President Obama gave a speech today in Cairo during his first presidential trip to the Middle East. His purpose for the speech was to speak to the Muslim world about building a bridge between the United States and the global Muslim community.
While it is good to form a friendship between the two groups, I believe his rhetoric raises red flags for our national security and foreign policy.
Obama criticized past American efforts on bringing democracies to autocracies such as Afghanistan and Iraq.
"I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq," Obama said. "So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other."
Have our efforts been 100 percent perfect? No. However, the people of Afghanistan and Iraq no longer live in fear of being arrested, persecuted or killed for whatever reason.
According to an article on Fox News' Web site, Marc Thiessen, a former speechwriter for then President George W Bush, said Obama's speech brings about questions about whether or not the U.S. is committed to human rights and freedom in the Middle East.
"He didn't say a word about democracy in Afghanistan, not a word about democracy in Iraq. So if I were a Middle Eastern person listening to the speech, I would wonder whether America is still committed to the freedom agenda," Thiessen said.
Cristina Corbin, who wrote the article for foxnews.com, quoted Ibrahim Al-Houdaiby, a Cairo-based activist in the Muslim Brotherhood.
Al-Houdaiby said while he was impressed with Obama's speech, he was also disappointed.
"He didn't mention any authoritarian regimes in the region," Al-Houdaiby said, including Egypt's regime in that category.
"There are tens of thousands of political prisoners who have nothing to do with violence and have nothing to do with terrorists" in Egypt and across the Middle East," he said.
Obama also mentioned Iran. There have been countless new stories on Iran's nuclear weapons program. While still president, Bush labeled Iran as one of the countries in "axis of evil". Obama called for the U.S. and other nations to reach out to Iran.
"No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation -- including Iran -- should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty," he said.
According to the same article, Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., the ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, said Obama's proposal for Iran does absolutely nothing to solve the nuclear weapons issue.
"Our hand has been outstretched for five months, maybe longer," Burton said. ""We have gotten nothing in return, and Iran continues to move forward with nuclear program."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/04/obamas-cairo-speech-signals-new-doctrine-foreign-policy-experts-say/
To really put the icing on a cake, (consider it disgusting frosting rather than the yummy frosting) Obama called on Hamas, which is considered a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Dept, to lead the Palestinians (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/04/obama-overture-hamas-suggests-inevitability-terror-groups-dominance/). The Hamas group has been documented for calling on the destruction of Israel. Also Hamas, as well as Hezbollah and other groups have said Israel's right to exist should not be guaranteed.
During his speech, Obama called on Israel to end settlement construction according to the same web site article on foxnews.com.
Again Rep. Burton of Indiana criticised Obama.
"Israel has reached out to the Muslim world by giving Gaza back and they have even talked about a Palestinian state. But all of these entities, Hamas, Hezbollah and others, have said Israel's right to exist should not be guaranteed," the congressman said.
While I do agree that it's best to use diplomacy before military force, Obama is a kiss-ass. In Cairo and during his European tour, Obama apoligizes for the U.S. efforts to keep our country safe and for protecting our allies against terrorism. History has demonstrated over and over again that we, the U.S., have done everything in its power to use diplomacy and not military action when it comes to countries such as Iran and North Korea. The diplomacy has not worked. Obama wants to keep beating a dead horse. Whether beating a dead horse or running in circles, everyone knows what it accomplishes: nothing.
It seems Obama thinks that presenting a MLK/Churchill/Reaganesque style of speech will bring world peace and heaven on earth. All it does is woos people and causes people to faint thus calling on-site paramedics to tend to those who were so moved by "The Gospel of Obama".
The only other progress his "More talk and no action" style of presidency may and will bring is for countries such as Iran and North Korea to see how much farther they can go. And when such countries do go farther and it jeopardizes U.S. national security, what will Obama do then? I don't think we really want to know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)