The president went to Egypt to speak to a billion people and did what he does best: Deliver lofty rhetoric filled with imagery of hope and change that is nevertheless short on specifics.
Change is of course eternal, but any student of the Middle East who embraces hope is due for disappointment, at least over the short term. While most of those who heard his speech no doubt appreciated the leader of the free world’s humility in declaring that it was not up to one country to dictate what form of government another people “choose,” nor who may have peaceful access to nuclear power, at the end of the day their remains a deeply entrenched core that cannot reconcile themselves to the existence of Israel in the Middle East and are committed to using whatever means accessible to them to ensure the Jewish state’s destruction.
Next to those irreconcilable hardliners there are those who passively contribute to the cause, next to those are people who generally agree on principal but believe that either active or passive participation in Israel’s destruction is too much of a bother, next to those are great teeming masses who are too miserable to much care. Then there is an uncountable number who earnestly want to live in dignity and peace, but who, in the region’s murderously charged atmosphere of official repression and extremist violence, do not dare to poke their heads very far above the parapets.
The president’s speech targets all but the first cohort, hoping no doubt to build some separation between them and the rest. But the irreconcilables are the chief exporters of the region’s endemic troubles and have for too long been tolerated and even encouraged by their governing classes, so long as they pursue their wickedness elsewhere.
So, it was a worthy effort, delivered in grand style but I rather doubt it will do much to change the facts on the ground. The president was wise to lower expectations.
Those who live in the Middle East have heard empty words from their leaders as well as foreign leaders for thousands of years. They are more attuned to watching the actions (or inactions) of those leaders rather than listening to the platitudes and promises.
Yes, the rhetoric was lofty. I fear they will draw a different lesson from the (in)action.
From Dictionary.com:
Na⋅ive
/nɑˈiv/ [nah-eev] –adjective
1. having or showing unaffected simplicity of nature or absence of artificiality; unsophisticated; ingenuous.
2. having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information; credulous: She’s so naive she believes everything she reads. He has a very naive attitude toward politics.
3. having or marked by a simple, unaffectedly direct style reflecting little or no formal training or technique . . .
Next.
Could have been a lot worse.
I fully expected him to plea for peace at any price, and negotiate terms for our surrender.
I guess he already started making concessions-
– closing Gitmo
– ignoring Iran’s nuke weapons program, tacitly encouraging it
– ignoring Israel- the only true democracy and our ONLY real ally in the region, essentially marking them as fair game for jihadis or wackos.
And, he still has not commented on the Islamic terrorist attack in Arkansas that killed an American soldier.
Dhimmitude, one step at a time.
On the bright side, we will probably collapse as an economy due to his policies before the Muslims take over, so we will be accustomed to living standards several centuries behind our current enviable lifestyle.
Reaction, outside the slobberfest that is the WH press corps, has been, shall we say, less than impressed.
Guess unless you have a match for the cauldron of fire for the Joooz, you will never be the muslim world’s friend. Can you float that boat on media drool alone?
David Axelrod just sent me my first ever email from whitehouse.gov that says I should watch the speech because I apparently decided to sleep during an “historic speech”. But, unfortunately, it is time to sleep again, so nighty nite!
I got one of those Axelrod e-mails while home at lunch today, too. I’d like to know who gave them one of my e-mail addys. I certainly didn’t, and I’m awfully tired of this “New Beginning” crap!
I’ve had two other people who are definitely not Obama-supporters say they received that email, too. Wonder if they did some email harvesting from websites, etc.?
I wondered that, too, then chided myself for paranoia. Since there are others, maybe it’s not paranoia.
It was interesting to hear him say this, while in Egypt.
This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they’re out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. (Applause.) So no matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who would hold power: You must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.
Taxi1, unfortunately, in the Muslim world that usually means replacing the despicable secular plutocrats with the thoroughly inhuman Islamic nutjobs. End result is that talking that talk only weakens our national security, despite all the lofty words.
I did appreciate the plain words endorsing religious liberty, and the comment that the Copts deserve their freedom was gutsier. But then he mudded the waters totally, and since nothing will back up the words, so what.
Andrew McCarthy flails the speech, the speaker and the foolishness of conservatives who gloss over its deceptions.
Zane, I’m going to have to introduce you the glories of the tiny url one of these days