Obama's speech at the univ of Cairo

[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.

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.

[Ironside]

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).

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.

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[Lemur]

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 ...

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.

The rest of your post bears no relationship to the speech given, so I'll just wander on.

[rotorgun]

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:

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

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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.

[Incongruous]

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.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

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).

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.

[seireikhaan]

The self righteousness and his impressive ability to make critical minds numb to the hard facts is quite astounding.

Speaking of self righteousness.....

[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.

[Incongruous]

Speaking of self righteousness.....

Go on, I'm interested as to how I compare against a man who has written two books about himself and uses rhetoric which would make Churchill blush.

So speaking about the same old stuff, Obama is just as hawkish as Bush, the difference being he and his admin. are not a bunch of cretins. So when will he be giving the oil back to Iraq?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Obama got it right in Turkey, in April. That is why I was so dissapointed with his speech in Cairo. Compare:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

OBAMA: Mr. Speaker, Madam Deputy Speaker, distinguished members, I am honored to speak in this chamber, and I am committed to renewing the alliance between our nations and the friendship between our people.
This is my first trip overseas as President of the United States. I have been to the G-20 Summit in London, the NATO Summit in Strasbourg and Kehl, and the European Union Summit in Prague. Some people have asked me if I chose to continue my travels to Ankara and Istanbul to send a message. My answer is simple: Evet. Turkey is a critical ally. Turkey is an important part of Europe. And Turkey and the United States must stand together – and work together – to overcome the challenges of our time.

This morning I had the privilege of visiting the tomb of the great founder of your Republic. I was deeply impressed by this beautiful memorial to a man who did so much to shape the course of history. But it is also clear that the greatest monument to Ataturk’s life is not something that can be cast in stone and marble. His greatest legacy is Turkey’s strong and secular democracy, and that is the work that this assembly carries on today.

[...]

Now, our two democracies are confronted by an unprecedented set of challenges. An economic crisis that recognizes no borders. Extremism that leads to the killing of innocent men, women and children. Strains on our energy supply and a changing climate. The proliferation of the world’s deadliest weapons, and the persistence of tragic conflict.

[...]

I also know that Turkey has pursued difficult political reforms not simply because it’s good for Europe, but because it is right for Turkey.
In the last several years, you have abolished state-security courts and expanded the right to counsel. You have reformed the penal code, and strengthened laws that govern the freedom of the press and assembly. You lifted bans on teaching and broadcasting Kurdish, and the world noted with respect the important signal sent through a new state Kurdish television station.

These achievements have created new laws that must be implemented, and a momentum that should be sustained. For democracies cannot be static – they must move forward. Freedom of religion and expression lead to a strong and vibrant civil society that only strengthens the state, which is why steps like reopening the Halki Seminary will send such an important signal inside Turkey and beyond. An enduring commitment to the rule of law is the only way to achieve the security that comes from justice for all people. Robust minority rights let societies benefit from the full measure of contributions from all citizens.

I say this as the President of a country that not too long ago made it hard for someone who looks like me to vote. But it is precisely that capacity to change that enriches our countries. Every challenge that we face is more easily met if we tend to our own democratic foundation. This work is never over. That is why, in the United States, we recently ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed, and prohibited – without exception or equivocation – any use of torture.

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.

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: 

Saudi Arabia, ruled by a religiously fanatic dynasty, no democracy, no human rights... Try to be a democratic dissident there and get ready to be killed or imprisoned.

Obama should answer two questions: Would the White House act the same way if the Saudis were not heavily investing in the Wall Street? And what about if Cairo suddenly stop being an "ally" of the US and act independenly -or in the same line with Iran?

Bottomline: George W. Bush would have visited Egypt and Saudi Arabia for a "new beginning" but Obama -as we know him- shouldn't have done it. If you still want to speak there, you should have at least cautiously criticized these anti-democratic regimes. That could be change.

http://istanbulian.blogspot.com/2009...ong-place.html

Full speech in video and transcript:
http://enduringamerica.com/2009/04/0...ech-in-turkey/

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.

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.

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...

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.

But of course you're right. The tone is what mattered in this speech, not content.

[Xiahou]

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.

Here's a video of some biting criticism from Krauthammer. I think he offers a good critique.

[seireikhaan]

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.

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.

[Kralizec]

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.

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:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/malaysia/report-2008

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Restrictions on the right to religious freedom remained. People wishing to convert out of Islam continued to face barriers to having their conversion recognized by the civil courts.

* In January, Revathi, a Muslim by birth, was detained at the Malacca Syariah High Court while applying to have her religious status recognized as Hindu. She was taken to a religious rehabilitation camp in Selangor and held there for six months. In March, the Islamic authorities removed Revathi’s daughter from her husband, and placed her in the custody of Revathi’s Muslim mother.
* A 100-year-old Hindu temple was destroyed in Shah Alam in November, on the eve of the Hindu festival Deepavali. Several people were injured and 14 were arrested as devotees tried to stop the demolition. Other reportedly unauthorized Hindu temples were demolished to make way for development projects in 2007 despite petitions by local Hindu communities.