The narrative he presented and the vision drawn from it were admirable. It was a fine articulation of an Enlightened goal for humanity. Sadly, it's a rare politician who ever takes the time even to try to make such an encompassing articulation, much less set it up as a beacon to guide the formulation of policy. He deserves credit for trying. His determination to "tell truth" was also admirable: the speech may have been an interpretation of history but it was consistent and honest about its essential components: Fight violent extremists; two states in Israel/Palestine (with a loud rejection of Holocaust denial); no nuclear race which at this point means no nuclear Iran; democracy (tho he could have been more explicit for my taste); equality of women; respect for all religions (though he mentioned only the Abrahamic ones); equal opportunities.
What was there not to agree with?
This article available online at:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2009/06/-what-was-there-not-to-agree-with/18778/
