Speechifying and The Cold Water of Reality!

Synopsis of Obama's speech to the Muslim World. (See 1 below.)

Entire speech. (see 1 a below.)

An analysis of problems posed by Obama's speech by David Paul Kuhn. (See 1b below.)

Obama touched all the bases and said what he believes needed saying.

Time will tell whether Obama's dreamy hopes capture the day and alter the course of Middle East history or whether he has boxed himself in and tied our hands should those who disagree with his aspirations choose to pursue their continued course of hatred and destruction.

Speechifying is one thing and can serve a useful purpose and become a guiding light but N Korea and Iran's nuclear ambitions are the cold water that reality confronts us with daily.

Then back to more reality according to Rove.

Rising unemployment is likely to continue for quite some time and all presidents rise and fall with their accomplishments and failures. Nothing new there. (See 2 below.)

A Britisher believes June 4 marks an economic divergence and should be celebrated. (See 3 below.)

Goldman Sach's Corzine has flopped as a governor. Will the citizens of New Jersey continue to suffer under his floundering Liberal management and philosophy? Will/can Christie become a Republican giant killer? (See 4 below.)

Cheney's unleashing has given us greater insights into who he is for those willing to be objective and put in perspective his plusses and minusses. (See 5 below.)

Dick



1) Obama calls for new beginning between US, Muslims
By MARK S. SMITH

CAIRO – Quoting from the Quran for emphasis, President Barack Obama called for a "new beginning between the United States and Muslims" Thursday and said together, they could confront violent extremism across the globe and advance the timeless search for peace in the Middle East.

"This cycle of suspicion and discord must end," Obama said in a widely anticipated speech in one of the world's largest Muslim countries, an address designed to reframe relations after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

The White House said Obama's speech contained no new policy proposals on the Middle East. He said American ties with Israel are unbreakable, yet issued a firm, evenhanded call to the Jewish state and Palestinians alike to live up to their international obligations.

In a gesture to the Islamic world, Obama conceded at the beginning of his remarks that tension "has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations."

"And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear," said the president, who recalled hearing prayer calls of "azaan" at dawn and dusk while living in Indonesia as a boy.

At the same time, he said the same principle must apply in reverse. "Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire."

Obama spoke at Cairo University after meeting with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on the second stop of a four-nation trip to the Middle East and Europe.

The speech was the centerpiece of his journey, and while its tone was striking, the president also covered the Middle East peace process, Iran, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the violent struggle waged by al-Qaida.

Obama arrived in the Middle East on Wednesday, greeted by a new and threatening message from al-Qaida's leader, Osama bin Laden. In an audio recording, the terrorist leader said the president inflamed the Muslim world by ordering Pakistan to crack down on militants in the Swat Valley and block Islamic law there.

But Obama said the actions of violent extremist Muslims are "irreconcilable with the rights of human beings," and quoted the Quran to make his point: "be conscious of God and always speak the truth ..."

"Islam is not part of the problem in combatting violent extremism — it is an important part of promoting peace," he said.

"Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist," he said of the organization the United States deems as terrorists.

"The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people," Obama said.

"At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements" on the West Bank and outskirts of Jerusalem, he said. "It is time for these settlements to stop."

As for Jerusalem itself, he said it should be a "secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims ..."

Obama also said the Arab nations should no longer use the conflict with Israel to distract its own people from other problems.

He treaded lightly on one issue that President George W. Bush had made a centerpiece of his second term — the spread of democracy.

Obama said he has a commitment to governments "that reflect the will of the people." And yet, he said, "No system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other."

At times, there was an echo of Obama's campaign mantra of change in his remarks, and he said many are afraid it cannot occur.

"There is so much fear, so much mistrust. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward," he said.

The president's brief stay in Cairo included a visit to the Sultan Hassan mosque, a 600-year-old center of Islamic worship and study. A tour of the Great Pyramids of Giza was also on his itinerary.

The build-up to the speech was enormous, stoked by the White House although Obama seemed at pains to minimize hopes for immediate consequences.

"One speech is not going to solve all the problems in the Middle East," he told a French interviewer. "Expectations should be somewhat modest."

Eager to spread the president's message as widely as possible, the tech-savvy White House orchestrated a live Webcast of the speech on the White House site; remarks translated into 13 languages; a special State Department site where users could sign up for speech highlights; and distribution of excerpts to social networking giants MySpace, Twitter and Facebook.

Though the speech was co-sponsored by al-Azhar University, which has taught science and Quranic scripture here for nearly a millennium, the actual venue was the more modern and secular Cairo University. The lectern was set up in the domed main auditorium on a stage dominated by a picture of Mubarak.

Human rights advocates found that symbolism troubling: an American president watched over by an aging autocrat who's ruled Egypt since 1981.

"Egypt's democrats cannot help being concerned," wrote Dina Guirguis, executive director of Voices for a Democratic Egypt.

The university's alumni are among the Arab world's most famous — and notorious. They include the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Nobel Prize-winning author Naguib Mahfuz. Saddam Hussein studied law in the '60s but did not graduate. And al-Qaida second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahri earned a medical degree.

1a) A New Beginning With Muslims
By Barack Obama

I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning, and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. Together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I am grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. I am also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: assalaamu alaykum.

We meet at a time of tension between the United States and Muslims around the world - tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. 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.

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. 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. This has bred more fear and mistrust.

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

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.

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." That is what I will try to do - to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

Part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I am a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam - at places like Al-Azhar University - that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims." And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our Universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers - Thomas Jefferson - kept in his personal library.

So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words - within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum: "Out of many, one."

Much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores - that includes nearly seven million American Muslims in our country today who enjoy incomes and education that are higher than average.

Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That is why the U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.

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.

Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.

For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. And when innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.

This is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes subjugating one another to serve their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners of it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; progress must be shared.

That does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: we must face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.

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

In Ankara, I made clear that America is not - and never will be - at war with Islam. We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security. Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.

The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together. 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. 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. And yet Al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

Make no mistake: we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home 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. But that is not yet the case.

That's why we're partnering with a coalition of forty-six countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths - more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism - it is an important part of promoting peace.

We also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who have been displaced. And that is why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend upon.

Let me also address the issue of Iraq. 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. Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: "I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be."

Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future - and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. That is why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq's democratically-elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all our troops from Iraq by 2012. We will help Iraq train its Security Forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.

And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter our principles. 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.

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.

The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.

America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed - more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction - or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews - is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people - Muslims and Christians - 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.

For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It is easy to point fingers - for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.

That is in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest, and the world's interest. That is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires. The obligations that the parties have agreed to under the Road Map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them - and all of us - to live up to our responsibilities.

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. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.

Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have responsibilities. 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.

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.

Israel must also live up to its obligations to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society. And just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

Finally, the Arab States must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state; to recognize Israel's legitimacy; and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.

America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.

Too many tears have flowed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer.

The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.

This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is indeed a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government. 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. And any nation - including Iran - should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the Treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

The fourth issue that I will address is democracy.

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.

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. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.

There is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments - provided they govern with respect for all their people.

This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.

The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom.

Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind, heart, and soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it is being challenged in many different ways.

Among some Muslims, there is a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of another's. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld - whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. And fault lines must be closed among Muslims as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.

Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.

Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit - for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.

Indeed, faith should bring us together. That is why we are forging service projects in America that bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews. That is why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah's Interfaith dialogue and Turkey's leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations. Around the world, we can turn dialogue into Interfaith service, so bridges between peoples lead to action - whether it is combating malaria in Africa, or providing relief after a natural disaster.

The sixth issue that I want to address is women's rights.

I know there is debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

Now let me be clear: issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.

Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity - men and women - to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.

Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity.

I know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information, but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence. Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities, but also huge disruptions and changing communities. In all nations - including my own - this change can bring fear. Fear that because of modernity we will lose of control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly our identities - those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.

But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradiction between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim-majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai. In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.

This is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground, nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work. Many Gulf States have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century, and in too many Muslim communities there remains underinvestment in these areas. I am emphasizing such investments within my country. And while America in the past has focused on oil and gas in this part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement.

On education, we will expand exchange programs, and increase scholarships, like the one that brought my father to America, while encouraging more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students with internships in America; invest in on-line learning for teachers and children around the world; and create a new online network, so a teenager in Kansas can communicate instantly with a teenager in Cairo.

On economic development, we will create a new corps of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim-majority countries. And I will host a Summit on Entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.

On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create jobs. We will open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new Science Envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, and grow new crops. And today I am announcing a new global effort with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.

All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments; community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.

The issues that I have described will not be easy to address. But we have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world we seek - a world where extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God's children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek. But we can only achieve it together.

I know there are many - Muslim and non-Muslim - who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn't worth the effort - that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There is so much fear, so much mistrust. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country - you, more than anyone, have the ability to remake this world.

All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort - a sustained effort - to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.

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. This truth transcends nations and peoples - a belief that isn't new; that isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian, or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the heart of billions. It's a faith in other people, and it's what brought me here today.

We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.

The Holy Koran tells us, "O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another."

The Talmud tells us: "The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace."

The Holy Bible tells us, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."

The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now, that must be our work here on Earth. Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you.

1b) The Mediator Takes on the Middle East
By David Paul Kuhn


Barack Obama hopes to turn another page. Instead of domestic issues like race relations, the Mediator-in-Chief steps deep into the throes of Middle East diplomacy today.

Obama seems most himself when tackling a big issue. He identifies the big problems, affirms angst and points out the failings on all sides (that all sides can tolerate being pointed out). He sets a flag on common ground. He talks of bold outcomes but favors incremental action. We know the script and cadence.

But, as Obama gives a major address to the Muslim world today, there are real questions of where Obama will plant the flag of compromise this time. The Iranian nuclear program is the most pressing regional issue. Iran's domestic election has nearly arrived. But even moderate Iranian candidates support the nation's nuclear track.

Israelis constantly debate the Palestinian issue. But every top Israeli leader believes a nuclear Iran is a real threat. The Arab powers quietly agree. At some point, this president may have to take sides.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is different. Obama may have more success walking the middle road. Obama is hoping to prove to the Muslim world that the United States can be an impartial broker. This explains Obama's early pressure on Israel, asking it to freeze settlement construction.

But Obama is in Egypt after all, not Jerusalem. He began his trip in Saudi Arabia. These are two of the more repressive regimes in the Middle East. And he has come here on the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, a distant reminder of the very repression Obama does not want to become the story. This raises more difficult questions. How compelled is a U.S. president to emphasize freedom?

White House officials said that Obama would speak to repression in his address. Human Rights Watch asked Obama to "signal clearly to Egyptians that human rights in their country are one of his administration's central concerns."

Obama may signal concern but he will neither preach nor push for freedom. "The United States' job is not to lecture, but to encourage," Obama told BBC ahead of his trip.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak represses, harasses and jails political opposition. Just this week, prominent Egyptian dissident Ayman Nour, a public opponent of Mubarak, was attacked and left with first-degree burns across his body.

Obama is not going to highlight Nour's struggle. He is more consumed by earning Arab support to walk back Iran's nuclear program. Obama wants the Arab states to engage the hard issues of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, rather than pay still more lip service.

A moral fight, Obama will not make. Obama's not one to beat the drum of democracy. Nearly every Obama speech eyes compromise over conviction. And this speech, of all speeches, is meant to ease tensions rather than escalate them. He is, as we now know him, even keel by character. "By nature," he wrote in the "The Audacity of Hope," "I'm not somebody who gets real worked up about things."

Obama is, after all, a wary heir to American missionary diplomacy. Since James Monroe, presidents have been framing foreign policy as a battle of freedom versus repression, precisely the moral language Obama avoids.

Obama sees complexity where Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush saw a binary conflict. Obama will wade into the abstractions of freedom. But Obama is not Woodrow Wilson's kind of Democrat. Conciliation, rather than freedom, is at the bow of this president's foreign policy.

Obama now stands at the heart of a region at least as repressive as the China of two decades past, when Tiananmen occurred and was denounced by the United States and western allies. But Obama knows that the same Arab parties he asks for steps toward peace are threatened by freedom. And then there is U.S. concern over Muslim radicalism, receded since the September 11th attacks but hardly gone.

Asymmetrical threats breed asymmetrical diplomacy, as well as morality. The rub for Obama is that he was expected to represent a narrowing of the gap between what America stands for and what it sometimes allows itself to become.

Moralists, however, make poor mediators. And the Middle East requires realpolitiks. It's still intriguing that Obama came to Egypt for this speech. The location and timing underline the moral choices made. And on the Middle East no less, where the means so often define the effort because the ends constantly prove elusive.

But that's Obama. He has decided to try where other presidents have failed. But why now? A hawk is at the helm in Israel and radicals control half of Palestine. Containment might seem more in order than conciliation. The mediator has met his match.

Perhaps Obama sees little to lose by talking about the problem, which is probably true. Perhaps starting early leaves time for the hard stuff, certainly true. Perhaps he believes he can undermine the hawks or find their inner dove, maybe. The opposite would be worse. Neglect risks more than engagement. But Obama, of course, has the least to lose by engaging.

George Shultz once remarked that, "He who walks in the middle of the road gets hit from both sides."

Obama must welcome those hits, if he is to mediate this dispute. It will take the heat off others. The question is whether Middle Eastern leaders can withstand pressure from all sides, or if they are willing to even try. It's always easier to ask someone else to take a leap of faith, especially in the Middle East.


David Paul Kuhn is the Chief Political Correspondent for RealClearPolitics and the author of The Neglected Voter.




2) It's the Economy, Stupid: The Obama presidency will rise or fall on results
By KARL ROVE

Tomorrow will likely bring more bad news for President Barack Obama on the number one issue for voters -- the economy. The Labor Department's monthly job report will almost certainly show unemployment topping 9%, with a couple hundred thousand more jobs lost in May.

It will get worse before jobs get better. Congressional Budget Director Douglas W. Elmendorf recently predicted that unemployment will continue rising into the second half of next year and peak above 10%.

Mr. Obama has an ingenious approach to job losses: He describes them as job gains. For example, last week the president claimed that 150,000 jobs had been created or saved because of his stimulus package. He boasted, "And that's just the beginning."

However, at the beginning of January, 134.3 million people were employed. At the start of May, 132.4 million Americans were working. How was Mr. Obama magically able to conjure this loss of 1.9 million jobs into an increase of 150,000 jobs?

As my former White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto points out on his blog, the Labor Department does not and cannot collect data on "jobs saved." So the Obama administration is asking that we accept its "clairvoyant ability to estimate," and the White House press corps has let Mr. Obama's ludicrous claim go virtually unchallenged.

About Karl RoveKarl Rove served as Senior Advisor to President George W. Bush from 2000–2007 and Deputy Chief of Staff from 2004–2007. At the White House he oversaw the Offices of Strategic Initiatives, Political Affairs, Public Liaison, and Intergovernmental Affairs and was Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, coordinating the White House policy making process.
Before Karl became known as "The Architect" of President Bush's 2000 and 2004 campaigns, he was president of Karl Rove + Company, an Austin-based public affairs firm that worked for Republican candidates, nonpartisan causes, and nonprofit groups. His clients included over 75 Republican U.S. Senate, Congressional and gubernatorial candidates in 24 states, as well as the Moderate Party of Sweden.
Karl writes a weekly op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, is a Newsweek columnist and is now writing a book to be published by Simon & Schuster. Email the author at Karl@Rove.com or visit him on the web at Rove.com.
Or, you can send him a Tweet @karlrove.
.
Still, there are limits to Mr. Obama's rhetorical tricks. Even he cannot turn job losses into real job gains. And he won't be rescued by stimulus spending.

Former National Economic Council Director Keith Hennessey made a persuasive case on his blog that the stimulus will be ineffective because the additional economic growth it spurs will come six to nine months later than it could have.

This is partly because, as the Congressional Budget Office estimates, only $185 billion (23% of a $787 billion stimulus package) will be spent this fiscal year. The government will spend an additional $399 billion next fiscal year. The balance -- $203 billion -- will be spent between fiscal years 2011 and 2019, long after the economy has turned on its own power and for its own reasons. In addition, much of the stimulus that went this year for tax cuts and transfer payments has been saved, not spent. (The national savings rate went from less than 0% to about 5%.)

If the Obama administration were more serious about growing the economy than just growing government, the stimulus would have been front-loaded into this fiscal year.

In addition, the claim made by Team Obama that every dollar in stimulus translates into a dollar-and-a-half in growth is economic fiction. The costs of stimulus reduce future growth. No country has ever spent itself to prosperity. The price of stimulus has to be paid sometime.

Any real improvement in the economy so far is more likely the result of the Federal Reserve expanding the money supply and the Fed and Treasury shoring up the financial sector.

But the Fed's actions are risky. Easy money and expansionary policies are not sustainable. We may soon be in for a bout of inflation unless the Fed soaks up much of the money it flooded into the system. The government is also likely to hamper private investment as it uses a vast amount of capital to finance its debt. And when the Fed stomps on its monetary brakes, as eventually it must, we'll get sluggish growth.

The irony for Democrats is that the Fed may hit the brakes in the run-up to the 2010 congressional elections or the 2012 presidential election.

It is becoming clear that the economy is now the top issue. Mr. Obama's presidency may well rise or fall on it. The economy will be his responsibility long before next year's elections. Americans may give him a chance to turn things around, but voters can turn unforgiving very quickly if promised jobs don't materialize.

That's what happened in Louisiana, where voters accepted Democrat Gov. Kathleen Blanco's missteps before Hurricane Katrina but brutally rejected her afterward because she failed to turn the state around.

Until now, the new president has benefited from public willingness to give him a honeymoon. He decided to use that grace period to push for the largest expansion of government in U.S. history and to reward political allies (see the sweetheart deals Big Labor received in the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies).

The difficulty for Mr. Obama will be when the public sees where his decisions lead -- higher inflation, higher interest rates, higher taxes, sluggish growth, and a jobless recovery.

3)Twenty years after a victory and a defeat, time for a progress reportEurope, China and the US offer three contrasting models, which show us that liberal democracy is in need of renewal
By Timothy Garton Ash

Someone should institute an annual 4 June review of the Chinese, European and American models. Why 4 June? Because on that day in 1989, the European and Chinese paths out of communism definitively diverged. I will never forget standing in a newspaper office in Warsaw, amid the exhilaration of Poland's first semi-free election since the imposition of ­communist rule, and feeling my stomach turn as I watched the pictures of dead or wounded protesters being ­carried out of Tiananmen Square.

Twenty years on, we have two sharply contrasting, imperial-scale models, Chinese and European. Both are unprecedented, complex and evolving; both are products of what happened in 1989. Their strengths and weaknesses are in many ways contrasting. The American system, meanwhile, though in fundamentals much less changed by that year, has gone through a cycle from hubristic overreach (the neocons' "unipolar moment") to traumatic retrenchment (General Motors, RIP), which itself had a lot to do with the United States' sense of world-historical triumph at the end of the cold war.

It's interesting to observe this moment from Riga in Latvia, an ­eastern corner of the European Union which 20 years ago was still part of the Soviet Union. As a newly sovereign, ­independent state, Latvia seized its chance to join the pluralistic, voluntary empire that is the EU, as well as the American-led security alliance that is Nato. Latvia is a democracy, albeit of a messy post-communist kind. Its streets are plastered with posters for the local and European elections. People can choose their representatives.

Yet Latvia is going through especially hard times in this worldwide crisis. A local credit-fuelled boom has been ­followed by a most ­spectacular bust. The prime minister, Valdis ­Dombrovskis, tells me that six months ago the forecast for year-on-year decline in GDP was 5%; now it's 18%. Imagine your economy shrinking by nearly a fifth in one year. Public expenditure is being slashed, with civil servants seeing their salaries cut by up to 50%. I ask the phlegmatic PM whether, at some point, this contra-Keynesian shrinking of public expenditure will not feed into a vicious downward spiral for the whole economy. Maybe, he replies, with ­something close to a sigh; maybe it's already happening. But what can poor Latvia do, when it is so dependent on international loans, and hence on ­conditions negotiated with the IMF and the European commission?

Here is the post-1989 ­European model: democratic states and free ­market ­economies, joined together in the framework of the EU, with a ­proclaimed commitment to ­intra-European ­solidarity, being stress tested in real time. There have been mass demonstrations, and even riots. There is pain and anger. Yet extremists remain at the margin, and I don't hear of a great groundswell of support for an alternative model of authoritarian capitalism à la Russia or China. This may change if things get even worse, but it still feels better to be Latvia in the EU than it was to be Latvia in the Soviet Union, or than it is to be, say, Tibet in China.

So far as I know, there are not many election posters on the streets of ­Beijing, let alone of Lhasa. The people cannot choose their representatives, except at a local level. But the Chinese system, as developed under a communist party that has consciously learned lessons from the collapse of communism in Europe and China's own crisis of 1989, has significant strengths of its own.

The state has built up huge foreign currency reserves, so much of the world is going begging to it, rather than vice versa. It has presided over extraordinary economic growth. Traumatised by the memory of Tiananmen, Beijing is constantly on the alert for signs of social discontent, and tries to preempt it by both long and short-term social and economic policies. Following the example of Deng Xiaoping, the true architect of today's People's Republic of China, this authoritarian regime is strikingly pragmatic in its policymaking. It allows a wide range of administrative experimentation across its provinces and cities, and successful experimenters are sometimes rewarded by promotion within the ruling party state. Its most forward-looking party thinkers propose reforms that would build the rule of law and include elements of limited democracy, though stopping well short of the free, nationwide, multi-party elections that are central to the European and American models.

Meanwhile, China's regime depends on what its supporters call "performance legitimacy", rather than "procedural legitimacy". This, of course, raises the 64 trillion-renminbi question of what happens if it ceases to perform – that is, to deliver economic and social improvements to enough of the people enough of the time.

Without free elections and a free press, it is impossible to know how much genuine popular legitimacy the Chinese government enjoys. Even the Chinese themselves cannot know what they would say, and how they would vote, if they had the chance to do so freely. But the evidence we have does suggest a good deal of genuine ­support for the system as it has evolved. And just anecdotally, for someone with ­experience of the last decades of the Soviet bloc, it is fascinating to be ­confronted in Beijing by young, bright and apparently idealistic students who are members of the communist party and argue the case for their system with passion and local detail.

Make no mistake: this system still depends on a far greater degree of ­coercion – that is, ultimately, violence – than is the case in either Europe or the US. I am not idealising it in any way. What any serious liberal would consider basic civil and political liberties are ­routinely violated, especially in the case of oppressed minorities. Even a ­privileged member of the urban elite will be locked up if he or she frontally challenges what a still Leninist party regards as essential to its rule.


And to be entirely clear: I believe in liberal democracy. My 4 June was a ­wonderful ­election, not a ­massacre. I believe we must now stand up again to defend liberal democracy in Europe against many threats, including crisis-fuelled ­populism and xenophobia sending votes to extremist parties such as the BNP in the European parliamentary elections. (So please turn out to vote). I think we need to renew our liberal democracy, as Americans are beginning to do under Barack Obama.

And I think that liberal ­democracy would be better for China too. ­Democracy's merits are not culture-bound. But what political system the Chinese develop must be a free and ­sovereign decision for them, approached by their own route, in their own time. We simply cannot know how China will be ­governed in another 20 years' time, and nor can they. After all, who guessed in 1969 what the world would be like by the end of 1989?

Meanwhile, there is nothing at all wrong with a peaceful competition of these systems. China is a mirror in which we can see the weaknesses of our own models; Europe and the US are mirrors in which they can see the weaknesses of theirs. Let this productive argument continue. Next report: 4 June 2010.

4) Showdown in Jersey:Campaign advice for Christie.

New Jersey is unexpected turf for a Republican comeback, but Chris Christie's GOP primary victory Tuesday sets him up with a good chance to topple Governor Jon Corzine in one of this year's few big elections.

The Governor's approval rating hovers below 40%, as he pays the price for a decade of runaway liberal governance. Voters elected the former Goldman Sachs CEO after he promised to get the state's finances in order, but spending, taxes and debt all keep rising. According to the Tax Foundation, New Jersey had the highest local-state tax burden in the country last year, and it was the "least business-friendly" state in the country. That hostility has sent businesses and individuals running for the border, further eroding the tax base.

Enter Mr. Christie, who made his reputation putting away the state's many political crooks. But to win in November he'll need a reform agenda that sharpens the economic contrast with Mr. Corzine and gives him leverage to clean up the tax robbers in Trenton if he does win. He'll need a reform mandate, or the legislature will tie him down like Gulliver. Mr. Christie shrugged off primary opponent Steve Lonegan's proposal to replace the state's progressive income tax with a flat tax, but he'll need something nearly as bold. He can also differentiate himself on education, where state spending per pupil is among the highest in the country, but achievement is dismal and unions run the show.

Aware of his unpopularity, Mr. Corzine knows he can only win if he trashes Mr. Christie. But a sign of his desperation is that he's (still) trying to blame the state's problems on George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. If New Jersey voters buy that one, they deserve to get more of the tax-and-spend bankruptcy they've been getting.


5) Welcome glimpse at a more complex Cheney:The former VP is more than his common caricature. Though it's a bit late, his candor on 9/11 and gay marriage is welcome.
The Denver Post Editorial



The public story so often told about former Vice President Dick Cheney revolves around national security, his gruffness, his fevered work to increase the power of the executive branch and his promotion of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques.

But his comments this week signaling he has no argument with gay marriage, as long as the matter is left to states to decide, reminds us that Cheney possesses a more complex history than the stereotyped image.

Is it possible Cheney could actually prop up the GOP's supposed big tent with his comments?

"I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone," Cheney said in a speech at the National Press Club. "I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish."

Add to those comments the former vice president's admission this week that there "was never any evidence" that Saddam Hussein was in some way connected to the 9/11 attacks, and Cheney presents a side of himself that we wish we had seen more of the past eight years.

Cheney's youngest daughter is gay, and she has a longtime partner. It seems his acceptance of gay issues, which he has only rarely voiced while serving a president who opposed gay marriage, is informed in part by his experience.

But what we forget about Cheney is that he hails from a more libertarian, keep-government-out-of-people's-lives tradition that until not so long ago was the majority political mindset in Colorado.

Cheney was raised in Wyoming and served the state in the Congress for six terms, though in the final term he departed his role as Minority Whip to become Defense Secretary for the first President Bush.

Looking beyond the last eight years, Cheney at his core is that type of conservative most animated by attempts to reduce federal government and empower states to govern themselves. As Defense Secretary, even though his tenure included the first Iraq war and the invasion of Panama that led to the deposing of Manuel Noriega, Cheney reduced the size of the military personnel nearly 20 percent, and cut budgets from $291 billion to $270 billion.

Momentum existed for cutting back defense spending after the end of the long and costly Cold War, but it is also true that only rarely are government budgets ever pared.

It was as vice president, following 9/11, that Cheney transformed into a kind of shadow president in an administration that let spending (and executive power) get out of control.

A Republican Party that acted like Cheney did before his vice presidency, and that's as accepting on some social issues as Cheney is acting now, might attract more of the independents and moderates who voted against the party last November.

His candor now doesn't make up for some of his past mistakes — especially the claims of a 9/11-Iraq link — but it's welcome nonetheless.