Campaigning in the Middle East

I can hardly recall a time when a sitting US President spoke ill of his country and his predecessor on foreign soil more often than Obama has done in his first few months in office. And so much of this "hope and change- Obama '08" rhetoric has spilled over into the executive methods of our 44th President that the line between campaigning and governing are mixed into a dizzying and dangerous hodgepodge of weak actions and strong words.

"Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible", said President Obama in his address to muslims this earlier today in Cairo.

I ask, as a follow-up, the sort of follow-up no reporter asked President Obama during the campaign season, a 2-part question that will never be answered"

1. What types of diplomacy were not used before the Iraq war that could have prevented it? Were not the countless UN resolutions and sanction sufficient? Was snubbing the IAEA and international inspectors properly responded to? Have you read resolution 1441?

2. What countries were missing from the international consensus that could have lead credibility and gravitas to the US efforts? To refresh your memory: Canada, UK, Australia, Spain, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Philippines, Colombia, Poland, etc were just a few of the dozens of nations that formed the "international consensus". Absent, notably, were Russia, France and Germany. Communists, wimps and nazis. I think we did OK.

Obama still talks abot the Iraq war thinking he has to outflank Clinton and Edwards who voted for the War Powers Act. Newsflash Mr. President: you are the President. What you think about the war's inception is now moot- moreso, it is precarious. It is now your war. Will you handle it thus?

"I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings."

The magnificent platitude of a campaign speech. More precisely, a straw man campaign speech. If you seek a "new beginning...based on mutual interest and mutual respect" then you are, indeed, saying that America's past was based on self interest and lack of respect. Now, to be even more precise, is that America's relationship with muslims or muslim nations?

America has no relationships with "people" around the world- be they communities of religion or creed or race. To talk about the "United States and Muslims around the world" means we have policies with "Buddhists" around the world. And "Methodists" around the world. What are those relationships? And where are they defined? In Presidential order of acts of Congress?

The US does not enter into relationships with communities or people. It has relationships with nations, as America is a nation. How can a government have a relationship with a people? Are laws and policies going to be created specifically targeted towards one people?

In Obama's mind, yes, there should be such laws. And more of them. Affirmative action, hate crimes, any form of legislation that favors a minority or victim class is a good and necessary action because it helps achieve "fairness". And fairness, in the mind of a liberal, is tantamount to "equality".

Funny- the US Constitution should prevent such favoritism based on race, religion, ethnicity, etc. But with liberals like Sonia Sotomayor who denies Ricci his promotion because he's white and triumphs her own wisdom because she is latina headed towards to Supreme Court, Obama is ensuring that his beliefs will be upheld at the highest level.

This same logic is what prompts our Campaigner in chief to launch a new beginning with muslims around the world. We elected a Saul Alinsky community organizer as President. His community is now the world. But his methods are the same.

"The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of co-existence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam".

Mr. Obama, you call yourself "a student of history" in this speech. If only your speechwriter and teleprompter were students of history, too. Based on this, tension in muslim countries are derived from:

a. religious wars (medieval Europe)
b. colonialism (modern Europe)
c. the cold war (Reagan)
d. modernity and globalization (Bill Gates)

In summary: tension in muslim countries is, again, our fault. Despite the fact that other parts of the world had "religious wars", all of America was colonized, no one was more a proxy than Poland in the cold war and globalization is global... it is all our fault. Had the Czech responded to the Internet with terrorism, we should have been more empathetic. Had the Latvians responded to SALT talks with suicides bombers in the town square, we should have looked inward at our own culpability.

When you treat everyone as a victim, you need to blame the victimizer. On the world stage, muslims are victims and the President places all the blame on us.

"The attacks of September 11th, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights".

Not all priests are pedophiles. Yet all priests suffer because of the 3% of scum who commit crimes in a roman collar. Until they clean up their own, police their own and turn over their own to criminal prosecutions, there should be a high level of scrutiny and even moderate distrust towards priests. Anything less would be irresponsible.

There is still a man outside the vatican embassy on Observatory Circle with the sign "The Vatican hides criminals".

Cannot the same be said for Islam? Can it not be said about muslims in America? Until they clean up their own, police their own and turn over their own to criminal prosecutions, there should be a high level of scrutiny and even moderate distrust. Anything less would be irresponsible.

Where is the man in NW outside the islamic center with a sign "Iran hides criminals"?

The same goes for muslim nations. Nations that do not police their own, turn over their own, should be dealt with under a premise of scrutiny and moderate distrust. Nations that harbor men who behead journalists, who plant bombs in market places and inflict terror on innocent civilians cannot be trusted. That means Iran. And Syria. And Saudi Arabia.

That is your responsibility, Mr. President. Your job is not one of fostering a new beginning with any peoples- especially not one group over another. Your job is to foster relationships with nations. And in your words, relationships that are "based upon mutual interest and mutual respect".

Go to France and talk to the French people. Typical sentiment: they hate America. They love Americans. Sure they think our culture is disposable and superficial and they mock our cuisine and wine. But they don't shower daily, they dress like the Thompson Twins and and pay 70% in taxes. But all this is pointless because the relationship that the country of US and the country of France has is strong. Whether or nor the people get along is gravy. We don't make relationships with the French people. We build relationships with the French government.

Whether or not muslims and Americans get along will not be decided by President Obama or any politician. But creating a national policy that protects and defends our interests will foster an atmosphere where such niceties can flourish in time.

President Obama has a messiah complex because he wants a messiah complex. We wants to heal the world because he believes he can. Call it confidence or arrogance, the man believes his own press releases and his campaign has not ended. Too bad that in the process he is doing more damage than good and the relationships he hopes to create will only lead to greater international discord and danger.

I wish I were wrong. But I too am a student of history. And I know where we are headed. It is not pretty.