the tindog coffeehouse

President Barack Hussein Obama (because he likes being called by his middle name now) delivered a lengthy speech in Cairo earlier today, in which he essentially apologized to the Muslim world for that whole “war on terror” thing and asked if we could be their BFF. (Emphasis mine.)

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. …

So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us 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. This is the hope of all humanity. …

Unlike Afghanistan, 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. …

9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.

Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I have made it clear to Iran’s leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question, now, is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.

It will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America’s interests. It is about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.

I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. 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. …

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. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other. …

It is easier to start wars than to end them. It is easier to blame others than to look inward; to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There is also one rule that lies at the heart of every religion – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Never mind for a minute the irony of Obama’s official surrendering to terrorism coming on the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, in which thousands of brave Chinese citizens died standing up against terror.  The thing that strikes me most about Obama’s apologetic speech is how perfectly opposite it is compared to John F. Kennedy’s defiant “Ich bin ein Berliner” speech in 1963:

What is true of this city is true of Germany–real, lasting peace in Europe can never be assured as long as one German out of four is denied the elementary right of free men, and that is to make a free choice. In 18 years of peace and good faith, this generation of Germans has earned the right to be free, including the right to unite their families and their nation in lasting peace, with good will to all people. You live in a defended island of freedom, but your life is part of the main. So let me ask you as I close, to lift your eyes beyond the dangers of today, to the hopes of tomorrow, beyond the freedom merely of this city of Berlin, or your country of Germany, to the advance of freedom everywhere, beyond the wall to the day of peace with justice, beyond yourselves and ourselves to all mankind.

Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free. When all are free, then we can look forward to that day when this city will be joined as one and this country and this great Continent of Europe in a peaceful and hopeful globe. When that day finally comes, as it will, the people of West Berlin can take sober satisfaction in the fact that they were in the front lines for almost two decades.

Of course, Obama’s apology to the Muslim world didn’t just start with today’s speech.  In April, he said in a Turkish press conference that he doesn’t consider the United States “a Christian nation, a Jewish nation, or a Muslim nation.  We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.”

He then went on to make the preposterous claim in an interview with the French media that “if you actually took the number of Muslims Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.”  (Actually, with an estimated 2.35 million Muslims in America, we rank 52nd in the world — not exactly what I would call “one of the largest.”)

Now, you may be asking, so what?  Why shouldn’t the United States try to mend the strained relationship with the Muslim world?  After all, George W. Bush made essentially the same argument when he addressed Congress on September 20, 2001:

I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world: We respect your faith.  It is practiced freely by many millions of Americans, and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends.  Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah.  The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself.  The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.

The difference, though, between Bush’s statement and Obama’s is that President Bush wasn’t apologizing for the actions of the United States, and he never did throughout the remainder of his administration.  He wasn’t naïve enough to believe we could all just hold hands and get along, that if we asked nice enough that the bad guys would just put away their IEDs and dismantle their nuclear weapons.  He understood the necessity of standing firm against our enemies, even when those principles weren’t popular.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with reassuring the Muslim community that America desires peace with Islamic nations around the world.  But to sell out the integrity of the American people in hopes that we’ll be liked better is not only foolish, it is outright reckless and dangerous.

The Islamic terrorists of this world still want us dead.  They still want to destroy Israel.  While Obama was telling the world that we should all just follow the Golden Rule, Osama bin Laden was reiterating his commitment to “new long wars” with the U.S. in a new tape that aired on al Jazeera.

The point is that now is not the time for apologies.  Now is not the time to give in to Iran or North Korea or al Qaeda.  Now is not the time to “change course.”  If that means we’re not the most liked nation in the world, then so be it.  It’s a small price to pay for freedom and safety.

William McGurn writes in the Wall Street Journal that George W. Bush’s greatest failure was his victory in Iraq:

Mr. Bush’s disfavor in Washington owes more to his greatest success. Simply put, there are those who will never forgive Mr. Bush for not losing a war they had all declared unwinnable.

In other words, many people expected Iraq to be a complete and total failure, yet President Bush stubbornly proved them wrong, much to their dismay.

The article goes on to explain how this expectation of defeat is clearly rooted in “Vietnam thinking,” which begs the question: When everything is said and done, how will history ultimately judge the Iraq War?

Will we look back on it 30 years from now as another Vietnam, a long and drawn-out military campaign with no clear metrics for victory and one which ended only because our collective will finally gave out?  Or will we see it as a turning point, not only in the war on Islamic terrorism and not only for the people of Iraq, but for America as a whole, a sound rebuttal to our past inadequacies?

From the outset, I disagreed with President Bush’s decision to go into Iraq, yet once there, it became crystal clear we had to finish what we had started.  Leaving prematurely because we weren’t winning fast enough simply wasn’t an option.  To his credit, Mr. Bush understood that, even when his critics did not.  And now because of his steadfast commitment, we have a real opportunity to walk out of Iraq with our heads held high.

Michael Goldfarb points out in the Weekly Standard blog, “The result is that Obama has inherited victory in Iraq.”  And there’s the answer to the question.

If we ultimately win in Iraq, President Obama will most certainly get the credit; if we lose, President Bush will most certainly get the blame.

History, as they say, is written by the victors.

Previously:
President Bush: the exit interview

National Review’s Jay Nordlinger had a chance to interview President Bush about his presidency and put a whole bunch of quotes from the interview into his column.

Here are a few of the more interesting ones, but it’s worth reading the whole thing.

On the troop surge in Iraq:

“And I can’t remember the moment, but I know full well [National Security Adviser] Steve [Hadley] and I said, ‘We’re going to figure out and get to the bottom of this thing . . .’ And you’ve got to understand: With me, I’m thinking victory the whole time. And I fully understood the consequences of defeat — which are easier to explain, by the way, than the consequences of victory. And so we started to assess, and the different options started bubbling up, I guess, toward the end of the summer [’06] . . .

“The way it should work for a president on a decision this big is to make sure everybody has a chance to express themselves. I guess you could try to hastily make a decision of this magnitude and say, ‘This is the way it is.’ On the other hand, when you’re implementing a decision of this magnitude, where people’s lives would be at stake, it is important to give a lot of different stakeholders a chance to express their opinion. The president says, ‘It’s not working, we must assess, and what is it going to take to win?’

“And there were a lot of opinions during this period of time — a lot. Which is good for the president. You really don’t want homogenized decision-making. And opinions ranged from Get out, to Get out of Baghdad, step back, and hope the violence which will occur as a result of the vacuum doesn’t spill out.” Some people said, “Okay, some troops” — and eventually, “as a result of a lot of interagency working,” there were 30,000 additional troops: the surge. “Why? Because that’s what it would take to win, or to achieve the objective.”

On abortion:

“One of the principles by which I have conducted my presidency is, all life is precious, and a society, a whole society, is one that treats the most vulnerable with respect and care. And I believe the most vulnerable — one of the most vulnerable is the unborn person, unborn child.”

He also felt the need to say, “I fully understand the importance of science.”

On a “culture of life,” he said, “I’ve always said laws change once hearts change. I think there’s [now] a better appreciation of the importance of protecting life; that the debate has somewhat shifted from one of civil rights to one group of people to civil rights to the unborn.”

On popularity with other nations:

“You can get short-term popularity in the Middle East if you want, by blaming all problems on Israel. That’ll make you popular. You can be popular in certain salons of Europe if you say, ‘Okay, we’ll join the International Criminal Court.’ I could have been popular if I’d said, ‘Oh, Kyoto is the way to deal with the environmental problem.’ That would have made me liked. It would have made me wrong, however. And, ultimately, you earn people’s respect by articulating a set of principles and standing by them.

“You know, popularity comes and goes. It just does. It comes and goes for an individual or a nation. But principles are enduring.”

On principles:

“I’m comfortable that I have made principled decisions for eight years — that I was unwilling to sacrifice those principles for the sake of short-term approbation, approval, or whatever you want to call it.”

It’s refreshing to hear President Bush speak so freely without the filter of a biased media.

I must say I’ve disagreed with him on a number of things over the course of his presidency, but I’ve always respected him for acting on his principles.  One of his greatest strengths (and possibly his weaknesses) is that he always fought for what he believed in, whether it was popular or not.  Quite a difference from Bill Clinton, who never had a genuine conviction in his life.

A couple of interesting posts from über-blog Boing Boing on the economy:

First, a sobering look at the cost of the recent government bailouts, which have exceeded $4.6 trillion if the Citigroup bailout is included.  (Original blog post here.)

Crunching the inflation adjusted numbers, we find the bailout has cost more than all of these big budget government expenditures – combined:

• Marshall Plan: Cost: $12.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $115.3 billion
• Louisiana Purchase: Cost: $15 million, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $217 billion
• Race to the Moon: Cost: $36.4 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $237 billion
• S&L Crisis: Cost: $153 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $256 billion
• Korean War: Cost: $54 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $454 billion
• The New Deal: Cost: $32 billion (Est), Inflation Adjusted Cost: $500 billion (Est)
• Invasion of Iraq: Cost: $551b, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $597 billion
• Vietnam War: Cost: $111 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $698 billion
• NASA: Cost: $416.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $851.2 billion

TOTAL: $3.92 trillion

I’m sure there’s a lot of debate over these numbers, but at least you begin to get an idea about how much money is at stake here.

Second, Dale Dougherty has a long (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) list of why CNN has a hard time reporting on the flailing economy:

1 ) It’s not a hurricane so Anderson Cooper of CNN is unable to position himself in the middle of the storm for optimal drama. In other words, TV anchors can’t get wet and windblown, while viewers worry about their safety. The state of the economy is a disaster but not a natural disaster. Nobody’s leaving the studio for this one. There’s no place to go. …

8 ) “Why can’t this be happening to Russia or China? If it was only happening there, and not here, we would know how to cover it.” CNN would send Christiane Amanpour there. “Live from…”. We don’t have visuals like people knocking down walls, rushing into the streets or standing in lines. The Fall of the Berlin Wall is the Fall of Communism, the fall of Saddam’s statue — now these are stories of new freedoms. In America today, we have a big fall without a distinctive symbol, without a video loop, without an exotic locale. …

10 ) Lastly, the TV media is no better off than we are at understanding this complex crisis. On a gut level, viewers know what the story is, that it’s about them, their future and their children’s future. They have specific questions that are difficult to answer (see the Suze Orman blog on CNN where it is promised that she’ll answer these many, many questions; she doesn’t, of course.) and they have general worries (should I panic?) that are hard to resolve. While we try to absorb as much information as possible, we keep having the same conversation over and over:
Q. What’s going on?
A. I don’t know. It’s hard to tell.

Yesterday marked the 5th anniversary of President Bush’s ill-executed “Mission Accomplished” speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, and of course the anti-Bush/anti-Iraq press were very quick to use it as another opportunity to label Iraq (and Bush) as a failure.

For all the polls and statistics, though, something occurred to me as I was driving home from work yesterday. Where have all the patriotic “Support Our Troops” yellow ribbon magnets gone? It used to be not so long ago that maybe every fourth or fifth car you saw had some variant of these magnets on them, either the traditional yellow variety or maybe the red, white, and blue version, perhaps even a camouflage version. There were also a lot patriotic bumper stickers or other stickers on car windows. Today? Very few.

Yesterday I began watching other cars (in addition to watching the road), looking for a patriotic sticker or magnet on the back of cars. Out of the maybe couple thousand cars I saw during my hour-plus drive home, I saw two cars with a “Support Our Troops” magnet. Two.

Now, I know that’s nowhere near a scientific survey, and that’s not to say that a driver without a patriotic sticker isn’t patriotic. (Full disclosure: My car’s only external decoration is a UT Longhorns emblem.) But I can tell you for a fact that the number of patriotic magnets a year ago was way higher.

So what’s the deal? Are people really expressing their frustration and exhaustion with the war? Are we, in fact, as “bitter” as Barack Obama says we are? Or has the obnoxious car magnet fad just played itself out, as the Livestong bracelets did and as Crocs will surely do? I don’t know. But I should also point out that I also didn’t see any political bumper stickers during the same trek home, which seems odd being a presidential election year. Maybe that fad has played itself out, too.