PDA

View Full Version : (06-06-09) "Barack Obamas 10 mistakes in Cairo" (UK Telegraph)


Wyoming Dem
06-06-2009, 09:40 PM
I probably read 75 commentaries since yesterday about his speech and the "tone" was generally that is failed miserably and made America look bad.
Beyond that, yack, yack, yack which is ALL he ever does (how can anyone keep listening to all these lengthy sermons? (because that's what they really are...you are bad and Obama is good and he will "show you the error of your ways"...) This GUY never shuts up, is on TV more than Viagra or Cialis commercials, is the biggest windbag of a politician I have seen in many years
and can manage to talk for over an hour and say NOTHING important (but it is preachy...) I can only hope that all of this "All Obama All the time over-exposure" will turn off as many people as it excites...

And I agree with the author...#4...With all the travesties in the Muslim world that Muslim women are subjected to and this moron could only talk about their right to wear the hijab??? WHO THE HELL IS HIS SPEECH WRITER and WHY ON EARTH IS HE STILL BEING PAID??? There was also a HUGE faux pas as ONCE AGAIN...Obama got his "history" wrong....""The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom. Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition."


By the time the Spanish Inquisition was created in 1478, Cordoba has been reconquered from Islamic hands almost 150 years earlier, in 1236.

Andalusia did not’t last long in the Inquisition period, either. It fell to Ferdinand and Isabella, the Catholic monarchs of Spain, in 1492, which completed the reconquest of Spain by Christian forces. Andalusia as an Islamic outpost had declined steadily for most of the previous 150 years.

So I have to ask...who writes these damn stupid speeches and who is responsible for "fact checking?" UNfriggin' believable and just makes Obama look stupider than he already looks. Boring AND wrong...

Barack Obama's speech in Cairo was quite a moment. I say moment, but it lasted some 56 minutes and contained more than 6,000 words. Too long. Yes, he said a lot, ensuring to some extent that it could be all things to all people - almost everyone can take something away from it to feel good about.

That doesn't mean, however, that it was an effective speech. It was, of course, very well-delivered and contained many fine phrases. But we know that Obama can do this and he's subject to the law of diminishing returns. The more I think about it, the more potentially problematic I find the speech. Here, for starters, are 10 mistakes he made:

1. "Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail."

With this phrase, Obama dismissed the notion of American exceptional-ism, the belief that the United States occupies a special place among nations. Obama clearly doesn't see the United States as a "Shining City upon a Hill" or its history, constitution or way of life giving it special qualities or responsibilities in the world. When asked in Strasbourg whether he reduced "American exceptional-ism" - a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville - as mere patriotism. "I believe in American exceptional-ism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptional-ism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptional-ism." By trying to reduce US status to that of just another nation, Obama diminishes the role of American leadership.

2. "I am a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk."

While watering down America's status in the world, Obama has consistently sought to elevate his own status to that of a universal, healing symbol as if his very being, his inspiring life story, his Muslim background, his father from Kenya, his childhood spell in Indonesia will square the circle in the Middle East. If only it were as easy as that. This comes across as naive, even pandering.

3. "Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust.... On the other hand..."

Yes, Obama spoke strongly and unequivocally about the six million Jews who were exterminated in the Holocaust. But he immediately appeared to equate this with the suffering of Palestinians who have "endured the pain of dislocation...endure the daily humiliations - large and small - that come with occupation...the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable". This comes dangerously close to moral equivalence.

4. "The U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hi jab, and to punish those who would deny it. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality."

Probably the worst passage of all. By highlighting the most superficial aspect of women's rights is the Muslim world, Obama dramatically underplayed the oppression women face. It's not people in the West who believe women who cover their hair are less equal, it's countries in the Middle East that dictate that all women are less equal. From the Left, Peter Daou, who grew up in west Beirut, rails against the weakness of Obama's stance on human rights: "With women being stoned, raped, abused, battered, mutilated, and slaughtered on a daily basis across the globe, violence that is so often perpetrated in the name of religion, the most our president can speak about is protecting their right to wear the hi jab?" From the Right, Stephen Hayes, points out: "In Saudi Arabia, women cannot drive. In Iran, they're stoned on suspicion of adultery. In Pakistan, politicians publicly defend 'honor killings' of young girls who have the audacity to choose their own husbands."

5. "I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo..."

It's one thing to go to the heart of an autocracy in the Middle East and to deliver hard truths. It's quite another to describe President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt as a "force for stability" and then go to Cairo and soft pedal on human rights abuses there. Many Arabs battling for democracy and freedom in their own countries feel undermined by Obama's choice of venue. Spengler of Asia Times goes even further: "By addressing the 'Islamic world' from Cairo, Obama lends credibility to the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and other advocates of political Islam who demand that Muslims be addressed globally and on religious terms."

6.[B] "Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible." [/B

]In its essence no neo-con from the Bush administration would disagree with this. But the "although" betrays that Obama is trying to have it both ways - he's glad that Saddam's gone but he's against the war that removed him. Yes, it was a choice. Sometimes hard choices have to be made. Yet Obama seems to think that he can just split the difference and please both sides.

7. "No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have all the complex questions that brought us to this point."

No single speech - but perhaps a series of speeches, Obama implied. He later said that "words alone cannot meet the needs of our people" but Obama's preference for words rather than actions is clear. For all its grand vision, this speech contained no concrete proposals.

8. "And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter our principles. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year."


The "just as" is troubling because it goes dangerously close to equating what happened on 9/11 with the alleged alteration of American principles afterwords. Like the "on the other hand", it's sloppy speech writing. Obama was eager to use the t-word - torture (though not another t-word - terror). By constantly referring to torture - which, even if one concedes that it was used was done so used in very limited circumstances and ended several years ago during the Bush administration - Obama buys into the narrative that America is to blame. Obama conveniently ignores the fact that torture of a far more heinous nature than has ever taken place at Guantanamo Bay occurs almost routinely in countries across the Middle East - and the victims are often more dissidents rather than suspected terrorists. Once again, Obama highlights the closure of Guantanamo Bay - though he has yet to resolve where to transfer its inmates.

9. "I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other."

Obama talked about democracy but he failed to speak about the democratic government of Iraq. Whatever one thinks of the US invasion in 2003, that is a tremendous achievement and one brought about at a massive cost in American and Iraqi lives. It's an achievement that needs to be supported and built on, not least to demonstrate to other Arab countries that democracy in the Middle East is possible. Yet Obama seemed to want to ignore Iraq because he opposed the invasion.

10. "For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat."

After 9/11, the Bush administration - with the full bipartisan support of Congress - cracked down on terrorist financing via some groups that posed as Islamic charities. So what's Obama hinting at here? As David Frum puts it: "It is not at all hard for American Muslims to give to legitimate charities. What has been made difficult is giving to terror groups. Is the president suggesting he will relax those restrictions?"






MORE http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_harnden/blog/2009/06/04/barack_obamas_10_mistakes_in_cairo

AngusAwesome
06-07-2009, 02:05 AM
And what should he have done? Talked about all of Islam's failings and highlighted the worst elements of Middle Eastern society and belittled them? He's trying to curry their favor, for crying out loud; if you were trying to be friends with someone you wouldn't introduce yourself by saying "Hi, I'm WyomingDem, your clothes are ugly and your values system is inferior to mine but don't worry, just try to be like me and things will work out." Once you're friends you can make constructive criticisms, of which the Middle East surely could use plenty, but criticism from someone you don't like tends to fall on deaf ears.

Picking just one thing of the ten: gee, Obama didn't mention democracy in Iraq. Could it be because the Muslim world sees Iraq as an imperialist venture by a bully bent on forcing its will on the Middle East? Maybe reminding them of how much they hated that wasn't the best way to win their favor, just like a pro-choice speaker at a pro-life rally wouldn't bring up Roe v. Wade as a great victory for everyone (unless they were trying to piss the crowd off). Or maybe it's that they don't believe that Iraq is a democracy and telling them that it is would more likely make you sound like a fraud than Iraq look like a democracy?

And to people say he's not taking any action, I'd like to point out that the Obama administration is leaning incredibly hard on Netanyahu's government to stop the settlement bullshit going on in the West Bank that makes it nearly impossible to even begin talking about a Palestinian state.

TheTaoOfBill
06-07-2009, 02:29 AM
And what should he have done? Talked about all of Islam's failings and highlighted the worst elements of Middle Eastern society and belittled them? He's trying to curry their favor, for crying out loud; if you were trying to be friends with someone you wouldn't introduce yourself by saying "Hi, I'm WyomingDem, your clothes are ugly and your values system is inferior to mine but don't worry, just try to be like me and things will work out." Once you're friends you can make constructive criticisms, of which the Middle East surely could use plenty, but criticism from someone you don't like tends to fall on deaf ears.

Picking just one thing of the ten: gee, Obama didn't mention democracy in Iraq. Could it be because the Muslim world sees Iraq as an imperialist venture by a bully bent on forcing its will on the Middle East? Maybe reminding them of how much they hated that wasn't the best way to win their favor, just like a pro-choice speaker at a pro-life rally wouldn't bring up Roe v. Wade as a great victory for everyone (unless they were trying to piss the crowd off). Or maybe it's that they don't believe that Iraq is a democracy and telling them that it is would more likely make you sound like a fraud than Iraq look like a democracy?

And to people say he's not taking any action, I'd like to point out that the Obama administration is leaning incredibly hard on Netanyahu's government to stop the settlement bullshit going on in the West Bank that makes it nearly impossible to even begin talking about a Palestinian state.

I salute you, sir (or madam) **==**==

Wyoming Dem
06-07-2009, 09:26 AM
And what should he have done? Talked about all of Islam's failings and highlighted the worst elements of Middle Eastern society and belittled them? He's trying to curry their favor, for crying out loud; if you were trying to be friends with someone you wouldn't introduce yourself by saying "Hi, I'm WyomingDem, your clothes are ugly and your values system is inferior to mine but don't worry, just try to be like me and things will work out." Once you're friends you can make constructive criticisms, of which the Middle East surely could use plenty, but criticism from someone you don't like tends to fall on deaf ears.

Picking just one thing of the ten: gee, Obama didn't mention democracy in Iraq. Could it be because the Muslim world sees Iraq as an imperialist venture by a bully bent on forcing its will on the Middle East? Maybe reminding them of how much they hated that wasn't the best way to win their favor, just like a pro-choice speaker at a pro-life rally wouldn't bring up Roe v. Wade as a great victory for everyone (unless they were trying to piss the crowd off). Or maybe it's that they don't believe that Iraq is a democracy and telling them that it is would more likely make you sound like a fraud than Iraq look like a democracy?

And to people say he's not taking any action, I'd like to point out that the Obama administration is leaning incredibly hard on Netanyahu's government to stop the settlement bullshit going on in the West Bank that makes it nearly impossible to even begin talking about a Palestinian state.

"Hi, I'm WyomingDem, your clothes are ugly and your values system is inferior to mine but don't worry, just try to be like me and things will work out."
That is way too polite to be me...

Artists4Hillary
06-07-2009, 04:39 PM
AA,

Your "location" says everything anyone needs to know about you.

Once again, a great post WD.

TheTaoOfBill
06-07-2009, 04:45 PM
Clearly the people who wrote and agree with this piece want George Bush to be president again. Because these are the exact kinds of things his administration would say.

Bush wasn't good at diplomacy but he sure was good at pointing fingers and calling people evil dooers.

CGP
06-07-2009, 05:12 PM
AA,

Your "location" says everything anyone needs to know about you.



That's a tad insulting...

Ikasu
06-07-2009, 05:15 PM
Garbage article.

Clearly the people who wrote and agree with this piece want George Bush to be president again. Because these are the exact kinds of things his administration would say.

Bush wasn't good at diplomacy but he sure was good at pointing fingers and calling people evil dooers.

The people who agree with this article think Bush wasn't aggressive enough on foreign policy.

CGP
06-07-2009, 05:17 PM
I don't think there is anything particularly interesting about the "analysis" of this speech. It's the same old story - those that don't like Obama will find plenty to criticize in his speech and those that like Obama will find plenty to praise in his speech. Wow, earth shattering!

I heard some parts of the speech and it sounded ok. I do think it's perfectly reasonable to highlight that America is not perfect - nothing annoys the world more than an America that thinks it is "right" 100% of the time - that's the kind of arrogance that really rubs people the wrong way. So if Obama attempted to diminish some of America's historical arrogance by portraying America in a more humble light, it was a wise move.

lanney
06-07-2009, 06:10 PM
Another analysis,

Brother Hussein, thanks for your Nildus speech
MJ Akbar

Dear Brother Hussein,

I am certain about two things. I am a Muslim, and I live in this world. Now the uncertainties begin. On June 4 you gave what was heavily advertised as a major speech to the ‘Muslim world’. Does that mean that while every Christian believes in the divinity of Jesus, he can be legitimately and widely varied in his political interests, but Muslims must have both Allah and politics in common?

As an Indian Muslim I belong to the second largest Muslim community in the world. I also live, proudly, as an equal in India, a nation that contains the largest Hindu community in the world. Do you think I have the same political views as my fellow Muslims in Pakistan or Bangladesh or Nepal? You did mention that there are around six million Muslims in America. Were you speaking to them, or on their behalf, in Cairo? But for the accidents of life, you could have been an American Muslim, a Kenyan Muslim or an Indonesian Muslim. Would the same speech serve for all three?

Muslims live not only in different cultures and geo-political spaces, but also under different Constitutions. Indonesia, which is the largest Muslim nation, does not believe in a state religion. Pakistan, the second largest, became the world’s first Islamic republic. There are kings and autocrats and elected heads of Government in the ‘Muslim world’, and one category that can only be described as ‘immoveable object’ unopposed by any irresistible force. Many Muslims live on the margins. Not many seem aware of this fact, and it is possible that none of your speechwriters pointed it out, but 10 per cent of the Russian population is Muslim. Islam came to that vast Eurasian region around the same time as the Christian Church. Do Russian Muslims belong to the same ‘Muslim world’ as Indonesians and Moroccans? The Chinese keep their Muslim-majority province, Xinjiang, a sort of closely guarded state secret, frightened that Islam might jump up and bite off Communism’s ear. Which world do these Muslims belong to? And what about the chaps in Britain, who probably went over on the assumption that Britain was still Great. Or the French Muslims, whose ears are still ringing with the famous Sarkozy diktat: “Off with their headscarves!” Where would you place them? In Above-Saharan Africa?

At one point you were kind enough to suggest that “America is not — and never will be — at war with Islam”. But no sane person ever accused America of being at war with Islam. America would have to be a theocracy, with Inquisition as its preferred domestic policy, and conversion as the principal instrument of foreign affairs, to declare war on Islam. I hope you will not accuse me of being pedantic, in the sense of calling a toothache a gum-ache. The conflation of Islam and Muslims is precisely the kind of misconception that encourages pre-nation-state fantasies like the revival of a Caliphate. One might add that while every Muslim was deeply committed to his faith, political disputes among Muslims began with the election of the very first Caliph, Hazrat Abu Bakr. Muslims see themselves as a brotherhood, not a nation-hood. If Islam is sufficient glue for nationalism, why would Arabs be living in 22 countries? That should have been obvious while you were snacking on Arab cookies and Islamic lemonade in Cairo.

‘Islam and the West’ is another phrase wandering through a dialectic shaped within Alice’s Wonderland. Islam is a faith; the West is geography. How do you construct a relationship between faith and geography? You can have a debate on Islam and Christianity, or indeed between the West and West Asia, or the West and South Asia, or South-East Asia. There is a past and a future to discuss. ‘Islam and the West’ is straight out of 19th century Orientalism, laden with a subtext that is best left to warmongers. Peace requires a different idiom.

We understood your problem as you weaved through political and rhetorical swamps, because your predecessor managed to achieve what the mightiest of Muslim rulers failed to do — unite Muslims, albeit against him, rather than for something. But every Muslim does not need a homily on democracy. Muslims of Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh and India, who add up to nearly half the Muslim population, are not democracy-deficient.

The appropriate venue for a speech on Islam would have been Mecca, Medina or Jerusalem. But the first two cities are barred to non-Muslims or apostates; and the third would have been too toxic for an American President.

Cairo was the perfect podium for the speech that we did hear, since your true theme was not the ‘Muslim world’ but the region between the Nile and the Indus, which I have, elsewhere, called the ‘Arc of Turbulence’. Those searching for a convenient caption for the Cairo oration might want to call it the ‘Nildus Speech’.

For the citizens of this region between Egypt and Pakistan, and particularly for Muslims, this was a brilliant gleam in the gloom to which they have become accustomed. Its great merit was justice and fairness, virtues that are repeatedly exalted in the holy Quran. You did not deny Palestine its rights because you wanted to preserve what Israel has acquired. Of course you will be criticised for being even-handed, but you have survived worse.

It was extremely important that a President of the United States quoted the Quran’s unequivocal condemnation of terrorism, through a verse that is particularly beautiful. This will go a long way to correct the propaganda unleashed by those who controlled the White House and influenced media before you.

There was one element of your speech that did address almost the whole of the Muslim world: Your stark, unambiguous condemnation of gender bias, one of the besetting sins of the ‘Muslim world’. If Muslims do not eliminate gender bias, they will not be permitted into the 20th century: Who is going to send them an invitation to join the 21st? Mr Barack Obama has offered the key, but it is up to Muslims to open the door.

-- MJ Akbar is chairman of the fortnightly news magazine Covert.

Spang
06-07-2009, 06:23 PM
I think we should all begin calling everyone by their middle name. My middle name is Jay.

AngusAwesome
06-07-2009, 08:57 PM
That's a tad insulting...

I wouldn't have put it there if I wasn't expecting it to rankle people. And I wanted to skip the formalities of "Oh you sound like a lib'rul, Angus." ;)

AngusAwesome
06-07-2009, 08:58 PM
AA,

Your "location" says everything anyone needs to know about you.

And what would that be?

UKSocialist
06-07-2009, 09:01 PM
And what would that be?

You’re with the times, open minded and cutting edge I think.

Tybee
06-07-2009, 09:14 PM
And what would that be?


I thought it meant your location, Hollywood values? LOL

CGP
06-07-2009, 09:57 PM
I wouldn't have put it there if I wasn't expecting it to rankle people. And I wanted to skip the formalities of "Oh you sound like a lib'rul, Angus." ;)

Sure, a kind of "cut to the chase"! ;)

AngusAwesome
06-07-2009, 09:58 PM
I thought it meant your location, Hollywood values? LOL

I was hoping for some elaboration on why that made my views invalid.

CGP
06-07-2009, 10:01 PM
What exactly are "hollywood values"?

Freedom, open-mindedness?

Ikasu
06-07-2009, 10:03 PM
I was hoping for some elaboration on why that made my views invalid.

You committed a sin. You support an American president who will talk to Muslims.

AngusAwesome
06-07-2009, 11:05 PM
What exactly are "hollywood values"?

Freedom, open-mindedness?

Yes, broadly, I think, which leads to a more specific embrace of things like gay marriage, legalized marijuana, progressive taxation, etc. A liberal, relaxed position in the 'culture war' and a live-and-let-live attitude towards others ... and in foreign policy, the belief that one-sided neocon beration of the Muslim world is unlikely to get results - it's been tried.

I sort of embraced it ironically because, living very close to Hollywood, it occurred to me that all those midwest culture warriors harping about "Hollywood Values" were talking about the values of my hometown, basically, so I felt compelled to take up the mantle. I don't stand behind everything that it might imply, and everyone interprets it differently so obviously it's open to misunderstanding.

CGP
06-07-2009, 11:37 PM
I guess I have some Hollywood Values!

Laura Cereta
06-07-2009, 11:55 PM
You committed a sin. You support an American president who will talk to Muslims.

I wish he wouldn't pander so much, but you have a point.

SKR01
06-08-2009, 06:27 AM
You committed a sin. You support an American president who will talk to Muslims.

Which president hasn't talked to Muslims?

Tybee
06-08-2009, 07:49 AM
What exactly are "hollywood values"?

Freedom, open-mindedness?

There's more freedom in red states. Open-mindedness seems to mean, to some, anything goes.

Tybee
06-08-2009, 07:55 AM
Yes, broadly, I think, which leads to a more specific embrace of things like gay marriage, legalized marijuana, progressive taxation, etc. A liberal, relaxed position in the 'culture war' and a live-and-let-live attitude towards others ... and in foreign policy, the belief that one-sided neocon beration of the Muslim world is unlikely to get results - it's been tried.

I sort of embraced it ironically because, living very close to Hollywood, it occurred to me that all those midwest culture warriors harping about "Hollywood Values" were talking about the values of my hometown, basically, so I felt compelled to take up the mantle. I don't stand behind everything that it might imply, and everyone interprets it differently so obviously it's open to misunderstanding.

What's good about progressive taxation? A live-and-let-live attitude is like saying, (in some instances) as long as you don't kill me, molest my children, etc. go ahead.

I don't need a state, town, community, president to validate my values.

Spang
06-08-2009, 08:07 AM
A live-and-let-live attitude is like saying, (in some instances) as long as you don't kill me, molest my children, etc. go ahead.

How about, as long as you don't kill me or molest my children or rape my wife, et cetera - have a nice day? I don't think any sane person wants their kids molested.

TheTaoOfBill
06-08-2009, 04:07 PM
How about, as long as you don't kill me or molest my children or rape my wife, et cetera - have a nice day? I don't think any sane person wants their kids molested.

Yeah you can rape my wife but if you rape my wife AND molest my children you are going DOWN.

Spang
06-08-2009, 04:26 PM
Yeah you can rape my wife but if you rape my wife AND molest my children you are going DOWN.

I just don't understand how having a live-and-let-live attitude means that I don't mind if my kids are molested. I'm befuddled.

TheTaoOfBill
06-08-2009, 04:34 PM
I just don't understand how having a live-and-let-live attitude means that I don't mind if my kids are molested. I'm befuddled.

And I really don't see the red states as having a live and let live policy anyway...they've been overrun by people like Mike Huckabee who want to rewrite the constitution to fit God's standards.

Spang
06-08-2009, 04:41 PM
And I really don't see the red states as having a live and let live policy anyway...they've been overrun by people like Mike Huckabee who want to rewrite the constitution to fit God's standards.

I live in a red state, it sucks.

Tybee
06-08-2009, 05:38 PM
I live in a red state, it sucks.


Only because Gore's house is sucking all the energy out of it... ;)

Reagan Coalition
06-08-2009, 05:41 PM
I live in a red state, it sucks.

I live in a blue state, want to trade places?

Brooke
06-08-2009, 05:49 PM
*shrugs* I liked AA's original post.

And I like Spang's idea. My middle name is Eyre, as in Jane Eyre.

Spang
06-08-2009, 06:14 PM
I live in a blue state, want to trade places?

The state is fine, it's the majority of people who live in it that make it suck.

AngusAwesome
06-08-2009, 09:43 PM
I'd defend myself but Spang and Tao are doing a fine job ^_^