call a spade a spade.
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
Obama should have castigated the Islamic world for caving in to the demands of this violent religion.
Yeah, a good lecture and some talking-down would really move the moderate Muslims into our corner. If anything, Islamists are noted for their lack of pride.Obama should have castigated the Islamic world for caving in to the demands of this violent religion.
The rest of your post bears no relationship to the speech given, so I'll just wander on.
I think that it was a brilliant speech, worthy of a leader from a great nation that is trying to come to terms with the results of a very disturbing policy during the turbulent Bush II administration. After reviewing the criticisms by Israeli, Western European, and leaders from some Muslim organizations, I will say this. My wife uses an expression, which is how she tends to rate the sincerity of people:
Originally Posted by :
Let your actions speak louder than your words, for it is the deed which reveals the character of the speaker and the truth behind what they say.-Rotorgun's wife
Let your actions speak louder than your words, for it is the deed which reveals the character of the speaker and the truth behind what they say.-Rotorgun's wife
Did he speak well? Of course (teleprompter or no, I'm not sure which is accurate). Am I completely comfortable with everything he said? No. Was I comfortable with some of the things he said? Yes.
Not a bad article.
Not a bad article.
Good political speech, very impressive rhetoric.
However as someone who despises political speeches, I will also despise the bollocks which spouted forth from Obama's mouth in the first few lines "historical forces". "Cold war when". "We meet at a time of tension between the United States and Muslims around the world – tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. "
"The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together" Yep, it sure does.
"I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with."
Right, wish he would explain just how many people the U.S has murdered in Afganistan via its support for Ilamists and a ruthless bombing campaign. Or tell us all about the prior planning for an invasion of Afghanistan during the "Six-Plus-Two" talks in 2001.
The self righteousness and his impressive ability to make critical minds numb to the hard facts is quite astounding.
"two peoples" that seems to be his idea of what Israel-Palestine means, what it really is, is "The west vs. displaced, starving, hateful refugees who suffer non-stop day and night". "Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed."
As soon as he holds up military aid to Israel and demands the IDF be answerable to War Crimes committed in January, I'll clap, until then its more of the same.
This guy is a joke.
However as someone who despises political speeches, I will also despise the bollocks which spouted forth from Obama's mouth in the first few lines "historical forces". "Cold war when". "We meet at a time of tension between the United States and Muslims around the world – tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. "
"The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together" Yep, it sure does.
"I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with."
Right, wish he would explain just how many people the U.S has murdered in Afganistan via its support for Ilamists and a ruthless bombing campaign. Or tell us all about the prior planning for an invasion of Afghanistan during the "Six-Plus-Two" talks in 2001.
The self righteousness and his impressive ability to make critical minds numb to the hard facts is quite astounding.
"two peoples" that seems to be his idea of what Israel-Palestine means, what it really is, is "The west vs. displaced, starving, hateful refugees who suffer non-stop day and night". "Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed."
As soon as he holds up military aid to Israel and demands the IDF be answerable to War Crimes committed in January, I'll clap, until then its more of the same.
This guy is a joke.
Rather elegantly said, Louis. But sometimes you French do have a way with words...
Here's a little something from the American Conservative (criticizing both the speech and National Review's reaction in one shot).
Here's a little something from the American Conservative (criticizing both the speech and National Review's reaction in one shot).
Originally Posted by :
The approach that conservatives find infuriating when directed at them is the same one he was using on Thursday in Cairo: define the limits of the debate, establish one’s own views as the balanced, reasonable center of the debate, invite people from either side to join the ostensibly reasonable center, and thereby marginalize those who continue to ignore or oppose you. What critics such as Frum keep missing, much as many others missed it during Obama’s time at the Trinidad Summit of the Americas, is that Obama is making it much more difficult for other nations to oppose the United States without marginalizing themselves internationally. With respect to the Cairo speech, it does not legitimize or empower fanatics to acknowledge concerns that they have traditionally exploited to their advantage. On the contrary, acknowledging these concerns deprives the fanatics of their monopoly on paying attention and defining the appropriate responses to these concerns. Better still, acknowledging a past event, such as the U.S. role in ousting Mossadegh, steals the power from those who have made use of a real grievance for their own ends. More than this, though, simple acknowledgment of past error allows for a delay and deferral of any substantive change in present-day policy. Ironically, the more unequal the comparison between U.S. actions and those with which Obama compared them, the less substantive change in present policy there will be. Mild displays of humility make real concessions less urgent, and it makes it more likely that they can be avoided entirely. Those who are generally satisfied with establishment policies and the current status quo as usual have the least to fear from Obama, and so it is fitting that they are the ones making the loudest complaints.
The approach that conservatives find infuriating when directed at them is the same one he was using on Thursday in Cairo: define the limits of the debate, establish one’s own views as the balanced, reasonable center of the debate, invite people from either side to join the ostensibly reasonable center, and thereby marginalize those who continue to ignore or oppose you. What critics such as Frum keep missing, much as many others missed it during Obama’s time at the Trinidad Summit of the Americas, is that Obama is making it much more difficult for other nations to oppose the United States without marginalizing themselves internationally. With respect to the Cairo speech, it does not legitimize or empower fanatics to acknowledge concerns that they have traditionally exploited to their advantage. On the contrary, acknowledging these concerns deprives the fanatics of their monopoly on paying attention and defining the appropriate responses to these concerns. Better still, acknowledging a past event, such as the U.S. role in ousting Mossadegh, steals the power from those who have made use of a real grievance for their own ends. More than this, though, simple acknowledgment of past error allows for a delay and deferral of any substantive change in present-day policy. Ironically, the more unequal the comparison between U.S. actions and those with which Obama compared them, the less substantive change in present policy there will be. Mild displays of humility make real concessions less urgent, and it makes it more likely that they can be avoided entirely. Those who are generally satisfied with establishment policies and the current status quo as usual have the least to fear from Obama, and so it is fitting that they are the ones making the loudest complaints.
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
In America, a Muslim is a free man. He can provide for his family. In safety and in dignity.
Whereas, where the Islam rules, the life of a Muslim is held anything but sacred. He is tortured. His children are kept away from education. His wife is property.
Obama held his speech in Cairo university. An ancient institution of higher learning. Older than Bologna, Paris and Oxford. Three decades ago, unveiled Egyptian women studied law and medicine here. Today, with virtually no exception, female students, under great threat, wear the hijabh.
That should have been in his speech. Like most of Obama's speeches, this one was fairly nauseating- it was designed to make him look good, not his country.In America, a Muslim is a free man. He can provide for his family. In safety and in dignity.
Whereas, where the Islam rules, the life of a Muslim is held anything but sacred. He is tortured. His children are kept away from education. His wife is property.
Obama held his speech in Cairo university. An ancient institution of higher learning. Older than Bologna, Paris and Oxford. Three decades ago, unveiled Egyptian women studied law and medicine here. Today, with virtually no exception, female students, under great threat, wear the hijabh.
Here's a video of some biting criticism from Krauthammer. I think he offers a good critique.
Originally Posted by Xiahou:
Here's a video of some biting criticism from Krauthammer. I think he offers a good critique.
I stopped listening when he complained of Iran fighting proxy wars against our proxies in the middle east. Here's a video of some biting criticism from Krauthammer. I think he offers a good critique.
I keep hearing from conservatives whining and moaning about Obama apologizing. I have yet to hear why that is actually a bad thing. Anyone who think the US' history is one naught but shining, elegant freedom is out of touch with reality. The US has taken plenty of actions that people would consider unethical, and its always been to secure a strategic purpose. Guess what, when you do that, others will always get caught in the crossfire. Mr. Krauthammer should realize that Israel itself was a form of imperialism against the Muslim world, as was the coup he admitted to. Apolizing for this does WHAT, exactlly? Embolden terrorists? How exactly are they not already bold? Hamas fires daily rockets. Terrorists flowed with ease into Iraq for years, and may do so again when the US formally withdraws most of the military presence. Pakistan and Afghanistan are both in pieces, and Lebanon is still mostly under Hezbollah control. Apparently those very real successes aren't sufficient enough "encouragement" to aspiring terrorists.
Further, the whole idea that the speech was naught but a series of apologies is a farce. If that's all someone was able to take out of the speech, they either A) Didn't listen to more than 10 percent of the speech or B) Are spinning.
Originally Posted by Default the Magyar:
The self righteousness and his impressive ability to make critical minds numb to the hard facts is quite astounding.
Speaking of self righteousness.....The self righteousness and his impressive ability to make critical minds numb to the hard facts is quite astounding.
Impressive speech. Right up there with the greatest. I kinda agree with Louis but there's a time and a place for everything, and right now we need more of this.
I thought that the speech itself was good, but that it signified very little. For example, "To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist." - Bush or Rice could have said exactly the same thing.
We already knew Obama was a good orator. So far I haven't seen him do anything that would indicate he's a good president.
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/malaysia/report-2008
We already knew Obama was a good orator. So far I haven't seen him do anything that would indicate he's a good president.
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
The Islamic world should go the way of China, of Singapore. The way of Malaysia or Turkey - predominantly Islamic countries. Not the way of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan.
Development, not a retreat into backwardness and unfreedom.
Malaysia is hardly a shining example of what an islamic country should look like:The Islamic world should go the way of China, of Singapore. The way of Malaysia or Turkey - predominantly Islamic countries. Not the way of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan.
Development, not a retreat into backwardness and unfreedom.
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/malaysia/report-2008
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Originally Posted by Lemur:
Is this the second, third or fourth time you've managed to use that metaphor in relation to our President? Bit of a pattern forming ...
The rest of your post bears no relationship to the speech given, so I'll just wander on.
Oops. The spade metaphor was entirely unintentional. Rather unfortunate in the context here. I do not think I've used it before. Me and another poster were a bit naughty with it once, I didn't intend to do the same thing here.Is this the second, third or fourth time you've managed to use that metaphor in relation to our President? Bit of a pattern forming ...
The rest of your post bears no relationship to the speech given, so I'll just wander on.
The rest of my post bears no relationship to the speech that was given indeed. Which is the very point of my criticism of the speech.
Originally Posted by Kralizec:
Malaysia is hardly a shining example of what an islamic country should look like:
Ah, thanks for that. I identified Malaysia with my monitor, computer components, and shiny skyscrapers in Kuala Lumpur. Apparantly, looks can be deceiving...Malaysia is hardly a shining example of what an islamic country should look like:
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Impressive speech. Right up there with the greatest. I kinda agree with Louis but there's a time and a place for everything, and right now we need more of this.
Hah! Says the man who no doubt voted Wilders two days ago. Impressive speech. Right up there with the greatest. I kinda agree with Louis but there's a time and a place for everything, and right now we need more of this.
But of course you're right. The tone is what mattered in this speech, not content.
Obama got it right in Turkey, in April. That is why I was so dissapointed with his speech in Cairo. Compare:
Now that is a great speech.
The Islamic world has a long history of secularism, of higher learning, of enlightenment. This is the current the West ought to ally itself with. As elsewhere, it is under threat even in Turkey. We need to find common ground in our mutual interest in promoting democratic, open societies and human rights.
Seeking common ground with backwardness, theocracy, oppression - these further neither the interests of the West nor of the Orient.
Full speech in video and transcript:
http://enduringamerica.com/2009/04/0...ech-in-turkey/
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
The Islamic world has a long history of secularism, of higher learning, of enlightenment. This is the current the West ought to ally itself with. As elsewhere, it is under threat even in Turkey. We need to find common ground in our mutual interest in promoting democratic, open societies and human rights.
Seeking common ground with backwardness, theocracy, oppression - these further neither the interests of the West nor of the Orient.
Originally Posted by Turkish blogger:
The Turkey visit of US President Barack Obama was truely a triumph. He didn't care about being politically correct, he bravely emphasized the importance of secularism in the face of the Islamist government, yet he managed to win many hearts because he was always perceived as honest.
Unfortunately, Obama's visit to Cairo today is of a different nature. His words were sweet, but this speech will generally be perceived as a publicity stunt and its positive effect would be much more limited, comparing to his sincere performance in Turkey.
Egypt and Saudi Arabia were the worst choices to be made to speak to the Muslim world. Egypt, ruled by a secular dictator, no democracy, no human rights... Try to be an Islamist dissident there and get ready to be killed or imprisoned.
The Turkey visit of US President Barack Obama was truely a triumph. He didn't care about being politically correct, he bravely emphasized the importance of secularism in the face of the Islamist government, yet he managed to win many hearts because he was always perceived as honest.
Unfortunately, Obama's visit to Cairo today is of a different nature. His words were sweet, but this speech will generally be perceived as a publicity stunt and its positive effect would be much more limited, comparing to his sincere performance in Turkey.
Egypt and Saudi Arabia were the worst choices to be made to speak to the Muslim world. Egypt, ruled by a secular dictator, no democracy, no human rights... Try to be an Islamist dissident there and get ready to be killed or imprisoned.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Full speech in video and transcript:
http://enduringamerica.com/2009/04/0...ech-in-turkey/
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Impressive speech. Right up there with the greatest. I kinda agree with Louis but there's a time and a place for everything, and right now we need more of this.
Quite right. If you want to settle disputes, you should talk. And if you want to talk, you shouldn't offend your hosts by enumerating everything that's wrong with them. You should take the high road and point out on wat issues or values parties should agree instead of where they should part. Obama spoke like a president of the entire world there. Of course, someone in this thread is bound to ask where his deeds are. Well, for the time being Obama is mostly undoing some major mistakes of his predecessors. I can't tell you how relieved I am that 'we' have a brain in the White House again.Impressive speech. Right up there with the greatest. I kinda agree with Louis but there's a time and a place for everything, and right now we need more of this.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO