Comments on: Frum Blogs The President’s Cairo Speech

By: On America’s Muslim problem: I « The Moor Next Door

On America’s Muslim problem: I « The Moor Next Door — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 06:48:18 +0000

[...] 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1798 Treaty of Tripoli, than the line itself; Obama’s use of the Treaty was actually somewhat off, a good example of a historical document being distorted for political purposes.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. [...]

By: Patrick

Patrick — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 21:26:58 +0000

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.

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 11:33:31 +0000

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.

By: joescannura

joescannura — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 21:44:14 +0000

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?

By: InTheMiddle12

InTheMiddle12 — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 21:04:34 +0000

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.

By: ottovbvs

ottovbvs — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 20:24:46 +0000

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.

By: joescannura

joescannura — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 19:29:41 +0000

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.

By: dendup

dendup — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 19:26:53 +0000

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.

By: ottovbvs

ottovbvs — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 13:02:10 +0000

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."

By: joescannura

joescannura — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 12:37:04 +0000

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.