Every new president flatters himself that he, kinder and gentler, is beginning the world anew. Yet, when Barack Obama in his inaugural address reached out to Muslims by saying "to the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect," his formulation was needlessly defensive and apologetic.Krauthammer rightly points out that the Bush administration bent over backwards to show respect to the religion of Islam from going to a mosque after 9/11 to countless speeches from everyone in the Bush administration about how much we respect Muslims.
Is it "new" to acknowledge Muslim interests and show respect to the Muslim world? Obama doesn't just think so, he said so again to millions in his al-Arabiya interview, insisting on the need to "restore" the "same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago."
Astonishing. In these most recent 20 years -- the alleged winter of our disrespect of the Islamic world -- America did not just respect Muslims, it bled for them. It engaged in five military campaigns, every one of which involved -- and resulted in -- the liberation of a Muslim people: Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq.
The two Balkan interventions -- as well as the failed 1992-93 Somalia intervention to feed starving African Muslims (43 Americans were killed) -- were humanitarian exercises of the highest order, there being no significant U.S. strategic interest at stake. In these 20 years, this nation has done more for suffering and oppressed Muslims than any nation, Muslim or non-Muslim, anywhere on Earth. Why are we apologizing?
And what of that happy U.S.-Muslim relationship that Obama imagines existed "as recently as 20 or 30 years ago" that he has now come to restore? Thirty years ago, 1979, saw the greatest U.S.-Muslim rupture in our 233-year history: Iran's radical Islamic revolution, the seizure of the U.S. Embassy, the 14 months of America held hostage.
Which came just a few years after the Arab oil embargo that sent the United States into a long and punishing recession. Which, in turn, was preceded by the kidnapping and cold-blooded execution by Arab terrorists of the U.S. ambassador in Sudan and his chargé d'affaires.
This is to say nothing of the Marine barracks massacre of 1983, and the innumerable attacks on U.S. embassies and installations around the world during what Obama now characterizes as the halcyon days of U.S.-Islamic relations.
Look. If Barack Obama wants to say, as he said to al-Arabiya, I have Muslim roots, Muslim family members, have lived in a Muslim country -- implying a special affinity that uniquely positions him to establish good relations -- that's fine. But it is both false and deeply injurious to this country to draw a historical line dividing America under Obama from a benighted past when Islam was supposedly disrespected and demonized.
What Obama really meant is that he is not going to be that nasty George W. Bush going to war and establishing a Muslim democracy in Iraq. And that Obama will not reflexively support Israel. But saying anything explicit on Israel won't play well at home so he had to stick in this meaningless formulation about starting to respect the Muslim world. If he thinks that such soothing rhetoric will do anything to change the behavior of Iran or Hamas, he's even more naive than his Republican critics charged during the election.
27 comments:
They bent their lips over backward at least.
If this were only just a case of simple naivete....
But this isn't the first case demonstrating Obama's lack of grounding in history. In fact, it is as if he simply ignores history.
An immediate example is his apparent disregard for FDR's failed efforts to use government spending to resolve the Great Depression. The country continued to languish until a wartime economy finally brought us out.
Last June Obama said, "I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did." Well FDR never talked to any Axis leader and he demanded unconditional surrender from them.
Did Truman talk to Tojo? No-jo! And he didn't have any conversations with Kim Il-Sung either.
JFK's talks with Khrushchev were rewarded with the decision by the latter to put nuclear missiles in Cuba. The 1961 talks between the two Cold War leaders created the belief held by the Soviet Premier that Kennedy was "an inexperienced young leader who could be intimidated and blackmailed", to quote James Reston of the NYT .
There is a good column by Jack Kelly on the subject. [http://tinyurl.com/5v9pjf]
Obama's flawed suggestion that GITMO campers should be subjected to a Nuremburg style process is another example of his shallowness with regard to history. Aaron Goldstein has a good article on that subject. [http://tinyurl.com/dl5axj]
Obama is a Harvard law graduate and to think that he cannot see the flawed logic in his Nuremburg concept leads me to believe that he simply chooses to ignore history but he is doing it at OUR peril now.
And don't look for Obama to get any help from Joe Biden, not if you consider this characteristic gaff: “When we kicked — along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, “Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don’t know — if you don’t, Hezbollah will control it.” Wow! Simply incredible. [http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c46_1223047763]
In Biden's muddled recollection, he has confused and conflated Reagan's use of the USMC, along with French and Italian troops, to remove the PLO, not Iran's Hezbollah, from Lebanon. On top of that, did he really imply that he had discussed this with Obama, age 21 at the time? Though garbled by Biden, the 1982 international mission to save the lives of Muslims, also goes unappreciated.
We've seen Biden struggle with the space-time continuum before. You'll remember that unbelievable derailment with Katie Couric when Biden said, "When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened." [http://wjnoblog.com/2008/09/bidens-gaff-filled-couric-interview/] Obama is on his own and history isn't on his side either.
Krauthammer is right and I worry that what Obama considers to be a "new way forward" is nothing but more credulous platitudes that will embolden our enemies.
"America did not just respect Muslims, it bled for them. It engaged in five military campaigns, every one of which involved -- and resulted in -- the liberation of a Muslim people: Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq."
Yeah, uh, here's the thing. It doesn't matter how YOU see it. What really matters here is how the muslims see it. And that's the piece President Obama was acknowledging.
Helping out the Shia side of Iraq's civil war, and abandoning the Kurds (again) after the surrender timetable takes place, isn't really "liberating" sunni muslims.
Gee, and it was just a short time ago that it was considered unpatriotic to criticize the president during a time of war.
Hey folks, Bush failed, and the American people want to give Obama a chance. Maybe in 30 years you and your kids will look back and hail him for his great leadership. If it could happen for Bush, it could happen for Obama, right?
tfhr, if you are in fact active military, should you really be here criticizing your commander-in-chief?
Jaw-Bone,
Are you suggesting that we remain in place to continue to protect the Kurds? Man, Obama's campaign inspired headlong rush to run away from Iraq must really have you upset then.
As for a "surrender timetable", please explain this bit of homegrown insanity because those of us that still remain in control of our faculties can't seem to find it anywhere. Can you provide a link to a "surrender timetable"?
You do have one good point though and I agree that it is very important on how Muslims perceive what we have done and what we continue to do in the future. Do you think it might be more helpful if Obama pointed these positive things out from the standpoint of his Kenyan and Indonesian background? I would think it would be very constructive to point out how Muslims deserve the same rights as all human beings and how we have endeavored to make it so.
mark,
I am active duty and yes, I do still have First Amendment rights.
Your claim that Bush failed rings hollow given that 50 million Muslims now enjoy a chance to have the same kind of freedoms we have but had been denied to them for so long. I'm not sure why you consider that a failure but then again, here you are trying to silence me.
Is it that you believe that freedom of expression belongs only to those that agree with you, mark?
tfhr,
I never accepted the argument that criticizing the president is unpatriotic. You and many others did.
I have no problem with anyone criticizing Obama - and there are several appointments/issues that deserve criticism.
I am surprised at how nasty it's become so quickly. You've got a chickenhawk like Rush declaring he hopes Obama fails. Some idiots here and on other sites joking about Obama's assassination (and many cowards afraid to criticize them).
Your "principles" regarding supporting the president have changed about 180 degrees since Obama became president. But I suppose they were never principles as much as talking points.
mark,
Critical commentary about policy is one thing and saying "The war is lost", as did Harry Reid, is something else. I would call that "unpatriotic" on the grounds that it gives aid and comfort to our enemy on the battlefield, which is above and beyond the simple falsity of the statement. Apparently you are onboard with Reid and that is sad for you.
A discussion on Guantanamo need not degenerate to the point wherein Dick Durbin equates American military police to "Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime – Pol Pot or others – that had no concern for human beings". Yet that is exactly what Durbin did and it was a propaganda coup for our enemies. Apparently you agree with Dick Durbin. You should keep better company, mark.
John Murtha savaged the good character of U.S. Marines in his blind ambition to damage George W. Bush. I've met people in leadership positions that think nothing of using their subordinates to advance their own career but he is the first I've seen to actually accuse innocent men of murder for political gain. I find that "unpatriotic" at best.
Abandoning civility by crossing the line to imply evil motives and horrid character flaws in the way that George Soros' mouthpiece, Moveon.org, did with General Petreaus in the disgusting "General Betrayus" advertisement is another example. You do that all the time here with your "profiteer" meme. You have no idea how well troops are supported, you only repeat your side's talking points which are of greater concern to you than say... the health and morale of troops...like me. If I were you I would be asking George Soros for some kind of remuneration for being such a loyal mouthpiece for the billionaire's cause.
One more item: If at any point along the way any of these people had expressed a desire to see American forces triumph, I would have looked for the constructive element of their criticism but like you already know, these men wished for us to fail. That is unpatriotic, don't you think?
mark,
Regarding principles - I can only offer that I've served my country proudly and will continue to strive to keep it safe. I'm consistent on that and in offering my opinions unadulterated in this forum.
I wish Obama the best in dealing with the many problems we face. I sincerely hope that he gives the Secretary of Defense and his National Security Advisor an attentive ear.
I was initially pleased by the retention of Gates and the selection of Jones but with Obama's decision to ignore the advice of his advisors on the economy, Larry Summers and Christina Romer, in favor of Nancy Pelosi's pork-fest plan, I am worried.
You calling Limbaugh a "chicken-hawk" is rich though. I know you didn't serve in the military - just like Joe Biden. Did you have a medical waiver like Limbaugh or did you work things out like Biden? Where are your principles? Aren't you going to criticize Biden for supporting the war though he never served? Biden supported the war, just like Cheney, and here is something else they had in common: the same number of draft deferments.
Would you like to talk about your principles or do we need to go back to a discussion of what is unpatriotic?
Remember VP Biden should be classed in the chickenhawk category as accepting four deferments, writing to have a fifth then married to make himself basically untouchable. Besides how is that the Left bandies about this slur when they seem unaware that the alternative is a military dictatorship.
tfhr,
You've accused me specifically of "spitting" on the troops, although I have never criticized them. I have, of course, been very critical of the civilian leadership.
For someone who "demands" evidence for every statement against a conservative, you like to play fast and loose with your own statements. You assume I support and agree with Reid, Durbin and Soros. I have often said Reid is a disgrace, and I specifically criticized his "war is lost" statement". I also criticized the moveon ad here. And I have always said both sides should give the holocaust comparisons a rest. People think they're clever and always end up in tears apologizing (Durbin, Steele, etc.)
Bush was incredibly disrespectul to the troops with his "Where are the WMDs? Nope, not here?" schtick. Troops are risking their lives looking for weapons, and he tells jokes at fancy dinner. I won't assume you were okay with that, but feel free to tell me if you were or not. El Rushbo not only accepts Gitmo and it's policies, but jokes about it with his Club Gitmo gear. Are you on board with that?
Lots of stupid things said by both sides. Even a genious like me has said dumb things. How about you? Your response to bad food and water served by Halliburton is to say that your food is tasty. That's like me saying that nobody is suffering in this economy because I still have a job and a frige filled with food. Very insensitive. Very disrespectul.
BTW, you were one of the people who posted after someone joked/encouraged the assassination of Obama. You didn't call him on it until after I did. Why would you let set a vile comment against your commander-in-chief go by?
Rush said he supports Obama as president but he wants his socialist policies to fail.
Obama has a past.
tfhr,
Are you saying that Rush wanted to serve but was prevented by a cyst on his butt? If he had wanted to serve, he would have. Many brave soldiers have gone back to duty in Iraq despite injuries that could have allowed them to go home. Why are you disrespectful to true heroes and defending a guy like Rush. The last I heard of him going to a foreign land was a trip to a third-world country known for child sexploitation, carrying a bottle of viagra. I'm just sayin'.
Skay, you were another one ignoring the post about assassinating Obama. Do you agree with the sentiments? If not, why didn't you speak up?
mark,
Don't be an ass. I know this goes against your nature but you might stop and consider that Betsy posts incoming comments collectively when time allows. The unfortunate condition is a result of rude and abusive trolls therefore we no longer have the luxury of timely posts.
Your condemnation of the readership here is unjustified.
Your comment in the aforementioned thread, laudable as it was, was not visible to me when I made my remark. If you think I said that the offending post should be stricken because you didn't like it, guess again but try and turn down your conceit first.
Before you flog yourself into unconsciousness with self-congratulatory backslapping over the virtues of your remark consider that many people here simply choose to ignore comments of that nature because they feel that giving an idiot attention only encourages them. Kind of like what I do with you here on a regular basis. Quite possibly I should have ignored your comparison of American combat casualties with your own act of incompetence that resulted in the killing of numerous fish in some sort of Peace Corps aquaculture venture gone bad. Forgive me but I thought the attempt at humor, or whatever it was, to vile and an insult to both the troops and their families. Your freedom to speak is bought and paid for by troops. It is so sad that you squandered yours that way.
As for the hard working people in Iraq that provided us with an enormous selection of healthy food at all hours of the day and night under extreme conditions, you say "profiteer" and I say "thank you for your support". I thank the very talented and capable cooks, the people working over steam tables in serving lines that provided smiles along with good food, the truck drivers that risked life and limb on dangerous roads, the sanitation personnel for performing the most unpleasant work with incredible professionalism, the logisticians, and the multitude of people behind the scenes that provided us with clean facilities, fresh water, fresh vegetables, fresh fruit, and an unbelievable variety of poultry, fish, meats, cheeses, and dairy products.
These are never little things to deployed personnel. It has a huge impact on our morale and the expense and effort is appreciated by all. You may be happy to know that morale if very high, but then again, maybe that disappoints you. You may be surprised to learn that stateside dining facilities do not serve the kind of variety and quality that we became used to in Iraq. You don't care about that or even wonder why and this is simply because you don't have to because you have that luxury.
I'm sure you are right, living in the U.S. gives you a kind of insight and omniscience that a soldier on the ground simply cannot have about the food and water that is sitting right in front of them. Better to hear it from you that what we ate was bad and what we drank was poison. By some luck, I suppose, I did not expire from these venoms as did the the tens of thousand of Americans now secretly mouldering in Halliburton landfills.
We are so fortunate to have your impartial wisdom to guide us, to help us understand that we are all being poisoned for profit and that we should have individually brought our own supplies. That would not have been needed either, by the way, because Americans from all over the country have showered the troops with sundries, snacks, gifts, and letters. Incredible!
Now that I'm thinking of it, did you ever send anything, mark? I mean besides your snotty comments about Peace Corps heroics gone awry?
My critique of Reid, Murtha, and Durbin stands. They are unpatriotic, scurrilous shells of men that sold out their countrymen to serve their own political ambitions but I unreservedly withdraw my statements regarding your "profiteer" remarks since you were obviously in a better position, back in the US, to judge the quality of the food, water, and sanitation in Iraq than I was, sitting there in Fallujah.
How about that? You may now return to your life of vigilant overwatch of the troops. Thanks for your support!
Betsy,
cc: mark
After the comment where mark accuses Rush Limbaugh of sexually exploiting children, I have to ask where do we draw the line?
Why someone else served or did not serve in the military is open for debate but suggesting that they engage in pedophilia is beyond the pale.
mark,
The topic of military service is so unfamiliar to you that you somehow felt the desperate need to accuse or imply that Rush Limbaugh sexually exploits children. Wow, what a leap! You sound as though you have become completely unhinged.
I think you should calm down, stick to topics that you understand and above all avoid accusing people of involvement in the most heinous of crimes. Were you serious or do you think child abuse is fodder for jokes? That is some sort of sickness in its own right.
I think you need to take some time off and collect yourself, mark.
I should have proofed my previous comments.
I said, "Quite possibly I should have ignored your comparison of American combat casualties with your own act of incompetence that resulted in the killing of numerous fish in some sort of Peace Corps aquaculture venture gone bad. Forgive me but I thought the attempt at humor, or whatever it was, to vile and an insult to both the troops and their families. Your freedom to speak is bought and paid for by troops. It is so sad that you squandered yours that way".
It should have said, "... to be vile...." There is no acceptable "vile" therefore do not think I meant "too vile".
I also said, "These are never little things to deployed personnel. It has a huge impact on our morale and the expense and effort is appreciated by all. You may be happy to know that morale if very high, but then again, maybe that disappoints you. You may be surprised to learn that stateside dining facilities do not serve the kind of variety and quality that we became used to in Iraq. You don't care about that or even wonder why and this is simply because you don't have to because you have that luxury".
Correction: There is no "if", "...know that morale IS very high...."
That takes care of some typos; mark, you may want to make some corrections to the substance of your remarks.
tfhr,
I have (twice) acknolwedged that the fish comment was stupid, and apologized. It was absolutly aimed at the incompetence of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, and not at our troops. You neglected to answer my question about whether you were offended by Bush joking about not finding WMDs. Fair enough. I don't answer all of your questions. Plus I think I got my answer.
As for Rush, no apologies. I gave two facts, but made no conclusion (but obviously an insinuation). Running to Betsy to complain? When did the military start accepting little girls?
I understand Betsy's new policy prevents timely responses, but there was plenty of opportunity afterwards to register disagreement. Besides your comment and one other, there was no rebuke (and those two weren't even rebukes). I bet if you tracked that thread down there would still not be any. I do think people here have a responsiblity to speak up against vile comments -even when written by fellow conservatives. A while back there was a particularly hateful person -Vince, I believe- who called all Muslims vermin and goatf***ers, and said he had no qualms about innocent people being held at Gitmo. No conservatives criticized those comments, and that was shameful. Some comments should be condemned, no matter who says them. Silence does inply agreement.
I understand that this is a conservative blog, and fairness is not required (although I think Betsy does a better job than most blogs, conservative or liberal). However, the double standard among some posters is absurd. Criticizing Bush was unpatriotic. Criticizing Obama is okay. Saying that Bush and Cheney commited war crimes demands hard evidence (nevermind that they are stonewalling an investigation). Calling Obama a terrorist/Muslim/Socialist/Marxist? No problem. He once worked on a project with ...... (By that reasoning, every Congressman who has worked with Bernie Sanders is a socialist.)
I would like to see a robust republican party, because I don't trust dems any more than I do repubs. (Electing Michael Steele was a good move). While I enjoy having Rush and Palin around to mock, it frightens me that they are emerging as leaders of the republicans. There are lots of smart, competent republicans, how could you possibly settle on those two?
One of Obama's best lines at the inauguration was about putting away childish things and getting serious about our problems. That goes for everyone, but hopefully repubs will put away the Rush and Sarah dolls and get serious.
mark,
If I accused you or people that think like you of raping children my guess is that you would be very unhappy that someone would say such a thing. To imply the same about a known person is even worse. Its even cowardly to do so to the extent that they are not here to respond to your lible.
I come here because I do enjoy Betsy's selection of topics and commentary and also for worthwhile discourse but your personal attacks on Limbaugh and Palin lend nothing to these pages and unnecessarily coarsen the tone. Rather than dealing with their comments in a rational and thoughtful way you engage in personal attacks. Is it too challenging for you to meet them with facts to support your view?
Again, because there is not a list of people signing up to condemn an offensive post DO NOT ASSUME that people here agree with it. You have attempted to defame everyone that did not satisfy your need to condemn that post. Are you saying that because Betsy did not remove it that she somehow agrees with such a dysphemistic comment?
The rest of your remarks amount to an angry rant and I just don't have the time or desire to reread it again to form a response.
mark-vince P did say those things but on his website not here. In fact much of the criticism the sock puppets aimed at him was demanding apologies on Betsy's site for things he had said on his own.
Back on topic, I'm not really convinced Pres Obama means anything he says to be taken seriously so will judge him by his actions or perhaps reactions to some of his speeches. But he still has a way to go before equalling the damage to his trousers compared to the holes Pres Clinton acquired in his from rug burns.
Good morning, tfhr,
While watching Chris Wallace at Fox this mornign, I wanted to address your comments about Halliburton.
It is disingenuous of you to talk about the cooks, drivers etc. who serve you as if I am talking about them being profiteers. No doubt there are many brave, competent, professionals providing quality services. I am, of course, talking about the officials back in the states making the bills and collecting the money. If you take a few minutes and go to Halliburtonwatch.com, you'll see many examples of Halliburton caught overcharging or underperforming. If you want to beleive they are all innocent mistakes, I guess they wouldn't be war profiteer. If you acknowledge that any of those errors were intentional, then they are guilty of war-profiteering. It may be hard to prove intent, but just like I don't believe Geitner's or Dashle's tax problems were innocent mistake, I don't think all of Halliburton's were mere oversights.
I've noticed a pattern with you: Criticize Bush/Cheney and somehow you're spitting on the troops. Criticize Halliburton and you're bashing the workers. Good strategy. Dishonest, but good.
Anyway, I hope the hard workers of Halliburton provide all soldiers with plenty of beer, wings and projectors for the Superbowl.
On the subject of apologizing to the Muslim world-----
"US President Barack Obama's offer to talk to Iran shows that America's policy of "domination" has failed, the government spokesman said on Saturday.
"This request means Western ideology has become passive, that capitalist thought and the system of domination have failed," Gholam Hossein Elham was quoted as saying by the Mehr news agency."
By the way--I don't intend to comment on"comments" I have not seen Mark.
Do not assume you know what you DO NOT know about somewone else.
tfhr,
Again, try to consider the absurdity of your protest in light of your calling Ted Kennedy a murderer. There is lots of evidence that he committed a crime and an act of cowardice. But there is no hard proof. (I believe it would be manslaugher, not murder). So in your world, calling someone a murderer (absence proof) is okay, but implying that Rush had sleazy, dishonorable intentions when he went on his trip with a bottle of viagra is beyond the pale.
I don't beleive I attacked Palin. She should not be a serious player, and I don't think she wants to do any real work. (Circumstatial) evidence: She turned down an opportunity to address the republican governors this weekend, citing her need to stay in Alaska to work. However, she went to the exclusive Alfalfa Dinner in DC to hear Obama make a few jokes. Lame (and dishonest).
In reality, I've praised repubs by saying that there are people far more intelligent than Rush and Sarah.
Getting back to "absurd": our back and forth has once again become a bit silly, so I won't make further comments on this thread. Feel free to take your last shots. I'll probably read them, but won't reply.
One more thing: I was surprised that Betsy allowed that post (regarding the assassination), and think it should have been pulled. But I certainly don't "condemn" her, you or anyone. I simply don't think extreme comments joking about/advocating violence against anyone (but especially the president) should be ignored.
Until next time.
Here I am, breaking my promise to leave this thread, but....
Pat,
Unfortunately, I don't have proof, but Vince's vile comments absolutley were on this blog. I specifically challenged people to condemn the remarks, to no avail. People who were around at the time know I'm right. Oh well.
I think you are still referring to Biddle, don and a few others who imported those remarks here. The same crew that went after Dr. Weevil with a series of inapproprite and irrelevant ad hominems. Vince P was indeed intemperate but I will state again that the two quotes you provided he did not publish here.
My recollection was that when these quotes were posted here the same kind of treatment you are using as a lack of civility was demanded and ignored then as they will be now.
Plus if the election results hold it looks like Jaw Bones claimed nascent Shiite fundamentalist regime in Iraq may have hit a huge iceberg.
http://tinyurl.com/dh435q
Does Iran think that Obama is another Jimmy Carter?
Senior Democrat Snubbed by Iran in Outreach Bid
By JAY SOLOMON
FEBRUARY 2, 2009
WASHINGTON — The chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs tried to meet a top aide to Iran’s supreme leader in mid-December but was rebuffed at the last minute, a snub that illustrates the challenges to dialogue with Tehran pushed by President Barack Obama.
Rep. Howard Berman, a California Democrat, notified Mr. Obama’s transition team and the Bush White House of the planned meeting in Bahrain, according to senior Obama administration officials.
The engagement with Ali Larijani, speaker of the Iranian parliament, would have marked one of the highest-level meetings between American and Iranian officials since the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran. It’s unclear why Mr. Larijani pulled out…
Rep. Berman’s office didn’t respond to requests for comment. A spokesman at Iran’s mission to the United Nations in New York declined to comment…
Post a Comment