President Obama: Saying 100% the right things in a perfect speech that must be backed with action

[Political Heretic]

Obama delivered a fantastic speech unlike any we've heard from our leaders on the subject of I/P and the middle east in a long time.

As always, his ability to say the right things is absolutely unquestioned by all. But if anyone thinks that his simply giving a speech is going to change things, they are crazy. The only way this speech even matters at all is if the President has the courage to back those ideas up with action. AIPAC will resist and actively campaign to see Obama be a one term President. Israel will absolutely ignore everything Obama is saying and refuse to play ball.

When that happens, what will be the President's actions. If he is not prepared to be at least willing to be a one-term president if that is the cost of doing what's right, then all the pretty words in the world are meaningless. If he is not prepared to suspend the billions of dollars in military aid and funding we hand to Israel without question if their government refuses to cooperate with an agenda of peace and multilateral in the Middle East - than this all becomes nothing but bullshit.

I'm pleased at the words. But they mean nothing without an uncompromising (something this president has a really hard time with) commitment to backing them up with action.

[Aloha Spirit]

1. Just wondering, when the president delivers a major speech in Cairo, is that not an action?

[Political Heretic]

4. No, that is not an action. Action means tangible policy.

Words are just that. They are important as a foundation for action, but the beauty of Obama's speech is ONLY if it is matched with the commitment to back them up.

So far no president has had that on this subject. Will Obama? I hope so!

[Aloha Spirit]

5. Actually, what the President says is, by definition, policy.

That's what I learned in school, anyway.
Could you elaborate more on how action = policy?

[Political Heretic]

7. Words without a subsequent commitment to backing them up are meaningless.

Have you ever heard of Policy Analysts? They don't examine speeches. They examine legislation, formal policy documents that include descriptions of concrete specifics actions that comprise the policy.

You are confused about what you learned in school. Since this is my career area of expertise, let me help you out. Presidential speeches sometimes announce policy. They are not policy themselves.

[Aloha Spirit]

10. Foreign policy analysts examine speeches. I assumed that's what we were talking about.

[Aloha Spirit]

22. words as action--the president using the word "Palestine"

Brzinski on Maddow today--says that this shows that we're willing to be a mediator and not a partisan. What he said today is a commitment and he personally emphasized that he's going to stick with it blah blah.....

I was just surprised that someone on the TV was jabbering about the same topic... encourage you to listen to the Brzinski segment of Maddow on his subtle thoughts about the limited but real policy implications of today's speech

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#31113575

[countingbluecars]

6. I think it is a big action.

President Obama's speech sets the stage for change in the ME. It opens up dialog and,hopefully, minds. He can't do it alone.

[Political Heretic]

8. Right.

We'll see.

[goclark]

12. It was a speech to create thinking for all of the listeners

He was not making demands on anyone.

That was the beauty of the speech.

Don't know what there is to "see."

[Political Heretic]

13. Which is really good. Make no mistake, I think that is a great thing.

Unfortunately my enthusiasm is tempered someone by my string of disappointments with Obama administration policy and action.

That creates a basis for me to wonder with some trepidation whether or not this extremely powerful and historic "beginning" laid out in words will translate into anything of long term substance.

I don't question the presidents motives on this one. He has consistently made it pretty clear that he is personally invested in a successful long term peace process in the middle east. But somehow in political history the best laid plans or presidential candidates, especially when it comes to Israel (and Palestine, but our tie with israel is the most problematic) have a way of being undermined by the political establishment.

[PretzelWarrior]

2. why would American Production and Inventory Control Society oppose it?

I don't get it???

[Aloha Spirit]

3. They're in a union with

the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology.

[LooseWilly]

16. Your posting name is very appropriate.

Your logic here is very pretzellian.

What you are failing to see is that the aid that the US provides to Israel is a complicated melange of military and construction/demolition hardware... and APICS is there to provide the Operations Management to get the job done right. If the President were to do the right thing and deny that aid to Israel if they refuse to make concessions in order to achieve peace... well then a lot of highly trained professionals are liable to lose their phoney baloney jobs.

That simply won't do!!

(Hmm... looks like it's not only AIPAC that Obama's going to have to stand up to. I wonder if it's gonna be a GM-style standing up, or a DADT-style standing up?...)

[masuki bance]

9. Shorter Political Heretic: "Just words". nt

[Political Heretic]

15. No more like they will become "just words" if they aren't followed up with politically costly action

It will be our responsibility to continue to apply pressure and give support to the President for implementing concrete policy and working with congress to take clear action that signifies a different direction in American ME policy. And there will be tough times ahead when Israel refuses to play ball - which their right-wing government most certainly will. It will require a tough and potentially politically costly commitment to doing the right thing, such as working to make US aid to Israel conditional on their actions, or even suspending it entirely if necessary.

[cali]

11. If you're not prepared to educate yourself about which entity

doles out the bucks to Israel, you really shouldn't be preaching to anyone.

[Political Heretic]

14. I'm educated just fine, thanks.

The notion that somehow the president doesn't shape what happens in Congress is ignorant and naive.

[Politicalboi]

17. It's great he's there

But we are doing just what he is preaching them not to do. I hope they bug him about the wars and Gitmo.

[vaberella]

18. I find your post disingenuous and misleading.

You do realize that Obama was mainly calling on Islam and Judaism to take responsbility, right?

You say O should do this or that. But O was already planning on giving money to Afghanistan and providing military to get rid of Al-Qaeda. He said so back in January on the Rachel Maddow show and other places that he doesn't think and he knows that military might is not what will help Afghanistan...there are a lot of things to consider and the first and main thing to consider is the fact that he knows that exogenous investment in things like health care, education, and infrastructure are fundamental in helping Afghanistan. He's said this before, he said it on the campaign and he's just said it again. I don't know why you would suggest that he's not following through.

Then comes his position in Afghanistan and Iraq...he has stated that by end of 2011 he wants all troops removed from Iraq. He's signed on it, and he's advisement on it and he's said it and will act on it. So once again, I'm not sure of your position here.

The main thing is that he was really just wanting Muslims and the educated to fight against the tyranny of extremism or bastardization of their faith and recognize that we're all people. Note he also mentioned Shitte and Sunni muslim hate. He has no room to dictate to those religions what to do---so he has nothing to deliver there. He's calling on the people to take charge and reign these extremists completely.


He's making it their responsibility. He's also showing alternatives to protests so they can get what achieve some changes through peaceful protestation. This is not about him and what he has to provide. He was calling on the muslim community to be responsible. He doesn't America to be a big brother and he really has nothing to deliver or provide with action besides the actions that he's stated and he's already in the process of doing.

I don't understand your position because you're implying he has things to do and he hasn't done them. He's doing them. During the primaries what did Obama do? He called upon us to take charge and to take responsibility not only for the past actions of the Government but also take charge of where we want America to go.

And his speech is doing the same today but for the Muslim community. His speech today is very much like his speeches during the primaries where he's calling on the people to work against hate, anxiety, to relinquish our hold on revenge and petty disagreements that have no end. But to look towards a brighter future through understanding, respecting our fellow humans.

He can't deliver on that, he's expecting the people to deliver that themselves and make those changes. So I don't know what the hell you're talking about.

[ClarkUSA]

19. +1.

[Political Heretic]

20. It isn't just "their" responsibility. It's our responsibility to change policy.

[vaberella]

21. On what policy does Obama have to change?! That he isn't working on currently. n/t

[LooseWilly]

24. The policy of unquestioning support for Israel despite continuing settlement in disputed territories

would be something to change. If Israel won't make any concessions... then Obama will have to be ready to cut/suspend/end the military and financial support that it gives to Israel... in order to "pressure" them to re-consider... or else the speech will have been a fine speech but nothing more... and most likely the Israeli/Palestinian issue will continue to fester as it has for decades.

This is the "uncompromising" action that we'll have to wait and see if Obama is willing to take, and which many supporters are queasy in the face of, as... well, personally GM is the only entity that I can think of that Obama has "uncompromisingly" stood up to...

[vaberella]

25. We'll have to see how that goes.

That was something I believe brought up on MSNBC when I believe the first Bush suggested that and AIPAC descended on the presidency like Mongols on China. (Ha! I like that phrase---I'll have to keep it in mind for future use)

I don't know what Obama has done in the past, however it has been mentioned several times that Obama has informed the Israeli government they HAVE to make some changes; and I'm sure he's basically leveled a few threats in order to make sure it happens. Of course I don't know what they are and we could speculate but O seems to be giving them time to set up some sort of compromise or path to compromise for a two state society until July. If threats were leveled we are probably not privy to that but it seems to be based on several articles, like the one below, that Obama is working to ensure that Israel removes their settlements out of Gaza.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/28/AR2009052803771.html

However, that is not a policy change that Obama is not working on. It's actually something he is working on and this has been mentioned in the past quite frequently. So, currently O is making all the policy changes he can under the circumstances and I find that this is the first step to open dialogue that could lead to major policy changes such as supporting Palestine's development as we are Afghanistan along with Israel's help; which O mentioned in his speech and the above articles seems to relay that idea as well.

As of right now I still have not heard any policy changes O needs to make that he hasn't started doing right now.

[LooseWilly]

26. The OP didn't talk of policy changes necessary/expected now.

It spoke of policies that potentially needed to be changed, despite the inevitable AIPAC lobbying, in the event that Israel refused to make any concessions in upcoming peace talks.

I think we're all in agreement that the President laid out a rather even handed analysis of the current situation... and that is a wonderful first step. The point of doubt is in whether or not he will show a forceful enough "follow through" to "encourage" Israeli "hard line" interests (represented by Netanyahu) to make some reasonable concessions in the interests of peace.

In other words, how will he respond when AIPAC "descends on the presidency like Mongols on China"?

It is conceivable that the Israelis will suddenly become reasonable... will abandon their illegal settlements, dismantle the walls, and will begin bargaining with the Palestinians in good faith. It is also conceivable that they won't... in which case Obama will have to either threaten to withdraw some/all US support, or choose to let the situation continue as it is. Hence the issue of his willingness (or unwillingness) to stand up to AIPAC.

"As of right now I still have not heard any policy changes O needs to make that he hasn't started doing right now." You are correct... as of now there are no policy changes that he needs to make that he hasn't started doing right now (I'll pretend that that sentence makes syntactic sense, just because I still think you really need some rest). The issue, as stated in the OP, was future policy adjustments that might be required to bring the rhetoric of the speech to fruition... partially, I suspect, in order to remind supporters that the speech in and of itself will not change the situation in the Middle East... and partially as an acknowledgement that Obama has sometimes, so far, seemed to compromise on policies in such a way as to make those concerned wonder whether the stated goals were really his goals, or just the "starting negotiation goals" from which he was willing to concede major portions.

To repeat... so far Obama has played his hand masterfully with regards to the Israel/Palestine issue... the OP was (I think) mostly pointing out the need for follow through to really transform this speech into a policy "coup" for Obama. In as much as I'm correct in my interpretation of the OP, I concur. Obama... stay the course.

[vaberella]

27. That's not the case..I call your attention to post #20. n/t

[LooseWilly]

28. Firstly, #20 isn't the OP, its a response to one of your posts.

That said... your post said things such as:

"You do realize that Obama was mainly calling on Islam and Judaism to take responsbility, right?" which wasn't my take on the speech, or at least not the focus of the speech.

"You say O should do this or that. But O was already planning on giving money to Afghanistan and providing military to get rid of Al-Qaeda. He said so back in January on the Rachel Maddow show and other places that he doesn't think and he knows that military might is not what will help Afghanistan...there are a lot of things to consider and the first and main thing to consider is the fact that he knows that exogenous investment in things like health care, education, and infrastructure are fundamental in helping Afghanistan. He's said this before, he said it on the campaign and he's just said it again. I don't know why you would suggest that he's not following through." which is all well and nice... but has nothing to do with the Israel/Palestine issue.

"Then comes his position in Afghanistan and Iraq...he has stated that by end of 2011 he wants all troops removed from Iraq. He's signed on it, and he's advisement on it and he's said it and will act on it. So once again, I'm not sure of your position here." again, not relevant to the Israel/Palestine issue.

"The main thing is that he was really just wanting Muslims and the educated to fight against the tyranny of extremism or bastardization of their faith and recognize that we're all people. Note he also mentioned Shitte and Sunni muslim hate. He has no room to dictate to those religions what to do---so he has nothing to deliver there. He's calling on the people to take charge and reign these extremists completely." ignoring issues of presumed typos ("Shitte"??) this is an amazing conclusion to draw... I heard nothing that would suggest that this is "The main thing" he was talking about. I'd like to hear you provide some supporting quotes to justify that conclusion... because I'm not buying it without a cogent argument.


"He's making it their responsibility. He's also showing alternatives to protests so they can get what achieve some changes through peaceful protestation. This is not about him and what he has to provide. He was calling on the muslim community to be responsible. He doesn't America to be a big brother and he really has nothing to deliver or provide with action besides the actions that he's stated and he's already in the process of doing." Ok... I'm left, once again, to guess at what this paragraph means because the missing parts of speech allow for some flexibility in filling them in, which leads to some flexibility in extrapolating meaning from the paragraph. This may be part of what #20 was doing... trying to extrapolate coherency from this paragraph, and then responding to what he(she?) extrapolated your meaning to be. This paragraph sounds like you are trying to say that Obama is somehow taking it upon himself to place responsibility for (something undefined... world peace?) upon "them" (Muslims the world over? Palestinians?... hard to say what you're saying here). If it is a statement of making Israeli/Palestinian peace the responsibility of... the Palestinians(?) then it would follow that Obama would have to take measures to "encourage" a responsible response from Netanyahu... who isn't known as the most reasonable figure in the region)...

"I don't understand your position because you're implying he has things to do and he hasn't done them. He's doing them. During the primaries what did Obama do? He called upon us to take charge and to take responsibility not only for the past actions of the Government but also take charge of where we want America to go." Ok... reading this in order to analyze it is an exercise in cognitive dissonance. I don't understand your position either... because the OP did not imply that "he has things to do and he hasn't done them". The OP stated explicitly that he has things to do and we will see if he in fact does do them. There is a meaningful difference in that subtle change of words that I would think you'd be able to appreciate.

"And his speech is doing the same today but for the Muslim community. His speech today is very much like his speeches during the primaries where he's calling on the people to work against hate, anxiety, to relinquish our hold on revenge and petty disagreements that have no end. But to look towards a brighter future through understanding, respecting our fellow humans." That is a pretty broad brush to re-paint what was said today with. He was speaking specifically to issues related to the Middle East. He was talking about Israel/Palestine, he was talking about mutual past offenses perpetrated by the US and Iran upon each other, and he was calling for everyone to let go, as much as possible, of past wrongs and try to focus on possibilities of future rights... perhaps I just choose different words than you for paraphrasing that portion of the speech.

"He can't deliver on that, he's expecting the people to deliver that themselves and make those changes. So I don't know what the hell you're talking about." His talking about current US judgement that Israeli "settlements" need to cease, on the other hand... are liable to require... ding ding ding... substantive policy changes from the US in order to pressure the Israelis into changing their behavior... and hence, the talk of "policy changes"... as in, in the future... in the event that Israel stubbornly refuses to reconsider its behavior toward the Palestinians...

There is no mention of what needs to be done "now", or "yesterday".... that is just a strange attempt on your part to re-interpret the post in #20, which is actually in the conditional tense, such as it exists in English, which is easily misinterpreted as being the present tense (I was just explaining this detail of English to my cousin in Iran... ironically).

"It isn't just their "responsibility". It's our responsibility to change policy." ... the unspoken part of the statement is: "if we want to effect the change that the President spoke of", and the use of that "if" changes the apparent tense of "It's our responsibility to change policy" from a future tense, to a present tense... in accordance with the limited subjunctive tense existence in the English Language.

If there had been no implicit 'if', then it would've been "It isn't just their "responsibility". It will be our responsibility to change policy."... but since there's a big "if" hanging over the whole proceedings (Which was precisely the OP's point...), then the subjunctive rules required that he use what sounds like the present tense... leading you to think that you have legitimate grounds to insist that there's no action that Obama's not taking presently that he ought to be taking.

In other words... you've based your entire response on a misapprehension of English grammar.

There, I think that has been sufficiently verbose to be hard to find a way to misapprehend any points...

[Senator]

31. He has to change his policy of immunity for torturers of Muslims.

Because that could prove to be a larger historical wedge than even the Palestinian question has been. It certainly puts us http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE53H1Y020090418">squarely at odds with the UN and int'l law.

The bushcheney atrocities have trashed our tenuous position as "honest broker," and more pretty talk won't get the remedial job done. The rest of the world -- particularly the "Arab street" -- simply doesn't live in our DC/Euphemedia bubble.

--

[AtomicKitten]

23. His speech was spectacular. Historical.

I'll leave the "musts" to others tonight.

Rachel had a good piece on the speech. We're digging it.

[joshcryer]

29. Under those conditions he should be prepared to suspend monies to Arab states, too.

Jordon, Egypt, etc. States which have huge "palestinian camps" that won't allow Palestinians citizenship and keep them in the worst conditions possible for political reasons.

Yet we give them money anyway.

[Senator]

30. Not Quite 100%: The Trouble With "Concrete Actions"

You're quite correct that speeches must be followed with "concrete actions." But I didn't put it in quotes because it's in the OP, it isn't. That specific phrase was in the speech:

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.

Trouble is, neither of those things are concrete actions. Concrete actions actually change conditions or circumstances of real people -- as opposed to perceptions.

Neither prohibiting something that's been prohibited for decades, nor evicting our detainees from digs that have become embarrassing to us, are an example of a concrete action. At least not outside of the beltway/euphemedia/political-junkie bubble.

A concrete action would be to enforce all our long-standing laws and treaty obligations of both sides on the ongoing waronterra.

---