President Obama recently addressed the Indian Parliament and, without wishing to ridicule his obvious desire to present his nation as something of an example for other nations to follow, I could not help but wonder just how the man had the 'Gall' to touch on two particular subjects.
The first of these (by no means original statements) was when he alluded to the proposal that,"No nation should ever try to impose it's 'Values' upon another nation", this of course is a play on words which earlier was put as "No nation should ever impose it's 'Will' upon other nations" and was uttered as something of a 'Get out clause' to excuse the excessive force being used throughout the Middle East, to quell that which was seen as 'Terrorism' but may well be interpreted as resistance to aggression by those accused of such.
As to Obama's reference to 'Values', one could easily interpret that to mean that he might secretly consider the culture of India to be superior to that back home.
A moot point which has been severally contested in the past.
The second subject he chose to address (and the one which I find quite astonishing)
Touched on the subject of 'Civilian casualties' when he actually stated that "Nothing ever justifies the slaughter of innocent men, women and children!".
I daresay that he was once again attempting to shift the onus of blame on 'Terrorism' (or resistance to aggression as 'I' prefer to view it IMHO) BUT. for THIS man, whose nation has been and is currently responsible for the slaughter of more innocents than Genghis and Kubla Khan put together, to have the audacity to even mention the 'Innocents of slaughter' is (in my humble opinion, as always) beyond belief.
The entire speech is available to anyone interested enough to read the weasel words of a President under considerable pressure to repair the damage of his predecessor, but, notwithstanding that fact, I think his speech writer should have recognized the possibility that somebody might notice the awful insincerity in such statements.