TightyRighty.net

No, I did not get up early to hear the President’s speech. I didn’t watch it on YouTube either. I read the full text so that I could see what he said and not how he said it. The guy is an unbelievable good orator, but my experience is that he is full of scope and grandeur and very short on solutions. That was my sense of this speech also – a lot of ground covered, he said some good things, he said some scary things (particularly if you are an Israeli) but very little in the way of action plans. Perhaps that is too much to expect in the speech which is supposed to be the start of new relations. Maybe, maybe not.

First, an overall comment. Throughout the speech, he referred to violent extremists. Not terrorists, not Islamic extremists, not man-caused disaster causers, but rather, violent extremists. I think that most Americans would infer he means Islamic extremists, but he was vague on this matter, probably in deference to his hosts. However, sometimes you have to call a spade a spade, and he did not do that.

As I said, he covered a lot of ground, so I cut out a number of sections to comment on, as follows:

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. 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. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground.

No disagreement here.

And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

Which Islam is this? I would say that Islam is not very intolerant of Jews, so I have to disagree on this point.

And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words – within our borders, and around the world.

Very well stated. Kudos for this point.

Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice, we went because of necessity. 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.

Again, very well stated.

Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.

My issue with this statement is what is not said. If Islam is not part of the problem, is it part of the solution? On this question, the answer is resoundingly no. How many Muslim clerics speak out against the terrorists? What is the Islamic faith doing to root out “bad” mosques where the Jews and the West are painted as the great satans and hatred is fomented? On this count, the Islamic faith comes up lacking.

Let me also address the issue of Iraq. 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.

Whoa doggies! By my recollection, the use of diplomacy by the U.N. was an abject failure. Remember the 17 U.N. resolutions which Hussein violated over 12 years? Don’t forget U.N. resolution 1441, under which the UN Security Council voted unanimously to present Saddam with the ultimatum to honor the truce and destroy his illegal weapons programs or “serious consequences would follow.” Since the French, Russians and Chinese would not stand behind their votes, the Americans and British took it upon themselves to enforce the resolution and implement regime change.

Additionally, remember when “W” said “you are either with us or with the terrorists” in the war on terror? I don’t recall that Saddam Hussein was with us. I do recall he was paying bounties to Palestinian families who lost their family members doing their job as terrorist. But perhaps President Obama does not recognize a war on terror, just a police action to deal with extremists who kill innocents in the name of their religion (of peace).

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.

This statement is very problematic. First of all, it implies that we acted rashly in implementing enhanced interrogation techniques. If you read the memos which the Obama administration released regarding the enhanced interrogation techniques, it is apparent that the decision to use these techniques was very well considered, and not done spur of the moment. Secondly, enhanced interrogation techniques are not torture. See my earlier blogpost. Finally, Gitmo is a symbol of American injustice primarily because the Democrats have made it just that. Dennis Miller was down there a couple of weeks ago and he was raving about the place. Korans are presented to each arriving detainee by a gloved U.S. Military Man, there are arrows to Mecca all over the place, the average detainee has gained 20 pounds since arriving, etc. Sounds like hell. I would rather be there than SuperMax.

America’s strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Good point, although it appears he is stating the Jews were given Israel because they were mistreated throughout history, particularly during the Holocaust, rather than because Israel is their homeland because God gave it to them.

But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.

That is in Israel’s interest, Palestine’s interest, America’s interest, and the world’s interest.

There we have it – the two state solution. I don’t believe the Israelis believe the two state solution is in their best interests. The Palestinians already have territories. Are they developing these territories for the benefit of their citizens? Absolutely not. They are using their funds to make war with Israel in order to eradicate Israel. When the Palestinians view Gaza as a launch pad for Qassam rockets (some 7000+ since 2001), why would it be any different if the Palestinians had a state compared to territories? It would not. The Palestinians want a one state solution, and it is not Israel.

No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America’s commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And 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. That commitment is at the core of the Treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

That is one extremely huge “if”. I believe that it is extremely naïve to believe that we can trust Iran with nukes. This just points to the extreme arrogance of our President in that he believes that he can make a madman like Ahmadinejad, the man who has called for Israel to be wiped off the map and who hosted a Holocaust denial conference, to toe the nuclear line. President Obama is so (over) confident in this smooth talking and negotiating ability that he believes he can reason with this nutcase. Has Ahmadinejad given us any reason to believe that Iran would “comply with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty”? I think not.

So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.

So apparently no nation can not impose a system of government on another nation, but the U.S. can impose a two state solution on Israel and the Palestinians.

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.

According to Wikipedia, zakat is “the giving of a small percentage of one’s income to charity. It is often compared to the system of tithing and alms, but it serves principally as the welfare contribution to poor and deprived people in Muslim countries, although others may have a rightful share. It is the duty of an Islamic state not just to collect zakat but to distribute it fairly as well.”

There are no rules prohibiting charitable contributions to legitimate charities, such as churches and mosques. There are rules prohibiting contributions to terrorist sponsoring organizations, such as the Holyland Foundation. I am surprised that President Obama is committed to making it easier for American Muslims to make charitable contributions when he is proposing rules to make it less enticing for everyone else. Please see my earlier post located here.

The sixth issue that I want to address is women’s rights.

I know there is debate about this issue. 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. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

Now let me be clear: issues of women’s equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women’s equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.

Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity – men and women – to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.

This is such a hedged statement, it is of little or no value. I count at least four statements which soften the point he is trying to make. Additionally, it appears to be focused purely on educational opportunties for women and neglects many of the other ways women are mistreated in the Muslim world.  Again, sometimes you have to call a spade a spade and call out the Muslims on this point.

On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create jobs. We will open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new Science Envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, and grow new crops.

Mr. President, in case you have not noticed, we are not really in a position to fund this kind initiative due to your enormous budget deficits. Perhaps we could ask Muslim countries who are deriving billions and billions and billions of dollars from our gas money to fund this initiative. Again, let them be part of the solution, rather than the U.S. doing all the heavy lifting.

So there you have it. While not as apologetic as his prior speeches, he also took little credit for all the good the U.S. has done for Muslims and in the Middle East. He also went very light on holding Muslims accountable for many of the problems with which they are dealing. Additionally, he committed to spend a lot of money we don’t have to address these issues, rather than holding the Muslims accountable to drive a lot of these solutions.

I am sure this went over well on the “Arab Street”. I would guess they heard more apologizing for the U.S. and the West and very little of the very little chiding of the Muslims and Middle East which was contained herein. I am also certain they heard loud and clear that the U.S. commitment to Israel is much weaker than it has been in the past. Finally, I am sure they view this president in much the same way – much weaker than in the past. Based on the recent actions and statements of North Korea, Iran, etc., it appears the rest of the world feels the same way.