Reactions To Obama's Speech In Cairo

By Steve Hynd

Over at Memeorandum, there's a mixed bag of reactions to Obama's speech calling for a new beginning between the US and Moslems.

Much of the American right seems to have considered it, as Powerline puts it, to have been that it was a "thoughtful, mostly non-controversial address, with a lot to like in it -- a speech that Americans of nearly all persuasions can be reasonably happy with." Ed Morrissey describes it as "surprisingly good". The full-time crazy haters, including Ed's boss Michelle, of course disagree. Not for the first time, I find myself wondering why Ed ever decided to take Malkin's money.

On the American left, Steve Benen described the speech as  "a president issuing a challenge, and forging a new basis for an international relationship" while Spencer Ackerman writes that "one of the most striking aspects of the speech was how it didn’t shy away from saying that America would continue to pursue actions in its interest that some Muslims may dislike". However,  Peter Daou is disappointed at the lack of substance in the speech, and ties that to Obama's failure to deliver campaign promises on Bush Rollback:

Is there an overarching purpose to Obama's speech? Is it to repair our image after eight years of a radical rightwing administration? Of course. But if the goal is to repair our image, then how about shunning the barbaric concept of indefinite detention? How about heeding the increasingly distressed calls of those who view the new administration's actions in the realm of civil liberties as a dangerous, disturbing, and precedent-setting affirmation of Bush's worst excesses?

If we are to fix America's image in the world and if we are to heal the planet's myriad ills, it will not be done through contrite kumbaya speeches about how we are all one world and how we should all coexist peacefully, no matter whether the remarks are delivered in Cleveland or Cairo. It will be done by leading through example, by righting the many wrongs here at home, by seeking justice and fairness for all, by doing what is right, not saying what sounds pleasing to the media elite and the pliable punditocracy.

Shirin Sadeghi writes that Obama's speech was for the rulers, not the ruled:

Merely speaking words like "the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable" or "civilization's debt to Islam" is important and necessary and Obama deserves praise for providing these nuggets of appreciation and historical perspective.

But his words today were more useful to the governments with whom the United States must engage during his administration - governments like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, The Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Islamic Republic of Iran, all of whom have a severely problematic regard for the rights of their people - than for the Muslim people whose living reality is too often stained by insufficient power to improve their lives.

And Sadeghi's opinion appears to borne out by official regional reactions as collected by the BBC.

Anthony Shadid wrote from Haditha for the WaPo yesterday, saying that the common people of the Moslem world hoped Obama would " deliver something far more than the unfulfilled pledges of Bush's speeches". This speech, though, wasn't it. Not yet.

Comments

[BJ Bjornson]

I’m really not impressed with Daou’s column. While I can’t disagree with the points regarding Obama’s not rolling back certain Bush policies, none of those kinds of details would have been included in this speech in any case. Bitch about them during Obama’s speech were he detailed them all. And “lacking substance”? Given the intended audience, I don’t think you can say Obama exactly shied away from any major area, or failed to make explicit criticisms.

And the second part where he bitches that Obama didn’t go far enough on women’s rights by bringing up an episode in Somalia? Oh sure! Because the best way to build bridges with the billion or so Muslims across the globe is to smear them all with the acts of their most violent extremists! Odd Obama didn’t think of that, isn’t it? Little wonder Malkin linked to the guy approvingly, as that’s the kind of rhetoric one is used to seeing on her site.

[Charlotte Capitalist]

Obama’s Cairo speech philosophically, historically, and culturally wrong.

http://charlottecapitalist.blogspot.com/2009/06/united-states-of-america-and-islam-have.html

[Peter G.]

Sadeghi may have a good point about this speech being for the rulers. I happen to believe that is a good thing. Israel's current government was told they wouldn't be abandoned but it wasn't going to be business as usual. The Arabs were told their concerns would at least be heard and in some degree addressed and the Palestinian leaders that they could expect some support for a change and more balanced diplomacy vis a vis Israel. Considering the number of audiences listening to this speech I thought it was excellent. Given the signals that are already being sent between the US and Israel they've already moved beyond Bush. I'm going to let hope edge out cynicism today (due to the springlike weather no doubt) and say I thought it was a statesmanlike speech.

[Peter G.]

Technically you are correct Charlotte to some degree. The Arabs did not merely codify Greek thought and Algebra owes considerable influence not to the Greeks but to the Indians whence came the place holding zero. Islam has never been monolithic however and when the more extreme Islamist elements were burning libraries in the middle east more enlightened thinking was flourishing elsewhere. Spain for example. Presidential speeches are not history lessons and a little license should be granted.