6,000 words and half of them mush!
I’ve only started going through the speech President Obama delivered in Cairo Thursday. Full text is here. The first thing that struck me is that he could have delivered a really good speech by cutting half of it out. Yes, leave out the apologies and the mountain of moral equivalence and the Bush blaming which simply validates extremist ideology and it would have been fine.
But when you make statements like this what purpose does it serve other than to strengthen extremism?
OBAMA: Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed – more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction – or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews – is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.
On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people – Muslims and Christians – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They 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. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.
Someone please inform me when the Israelis murder six million Palestinians, then we can talk moral equivalence between the Holocaust and suffering the Palestinians. All Obama did was excuse the violence that Palestinians continue to direct towards Israel despite the many concessions the Israelis have made.
Here’s the Wordle of Obama’s speech. The larger the word, the more times it was used:
6,000 words is a speech which approaches the snooze fests regularly delivered by nutcases like Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez. What a shame any good parts of Obama’s speech were lost in clouds of political correctness, moral equivalence, and Bush blaming.
That’s not a moral equivalence. If you refuse to admit that the Palestinians have any reason for grievances, then a resolution of the conflict is impossible.
Pingback: Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » Obama Launches His Second Charm Offensive in the Middle East
Husein Obama said: “No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other.”
He is of course evoking Iraq and Bushitler. But democracy was never “imposed” on Iraq. Democracy was offered to Iraq and they accepted it gladly. Recall the purple fingers. Obama often lies by implying rather than plainly stating untruths. That makes the lies even more nefarious.
@Nit Wit: You are in denial. You seem to have an endless capacity to redefine reality to suit your prejudices. Something you must have learned during the Clinton years.
If you don’t think the statement above is an excellent example of moral equivalence then there is no example which you would accept.
What’s the problem Mike? Is it the fact that we finally have a president that is willing to talk with the Arab world without looking down our noses at them? Does is bother you that he may actually be successful at bringing about some peace in the region? His success would be the end of your precious conservative agenda.
Are you one of those right wingers who actually comes out and says you want him to fail? If so it shows that you love your conservative agenda more than you love your country.
@Real American Patriot:
http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/06/04/obamas-cairo-speech-almost-the-same-as-bushs-june-2002-speech/
Gosh Missy… You’re fast on the trigger today! Poor CRAP won’t be able to face the fact that Bush already kissed Muslim butt and it didn’t seem to make the slightest difference.
Oh well.
What do you bet CRAP never read any of Bush’s speeches?
Pingback: Obama’s Speech in Cairo: 6,000 Words and What Some are Already Saying - Updated w/ Even More Stuff Other People Are Saying | All American Blogger
Sorry but the arabs on the west bank and gaza never wanted a state for most of the past sixty years, and certainly not one that lives in proximity to a Jewish state. Obama just blithely skates over the reason there is no peace is not the pfakistinians living ten miles away from where they were living in 1948, but their refusal to accept Israel’s right to exist. Until that fact changes Israel cannot negotiate any accord with the pfakistinians. Next Obama skates over the fact that for seventy years there has been an arab state from the British Mandate, some might call “Palestine”, under the current name of Jordan. Thus the pfakistinians already have their own state in which they represent 70 percent of the population East of the Jordan. Why they deserve two or more additional states has never been satisfactorily answered especially when they begrudge their Jewish brethren even one in their ancient homeland.
Obama admits US involvement in Iran coup
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.32cde4b38d55ae6af28266bb31a7221e.851&show_article=1
No apology is necessary for that coup in 1953. Premier Mohammad Mossadeq of Iran had already outstayed his constitutional term. This is one little point they never bother to mention on NPR. If Bush had cancelled elections and were still president today, would lefties still call him our “democratically elected leader”?
Read this from:
http://freedomspeace.blogspot.com/2006/07/what-about-that-1953-cia-iranian-coup.html
(no longer online)
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
What About That 1953 CIA Iranian Coup?
In a comment on one of my blogs, Mahathir Fan says:
I stated that the last time the United States government overthrew an
Iranian government, back in 1953, it destroyed a democracy and
instituted a dictatorship. Instead of removing the chains of tyranny
from the Iranian people, it helped to put them on, and helped keep them
on for the 26 years that the Shah remained in power. Therefore, it would
be impossible for the Iranian people to believe that any American
intervention could lead to their freedom.
There is no doubt that in 1953 the CIA engineered a coup against Premier
Mohammad Mossadeq of Iran that ended up empowering Mohammad Reza Shah
Pahlavi. This has been number one on the list of stated reasons for
hatred of America by the Iranian Ayatollahs and their revolutionary
followers. And it is among the many “evils” of American foreign policy
that the left invariably mentions. But the historical context should not
be ignored if one is to understand and, indeed, excuse the U.S. decision
to engineer the coup.
As World War II came to an end, the Soviet controlled Azerbaijani Tudeh
(communist) Party took control of Tabriz in northern Iran. The Soviets
then took over the region and blocked Iranian forces from entering it.
Next, in December 1945, the Soviets had an Autonomous Republic of
Azerbaijan proclaimed, and shortly after that the Kurdish People’s
Republic. This put Northern Iran under Soviet control.
Iran had been an object of Soviet foreign policy for decades. Its rich
oil fields, its strategic location, and its warm water ports made it a
most desirable target for Soviet conquest and conversion to a communist
satellite. Soviet power would then extend from the Baltic Sea, through
the Black Sea, Arabian Gulf, Gulf of Oman, to the Arabian Sea, which
would open the whole Indian Ocean to Soviet ships and subversion.
Iran demanded that the Soviets withdraw their troops from its territory.
The Soviets did so from unimportant areas of Iran, but kept their
control over Azerbaijan and the Kurdish Republic. President Truman would
not let this stand. Already upset by Stalin’s violation of the Potsdam
Agreements regarding Eastern Europe, Truman issued an ultimatum. He met
with Soviet Ambassador Gromyko and told him that if Soviet troops were
not removed in 48 hours, he would drop the atomic bomb. “We’re going to
drop it on you,” Truman is reported to have said to Gromyko.
The Soviets removed their troops in 24 hours. And Iranian forces soon
ended communist control of Azerbaijan and the Kurdish Republic.
So, the United States saved Iran from Soviet domination. Without
Truman’s ultimatum, it is clear that Soviet troops, with the help of a
strong Iranian Communist Party, would have extended their control over
the rest of Iran. But you never hear about this, and I don’t think it is
the history that Iranians are taught.
Now, about the coup. Here also the Soviets played an important role, and
keep in mind that this was in 1953, the height of the Cold War and the
communist scare in the U.S. The Korean War, which began in 1950 and
which President Eisenhower saw as outright Soviet aggression, had just
ended. By Eisenhower’s presidency, the foreign policy of containment,
initiated by Truman, had become the settled American policy for meeting
the communist challenge. Moreover, having just lost 33,741 American
lives to save South Korea, a country far less important than Iran, Ike
was hardly going to let Iran fall into Soviet hands.
Now, according to what was a CIA report on the coup, with secret stamped
on each page (of course, it was disclosed by The New York Times), events
in Iran had aroused these fears:
By the end of 1952, it had become clear that the Mossadeq government in
Iran was incapable of reaching an oil settlement with interested Western
countries; was reaching a dangerous and advanced stage of illegal,
deficit financing; was disregarding the Iranian constitution in
prolonging Premier Mohammed Mossadeq’s tenure of office; was motivated
mainly by Mossadeq’s desire for personal power; was governed by
irresponsible policies based on emotion; had weakened the Shah and the
Iranian Army to a dangerous degree; and had cooperated closely with the
Tudeh (Communist) Party. In view of these factors, it was estimated that
Iran was in real danger of falling behind the Iron Curtain [that is,
under Soviet domination]; if that happened it would mean a victory for
the Soviets in the Cold War and a major setback for the West in the
Middle East. No remedial action other than the covert action plan set
forth below could be found to improve the existing state of affairs.
Thus, the aim of the CIA became:
…to cause the fall of the Mossadeq government; to reestablish the
prestige and power of the Shah; and to replace the Mossadeq government
with one which would govern Iran according to constructive policies.
Specifically, the aim was to bring to power a government which would
reach an equitable oil settlement, enabling Iran to become economically
sound and financially solvent, and which would vigorously prosecute the
dangerously strong Iranian Communist Party.
The British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) fully agreed with the CIA
analysis, and the coup was a joint CIA-SIS operation. I believe that,
had I been in charge at that time, I would have fully supported this
operation. Even a small chance that the Soviet Union might have gained
control of Iran, with its strategic location, and the high probability
of a blood bath in Iran was enough for action. Just look at Iran on the
map to see how critical it was to keep Iran aligned with the West during
the Cold War. Even Iranian independence, if that could be assured, was
enough.
Oh yes, it also is often claimed that Iran was a democracy, and that we
overthrew a democratic government. Not so. According to the esteemed
Gurr’s 1989 Polity II codings of political systems, Iran in 1953 was not
a democracy.
American actions in Iran saved the country from communist enslavement –
surely the first time when Truman forced Soviet forces to withdraw, and
probably a second time with the CIA coup. Iranians should be thankful,
but I doubt they will ever learn the facts under the present absolute
dictatorship.
Incidentally, the myth about the coup — that the CIA overthrew a
democratic government and thus saddled Iran with a bloody dictatorship
– was a factor in President Carter refusing to save the Shah or support
a military coup against the Shah during the 1979 Islamic revolution that
brought the present absolute dictatorship to power.
Moreover, during the 1979-1981 hostage crises, when Iran held 66
American diplomats and other embassy personnel prisoners for 444 days,
Carter formally apologized to the Iranian government for the 1953 coup
in the hope of getting the hostages released. It didn’t work. But it did
help to set in concrete the myth about the coup.
In some Spanish media they are wondering who wrote Obama’s speech, for his ignorance, very particularly this sentence:
“Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition.”.
1. Cordoba is a city in Andalusia (a region of Spain). What he says sounds like “the history of Southern California and San Diego”. It seems he doesn’t distinguish between today Andalusia and historic Al-Andalus. (minor mistake)
2. During the Inquisition? What the heck is he talking about? When the Inquisition was running in what is now Spain, the Muslims had already been kicked out. He doesn’t have a clue of what he is saying.
3. The vision of a tolerant Islam during the centuries of Al-Andalus (711-1492) in what is now Spain is completely idilic, and only existed during brief moments. Islam repressed Christians, Jews, and non-orthodox Muslims (Averroes himself). There are not in Spain churches of the times of the “tolerant” Islam. They destroyed them or built mosques on the site. The preserved ones from those centuries are located in the provinces not conquered by the Muslims.
Referring to Obama’s speech, some newspapers are talking about “historic ignorance”.
@scriptamanent: The Spanish will just have to learn what the rest of us have: Facts be damned! When it comes to Obama, it’s not what he says but how he says it. And didn’t he sound soooo sincere?
The speech was riddled with factual inaccuracy and distortions but none of that seems to matter. As long as the Muzzies were happy with it.
@Mike’s America:
Hey Mike….. did you see this?
The pretty little red line has now met the pretty little green line.
Photo of Obie’s Cairo audience:
Boy, don’t they look captivated?
@Aye Chihuahua: I was emailing you that graph at the same time you were linking it here.
Good news travels fast!