Wall Street Journal Is Happy that

Obama Is Aping George Bush

By M.P. Prabhakaran

            The speech delivered by President Obama in Cairo, on June 4, 2009, did have an impact, mostly positive, on the entire Muslim world. The speech, aimed at winning the hearts and minds of Muslims, was couched in terms respectful of their culture and drew on themes that are of mutual interest to America and the Muslim world. Opinion leaders of the latter applauded the speech, though their governments would rather wait and see what actions would follow.

But most Muslims are in agreement on one thing: The Obama speech was soothingly different from those President Bush gave immediately after the 2001 terrorist attacks. Bush’s speeches, as we all know, were full of bravadoes like “Bring them on” and “You are either with us or against us.” As The New York Times says in its editorial, on June 5, 2009, Bush’s “vision was of a country racked with fear and bent on vengeance, one that imposed invidious choices on the world and on itself.” By the time he left office, almost the entire Muslim world felt alienated from America.

To end that alienation was the primary goal of Obama’s Cairo speech. He had no illusion that the goal would be easy to achieve. But it is laudable that he has taken a decisive first step toward that goal.

The speech was widely cheered within the U.S., too. Most people and the non-partisan section of the media found in it a harbinger of an era of cooperation and trust between their country and the Muslim world. The relationship between the two has lately been marred by mistrust. Bush’s “war on terror” intensified the mistrust.

Criticism from Right-Wingers

The speech had its critics, too. They are on the fringe, though. Extremist Muslims around the world and right-wingers in the U.S. ridiculed the speech. In the forefront of the right-wing media in the country are some of the loud-mouthed talk show hosts on radio and television. Critics in the print media are led by the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal.

The Journal’s June 5 editorial, sarcastically titled “Barack Hussein Bush,” began thus: “One benefit of the Obama Presidency is that it is validating much of George W. Bush’s security agenda and foreign policy merely by dint of autobiographical rebranding.”

If what the editorial says is true, Obama has badly let down the overwhelming majority of American voters who elected him President. They elected him in repudiation of what Bush and his ilk did, especially in the security and foreign policy areas, during their eight years in office. But dear voters, don’t worry. What the Journal editorial says is a lie. Obama’s worldview is the polar opposite of Bush’s. He has undertaken the daunting task of cleaning up the mess left behind by Bush. To say that he has been rebranding Bush’s agenda as his own is an insult to his intelligence.

Equally insulting is the remark in the editorial that Obama was being “in Laura Bush-mode” when he spoke on issues pertaining to Muslim women. First, a word about Laura Bush: From what I observed, and read about her, during the past eight years, I can tell that she is a fine human being. There are many in America who subscribe to my opinion that the country would have been better off if it had Laura Bush as president, rather than her arrogant, self-righteous, closed-minded husband. But that shouldn’t gloss over the fact, however, that she took an interest in issues relating to Muslim women only after she became First Lady.

On the other hand, to Obama, the son of a Kenyan-Muslim who spent his early-childhood years in Indonesia, the most populous Muslim country in the world, the knowledge about the plight of Muslim women came as part of his growing up. He did not have to wait until he became president to acquire that knowledge. Anyone who suggests that Obama was aping someone else when he spoke about the plight of Muslim women, that too while addressing the Muslim world, is simply stupid.

America’s relationship with the Muslim world has rarely been smooth. Tensions did exist in that relationship long before George W. Bush came on the scene. But nothing strained the relationship more than the policies and pronouncements of Bush, in the wake of September 11 terrorist attacks. “Crusade” was the word Bush used to describe the war he was about to launch to punish the attackers. Naturally, the word sent a shudder across the Muslim world. Bitter memories of what their ancestors suffered during the Crusades revisited Muslims. And the Bushies’ thoughtless mouthing of expressions like “Islamic terrorists” and “Islamo-fascism,” while talking about what they gleefully called the “war on terror,” made matters worse. Muslims misunderstood the “war on terror” as a war on Islam. They also thought that the Bush administration was treating all Muslims as terrorists. Obama made it his mission to clear the misunderstanding.

Mutual Interest and Mutual Respect

As he said early on in his speech, “I have come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition.” He reassured all Muslims that “America is not – and never will be – at war with Islam.”

He deliberately avoided using the term “war on terror” when he spoke about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He drew a clear distinction between the two wars. This is what he said about the war in Afghanistan: “Over seven years ago, the United States pursued Al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice; we went because of necessity.” The necessity arose when definite proof emerged that the attacks of September 11 were planned and financed by Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network Al Qaeda and that both bin Laden and his followers were well ensconced in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan.

Then the speech turned to the controversial war the Bush administration dragged the country into. “Unlike Afghanistan,” Obama said, “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.”

It’s so decent of Obama that he did not say on foreign soil that Bush lied to the American people when he gave them the reason for starting the Iraq war. The reason he gave was that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction which posed an imminent threat to the security of America. The Journal editorial page was one of the strongest advocates of that lie-based war. No wonder it now excoriates Obama for calling it “a war of choice.” Here is how the June 5 editorial does it: “His insistence on calling Iraq a ‘war of choice’ is a needless insult to Mr. Bush that diminishes the cause for which more than 4,000 Americans have died.”

Yes, more than 4,000 Americans died and several thousand got injured in the Iraq war. What makes it more painful is that they died and got injured because their leader sent him to the battlefield in pursuance of a lie. To say that more than 4,000 Americans died for a cause is another lie. The Journal editorialist may note that repeating a lie in the hope of getting it accepted as truth is a Goebbelsian tactic.

It’s about time that those who are responsible for the Iraq war, the Wall Street Journal editorial page included, offered an unconditional apology to the families of 4,000-odd Americans and of tens of thousands of Iraqis who got killed in the war. But then, only those who have character and strength of mind are capable of admitting mistakes and apologizing. So let’s leave it at that.

Instead of taking Obama to task for having spoken the truth, The Journal may want to take a look at what the New York Times says about it in its June 5 editorial: “After eight years of arrogance and bullying that has turned even close friends against the United States, it takes a strong president to acknowledge the mistakes of the past. And it takes a strong president to press himself and the world to do better.”

Israeli-Palestinian Dispute

The Cairo speech also discussed another major source of tension between the United States and the Muslim world – the U.S. policy in the Middle East. President Obama let everyone know that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, which has been simmering for over 60 years, is on top of his foreign policy agenda. If the dispute eluded resolution all these years, it was not for want of trying on the part of past U.S. presidents. It was partly due to the intransigence of the parties involved and partly due to the misconception among the Arabs that the U.S. could not be trusted as an impartial mediator in the dispute.

There may be historical reasons for the misconception. As we all know, the U.S. was the first country to recognize Israel, and it did it even before the ink dried on the U.N. resolution that gave birth to Israel. Also, the power of the Jewish lobby in the U.S. to influence the country’s foreign policy vis-à-vis the Middle East is known to all.

Many Arab nations and most Palestinians have not recognized as yet the reality that Israel is here to stay. They should realize that as long as they delay that recognition – mark it, one day, they will have to come around to doing it – they are delaying the resolution of their dispute with Israel.

Obama knew that his first task was to convince the Arabs that the U.S. was going to be even-handed in its mediatory role. That’s why, after imploring all Palestinian factions to recognize Israel’s right to exist, he said:

“At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel’s right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine’s. 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.…

“And Israel must also live up to its obligation to ensure that Palestinians can live and work and develop their society.”

No U.S. president has ever spoken to Israelis about their responsibility as forthrightly and boldly as Obama did in Cairo. The Journal editorial dismisses it as “an easy applause line.”

I am beginning to wonder whether the paper wants Obama to fail in everything he undertakes the same way that poster boy of the Republican Party wants. I am referring to the foul-mouthed radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, whom the former comedian and soon-to-be-senator from Minnesota, Al Franken, aptly described as “A Big Fat Idiot.” Those who suffer if Obama fails will be all Americans, including the editorial writers on The Wall Street Journal.

(First published on June 9, 2009. It has since been slightly edited.)

(Readers are invited to comment. Send your comments to letters@eastwestinquirer.com)

☺   ☺   ☺

Readers' Responses

Greatest Folly in America's 233-Year History

I appreciate your comments on The Wall Street Journal’s sickening editorial on President Obama’s well-thought-out speech in Cairo. The selection of Cairo as the venue for his speech was itself part of his message, a message directed at the Muslim world.

Islam was born out of what Muslims believe to be revelations from God, which Prophet Muhammad received, in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. Muslims also believe that the Prophet went to Paradise after his death. It is important to note that he went to Paradise via Jerusalem.

Initially, standards that Muslims are supposed to follow were set in the North African region. The extremist Wahhabi variant of Islam, practiced in Saudi Arabia and exported from there, is not older than 90 years. In the 1960s, the Muslim Brotherhood, another sectarian group in Islam, was in its infant stage. Now it has grown into a monster. That does not justify the branding of the whole religion as terrorist. I also appreciate your pointing out the difference between the policies of Bush and of Obama.

I may be permitted to add here that The Wall Street Journal has made it its ‘sacred’ mission to promote the scorched-earth or beggar-capitalist economic policies of Bush. At the same time, just to throw in an aside not related to this editorial, the paper has been ridiculing India's realistic economic policies which encourage participation in the country's economy of both private and public sectors. The policies have proved that mixed economy, with proper oversight, can work very well. India does believe in planning and protecting its economy from unregulated free market.

Kulamarva Balakrishna, Vienna, Austria

June 10, 2009

*      *      *

To browse any of the following sections, click on them:

Travel || Report || Commentary || Essay || Book Review || Theater Review || Film Review || Archive