The Anti-Politician in Cairo
By Al Giordano
Politicians, in general, are a reactive caste. They look at things as they are, and opportunistically seek out and study the cracks and weaknesses in society in order to put themselves at its helm. Most believe (and those that don’t believe, pretend) they are doing this in service of a higher ideal: right or left, liberal or conservative, progressive or religious, whatever, but because the great majority of them are essentially reacting to the same set of seemingly inexorable current events, the sum of their actions is that of constructing individual fiefdoms that look much the same no matter what ideology or flag flies over them.
And then there are the rare historical figures that appear now and then in human events to disregard those base reactive impulses with enough discipline to first develop their own idea of how things ought to be. And only after developing a detailed yet clear vision for society do they then enter the political fray. Probably the best example in the last century of such an anti-politician was Mohandas K. Gandhi, who returned home to India at the age of 46, after winning civil rights for immigrants in South Africa. He found a homeland thirsting for independence from the British Empire and its impositions. A media hero and cause celébre upon his return to Indian shores, the pro-independence advocates and parties sought Gandhi out to lead a revolution against the Crown.
Gandhi – conscious that after being away for 27 years in London and South Africa he did not know his native country well enough to lead it – instead imposed upon himself a moratorium against speaking to the press, and embarked upon a listening tour through the forgotten and impoverished regions of India in order to first understand what the real yearnings and realities of its people were. Only after he felt he had a comprehensive enough vision for what kind of better society was possible there did he enter the fray that, as history knows, won independence for the region, while showing the world a new way to fight for freedom.
Listening to the President’s remarks in Cairo this morning – billed as a speech to all the Muslims in the world – it is clear that in Barack Obama our moment in history has one such transcendent leader.
This is an admission that infuriates some of my friends when I say it (it bothers them to distraction because it challenges so many presumptions that were accurate until he came along, but that they cynically thought reflected the permanent state of man and woman). The admission – Obama is that kind of great historical figure, one, perhaps, like Gandhi – is filled with paradox, as he achieved that standing through the messy art of electoral politics (in a country where the voting system is severely retarded by money, which is to say, capitalism) and he now heads what is still an Empire and the most powerful one in human history.
Obama’s rise to power does not erase that the Empire he commands grew through many atrocious acts of war, domination and economic pillage of other lands and peoples even as it began as the first and greatest model of how to cast off imperialist chains. The good and the bad of the United States of America grew up together, coiled around each other like DNA helixes, simultaneously making the country both an engine for human progress but also for unprecedented harm all at once. The debate is not, and correctly should never be, a question of “is America good or evil,” but, rather, which side of its schizophrenic split personality wins the upper hand in each moment.
The best side of America appeared today in Cairo. And it feels like it has been so long since it has materialized that one’s windpipes must share the gasp of shock with the exhale of great relief. Is that really us? Oh my, it is. Or it still can be.
All those words are preface to some annotations I made regarding the President’s speech, which he began, first, by acknowledging how Muslims and their nations have been shat upon historically so many times by US policy:
The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations...
I do not claim to be an Islamic scholar, and I might be wrong about this, but it is my sense that Islam, in general, shares a major character trait or flaw with the other large monotheistic sects, especially with the many diverse branches of Judeo-Christianity. Monotheism seems, to me, to share residence with a kind of dual inferiority-superiority complex that believes its own belief system to be the best or “only” true path and whose collective ego is wounded, again and again, when it feels that its superior contributions to human progress are disregarded by the believers in a different god.
We can observe this troubled dynamic in the fundamentalist strains of most faiths, including Judeo-Christianity. Islam, estimated to be the second largest religion in the world, and its peoples have more often than not been on the wrong end of the gun and the short end of the stick. It is that reality that caused the cauldron of resentment to boil over in the sheer destructive rage of terrorisms now divorced from any coherent path of insurgency toward liberation.
The monotheistic ideologies also share this dogma, applied against each other: We created human progress. We are the great inventors. We did it best, better than you. And if you disrespect us for it, fuck you.
This is exacerbated, in the case of Islam, because Islam really did perfect the monotheist model in ways that Judeo-Christian ideologies had not. (I’m not choosing sides here: I’m offering the perspective of an atheist who doesn’t “believe” in any of their leaps of faith. These are merely the observations of an outsider from all of them.) It is also my sense that Islamic culture, in general, speaks in more direct terms than the euphemisms so common in Judeo-Christian culture, where prejudices are so painstakingly masked with pretty words to disguise the bigotries and hatreds that underlie them. The President has clearly studied this more direct Islamic way of speaking, and adopted it for his speech today:
I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly to each other 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. As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." (Applause.)
He then spoke directly to that part of Islam that has felt wounded by the disrespect and disregard that Judeo-Christian society has so often heaped upon it:
As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam -- at places like Al-Azhar -- that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities -- (applause) -- it was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality. (Applause.)
And he shared, in words, quoting John Adams - "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims" – and Thomas Jefferson - "I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be,” noting that Jefferson kept a copy of the Holy Koran “in his personal library” - some of the common philosophical underpinnings that American culture shares with Islam.
In doing so, he demonstrated it also in deed: Paying homage to what were essentially the secular prophets of Western democracy, Adams and Jefferson, he demonstrated that another shared cultural commonality is to state aloud the respect and debt a culture has to its founding prophets. I found that move quite impressive: the choice of secular, rather than religious, prophets to cite was so cleverly slipped in as a disarming measure.
He continued, speaking of the aforementioned “good” side of America:
I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. (Applause.)
But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. (Applause.) 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. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum -- "Out of many, one."
And the President kept at it, noting that the USA “includes nearly 7 million American Muslims in our country today who, by the way, enjoy incomes and educational levels that are higher than the American average,” and that it is home to 1,200 mosques, and that “the United States 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.” He also mentioned the genocides of Bosnia and Darfur as “a stain on our collective conscience,” provoking strong applause from the Egyptian university students in the audience.
Then he got down to addressing specific fault lines in US relations with parts of the Islamic regions.
On Afghanistan:
Now, make no mistake: We do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We see no military -- 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 now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.
In making his case against violent terrorism, he cited the Holy 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.) The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism -- it is an important part of promoting peace.
On Iraq:
Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future -- and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. And I have made it clear to the Iraqi people -- (applause) -- I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. And that's why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq's democratically elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all of our troops from Iraq by 2012. (Applause.)
On the attacks of September 11, Washington’s violent response, and his actions now to correct the wrongs committed in reaction:
Nine-eleven 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 traditions and 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. (Applause.)
On Judaism and Israel:
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, it is ignorant, and it is 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 Palestine:
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 60 years they've 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. And America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own. (Applause.)
And, specifically, on the emerging US policy toward the Israel-Palestine conflict:
…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. (Applause.)
I would call this next passage the “money ‘graph,” that part of the speech that carried the kernel of the President’s vision for society, one formed as a community organizer and youthful observer of the US Civil Rights movement:
Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and it does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign neither of courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That's not how moral authority is claimed; that's how it is surrendered.
He spoke of nuclear proliferation, specifically regarding Iran, and acknowledged the United States’ role in creating the Petri dish out of which fundamentalist theocracy gained public support in that country:
This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is in fact a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I've made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward.
And he repeated a key point of the Obama Doctrine that he has stated with different words at other times, that democracy, by its very definition, cannot be imposed:
I know -- I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: No system of government can or should be imposed by 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. These are not just American ideas; they are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere. (Applause.)
The President’s unique role in history is largely derived from the paradox that he is a politician who is also an anti-politician, underscored here:
This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they're out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. (Applause.) So no matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who would hold power: You must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; 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.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Barack Obama, we love you!
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you. (Applause.) The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom….
Those words, above, were pitched directly at the youth of Egypt and of other less-than-democratic Islamic majority countries many of whom, after today, will likely and openly refer to themselves as Obamists. The ju-jitsu of today’s speech came in the transformation of the US presidency from a force long regarded as oppressive and intrusive to, rather, an ally in their own aspirations for liberation in their own lands. There is not a nuclear bomb or weapon of mass destruction ever made that could have possibly had such an impact. I am certain, based on my own lifelong study of social movements and their relationship to leaders, that very soon, in different parts of the Islamic world, we will see evidence of the shift that took place today. I wrote, yesterday, that the President would likely aim for the “hearts and minds” of Islamic youth. But what occurred today exceeded even my own out-on-a-limb expectation, another "three point shot" on the global basketball court.
Again and again throughout the 55 minute speech, the President kept hammering at the theme of praising and recognizing the accomplishments of Islamic peoples, and finding commonalities, where he could, with those of the United States. Here, on the principle of Freedom of Religion:
Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind and the heart and the soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it's being challenged in many different ways.
Among some Muslims, there's a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of somebody else's faith. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld -- whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. (Applause.) And if we are being honest, fault lines must be closed among Muslims, as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.
Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together….
On women’s rights:
The sixth issue -- the sixth issue that I want to address is women's rights. (Applause.) I know –- I know -- and you can tell from this audience, that there is a healthy 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. (Applause.) 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, Indonesia, we've 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.
I am convinced that our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons. (Applause.)…
And then back to his wider vision for global society:
I know there are many -- Muslim and non-Muslim -- who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn't worth the effort -- that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There's so much fear, so much mistrust that has built up over the years. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country -- you, more than anyone, have the ability to reimagine the world, to remake this world…
It's easier to start wars than to end them. It's easier to blame others than to look inward. It's easier to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There's one rule that lies at the heart of every religion -- that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. (Applause.) This truth transcends nations and peoples -- a belief that isn't new; that isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the hearts of billions around the world. It's a faith in other people, and it's what brought me here today.
We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.
The Holy Koran tells us: "O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another."
The Talmud tells us: "The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace."
The Holy Bible tells us: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." (Applause.)
The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now that must be our work here on Earth.
Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you. Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause.)
Those were the words, bringing with them the deeds, of the President of the country we wanted to grow up in, but had until recently been denied.
But since we are still growing up – as individuals and as peoples – we can hopefully recognize that we have begun to obtain so much of we had missed: that which is good about America, finally, overcoming so much that was so terribly and harmfully done in our name.
Obama, the anti-politician, has tricked us today into listening to a speech we were told was directed at all the Muslims in the world. Truth is, it was just as much directed at us, the citizens of his own country. Today's words offered a guide to what the United States of America should have been, and might still become, if we apply its vision from the grassroots up at this moment rife with the potential for historic human progress.
Update: Field Hand Laura M. Poyneer has assembled a wonderful set of annotations for the various references to Islam scripture and culture in the speech. Check it out.
Email this page
Digg
Delicious
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Comments
Once again, Al, you've made
Submitted June 4, 2009 - 3:15 pm by Richard (not verified)Once again, Al, you've made me cry. I was waiting for your reaction all day. Thanks for your analysis.
Reactions are telling
Submitted June 4, 2009 - 3:24 pm by Jim (not verified)Consider these reactions (which I think are accurate):
From Saudia Arabia: mostly glowing reports, cautious optimism
From Israel: mixed; praise from the left, outrage from the right
From Palestine: mixed again
From Europe: largely raves
From the right-wing in US: mixed: some wing-nut remarks, but some praise (Joe Scarborough said that Obama must be Bin Laden's worst nightmare:
From the left blogosphere: mostly lavish praise, but virtual silence from OpenLeft (only diary there is Chris Bowers expressing concern that we will be in Afghanhistan forever)
It would have been impossible for Obama to say anything substantive without ruffling a few feathers, as he did. But even his critics are praising him for honesty. I don't think a more positive, over-all reaction was possible.
The only thing better than Obama's speech
Submitted June 4, 2009 - 3:44 pm by Allan Braueris reading Al Giordano's analysis of it. Thank you.
Immensely satisfying as a supporter
Submitted June 4, 2009 - 4:09 pm by Scott Knoxto hear this speech, and watch Osama bin Laden himself making the same mistakes that all of Obama's opponents seem to, forcing their discordant voices up a notch in reaction to the President's outreach. (Nothing for years, then two messages in two days?? Tsk, someone needs a Xanax..) I think this speech will be very well received by the 'swing voters' of the region, and as you say - there's nothing in today's speech that can't apply anywhere on the Earth, home or abroad.
I saw the speech on tape this morning, and ended up with the "Morning Joe" crew for analysis - and even they had to dig up Lynne Liz Cheney to find anyone that would fault the speech, and of course all she had was the same ol' Frank Luntz fear-mongering talking points - it was such weak sauce in comparison, all I could do is laugh.
I hope the neurologists in DC were on-call today, I suspect more than a few heads exploded over at AIPAC today.
Amazing speech-Amazing Analysis
Submitted June 4, 2009 - 3:53 pm by Lorie Cavin@Richard said it already. I did not break into tears during the speech replay late this morning. I, too waited patiently for Al's post. Half way through, well, that's when the tears flowed. I have never been so moved by any politician, until Obama. I am so glad that Al continues to give his analysis of US, the nation and the people.
Listening to people like Liz Cheney give her opinion on the speech makes me even more determined to work with Obama on issues that are important to our country, even if they are not my issues.
Obama saw a gliph while touring the Pyramids today. It was a guy with big ears. "Hey. That looks like me!" It did look like him. Maybe some of the Egyptians of old knew this day would come.
What Allan Brauer said
Submitted June 4, 2009 - 4:20 pm by Suzy Shurethank you, Al.
It feels so good to share all this with my fellow Field hands...
Two valuable men - Obama and Al
Submitted June 4, 2009 - 4:54 pm by JoAnn Jones"Is that really us? Oh my, it is. Or it still can be." You nailed my reaction exactly, Al. I woke up at 5:00 a.m. listening to our wonderful president, and my immediate thought was that I could not believe that we had actually elected this man. Enough of us had the good sense to see what could be and helped to make it happen. We must continue to support him and make it happen over and over. The same is true, on a smaller scale, regarding Al's analysis. We need to keep donating so that we do not lose his voice in this important time.
JoAnn
Speaking as a Pakistani-American Muslim...
Submitted June 4, 2009 - 4:56 pm by TNK (not verified)Speaking as a Pakistani-American Muslim...
I really liked the content of the speech and could not find any disagreement with it. In Muslim circles we say a lot of things that probably don't get heard "outside" and it was funny and gratifying to watch the leader of the free world say some of those same things. He definitely did his research and tapped into what many Muslims want non-Muslims to know. The thoughts in my head more than once: "Holy crap, did he just say that? No one says that. If you want to know the Muslims did that, you have to tune into Nova at 11:00 pm on a Saturday night. And nobody talks about Iran and the U.S. in the 1950s. Holy crap!"
On the other hand, I felt his delivery was somewhat lacking. I think the people in the Muslim (esp Arab) lands are more apt to wear their heart on their sleeve and would have been touched if there were more moments of emotion. Not a lot, but a bit more soaring rhetoric and emotionality. It felt a little cold, somewhat lacking in the ability to inspire. I guess he was positioning himself as the voice of moderation. I wanted a moment where he said some thing like he did during the campaign, something along the lines of "let this be the moment when we turned our backs on extremism, let this be the moment when we came together, etc." I think that would have gone over well and also been more inspirational for the youth. He already put himself out there to reflect their dreams (what a position to be in!) and as a way to talk about moving forward. Some lofty rhetoric may have drawn in more people.
Still, a great speech, and one that was much-needed. The anticipation was very high, in Pakistan at least, and I think he succeeded.
Proud of Obama
Submitted June 4, 2009 - 4:56 pm by Rachel Q (not verified)I'm proud today that Obama is representing our country and providing moral leadership in a troubled world. I'm still amazed we elected such a president.
Al, I like your analysis of the paradox of Obama's moral leadership. He is breaking the mold created by Ghandi and MLK by accepting a position of power - and he seems comfortable enough with his own values and strengths to accept power and wealth.
If anything, this reminds of Naomi Wolf's book Fire with Fire - I haven't read it for years, but it promoted the idea that women could be stronger as women and feminists by accepting power and money than by denying them and remaining marginalized.
In the same way, Obama seems to have enough strength of conviction to govern with with it rather than criticizing from the outside. Historically power and wealth have led to corruption, and the acceptance of power has always been rejected by purists. To the extent that Obama can carry out moral leadership from his position of power, he will be a great historical figure indeed.
Yes but
Submitted June 4, 2009 - 4:58 pm by some other george (not verified)Al, I basically agree with you in this. The bold vision, the championing of great ideals, the astute maneuvering for hearts and minds, combined with the political savvy to actually move that sort of agenda forward, bespeaks a political leader we haven't seen since - when? Dunno, but a good while for sure.
But then what are we to make of this same visionary leader whose support for single payer is tepid at best, who won't abolish warrentless wiretapping, who sits back when the funds to close Gitmo are denied, who seems willing to water down EFCA ... I could go on but you get the idea.
I never expected to agree with every single thing he did, but you'd think there would be some unifying principles. How can the same person that made this speech not be pushing for some of the same basic equity issues that got him to where he could give it?
Or maybe, is this "the good and the bad of the United States of America"? Or is he keeping his powder dry? And for what?
Al, you've proven to be pretty darn good at reading the tea leaves. What's going on here?
Thank you.
Submitted June 4, 2009 - 4:58 pm by Elizabeth DuvertThank you so very much, Al.
E. D.
Spot on, again
Submitted June 4, 2009 - 5:25 pm by Anne CrumptonAll day I've been trying to capture my feelings after the speech was over. Your words, Al, said it all:
"There is not a nuclear bomb or weapon of mass destruction ever made that could have possibly had such an impact."
Elections have consequences. Thank goodness.
Well said.
Submitted June 4, 2009 - 5:36 pm by mjb (not verified)I woke up at 3 in the morning to watch it live and it was worth every bit of fatigue I'm feeling right now at work.
I can't wait to look back on this moment again in 5, 10, 25 & 50 years.
The President is no shrinking violet. 'Course not he's a hooper. :)
@Richard
Submitted June 4, 2009 - 5:46 pm by Kathleen HarganMe too, Richard. And through the tears this enormous sense of pride... I am so proud of our president... something not felt in almost a lifetime... and Al, Thank you.
Obama!!!
Submitted June 4, 2009 - 5:57 pm by IVA (not verified)Once again, your analysis was pitch perfect. Thanks for your valuable input, Al.
a great speech, let's work to back it up
Submitted June 4, 2009 - 6:19 pm by Jeff Larson (not logged in) (not verified)Thanks Al for your wonderful analysis. A person on PBS tonight made a comment that hit me as so true. She said the speech transcended the language of referring to Muslims as "the other". This explained perhaps why the last part of the speech resonated so deeply with me. I think his language convincingly explains that we are all in this together, sisters and brothers alike.
I just hope we can show some policy shifts soon to back this up more.
$25 in the cup
Submitted June 4, 2009 - 6:47 pm by Kat (not verified)in honor of Al, our President, and this amazing day.
Bless you
Submitted June 4, 2009 - 6:56 pm by Tien Le (not verified)Wow, Al, what a work of art you've produced today. We are so lucky to have your talented lens to view the world. Thank you!
@ George
Submitted June 4, 2009 - 7:21 pm by Al GiordanoGeorge - You write:
"But then what are we to make of this same visionary leader whose support for single payer is tepid at best, who won't abolish warrentless wiretapping, who sits back when the funds to close Gitmo are denied, who seems willing to water down EFCA ... I could go on but you get the idea."
I'm not sure we are working with the same set of facts. To wit:
1. "Support for single payer": Throughout the 2007-08 campaign, candidate Obama proposed a health plan that was not single payer (only Kucinich, among the candidates, supported single payer), but rather the public-private option that is on the table now. His plan was very similar to that of Clinton and Edwards, except that it did not go down the terrible road of mandating people to buy insurance (I consider that a plus). While earlier in his political career Obama did favor single-payer, so he's obviously not hostile to the concept, he's looking at a Congress that will never, ever pass it. That's a problem with Congress, not with him. Frankly, he could set his entire grassroots army to march on Congress and it still wouldn't get through that den of industry-supported thieves.
2. "Warrantless wiretapping": Look, he was clear on that during the campaign. Why would you expect his stance to be different now? The whole FISA thing to me - a dissident American journalist abroad who exactly fits the profile of who gets wiretapped under it - is a nontroversy because the US doesn't even need that FISA law to have other countries do the dirty work for it. He did say during the campaign that he would work to place greater limits on it, and nothing suggests so far that he won't. I'm completely content with that. Frankly, in this age of total private sector surveillance and technology, government eavesdropping is only a small part of the problem. If you don't want something heard, don't talk about it on the telephone or the Internet, period. That's true with or without FISA. More hours and pixels have been wasted on what is a purely symbolic battle that means nothing to those of us most affected by it. It gets nothing but a big yawn from me, especially since the push on civil liberties on most other fronts is in the right direction.
3. "Sits back when the funds to close Gitmo are denied": Ahem. He convened a nationally televised speech at the National Archives last month making the case for it. That's not "sitting back." And we heard from members of Congress, including Harry Reid, who it impacted to change their tune! Watch, listen and learn as he turns that one around.
4. "Willing to water down EFCA": Look, this one is plain and simple. The votes aren't there yet for EFCA because a group of Democrats in the Senate are not yet for it. The President is not a dictator. He doesn't have the power to ram anything down Congress' throat (and most progressives should agree that we wouldn't want a system in which he could). Going for the best possible deal is not "willingness to water down" something.
In each of these areas, your primary complaint is with Congress. Why the overweening focus on the executive branch then? The Constitution set up a system of branches and checks and balances. Congress is where each of those fights have to be waged. The problem is not the President.
@ TNK
Submitted June 4, 2009 - 7:46 pm by Laura M. PoyneerYour comments on Obama's delivery echo things that were said particularly during the primaries. It is Obama's natural style to be calm rather than emotional, and he can sometimes come across as "professorial". I think that when he has information and arguments that he wants to convey and for them to be the focus, he does not want his delivery to distract from it. I think if people have watched him a little, they are familiar with his style and would rather he was himself than that he put on a manner that is not authentic in order to appeal to a particular audience.
Tears, Here Too...
Submitted June 4, 2009 - 7:47 pm by Pamela Hilliard Owens@Richard: Oh Al, I didn't get past your first few sentences for the tears to start flowing...because (thank goodness I saw the speech live @ 6:15 am ET) and then because of your analysis...
I've always said that Our President and Our Lead Fieldhand are two of the most brilliant people I know.
Of course the President couldn't do everything in that speech; he said so himself. It was an opening, a beginning of the changing of hearts and minds.
Someone upthread actually listened to Lynn Cheney; I didn't. Didn't listen to Pat Buchanan either.
People like that don't realize that giving respect to other people's culture is the first step in helping to reduce their anger towards you. The President said that by offering other alternatives to terrorist groups to young men susceptible to such groups because of anger and hopelessness, America is made more safe, not less.
The fact that he correctly pronounced Holy Qu'ran and made sure to say "Peace Be Unto Them" when referrring to the Founders of all three of the Great Faiths was HUGE. The President, at the very beginning of his speech, said "Shukran" or "Thank You" in Arabic.
Most of all, he did what he said he would do. He said he would make a speech to the Muslim world when he was a candidate, and everyone called him naive and an appeaser. They were wrong, of course.
He doesn't say one thing to one group of people and another to another group of people. The "haters" just don't know what to do except retreat to their same tired lines that are getting weaker and weaker.
I loved the 'gliph of the man with big ears on a Pyramid!
Al, we owe you a great debt of gratitude for your insight for us.
Thank you, Al...Shukran.
waterprise2 AKA Pam
Liberal with a Capital L!
Speech to the U.S.
Submitted June 4, 2009 - 7:54 pm by Catherine CainAl,
Thank you. I had not thought of him as the anti-politiican but I couldn't agree more and the comparison to Gandhi is insightful. Without most Americans consciously aware of the fact, you are right, the speech was undoubtably also intended for those of us back in the U.S.
I don't know why so many who voted for Obama feel the need to constantly assign an A- instead of an A+ to this type of masterpiece of a speech. It was a masterpiece because of it's intellectual honesty and intelligence and because Obama is comfortable as a citizen of the world. I would love to know how much is his own words and how much was his great speechwriters.
I also enjoyed that Obama got a chance to enjoy the beautiful history and culture of Egypt.
I missed the speech this morning so I'm anxious to get home to hear it on tape tonight.
"Great historical figures"
Submitted June 4, 2009 - 8:02 pm by bonkers (not verified)Yes, President Barack Hussein Obama is certainly one from our time, and in the realm of societal observation, commentary, and Journalism, Al Giordano is one of our "great historical figures" as well. Consistently proven over and over again.
And the best part is, they're both just getting warmed up!
spot on brilliance
Submitted June 4, 2009 - 8:08 pm by jayman (not verified)Brilliant, Al. Simply Brilliant!
The children's table doesn't get it, and they never will, but the adults in the room are giving our POTUS a standing O!
Digg it here:
http://digg.com/politics/The_Anti_Politician_in_Cairo
Liz, not Lynn
Submitted June 4, 2009 - 8:09 pm by Pamela Hilliard OwensI meant "Liz" Cheney when I said "Lynn" Cheney...no matter, I don't listen to her or pay attention to her...no wonder I got her name wrong...
waterprise2 AKA Pam
Liberal with a Capital L!
@ Pamela
Submitted June 4, 2009 - 8:15 pm by Jeff Larson (not logged in_) (not verified)Another highlight for me was something I've been waiting to hear from American leaders for a long time:
"No system of government can or should be imposed by 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."
I wanted to see some respect for the cultures of others and that is what we got in full. Thanks to to skillful touches you noted and lines like this Obama is getting through. Apparently it did strike rather deep. I hope we can keep the momentum to repair this world. Check this out:
"Assalamu Aleikum" — Arabic for "peace be upon you" — he said, triggering applause from the crowd at Cairo University and bringing nods of approval in places like a coffee shop in the West Bank town of Ramallah, where some began calling him "Abu Hussein" — using his Muslim middle name — as a sign of honor.
Abu Hussein? Hannity is gonna have a fit. lol.
Sometimes
Submitted June 4, 2009 - 8:47 pm by feral1 (not verified)I still can't believe this guy is really our president.
Great analysis, Al.
@ Laura M. Poyneer
Submitted June 4, 2009 - 9:21 pm by TNK (not verified)I hear what you're saying. I think the part where I most noticed his "professorial" style was during his "must" statements. I think when you tell someone they "must" do something it works better when it sounds more philosophical and lofty than "professorial".
After my initial post, I did realize I would have liked to see a bit more about the rights of women. It would have been good for him to mention un-Islamic practices such as honor killings and genital mutilation, since he had a section on women's rights anyway.
But like I said, a great speech.
Great article, just one phrase grates
Submitted June 4, 2009 - 10:26 pm by Benjamin MelançonThere is no Judeo-Christian, and I consider the term a weapon of propaganda for the exact opposite end to which Al argued. While it would at least be internally consistent to say "Judaic-Christian-Muslim," splitting one off and leaving the other two has no religious or historical sense and can only serve to foster division with repetition rather than fact or logic.
Al, this is why I'm so happy I found you
Submitted June 4, 2009 - 11:14 pm by rikyrah (not verified)This was wonderful. Thank you so much.
reflections
Submitted June 5, 2009 - 12:31 am by Laura M. PoyneerAs I've been reflecting on the speech over the course of the day, I realized that I've become a bit "spoiled". If you had told me in 2007 that an African-American named Barack Hussein Obama who said all these things would be President of the United States, I would have wondered if you belonged in a padded room! Yet here we are today and it almost seems normal for this man to have given this speech.
Again and again, both Obama himself and the fact that we elected him in November has restored my faith in the America that should have been and that maybe we still can be after all. Al said it so much more eloquently than I could have.
Among the things that is particularly striking to me about the reactions is to see which groups are coming together in their opposition. Some of us had always thought that al-Qa'ida and certain neocons actually saw the world the same way and were working towards what are really the same ends. But now they are making it plain and as Obama goes along, I think this is going to become much more obvious still. I believe that over time, the majority of people will reject these two extremes and begin coming together around the vision that Obama set out.
There is a lot of "words alone aren't enough, they must be followed with actions". Of course they must, but as Al was saying in his previous post, too many people overlook the importance of words as a necessary part of taking action. How can you organize people towards a common effort without first getting them to agree on what the goal is and what the obstacles are? Only words can do that and that is what today's speech was about.
I stayed up way too late to watch it (it was at 3 am here) but it was worth it!
P.S. For those who are interested, I posted to my (otherwise dead) blog with some background on Obama's Islamic citations and allusions and what they mean.
The speech's critics, and the Israeli-Palestinian context
Submitted June 5, 2009 - 12:48 am by Tribunus Plebis (not verified)I subscribe fully to Al's analysis; what follows are some possible extensions of it.
First, the speech's "mush" critics: This evening on The News Hour on PBS, two Muslim critics -- one a U.S.-based professor, and the other a Lebanese editor -- both praised the "rhetoric" of the speech but then complained that it won't mean anything without ensuing actions. The tone of the praise was tepid but their skepticism about what actions might ensue was fervent. It struck me that the latter was being served up to their own base of readers and friends. If you've been slamming U.S. presidents and policies for decades (with some justification), you can't turn on a dime and expect your base to salute the 180 degree maneuver. Keep in mind that American pundits habitually do this too: They have to reassure their constituencies that they haven't gone all gooey on Obama. So a kind of "on the one hand, on the other hand" mush is the result. It just wastes air time.
The other group of critics are the ones whose entire identity as polemical, know-it-all, militant loud-mouths is threatened by a president who offers complete, reasonable arguments and sensible ideas. That includes blow-hards like Limbaugh at home (who said today that Al Qaeda had better hurry up if it wanted to destroy America, because Obama was doing it himself), and it includes the extremists abroad. Some Hamas members liked the speech, but their official spokesperson condemned it -- which is not surprising. Just consider the superlative logic behind the passage that Al quotes above, "...violence is a dead end. It is a sign neither of courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That's not how moral authority is claimed; that's how it is surrendered." Whoa, that shifts the whole argument from the supposed power acquired by killing people (main result: CNN and Fox News coverage), to the question of who has authority to command respect and lead, which is to say, to influence large numbers of people to change their minds and take concerted action in a new direction. No doubt about who had that authority today. But this argument will help, in Palestine, precisely who it should: The tens of thousands of young Palestinians who are sick and tired of the endless cycles of fruitless violence and are trying to develop a new kind of civil resistance to the Israeli occupation that drives up its cost without frightening the living daylights out of the Israeli public by targeting Jewish civilians. That type of Palestinian struggle would create huge dilemmas for Netanyahu and the Israeli right.
We have a president who is opening up entirely new kinds of ways to influence events -- toward greater justice as well as away from systemic violence.
@ Laura
Submitted June 5, 2009 - 12:52 am by Al GiordanoLaura - Thanks so much for your blog post annotating the Islamic references in the speech. I've linked to it in the update above.
I'm no Islamic scholar either, but I know the answer to this...
Submitted June 5, 2009 - 1:20 am by Alexa (not verified)“I do not claim to be an Islamic scholar, and I might be wrong about this, but it is my sense that Islam, in general, shares a major character trait or flaw with the other large monotheistic sects, especially with the many diverse branches of Judeo-Christianity. Monotheism seems, to me, to share residence with a kind of dual inferiority-superiority complex that believes its own belief system to be the best or “only” true path and whose collective ego is wounded, again and again, when it feels that its superior contributions to human progress are disregarded by the believers in a different god.”
You’re wrong about Islam in this regard; you’ve been reading too much Daniel Pipes. :-) Islam made the gods of Christianity and Judaism holy prophets to be honored in Islam; it’s in the actual canon of Islam, if I can use that term. Abraham, Jesus, and Moses are specifically considered holy prophets in Islam and are prayed to five times a day. Islam embraced the religions that came before it, rather than declare that other religions are trash, or that Islam is the one true way. Rabid islamofascist-creator-haters, like Pipes and Horowitz, et al, like to quote parts of what we are told is the Koran that indicate Muslims are supposed to hate and kill anyone who isn’t Muslim, when in fact all this killing stuff is enshrined in the Sanhedrin (Talmud) written much earlier. Since Americans are ignorant of Islamic study, the nonsense Pipes and Horowitz are spreading gets believed.
The university that Obama spoke at Thursday is the oldest university in the world, well over 1,000 years old. And if you would like a reference to Obama’s mention of the significance of Andalucia and Cordoba, read this. Obama must be extremely well-read and educated to understand these distinctions; he impressed the shit out of me. (The Freemasons mentioned in the link I just gave are from the Scottish Right, not the British version, which was an Anglo-Saxon bastardization...emphasis on Saxon...that arose four hundred years ago. The Scottish Right is ancient Celtic, and predates the Greeks. In fact, Greek gods are renamed Celtic gods, but we wont get into that. And the Celtic knowledge is tied to ancient Egypt, which predates the Abrahamic religions.)
I agree 100% with Benjamin Melançon about the use of the term “Judeo-Christian.” It is a “weapon of propaganda.” The reasons for this are too complicated to go into here. But he’s dead right; there is no such thing.
---------------------
People often ask me why Muslims dont toot their horns about their incredible history and astounding inventions and literature. It became a habit starting over 1800 years ago that new Kings (like the Sarcenic kings of 200 AD+ in what is now Iraq) would destroy the history and mention of the rulers that came before them in order to justify saying they were appointed by God. That’s why coinage is so important. It is the only way to trace who ruled who and when. When the Europeans colonized the areas previously ruled by Islam in the 17th and 18th centuries, their historians rewrote what happened, and they wrote the great Islamic history out of existence. I suspect that in the next ten years, as a result of the Internet, over 3/4 of what we were taught as history will have to rewritten. Of course, Americans are kept ignorant by our insistence on only speaking and reading one language in this country, a fool’s ruling if there ever was one.
About that Abu Hussein thing ...
Submitted June 5, 2009 - 2:05 am by Sebastian (not verified)Do you guys remember when Saddam Hussein proclaimed that Gulf War I would be the "Mother of all Battles"?. In Arabic, mother of and father of are ways of expressing size, importance, respect, etc.
Abu means "father of", Abu Hussein hence means father of (all) Husseins, i.e. Hussein the Great (like Alexander the Great).
Even if this can be at least partly attributed to Arabian tendency for theatralics and hyperbole and the thirst of the Arabic world for recognition and respect, it does give a sense how big the impact of the speach was.
@Al and Alexa
Submitted June 5, 2009 - 2:23 am by Laura M. Poyneer@ Laura and Everyone Else...
Submitted June 5, 2009 - 5:26 am by Pamela Hilliard OwensAll of this has been so interesting and enlightening! With your permission, Laura, I'm going to link that great post from your blog to my Detroit-focused blog, also. There are more people of Arab descent in the metro Detroit area than almost anywhere else in the US...many from Lebanon; a lot of Iraqi Christians.
Of course, I never miss a chance to tell anyone who will listen that the Dean of the Washington Press Corps, Helen Thomas (look for the red dress), is a Detroit native and a graduate of Wayne State University. The journalism school is now named after her!
Speaking of blog posts, I've gotta go...I'm behind in my posting schedule! But I'll be back...
Laura, I'll contact you off-site...I have LOTS of questions for you! You can really help me with my students and what they have named my "MidEast Office"!
Al, thank you, thank you, thank you...
waterprise2 AKA Pam
Liberal with a Capital L!
Finally, We Have a President
Submitted June 5, 2009 - 9:54 am by bob h (not verified)who has disavowed the squalid CIA participation in Mossadeq's overthrow, a courageous gesture that I am sure was noticed in Teheran and will probably pay dividends.
I wish he had made the point that the United States will no longer be a party to the use of disproportionate force against and collective punishment of innocent civilians in Palestine, but that would have further upset those who are mad that the speech accorded the Palestinians "equal status".
"Those were the words,
Submitted June 5, 2009 - 10:19 am by Joseph (not verified)"Those were the words, bringing with them the deeds, of the President of the country we wanted to grow up in, but had until recently been denied."
Well said. I love this President.
Thank you, Laura and Alexa
Submitted June 5, 2009 - 11:03 am by Suzy ShureThank you, Laura and Alexa. I really appreciate your generosity in taking the time to help us learn more about Islam. I have tried to read several books, and usually get bogged down! Please, if you have any suggestions of what to read, study, for someone wanting to begin to learn more about Islam, would you post on Field hands or here. Tho I don't want to 'hijack' Al's work!!!!
Thanks again. I think it is so important for those of us who don't know about Islam, to learn more - from people who really understand what they're talking about - thanks again.
Although I may have missed
Submitted June 5, 2009 - 11:35 am by RC (not verified)Although I may have missed it in Al's post and the comments, it doesn't seem to be made clear at any point that Islam, Christianity and Judaism definitely worship the same Deity. The prophets are mentioned, but the unity of these religious theories {the three monotheisms under discussion} is perhaps not made explicit. That's the part of this story that reflects poorly on the path that humanity has taken. How could so much antipathy arise out of the worship of the ineffable? The Quran says: "Words were made for arguments". Of course, we have bombs for that too. The general ignorance of the US population as to exactly what the Quran and the thousands of commentaries written about it actually say is a problem, but all countries with masses of ignorant people have this type of problem. That leads me to another of my Apochryphies: I'm not at all sure that democracies that arise out of an ignorant and easily swayed by demagoguery populace are all that wonderful, and if the US population feels, "Oh, but that wouldn't be us!" then, maybe I'm wasting my typing here. I very much appreciate Al's post and the best observation was that the speech was for everyone, not just "the Muslim world", yet another construct that doesn't really exist.
@ Pam
Submitted June 5, 2009 - 2:27 pm by Laura M. PoyneerPam and everybody else, feel free to link, share, or do whatever you would like with my post. The more people the knowledge is shared with, the better off we all are.
Pam, I sent you a message through the Fieldhands Ning site.
an Israeli view
Submitted June 6, 2009 - 4:39 pm by Rebecca (not verified)I have not posted before but read this blog daily. A voice of sanity in a world of insane moments.
A friend who has a Masters in Arab and Muslim Studies sent this article to me written by a friend of hers. I thought some might find his viewpoint interesting.
To be sure he is not the "main stream" voice of Israel. But as Al said - with a masterful speech opening dialogue among citizens of the world... it will be harder and harder for this voice not to be heard.
Click on the link then click on the article "THE TONE AND THE MUSIC".
http://www.avnery-news.co.il/english/
@Rebecca
Submitted June 7, 2009 - 11:59 am by Anne CrumptonThanks. Well worth the read. Harmony indeed.
"From the very first word, every listener in the hall and in the world felt the honesty of the man, that his heart and his tongue were in harmony, that this is not a politician of the old familiar sort – hypocritical, sanctimonious, calculating. His body language was speaking, and so were his facial expressions."
Great analysis, Al.
Submitted June 7, 2009 - 5:14 pm by Ansel (not verified)Great analysis, Al. President Obama is the first major politician, much less President, who I've heard describe the occupation of the Palestinian territories as... an "occupation." Refreshing honesty and courage there.
This part of your comment above struck me as odd:
3. "Sits back when the funds to close Gitmo are denied": Ahem. He convened a nationally televised speech at the National Archives last month making the case for it. That's not "sitting back." And we heard from members of Congress, including Harry Reid, who it impacted to change their tune! Watch, listen and learn as he turns that one around.
4. "Willing to water down EFCA": Look, this one is plain and simple. The votes aren't there yet for EFCA because a group of Democrats in the Senate are not yet for it. The President is not a dictator. He doesn't have the power to ram anything down Congress' throat (and most progressives should agree that we wouldn't want a system in which he could). Going for the best possible deal is not "willingness to water down" something.
Seems inconsistent. First, you point out that Obama is moving to pressure Congress into closing Gitmo. A majority of Democrats in the Senate voted against allocating the necessary funds for closure. You applaud Obama for speaking out, and cite the impact it's had on Harry Reid's position. You're confident he'll get his way eventually.
With EFCA, isn't it a similar situation, except one about which Obama has been relatively silent? In the very next paragraph you describe Obama as being relatively powerless to get the Senate votes he needs. It makes sense that he's not talking a lot about EFCA because, after all, he's going for the "best possible deal" given the circumstances.
What? Obviously there are differences between closing Gitmo and passing EFCA, and I'm not saying Obama should necessarily try to take it all on at once. But either Obama is the kind of intelligent and resourcesful President/organizer you say he is, one who can usually upset the status quo when he decides to, or he isn't. I think if he wanted to take the lead on passing EFCA, he could, but for various reasons he's decided not to take it on right now.
@ Ansel
Submitted June 7, 2009 - 8:01 pm by Al GiordanoAnsel - I don't see any contradiction between the President's having used the bully pulpit on Guantanamo closing (remember, it came after it voted 90-6 to deny the funding) and his not (yet) having used it on EFCA (for which there have been plenty of reports about the White House using muscle behind the scenes on key Senators). EFCA is not imminent or "ripe" yet for the final battle. I'd say it has a chance this year.
But Guantanamo became much more urgent when the Democrats in the Senate joined in the with the Republicans to screw around with that (in a kind of power struggle with the executive branch).
One could make an analogy around any sport: A slugger sometimes hits for the infield to advance a player on base, rather than hitting for the home run. A quarterback calls a running play, and then a passing play, and then maybe another running play or vice versa... but it doesn't mean each time he hands the ball up he's neglecting the passing play: one sets up the other. If you're the president, knowing when public pressure or private pressure works best on key legislators is a matter of tactics. I don't understand when each time he does one thing people presume he's rejecting the other possible moves. All of them have to be done. And timing is everything in politics and so much else of life.
Other opinions ..
Submitted June 9, 2009 - 9:57 am by Riverbengo (not verified)Hi, from Europe!
I would like to believe in oBama. But until now we haven't seen yet any ffective step towards real change. We keep giving him the bennefict of the doubt but it cannt be for ever. As for his speach, plesa read this article:
http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/
I hoppe you're right.
Cheers!
This is an amazing article
Submitted June 10, 2009 - 10:25 am by H.W.P (not verified)This is an amazing article you wrote Al.
Truly amazing.
Talmud ~ Koran & Bible
Submitted June 12, 2009 - 2:09 pm by marcel (not verified)As a secular Jew, I'm struck by Obama's placing the talmud (often burned during the middle ages by the church) on the same level as the Koran or Bible. The usual equation made is of the Tanakh (Jewish version of the Old Testament, not identical with the Christian version). Not sure what this means, but it is interesting.
This is, of course, a side issue. The explication in the blog post is the main thing, and very helpful.
Post new comment