Obammer* wows 'em in Cairo

Introduction:

President Blacque Obammer's* speech in Cairo has been highly praised, mostly by people who haven't actually read it.

Today, I will analyze some of Obammer's* text. For over three years, my contention has been: "All we have to do is ignore the hype of fawning media and simply read what Obammer* has to say. It doesn't take long to realize:  He's just spouting rhetoric."

Preliminary comments:

Location, location, location: These three hallowed words are taken to heart by businessmen the world over. In this case, Obammer* would have done his cause far greater good by giving his speech in Iran. And by apologizing to the Iranians. Just after he said "the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government," he should have said, "and for that I wish to extend my profound personal apologies."

But he didn't do that.

There are those who believe: "Being President of the United States means never having to say you're sorry." And others who believe: "Being the United States means never having to say you're sorry." These sentiments are based on arrogance and lead our presidents (Obammer* among them) to avoid atoning for past wrongs but (instead) urging that we move on.

They overlook: The power of a heart-felt apology, uttered at the right moment, can equal the power of (oh, I don't know, say) the Israeli nuclear arsenal.

The Egyptian man in the street: Let's say you're the Egyptian man in the street, listening to Obammer's purty words. What might you be thinking? Something along these lines?

"Yeah, right. The US President has a lot of nerve to speak in my country where the US government has - each year for decades - routinely provided billions of dollars of military aid. This money has been well-spent by President Mubarak to suppress his own people and maintain power for 30 years.  Mubarak may well be one of Obammer's* staunchest allies in the war against terror, but Mubarak is no enlightened Muslim leader.

"Just as the Saudi King, to whom Obammer* recently bowed, is not such a leader."

Point vs. Counterpoint: Obammer* vs. Searle

In my usual manner, I will quote from the text of Obammer's* speech (the following "Points"), then follow with my comments (the following "Counterpoints"):

Point:

The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.

Counterpoint:

Don't forget: I ran against this guy for the presidency and lost (obviously). Which is why this speech didn't contain these (my) words:

"The first issue that we have to confront is the lack of justice which in turn gives rise to violent extremism."

Quite a difference, eh? My view is: Ramp up the level of justice and then the level of violence by extremists will decrease. Obammer's* view is: The level of violence has to be tamped down, then we'll get around to dealing with just solutions (or at least talking about them).

Point:

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims.

So America will defend itself respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.

Counterpoint:

Obammer* is trying the old "divide and conquer" strategy. He's saying, "I'm trying to talk Muslim governments into siding with me against a ‘small but potent minority of Muslims' who have had their tensions exploited by violent extremists."

He tipped his hand when he said, "...we will do so [defend ourselves] in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened." Actually, Obammer* used the word "partner" or its variants ten times within his speech. And this was no accident. "Partner" is code for "the US seeks to infiltrate and then dominate Muslim institutions, so as to work with complicit Muslim governments against the best interests of their own people."

Obammer*, like most elitists, prefers to work with other elitists - that is, with those who are members of established power structures. I'm sure, though, that the Muslim elite realizes that it is simply not possible to enter into a partnership with the US government in which both sides have equal say. Funny, but things don't tend to work out that way.

I dare say, most Muslims are not interested in "partnering" with the United States at all. They'd rather have us get out of town. They want now what they've always wanted: Non-Muslims to leave Muslim lands.

Point (revisited):

So America will defend itself respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law.

Counterpoint:

Did we respect the sovereignty of Iraq before invading that country under false pretenses?

Did we respect the sovereignty of Afghanistan by seizing on the events of 9/11 to justify destabilizing its government, while intending to do just that well before 9/11? It's been almost 8 years and we still haven't caught bin Laden. That was the reason we went there, right? To smoke out bin Laden?

As for being respectful of "the rule of law," I wish Obammer* had added "when it's convenient." For that is what he surely meant. This in particular sticks in my mind: Our president decided it wasn't very convenient to prosecute Bush Era torturers - not when he's trying to reach out to the other side of the aisle.

Point:

We were born out of revolution against an empire.

Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding.

Counterpoint:

Obammer* proudly boasts, "[The US was] born out of revolution against an empire." And much later in his speech, he piously claims, "Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed." Obviously, "violence and killing" do succeed, when you can't get what you want from the British Empire by asking nicely.

Then Obammer* had the audacity to claim, "But it was not violence that won full and equal rights [for American blacks]. It was a peaceful and determined insistence..." I assure you, Mr. President, if there had been no race riots, or violent demonstrations, or talk of Black Power revolution, White America would not have been so quick to move on Black grievances. And furthermore, sir, you are being disrespectful of the martyrs who'd died in that violence by pretending that only "peaceful and determined insistence" won the day.

Point:

We did not go by choice [to Afghanistan], we went because of necessity.

Counterpoint:

Bull shit, Mr. President! You slyly understated our history with your choice of verbs - when you said "we did not go by choice..." Go?! What the hell is go supposed to mean? For we did not (just) go to that country, we invaded and occupied for over 7 years.

So let's please not say go, shall we? Let's call it what it was - "invade and occupy" - for I believe in calling a spade a spade. It was not necessary in the first place to invade Afghanistan. We went for two reasons:

• We had preordained, before 9/11, that the Taliban government had to go (something to do with an oil pipeline).

• We invaded Afghanistan to satisfy the emotional needs of a weak, insecure President to appear as a strong man seeking his right of revenge; the same man who did everything he could to undermine the work of the 9/11 Commission.

Since when is it "necessary" to invade a country (not to mention occupying it for eight years) in order to protect our citizens, when they would have been quite adequately protected had our intelligence services been doing their jobs? And our Air Force not been ordered to "stand down" instead of following normal protocols regarding hijacked airliners?

Point:

I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody

Counterpoint:

I, for one, question the events of 9/11: Here's one question: Why isn't the Obammer* administration reopening the investigation into the causes behind the 9/11 attacks?

Let's be clear about this, Mr. President: Democrats and Republicans alike seemed awfully quick to downplay any possibility that actors within our own military/security forces and their leaders aided and abetted those attacks. I know that 3,000 people died on that day, but I'm not convinced that al Qaeda was the only party responsible.

And as for those 3,000 being "innocent," now comes the part that's hard for me to say (only because I know it's hard for non-Buddhists to hear, but hear it they must):

"There is no such thing as an innocent death. People die when they do and under particular circumstances for reasons; karmic reasons which can extend back myriad lifetimes."

The easiest way to look at this: Most, if not all, of the Trade Center employees who died that day paid taxes. Those taxes went to pay for wars and covert actions which are harmful to brown people the world over. Many of them were employed in the financial services industry and had routinely (all in a day's work) utilized their corporate leverage to expand our power at the expense of...it's always at the expense of someone else whom we never lay eyes on. So those people were not entirely "innocent," were they?

It could be argued that even those who had escaped from the WTC towers that day had also paid their taxes. And maybe they lived more sinful lives than those who'd perished. What of that? That's where due consideration has to be given to the kind of life lived in previous existences. But only a Buddha is capable of that kind of consideration.

It is improper for a Buddhist to speak of "innocent" lives being taken. There is no innocence. We all have a variety of merits and demerits accrued to us, even as we wait in the womb to be born. But ... Obammer* isn't a Buddhist; perhaps that will come to weigh against him very heavily. And against us.

Point:

We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home [from Afghanistan] if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can.

Counterpoint:

Again, bull shit, Mr. President. Who are you kidding? [Well, not me, for one; for I had you figured out fairly early on.]

For one thing, I'm sure there are "violent extremists" in Iran who would dearly love to "kill as many Americans as they possibly can." But of course, they can't. Because they are over there and we are over here. And they can't get here from there. But maybe you'll want to invade and occupy Iran, Mr. President, just to (you know) be sure the bad guys can't ever find a way to get at us.

And it goes without saying, Mr. President, that you would not bring every single one of our troops home if doing so would mean the Taliban would seize power (again).

Point:

Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice.

Counterpoint:

What?! Didn't you know? Iraq was a war of necessity, since "everybody" honestly, really, truly believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction ready to manifest mushroom clouds over our cities.

Point:

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people ...have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations - large and small - that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.

Counterpoint:

They have endured the pain of "dislocation?" Dislocation?! How about using these words instead: "...the pain of having their land and homes seized from them at the hands of a self-righteous and self-absorbed people?"

Palestinians endure the daily humiliations - large and small - that come with occupation? How about telling it this way: "They endure the daily humiliations - large and small - that come at the hands of an Israeli aggressor that has no intention of ever allowing a Palestinian state to come into existence." What part of "ever" don't you understand?

Point:

That is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires.

Counterpoint:

Ah, that magic word "patience." Yes, siree, Bob. We all know that progress in the Middle East - justice for the Palestinians - won't come overnight. Got to have patience - lots of it (which is code for "don't hold your breath"). Tell that to those who have lived their entire lives in a refugee camp. No wonder you gave that speech in a university with a carefully selected audience. Spewing that crap on the streets of Gaza City would have gotten you stoned.

Point:

The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.

Counterpoint:

Notice that Obammer* didn't say, "It is time for these settlements to stop and to be transferred to the sovereign control of the Palestinians who might or might not decide to allow Jews to continue living in their country."

Obammer* can say anything he wants about the settlements or about a Two State solution. But he won't do squat. In fact, if the Israeli leadership tells him to jump, he'll ask "How high?" as he continues writing annual, multi-billion dollar checks as our leaders have done for 30 years. [No, Jimmy Carter, all that Camp David money didn't buy us peace after all, now did it?]

Point:

To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist.

Counterpoint:

All of this talk of recognizing Israel's right to exist is premature, isn't it? I mean, aren't we talking about extending diplomatic recognition? If so, then that's only a status that can be granted by one country to another. So if Palestine is not yet an independent nation, why are we talking about extending diplomatic recognition? Again, "all of this talk" is premature.

Point:

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people.

Counterpoint:

Very interesting. "Each nation" does this? Does that include North Korea? China? Myanmar? Any of the petty little dictatorships we've routinely propped up? Do they give "life to this principle?"

Point:

... all of us [in America] share common aspirations - to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share.

Counterpoint:

Hold on thar, pardner! What do you mean "and our God?" You're supposed to be the President of the United States, so why are you talking God talk while acting in your official capacity?

I, for one, am a Buddhist who does not believe in this "our God" (of the Abrahamic faiths) to whom you refer. As a matter of fact, I believe the Middle East will remain in a permanent state of siege precisely because of this devotion to the Abrahamic God. Unless this false faith is abandoned, and replaced by compassionate Buddhist practice, the Middle East will remain what it is now:

A desert realm so destitute of greenery and the milk of human kindness that calling it a Holy Land makes a mockery of that term.

Closing Comments

I don't know - maybe it's just me. But every time I hear Obammer* speak, I think of that old tune by the Chiffons called Sweet Talkin' Guy. The first two lines go like this:

Sweet talkin' guy, talking sweet kinda lies

Don't you believe in him, if you do he'll make you cry.

If you think that sounds like a warning...well, that's exactly what it is.

Steven Searle (was) a candidate for U.S. President in 2008:

"My friends consider me to be a reasonably charitable guy. Believe me, I would love to be more charitable to our president. But reading his words rapidly drains me of that impulse" - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

* The following essay explains why I refer to him as "Blacque Obammer": http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2008/12/why_blacque_obammer

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.