First Interview, Foreign Press and Fire Breathing

I was fortunate enough to get through to Pete Dominick's show today as I was barreling down Interstate 80 in PA this afternoon. The man put the word out for us to call in if we disagreed with either the content of the President's interview with Al-Arabiya or had a problem with his giving that interview (notable as his first in office) to them in the first place. Like most of the day's callers (I'd assume all but dropped out out halfway through today) I completely ignored this simple instruction and instead threw my support behind Obama on this one. I'd like to note that I _did_ suggest that the move was going to be controversial domestically once Brothers Limbaugh and Hannity got on the air tonight. They will undoubtedly prove, once and for all, that this clearly unamerican act, combined with the blatant absence of a Christian Bible (KJE, of course) at the procedurally prudent re-issuing of the oath of office, demonstrates Obama's commitment to the downfall of the nation and vehement anti-Christianity. The will do whatever it takes, including completely ignoring all rules of evidence and setting aside their own, personal, financially remunerated impartiality to warn us all of this (further) impending doom.
What would we do without such men as these?
Myself, I've listened to the interview (I have a condition that causes me to prefer to listen attentively to radio rather than passively stare at a television, its called a Commercial Driver's Licence) and based on Obama's answers to the questions I think we may have a window to change the view of our nation and our people held by the general population of the Sandbox. Importantly, our Fearless Leader left the ball in _their_ court. By committing us, very publicly, to listening to what they have to say he puts their leaders in the position of either engaging or attacking. This is, subtly, obliquely, a complete change of the rules of the game and that may be what produces the aforementioned fire breathing from the self-styled Conservative Underground.
To put it in simplest terms; "They" can either A: talk with "Us" and build some solutions or B: continue shooting and pursuing conflict. In the first case "We" win because "They" stop shooting and help "Us" make a better (though not perfect) situation in that part of the world. In the second "They" give "Us" the moral high ground from which to multi-laterally remove "Their" ability and will to fight. It's the philosophical equivalent of Sun-Tzu meets General Sherman and that's where most ditto-heads are going to become enraged. This isn't king-of-the-hill, its chess. This method does not obviously involve any rattling of sabers or swinging of members and as such seems, to the simple person, to be backing down. Intolerable for "The World's Lone Superpower."
Its late in the cycle but I haven't checked the broadcasts yet so I'll make a prediction; by tomorrow afternoon the various reactionary wing nuts and mouthpieces will have likened this to attempts at German appeasement during the War Era.