Peace in whose time, BHO-BHO? [updated]

Barack Hussein Obama, boy, that’s the new cat’s name notes Toby Harnden at The Daily Telegraph.

Barack Hussein Obama. Say it proud. Say it out loud. The middle moniker that dared not speak its name during the election campaign is now front and centre of the US president's attempt to woo the Muslim world, the theme of his visits to Riyadh on Wednesday and [his speech in] Cairo [this morning]. . . To say Barack Hussein Obama - BHO for short - now appears to be the height of political correctness.

The Obama Administration is now embracing its “inner Muslim” in Cairo – the home of Al Qaeda’s hero and the murderous Muslim Brotherhood (whose representatives were invited to the afternoon of apology) – speaking at an institution whose Grand Sheikh, Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, has given his approval — on Islamic grounds — to suicide bombing, in an attempt to do what Neville Chamberlain couldn’t do in similar circumstances: to fake reality sufficiently to avert a conflict that in this case was declared decades ago.

No wonder those he is trying to appease see him as insufferably naive.

While he talks of a “new beginning,” he shows no conception how such a beginning might be made – and simply continuing the pretence that we’re dealing with a “religion of peace” won’t cut it, I’m afraid. If the atrocities committed in recent years were truly carried out in the name of a “religion of peace,” then I’d sure as hell hate to se what they’d have been doing if they followed a religion of violence, savagery and blood lust.

Quite frankly, the Obamessiah shows no idea he knows what needs to be done, an ignorance of history so complete as to be wilful, and no conception that appeasing radical Islam will only stoke its flames.

He promises to “fight negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear,” yet only to “relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security.” [My emphasis.] Does anyone else see a dangerous imbalance there? Or an abject ignorance of the real truth about the “religion of peace.” Bosch Fawstin does: “If Washington P.C. fought the enemy the way they fight the truth about the enemy....... “ Here’s a question that gives you a clue about the truth:

Which religion has a doctrine of warfare, begun and practiced by its founder, against all unbelievers, to be waged by the faithful until all mankind submits:
A. Christianity
B. Judaism
C. Buddhism
D. Hinduism
E. Scientology
G. None of the above

“We will have peace with the Arabs,” said former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, “when they love their children more than they hate us.” Until BHO Boy understands that goes double for Islamic totalitarians, then he’s an ally of our enemies and not our friend. To quote a recent Thomas Sowell column:

President Obama is acting as if this [and related conflicts are] something he can finesse with talks or deals. Worse yet, he may think it is something we can live with.
Burke had something to say about things like [this]: "There is no safety for honest men, but by believing all possible evil of evil men, and by acting with promptitude, decision, and steadiness on that belief." Acting -- not talking.

Here’s a few good pieces analysing the most important foreign policy speech for this political term – a Speech that Will Live in Infamy – and the perfidy of a man now officially confirmed by Rasmussen polling as being President Zero:

• For that Cairo Speech, Obama Gets an "F" in History - VITAL SIGNS
• The End of America’s Strategic Alliance with Israel? - Caroline Glick
• Respect this, Zero - JIHAD WATCH
• Obama's Cairo Nonsense - HUGH FITZGERALD
• Platitudes and naivete: Obama's Cairo speech - ROBERT SPENCER
• Islam versus Peace – Bosch Fawstin, SOLO
• Obama’s Cairo Speech: Appeasing Radical Islam? - Yaron Brook, AYN RAND CENTER
• Obama to Muslims: We share common principles - LIBERTY SCOTT
• Edmund Burke and President Obama - THOMAS SOWELL
• Outreach or Overreach? - TONY PERKINS
• Daniel Pipes, Bat Ye’or et al on ‘Criticism & Conciliation’

UPDATE: Good piece from The Daily Telegraph [hat tip Marcus B]

...Buried within the text, possibly in the hope that few would notice, was an effective acceptance of Iran's nuclear ambitions: "No single nation should pick and choose which nations should hold nuclear weapons." Mr Obama did warn that an Iranian bomb could trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. However, the Cairo speech did not include the threat of action against the Islamic Republic – not even sanctions. The message was clear: the US was distancing itself from the resolutions passed against Iran by the UN Security Council.
As if all that weren't enough, Mr Obama dropped words such as "terror" and "terrorism" from his vocabulary. The killers of September 11 were "violent extremists", not "Islamist terrorists". In this respect, he is more politically correct than the Saudis and Egyptians, who have no qualms about describing those who kill in the name of Islam as terrorists.
Mr Obama may not know it, but his "Muslim world" is experiencing a civil war of ideas, in which movements for freedom and human rights are fighting despotic, fanatical and terrorist groups that use Islam as a fascist ideology. The President refused to acknowledge the existence of the two camps, let alone take sides. It was not surprising that the Muslim Brotherhood lauds him for "acknowledging the justice of our case" – nor that his speech was boycotted by the Egyptian democratic movement "Kifayah!" ("Enough!"), which said it could not endorse "a policy of support for despots in the name of fostering stability".
In other words, the President may find that by trying to turn everyone into a friend, he has merely added to his list of enemies

Which will include an increasing number of former friends.