Recent events have shown Obama’s unwillingness to criticize the tyrannical use of brute force in Iran by a fascist government, while he has been more willing to criticize Honduras for upholding their constitution by ousting a left-wing, would-be dictator. Why is the leader of the “free world” more comfortable with left-wing dictators than constitutionalists and freedom movements?

As an opening statement, very well done. I briefly watched his speech but did not (and have not) done an in-depth analysis and report on it. It was interesting to read how you broke down the various layers of his otherwise complex speech.

To address your part on his mentioning of his Muslim heritage (or at least his middle name), I didn’t find it unusual that he didn’t “use” it or address it during his campaign. After 9/11, the amount of American disgust and overall hatred towards Muslims has greatly increased- and to an annoyingly large amount.

During his run for office, it was natural to avoid such an irrelevant and otherwise “detrimental” (as much as I HATE using that word in context with Muslims) to his running for presidency.

However, he mentioned it now. Why? Because it adds to his idea of being able to relate to a. Muslims b. The Muslim-Israeli conflict c. That he is a president WILLING to listen to both sides of the story and that he is a caring man. His ability to connect, remember, is what essentially got him into office (amongst other things- I realize that was a very broad statement).

I cannot say much on the nuclear part, as I do not have sufficient reference nor a wide enough scope on it currently to respond with adequate accuracy. I do, however, commend you for such a great article! I truly did enjoy this one…

Very nicely done- I look forward to reading more (hopefully my comment wasn’t too long).

-Fresh Writing