The president’s Cairo speech: worse than feared. Let’s itemize the ways.
President Obama likes to position himself as an intermediary, explaining two conflicting parties each to the other. He did so in his race speech in Philadelphia, he did so when he spoke about abortion at Notre Dame.
In Cairo, he took a similar position between the United States and the Islamic world. He urged Americans to take a positive view of Islam, and urged Muslims to take a positive view of the United States.
But whereas in Philadelphia and Notre Dame Obama was explaining two groups of Americans to each other, in Cairo he exhibited the amazing spectacle of an American president taking an equidistant position between the country he leads and its detractors and enemies. It is as if he saw himself as a judge in some legal dispute, People of the Islamic World v. United States. But the job to which he was elected was not that of impartial judge, but that of leader and champion of the American nation.
The president said: “I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire.”
The same principle? Shouldn’t an American president feel an attachment to his own country above all? Shouldn’t misrepresentations aimed against that country energize him more?
And yet the tone of this speech suggested that if anything, such misrepresentations energize him rather less. Listen to this passage:
I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.
Well yes, they are facts. But they are also something more: They are wrongs done on a massive scale to the United States by people acting in the name of Islam, wrongs condoned, endorsed and excused by many in the Islamic world. When addressing grievances expressed by some Muslims, the president spoke understandingly and sympathetically.
[T]ension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations.
When speaking of the wrongs done to the United States by people acting in the name of Islam, however, the president mentioned nothing but the bare fact. To that subject, he brought no emotion at all.
* * *
Next problem.
The president addressed – surprisingly briefly – the issue of the rights of women in the Islamic world. This is not a small issue, now that the Islamic world extends into Europe and America. Women in cities like London, Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Oslo face mounting threats not only to their freedom, but even to their physical safety, from men who deploy violence in the name of Islam. Nor is it only Muslim-born women at risk.
Now listen to the president:
I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal.
But it is not only “some in the West” who take this view! It is many Muslim-born women themselves, some of whom live in the West – but others of whom live in Muslim-majority countries. What on earth is an American president doing taking sides on this internal question of Islamic practice?
What’s next – a speech in Jerusalem where the president says, “I reject the view of some in the West that chicken is not a ‘meat’ for kosher purposes?” A speech in Vatican City where the president endorses clerical celibacy?
Such interventions within Judaism and Christianity would obviously be unthinkable. Yet here is an American president intervening in an internal Muslim debate – and not only intervening, but intervening on the more reactionary side!
* * *
The risk with this speech from the beginning was that the president would turn his back on the people in the Muslim world who most admire Western freedom – and who most need our understanding and support.
The president:
[I]t is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit – for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.
These words are a slap at the government of France, which restricts the wearing of hijab in schools. Yet polls show that a large majority of French teachers support the ban. Possibly these teachers are all bigots. But possibly also they understand that hijab is frequently compelled upon girls – not only by their families – but by the youth gangs that patrol French suburban neighborhoods enforcing Islamic conformity on those who might wish to escape.
Islam is not a monolith, we are often told. And that is true! The Islamic world is also the home of Dr Younus Shaikh, a Pakistani scholar charged with blasphemy for stating that Islam did not exist before Muhammad. (Muslim orthodoxy holds that Islam was the original religion of mankind, followed by Adam in the Garden of Eden.)
The Islamic world is the home of the terrorized young gays of Iran. It is the home of Saudi women who want to drive. Did the president have anything to say to them?
No, no, and no. For all the speech’s reasonable tone, it persistently treats the more traditionalist elements within Islamic societies – and the Islamic diaspora – as the more authentic and important.
* * *
One of the most disturbing things about the Cairo speech is the persistent misrepresentation of history.
It is really absurd to say that Islam for example has “always been a part of America’s story.”
It is something worse than absurd to use a speech on Islam to apologize for America’s part in the overthrow of the Mossadeq regime in Iran in 1953. Mossadeq was a secular nationalist, passionately opposed by Iran’s religious establishment. That establishment finally seized power for itself in 1979, and since then it has made a martyr of Mossadeq. For the United States to apologize to the present Iranian regime for the overthrow of Mossadeq would be a little like President Eisenhower apologizing to Josef Stalin for the murder of Trotsky. Agreed, we didn’t much like Trotsky – but Stalin is not the man to receive that apology, and neither are the mullahs the people to receive an apology for the events of 1953. President Obama would have done better to publish the amount of CIA money the ayatollahs collected in return for opposing Mossadeq!
(By the way, it is misleading to describe the Mossadeq regime as “democratically elected.” At the time of his overthrow, Mossadeq had suspended elections and was ruling by emergency decree.)
Throughout the president’s speech, he takes pains to admit and ratify the validity of complaints against the West. This no doubt strikes Obama as a clever piece of ju-jitsu: a harmless concession that opens the way to dialogue and détente.
But what it also does is cut the ground out from under those liberal Muslims and Arabs who reject a victimological approach to their own history. Many of the worst elements in the Islamic world tell a one-sided history that denies or excuses the victimization of others and that throws all blame for frustrations and disappointments upon outsiders. That version of history now commands the assent of an American president. And while he may regard his concessions as empty compliments, they will carry ominous meaning for many who struggle for the freedom to narrate a more honest history.
* * *
Turn now to the speech’s policy implications. They range from the troubling to the alarming.
Here’s one troubling point:
In cooperation with American allies, the Bush administration squeezed the flow of money to Hamas and other terrorist organizations. Hamas front groups were shut down, and their leaders prosecuted.
Now listen to President Obama:
For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.
It is not at all hard for American Muslims to give to legitimate charities. What has been made difficult is giving to terror groups. Is the president suggesting he will relax those restrictions?
Another ominous hint. The president invoked a future moment
when Jerusalem is a … place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer.
But it is already true that Jerusalem is open to prayer for all faiths, Muslims very much included. That’s very different from the situation before 1967, when Jews were excluded and Jewish cemeteries were vandalized.
Is the president denying that reality? Is he opening the door to an internationalization of Israel’s capital city?
Eli Lake of the Washington Times reported last month that President Obama would put the Israeli nuclear arsenal on the table as part of his attempt to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran. This speech appears to confirm that alarming intention as well:
I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America’s commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons.
Finally, this: the president devoted almost one-fifth of his speech to the Arab Israeli conflict. This section contains much that is familiar and much that is positive. The president’s words on the immorality and futility of terrorism achieved eloquence:
It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.
On the other hand, his analogy between the situation of the Palestinians and American slavery should deeply offend African-Americans. Africans did not find themselves in bondage on American soil because of wars they started. They were never given the opportunity to achieve their emancipation via negotiated settlement. They were not impoverished because their leaders stole billions of dollars of donated aid.
From the point of view of America’s international interests, it was hardly wise to accede to the claim that America’s relationship with Muslims worldwide should depend on America’s ability to deliver a viable, functioning Palestinian state. What happens if, after the president’s fine words, six years from now finds the status quo between Israelis and Palestinians more or less as it is today? If the Palestinian Authority governs just as fecklessly and corruptly and Hamas opts to remain a radical and violent pariah? The words of this grandiloquent speech could then return to haunt not only this supremely confident president – but the country for which he speaks.
68 responses so far
1 balconesfault // Jun 4, 2009 at 8:17 am
Running out of morning
2 sinz54 // Jun 4, 2009 at 8:38 am
OK, I just checked here for another update.
Frum’s position now isn’t any different from what it was an hour ago.
3 ottovbvs // Jun 4, 2009 at 9:27 am
Actually he took an equidistant position between muslims and Israel. David may think Israel and the US are synonomous. They are not. As far as the relations between the US and the muslim world he essentially retold the facts without emotion. Obviously a speech is just a speech but this was important in framing the dialogue. And it’s clear there’s going to be dialogue as opposed to no dialogue which is the situation David and the far right want to perpetuate. This is obviously act 1 of a full court press to try and bring about some sort of settlement in the middle east. It’s going to be a long and winding road but in a sense the climate is probably the best it’s ever been for some time in that essentially matters have reached stalemate in the middle east. The Arabs have found a means of holding the Israelis to a draw by assymetric warfare. The limits of American military power have been demonstrated in Iraq and Afghanistan. American strategic incompetence has enabled the emergence of Iran as a regional hegemon that can’t be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons however much Israel and the US huff and puff. The old line Arab states like Jordan, Saudia Arabia and Egypt want a settlement. Iran contrary to the assertions of American neocons in not an irrational state and has economic problems that it needs to solve by moving back into the global mainstream. The front line states like Syria, Lebanon, the PLO/Hamas are weary. Israel for the first time faces existential threats from the assymetric tactics of the militants and the nuclear weapons of Iran. Finally the US who is really the only state with the ability to bring about a settlement is really engaged for the first time since Clinton’s abortive try in the late 90’s. Overall a good and positive move because it in US interests to broker a settlement in the middle east that leaves all parties minimally satisfied or disattisfied. But stand by for the howls from rightwing greater Israelis and their neocon spear carriers in the US who for the most part put US interests behind those of Israel. Btw David the trivial cheap shots about chickens and celibacy don’t aid your cred in this matter.
4 RightNow09 // Jun 4, 2009 at 9:28 am
He surprised me by actually mentioning 9/11 and saying “Iraqis are better off without Saddam’s tyranny” (or something like that, and of course, he made sure to qualify it). But besides that, my stomach was in a knot from start to finish. He still doesn’t get that America is on higher hill than the rest (or “city on a hill”) and that it’s okay to say so and believe in our status’s goodness. This “citizen of the world” nonesense in our president’s head is starting to scare me. And its beginning to offend me as an American.
5 joemarier // Jun 4, 2009 at 9:28 am
The direct Catholic parallel would be along the lines of, “I reject the view of some in the West that Catholic colleges that do not honor pro-abortion politicians are somehow less open to dialogue…”
6 Mara // Jun 4, 2009 at 9:29 am
so the problem Frum has with the speech is that it was too even-handed, insufficiently contemptuous of Muslim and Arab perspective, and lacking in good ol’ American exceptionalism? Maybe he’d have been happier if Obama had cribbed one of Bush’s old speeches about how perfect We are and how backward They are and how we have every right to do any d*mn thing we want to simply because we ARE America.
7 ottovbvs // Jun 4, 2009 at 9:35 am
RightNow09
wrote 3 minutes ago
“He still doesn’t get that America is on higher hill than the rest (or “city on a hill”) and that it’s okay to say so and believe in our status’s goodness.”
……..When someone says something like this they become impossible to parody……Mara take note
8 sinz54 // Jun 4, 2009 at 9:36 am
David,
on the issue of women, you omitted the rest of what Obama said:
“I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well educated are far more likely to be prosperous.
“Now, let me be clear: Issues of women’s equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, we’ve seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women’s equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.
“I am convinced that our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons. Our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity — men and women — to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. And that is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.”
9 sinz54 // Jun 4, 2009 at 9:39 am
David,
if women are *forced* to wear the veil or face severe punishment, then that contravenes Obama’s statement that every women should be free to choose to live her own life.
But in some traditional Islamic cultures, women choose to wear hijab, or even niqab. I wouldn’t want an American president telling those women “Take off your clothes!”
10 sinz54 // Jun 4, 2009 at 9:48 am
RightNow09: There are two ways to interpret the Winthrop phrase “Shining city upon a hill,” where America is concerned.
If you read the full context of JFK’s speeches and Reagan speeches, they meant that America should be a beacon of freedom and liberty, showing the world that free societies can work spectacularly. That’s radical enough.
Believe me, most of the Leftists who post here on New Majority don’t even believe that. They don’t think America is capable of being a beacon on anything, since they basically think America’s past history stunk from beginning to end.
But the way YOU are interpreting that phrase, is that America is better than anybody else, implying we have nothing to learn from anyone else.
Cosmpolitanism isn’t necessarily unpatriotic. Think about it.
11 ottovbvs // Jun 4, 2009 at 10:04 am
sinz54
wrote 3 minutes ago
“Believe me, most of the Leftists who post here on New Majority don’t even believe that. They don’t think America is capable of being a beacon on anything, since they basically think America’s past history stunk from beginning to end.”
………..Every so often you make a statement with no substance whatever and of astonishing asininity Sinz. This should be framed. This is a great country with a wonderful record of achievement but it’s frequently screwed up as most societies do and has some notable stains on its escutcheon.
12 RightNow09 // Jun 4, 2009 at 10:28 am
sinz54 wrote:
“But the way YOU are interpreting that phrase, is that America is better than anybody else, implying we have nothing to learn from anyone else.”
I did not say or imply that. However, there is no point in telling ourselves that America and Finland have equal purposes in the world. Or that our values are no better or worse than Saudi Arabia’s. There is plenty to learn from other nations and cultures. But we shouldn’t be telling societies that stone women for showing their ankles that “that’s just your way of doing things!” In this regard, I believe it is acceptable to make certain judgments.
13 sinz54 // Jun 4, 2009 at 10:33 am
ottovbvs: I said “most”, not “all.”
You seem to be a liberal of the Old School, one who actually remembers that liberals like Humphrey, JFK, Henry “Scoop” Jackson and so on were deeply proud of America.
But you’re a dying breed–the patriotic left-winger. Today’s leftists are a very different stripe.
On the basic question “On balance, do you think America has done more good than harm in the world?”, few of them would say yes.
14 ottovbvs // Jun 4, 2009 at 10:40 am
sinz54
wrote 1 minutes ago
……I’m actually a mild Republican somewhat similar to Bush senior or was until I jumped ship about seven years ago…..I also think you are completely wrong about left leaning liberals of whom I know a few who are enormously proud of the US particularly the younger ones….they just have no tolerance for bs like me.
15 sinz54 // Jun 4, 2009 at 10:42 am
RightNow09: Did Obama actually say that our values are no better than Saudi Arabia’s???
Compare Obama’s speech to the statement Reagan made to the King of Saudi Arabia in 1985:
“The friendship and cooperation between our governments and people are precious jewels whose value we should never underestimate. The positive nature of our relations demonstrates that cultural differences, as distinct as our own, need not separate or alienate peoples from one another.
“As the guardians of Mecca and the protectors of your faith, you rightfully exert a strong moral influence in the world of Islam, and the people of the United States are proud of their leadership role among the democratic nations.”
Did Obama say that Saudi Arabia “rightfully exerts a strong moral influence,” as Reagan did???
16 ottovbvs // Jun 4, 2009 at 10:43 am
RightNow09
wrote 13 minutes ago
“I did not say or imply that.”
……..Actually it’s exactly what you said……It was so OTT I thought it was a parody and then it became clear you were serious……..
17 ottovbvs // Jun 4, 2009 at 10:57 am
Sinz…..because his wider agenda David is trying to discredit Obama’s speech and ignoring the fact as are most posters here that this is just the opening shot in a long campaign. I can’t imagine any other western leader currently being able to make such a speech and it having anything remotely like the amount of credibility in the muslim world. This doesn’t interest David because he doesn’t want a relationship with the muslim world that he sees as in anyway disadvantaging Israel. In fact as I know from a couple of friends who live there and with whom I exchange emails opinion is Israel is very divided about the need for a rapprochment with the Arabs/Iranians. Paradoxically Israel had a working, below the radar, relationship with Iran right up until the early 90’s so these things are not as unthinkable as they seem if you listen to the likes of Frum or Kristol. At the end of the day this has to be settled and this is probably going to mean Israel returning to its 67 borders, the creation of a Palestinian state, massive international investment in the Palestinians, all guaranteed by the US and a bunch of regional Arab states like Saudi Arabia. This outcome would be anathema to the US neocons but it’s the only viable solution.
18 sinz54 // Jun 4, 2009 at 11:10 am
ottovbvs: *If* America is respected and *credible*, we can afford to be committed to the security of Israel while *still* reaching out to the Muslim world.
Other presidents did this before. No American president sold out Israel, ever. Yet while Israel remained secure, Carter brokered a peace agreement with Egypt; Reagan pushed through Congress a controversial military sale of AWACS and missiles to Saudi Arabia, over the objections of Israel’s supporters, etc.
But America’s credibility to the entire Middle East region has to come first. And right now, our credibility is in the toilet. We charged into Iraq to find WMD that wasn’t there (I wish Gallup would poll the Muslims on that one).
We dumped $40 trillion of derivatives on the global financial marketplace (many bought up by foreign investors and foreign sovereign wealth funds) that have turned out to be nearly worthless. As a result, Europe, Japan, even China had to take urgent steps to save off recession in their own countries.
With America’s credibility down like it is now, the type of deals that Carter and Reagan pulled off would not have been possible. I really believe that.
19 RightNow09 // Jun 4, 2009 at 11:23 am
ottovbs: You thought I was kidding because you disagreed with what I was saying. It offended your world view and shocked you. You found it outrageous. Rather than confront and debate the merits of my argument (America is the moral good guy of the world and has capabilites no other nation has to do good things based on our virtuous values) you cast it aside as a ruse. How nice.
sinz54: Calm down, I’m on your side. Saudi Arabia was just a random example. But since you think you’ve found something, I’ll bite. Saudi Arabia can “exert a strong moral influence” in the region as “the guardian of mecca” but still play host to laws and customs (honor killings, etc,) that Americans should feel free to call savage, immoral, and inferior to our own.
Now…back to Frum’s topic!
20 MSheridan // Jun 4, 2009 at 11:29 am
RightNow09, you said in your first post below:
“This “citizen of the world” nonesense [sic] in our president’s head is starting to scare me.”
I wonder, when JFK said in his inaugural address, “My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man” or when Ronald Wilson Reagan told the General Assembly of the United Nations that “I speak today as both a citizen of the United States, and of the world,” did you then too feel this frisson of fear that they might be unpatriotic?
Not that they were the only Presidents to use the phrase–far from it. So did Calvin Coolidge, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/24/546289/-Citizen-of-the-World-used-by-Plethora-of-Past-Presidents
21 RightNow09 // Jun 4, 2009 at 11:48 am
MSheridan: A conservative like Reagan declaring that he’s a citizen of the world is much different for obvious reasons than a liberal/leftist like Obama saying it. With Reagan, you still knew he believed that America was top dog. With Obama, that’s taboo. There are many examples of this throughout politics.
22 balconesfault // Jun 4, 2009 at 11:55 am
sinz: “Believe me, most of the Leftists who post here on New Majority don’t even believe that. They don’t think America is capable of being a beacon on anything, since they basically think America’s past history stunk from beginning to end.”
Nope. I don’t believe you. At all.
23 balconesfault // Jun 4, 2009 at 12:06 pm
“In fact as I know from a couple of friends who live there and with whom I exchange emails opinion is Israel is very divided about the need for a rapprochment with the Arabs/Iranians.”
And Israel is also very divided over the settlements – there are quite a few Israelis who wish that the settlements would just go away, but right now realize that they’ll have their own internal war if the government tries to stop expansions, much less pull them back.
24 balconesfault // Jun 4, 2009 at 12:19 pm
I am struck by Frums apparent unhappiness that Obama spoke empathetically about some of the impacts of colonialism and states America’s main grievance (9/11) in plain factual tones.
Clearly, this is a rhetorical style by Obama intended to calm the tone of the debate, so that people might listen to the rest of his message in a different way. If you show empathy towards someone’s grievance, you don’t have to validate how they’ve acted on that grievance in the past, or even take sole responsibility for the grievance, as some accuse Obama of doing.
Rather, you defuse the emotions. You allow them to say “good, he’s listening to us.”
Frum wants Obama to add in a very loud and strident “BUT” at the end of his acknowledgement of grievance. If you want everyone to stop listening to you, that’s a great way to do it. If he made an emotional appeal to the Arab world to understand why America was right to react militarily to 9/11, it would be discussion over, good night, Gracie.
Progress like this can take a lot of time, and many steps, and like fishing, the key is to not move the lure so quickly that you scare away the fish before they get attracted to the bait. Obama will move slowly here, and hopefully some significant portion of the Arab world will over time buy into what he’s selling – and take the position that eliminating Islamic terrorism is their responsibility, and not ours.
25 Bulldoglover100 // Jun 4, 2009 at 12:57 pm
David…why are you so afraid that Obama might actually be able to correct the mistakes of the past? His speech is soooo close to Reagan that it amazes me that you would allow politics to ride over what is best for the people in this country.
Your a sad little man attempting get more TV time perhaps with your claptrap but is it worth it when you sell your self respect so cheaply?
26 // Jun 4, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Sinz: Could you please identify some of the Lefties on this blog who don’t believe America is a beacon of freedom?
I personally have not seen a post from anyone that says or means anything of the sort.
27 // Jun 4, 2009 at 1:34 pm
The amount of hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty on NM and by some of the posters here has reached an incredible height.
So many on the Right here characterize Obama’s statements and positions as wrong, evil, naive, etc. They are apparently unaware that many of these same statements and positions have been made or taken in the past by other well-respected conservatives. When this is brought to their attention, they either ignore it or go through some twisted game of illogic in order to justify their criticism of Obama.
This site is becoming less and less about ideas and more and more about the jersey worn by the person who puts forth the idea.
28 joescannura // Jun 4, 2009 at 1:36 pm
there are many things wrong with the presidents speech that make you question what his staff are thinking, and how naive they are. Firstly, how big a part of America is Islam, and are Muslims? Well, not too much actually. I don’t think the founders had any interest in the Mid East or Islam. Also, does anyone know how many Muslims lived in America before 1950? I would think not too many. I don’t see the point in trying to make them feel a part of America. Any Muslim who wants to live peacefully, like the 7 million here already, can. But that doesn’t mean they had a hand in founding and creating this country. They didn’t. Sorry.
Second, he talked about Jefferson a few times. But he failed to mention that Jefferson was the first president to go to war with radical Islam. Jefferson sent the Navy to fight in the Barbary Wars against Muslims who were attacking American ships and taking Brits and Americans as slaves, because, as they told Jefferson to his face, the Koran and Allah gave them permission. Does anyone on the Obama team actually know history. They don’t know anything about economics, and now it seems we can add history to the list of subjects we need not worry about.
Thirdly, He did mention near the end, in one short paragraph, that we will all be better off when we isolate extremists and give them no power. I agree. But that should have been the point of the whole speech. Go to “the Muslim World” and tell them that we do have 7 million hopefully peaceful Muslims, coping well with modernity and American culture. Were OK with you guys, it’s actually your theocratic governments that also harbor terrorists and support them that’s the problem. But we know, hopefully, that most of you aren’t OK with this. So isolate the extremists, reject them, and help us fight them, so we can end this. But he didn’t say that. He just said a bunch of junk about Israeli’s and Palestinian’s, and some junk about Islam and America. Woopty doo. Mission not accomplished Mr. President.
29 petty boozshwa // Jun 4, 2009 at 1:45 pm
It is really absurd to say that Islam for example has always been a part of Americas story.
C’mon Frum, it’s no more platitudinous than saying GWB was “The Right Man.”
Obama sees a world with no nuclear weapons, a position endorsed by America hating John McCain. Asking Israel to give up their nukes would do nothing to hurt their security [this is a country too squeamish to execute terrorists that bash kid's heads against rocks] and would do much good in putting Iran on the spot. He sees a world where Israel’s breathtakingly candid admissions of embezzlement of US aid is finally punished by forbidding further expansion of the settlements on our dime. These were not anti-Israel positions [ask Gershom Gorenberg] or manifestations of an equivalence mindset, they represented movement on those items on the peace agenda that our side has some influence. I just wish a Republican President would be so clearheaded.
30 ottovbvs // Jun 4, 2009 at 1:55 pm
RightNow09
11:23 AMottovbs: “You thought I was kidding because you disagreed with what I was saying. It offended your world view and shocked you. You found it outrageous. Rather than confront and debate the merits of my argument”
You said:”
But besides that, my stomach was in a knot from start to finish. He still doesn’t get that America is on higher hill than the rest (or “city on a hill”) and that it’s okay to say so and believe in our status’s goodness.”
…….America is on a higher hill than all those foreigners…..we have a monopoly of wisdom…..If the events of the past eight years haven’t disabused you of that notion nothing will.
31 balconesfault // Jun 4, 2009 at 1:59 pm
pretty: “Obama sees a world with no nuclear weapons, a position endorsed by America hating John McCain.”
Not to mention:
“My dream became a world free of nuclear weapons.”
Ronald Reagan
32 ottovbvs // Jun 4, 2009 at 2:01 pm
joescannura
wrote 19 minutes ago
“Firstly, how big a part of America is Islam, and are Muslims? Well, not too much actually. I don’t think the founders had any interest in the Mid East or Islam. Also, does anyone know how many Muslims lived in America before 1950?”
…….How many poles lived in US in 1840….how many Jews?…..how many Serbians?……How many Indians……How many Filipinos…..things change
33 balconesfault // Jun 4, 2009 at 2:06 pm
America should continue to aspire to be on a higher hill than the rest of the world. But the most successful climbers spend less time beating their chests and more time … well … climbing.
There is a misperception (call it the Kirkpatrick lie) that liberals “blame America first”. Liberals acknowledge America’s failures as a nation so that we as a people can continue to become better. Our place on top of the world is not pre-ordained, as some would have it.
I am amused by some of Frums words, as well as commentors such as joescannura, who are basically kvetching that Obama didn’t take a tone with the Arab world that social conservatives take with the rest of the Republican Party:
“We’re right … you’re wrong … if you want us to get along, you need to start by acknowledging that fact.”
Ironically for Frum, he sees why that’s a problem with growing the Republican Party, but he doesn’t understand why it’s a problem with getting others in the world to care about America’s security.
34 ottovbvs // Jun 4, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Spartacus
wrote 28 minutes ago
…….You have to recognize where Frum is coming from. He basically doesn’t want a reconciliation with the muslim world because that will mean adjustments in Israel’s status as an ally. The fact that 5 or 6 million Israelis, far fewer actually since almost half the country wants a lasting settlement, is dictating the US relations with 1.4 billion muslims or about 350 million in the ME isn’t important to him. A continuation of a state of hostilities is what he wants just as the diehard cubans want a continuation of hostilities with Cuba. Put an end to the hostilities and everything changes. For one thing the US stops funding an arms race between Israel and various moderate Arab states that we want to keep in the US orbit because if we stopped they would rapidly move off into say the Chinese orbit.
35 shipwack // Jun 4, 2009 at 2:14 pm
joescannura wrote 31 minutes ago
“Well, not too much actually. I don’t think the founders had any interest in the Mid East or Islam”
Then you’d think incorrectly. Jefferson had a copy of the Koran in his library.
http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Jefferson%27s_Koran
Also, on the world stage, the Barbary Pirates (based in the area of Tripoli) were a force to reckon with by all sea faring nations.
More info on the Pirates, the Koran, and Jefferson’s interest in Islam:
http://www.khouse.org/articles/2007/691/
By the way, I’m sure this list is neither complete nor exhaustive. It is just what I remembered from school and 30 seconds of using Google.
36 joescannura // Jun 4, 2009 at 3:40 pm
shipwack and ottovbs
Nothing either of you has said shows me that Islam is a defining part of American History. at all. I don’t care if George Washington was reading a Koran while he crossed the Deleware, doesn’t make it an important part of the History of this great country. I think it could easily be argued that if those Barbary powers had found this land, It would be the shit hole that the Mid East is.Or if the founding fathers were to have actually been all that interested in it, this country wouldn’t have ended up all that good.
I don’t understand why our President’s have to go to the Mid East and basically get down on there knees and open there mouths wide to try and reconcile with any body over there. The President of Iran called us a satanic power. He hates us just like the ayatollah’s hate us,and just like many of the people seem to hate us. So what are begging for. Why are we the ones saying were not at war with them, or with Islam. Why don’t some of them come here and say there not at war with Judaism or Catholicism. And that they don’t hate America or want it to go up in flames. Enough already with the apologizing. If you all say you don’t agree with terrorists than help us fight them and denounce them. that’s all that needs to be said.
37 Realist // Jun 4, 2009 at 4:02 pm
joescannura said: “I don’t understand why our President’s have to go to the Mid East and basically get down on there knees and open there mouths wide to try and reconcile with any body over there.”
Were you talking about Israel there? Couldn’t tell.
38 Mike K // Jun 4, 2009 at 4:17 pm
“It is really absurd to say that Islam for example has always been a part of Americas story.”
Well, David, he is close. After all, the US Navy and Marine Corps were established to deal with the Barbary Pirates who were enslaving US merchant seamen and capturing our ships. They were demanding ransom and are responsible for some stirring moments in American history.
“Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute !”
“The shores of Tripoli” in the Marine hymn.
Yes, they were there as part of our history but not as he meant it, I suspect.
39 sinz54 // Jun 4, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Mike K: Christopher Hitchens did a good job of relating the Barbary story here:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_2_urbanities-thomas_jefferson.html
A lesson for American schoolchildren is this:
Thomas Jefferson and John Adams had gone to Europe to meet with a representative of Tripoli. Jefferson and Adams asked him why Tripoli keeps preying upon American ships. After all, they said, America is a young country, and has no quarrel with Tripoli.
The Tripoli representative responded that it was written in the Koran, that all Nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.
The more things change….
40 sinz54 // Jun 4, 2009 at 5:02 pm
JoeScannura: Ordinary Iranian people have tended to be pro-American and pro-Western.
Iran is Shiite,and they don’t buy into the Sunni imperialism of, say, a Saddam Hussein.
Don’t judge all Iranians by the ayatollahs.
I wouldn’t have judged the Russian people by Stalin or Brezhnev either.
41 sinz54 // Jun 4, 2009 at 5:11 pm
balconesfault: One thing to notice is that Obama got applause only for Islam’s strengths and America’s faults, NOT for any of the parts of his speech where he pleaded for common ground.
When Obama mentioned the 3,000 Americans who were slaughtered on 9-11, all he got was silence.
When Obama talked about the need to isolate violent extremists, again he got silence.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23338.html
This should come as no surprise to either him or us.
If we got all our news from al-Jazeera, we would hate America ourselves.
42 sinz54 // Jun 4, 2009 at 5:22 pm
balconesfault sez: “Liberals acknowledge America’s failures as a nation so that we as a people can continue to become better.”
But with you guys, it seems like you rarely, if ever, bother to acknowledge all the wonderful achievements we have made in this country. It seems like with you guys, the message is “America always stunk, America still stinks now–but do things our way and maybe America won’t stink so much in the future.” Do you guys celebrate the Fourth of July? How about Thanksgiving? Those aren’t plans for the future; they’re celebrations of a positive and inspiring American past.
Howard Zinn’s revisionist textbook, “A People’s History of the United States: 1492-2000,” is a case in point of the Left’s attitude toward America. There isn’t one positive thing said about America as a *nation* in the entire book. (Why some high schools have made it their *sole* required textbook on American history, baffles me.)
Even the title gives the game away. There was no United States in 1492. So why does the book start there? Because Zinn wants his young readers to know all about the “genocide” of the Indians which would follow Christopher Columbus’ landing in the New World. Evidently Mr. Zinn feels that North America should have remained in the hands of the Indians, and white folks should have stayed in Europe where they belong.
43 balconesfault // Jun 4, 2009 at 7:04 pm
“balconesfault: One thing to notice is that Obama got applause only for Islam’s strengths and America’s faults, NOT for any of the parts of his speech where he pleaded for common ground.”
I noticed that as well – it seems like the crowd was largely geared, in fact, only to applaud each time he mentioned the Koran.
I was not impressed by the audience …lthough I am glad they didn’t applaud when he mentioned 9/11.
That said, I’m not expecting instant change.
As I’ve said before elsewhere – Americans have a strange memory. We were brutal enemies with the Japanese and Germans in the 40’s, and put out propoganda that promoted the most vile slurs imaginable about those peoples, and suffered horrible losses at their hands. And by the mid-60’s, Japan and Germany were the closest of our allies.
In the Middle East, people don’t forget such grievances in 20 years. Hell – they don’t forget grievances in 20 generations.
But we can’t afford to continue to need to militarize the Middle East in order to maintain our own security. The only long term solution is for the Middle East to be responsible for controlling terrorists themselves.
44 danbmil99 // Jun 4, 2009 at 7:30 pm
I’m sorry, no matter what side of the various issues you’re on, it’s impossible to be a rational, sensitive person, and not get the feeling you’re watching a master of the game.
Obama’s state of play is so far above GWB, it’s like comparing my son’s mini-golf skills (he once took out a light fixture instead of the ball) to Tiger Wood’s.
Frum has once again shown that while he wants to moderate on the social issues (a pragmatic view — just punting one meaningless alliance for another) — his true core is vehemently neo-con, pro-Israel, American Exceptionalism.
I want a new New Majority.
45 InTheMiddle12 // Jun 4, 2009 at 7:36 pm
One of the things I find most puzzling about the right, especially the religious right is their lack of faith.
I listened and read the speech afterward. What I heard was a deeply spiritual leader who is appealing to the better angels of all sides of the middle east conflict. Though some may judge it foolish, it’s classic Christianity. Blessed Be the Peace Maker, He Shall Know God is what I thought as I listened.
He told the truth about America’s role which liberated us to once again become an honest broker. He then set the boundaries of what we will not tolerate – extremist. He successfully separated Islam from extremist fundamentalist Islam in a clear and direct way.
Not very often a leader comes along that impresses me like President Obama does. What makes him different than past Democrat Presidents is he clearly understands the need for security and strength while extending an open mind and hand. He reminds me a lot of Reagan at his best.
46 joescannura // Jun 4, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Realist
No, I wasn’t speaking on Israel, I was just speaking on the situation in general. This is something I just noticed but thought it needed to be pointed out, maybe some one already has though. Obama went on for a little while about Muslims treating women better.Did anyone notice Hillary Clinton wearing a hijab? This is an American diplomat forced to wear a stupid scarf on her head because of some stupid religious objection to women’s bodies,all while the President tries to bully these people about how they treat women. First off I find it ridiculous that a Secretary of State, which I think is supposed to be a position of importance right, is actually cow towing like this. You can hold hands or eat some freaky food, but actually giving in to these stupid demands of covering up is over the top. But it’s even worse when the President try’s to make a good point about the region’s horrible treatment of women.
sinz54
I agree, but ahmidinejad and the ayatollah’s do hate us. But I only said many of the people. Definitely not all of them. The only point I’m trying to make is,we never said we hated Islam. We hate Sayyid Qutb’s Islam, hell yeah, cause it preaches that we should be destroyed. We hate radical forms of it that say we should all live under sharia law, or live like Iran. But never Islam as a whole. So why all the apologizing over “war with Islam”?
balconesfault
how is America a failure as a nation? The country makes mistakes and isn’t perfect, but it’s better in it’s founding, it’s history, it’s principles, it’s constitution, it’s ideas, than any other country out there. You want to look at Neo socialist Europe’s past? It’s full of rape, pillage, and destruction of anyone and everything through colonization. I don’t see the argument here. There is no nation or group of people in History who back in the mid centuries, the teens, didn’t act horribly by these standards. So why overly upset over America’s founding? I don’t get it. You think Native Americans didn’t kill each other? You think Mexico didn’t own slaves? You think Native Americans didn’t own slaves? Learn some history, than you won’t see America as all that bad. You’ll learn to respect the founding father’s for there forward thinkingness. So forward thinking in fact that it’s still the best model for a country in the world today. The Europeans still haven’t really caught on on the whole separation of church and state thing even. There not even done with monarchy’s. How are these the people were supposed to look to? There’s no beating of chest’s here, it’s just looking at the facts.
47 InTheMiddle12 // Jun 4, 2009 at 8:15 pm
joescannura: let me get this right. Demonstrating cultural sensitivity, as Secretary of State Clinton did by wearing a hijab in a Mosque, you perceive as being “forced to wear a stupid scarf on her head because of some stupid religious objection to women’s bodies.”
Would you also consider it being ‘forced to wear a hat’ if the Secretary of State was attending Westminster Abbey in London where the protocol calls for a hat?
In either case, it’s amazing to me that you have such a narrow view of the world, but perhaps I shouldn’t be amazed as there are about 20% of the country that think as you do.
48 balconesfault // Jun 4, 2009 at 8:25 pm
joe – having failure =/= being a failure
unless you define “not being a failure” = “being perfect”
in which case everyone, and every country, is a failure
speaking of being forced to wear headgear that doesn’t comport to one’s own cultural or religious traditions …
http://houston.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/06/bush_wall.jpg
49 joescannura // Jun 4, 2009 at 8:36 pm
in the middle12
Yes I think on this point the Secretary of State should have stood up and said no, I won’t cover myself up because you believe it’s offensive or that women shouldn’t show themselves in public. It’s different than with wearing a hat in westminster abbey. Your the one who has no “cultural sensitivity”, cause you have no clue what the things are worn for. It’s not just putting something on her head to fit there culture, it’s what it’s put on for. I don’t have a narrow view at all. If were there to make statements, and stand up to repressive Islam, why don’t our politicians actually do it.
balconesfault
I have no clue what that post means. you said America was a failed nation. not my words, yours.
50 Patrick // Jun 5, 2009 at 12:25 am
Mr. Frum,
You said “in Cairo he exhibited the amazing spectacle of an American president taking an equidistant position between the country he leads and its detractors and enemies”
Egypt is our enemy? Saudi Arabia is our enemy?
How about India, Pakistan, Turkey, UAE, Oman? Jordan?
Sheesh.
51 InTheMiddle12 // Jun 5, 2009 at 4:48 am
joescannura: The reason women where hijab in the Mosque is for the same reason women where hats at Westminster Abbey, it’s to respect the spiritual tradition of the house of worship in which they stand. There is no difference. Your answer reflects the point I was trying to make, that many on the right have a very narrow view of the world and its cultures and norms.
Thankfully President Obama’s administration is restoring Americans larger view of the world and bringing back respect for those outside the mainstream American view.
If the President was entereing a Jewish synagogue I would expect him to wear a yarmuka, as a show of respect.
The Judeo-Christian view is one view in America. America is also made up of Buddhists, Muslims and a myriad of other faiths. I’m grateful I live in America because it’s one of,a few nations on earth that is ruled by secular laws that separates church and state that allows everyone freedom of religion.
52 InTheMiddle12 // Jun 5, 2009 at 4:49 am
sorry. The reason women WEAR hijab…
53 balconesfault // Jun 5, 2009 at 4:54 am
“If the President was entereing a Jewish synagogue I would expect him to wear a yarmuka, as a show of respect.”
As I posted before:
http://houston.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/06/bush_wall.jpg
I wonder if this offended joe.
54 sinz54 // Jun 5, 2009 at 6:33 am
InTheMiddle12: The reason why so many women in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan wear hijab, is that their husbands or fathers would beat them to a pulp if they didn’t. That’s also the case among many Muslim immigrants to Europe.
Surveys have shown that an amazing 85% of Pakistani wives report being beaten by their husbands–far higher than in any Western nation.
I have no problem with a woman choosing to wear anything–if it’s of her own choice.
But among many fundamentalist Muslims, women are supposed to be quiet and do as they’re told.
55 sinz54 // Jun 5, 2009 at 6:48 am
Oh, one more thing: Many of these Muslim women don’t just wear hijab. They are forced to wear niqab.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Muslim_woman_in_Yemen.jpg
You really think all these Muslim women *prefer* to walk around that way?
56 balconesfault // Jun 5, 2009 at 7:54 am
“You really think all these Muslim women *prefer* to walk around that way?”
All? No way.
This cultural stuff is brutally hard. There are things that we can all agree are wrong – female circumcision, beating, honor killings of rape victims.
Next, there’s a layer that is more a matter of cultural mores – the hijab, the niqab, the length of skirts, prohibition on showing cleavage. Used to be bathing suits for women here.
Then you have legal provisions which clearly prejudice against women – in the US, we even had to amend our Constitution to eliminate the residue of disenfranchisement of females. Access to education, property rights, right to hold office, etc all fall in there.
What the heck – we could also add reproductive rights in there.
I know what my own preferences are – and there are a considerable number of Americans who disagree with me over many of them. It’s inevitable that I’ll disagree even more with the majority of people in some countries that have completely different cultures.
What’s the point? I liked Obama’s tone. You point out to people that universally, increased rights for women is directly correlated with economic and intellectual progress.
I don’t think that stronger words to countries to improve their women’s rights records are best delivered at the diplomatic level, rather than in speeches like yesterday. Our Presidents job in international affairs is to promote our security and trade … not to be an international scold.
Although he could offer to send them Ann Coulter: “If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.”
57 Bulldoglover100 // Jun 5, 2009 at 8:29 am
Sadly David you have come to sound like the right wing nut jobs in our party. You appear to have no qualms about distorting to make your point, you have no problem putting politics in front of what could very well turn out to be a great step forward for our country and you, sadly, seem to gain joy (or another guest spot on cable news) from sounding like a paniced girl on a sinking ship when Obama does anything that might, just might, make the Dems look good.
Was the speech perfect? Nope. Did i agree with all of it? Nope but the difference between children and people like you and Palin? Adults hear the whole and not the parts. They take away from what was intended. World peace someday if everyone would work together.
I did not hear this screaming and wetting of pants from you and the other dill weeds when Reagan say to Tear Down that Wall……far from it but let a Democratic President attempt the same thing? and you wizz your pants. Why?
58 ottovbvs // Jun 5, 2009 at 8:29 am
The inability to see the wood for the trees by Frum and most of the far right posters here says a lot more about them than it does about Obama or the message he was delivering. Every word, gesture, polite aside is deconstructed to find slights or pegs on which to hang attacks on him. We’ve got the Barbery pirates; someone urging Clinton to disregard Muslim religious good manners who would be doubtless be shocked if I went into church wearing a hat; we even have some fruitcake called Rosenthal at another diary whining because Obama didn’t correctly classify Buchenwald as a Nazi death camp because only 11,000 jews were murdered there. If these folks got any smaller they’d be invisible.
I’ve actually read a few comments from neocons about this speech and there seems to be a bit of divide opening up between the real ultras like Frum who are intent in creating mountains out of trivia and others like Boot who while not liking parts of it and whining about equivalency recognize it was actually a fairly formidable performance that has overall probably advanced the national interests of the US and that at the end of the day this is desirable.
59 joescannura // Jun 5, 2009 at 8:37 am
This is so dumb. how can you come on here and be apologists for these stupid ancient crackpots who just want to control women and dominate them. the women can say it’s OK with them, and that there fine with the tradition, but that doesn’t change the reason that it was created. I want you to tell me with a straight face that the women in Westminster Abbey wear hats because there body’s are not to be shown in public. Cause if that’s why it’s done, than OK, our diplomats shouldn’t do that either. But if it isn’t, which i don’t suspect it is, than it’s just a tradition of wearing a hat. You guys must really feel very “sensitive” to other cultures, i know, but get over it already and take a deep breadth in the real world. This is your problem, you think your coming on here and being smarter about other cultures than some redneck, but I’m no redneck, and your just sounding like dumb apologists.
Cultural things aren’t brutally hard. you find out what they mean, what is there purpose, and you decide if you respect it or not. You don’t act like some flimsy moral relativist, and say that everything is OK for everybody if that’s how they want to live. Take a stand for once.
and kippah’s are worn by everybody in synagogues you idiots. Men and women cover there heads in some fashion. I didn’t see anyone forcing the President to put something on his head. That’s cause he’s a man, and not a woman. Wow, you guys really aren’t as smart as you think you are.
60 ottovbvs // Jun 5, 2009 at 9:02 am
joescannura
wrote 18 minutes ago
“Cultural things aren’t brutally hard. you find out what they mean, what is there purpose, and you decide if you respect it or not.”
……..This from someone who would be the first to scream if “his” cultural shibboleths were offended. Americans are great people with many admirable qualities but having the ability to put themselves in the shoes of others isn’t one of them I’m afraid. It’s really hard to fathom the obtuseness anyone who could say “Cultural things aren’t brutally hard.”
61 dendup // Jun 5, 2009 at 3:26 pm
David your last paragraph begs the question – do you think the 2 state solution is in our interests? If not quit beating around the Bush and say so. If you do think so, isn’t this speech at least a reasonable start – and isn’t that what’s important here?
Of course it carries risk – show us a possible solution that doesn’t.
62 joescannura // Jun 5, 2009 at 3:29 pm
ottovbvs
There not. read a book, ask someone who lives there about them. that’s hard? What’s hard about finding out about other people’s and country’s cultures? I don’t have stupid myths or clothing that I expect people to conform to when they come from another country. I don’t expect women to cover up there bodies or people to put cloth on there head for my sake.
Look, cling to moral relativism all you want, cow tow to misogyny and superstition, but you won’t see me doing it.If you can’t even make a judgment on issues or things people say, other than to say there too judgmental, why even have an opinion. Just accept everything people do. There’s nothing wrong with mistreatment of women in the Mid East. Honor killings? big woop. Being killed because you were raped? big deal. shooting a woman because she’s unchaperoned in a car? feel free. jeez, get a grip man.
63 ottovbvs // Jun 5, 2009 at 4:24 pm
joescannura
wrote 48 minutes ago
…..Be happy in your one dimensional world…..Graham Greene had exactly you in mind….Fortunately for the sake of the country we have an admin that’s capable of thinking in four and doesn’t think we can impose our view of the world on everyone else however benign it may be.
64 InTheMiddle12 // Jun 5, 2009 at 5:04 pm
The true Conservative position is to allow soverign nations to be and do what they wish, period.
There is no doubt that women are oppressed in many Muslim majority countries and it is find to discuss the issues and bring those to light. When it comes down to it, however, it is NOT America’s place to affect change beyond allowing the press to cover it and the government to comment on it.
This whole misbegotten Neo-Con drive to force democracy and jam down the throats what they perceive of the way to live has failed so badly, it’s pathetic.
Yet, we still are reading the death throws of those that haven’t come to realize it was a terrible failure. And it was a terrible failure because it violated every CONSERVATIVE principle America had grown to deeply hold dear, that we DO NOT INVADE a soverign nation unless attacked first. And I’m so tired of trying to get through to these what is now ‘living in the past’ philosophizers.
65 joescannura // Jun 5, 2009 at 5:44 pm
ottovbs
it doesn’t have much to do with “imposing” on others. Is saying something is wrong “imposing” it? I guess by your standards it is. Your problem is you simply can’t make any judgment at all. EVER. nothing you’ve said indicates any opinion on the issue, other than it is what it is. If a president is going to speak on the issues, why not give a judgment. Not just say let them wear the hijabs. You can wear whatever you want, but the guy can’t even take a stand. He’s a relativist just like it seems most of his supporters are. You’ll sit and whine and cry over the fate of the world, but do nothing, not even say anything, about it. If that’s a “four dimensional view”, he and you can have it. Orwell was right about people like you, that those on the left had an affinity towards communism and fascism.
just like the communist graham greene. I guess you support and don’t have anything negative to say about castro or cuba, right? they can just live however they want to live. we won’t say a word. lock up dissidents, no free speech, who cares. Is this a serious position to take? how can you be so sacrosanct while talking so stupidly?
66 sinz54 // Jun 6, 2009 at 7:33 am
joescannura & InTheMiddle12: I want all American Presidents to speak out for freedom and liberty, both here and abroad. That’s a role that only nations with a true long history of freedom–like America, Britain, and the Netherlands–can play.
It helps put our totalitarian enemies on the psychological defensive, and can be a powerful weapon in the war of ideas. During the Cold War, just about all Presidents did this. It was necessary to battle the meme that Soviet-controlled media was putting out, that the U.S. was a dying fascist-imperialist aggressor that was heading for the collapse predicted (incorrectly, as it turned out) by Marx.
Unlike the Cold War, however, the American President cannot take on the religious aspect of these Islamist regimes–that’s proscribed by our First Amendment. He can’t say to the Iranian regime, “My reading of the Quran differs from yours,” any more than he could criticize the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories on the grounds that “My reading of the Torah differs from yours.”
I wouldn’t even mind covert aid to democratic opposition forces. In the past, the U.S. sent covert aid to the Solidarity Movement in Poland–that was a big win. And President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law, which allowed for covert aid to opposition forces seeking to overthrow Saddam.
But that’s as far as we can or should go.
67 Patrick // Jun 6, 2009 at 5:26 pm
It’s no wonder that we make so little progress in relations with the Muslim world.
What Muslim women wear (or don’t wear) shouldn’t even be in the vocabulary until after we have a relationship based on trust and mutual interests.
When idiots start shrieking about hijab’s *before* we have anything close to resembling a working relationship, they are hurting more than they are helping.
68 On America’s Muslim problem: I « The Moor Next Door // Jan 10, 2010 at 1:48 am
[...] David Frum, for instance, called those lines “really absurd” and characterized it as a part of the speech’s “persistent misrepresentation of history.” Max Boot, in a Commentary blog post, wrote that the line “twisted history”. Frum did not explain how Islam (or Muslims) have not been a part of the “American story” — he dismisses the idea in one line — though his assumption likely comes from old narratives on American history and identity. Or ideology. Boot’s quarrel was more with an example used in Obama’s speech, related to the often quoted 1798 Treaty of Tripoli, than the line itself; Obama’s use of the Treaty was actually somewhat off, a good example of a historical document being distorted for political purposes. There were innumerable examples the President could have used; out of all context, though, that particular Treaty is especially useful. Again, so long as it is out of context. That is the poverty of the Obama administration’s trumped up outreach to Muslims: Months after the Cairo sermon, one cannot imagine Barack Obama addressing American Muslims at, say, the Islamic Center in Washington, D.C. The lack of perspective and courage in much of the President’s outreach to the Muslim world and Muslim community in the United States produces such errors and others. The President shares that with men like Frum and Boot and Douthat, too. America and American Muslims need a stronger focus and broader perspective on American Islam. Men who stand before the public should see the bigger picture; but thought may be a tragedy of hope. [...]
You must log in to post a comment.