Thursday, June 04, 2009

The Good and Bad in Obama's Cairo Address    [Marc Thiessen]

Let’s give President Obama credit for the good things he said in Cairo. He declared he would “relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security . . . . And it is my first duty as president to protect the American people.” He took on the conspiracy theories about 9/11, declaring “these are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.” And he pointed out that al-Qaeda has “killed people of different faiths — more than any other, they have killed Muslims.” All these are important points.

But much of the rest of what the president said was damaging, wrong, and at times simply shameful.

His speech was rife with moral equivalence. The Iranian Revolution was bad, but so was the U.S. overthrow of Mossadeq in 1953. The Holocaust was bad, but “on the other hand” so is the Israeli occupation of Palestine. The events are not comparable.

Also little noticed was the fact that Obama announced a major shift in U.S. policy in the Holy Land. In 2002, President Bush declared in his Rose Garden address that America would only engage “Palestinian leaders not compromised by terror.” In Cairo today, Obama reversed this policy, declaring that Hamas has “to play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people.” This is naïve and dangerous.

Obama’s talk about democracy was all platitudes, and no specifics — as if he had to check a box so they he would not be criticized for ignoring the subject.  But he made no mention of freedom or democracy in Egypt. President Bush repeatedly called for release of Ayman Nour, the opposition presidential candidate who was jailed for four years. In February, Nour was finally released — but is now banned from appearing on TV or running for office. Obama made call for such restrictions to be lifted, no call for greater openness in the country where he was speaking.

He made no mention of democracy in discussing Afghanistan. He made no mention of democracy in discussing Iraq. He made no mention of the advance of freedom in the Middle East that has taken place in recent years, or any commitment to continue it.

Indeed, he said Iraq was a “war of choice” but then said a moment later that Iraq is better off without Saddam Hussein. Well, was it a good choice then? He even invoked Thomas Jefferson to make his point that diplomacy is preferable to war — I didn’t know Jefferson opposed the war in Iraq.

He said he is committed to helping Iraqis stand on their own. But he failed to mention that they have that opportunity because of the blood spilled by American troops who sacrificed to give them their freedom. He failed to mention that from Iraq and Afghanistan, to Bosnia, Kosovo, and Kuwait, over the past two decades our military has done more to free Muslims from oppression than any power in history. In fact, there was not one word of praise for our troops and what they have done for the people of the Middle East in the entire address.

To the contrary, he threw the men and women of our military and our intelligence community under the bus when he declared, in front of a Muslim audience, that the attacks of 9/11 “led us to act contrary to our ideals.” On foreign soil, he accused our intelligence professionals who stopped the next 9/11 of committing torture — validating years of al-Qaeda propaganda. He talked about closing GTMO without any defense of the good men and women who run it — even though his own attorney general, Eric Holder, has admitted it was a model prison. If he was going to discuss these topics in the Middle East, he at least owed it to our troops and intelligence professionals to say what dozens of investigations have proven: that there was no systematic abuse of detainees at GTMO or anywhere else. Instead, Obama echoed al-Qaeda’s calumnies against them — and did so in a foreign land. This is unprecedented. It is shameful. And they deserve better.

06/04 11:47 AMShare