[...] was said in the Rose Garden and not in Cairo; and it was delivered by President #43 and not #44. Scott posted on this after Obama’s “New Beginning” speech, noting the similarities. Others have also [...]

Like or Dislike: 0  0

The only difference between the Obama and Bush Middle East speeches is in the petty partisan attacks against Bush that Obama disguises throughout his boring rants and the silly apologies.

Otherwise, the POLICY (and implementation of this policy) that he advocates is the same as the Bush Administration. Almost without exception.

Liberals dont understand “nuances” when it is convenient…

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Barrack Hussein Bush

* JUNE 5, 2009

The freedom agenda gets a new cover, but Iran is his real test.

One benefit of the Obama Presidency is that it is validating much of George W. Bush’s security agenda and foreign policy merely by dint of autobiographical rebranding. That was clear enough yesterday in Cairo, where President Obama advertised “a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world.” But what he mostly offered were artfully repackaged versions of themes President Bush sounded with his freedom agenda. We mean that as a compliment, albeit with a couple of large caveats.

So there was Mr. Obama, noting that rights such as “freedom to live as you choose” and “the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed” were “not just American ideas, they are human rights.” There he was insisting that “freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together,” and citing Malaysia and Dubai as economic models for other Muslim countries while promising to host a summit on entrepreneurship.

There he was too, in Laura Bush-mode, talking about the need to expand opportunities for Muslim women, particularly in education. “I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles,” he said. “But it should be their choice.”

Mr. Obama also offered a robust defense of the war in Afghanistan, calling it “a war of necessity” and promising that “America’s commitment will not weaken.” That’s an important note to sound when Mr. Obama’s left flank and some Congressional Democrats are urging an exit strategy from that supposed quagmire. On Iraq, he acknowledged that “the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein” and pledged the U.S. to the “dual responsibility” of leaving Iraq while helping the country “forge a better future.” The timeline he reiterated for U.S. withdrawal is the one Mr. Bush negotiated last year.

The President even went one better than his predecessor, with a series of implicit rebukes to much of the Muslim world. There would have been no need for him to specify that six million Jews were murdered by the Nazis if Holocaust denial weren’t rampant in the Middle East, including Egypt, just as there would have been no need to name al Qaeda as the perpetrator of 9/11 if that fact were not also commonly denied throughout the Muslim world. There also would have been no need to insist that “the Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems,” if that were not the modus operandi of most Arab governments.

Mr. Obama also noted that “among some Muslims, there is a disturbing tendency to measure one’s own faith by the rejection of another’s,” a recognition of the supremacist strain in Islamist thinking. He also included a pointed defense of democracy, including “the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed” and “confidence in the rule of law.” We doubt the point was lost on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, now in his 29th year in office. All of this will do some good if it leads to broader acceptance among Muslims of the principles of Mr. Bush’s freedom agenda without the taint of its author’s name.

As for the caveats, Mr. Obama missed a chance to remind his audience that no country has done more than the U.S. to liberate Muslims from oppression — in Kuwait, Bosnia, Kosovo and above all in Afghanistan and Iraq, where more than 50 million people were freed by American arms from two of the most extreme tyrannies in modern history. His insistence on calling Iraq a “war of choice” is a needless insult to Mr. Bush that diminishes the cause for which more than 4,000 Americans have died.

He also couldn’t resist his by now familiar moral self-indulgence by asserting that he has “unequivocally prohibited the use of torture” and ordered Guantanamo closed. Aside from the fact that the U.S. wasn’t torturing anyone before Mr. Obama came into office, his Arab hosts can see through his claims. They know the Obama Administration is “rendering” al Qaeda detainees to other countries, some of them Arab, where their rights and well-being are far less secure than at Gitmo.

The President also stooped to easy, but false, moral equivalence, most egregiously in comparing the U.S. role in an Iranian coup during the Cold War with revolutionary Iran’s 30-year hostility toward the U.S. He also compared Israel’s right to exist with Palestinian statehood. But while denouncing Israeli settlements was an easy applause line, removal of those settlements will do nothing to ease Israeli-Palestinian tensions if the result is similar to what happened when Israel withdrew its settlements from Gaza. We too favor a two-state solution — as did President Bush — but that solution depends on Palestinians showing the capacity to build domestic institutions that reject and punish terror against other Palestinians and their neighbors.

Hanging over all of this is the question of Iran. In his formal remarks, Mr. Obama promised only diplomacy without preconditions and warned about a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Yet surely Iran was at the top of his agenda in private with Mr. Mubarak and Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah, both of whom would quietly exult if the U.S. removed that regional threat. They were no doubt trying to assess if Mr. Obama is serious about stopping Tehran, or if he is the second coming of Jimmy Carter.

It is in those conversations, and in the hard calls the President will soon have to make, that his Middle East policy will stand or fall.

Also interesting: Obama and the Freedom Agenda

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@herman:

Yep, the same, yet you still hate him

And yet your side still hates Bush.

The more he perpetuates Bush-era foreign policy, the more I can live with it. What is farcical, is how he does this while doing everything he can to put on smoke and mirrors that he’s anything but Bush.

Not all Middle Easterners are fooled.

But some are:

Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum said “there is a change between the speech of President Obama and previous speeches made by George Bush.

What changes? Aside from finding moral equivalence, being a serial apologist, and speaking out of both sides of his mouth, not much.

From al Jazeera in English:

Ahmed Yousef, senior advisor to the deposed Palestinian prime minister, Ismail Haniya, told Al Jazeera that Obama’s speech was a “landmark”, but had some reservations.

“The things he said about Islam and the Palestinian suffering and their right to have a state is great. It is a landmark and a breakthrough speech,” Yousef said.

Bush and Rice have made the same “landmark” speeches regarding Islam and Palestinian suffering.

And the problem is, with the next paragraph:

“But when it comes to legitimacy of the Israeli right to exist [there are issues]. He knows the Palestinians have to have their own state before recognising another.

The refusal for Palestinians like Yousef to come to the middle and make any concessions. Meanwhile, Obama heaps the burden of guilt upon America; the other half of it isn’t on Muslims- it’s on the “violent extremists”.

Obama cites from the Koran:

The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent is as — it is as if he has killed all mankind. (Applause.) And the Holy Koran also says whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. (Applause.)

I recall Bush citing the same passage during one of his “Islam is a peaceful religion” speech.

(Note: See verse 5:33)
During a Ramadan speech in 2001, President Bush cites:

The Holy Qu’ran says: “Piety does not lie in turning your face to the East or West. Piety lies in believing in God.” (2:177).

Yet as Scott points out, Obama gets the rousing applause and Bush is seen as a Crusader launching wars against Muslims and not at takfiri terrorists in their midst. Meanwhile, Obama still allows Predator drones in Pakistan, a troop surge in Afghanistan, has not ended the occupation in Iraq but will follow through on the SOFA signed under Bush. It’s comical enough to make you want to laugh and cry!

Washington Times Editorial:

Check Mr. Bush’s remarks at the Islamic Center of Washington on Sept. 17, 2001, six days after the Sept. 11 attacks, in which he said, “America counts millions of Muslims amongst our citizens, and Muslims make an incredibly valuable contribution to our country.” Likewise, Mr. Obama stated, “Let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America.” Mr. Bush believed that, “Women who cover their heads in this country must feel comfortable going outside their homes.” Mr. Obama upped the ante, noting that “the U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab,and to punish those who would deny it.”

In his June 24, 2002, Rose Garden speech on the Palestinian issue, Mr. Bush pledged his administration to pursue a two-state solution and stated, “it is untenable for Palestinians to live in squalor and occupation.” Mr. Obama echoed those sentiments when he noted that Palestinians “endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: The situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable.”

In his May 18, 2008, speech at the World Economic Forum in Sharm el-Sheikh, Mr. Bush made most of the same points on the value of economic development and democracy in the Middle East that Mr. Obama made yesterday. He addressed the authoritarian leaders of the region, including his Egyptian hosts, noting, “Some say any state that holds an election is a democracy. But true democracy requires vigorous political parties allowed to engage in free and lively debate.”

Mr. Obama told literally the same group of authoritarian leaders, “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.”

These are but a few examples of message continuity between the Bush and Obama administrations. There are many more, especially dealing with democratization, women’s issues, religious freedom and the war in Afghanistan. The section in which he pledged to “confront violent extremism in all its forms” might as well have been taken from former Vice President Dick Cheney’s briefcase.

We fully expected to hear something along the lines of what Mr. Bush said on Sept. 17, 2001: “the face of terror is not the true faith of Islam … Islam is peace.” Mr. Obama surprised us by not repeating the frequent Bush mantra about the religion of peace, although he did praise the Muslim world for various (and debatable) historical accomplishments. He also noted Islam’s “proud tradition of tolerance” with a historically mangled reference to Andalusia and Cordoba during the Spanish Inquisition. Both are sites of major Muslim massacres of Jews in the 11th century. We hope the president will issue a clarification of this section of his speech lest the terrorists get the wrong message.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Yep, the same, yet you still hate him:

Ed M.:

I don’t hear anything in this speech that Bush didn’t say himself.

Hewitt:

…its false idea that the ideas within it represent a huge break with the Bush Administration’s policies with regard to Islam. Of course they don’t. … Bush’s allies in the war are Obama’s allies, and Bush’s enemies are Obama’s enemies, because those allies and enemies are opposed to or support the United States, not a particular president.

RedState:

…the speech was reminiscent of the remarkable series of speeches President Bush gave about the advance of freedom.

Commentary:

I liked the fact that he put in a Bush-like plug for democracy…I thought he did an effective job of making America’s case to the Muslim world.

The Corner:

Obama’s goal was to tell the Muslim world, “We respect and value you, your religion and your civilization, and only ask that you don’t hate us and murder us in return.” Bush tried to deliver the same message over and over again.

But…but…

Commentary:

…if Obama really means it, it is bad news for the Jews in Israel and America, not to mention for American national security.

The Corner:

Obama echoed al-Qaeda’s calumnies against them [our military] — and did so in a foreign land. This is unprecedented. It is shameful.

Confederate Yankee:

Barack Obama alarmed allies and confirmed for the nation’s enemies that he will do for democracy and the advancement of human rights what George Tiller did for pediatrics.

Hewitt, again:

No speech so deeply dishonest in its omissions or so rhetorically misleading its its assumptions and arguments can do anything other than communicate extraordinary weakness on the part of the United States.

RedState:

Barack Obama’s ivory tower naiveté will get us all killed.

So, the same …hardly: not a mention of the word ‘terrorism’ or ‘terrorists’; not a word or promise about democracy in Afgan. or Iraq; Obama reminded the M.E he has ended the policy of torture in interrogations and will close Gitmo; declared Iraq a war of choice; didn’t label Iran one of three members of the “axis of evil,”; he spoke in Cairo while Bush spoke in the Rose Garden; and finally, Obama got a standing ovation.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Great Scott! I wonder if our dear media even remembers a word Bush spoke.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

[...] reactions: Scott: Who gave this speech, Obama or Bush? (Hey, but Bush was a cowboy!) Andy McCarthy: Koranic text Obama left out David P. Goldman: Why [...]

Like or Dislike: 0  0

New caption: “Where have we heard this before…sounds familiar?”

“Peace”…..”Two-state solution”…..yadda, yadda….

Bush….Condi…..’Bama….

Just words.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Ironic that both were given in June, both called for a 2 state solution, both called for Israeli and Palestinian sacrifice, both cited Koran and Bible, and one brings Chris Matthews to tears while its parallel speech got mocked by the same guy and his ilk.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Alice in Wonderland has nothing over on “the one.” He lives in a fantasy world where historical facts are skipped over or changed to suit the moment. If speeches made up of soaring rhetoric and catchy phrases could change the world then Obama would be a master but in the real world he is a man wihout much experience in any area and it shows. The press and the progressives around the world will wet their pants over this speech but in the long run what will it produce, nothing. Obama is so sure of himself that he is willing to use moral equivalency and expect to get away with it in juxtaposing the Israel and Palestine conflict and trying to justify his stance. The mass media in this country is so biased in favor of Obama that the average American who does not look beyond his or her TV or newspaper is fed a daily dose of Obama the hope of mankind. What a joke, what a sham but hey maybe just maybe the American public will wake up and actually look at what is happening to this country and elect a divided government at the next mid term elections.

Like or Dislike: 0  0