Why talking is sometimes pointless or not... 'the Speech'

Amid the reviews of the Cairo episode of Pres. Obama we see those on the left lauding the effort, the words and the 'new beginning' after another reset button has been pressed. We see those on the right who think it was not 'too' bad and had some good points, and those who point to the historically factual errors as engendering another set of non apology apologies.

I have a very different view.

Sometimes the idea that talking set off a series of expectations about results that fires off it's own mandatory process in which the end becomes not only possible, but a demanding and nagging target.

What was the actual purpose of this speech?

1. Was there to be a general recognition from Morocco to Indonesia that the same people who elected Bush are now apologizing for this affront by presenting the new era of Obama?
2. Was he trying to convince the same people, hey, we're not so bad?
3. Was he trying to avoid Huntington's 'Clash'?
4. Just another stop on his 'we've been bad' tour?
5. Was he trying to pry moderate Muslims away from Tantawi-esque, MesbahYazdi, Jannatti Islam? If so, was the effort laudable regardless of the likelihood of the desired outcome?

I cannot imagine that if Barack Obama is as smart as we hear, that anything other than 1 and 5 are the main answers.

I think he succeeded with 1. Worthy goal or not.

But 5 is a farce.

During the run up to the war in Iraq among the hundreds of Arabs 'debating' me over the worthiness of the endeavor's correlative effect (democracy in a middle eastern land) - one of those who scored worthy points was one who said 'NEVER FROM YOUR HANDS', and then began a chorus amid these mostly Sunnis from the gulf that underlying the western idea of democracy was the idea that law created by man trumped all in the end.

Of course, one must submit to the Quran. End of story.

I have no doubt there is a majority of humans who happen to be Muslim by birth that are appalled by the actions of the killers (though certainly more appalled when the victims are Muslims), and I have no doubt as well, there are no words of an American who may be argued to be born Muslim (by their rules), now elected President, about us or them which can invalidate the crux of the issue.

We make up our laws which are supreme, which means the words of God cannot be.
They submit to the word of God as they must, and part of those words are that in the end we must submit, pay the tax or, well, you know. Many here would like to argue that we can ignore certain unpleasant parts of the uncreated words of a perfect being.

Many feel we cannot, unless of course, Muslims admit to the idea the Quran is written by Mohammad and a committee of peers who collected all the differing Qurans in the years after his death.

So the idea moderate Muslims can be pryed from the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan Nasrallah, Tantawi, Qaradawi, Bin Baz, Khomeini Islam, when the very fact that these names are referenced as the authorities of the ascendant form of Islam due to their POPULARITY, and the accepted basis of their ideas, formed over 1500 years of Islam is a forlorn hope.

No deist Jefferson, rejecting man's religious authority to interpret and punish thru organized religious thought is in the offing over there to relieve this conundrum.

Better to say, 'we will never bridge this gap of western man's law being supreme vs the Quran, but do we have to kill each other? Can 9:29 (among other tasty treats) be ignored, or is Hudna the only way?'

And direct the question from the president of the USA in Cairo, OUTRIGHT to Tantawi, to Nasrallah, to Khameini.

Was this worth the effort?

If it aids us in seeing the truth.

Any takers?

I thought so.

So, was there a point to that speech?