Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call
On the Cairo speech
A few quick thoughts on President Obama's Cairo speech.
Overall, Obama once again demonstrated his willingness and ability to wrestle with complex and difficult ideas in public. One of his hallmark features as a leader is to show respect for his listeners by appealing to their sense of reason. As he did in the "race" speech during the campaign, and in his Notre Dame speech on abortion, Obama acknowledged room for disagreement and contestation and showed that he understands and respects alternative views even when he does not share them. Yet there are also clear limits to his tolerance: the speech included a forthright rejection of violence, a reminder to his audience that his "first duty is to protect the American people" and that "al Qaeda killed 3,000 people on [9/11]," and a clear statement of the American commitment to basic human rights. In seeking a "new beginning," he didn’t start with an act of appeasement.
I thought his handling of the Israel-Palestinian issue was clear and straightforward, He reaffirmed both the bedrock U.S. commitment to Israel's existence and security and the necessity of an independent Palestinian state. He understands -- even if others do not -- that "this is in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest and the world's interest." He also rejected the poison of Holocaust denial and "vile stereotypes about Jews" in clear and direct language, and told his listeners that such beliefs helped prevent "the peace that the people of this region deserve." I wish he had offered a few more specifics, but overall he handled this issue well.
He did not avoid the tricky issue of democracy and human rights -- an especially delicate subject in Egypt -- but he left a lot of wiggle room by saying "there is no straight line to realize this promise." And while his focus on women's rights isn't likely to endear him to some Islamists, he was right to include it, for it is a fundamental issue that is bound to play a major role in the years to come.
His discussion of nuclear weapons acknowledged the current double standard "that some countries have [nuclear weapons] while others do not," and tried to square that circle by referring to "America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons." This was less convincing -- at least to me -- but at least Obama acknowledged the contradictions in the U.S. position.
What was more significant was his statement but that "any nation -- including Iran -- should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty." The big question: does "the right to access" mean control of the full fuel cycle (under full NPT safeguards, including the Additional Protocol), or does it merely mean one of the various proposals that would deny Iran control of the full fuel cycle but provide nuclear fuel via some sort of international consortium? If it's the latter, there's no deal possible; if the former, it is at least conceivable that a deal that kept Iran from building a nuclear weapon might still be negotiated. We'll see.
The truest thing he said? "No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust." But he has committed himself to a set of principles and policies in front of the entire world. And if you think that "audience costs" (both domestic and foreign) matter, it will be hard for him to backtrack on the commitment to get out of Iraq on schedule, to leave Afghanistan as quickly as possible, to make significant changes in nuclear weapons policy, and to focus like a laser beam on the Middle East peace process. He's committed his administration in public, and that means he (and the country) will pay a bigger price if he doesn’t follow through.
Now he needs to follow up words with deeds. And so do his listeners.
AHMAD GHARABLI/AFP/Getty Images
Advertisement
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the Slate Group,
a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC.
All contents ©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.
“The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.”
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Relations at Harvard University.
Daily Reads
Affiliations
Recent Writings
"the speech included a
"the speech included a forthright rejection of violence"
While drones under his orders are killing people in Pakistan ...
The people of the Middle East are asking themselves:
What is this neo-colonial state called Israel doing in our midst here in the 21. century, when all other colonies have been shut down? And because he failed to condemn Israel and all that it stands for, the speech fell short and will soon go into obliviance. A great opportunityy missed, and I bet Obama are the first to realise this. He is a smart guy, and he knowd that his hands have been tied behind his back by the small cabal that rules America. This cabal constitutes the greatest peril to world security and stability since The Second World War.
What The President Should Have Said in Cairo (HotAir.com)
From HotAir.com
June 7, 2009
What The President Should Have Said in Cairo
By Doctor Zero
Author’s note: I know perfectly well there’s no way Barack Obama would have said any of the things that follow. This is how I think the speech in Cairo should have gone. I liked Obama’s first sentence, so I kept that.
I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and grateful for your hospitality. I will honor you in return by addressing you directly. I came here to speak to you, not to European leaders or American media commentators. I hope you will forgive my frankness, but we have much to talk about, and some of what I came here to say will not be easy for you to hear.
I will not waste your time by carefully selecting quotes from the Koran, in a misguided attempt to tell you what your religion means. I am here to tell you what membership in the community of civilized nations means. Your faith is your own affair, but it ends where the rest of our lives begin. It is fashionable among the Western elites to say that we have much to learn about the Muslim world, but the truth is precisely the reverse. One of the bedrock principles of Western democracy is that we don’t need to understand, or even like, a particular religion in order to respect its faithful and their rights. There are some things the West is long overdue in teaching its Muslim neighbors, however. Let us begin with dismissing the notion of a “Muslim world.” There is no such thing. There is one world, made increasingly intimate by the easy movement of people, resources, and ideas. We are all in the process of learning how to live with our fellow men, and while the West is far from perfect, we are much further ahead in our studies than the nations of the Middle East. Our security, and yours, will be greatly enhanced if we can lend you some of the wisdom we have accumulated.
We did not come by this wisdom easily. We learned by taking incredible risks… and making terrible mistakes… magnified by the power of Western military tradition and technology. The people of the Middle East have never known anything to compare with the industrialized slaughter of the two World Wars, in which millions of lives were lost to decisively settle the question of what makes a government just and legitimate. You have never watched five thousand of your sons die on a single day, to secure a beachhead against the forces of genocidal fascism – a battle we commemorate on the sixth of June every year. Your fighting men have not faced anything like the battle for Okinawa, where American Marines faced an eighty percent chance of death – and did not waver. You have not sacrificed half a million soldiers to destroy the evil of slavery, as America did during its Civil War. You have not spent blood and treasure around the world to save other nations from the savage darkness of communism. You have no leaders to equal the Founding Fathers who pledged their lives, and sacred honor, to win America’s independence from imperial domination.
You have not burned and bled for freedom, as we have. We would spare you that pain, if we could. We are willing to burn and bleed for you – and we have been doing so, for eight long years. Instead of indulging in foolish paranoid fantasies about crusaders and oppression from America, open your eyes and look to the mountains of Afghanistan, where over a thousand Coalition troops have died to overthrow the Taliban, after their despicable complicity in the murders of September 11, 2001. We did not have to send those troops into harm’s way, to avenge the slaughter at the World Trade Center. We could have eliminated all life in that region, in a matter of hours. If we followed the standards of our enemies, we would have. We sent our best and bravest into battle because of who we wished to spare, not who we wanted to kill.
Open your eyes and look to Iraq, where we allowed thousands of Iraqi troops to lay down their arms and go home, instead of killing them where they stood. We paid an awful price for this act of mercy, as many of those men went on to join the brutal terrorists who dreamed of keeping the Iraqi people enslaved. Some in America and Europe find it politically expedient to draw moral equivalency between American soldiers and the terrorists they fight. I ask you to show me the al-Qaeda “equivalent” of Private First Class Ross McGinnis, who climbed down into an armored vehicle and smothered a grenade to protect his crew, when he could easily have leaped from his gunnery hatch to safety. Show me an “insurgent” who can match the valor of Sergeant First Class Paul Ray Smith, who flung himself into an impossible battle against odds of a hundred to one… to save the lives of a hundred wounded men. These two soldiers are among those who have won the Congressional Medal of Honor for their sacrifices in Operation Iraqi Freedom. No one on the other side is worthy of such an honor. I say this to you because keeping silent – whether from misguided modesty, self-loathing, or the desire to avoid offending your
vanity – is an insult to your honor, and an injury to your future.
We have made a fetish of “tolerance” in America, and it has curdled into poison. I am here to tell you what the civilized world is no longer prepared to tolerate. We will not stand silently by while women are enslaved, brutalized, or murdered. We will no longer hypnotize ourselves with self-criticism over gay rights, while you bury gay men and women under piles of jagged stone. We will not swallow our tongues for fear of offending Islam, when Islam oppresses all other religious beliefs within its borders. We know you can do better. We also know that nothing will improve unless we demand you do better… and we do demand it. The world has turned, and the old days of totalitarianism and pillage are done. There is no more place in it for barbarians. Believe what you will, follow your customs, honor the holy writings of your Prophet, and strive to understand God’s will through prayer, music, and scholarship. You will find nothing but honest respect and admiration from the West. But when you stand among civilized people, you will be civilized people. When you are shown respect, you will answer with respect. As the West reveres and protects the life of your innocents, so you will revere ours.
I speak to you as the democratically-elected leader of a great republic, which has earned the right to walk tall and proud through the halls of history. It is a right earned on battlefields… but also at humanitarian relief camps, pharmaceutical laboratories, civil-rights marches, and field hospitals. It is a right earned by rebuilding shattered enemies after terrible wars, by tearing down the statues of tyrants and building schools for the children of their liberated victims. Ours is a hard-won glory that can be seen in six men raising a flag on Mount Suribachi, or one man planting that flag in the dust of the moon… or millions of men and women stepping into voting booths. Look at the free people of Iraq, with their fingers proudly covered in purple ink after they vote, and know that America is eternally eager to share her glory. Indeed, we believe we can only render it proper honors by sharing it with all of our brothers and sisters around the world. But also remember this: the Middle East stands at a crossroads, and the heavy responsibility of reconciling faith, tradition, and the demands of the modern world rests with you. You must choose between old hatreds and new possibilities. You must choose between murder and prosperity. I have come here today to tell you clearly, and without reservation, that you cannot have both. May the next leader chosen by the American people stand in my place someday, to congratulate you on a wise choice.
© 2006-2009 Hot Air Network, LLC
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/06/07/what-the-president-should-have-said-in-cairo/
Obama = Bush on Iran
Iran's nuclear program is already under intensive IAEA safeguards (more so than the enrichment programs of Brazil and Argentina) and Iran has already offered to ratify the Additional Protocol (when Egypt has flatly refused to sign the Additional Protocol despite having been caught conducting secret undeclared nuclear experiments) so Obama's speech on Iran's nuclear program is indeed intended to deprive Iran of her right to the full fuel cycle -- in short, the continuation of Bush's policies both in substance and in rhetoric.
Iran's nuclear program is massively popular and pretty speeches in which the US tries to assume the moral high ground won't go far with the people of Iran -- whose culture has a far more sophisticated rhetorical tradition than Obama can ever cook up.
On Obama's Cairo speech
President Obama thinks that the enmity between the world and Muslims started on 9/11/2001. How wrong he is! The political arm of Islam has been waging terroristic holy war on the rest of the world for centuries. It has waged this war against civilizations that have nothing to do with the West, let alone America. This is why the case of Muslim aggression against India proves so much. May be President needs to study history of India to know when did this enmity start.
Medieval India, before the Muslim invasions, was a richly imaginative culture, one of the half-dozen most advanced civilizations of all time. Muslim invaders began entering India in the early 8th century, on the orders of Hajjaj, the governor of what is now Iraq. In the aftermath of the Muslim invasions of India from 8th to 11th centuries, in the ancient cities of Varanasi, Mathura, Ujjain, Maheshwar, Jwalamukhi, and Dwarka, not one temple survived whole and intact. This is the equivalent of an army marching into Paris and Rome, Florence and Oxford, and razing their architectural treasures to the ground.
In his book The Story of Civilization, famous historian Will Durant lamented the results of what he termed "probably the bloodiest story in history." He called it "a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without and multiplying from within. Muslim invaders "broke and burned everything beautiful they came across in Hindustan," displaying the resentment of the less developed warriors who felt intimidated in the encounter with "a more refined culture." The Muslim Sultans built mosques at the sites of torn down temples, and many Hindus were sold into slavery. As far as they were concerned, Hindus were kafirs, heathens, par excellence. They, and to a lesser extent the peaceful Buddhists, were, unlike Christians and Jews, not "of the book" but at the receiving end of Muhammad’s injunction against pagans: "Kill those who join other gods wherever you may find them."
These massacres perpetrated by Muslims in India are unparalleled in history. In sheer numbers, they are bigger than the Jewish Holocaust, the Soviet Terror, the Japanese massacres of the Chinese during WWII, Mao’s devastations of the Chinese peasantry, the massacres of the Armenians by the Turks, or any of the other famous crimes against humanity of the 20th Century. But sadly, they are almost unknown outside India. The perpetrators of these massacres were not military thugs disobeying the ethical teachings of their religion, as the European crusaders in the Holy Land were, but were actually doing precisely what their religion taught. As has been well-documented, jihad has been preached from the official centers of Islam, not just the lunatic fringe.
Another missed opportunity
President Obama's handling of the Israel-Palestinian situation was not "clear and straightforward". It was reprehensible to draw a parallel between the Holocaust and the self-inflicted "suffering" of the Palestinians.
It was equally disingenuous not to mention that the prime causes of the present situation were repeated Arab wars against Israel, and the repeated refusal of the Palestinians to accept a state.
None of the above has anything to do with settlements as an "obstacle" to peace. The Arabs are, and always have been the main obstacle to peace. And as one American official put it a few years ago, the Palestinians have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
It is true that his speech started off with a tone of 'let's forget the past and move on'. But he then gave a very flawed and unbalanced summary of the past (the Holocaust and the sufferings of the Palestinians--nothing about the sufferings of the Israelis under daily rocket fire) with respect to Israel and the Arabs. Better to have limited himself to describing the present situation and the way out if he wanted to start fresh. Another missed opportunity.
Self Inflicted?
Self inflicted? You sir need to study some history - the mass killings and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians in 1948 and the continuation of those policies by successive Israeli governments so well documented by Israeli historians and found in Israeli government and IDF archives were hardly self inflicted. Israel was the first to attack in every instance except 1973. No one excuses suicide bombings but faced with 60 years of repression, massacre and ethnic cleansing it surprising that the entire Palestinian population hasn't risen en masse against its oppressors. The settlements are nothing more than illegal colones designed to continue the expulsive policies of the Zionists. If Israel truly wanted peace we would already have it. Every issue the Israelis complain about would be solved by a comprehensive peace with the Palestinians. But instead the Zionists continue to manufacture new obstacles i.e. not only recognize Israel's right to exist but also recognize its right to exist as a "Jewish" state and linking the Iranian nuclear program with the peace "process." The rockets are a reaction to the blockade. The guerrilla tactics of the late 60s and early 70s were a reaction to the occupation. Yes, far too many innocent Israelis have died but for every dead Israeli the Zionists have made sure to kill 100 Palestinians.
Please stop with the propaganda - the world and specifically the USA is waking up to the lies of the Zionists. And the false history of a small country surrounded by 40 million hostile Arabs is sinking into the same cesspool of discredited history as Stalinism, National Socialism, apartheid and tobacco marketing.
Mass killings
"the mass killings and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians in 1948'
Both charges are totally false and reprehensible. It was the Arabs who attacked Israel; there were some Arab deaths; the number was small and the result of an Arab-created war. There were no "mass" killings. Even Benny Morris, once military records were declassified, retracted most of the false statements in his first editions, yet pro-Arab propagandists still cite them as his views, as if they were valid. As to "ethnic cleansing" the number of Arabs expelled from Israel (as distinct from those who voluntarily left an Arab-created war zone) was tiny compared to the number of Jews expelled from Arab States and their property seized. This is doubly significant since the Israelis weren't trying to destroy those Arab states, yet the Arabs were trying to destroy Israel.
You are, as in the case of most apologists and ant-semites, blaming the victim for the crimes of the attacker--there are plenty of Arabs in Israel who are citizens; how many Jews are there in Gaza? And many Arab States still forbid the entry of Jews, even as temporary tourists.
ethnic cleansing
Ilan Pappe - "The Ethic Cleansing of Palestine." Look it up. Read it and weep. Benny Morris didn't go far enough. Zionist hagiography is nothing but smoke and mirrors. It was the Hagana, and the terrorist Irgun and Stern Gang that started the war in December 1947 with the first cleansing operations. You are severely misinformed, sir. Plan Dalet - the official Zionist policy of de-Arabizing Palestine written by Ben-Gurion and "The Consultancy" was officially adopted in March of '48 by the Jewish Agency to retroactively justify operations that had begun the previous December.
By the time the Zionists declared the state of Israel ethnic cleansing had been going on for six months. The Arab armies such as they were (1/2 the size of the Israeli army and very poorly equipped) half heartedly entered into hostilities in May as a result of the cleansing and never posed a serious threat to the Israelis.
In fact King Abdullah of Jordan, with the best Arab army at the time, had a secret agreement with Ben-Gurion not to fight the Israelis in return for an agreement to let him keep the West Bank and east Jerusalem. His army didn't fight Israelis until the Israelis (in what was to become a long pattern of breaking agreements) invaded East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
Of course you would call me an anti-semite. That's part of the propaganda tactics used when anyone dares tell the TRUTH that nearly a million Palestinians were forcefully expelled by the Israelis in 1948 and many thousands massacred in the process. Prof. Walt explains this tactic very well in his book.
Read about Operation Dani on page 166 of Pappe's book. Run by Yigal Allon and Yitzak Rabin in July of '48 it was responsible for the murder of over 400 men women and children. Massacred in cold blood with nearly 200 killed in a mosque they expelled 50,000 people from two Palestinian towns in less than four days.
I could go on, and on, but suffice it to say this "official" line you continue to adhere to is as true as the false narrative of how North America was tamed and savage natives civilized by the benevolent Europeans.
The narrative is shifting and rail as you might against it you cannot stop the truth from being told. It's too late, the cat is out of the bag. You may as well make peace with it and the Palestinians before the demographic catches up and the Jews are a minority and more people die needlessly.
Personally I don't believe two-states will work. A single state with one person one vote is the only way, in the long run, to assure a true democracy and peace but then the Jews would not have a state would they? They can only be, as Christians are in America, or Hindus in India, one of many religions; and secular democracy is as it should be.
Obama deer in the headlights
I think the speech was very nice, for a speech, but much more than a speech is required now, so it definately fell short in the bigger picture.
Why is he so pensive? Pensive about changing policy on Israel, listening to Hamas who has a reasonable argument against Israeli occupation, and taking abstract theories to the next level and doing something.
Show me the money!
Two states?
Two-State Solution? How about Three? - Uri Dromi
Just think about Israel and Palestine, two sovereign states living in peace side by side with open borders, prospering from friendly economic cooperation. What a great future for our children and grandchildren, all children of Abraham. Yet before I get carried away, I'm reminded of the present realities here, and then I have to agree with Netanyahu that a two-state solution is not a viable option, at least not for the moment.
Who would rule that Palestinian state: Fatah, the weak organization that hardly handles the West Bank; or Hamas, the radical movement that holds Gaza in its iron fists, ready to take over the West Bank if given the chance? In either case, such a Palestinian state will not be able to live in peace with Israel - Fatah, because it can't; Hamas, because it won't. Eventually, things will fall into place. However, American pressure for two states right away will not help this to happen. (Miami Herald)
Let's not forget that Hamas
Let's not forget that Hamas is the result of Israel's policies and that exiting Gaza was a calculated move to make appear Sharon as a "man of piece" to the eyes of the world (eehmmm... Bush) while cutting lose an undesirable piece of land that was going to become a getto. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if whatever Israel lost by giving back Gaza, they gained by pushing more settlements.
It is never the right time for Israel.
Two States
Yes it can happen!
But both sides are going to have to make serious concessions. I think the Israelis should be the bigger people and lead the way.
Better sooner than later- at least they still have some leverage. Bibi will have to use it or lose it.
Well, Arab-Israeli conflict
Well, Arab-Israeli conflict is one of the reasons for the rise of the Political Islam.But may be resolution of this contentious dispute'll unleash forces for intellectual reformation of Islam.What Islam needs most is re-interpretation of its basic principles and placing of those principles in the present social context.
Well, Arab-Israeli conflict
That is false. The PLO tried to overthrow the government of Kuwait and got kicked out; they tried to overthrow the government of Jordan and got kicked out; they tried to overthrow the government of Lebanon and got kicked out. Nothing to do with Israel; these people are pathological sociopaths.
Al Quaida was about Western culture clashing with Islam; not about Israel. Israel was a later afterthought. The Iranian revoltion was about orthodox Islamic values, not Israel. Iran's anti-Israel posturing is quite recent.
Radical Islam includes Salafi vs. Shia; the Moslem Brotherhood vs. Egypt, and is hundreds of years old.
Classic show of FP according
Classic show of FP according to the SATFP Axiom:
Ptofessor, I love the photo you chose for this subject, it means a lot in Turkish Mate! - Shaving/Barbering means listening palavra;->>
You are developing an IR sense of humour here;->>
Professor, that would add another song to your repertoire:
É estranho,
Eu não sei isso que me chega esta noite
Eu te vejoo como pela primeira vez
mais palavras, sempre palavras, as mesmas palavras
Não sei mais como te dizer
Nada de palavras
Mas tu és esta bela história da amor
Que eu não cessarei jamais de ler
Palavras fáceis, palavras frágeis,
Era belo demais
Tu és o ontem e o amanhã
Bem belo demais
e sempre, minha única verdade
Mas acabou o tempo dos sonhos
As lembranças desaparecem também
Quando são esquecidas
Tu és como o vento que faz tocar os violinos
E leva longe o perfume das rosas
Caramelos, bombons e chocolates
Por momentos, eu não te compreendo
Obrigada, por mim não mais,
tu podes bem oferecer a uma outra
Que ame o vento e o perfume das rosas
As palavras tenras cheias de doçura
Postas em minha boca
Mas jamais em meu coração
uma palavra mais,
Palavras, palavras, palavras
Escuta-me
Palavras, palavras, palavras
Eu te peço
Palavras, palavras, palavras
Eu te juro
Palavras, palavras, palavras, palavras
Palavras, mais palavras, que tu semeias ao vento...
Eis meu destino de te falar
Te falar como pela primeira vez
mais palavras, sempre palavras, as mesmas palavras
Como eu adoraria que tu me entendesses
Nada além de palavras
Que tu me escutasses ao menos uma vez
Palavras mágicas, palavras táticas
Que soam falso
Tu és meu sonho proibido
Sim, tão falso
Meu único tormento e minha única esperança
Nada te para quando tu começas
Se tu soubesses como desejo
um pouco de silêncio
Tu és para mim a única música
Que faz dançar as estrelas sobre as dunas
Caramelos, bombons e chocolates
Se tu não existisses, eu te inventaria
Obrigado, por mim não mais,
Mas tu podes bem oferecer a uma outra
Que ame as estrelas sobre as dunas
As palavras tenras cheias de doçura
postas em minha boca
Mas jamais em meu coração
mais uma palavra, só uma palavra
Palavras, palavras, palavras
Escuta-me
Palavras, palavras, palavras
Eu te peço
Palavras, palavras, palavras
Eu te juro
Palavras, palavras, palavras, palavras
Palavras, e mais palavras, que tu semeias ao vento...
Palavras, palavras, palavras
Que tu és bela!
Palavras, palavras, palavras
Que tu és bela!
Palavras, palavras, palavras
Que tu és bela!
Palavras, palavras, palavras, palavras
Palavras, e mais palavras, que tu semeias ao vento...
Grand Sen~or.
No Deeds Available
Overall, Obama has once again exposed the Messianic cult and attention he gets even from intellectuals who should know better, but who are too overpaid to actually think.
Commenting isn't thinking, its just doing your job.
His words can't be followed by any deeds, and in fact, hopefully wont be, since they are so vapid and devoid of content. Its a speech made for the modern age to be parsed by the media in all ways acceptable and left for the lunaticss to attack. But that's the media game.
I'll repost a comment I made on your coleagues posts on this "speech". Here's how I'd paraphrase Hussein:
"The US government has gone to great lengths to kiss Islamic ass...from caving in on the Cartoons, to defending patriarchal chastity, to tolerating totalitarianism, hatred, bigotry, and hypocrisy...we've financed Al-Qaida, the Taliban, and paled around with Said Bana - heck, if it wasn't for the US, the Muslim Brotherhood wouldn't be here, and it was with the help of the Israeli ministry of defense that Hamas incubated - Al Jazeera exists thanks to the BBC, and the only open forum in the middle east, is the Doha Debates, with Tim Sebastian - so while we kiss your ass, now you can kiss ours".
And I sincerely thank Obama for making Islam the biggest issue in politics, since all the anti-Jihadi blogs dedicated zillions of quanta to his prattle.
Excellent speech by Obama
Respectful and rational comments by Walt.
War Party and the Silence of the RCC
I belong to a group of Americans (mostly) which has a composition that is (partly) Jewish but mostly Catholic or ex-Catholic.
We all voted for BO and we all found the Cairo speech excellent.
But some of us have the same caution that you have and perhaps you can help us out..with some research and phone calls.
We note the American Catholic Church is paralyzed: its silence is very loud and in the end supportive of the War Party by his stony quiet and reverent bows.
We see them (the three major periodicals) as obedient to the bishops--and the bishops servile to the Lobby.
I am certain that most educated Catholics sense the wisdom in BO, but seem afraid of the Israel Lobby. (Apparently, the magazines are "permitted" to write against A LITTLE Israel but not against the Lobby.)
The fact is that the bishops and the Catholic press said almost NOTHING even about the carnage of Gaza.
I suggest that you look into this; the best explanation is so far is that the RCC is afraid of being sued endlessly for the pedaphilia charges--which are perceived as coming principally from the Lobby through the NYTimes.
The truth is that the war Party has the press wrapped up and without criticism from sane critics against the War Party, I think BO is going to have a difficult time.
We appreciate you very much and we wish you the best.
As if...
The blackbird
lives in a
country like
a rose in the
dreamland,
and even a
pleasure declares
in a moment
that intention
of love.
Francesco Sinibaldi