Friday, June 05, 2009

US TV examines Obama's Cairo speech.

Even Pat Buchanan finds positives in Obama's speech. I am really pleased that Buchanan recognises the courage that it took for Obama to go to Cairo and speak as forcefully and as honestly as he did.

Buchanan states, "I think he's going to break Bibi!"

O'Reilly described Obama's speech as "noble". However, it is too much for O'Reilly that Obama mentioned the word "torture" and insisted that he will close Guantanamo Bay.

It is simply astounding to me that, after hearing that speech, this is what Billo heard.

He then invited Karl Rove - of all bloody people - to give us his take on things. Rove thinks the speech got "pretty bad" as Obama mentioned "colonialism" and the US never colonised the Middle East. The truth is that Obama never claimed it was the US who colonised the Middle East, he simply acknowledged that British colonialism took place.

When O'Reilly points out how unpopular Bush's policies were in the Middle East, Rove finishes by saying, "Who cares about whether or not they approve or like the president of the United States, the question is do they respect the policies of the United States government?"

In other words, it doesn't matter if they like us, all that matters is whether or not they fear us.

It's no wonder that Rove is appalled when he sees someone applying a vision to this dispute that goes against everything that he believes in.


Another thought. Is Rove actually insane enough to think, as he implies here, that the policies of Bush and Cheney, which included the Iraq war and the starving of the Palestinians, were actually "respected" in the Middle East? That's simply bonkers.


Krauthammer utterly hated it, which makes me think that Obama must be on the right track. The truth is that Krauthammer is furious and I don't think it's really about women's issues or moral equivalence. Krauthammer is Likud to his bones and his fury is probably a sign that he recognises that Obama is not going to back off here.


She's everywhere.

“I think that if we lived in a world where terrorism, and the slaughter of innocents, and Iran’s hegemonic hopes for the Middle East could be met, could be defeated, could be dealt with by sort of hand-holding going forward, then we’d be in a much simpler environment. But these are very, very tough issues. And I was troubled by the extent to which I heard moral relativism.”
And, of course, she will see Obama offering "hand holding". Her daddy's policy was much better. Simply refuse to speak to them. The US should "stand up to Iran", she wails.

I'm sorry, but wasn't there an election in the US in which all of these points were raised, and in which Obama argued against the very philosophy which Cheney is espousing, which the Republicans lost?

Sometimes listening to people like Liz Cheney it's hard to believe that this even happened.


Steel Phoenix said...

Great video compilation post.

Pat respects the appearance of strength of leadership. Being a former presidential speechwriter, he also loves a rousing speech. He's been tough on Obama for the past month or so, but I don't think it's personal.

A couple of things I've noticed about Pat over the years; he isn't often partisan, and he rarely puts much ego into his commentary. He always looks a bit baffled when someone tries to score points by making a personal attack against him in the middle of a political discussion.

Kel said...

I think Pat is as right wing as they come, but he's more honest than most sometimes.

He certainly acknowledges the fact that Obama just delivered a blinder, which some of the others seem reluctant to do.