Obama's Cairo Speech

[butchersapron]

Put the sherry down dude. Next thursday, please DON'T forget to sign on. Not again. Yeh? Good.

Make me

 

[Badger Kitten]

what do you think? Shall I get one?

 

[TrippyLondoner]

what do you think? Shall I get one?

 

[purplex]

The attempts at reconciliation are certainly more considered than with any previous administration.

 

[butchersapron]

Meaning?

 

[butchersapron]

Reconciliation? - you really think thats what they after? It's not an argument after a wedding going wrong..

 

[purplex]

I dont believe its in America's interest to perpetuate the situation that has existed.
The efforts of Albright et. al. to reconcile relations with Iran for example were fuckwittery at its finest, falling into every trap laid for them by superior thinkers.
If Obama can, without doing a thing, put pressure on the arab governments from their own people to react in kind, he will already have started to make headway, he's playing a pretty smart game. Time will tell if and how well it works.

 

[butchersapron]

It is in America's interest to perpetuate the situation that has existed.

 

[London_Calling]

Buthers transport parked outside the dole office:

 

[purplex]

It is in America's interest to perpetuate the situation that has existed.

Washington Uber Alles

 

[Corax]

Cynical bunch ain't ya?

It's easy to cherry-pick quotes to support either position. Of course there was plenty of Bush-esque stuff - the man still has to avoid lynching at home. I've not checked the US news networks yet but I fully expect that F*X & friends are claiming he's offered carte blanche to terrerrerrists as it is. IMO though, the tone of the speech as a whole was entirely different to anything Bush ever communicated. He used longer words than Dubya could pronounce as well lol.

One of the problems with Bush though was that he would read anything put in front of him. He was a puppet and Vader could manipulate him into saying one thing and then doing the entire opposite. This was easily justified by talking about national security and implying that the public couldn't possibly understand what was going on because lots of the important stuff was secret, shhhhh!!!!

Obama has built his entire platform upon a position of principle. He has far less scope for outright bullshit. The U-turns he's made have been highly embarassing, far more so than they would have been for Bush.

I'm remaining optimistic for the moment. It's optimism, but fuck it, endless pessimism gets a bit stale after a bit.

I'm looking forward to seeing the local reaction on Mosaic tonight.

 

[gabi]

Freedland's on the money here..

All of this was a world away from George W Bush, who was unable to address Muslims in a tone that was not bellicose or patronising. If Bush had said the same words, they would have sounded phoney. But Obama had the credibility of his own life story: the Muslims in his father's family, the childhood years in Indonesia. What had threatened to be a liability for Barack Hussein Obama in the 2008 election campaign was deployed as an asset.

But it went deeper than flattery about the great Islamic past. He showed understanding, if not always acceptance, of what one might call the Arab and Muslim narrative. So he spoke of past "colonialism", a word shocking to hear from a US president. He admitted the cold-war use of Muslim nations as "proxies", and confessed to US involvement in the toppling of Iran's elected prime minister in 1953. One analyst noted references to "dignity" and "justice" and against "humiliation", words that resonate in Muslim discourse. Obama's aim was to break through the suspicion and cynicism that have accreted over decades and show that America is under truly new management. So he did not defend the invasion of Iraq, but called it a "war of choice".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/04/barack-obama-speech-islam-west

 

[London_Calling]

Hmmm. It'll be interesting to see how this is presented to 'Main Street, USA' over the next few days. Which is obviously a very important part of this equation.

 

[butchersapron]

Freedland's on the money here..



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/04/barack-obama-speech-islam-west

Jesus wept - politicians tailoring words to fit what the audience would like to hear. Who the heck who have thought of such a thing in the dark years of Bush? It's a new era allright you mug.

 

[Jonti]

rejoice! rejoice! the empire has returned to the ways of rational self-interest!

 

[butchersapron]

Hurrah for sensible imperialism!

 

[Idris2002]

rejoice! rejoice! the empire has returned to the ways of rational self-interest!

'And so saying, he wrote the word 'dinner' on a piece of paper and swallowed it.'

 

[Corax]

rejoice! rejoice! the empire has returned to the ways of rational self-interest!

Hurrah for sensible imperialism!

A step forward from an insane and poorly disguised fundamentalist religious campaign though.

 

[butchersapron]

Except it was never that.

 

[Corax]

Except it was never that.

Was too. Jazzz gave me a link.

 

[Corax]

Flippant response above because I'm damn sure I don't have the evidence to back this up; but I do suspect that fundie christian beliefs have had an influence over mid-east policy in the last 8 yearsish.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Was too. Jazzz gave me a link.

Only after you slipped his mum a link.

 

[butchersapron]

Flippant response above because I'm damn sure I don't have the evidence to back this up; but I do suspect that fundie christian beliefs have had an influence over mid-east policy in the last 8 yearsish.

State /capital interests are what counts, not what colour they're wearing.

 

[ViolentPanda]

If we could take Obama's speech at face value, it would indeed constitute a step forward toward an equitable solution to the "Middle East problem".

IF.

The features of his speech that appear to have convinced journos like Freedland of his sincerity are exactly those that make me wary - the tailored fit of his words to his audience and the essential emptiness of his rhetoric (it being unsupported by anything approaching a policy commitment yet).

I want to believe, but my cynicism says "more of the same, couched in more ameliorative language".

 

[Corax]

State /capital interests are what counts, not what colour they're wearing.

Aren't there competing interests? And if so, the balance between them can shift.

I want to believe, but my cynicism says "more of the same, couched in more ameliorative language".

Pretty much where I am, but I'm keeping my cynicism in a box for now. Fuck, i'm sure we'll have plenty of time to be cynical later...

 

[butchersapron]

They're competiing the same way.

 

[Corax]

Only after you slipped his mum a link.

Can you get tin-foil rubbers?

 

[Streathamite]

Aren't there competing interests?

Not when control of the State, the economy and Capital are fundamentally still in the same venal, grasping hands

 

[Corax]

Not when control of the State, the economy and Capital are fundamentally still in the same venal, grasping hands

The US has various competing interests, all lobbying for influence. What I'm suggesting is the the right-wing fundie 'christian' lobby no longer have the influence that they did under Bush.

The main reason for that of course is that Obama doesn't rely on their votes in the way that Bush did. So it's a self-serving position (he's a politician, whaddya expect?), but true I think nonetheless.

Right, must watch Mosaic.

 

[Corax]

Right, must watch Mosaic.

A simplified round-up:

Egypt (Nile TV): Very pro.
Israel (IBA TV): Quite objective, concentrating mainly upon content and expected reaction elsewhere.
Iran (Press TV): Reporting a luke-warm response from Hamas, closely followed by strong condemnation of US policy over Iran's nuclear programme.

All three included comments about words needing to be backed up by action.