Bush vs. Obama

Submitted by sara (United States), Oct 9, 2012 at 19:19

Thanks for the compliment, Ms Grunberg.

I do not understand what you are saying, however. My point is that Obama's speech in Cairo achieved the opposite of what he was naively trying to do, pacify and calm the Muslim anger at the US. I was explaining that such an openly appeasing stance was interpreted by the Muslim Brotherhood in particular to be a green light to go ahead with their plans to Islamicise govts and overthrow the regimes in countries where they have been working for decades (Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, Libya, Jordan etc). They realized that unlike his crazy cowboy predecessor Bush, Obama was a soft touch and they could get away with talks and gestures as opposed to the deterrence that Bush effected.

Whether the uprisings began as a result of concerted efforts by the Islamists, or whether they were originally a spontaneous eruption of frustration by downtrodden citizens, we will never know. But whatever they were, they are now clearly orchestrated and organized by the Islamists/MB. Helping Syria against Assad now means bringing yet another Islamist govt into power. I think you know that Islamist governments are infinitely more dangerous than despots who work with financial rewards and diplomacy.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".