When President Bush spoke in the months and years after Sept. 11, 2001, we often — chillingly — felt as if we didn’t recognize the United States. His vision was of a country racked with fear and bent on vengeance, one that imposed invidious choices on the world and on itself. When we listened to President Obama speak in Cairo on Thursday, we recognized the United States.
Mr. Obama spoke, unwaveringly, of the need to defend the country’s security and values. He left no doubt that he would do what must be done to defeat Al Qaeda and the Taliban, while making it clear that Americans have no desire to permanently occupy Afghanistan or Iraq.
He spoke, unequivocally, of the United States’ “unbreakable” commitment to Israel and of why Iran must not have a nuclear weapon. He was also clear that all of those listening — in the Muslim world and in Israel — must do more to defeat extremism and to respect the rights of their neighbors and their people.
Words are important. Mr. Obama was right when he urged leaders who privately speak of moderation and compromise to dare to say those words in public. But words are not enough. Mr. Obama, who, after all, has been in office for less than six months, has a lot to do to fulfill this vision. So do others.
Like many people, we were listening closely to how the president would address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He did not shy away from pressing Israel’s new government, insisting that the construction of settlements must stop, the existence of a Palestinian state cannot be denied, and “the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable.”
In the same stern tone, he pressed the Palestinians to reject violence and said that Arab states must stop using the conflict “to distract” their people from other problems. They must recognize Israel and do more to help Palestinians build strong state institutions.
We couldn’t have agreed more when he said that the elements of a peace formula are known. We are now waiting to hear his strategy to move the process forward.
On Iran, Mr. Obama warned that its pursuit of nuclear weapons could set off a dangerous arms race in the Middle East. He also renewed his offer of serious negotiations. We are waiting to see what Mr. Obama will propose and how he plans to persuade Russia, China and the Europeans to support a credible mix of punishments and enticements to try to change Tehran’s behavior.
Mr. Obama challenged the conspiracy-minded who questioned, and those who justified, the Sept. 11 attacks. He said the war in Afghanistan was one of necessity and insisted that despite the high cost, in lives and treasure, America’s commitment will not weaken.
At the same time, Mr. Obama said the war in Iraq was a war of “choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world.” Mr. Obama, who said Iraq is better off without Saddam Hussein, missed a chance to urge Iraq’s neighbors to do all they can to help hold the country together as American troops withdraw.
The audience was undoubtedly waiting to hear how Mr. Obama handled the issue of democracy — and its depressing scarcity in the Islamic world. He avoided President Bush’s hectoring tone and did not confront his host, President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. But we suspect everyone in the hall knew whom he was talking about (they applauded at key moments) when he said that governments must maintain power “through consent, not coercion” and that “elections alone do not make true democracy.” We hope he made those points directly when he met Mr. Mubarak and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.
Before Thursday’s speech, and after, Mr. Obama’s critics complained that he has spent too much time apologizing and accused him of weakening the country. That is a gross misreading of what he has been saying — and of what needs to be said. After eight years of arrogance and bullying that has turned even close friends against the United States, it takes a strong president to acknowledge the mistakes of the past. And it takes a strong president to press himself and the world to do better.
The nitpicking from the right is amazing. Win the election and you get to write the presidential speeches. If you lose the election, I guess you can write sniveling editorials for WSJ and IBD...
So Rich you have finally admitted that the NY Times or Pravda as it should be called is in the tank for Obama. Facts are facts and it is a wonder how it took so long for you to see the truth. This is why Pravda is going down the tubes. Everyone knows that it is just an opinion rag and the the stories cannot even be trusted.
I said no such thing, Mark. I was commenting on the nitpicking of the wing nuts. It is amazingly arrogant, isn't it, presuming to craft the president's speeches? All the right wingers are upset that Obama said this or didn't say that. My point - win the election if you want to write the speeches. As you know, BHO writes much of his own. I don't think Dubya did that, but if he did it was in Crayon.
The NYT will be "Last Man Standing", which is the name of their business strategy. Sadly, the newspaper biz will soon be no more, coast to coast. I suspect there will be a few national or regional dailies and all the local stuff will be online only or print weeklies. The Gray Lady remains a GREAT newspaper with a left of center editorial board.
5 comments:
The Cairo Speech
When President Bush spoke in the months and years after Sept. 11, 2001, we often — chillingly — felt as if we didn’t recognize the United States. His vision was of a country racked with fear and bent on vengeance, one that imposed invidious choices on the world and on itself. When we listened to President Obama speak in Cairo on Thursday, we recognized the United States.
Mr. Obama spoke, unwaveringly, of the need to defend the country’s security and values. He left no doubt that he would do what must be done to defeat Al Qaeda and the Taliban, while making it clear that Americans have no desire to permanently occupy Afghanistan or Iraq.
He spoke, unequivocally, of the United States’ “unbreakable” commitment to Israel and of why Iran must not have a nuclear weapon. He was also clear that all of those listening — in the Muslim world and in Israel — must do more to defeat extremism and to respect the rights of their neighbors and their people.
Words are important. Mr. Obama was right when he urged leaders who privately speak of moderation and compromise to dare to say those words in public. But words are not enough. Mr. Obama, who, after all, has been in office for less than six months, has a lot to do to fulfill this vision. So do others.
Like many people, we were listening closely to how the president would address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He did not shy away from pressing Israel’s new government, insisting that the construction of settlements must stop, the existence of a Palestinian state cannot be denied, and “the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable.”
In the same stern tone, he pressed the Palestinians to reject violence and said that Arab states must stop using the conflict “to distract” their people from other problems. They must recognize Israel and do more to help Palestinians build strong state institutions.
We couldn’t have agreed more when he said that the elements of a peace formula are known. We are now waiting to hear his strategy to move the process forward.
On Iran, Mr. Obama warned that its pursuit of nuclear weapons could set off a dangerous arms race in the Middle East. He also renewed his offer of serious negotiations. We are waiting to see what Mr. Obama will propose and how he plans to persuade Russia, China and the Europeans to support a credible mix of punishments and enticements to try to change Tehran’s behavior.
Mr. Obama challenged the conspiracy-minded who questioned, and those who justified, the Sept. 11 attacks. He said the war in Afghanistan was one of necessity and insisted that despite the high cost, in lives and treasure, America’s commitment will not weaken.
At the same time, Mr. Obama said the war in Iraq was a war of “choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world.” Mr. Obama, who said Iraq is better off without Saddam Hussein, missed a chance to urge Iraq’s neighbors to do all they can to help hold the country together as American troops withdraw.
The audience was undoubtedly waiting to hear how Mr. Obama handled the issue of democracy — and its depressing scarcity in the Islamic world. He avoided President Bush’s hectoring tone and did not confront his host, President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. But we suspect everyone in the hall knew whom he was talking about (they applauded at key moments) when he said that governments must maintain power “through consent, not coercion” and that “elections alone do not make true democracy.” We hope he made those points directly when he met Mr. Mubarak and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.
Before Thursday’s speech, and after, Mr. Obama’s critics complained that he has spent too much time apologizing and accused him of weakening the country. That is a gross misreading of what he has been saying — and of what needs to be said. After eight years of arrogance and bullying that has turned even close friends against the United States, it takes a strong president to acknowledge the mistakes of the past. And it takes a strong president to press himself and the world to do better.
The nitpicking from the right is amazing. Win the election and you get to write the presidential speeches. If you lose the election, I guess you can write sniveling editorials for WSJ and IBD...
So Rich you have finally admitted that the NY Times or Pravda as it should be called is in the tank for Obama. Facts are facts and it is a wonder how it took so long for you to see the truth. This is why Pravda is going down the tubes. Everyone knows that it is just an opinion rag and the the stories cannot even be trusted.
I said no such thing, Mark. I was commenting on the nitpicking of the wing nuts. It is amazingly arrogant, isn't it, presuming to craft the president's speeches? All the right wingers are upset that Obama said this or didn't say that. My point - win the election if you want to write the speeches. As you know, BHO writes much of his own. I don't think Dubya did that, but if he did it was in Crayon.
The NYT will be "Last Man Standing", which is the name of their business strategy. Sadly, the newspaper biz will soon be no more, coast to coast. I suspect there will be a few national or regional dailies and all the local stuff will be online only or print weeklies. The Gray Lady remains a GREAT newspaper with a left of center editorial board.
Post a Comment