On Cairo: Imaginary One-on-One With Barack Obama

You are there -- sipping green tea with President Obama in this imaginary one-on-one . . .

Sir, in your Cairo address to Islam you were the first Western potentate since Napoleon to embrace the Islamist narrative dividing humanity into warring religious camps: Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc. That implicitly supports re-establishment of the caliphate --

On the contrary, one of my applause lines said: "The fourth issue I will address is democracy." It's difficult even for me to express how deeply I believe in democracy.

So are you now belatedly supporting President Bush's freedom agenda for the Middle East -- as made tangible by the wars against terror in Iraq and Afghanistan?

I have made it clear that although Bush-Cheney policies are responsible for so much that I am trying to correct, I am for freedom and diplomacy -- and against war. I said in Cairo, "The Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein." I also said I "believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems."

You may have missed that in Cairo I did not once deploy the word terror or any of its variations. I did use the phrase violent extremism. I have instructed my administration to avoid such Bush-Cheney terms as The Long War and The Global War on Terror. Because I so deplore war and the notion of offending Muslim peoples, I have directed that our actions abroad to confront extremism be rebranded Overseas Contingency Operations. No joke.

Right. No more war . . . New question: If you so reject Bush administration policies and pronouncements, was it mere coincidence that you echoed Laura Bush when saying in Cairo, "I respect those [Muslim] women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles, but it should be their choice"?

Exactly. It is no surprise that I am pro-choice -- long have been. I'm glad you understand that.

Mr. President, could we talk about Israel for a minute? It seems that in Cairo you repudiated -- at least -- the Bush administration's Road Map for peace. And you redefined Israel's abandonment of settlements in the West Bank, even for natural growth (as emphasized by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton), as not a topic of negotiations but a requirement for them.

I have said these things: (1) America supports Israel and (2) America supports the Palestinians. There is equivalence here, you might call it moral equivalence. Israel must abandon settlements it is building -- and has built -- on land it took by war. I am against war.

But sir, in almost all cases Israel was defending itself -- and winning -- in wars waged by Arabs and Muslims. Israel aspires only to be recognized by the world community (including its 57 Muslim-majority nations), to be secure, and to be left alone.

The Palestinians have their aspirations too, and those Israeli settlements are greatly offensive to Palestinian aspirations -- so offensive that they have fueled the rise of Hamas and Hezbollah, and could lead to more war. For the Arab street they're a festering sore that can cause, for us, more overseas contingency operations.

Israeli settlements are the genesis of Iranian nuclear ambition for bombs and missiles to obliterate an Israel whose location on the world map Iran refuses even to acknowledge?

I am seeking opportunities for Secretary Clinton and her people -- all part of the Obama team -- to sit down with the Iranians. The more we talk to them, the more the chances to educate them -- and the greater the likelihood they will see the goodness of our ways. As you know, I am a dreamer --

No kidding --

And although they are not yet returning our phone calls, I am hopeful for positive outcomes in talks we want to have with -- well, with everyone.

Talks with our avowed enemies tend to be one-way streets -- buying time only for those on the other side of the table. Talks haven't worked to our advantage with North Korea. And despite your Cairo apologia for American sins against Islam -- wherein you failed to mention all the American blood spilled selflessly for Muslims from Bosnia, Kosovo, and Kuwait to Iraq (twice) and Afghanistan -- talks are not likely to soften the Iranian ayatollahs either, if you ever can find the right numbers to call.

My staff has diligently supplied the media with catalogs chronicling the broadly positive response in the Muslim world to my remarks in Cairo.

As in so much, this conversation ought to be a two-way street as well. So let me conclude our discussion with a question for you. How would you characterize my Cairo address to Islam?

You truly want to know?

I'm a dreamer with his feet planted in the concrete of reality.

You are a serious speechifier, sir. Your addresses at the Naval Academy and Normandy were soaring affairs. Yet Cairo was all naIve academic theory, patronizing feel-goodism, and high-tone loquacity -- consisting fundamentally in the elaborate rhetorical window-dressing at which you are so deft.

The operative question is this: Will Cairo do anything --anything at all -- to deter and defuse a terror-driven Islamist jihad, and thereby generate solid outcomes for the West and this beloved land?

Ross Mackenzie is the retired editor of the Editorial Pages. Contact him at .