It would seem a few of my regular readers did not agree with my observations regarding Obama's speech in Cairo. That's okay and I'm not writing this to justify those thoughts but to illustrate what I look for overall when writing a critique.I stand by my point that it was a soaring speech. It was delivered to a selected audience under the watchful eye of the host country - Egypt. It was filled with generalities that said little other than you're okay, we're okay. I disagree. They are not okay.
When Obama stated:
"That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear," Obama said to applause. He said neither Muslims nor Americans, though, can fit the "crude stereotype" they are sometimes assigned. "What exactly did he say? "...based on what Islam is, not what it isn't." Well? What is it and what is it not? Eliminate the terrorists, it is still the Islamists who under their archaic laws beat and stone their women and behead their enemies.
He wasn't quite so generous with the Israelis other than affirming that we would always stand with them yet they have to tear down the settlements. According to the Jerusalem Post those settlers did not take kindly to his rhetoric and today reconstructed structures dismantled yesterday and dubbed them "Obama Huts".
The New York Times tells us he has need to mend a rift with German Chancellor Angela Merkel ranging from the global economic crisis to the future of Guantanamo inmates.
Things have been shaky with the French too. How can the President of the United States decline a dinner invitation from the President of France? The article tells us the problem between these two leaders began at the G20 summit when Sarkozy told colleagues, in private, he found Mr. Obama inexperienced and less than well briefed.
Bowing to the Saudi King at the G20? Michelle's arm around Queen Elizabeth?
This is what happens when the lines get blurred between governing and entertainment and the President and his family are regarded more as "stars" than leaders. Give him a break? He's only been in office a short time? The Presidency is not a position for on the job training yet that is exactly what it is. There is no way to foresee from week to week, sometimes even hour to hour, what may occur needing immediate attention.
Being likable or considered "cool" holds little sway on the world stage. Not knowing proper protocol gives the appearance of inexperience and yes, weakness. There is no excuse for it. That I have a problem with these issues is of little matter. When the heads of state of Israel, Germany and France have a problem all eyes are watching.
Some may be inclined to give Mr. Obama time; others are likely getting ready to pounce.
3 comments:
I feel today's article as well as yesterday's are right on the money. I even liked yesterdays comments from anonymous. I do, however, disagree with anonymous's assertion that GW did no lasting harm. The use of torture will certainly produce lasting harm.
Thank you John. Actually John, the public has a woefully short memory. And there are differing opinions about waterboarding. It is PC to think it terrible. And many, such as yourself, genuinely find it wrong. But the truth is, that this procedure has been kept before the public precisely as an "example" of what W. did wrong. It is interesting to note, it still is in use under the "great Messiah". IMO, I always must personalize these things to reach my opinion. What if this would save the lives of my children, indeed all those I love? Would I then consider it wrong. And for me, the answer is a resounding no! In fact, to protect my children, I would administer water boarding myself. And probably much worse. W. didn't instigate torture. It is naive in the extreme to believe that harsh methods have never been used by Americans. They have, they are and they will be. CU
Following the link to the Times on line, I read with great interest this article. Apparently, there is some thought that Obamas appallingly rude refusal of the dinner invitation came about as a rebuke for a supposed snub of QE II by the French president. I believe that could be the Times being courteous. At any rate, I believe that (a) it is not the place of the American president to make this judgement, let alone act on it, and (b) it is my observation that the Queen of England is well able to take care of herself. In truth, it was yet another Obama gaffe.
We have no choice but to give Obama time. He has yet another 3 1/2 years to destroy this nation. I would truly like to know what the true agenda is of this man from nowhere? How did he come so far in such a short time? He did not manage this on his own. He is a puppet. But just who is the puppet master? CU
Post a Comment