In a  previous post, I alluded to the New York Time piece that attempted to establish the conflict that the Times obviously hopes it can follow over the coming days and weeks:  Israel feeling short-changed by Obama’s even-=handedness.

Here is the L. A. Times “analysis “ of the speech.  The headline “Muslims not sure speech means real change.”  The sub-head: Obama’s speech in Cairo is eloquent, the rhetoric soaring, but many [emphasis added] in the audience are left wondering whether the charismatic president can follow it with new policies and actions.

How many Muslims feel that way?  Well, there was this, ah, one blogger

But many in this region want deeds and progress much sooner, and believe that the speech was more of a balancing act than an aggressive agenda. "He’s speaking in the right direction, but we need to see what follows," Ibrahim Hudaiby, a blogger and member of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood. "It’s time for action. . . . The devil is in the details."

I’m not sure how one blogger equals “many in this region.”

And then there were the undefined “activists and dissidents.”

His remarks on expanding democracy drew applause from the audience, but they were couched in too much diplomacy for Egyptian activists and dissidents whose voices have been squelched for nearly 28 years by Obama’s host, President Hosni Mubarak.

That’s it, folks.  This reporter, a one Jeffrey Fleishman, who, I’m judging by his name does not have a direct line to Muslim thinking, somehow makes the conclusion that “Muslims not sure speech means real change.”  Granted, Fleishman didn’t write the headline, but then a the very least, someone need to talk to the copy editor, for the head is thin gruel.