There's been a dustup of sorts among conservative commentators concerning The Speech To The Muslim World by President Obama last Thursday. (I'm waiting for his followup Speech To The Christian World - coming soon no doubt. I'm guessing he won't play up his middle name as he did to his Egyptian hosts). There's the camp that was relieved, (if not wholly impressed) that Obama acknowledged some of the positives of his predecessor's policies (though without crediting President Bush, of course) and that he managed to criticize some aspects of Islamism. Rich Lowry, chief editor of National Review and the WSJ editorial board fell into this catagory. But then there was the other camp, represented by Mark Steyn and Andrew McCarthy who were having none of it. They opined that Obama came up woefully short and that his continuing postures of apologia and moral equivalence are demeaning and dangerous. Naturally, Steyn peppered his column with Steynian witticisms.
The speech nevertheless impressed many conservatives, including Rich Lowry, my esteemed editor at National Review, “esteemed editor” being the sort of thing one says before booting the boss in the crotch.
Which he proceeded to do, in an argumentative sense.
Actually, my favorite take on the speech was written by someone who calls himself Doctor Zero on the hotair.com/greenroom website. It's done in the form of what Obama should have said in Cairo. As the author admits, there's no way Obama would ever say these things. To go further - he wouldn't even get it. The article is bursting with patriotism, a concept alien to the President. (Hint - It has nothing to do with dissent or taxpaying). Some of the disparaging posts responding to the piece clearly came from those of the Obama - liberal mindset.
(I was considering reproducing some of the article here but thought it better just to publish the link).