Well, it’s official: President Barack Obama will deliver his long-rumored address to the Muslim world in Cairo on June 4th. Early reports suggest that Obama chose “The City of One-Thousand Minarets” for this speech to bolster U.S.-Egyptian ties, which have been chilly ever since the Bush administration called on the Mubarak regime to hold competitive elections in 2005.
If so, the irony is astounding. After all, showing respect for Islam and embracing Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak are mutually exclusive activities. Indeed, how does one show respect to Muslims while cozying up to a dictator who represses nearly 70 million of them? Alternatively, how does one reassure a secular Arab dictator of his relationship with Washington while also telling his citizens that the U.S. has a “stake” in their well being?
In short, if Obama believes that the choice between Muslim publics and their secular authoritarian leaders is another “false” one, he’s about to be disappointed. Make no mistake: the moment our Agent of Change is seen standing next to Misr Stability, millions of Muslims will conclude – rightly – that Obama is no different from his Hosni-loving predecessors. Actually, many Muslims might conclude that Obama is worse, since none of his predecessors had the temerity to claim that their relationship with Mubarak was in the name of cross-cultural respect.
This is public diplomacy at its most asinine.
Maureen has gone from straddling Obama, to firing on target.
“President Barack Obama set aside for health reform in his budget, raising the prospect of sticker shock at a time of record federal spending. Administration officials have pointedly avoided providing a ballpark estimate, saying it depends on details to be worked out with Congress.” Not very transparent, huh?”
— President Obama is himself a sticker shocker. People and press estimated him to be a moderate, with some past radical ties. It turns out the actually price is extreme left policies, with a weakening veneer of moderation. The cost of his ideas are already off the charts.
Given his record in North Korea, Christopher Hill’s appointment to Iraq is a very dangerous one. He would likely appease pro-Iranian elements and give them undeserved prominence. As this news story shows, Obama is heavily into appeasing US foes and actively neglecting allies there.
Sorry, here’s the story:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/03/figures-obama-administration-snubs.html#links
Jonas, no offense, but there were plenty of people that were convinced upon the preponderance of the evidence that Obama was a radical with some moderate ties.
Kind of like the bumper sticker that you see here on Cape Cod that says ‘Chatham, Massachusetts. A Quaint Drinking Village with a Fishing Problem.’
No offense taken at all. There were a lot of people who were very aware of Obama’s radical vision. To clarify, I am really referring to the press and Democratic Party. They sold us a candidate dressed up as a “moderate’ With this AIG scandal, I can really sense the sticker shock and buyer’s remorse starting to kick in. However, Obama keeps trucking along, presenting “moderate” healthcare idea, and later on revealing the truth of the actual costs. Its 4 years of Alinsky/Wright’s top student.
Yes, many people knew his extreme views, but those who fell for it, are feeling a rude awakening.
love the bumper sticker!
The next Obama letdown will come in Europe when they realize what a weenie he is.
Geez, finally addressing problems that need to be addressed is so liberal of Obama.
Sure, you may not like the kind of money being spent but put this in perspective,
economy of scale; we’re talking about instituitions (like AIG) who have made more money then many countries GNP and consequently if it goes down it will have a rippling effect across the globe that could be far worse then bailing them out now.
Should we find out what that would be like?
We’ve been going on this roller coaster ride to economic hell for quite some time.
Bush doubled our national debt under the still unworkable cutting taxes and deficit spending.
At least Obama in all his liberalness is conveying the message that we are going to have to sacrifice after we get through this present mess.
Don’t blame Obama blame all of us.
But that is too politically incorrect.
You can’t blame the little guy, right?
People need to grow the hell up.
Obama’s health care plan may be brain dead if it turns out that Natasha Richardson didn’t get a CAT scan at the Canadian hospital she was taken to because of Canadian discouragement of technology. If someone has had a head trauma and then develops symptoms of brain injury, an immediate CAT scan is critical. Princess Grace Kelly died because there was no CAT scan in the small hospital she was taken to. That was 27 years ago when CAT scans were less common. Canada has had a number of stories about denying CAT scans to patients. We’ll see how this develops but Ms Richardson is now in New York, not Canada.
uh, Libleaner #*, the only thing I see from your post is that Obama is “conveying the message”
He conveyed for 2 years on the stump, and now his actual policies are making a disaster out of the economy. No one is pinning all of the blame on him, but J. Rubin and many of the bloggers are pointing out the failure of Obama’s action and non-actions here and now.
“conveying the message” doesn’t cut it as the actual POTUS. Signing ceremonies look nice, but Obama simply passed the buck. Now, he sets up the TARP, arranges the bailout money, and professes shock that the bonuses were handed out. Yes, people need to grow the hell up.
Another amateur moment? Obama thanking himself via telepromter.
myna, exactly! You just can’t keep those 2 apart!
Actually, credit default swaps, mortgage backed securities and a host of other dubious financial vehicles are undoing our country.
For chrissakes don’t worry about anyways. It is self correcting whether you have manipulations by government or a hands off attitude that righties espouse.
Sooner or later the economy corrects itself.
But in the meantime people are hurting and would rather have something, anything done to move the economy into recovery.
It can’t be any worse then what the last POTUS did to our economy or are you just a partisan hack?
Bush cut taxes whenever he could. There is much more that a president can “do” for the economy as opposed to “to” the economy.
Correction to #14: “There isn’t much more . . . .”
#13
“For chrissakes don’t worry about anyways. It is self correcting whether you have manipulations by government or a hands off attitude that righties espouse.”
What evidence do you have to support this claim? Your sentence itself is contradictory. If it is truly self-correcting, then isn’t the hands off approach correct?
“But in the meantime people are hurting and would rather have something, anything done to move the economy into recovery.”
Where is the evidence for this? Obama’s dropping poll numbers? I don’t think so. Before accusing a person of being a partisan hack, do just a little research on your “general” ideas to make sure they fit with reality and not your own preconceptions.
Are you pretending to be obtuse or are you just a natural at it?
Forest fires are self correcting, if you leave them alone long enough, they will go out on their own.
Do we allow forest fires to go unchecked, Jonas?
One case in point: stimulus money is being used in MA to maintain meals on wheels. If that money was not restored older folks would have to be put in state funded nursing homes costing the state even more money.
A few million dollars will keep people in their houses and save the state money in the long run because it’s alot cheaper to keep people in their houses then put them in nursing homes.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/ (alittle pass halfway down the page)
Point is if you are employed and your stomach is full you can be a real critic of the stimulus plan or the bailouts but if you are unemployed or elderly on a fixed income or worse have a business but can’t get credit for day to day operations then you have a problem.
The right side of the aisle only goes back to their roots of fiscal restraint when it serves their political purposes ie attacking Obama.