Obama’s Cairo speech: Surprisingly good

posted at 9:28 am on June 4, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

I didn’t get the chance to watch Barack Obama’s Cairo speech live, although I’m sure that it will be chopped up on YouTube within the next couple of hours.  Instead, I read the full text posted by Andrew Malcolm, as well as Andrew’s commentary, and in most ways, it wouldn’t differ from a similar speech given by any recent American President.  In fact, the Cairo audience may have been a little surprised about the depth of the defense of Israel’s right to exist in peace, as well as the strong denunciation of 9/11 Trutherism that has been wildly popular among Arabs, even though Osama bin Laden claimed credit long ago for the attack.

Not surprisingly, Obama emphasized the rights of Palestinians to live in their own state, which the Washington Post’s Howard Schneider reported via Twitter prompted a lot of head-nodding.  Obama added this scolding to Arab nations, though, that may have come as a surprise:

Finally, the Arab States must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state; to recognize Israel’s legitimacy; and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.

That was a not-so-subtle jab at the practice of various Arab and Muslim states to use the Palestinian issue to whip up anti-Israel sentiment for their own domestic purposes.  Egypt has diplomatic relations with Israel, but is not above doing some of that itself, which makes this jab a little more sharp, given the setting.  It seems a little surprising — and refreshing — that Obama would challenge this practice in a speech in Cairo.

Israel, Obama said, has to accept a two-state solution with real sovereignty.  Well, they have, on numerous occasions.  They’ve also withdrawn from Gaza; Obama appeared to blame Israel for the misery of the Gazans, rather than Hamas, who keeps launching wars against Israel.  Obama could have shown a little more backbone in pointing that out, and it seems like pandering to have avoided it.  However, he did instruct the audience about Israel’s right to exist:

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.

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.

Speaking of baseless, ignorant, and hateful, Obama tried to set the record straight on 9/11, and set a baseline for American security:

The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America’s goals, and our need to work together. 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.

Make no mistake: we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.

Most of the rest of the speech was standard boilerplate, heavy on the compatibility of Islam and America and historical examples going back to our founding.  Obama didn’t mention the Barbary Pirates, but he did note that the US has over 1200 mosques and claimed that almost 8 million Muslims live in the US.  That number is the subject of dispute; CAIR claims 8 million, but the CIA and other surveys put it at less than 2 million.  For the purposes of this audience, Obama used the highest number, apparently to make the biggest impression.

Did it work? Schneider says it only received light applause at the end, so perhaps Obama told a few too many hard truths for Egyptian tastes — which is why we questioned that decision.  On the whole, though, Obama defended American positions on Israel and Afghanistan with more strength than he does here at home.

Of course, the big question will be whether this does anything at all for our standing in the Muslim world.  Frankly, I doubt it; this may wind up eroding Obama’s standing instead.  Still, a much better effort than I’d feared.

Update: Yid with Lid strongly disagrees with me on Obama’s defense of Israel, so be sure to read all of his post.

Update II: I note on Twitter that plenty of people are upset with Obama’s quoting of the Koran and his positive spin on Islam, ie, “religion of peace,” “Golden Rule,” etc.  He is in Cairo, after all, and to quote an old aphorism, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.  Appealing to people’s better natures is a rhetorical device with a long history — and a long history of mixed results.  However, I don’t hear anything in this speech that Bush didn’t say himself.

Update III: I would also say that I didn’t see much apologizing for America in this speech, but that there was some; Obama mentions Gitmo and the 1950s coup d’etat in Iran.  Also, Michelle takes my point about the tenor of this speech sounding a lot like Bush’s, but she consistently objected to that in Bush’s speeches as well.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6 7

What I liked was that it was even-handed and just said out loud what many people already know is true.

You are such an ignorant dope. There are literally hundreds of comments here, and links to other comments and reviews of the speech where Barry’s words are disected and shown to be factually untrue, ambiguous, or well-within the realm of honest debate.

But you come here with your silly unsubstantiated comments that it was “even-handed” and that many people already know
what he said to be true. What utter rubbish, and not supported by any argument other than your feelings.

This persona of yours, Betty White in the Golden Girls, the oh so sweet harmless dumb white lady is grating. You are way out of your depth if you can offer nothing but your feelings. Stand up and give your brain some air, and go post where the people already know Obama’s words to be true. In CA, you may pass for something less than a full-blown liberal moron, but in the rest of the country, your Mother Stuperior shtick is cringe worthy.

JiangxiDad on June 4, 2009 at 1:25 PM

The only thing that reassures me these days is cold hard steel under my pillow. obama is anti-America, which makes him anti-ME

Ris4victory on June 4, 2009 at 1:26 PM

Good thing Bush was there to show them the way.

Baxter Greene on June 4, 2009 at 12:02 PM

LOL, joke’s on us.

I’ve already noted that the responsible governance that GWB claimed as TX Governor was actually all due to Bob Bullock, TX Lt.Gov, a great statesman who truly loved Texas and did what was right for Texan citizens, the last Texas Democrat with such integrity. Since his death, the Texas Democrat Party has gone whore, destroying his beloved state, our state security.

As a former Democrat by agricultural heritage, there were those so appalled by Clinton’s havoc on America (economic and moral decadence on domestic and global scale) that we changed parties in order to stunt Al Gore’s advance. Today, given the reality of Al Gore, no one can say that voting against GWB would have been the wiser action.

It wasn’t conservative’s fault that GWB got the Republican ticket from the good ol’ boys club of old guard gone progressive for easy abuse of power. I voted against his dad because it’s a perversion to make a CIA Director into POTUS. I am not knocking the CIA (have had relatives employed therein) but do not want Oval Office inbreeding that eliminates any objective detachment during determinations and accumulation of abusive federal powers. What good was that vote when it produced the agony of Clinton? A simplistic mea culpa 1st time, but not 2nd and never again.

This last election, Leftist progressive populism propagandized that it would take another Carter to get another Reagan: BS! I argue that two lies do not make truth any better than a lie makes a truth.

The selection of GWB was made by the same country club good ol’ boy Republican elitists that selected his dad for Reagan’s VP in order to slip Bush 1 into office subsequent to Reagan. I don’t think those guys even wanted Voodoo Reagan, they just used him for his all-Americanism (the last ever) to win the office. Bush 1 could never have won without hanging onto Reagan’s coat-tails, proven by his failed re-election that GWB would determine how to conquer. These same Republican power brokers selected McCain for the latest Republican ticket. And as ever, these same Republican power brokers are for making amnesty for illegal aliens and maintaining open borders to enable terrorism and illegal human, drug and criminal traffic. Of course they are Obama’s brown nosers; they’re the ones that prepared the way for American Marxism. Twisted.

Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur.
The world wants to be deceived, so let it be deceived!

There isn’t any perfect politician. So we’re stuck working with what we have, and supporting what we want. Michael Steele has the responsibility, against all odds, to tow the GOP conservative line endorsing and preparing new conservative candidates vs. elitist old guard progressive power mongers. Therein, Constitutional preservation in practice and Fiscal conservatism take all precedence.

Holding Republicans fiscally accountable is the Achilles heel we have yet to purge to heal rather than employ as an excuse each session. But never require more of your own man than of the opposition that bloats corruption into incurable plague proportions.

As things are, for any real conservative stand for survival, conservatives must coopt together an amalgamation into one party united in alliance. Whether it is to be the Constitutional, the Republican, or the Libertarian has yet to be known as much because conservatives are in flux as because those leaders within each existing party must in fact compromise themselves, and that discomfort must be willingly accomplished. Those demanding to start fresh from nothing are ignoring the reality that any such naive effort would be nipped in the bud, crushed by the various coalescent powers that be. The immediate stand against Marxism is the mutual goal of all conservative parties. The power of unity can not be denied any more than our right to unite.

The time to negotiate our alliances is now. Just as the time to express public indignation for abusive federal powers gone Marxist is now.

July 4th will arrive in one month. This round of Tea Parties could celebrate our Constitutional Civil Rights with proper tea time etiquette, as before, rationally standing our ground. Any exchange of dialogue must retain civility as well as strength of commitment to help each other enjoy our unalienable Constitutional rights to our Constitutional Republic.

Obama’s presidency is erasing all historical documentation to reign with authoritarian terror.

We Americans eschew authoritarian terrorism.

Our Constitutional legal minds must enable the organized and effective Impeachment of President Obama.

maverick muse on June 4, 2009 at 1:28 PM

How would Obama react? We have learned with the Little Rock incident that his preferred reaction is to not acknowledge that the attack even happened. He won’t have that option for larger attacks.

Buddahpundit on June 4, 2009 at 12:45 PM

Sure he will, since the majority of people in his Party have already forgotten 9/11 even happened.

So he will easily be able to get them to forget the next ones.

Del Dolemonte on June 4, 2009 at 1:29 PM

CAIR and Ed Morrissey both loved Obama’s Muslim speech. That should tell you something.

Debbie Schlussel on June 4, 2009 at 1:17 PM

We haven’t seen many videos after those couple you made. That should tell us something.

MadisonConservative on June 4, 2009 at 1:29 PM

There was no apology for the reality that the US was attacked, and we are going to do whatever to be safe.

Didn’t that reassure some of you?

AnninCA on June 4, 2009 at 1:21 PM

That’s not what he said at all.

“And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter our principles.”

Translation: Thousands of people in LA would have died under my administration because we will not alter MY principles against waterboarding.

Do whatever is necessary? I don’t think so.

“So America will defend itself respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law.”

Translation: I wouldn’t have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq.

Do whatever is necessary? I don’t think so.

Daggett on June 4, 2009 at 1:32 PM

I must admit, this speech brought me to tears. And I couldn’t help thinking that it reminds me of another speech… what was that speech? Try to remember, try to remember… and then it hit me! I first watched that speech when I was twelve. It was delivered by this cute tramp with a small black moustache. Both speeches (Obama’s and the tramp’s) made me lie back on the couch, take a deep breath, turn my head to the person next to me and say: “Ahhhh… If only life could be like a Hollywood movie.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcvjoWOwnn4

Michelle Dubois on June 4, 2009 at 1:33 PM

Susanboo:

That’s why he thinks there are 57 states in the US, and that we are not a Christian country, we’re a large Muslim one.
Obama:

We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation, or a Jewish nation, or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens, who are bound by ideals.

Can you even read?

Grow Fins on June 4, 2009 at 1:06 PM

Gee, I don’t know. I read everyday, not just today, as apparently you only do. I guess it’s just that Obama can’t make up his frikin mind, because here’s a quote from Obama that I got off of this blog yesterday;

In preparing to give a speech in Cairo to the “Muslim world” (as dictator Hosni Mubarak sees it, anyway), Barack Obama told French newspaper Le Monde that the US has so many Muslims, it would be one of the largest Muslim nations in the world, if we counted the US in that group:

The president said the United States and other parts of the Western world “have to educate ourselves more effectively on Islam.”

“And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world,” Mr. Obama said. “And so there’s got to be a better dialogue and a better understanding between the two peoples.”

On Obama’s trip to Turkey, he was quoted as saying “we are not a Christian Nation, etc…”

The USA is primarily Christian, and was set up that way by our Founders, read the Constitution, read the Declaration of Independence. Obviously Obama has not read it, and neither have you!

The problem as I see it is that there are many people like you who only read some things Obama says. The man says something different everytime he opens his mouth! He cannot remember what he said yesterday, because half of it is a made up lie, and he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Unfortunately for him, we have cameras and audio equipment.

Susanboo on June 4, 2009 at 1:33 PM

Susanboo

The US was not “set up” as a Christian nation, you dope. I suggest you reread the Constitution, or better yet, get someone who understands it to explain it to you.

Grow Fins on June 4, 2009 at 1:38 PM

JiangxiDad

Not half as grating as yours.

Grow Fins on June 4, 2009 at 1:39 PM

He didn’t cut extremist Muslims any slack. There was no apology for the reality that the US was attacked, and we are going to do whatever to be safe.

Didn’t that reassure some of you?

AnninCA on June 4, 2009 at 1:21 PM

No.

Barackito Obamalin said, “The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals,”

In other words, we overreacted like some hysterical woman (or man)!

I suppose the 3,000 dead civilians overreacted too? Did those on the flight that crashed in Pennsylvania overreact also? They caused the plane to crash so those Holy Warriors of Mohammad could not complete their mission from Allah. How inconsiderate of them.

MB4 on June 4, 2009 at 1:40 PM

Daggett on June 4, 2009 at 1:10 PM
JiangxiDad on June 4, 2009 at 1:12 PM

Thanks guys, for the backup. It took me 20 min to respond to the troll.

Susanboo on June 4, 2009 at 1:40 PM

This persona of yours, Betty White in the Golden Girls, the oh so sweet harmless dumb white lady is grating. You are way out of your depth if you can offer nothing but your feelings. Stand up and give your brain some air, and go post where the people already know Obama’s words to be true. In CA, you may pass for something less than a full-blown liberal moron, but in the rest of the country, your Mother Stuperior shtick is cringe worthy.

You are quite witty. Too bad it’s always the same ad hominem attacks, which is the hobgoblin of petty little minds.

You really could have done more with your brains.

AnninCA on June 4, 2009 at 1:41 PM

It took me 20 min to respond to the troll.

I know, Rush’s site is so-o-o-o-o-o slow today.

Grow Fins on June 4, 2009 at 1:43 PM

Well, I think it appealed to the audience a lot, which is youthful idealists.

Nothing wrong with it, and it set the stage nicely for whatever might emerge.

It definitely annoyed the heck out of the leaders in the Middle East, and that’s pretty fun to see.

AnninCA on June 4, 2009 at 1:43 PM

We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.

However, that rule does not apply to Iraq. Regardless of how many terrorists there are there, we’re leaving (or is this Obama’s way of saying the war in Iraq is won?).

Kafir on June 4, 2009 at 1:43 PM

And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter our principles.”

Translation: Thousands of people in LA would have died under my administration because we will not alter MY principles against waterboarding.

Do whatever is necessary? I don’t think so.

“So America will defend itself respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law.”

Translation: I wouldn’t have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq.

Do whatever is necessary? I don’t think so.

Daggett on June 4, 2009 at 1:32 PM

In my opinion, this is more talking out of both sides of his mouth. On the one side, he espouses to the evils of water boarding, and principles. But when no one seems to be looking, or so he thinks, he continues these policies, and renditions…and talks of one world order.

He’s telling people what they want to hear, but behind the curtain, a whole different scenario is playing out.

capejasmine on June 4, 2009 at 1:43 PM

Barackito Obamalin

MB4 on June 4, 2009 at 1:40 PM

Creative, but the alteration doesn’t make sense.

MadisonConservative on June 4, 2009 at 1:44 PM

Ah, don’t point that passage out. It conflicts with their critique. :)

AnninCA on June 4, 2009 at 1:44 PM

You really could have done more with your brains.

AnninCA on June 4, 2009 at 1:41 PM

Aren’t you supposed to be visiting that genius son of yours today or is trolling around a conservative blog and bloviating your liberal talking points from Axelrod more important?

Knucklehead on June 4, 2009 at 1:45 PM

There’s plenty of room for debate over the effectivity of torture as a means for getting information.

There’s plenty of controversy on that even within the GOP.

AnninCA on June 4, 2009 at 1:46 PM

Aren’t you supposed to be visiting that genius son of yours today or is trolling around a conservative blog and bloviating your liberal talking points from Axelrod more important?

I’ll be off soon. Laundry had to be finished. It’s not a long drive.

AnninCA on June 4, 2009 at 1:47 PM

Well, I think it appealed to the audience a lot, which is youthful idealists VIOLENT EXTREMISTS.

FIFY

Branch Rickey on June 4, 2009 at 1:47 PM

Grow Fins on June 4, 2009 at 1:38 PM

It’s true. Christianity was never named the offcial “state” religion because they were escaping tyranny and seeking freedom and they did not see the need to name a state religion. But, this country was founded by Christians.

The religious affiliations of these individuals are summarized below. Obviously this is a very restrictive set of names, and does not include everyone who could be considered an “American Founding Father.” But most of the major figures that people generally think of in this context are included using these criteria, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Hancock, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and more

Religious Affiliation
of U.S. Founding Fathers

Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7%
Presbyterian 30 18.6%
Congregationalist 27 16.8%
Quaker 7 4.3%
Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7%
Lutheran 5 3.1%
Catholic 3 1.9%
Huguenot 3 1.9%
Unitarian 3 1.9%
Methodist 2 1.2%
Calvinist 1 0.6%
TOTAL 204

courtesy adherents.com

kingsjester on June 4, 2009 at 1:48 PM

Well, I think it appealed to the audience a lot, which is youthful idealists VIOLENT EXTREMISTS.

That group wasn’t even allowed to view it, I read.

This was the university crowd in Cairo.

AnninCA on June 4, 2009 at 1:49 PM

That group wasn’t even allowed to view it, I read.

Had no idea “Muslim Brotherhood” was equivalent to candy stripers.

Branch Rickey on June 4, 2009 at 1:50 PM

Nonetheless, kingsjester, conservatives who don’t hollar that this is NOT a Christian country really are ignoring the very basic principle of our country. We really can’t lose sight that freedom of religion is our very roots.

Those who don’t respect and fight for that really should not call themselves conservatives.

AnninCA on June 4, 2009 at 1:51 PM

After his preliminary apologizing ,which must be done in a prone prostrated position, President Hussein must denounce the crusades and all disbeliever attacks on the Prophet, Peace be upon Him. He must also endorse all the righteous Islamic courts, including their application of divine Sharia blasphemy laws. He must also throw the full support of the country he now completely rules behind the U.N. resolution passed in December prohibiting defamation of Islam including making such defamation a crime under international law and turn over to us any such criminals such as Rush Limbaugh Debbie Schlussel that are in his country.

Aleph on June 4, 2009 at 1:54 PM

Grow Fins, I unlike you, will admit a mistake and that I misspoke about the Constitution, but not the Declaration, and not our Forefathers.

Another thing; why are you even on this site? All you do is spew hate, and act like a jerk. It is a conservative blog, why don’t you go visit your friends on the Huffington Post or somewhere?

Susanboo on June 4, 2009 at 1:56 PM

AnninCA on June 4, 2009 at 1:51 PM

Why should we holler that this not a Christian Country when the founders were and the overwhelming majority of people living in this country identify themselves as such?

Top 10 Largest National Christian Populations
Rank Nation Number Percent
1 USA 224,457,000 85%
2 Brazil 139,000,000 93%
3 Mexico 86,120,000 99%
4 Russia 80,000,000 60%
5 China 70,000,000 5.7%
6 Germany 67,000,000 83%
7 Philippines 63,470,000 93%
8 United Kingdom 51,060,000 88%
9 Italy 47,690,000 90%
10 France 44,150,000 98%
11 Nigeria 38,180,000 45%

courtesy adherents.com

kingsjester on June 4, 2009 at 1:57 PM

With women being stoned, raped, abused, battered, mutilated, and slaughtered on a daily basis across the globe, violence that is so often perpetrated in the name of religion, the most our president can speak about is protecting their right to wear the hijab? I would have been much more heartened if the preponderance of the speech had been about how in the 21st century, we CANNOT tolerate the pervasive abuse of our mothers and sisters and daughters.

…the right to wear their hijab?

High jab, indeed, by our cipher in chief. This is an empty head like no other in all of history. The world is mesmerized at its peril. What a bunch of ninnies.

Schadenfreude on June 4, 2009 at 2:00 PM

Ed should have thought more abouit the speech before rushing to get a thread opened up on it.

The speech was a bunch of postmodern realitivism, nmoral equivalence, and historically inaacurate pandering.

It was not a good speech.

chalons on June 4, 2009 at 2:00 PM

Barackito Obamalini

MB4 on June 4, 2009 at 1:40 PM

Creative, but the alteration doesn’t make sense.

MadisonConservative on June 4, 2009 at 1:44 PM

Ode to Barackito Obamalini:

The audacity of hope was for his campaign
Power grabbing and statism are for his reign
His candidacy was rather like that of a Henry Houdini
His presidency is shaping up to be much more like that of a Benito Mussolini

Although he’s trying to slip it all in under another guise
To all his fascist action most foul we must still be wise
In spite of all the Houdini lies
Dancing in Obama’s Mussolini eyes

MB4 on June 4, 2009 at 2:01 PM

Why should we holler that this not a Christian Country when the founders were and the overwhelming majority of people living in this country identify themselves as such?

The nation was founded upon principles of separation of state and religion.

Separation. Therefore, we should always deeply respect religious differences, including those who do not subscribe to any religion.

That’s fundamental.

AnninCA on June 4, 2009 at 2:03 PM

TOTAL 204 – courtesy adherents.com

kingsjester on June 4, 2009 at 1:48 PM

Uh…that’s 108.7%. Works for me, but…

Jaibones on June 4, 2009 at 2:03 PM

Right before he took off from DC, on what the media has been depicting as some “odyssey,” to address the Muslim World from Cairo, President Obama had described the 81-year-old Egyptian President Mubarak as a “force for stability.” This week Cairo and its twin city Giza have been a showcase of what this “stability” cost.

The capital is under occupation. Security troops are deployed in the main public squares and metro stations. Citizens were detained en masse and shops were told to close down in Bein el-Sarayat area, neighboring Cairo University, where Obama will be speaking. In Al-Azhar University, the co-host of the “historical speech,” State Security police raided and detained at least 200 foreign students, held them without charges in unknown locations.

Yep, he likes ‘democracy’, of a different kind.

Schadenfreude on June 4, 2009 at 2:04 PM

Why should we holler that this not a Christian Country when the founders were and the overwhelming majority of people living in this country identify themselves as such?

kingsjester on June 4, 2009 at 1:57 PM

Kingjester, don’t you know? Even though these Lefties are a small minority of the Country, they are more important then the rest of us. They are not Christians, so the rest of us that are should just shut up. Ditto for heterosexuals, conservatives etc, etc……

Susanboo on June 4, 2009 at 2:05 PM

And those who hate all Muslims due to 9/11 are, in fact, unfair and practicing prejudice.

That’s quite OK. You have the freedom to do that, but don’t expect to be admired.

I admire real conservatism. The prejudice and hate stuff?

Nah*…..nothing to respect about that. I saw plenty of that type of thinking growing up in the South.

Never did get it. Glad I don’t.

AnninCA on June 4, 2009 at 2:06 PM

8 United Kingdom 51,060,000 88%
9 Italy 47,690,000 90%
10 France 44,150,000 98%

courtesy adherents.com

kingsjester on June 4, 2009 at 1:57 PM

Dude, you’re killin’ me. I agree with your point, but what are these percentages? 88% of Britons are atheist, not Christian. Is it that 88% of religious Britons are Christian? I don’t think that works, either, the place is full of Muslims.

I do not think this word – Christian – means what you think it means.

Jaibones on June 4, 2009 at 2:07 PM

All you do is spew hate, and act like a jerk. It is a conservative blog, why don’t you go visit your friends on the Huffington Post or somewhere?

No.

Grow Fins on June 4, 2009 at 2:07 PM

kingsjester on June 4, 2009 at 1:48 PM

Let me help!

As to the subject of the Founders religious beliefs, M.E. Bradford in his book Original Intentions: On the Making and Ratification of the United States Constitution has an excellent chapter titled, “Religion and the Framers: The Biographical Evidence”.

To describe the Framers out a larger body of evidence taken from the entire generation to which they belong—of the 150 to 200 principal Founders of the Republic—is to acquire another view of their composite character, especially with reference to the original American tradition concerning liberty, the state, and religion.

As I have come to know through my own work, the concept of the Framers as ordinary Christians, as members in good standing of the various Christian communions found in early America, is supported by the recorded patterns of their lives. What I propose in the way of a collective portrait draws upon evidence from the usually ignored 95 percent of that group—ignored because they are not precursors of the present dispensation in law, ethics, and public policy.

INC on June 4, 2009 at 2:08 PM

AnninCA on June 4, 2009 at 2:03 PM

That’s not what I’m saying. I will respect other religions (including Atheism) and their right to enjoy the freedoms we have as Americans. The fact remains that the overwhelming majority of Americans identify themselves as Christians. To deny that is to make a fallacious argument.

kingsjester on June 4, 2009 at 2:08 PM

Is this really the point we’ve reached? “Sure he equivocated between the Holocaust and the Israeli presence in the West Bank – but at least he brought up the Holocaust!”

omriceren on June 4, 2009 at 2:08 PM

That’s not what I’m saying. I will respect other religions (including Atheism) and their right to enjoy the freedoms we have as Americans. The fact remains that the overwhelming majority of Americans identify themselves as Christians. To deny that is to make a fallacious argument.

Of course.

But that doesn’t make us a “Christian” nation. There is a difference. Subtle, but profoundly different, particularly when talking about theocracies.

AnninCA on June 4, 2009 at 2:09 PM

It’s true. Christianity was never named the offcial “state” religion because they were escaping tyranny and seeking freedom and they did not see the need to name a state religion.

Some of the original state constitutions required that anyone who runs for certain offices (legislature, etc.) MUST believe in the Bible.

Early in our history, the federal government required states to teach the Bible in their schools if they wanted to qualify for federal funds.

They weren’t requiring allegiance to this or that denomination, but they regarded the Bible as essential truth.

The key is that they were enforcing freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

Daggett on June 4, 2009 at 2:10 PM

On Bradford’s credentials, Russell Kirk (that’s the Russell Kirk) said this in his foreward to another book of Bradford’s Founding Fathers: Brief Lives of the Framers of the United States Constitution:

Bradford’s national reputation is founded upon his painstaking and accurate scholarship—and upon his rhetorical skill as well…In general, American historians have been daunted by the tremendous task of fighting their way through antique printed collections of politicians’ letters and through thousands of holograph letters, uncollected, in dusty archives and private hands, but Mel Bradford was possessed of fortitude and a desire to write real history. He knew that there is no better way to ascertain the much-debated “original intent” of the Framers than to pass beyond the somewhat meager journals of the Convention, and beyond The Federalist Papers, to the labyrinthine treasury of letters the Framers wrote home or to one another.

…More fully than most commentators upon those Framers, Bradford has carefully examined their several religious persuasions or affiliations, discovering few Deists or unchurched.

Kirk also writes that he and Bradford were frequent correspondents and met at least once a year. From the foreward it is quite evident that he had the highest esteem for Bradford.

INC on June 4, 2009 at 2:10 PM

Is this really the point we’ve reached? “Sure he equivocated between the Holocaust and the Israeli presence in the West Bank – but at least he brought up the Holocaust!”

He brought up the Holocaust in a very direct manner. I thought that was one of those surprise moments in the speech. He didn’t mince words with those who would deny it happened or why Israel exists. He was very strong on that point.

And Israel does need to knock off the settlement growth.

AnninCA on June 4, 2009 at 2:11 PM

And those who hate all Muslims

AnninCA on June 4, 2009 at 2:06 PM

Weren’t you the one who just a short while ago spoke out against ad hominem?

Nah, must have been someone else.

MB4 on June 4, 2009 at 2:11 PM

But that doesn’t make us a “Christian” nation. There is a difference. Subtle, but profoundly different, particularly when talking about theocracies.

AnninCA on June 4, 2009 at 2:09 PM

Tell that to Obama. He thinks we’re a Muslim nation and they comprise a tiny fraction of our population.

And nobody (except maybe you) is talking about theocracies.

Daggett on June 4, 2009 at 2:12 PM

I agree with Ed once again. Obama’s speech was solid. There was plenty I didn’t agree with but I didn’t hear the lefty, anti-US, anti-Israel some on the right as describing it to be. However, I didn’t see Obama being overwhelmed with love and ovations from his audience as some of the Left seem to have seen either.

DarkKnight3565 on June 4, 2009 at 2:12 PM

and it set the stage nicely for whatever might emerge.

AnninCA on June 4, 2009 at 1:43 PM

What the h* is that supposed to mean?

ProfessorMiao on June 4, 2009 at 2:13 PM

They weren’t requiring allegiance to this or that denomination, but they regarded the Bible as essential truth.

Not all. Some of our founding fathers were deists, not Christian at all.

Granted, in practical terms, their voices weren’t exactly a roar then. But it was significant enough to forge a country’s basic documents upon.

AnninCA on June 4, 2009 at 2:14 PM

MB4 on June 4, 2009 at 2:01 PM

Got it. Not bad, but amalgamation into a major dictator always loses points.

MadisonConservative on June 4, 2009 at 2:15 PM

Weren’t you the one who just a short while ago spoke out against ad hominem?

I didn’t take names and play the shame game. LOL* If the shoe fits? :)

AnninCA on June 4, 2009 at 2:16 PM

He brought up the Holocaust in a very direct manner.

It was idiotic.

The Holocaust was meant to exterminate ALL Jews.

The Palestinians are from a country that never existed. Their true homeland is all around them in the other Arab countries that won’t take them.

Look at a map for pete’s sake. Israel represents a tiny sliver of a nation, and it’s surrounded by a MASSIVE expanse of Arab nations to whom the Palestinians belong. If Israel wants to repeat the Holocaust against the Palestinians, they better start now, because that extermination is going to take a LONG LONG LONG LONG time.

(By the way, the original land given to the Jews included Jordan – it was MUCH bigger. They’ve been sliced down to a country similar in size to New Jersey.)

Daggett on June 4, 2009 at 2:16 PM

“Surprisingly good….”

So Eddie, when did you become a eunuch for Obama?

Lincoln on June 4, 2009 at 2:17 PM

The Palestinians are from a country that never existed. Their true homeland is all around them in the other Arab countries that won’t take them.

I’m aware of the truth on that. Never got that, either.

AnninCA on June 4, 2009 at 2:17 PM

Well, I think it appealed to the audience a lot, which is youthful idealists

This was the university crowd in Cairo.

AnninCA on June 4, 2009 at 1:49 PM

You mean people like Ayman al-Zawahiri, Yasser Arafat, and Mohammed Atta?

ProfessorMiao on June 4, 2009 at 2:18 PM

Got it. Not bad, but amalgamation into a major dictator always loses points.

MadisonConservative on June 4, 2009 at 2:15 PM

Cut Obamalini some slack. He has only been going at it for 4 1/2 months. Look at what he has accomplished already. I think he’s well ahead of the game.

MB4 on June 4, 2009 at 2:19 PM

You mean people like Ayman al-Zawahiri, Yasser Arafat, and Mohammed Atta?

I liked his comment alot about how people love democracy when they are not in power, but hate it when they are.

That entire part of his speech was really quite a smack-down of the leaders you mention and others.

In a very nice way. I notice he got applause, too, from the university crowd. :)

AnninCA on June 4, 2009 at 2:20 PM

AnninCA on June 4, 2009 at 2:14 PM

Hey, AnninCA,

Did you see my comments here and here?

I have more from Bradford. Here’s the first quote in longer context:

Part of the confusion that so often leads us to a misunderstanding of the original Constitution and Bill of Rights is the special status to which a selected group of early American leaders have been elevated as the quintessence of what the Founders had in mind in accomplishing our national independence and then channeling the impetus generated with the Revolution into the creation of a new form of government, one that is “part national” and part federal.” These few are forced to serve as heralds of a “golden moment” of “perfect toleration” and public enlightenment, the embodiments of reason, and are put forward as windows on the American soul, on the collective spirit from which, as a people and polity, we most legitimately derive. The difficulty with this tendentious interpretive strategy is that the student of early American history who goes to the trouble to learn about the private lives of a reasonable number of important public figures in the original thirteen states can discredit it with ease. The selective, disingenuous past visible when filtered through such a list is one well-calculated to foster a partisan misuse of the Constitution in rearranging the present. With the moderns and impenitent futurists who invoke this authority with reference to religion, the names thus collected are a constant: Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and Benjamin Franklin along with such lesser figures as Benjamin Rush and James Wilson. To this set it is conventional to add that part of Madison which seems to have a natural place in such company. Apart from Madison, none of these heroes is a recognizable Christian. And even about Madison there are certain doubts. The point is that by emphasizing as “representative men” the members of this elite group of deists and secularists, modern interpreters of the First Amendment are thereby released to ignore the distance between the very English/Whig/prescriptive world of the Framers and the favorite political nostrums and simplifications of the contemporary intellectual community. To describe the Framers out a larger body of evidence taken from the entire generation to which they belong—of the 150 to 200 principal Founders of the Republic—is to acquire another view of their composite character, especially with reference to the original American tradition concerning liberty, the state, and religion.

INC on June 4, 2009 at 2:20 PM

Well, anyway, we finally got a speech that didn’t start off with the words, Legacy, or “I inherited.

That alone made it better than most.

I’ll let you guys get back to your criticisms without challenge.

See ya’ next week, when I’m sure we’ll agree on something!

AnninCA on June 4, 2009 at 2:22 PM

Ed, please ban this scum.

MadisonConservative on June 4, 2009 at 10:41 AM

For that?? I didn’t say W. killed those people. I was stating the facts. Wow, someone has a low threshold for disagreements.

dcwvu on June 4, 2009 at 10:48 AM

I disagree, MC. This little idiot is one of the better demonstrations of the mental illness that is liberalism, and should be kept in the petri dish a little longer.

Jaibones on June 4, 2009 at 2:23 PM

I liked his comment alot about how people love democracy when they are not in power, but hate it when they are.

That entire part of his speech was really quite a smack-down of the leaders you mention and others.

AnninCA on June 4, 2009 at 2:20 PM

In what way have Ayman al-Zawahiri or Mohammed Atta ever been in power? What on earth are you talking about?

ProfessorMiao on June 4, 2009 at 2:24 PM

I didn’t take names and play the shame game. LOL* If the shoe fits? :)

AnninCA on June 4, 2009 at 2:16 PM

It would seem like you do not even read (listen to) much of what you write (say). Are you related to Joe Biden, per chance?

As for the shoe, I think it fits you like it was tailor made. At least the left shoe anyway. The right one does not seem to be such a good fit.

MB4 on June 4, 2009 at 2:25 PM

Not that anyone cares, but I take back my comment from the beginning of this thread saying the speech was okay. Now that I really was able to hear the speech a second time, I think it was the typical putrid vomit that spews from our Presidents mouth. Junk.

gator70 on June 4, 2009 at 2:29 PM

AnninCA determine the ld50 of all your medications, double that value and ingest.

daesleeper on June 4, 2009 at 2:29 PM

Ed, please ban this scum.

MadisonConservative on June 4, 2009 at 10:41 AM

Off with his head! Sentence first – verdict afterwards.

Cheshire Cat on June 4, 2009 at 2:30 PM

Cheshire Cat on June 4, 2009 at 2:30 PM

I think MadisonConservative considered the evidence to be in!!

INC on June 4, 2009 at 2:43 PM

INC on June 4, 2009 at 2:43 PM

Thank you for backing me up, my friend.

kingsjester on June 4, 2009 at 2:48 PM

Surprisingly good? Surely you jest, Ed.

Buy Danish on June 4, 2009 at 10:02 AM

Yeah, it’s not clear exactly what Ed thought he was going to do, maybe break in the middle for midday prayers?

I am still stunned that liberals think every conversation with Islamists starts with a guilt-trip about the friggin’ Crusades. Because what says (half) white liberal guilt better than apologizing for an 11th century holy war?

Yeah; great speech, Ed.

Jaibones on June 4, 2009 at 2:48 PM

Of course.

But that doesn’t make us a “Christian” nation. There is a difference. Subtle, but profoundly different, particularly when talking about theocracies.

AnninCA on June 4, 2009 at 2:09 PM

Historically and as evidenced by our founding documents, we are a Christian nation. Our laws, our Constitution was based on the Judeo-Christian ethic.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

It is because of our foundation…which is based in the understanding that we are created beings with certain inalienable rights…that we have the freedoms that we have (at least nominally) today.

This ethic respects the free exercise of religion without government intervention. The Establishment clause has been bastardized to make it look like our founders wanted to protect the state from the church, when really it was the other way around. The founding fathers wanted to protect the church, protect religious expression without fear of consequences from the government.

There is a huge difference between being a Christian nation and being a Theocracy.

Ironically most (if not all) Muslim nations are theocracies…to the point that if you disobey rules in the Koran, you are punished by the state.

powerpro on June 4, 2009 at 2:53 PM

So Eddie, when did you become a eunuch for Obama?

Lincoln on June 4, 2009 at 2:17 PM

Not fair. I completely disagree with Ed’s take on this speech, but anyone who thinks Ed is “a eunuch for Obama” is just being dishonest.

Jaibones on June 4, 2009 at 2:55 PM

kingsjester on June 4, 2009 at 2:48 PM

Anytime!

We have a couple of books by Bradford and I took the time to put some key quotes into a Word doc just to use for a situation like this one!

INC on June 4, 2009 at 3:05 PM

Michael Medved is just ripping into Barry right now. I don’t always agree with him, but he is spot on on this.

Buy Danish on June 4, 2009 at 3:14 PM

Admit it, Ed – Allah put you up to this, didn’t he? 456 comments and I count three people who agree with your analysis. At his most atheist, Palin-bashing worst, AP never got 456 comments with almost no one agreeing with him.

It’s a ruse, isn’t it?

Jaibones on June 4, 2009 at 3:21 PM

Even Fox News has some woman contributer, “Judith somebody”, going gaga over Obama’s speech. He also has some Conservatives convinced in this speech, (case in point – this blog).

He’ll never convince me of anything, but I have to admit, POTUS has the gift of con. I’ll bet he could sell sand in Egypt.

Susanboo on June 4, 2009 at 3:44 PM

Sorry Ed, but you are wrong. Obama is a menace to America because he doesn’t know what he doesn’t know. I’ll bet the Israelis are moving ahead with their plans to take out Iran.
Obama is going to be as surprised at his failure as will be his fans.
He is an ego-maniac.

Randy

williars on June 4, 2009 at 3:44 PM

Susanboo on June 4, 2009 at 3:44 PM

That was Judith Miller. She’s a total moron. It’s surprising that she breathes on her own.

progressoverpeace on June 4, 2009 at 3:51 PM

Baxter Greene on June 4, 2009 at 12:02 PM

You both are forgetting the men and women of the United States Armed Forces who have died in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere during that time period.

Rangeley on June 4, 2009 at 12:09 PM

I do not take lightly or “forget” about the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform.

The liberal was whining about terrorist attacks and insinuating that Bush had not done as good a job as Obama is doing.

If you read my post,you would have seen that terrorist attacks on our Soldiers were included:

May: Suicide bombers killed 10 Americans, and killed and wounded many others, at housing compounds for westerners in Saudi Arabia.
October: More bombings of United States housing compounds in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killed 26 and injured 160.

Our men and women lost on the battlefield are not considered deceased by terrorist attacks.

War deaths are attributed to a different category.

Your insinuation that I don’t respect or take seriously the deaths of our Soldiers may be your opinion,but it is certainly not fact.
I have blogged for years and not one single word of disrespect towards our military has come from one of my posts.
Disparaging our military is a serious accusation that should come backed up with facts,not your opinion that means little to nothing to me so far.

Baxter Greene on June 4, 2009 at 3:52 PM

MadisonConservative on June 4, 2009 at 1:29 PM

Yeah, that I haven’t had time. Nice try, no cigar. Better luck next time defending the ignorant Ed’s utterances praising an apologist speech at an anti-Semitic university. Perhaps you share those views.

Debbie Schlussel on June 4, 2009 at 4:06 PM

Ed–friend of pan-Muslim Grover Norquist–thinks that a speech at and praising an openly anti-Semitic university that is home base for the Muslim Brotherhood, is “surprisingly good.” Why am I not surprised? This is what happens when you have ignoramuses commenting on something–ie., Islam–that they know nothing about. Guess I, again, shouldn’t be surprised since he also asked and took a poll whether a blatantly anti-Semitic cartoon was anti-Semitic.

Like I said, Ed and CAIR both love the speech. And CAIR actually knows what it’s doing here.

Debbie Schlussel on June 4, 2009 at 4:09 PM

Good thing Bush was there to show them the way.

Baxter Greene on June 4, 2009 at 12:02 PM

LOL, joke’s on us.
maverick muse on June 4, 2009 at 1:28 PM

Your through post made some good points,but had nothing to do with my statement regarding Bush “showing” Obama how to fight the war on terror.

My post was specifically stating the success and policies by the Bush administration concerning the War on Terror and how Obama has adopted many of these same policies that the liberals whined and cried about until Obama started using them.

Nothing about the state of the Republican party in Texas,or Bush 1,or the state of the Republican party in General.

Taking my quote out of context to prove some other point really makes no sense.
If you are upset about the state of the Republican party,a thread talking about the state of the Republican party or taking a comment about someone praising Bush about the state of the Republican Party makes sense.
None of which my quote was or is attributed to.

Baxter Greene on June 4, 2009 at 4:10 PM

Susanboo on June 4, 2009 at 3:44 PM

That was Judith Miller. She’s a total moron. It’s surprising that she breathes on her own.

progressoverpeace on June 4, 2009 at 3:51 PM

Yeah, wow! Listening to her describe Obama’s speech was like being back at Greek Week in college, listening to Muffy talk about how great her sorority was. What a ditz!!

Susanboo on June 4, 2009 at 4:10 PM

kingsjester on June 4, 2009 at 1:48 PM

Patrick Henry and a few others had originally wanted to have the words “Jesus Christ” in place of “Almighty God” in the preamble to the constitution. He did not prevail and Jefferson took the adopted words “to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahomedan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.”

Annar on June 4, 2009 at 4:16 PM

Well, anyway, we finally got a speech that didn’t start off with the words, Legacy, or “I inherited.

That alone made it better than most.

AnninCA on June 4, 2009 at 2:22 PM

He was dealing with the legacy of Muhammad on his own turf but saying so would not be PC and potentially fatal and it would really be a reach to blame Bush for Islam but an initial draft might have tried however the camels ate it.

Annar on June 4, 2009 at 4:23 PM

You are quite witty. Too bad it’s always the same ad hominem attacks, which is the hobgoblin of petty little minds.

You really could have done more with your brains.

AnninCA on June 4, 2009 at 1:41 PM

Hannah Arendt would have a field day with you. Your ultra passive-aggressiveness almost, but not quite, hides the banality of your evil. I hope you appreciate the promotion from dumb cow.

JiangxiDad on June 4, 2009 at 4:28 PM

The speech will be forgotten. It will all amount to nothing. The Muslim’s over there do not share our version of reality nor do their share our goals. If anything they are radicalizing even more in the face of Obama’s weakness.

echosyst on June 4, 2009 at 4:29 PM

Susanboo on June 4, 2009 at 4:10 PM

Judith Miller used to be the Time’s femme terrible before Maureen Dowd. She was the lady who went to jail rather than reveal some info she said to have in the Valerie Plame/Scooter Libby affair (you’ll have to google for the details.) Turns out she was full of sh*t–I believe her source had long before given her permission to reveal him. In any case, she was fired from the Times, tried a few days at the WSJ where she flamed out, and hasn’t been heard from since. I’m surprised she’s on Fox now because she’s a bit old and her cup size isn’t that large if I remember correctly, but I’m sure she needs money. I think it would be best to call her a news whore. In no case should you take what she says at face value.

JiangxiDad on June 4, 2009 at 4:33 PM

I think MadisonConservative considered the evidence to be in!!

INC on June 4, 2009 at 2:43 PM

I think we should ban megs mccain for masquerading as MC.

TTheoLogan on June 4, 2009 at 4:33 PM

Obama kissed Iran’s ass over the British instigated coup reinstating the Shah by manipulating Iran’s various populations against each other via CIA Operation Ajax. Churchill, the British Empire hold-out, personally motivated Eisenhower to unleash American operatives in order to protect the oil industrial heavy British investments in the Middle East, specifically Iran. Eisenhower appointed Kermit “Kim” Roosevelt to head the CIA Operation Ajax in Iran. Trumann hold-outs in Washington argued unsuccessfully against Churchill’s propaganda that Mossadegh the democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister was a communist agent who had to be disposed of to prevent the “domino effect” turning all of Islam communist during the Cold War.

In hind sight, following the USSR occupation of Afghanistan, we can note that Russian influence in the Middle East need not have been interpreted as Russian domination making Islam a Russian satellite region.

Kermit was Teddy’s grandson, and his father committed suicide while an alcoholic CIA Intelligence Officer stationed in Alaska.

The weirdest thing to discover about Kermit (besides naming his son Kermit Jr.) is that he was absolutely opposed to the organization of the state of Israel, and actively consistently published and campaigned against Zionism.

So Obama repudiates Kermit Roosevelt’s CIA Operation Ajax that was not anti-Persian people but pro-British style colonial duration, overstaying and overreaching rightful influence in the Middle East, Iran specifically, not only raping Iran’s natural resources but coercing Iran’s political life into subjugation to British Oil investment interests. The British really f8cked the US with its “superior” intelligence. And Churchill’s part was a replay of how he handled things as a young man serving the British Empire in India.

But evidently, had it not been for his Ajax assignment that stemmed from Winston Churchill’s “British Intelligence” influencing the CIA, Kermit Roosevelt’s anti-Israeli sentiments WOULD have aligned with the popular nationalist Iranian element who elected the Prime Minister Mossadegh whomKermit was assigned to ruin. Kermit went too far on all counts, documenting backwash. He chose to imprison an innocent man for years and commit him to house arrest until his death.

Of course Kermit had to clear his name for posterity. How convenient to have been in control of all American documents from the era regarding the incidents concerned.

Twenty-six years later, Kim Roosevelt took the unusual step of writing a book about how he and the CIA carried out the operation. He called his book Countercoup to press home the idea that the CIA coup was staged only to prevent a takeover of power by the Iranian Communist Party (Tudeh) closely backed by the Soviet Union. He also may have meant to imply that the exile of the Shah constituted the initial coup, and that he was merely restoring the rightful leader to power.

Roosevelt was certainly arguing that Mossadegh had to be removed to prevent a communist takeover of Iran because of his seizure of the oil industry and his other Socialist reforms as well as his cooperation with the Tudeh Party. This view was shared by many in the Intelligence community, although most notably the head of the CIA station in Iran resigned rather than participate in the coup. Many outside the intelligence community, including some in the Truman administration, had felt that Mossadegh should be kept in power to prevent a Communist takeover.

It took a twisted Obama to bring up Operation Ajax to curry favor. How well did Jimmy Carter’s deference to Islam help him, Americans or Muslims for that matter? Obama can’t play Muslim brother to Islamofascists, only their tool. And the only thing to come from Obama’s olive branch to Islam will be destabilization of Israel and of the USA. Europe has already destabilized into Muslim hands with the possible exceptions (for different and similar reasons) of Germany and of Russia.

maverick muse on June 4, 2009 at 4:51 PM

I prefer Robert Spencer’s take. And he’s the expert.

Connie on June 4, 2009 at 4:53 PM

Obama spoke truth to power today!

abobo on June 4, 2009 at 4:56 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6 7