Obama's speech

I just finished listening to the Obama speech, and was surprised to find nobody had talked about it on LibraryThing yet.

C-Span Video: http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2009/06/04/HP/R/19357/Pres+Obama+Speaks+to+the...
NYT Text: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/us/politics/04obama.text.html?_r=1 and CBS http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/04/politics/main5061278.shtml?source=RSSa...

I think it was pretty good—a 10 on tone, a 9 on oratory, an 8 on content (varying between an 6 and an 11 out of 10). I'd like to take a pencil to a few parts, and, well, it was just a speech, but it did a lot very well.

The WSJ has a good round up of non-blogger commentary:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/06/04/lawmakers-pundits-react-to-obamas-cairo...

I figured it would be welcomed by many on the left and center, but was impressed to see positive comments from the CATO Institute and the National Review. There was some scattered opposition on the left. On the religious right, some don't like Obama citing the Koran. Others on the right think it was platitudinous and "over-balanced." Israeli reaction was mixed. From where I sit it was excellent to hear 9/11 and the Holocaust talked about with such force in Cairo. It was also awesome to hear an uppity student audience in Cairo audience cheering for democracy—the interesting clapping pattern was clearly of local importance and a little risky—and for Coptic rights and women's equality.

There was a nice LibraryThing tie-in:

"And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers -- Thomas Jefferson -- kept in his personal library."

LibraryThing, of course, has cataloged Thomas Jefferson's Koran (http://www.librarything.com/work/3848811/details/20829963), George Sale's 1764 edition, picked up in law school, the first Arabic-to-English edition. See also the Monticello Wiki (http://tinyurl.com/p9jtph).

Well, we do have this little thread going on, started by, I dunno, some member or another.

http://www.librarything.com/topic/65973

In which, lately um, someone, ah, wishes that there had been no speech at all. By an American President to about half the globe, give or take, I didn't look up the numbers so don't jump on me for that.

I liked the speech quite a bit, actually. I do wish he could have/would have been able to say something about repressive regimes, but this was a means of reaching out to the 'average joe' over there and getting them to feel just a bit better about themselves as individuals; it's a long way off, but hopefully the moderate Muslims will begin to feel empowered to find a way to a better life for themselves. Had he called, say, the Saudi regime for what it is, every mosque in the region would have been filled with denial and hate. I think this is wise rhetoric--begin to cut off their path to blaming others.

I like this analysis of the speech, about how he's pulling the rug
out from under Bin Laden:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23385.html

>2 Atomicmutant:

Oh, blech. I had been ignoring that thread. You know it's going well when one member says "fuck you" to another member. Having previously told that member he'd be punished if he mounted any more personal attacks, well, blech is all I have to say.

I thought it was about as good as the Ankara talk—or perhaps a little less, as I wished he had used the word genocide in that, whereas, in Cairo he made no bones about the Holocaust, the evil of Holocaust denial or America's commitment to Israel. You can't please some people, I suppose.

You know the speech was reasonable. It was a first step in opening the door to talking with government and trying to get the Muslim world to step up and solve its own problems instead of suggesting that anyone who doesn't cater to America's whim will be invaded or stomped out. It assumed that there are reasonable people in the middle east and they are worth reaching out to, empowering, and becoming allies with in order to fight terrorism and oppression. While I don't believe that Egypt, Iran and Saudi Arabia will become models of democracy and complete freedom. I hope that it will work to stop them from being havens for terrorist leaders and supporters

It also suggested a non-Zionist slant on Israel. Thank God. We cannot simply support whatever Israel does, no questions asked. There has to be a point where we say, no more expansion, no more walling people off and driving them into extreme poverty, no more stealing resources from the natives because you want to put up another posh house.

I thought that it was an amazing speech - well crafted, intelligent, and brave. At least as brave as any speech by an American politician in recent memory. While there may be some inherent risks with regard to the U.S. constituency, who will mostly absorb the speech in soundbites and Republican rebuttals and misrepresentations ("he's apologizing!"), it represents a good start, a signal that we are ready to talk to the 1.2 billion people in the world that we have lately been working overtime to antagonize.

Obligatory acknowledgement: Yes, I remember 9/11. I also know that if those 1.2 billion people were really burning to wipe the U.S. off the face of the earth, we would be up sh*t creek. This speech was to them, an appeal to reject mutually-destructive extremism. I think that for an American President to address them with such force and respect was a wonderful first step.
.
.

On the religious right, some don't like Obama citing the Koran.

What do they expect him to do at Cairo University? Distribute Bibles?

Yes, a good speech. It pains me to say this. It should have been made by a conservative President, ideally a non-white one. But let's give credit where it is due.

Politics is the art of the possible. We have to do whatever we can to help the Muslim world evolve, in the same way the West has evolved, towards the rule of law, effective secularism in politics, democratic control of the state.

This will take decades, generations. It will involve bloody upheavals. There will be setbacks. Countries do not go from theocracies to secular liberal democracies overnight. They pass through a series of intermediate forms, and the passage is not always forward.

People have their pride. There will be a thousand verbal compromises made, on the way from backwardness to modernity. (If Christians want to put "In God We Trust" on the national coinage, I don't mind, so long as those of us who don't trust in God are allowed a fair chance at getting some of the coins in our pockets.) There will be things done and not said. There will be things said and not done.

Conservatives, above all people, should understand this. It's liberals, not us, who insist on the immediate implementation of abstract rights, regardless of history, custom, tradition, peoples' feelings. We should understand the reality, and desirability, of slow peaceful evolution where possible, as opposed to violent upheavals.

Yes... violent upheavals cannot always be avoided. Progress doesn't happen automatically, although there are autonomous factors pushing the species forward. Sometimes violent revolutions, wars, invasions, play a progressive role in history.

But public perceptions are also a force. At the moment, Obama's rhetoric is worth three divisions of paratroopers.

I think Obama gives speeches very well. I just hope he can govern as well as he talks, and actually be different.

I am also concerned that we are doing the same thing again, that is siding with repressive regimes to further our own goals.

We have made nice with Kazakhstan, I think, because of their location. We want bases there in Central Asia to fight the terrorists. But the leader is repressing his people, denying political freedom, killing the opposition/journalists, refusing to hold free elections.

We are going to be tied to that in the minds of the people there, and there is every chance that sometime down the road (10-50 years) there will be an explosion when they depose him, and we will end up their targets. Everybody here will be clueless and decide its those crazy evil muslims again.

If we really believe in Freedom and Democracy we need to walk the walk not just lecture/invade others, or support it only when its convenient or when we agree with the results.

Pleased to hear from you, Doug.

In the U.S., we tend to think of "rhetoric" in a pejorative sense. We misunderstood the purpose of Hussein's rhetoric, and spent untold lives and treasure dislodging a man who would just as soon have holed up in one of his palaces writing historical romances. Rhetorical speech is an essential means of communication in this part of the world, and I'm happy to note that Obama seems to understand that.

But shame also plays an enormous part in the Muslim world, and a challenge to a fight is a something not easily backed away from. In this regard, our interactions with them over the past several years have been counter productive. Hopefully, over time and with sustained effort, we can reach some productive detente with the Muslim world.

7: No, it isn't. His rhetoric is important only because he can call upon divisions of paratroopers if need be. If Jean-Claude Juncker or Mzingo Pinda had given a similar speech, no one would have cared at all, because they have no ability to back their words with anything.

I was struck by how appearances and visits were strung together to balance and enhance messages in the speech. He met earlier with Israeli and Palestinian leaders, reached out to Iran, met Saudi leader in dignified manner (no hand-holding!), respectfully visited a mosque and pyramids, visits Holocaust site, visits wounded US servicemen, and with European (& Cdn) allies visits graves on a WW II anniversary.

Then home to take care of healthcare, Supreme Court nomination, and to fix GM!

I am amazed at Obama and team's touch and energy. (Although his hair IS graying and already he looks worn some days.) Remember back in the fall when Sen. McCain wanted to cancel debate to address economy, and Obama responded something like that as President, one would need to be active on many fronts?

Somewhere else, Obama said he might be a one-term president, and so I guess he's not leaving the Middle East to last year of presidency as others have done.

Of course, both Makifat and StormRaven are right.

And so is FicusFan in a general sense, but the problem is, the world is so ordered that we cannot simply have a one-to-one match between ideals and reality.

Example: Lincoln wanted to free the slaves, and he did so. But he didn't do so by just proclaiming slavery evil, and abolishing it by some sort of decree. His path to the Emancipation Doctrine was devious, because he had to hold together a coaltion of people, some of whom didn't care about slavery, but did care about the Union; and some of whom even believed in slavery, but believed in the Union a bit more.

We defeated the Nazis, but only by making a united front with Communists, who were no better, maybe worse. We had no choice.

There are a number of unpleasant backward governments in the Muslim world. They are unpleasant, they are backward, but they are far less worse than a full-fledged radical Islamic government would be.

The trick is in supporting them against their radical Muslim opponents, while simultaneously nudging their societies towards becoming more liberal.

This is easier said than done, for sure. But there are a thousand ways we can encourage the growth of education, exposure to the modern world, the decent treatment of women, the lessening of repression, in these countries. We -- "we" being not just the national government -- can publicize the cases of dissidents who are being repressed, can raise our concerns officially but behind the scenes, can let it be known that we are on the side of people pressing for more liberty and more democracy.

The point is to really do this, consistently, and not just as a throw-away line in a Presidential speech.

We ought to learn a lesson from the old Soviet Union. Officially, they were against one nation interfering in the internal affairs of another, for the peaceful coexistence of differing social systems, blah blah blah. In reality, they supported and subsidized pro-Soviet organizations in other countries wherever they could. Everyone knew this, but it was important that the Soviets denied it officially.

Part of becoming an adult is to learn when to be a hypocrite.

Wrong thread? Whoa, right thread.

Glad I'm an only child.

>Really? As president? insert politically correct pronoun here

17: I have to disagree with you there. The President's job is to uphold the Constitution, and that includes the First Amendment. Part of his job is to defend the right of those who espouse negative stereotypes, no matter how foolish we may think they are, to be able to do so.

He can hold the opinion that the negative sterotypes are incorrect, and even take that stance publicly, but he is required by his oath of office to allow them to be aired if someone wants to.

I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the Unites States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

But Obama's quote was not to fight against the people who hold those beliefs, or to prevent them from being aired, simply to fight against negative stereotypes.

That means he, under the same constitutional protection, is allowed to speak against them, and fight the negative beliefs.

Oh, of course he can and should allow the speech. However, he doesn't have to be personally silent about his opinion of the speech. Absolutely uphold the Constitution. Sorry if I gave any contrary impression.

I don't think that working to correct negative stereotypes endorses the religion or behavior being stereotyped, it's just trying to keep the facts
straight, that's all.

20: It is not, however, part of his responsibility as President. Sure, Obama can go out and speak about negative stereotypes, but that's not part of his Presidential responsibilities. Nor should he use the power of his office to directly combat them other than by using the bully pulpit.

Are you saying that Obama, who taught Constitutional law, is opposed to the First Amendment?

22: His responsibility as President is whatever he wants it to be, however he wants it to be as long as he meets the very few specific requirements laid down in law/oath.

He can use the power of his office as he sees fit as long as he doesn't break the law (ha, ha) or neglect the requirements that are specified.

They are very few, and left to interpretation, so that each new president can meet the needs of the times.

23: One of the most pernicious infringements on free speech that seems to becoming prevalent are the various laws that penalize people for "demeaning" or otherwise speaking ill of a religion. These are cropping up in many countries that one would have normally considered to be westernized nations (Australia, for example).

They are facially neutral (i.e. all religions are equally protected), which is what is supposed to make them okay. But then you have to deal with people using the law as a club when others speak out negatively concerning (for example) the institutionalized mistreatment of women endorsed by many strains of Islam. In addition, when dealing with wacky fringe groups whose leaders use their religion to commit acts of abuse (like Warren Jeffs), you have the government having to sort out whose faith qualifies as a protected religion and whose faith is a "cult" (and not protected).

The implications of this limitation on free speech are troubling, and I hope they are reversed before they become de rigeur through the western world.

24: Possibly. Many on the political left are quite happy to advocate limiting the First Amendment, and we have a wide range of cases in which this is dealt with. Many on the Right are equally happy to limit it, but for different reasons.

Of course, he wasn't a particularly noteworthy professor of the subject. I have more law review articles published than he does, and I only have one.

#27, I just listened to an audio article about that very issue. The UN is making "anti-religious defamation" resolutions that are deeply troubling. They are of course supported by many middle eastern countries that use religion as a tool of oppression. It's giving some a legal precedent to
whine about, say, Mohammed cartoons. Not good.

There seems to be an over-reaction in the leap from Obama's statement to the idea that this means the Executive branch will curtail speech rights. That might be the wish fulfilment of some segments of the Right, but I just don't see it in Obama's speech.

Oh, come now, it's wish fulfillment for parts of the left as well, if for different reasons. There are people are on the far left especially who would love to see some penalized for their words. Let'e be honest.

However, I also think it's a bit paranoid to think that Obama is suddenly going to cut off free speech. Even if the phrase can start to suggest that, in the larger context of the speech, that implication just isn't there. It is a popular conspiracy though, i.e. George W. Bush was going to use the Patriot Act to shut down those who opposed him. Maybe its just an innate fear of the powerful, especially when they are not the ones we wanted to have power....I'm just rambling here though, forgive me.

I'm not famliar with the U.N. resolutions though, is there a link to them?

"Islam" is not a fixed thing. It is, like all religions, all human culture, in the process of change, not just of being, but of becoming.

Many Muslims do not quite know what they believe. Or they believe contradictory things.

Part of the war -- yes, war -- against radical Islam is to act as if you can be a good Muslim, and embrace all of the norms of the Enlightenment. Yes, their Holy Book and all of their history is against the norms of the Enlightenment, but nothing stays the same, and God is love, and we'll put you in prison if you kill an apostate and if your daughter gets to become a doctor you can retire early and ....

Come on, say it loud: there is nothing in modern, secular, enlightened liberal democratic society that in any way contradicts the real teachings, properly understood, of your religion.

We worked that trick on the Christians. We can do it again.

I agree that it was a good speech. I hope that his words aren't just that...words. Actions? I am crossing my fingers.
Disappointed that he didn't step foot in Gaza.

> 23 "I would say that free speech is already on the ropes in much of Europe and Canada. The examples are well known. Obama's comment is an indication that that sort of thing might be coming here--perhaps (though I certainly may be wrong and hope I am) with Obama's active support"

Oakes, is everything well with you?
There are times that I think you are a computer invented by Tim for the sake of everlasting entertainment on LT... but here you talk like Europe's extreme right. It is that suggestive little thing that does the trick, millions of people fall for it. I should say, come over and join Le Pen, De Winter and Wilders.
With your erudition, your tiny little sandwiches, your cigars and – perhaps - a small collapsible private chapel (as Gertrud Bell had her collapsible canvas bathtub in her desert) you could become the Paris Hilton of the extreme right with us.

No Oakes, sorry. My bikini still fits.

While you abuse what people say I don't trust you with my picture.

You have even less imagination than Paris Hilton.

I think Obama made a great speech in Cairo. Yesterday we saw him with Angela Merkel in Buchenwald; his seriousness at such occasions brings tears to my eyes. In our part of the world we know the workings of nazism and fascism. Many people of my age, children of murdered parents, still fight the consequences of ww ii in their personal lives. That’s why I detest those extreme rightists who don’t look on a human life, just like the Osama-ists who’s true brethren they are.
They do have precursors: folks who with their insinuations, suggestions and half truths try to raise resentments and to trigger deep fears. And some of them are our spoilt little brothers (I have one) who in their brilliance have found out that life can be a never ending game of free speech and that hurting feelings is good sport.
Ach.

I haven't read this entire thread yet, but I find this statement by Oakes in #34 to be emblematic of the right in this country today.

"I don't wish it at all. I'm quite scared of it, actually."

It seems to me our two party system has devolved into the optimist party and the party of Frightened, Old (mostly), White Men.

The FOWM are afraid of the government telling us what we can and cannot say with regard to institutions enjoyed by the Other, after all, the other by definition does not enjoy the same rights as us. They are afraid Obama is going to take away their guns, as well. They're afraid of not presenting a "Don't tread on me" face to the world and believe that actual attempts at discourse and cooperation in solving difficult issues are signs of weakness. If all I did was think about myself and how put upon I am by everyone else, I would probably be afraid, too. I am far more concerned about the followers of Rush Limbaugh taking away my guns and prohibiting my speech than I am of Barack Obama leading such an effort. But, I have made the choice not to be afraid. I find without fear as the first filter I can see facts for what they are, I can make pragmatic judgments, I can enjoy life, and I don't get all bent out of shape when someone, anyone, makes a statement with which I do not agree, or makes a rhetorical statement for effect rather than a statement of position. I do tend to get worked up when I see the truth being rejected by those who are afraid of it.

All I can say to the FOWM Party is BE AFRAID! BE VERY AFRAID! The women are coming, the black folks are coming, God help us it's a Mexican living next door, they tried to abort me but I escaped, Obama's selling our freedoms down the river, Oh, HELP ME, RUSH, HELP ME FOR I AM SORE AFRAID!

Sheesh. Get real. The first thing I tell my FOWM friends is they need to stop listening to Rush and quit watching Fox Noise. At first it will be a shock. It always is when you first enter the light of reality after years in the Right Wing echo chamber, but trust me, a little time, a little discipline and you'll find reality ain't so bad.

Remember, fear is of the darkness and the darkness is of the Devil.

The unofficial motto of the Right Wing:

EMBRACE THE FEAR

I think Obama has a closer reading of America's current attitudes about Israel/Palestine than whoever you are referring to as domestic political opposition. I believe Americans are getting tired of supporting Israel in their blatant land grab and are learning what those policies mean both to American foreign policy and the survival of Israel itself. We will not sit by and watch our "friend" engage in genocide. (Don't give me this shit about victims of genocide can't be perpetrators of genocide, either). I suspect Obama has more support for his current stance on Israel than you may think.

48: I doubt it. And the element that I doubt is whether the American populace cares much about Palestinians at all. And most of those who do have an opinion probably only envision the minions of Carlos the Jackal planting bombs in nightclubs and buses, or running in the streets firing off automatic weapons and rockets.

Most of them either don't know about the responses Israel has taken, or simply don't care, figuring the Palestinians deserve what they get. And there is a certain grain of truth there - the conflict continues because the Arab side wants it to continue. If the Palestinians and their various backers simply stopped violent activity (in favor of non violent resistance, or even no resistance at all), then I doubt the Israelis would be retaliating any more.

But the conflict serves the political ends of those who really don't care that the Palestinians suffer (and I'm not talking about the Israelis), so the fighting continues, and the Palestinians continue to give away any moral high ground.

The end result is I suspect most Americans simply don't care what happens to the Palestinians.

44: Really? You think the liberals are a optimistic bunch? The last eight years the moaning and frightened bleating out of the liberals that Bush was going to impose a police state, and declare himself President for life, or simply declare martial law and and cancel the elections, and arrest everyone who ever wore sandals and long hair, well that was almost deafening.

In comparison, the fear that Obama will follow the precedent of several European nations (and the U.N.) in trying to limit speech on (for example) religious issues is almost reasonable.

From Bonner, Sakharov and the distracting pro Israël mantra, back to Obama's speech in Caïro.

As much as George Bush & Oakes Spalding are God’s gift to extremism, Obama is its enemy. It took the Taliban some time to come with a reaction, indeed one we could expect, only in their violence they are able to surprise and shock us which is easy enough:
http://in.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idINL631694720090606

Friedman on that Cairo speech and its consequences:
“It’s not what he says, but what he does,” many said. No, ladies and gentlemen of the Middle East, it is what he says and what you do and what we do. We must help, but we can’t want democracy or peace more than you do.

What should we be doing? The follow-up to the president’s speech will have to be led by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. This will be her first big test, and, for me, there is no question as to where she should be putting all her energy: on the peace process.

No, not that peace process — not the one between Israelis and Palestinians. That one’s probably beyond diplomacy. No, I’m talking about the peace process that is much more strategically important — the one inside Iraq
(…)
Why? Because if Iraq unravels as we draw down, the Obama team will be blamed, and it will be a huge mess. By contrast, if a decent and stable political order can take hold in Iraq, it could have an extremely positive impact on the future of the Arab world and on America’s reputation.” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/opinion/07friedman.html

My idea: when you make a mess you clean up.

And if the Obama team will be blamed we shall always remember that it was the Bush administration that brought the disaster. With the political and military support of some European governments, among them the Dutch.

In the aftermath of the worst attack on the U.S. mainland in our history, the Bush administration (and its media mouthpieces) accused approximately half of the American electorate of wishing to offer the attackers "therapy", exploiting the raw fear in the air, and implying an almost traitorous disregard for American safety.

Now, if someone is going to take the tack of accusing me of being a traitor, I think a certain vigilance with regards to issues of wiretapping and investigation of personal reading material is justified.

> 50 I disagree. I know people who in the past wouldn't even discuss 2 states, who even denied that it was occupied territory (that it belonged to Israel). Now they are unhappy with Israel's behavior.

They still support Israel and don't condone the violence directed at them, but they are more willing to see Israeli wrong doing than before.

There is a white-wash with the mainstream media, but you can get all kinds of information, videos, pictures on line.

54
Yes, and I think there is a generational shift in attitudes about Israel and, with regard to the media (among those who can distract themselves from "American Idol", at least), there is beginning to be more of a tendency to see the trout in the buttermilk.

Is all opposition to Israeli policies necessarily anti-semitism in disguise? What hoops would one have to jump through to convince you that their objections were merely humanitarian?

>56 oakes: Rising anti-Israel feelings might logically be due to Israel behaving badly, just as rising anti-Jewish feelings in the twenties and thirties might have been due to Jews behaving badly. In both cases these were and are often the explanations given by the "anti" players. Interestingly, if one believes this explanation or the present example, one needs to come up with a theory for why those Jews inside Israel do not perceive this to be the case.

There is no reasonable comparison between the 20s-30s and now because there was no Israel (Jewish Government) and the media situation is vastly different.

Hearing or reading about something is vastly different than watching it. There is also a 24/7 news cycle that didn't exist back then.

I have no idea what bad behavior they may have engaged in at the time (20s-30s) but it would have been no more than isolated acts of individuals or groups and not the same as government policy.

This is nothing more than the canard that anyone who criticizes them is an anti-Semite.

I think the attitude in Israel is very much in flux, there are many who oppose their government's behavior, as there are those who support it.

#59, "They didn't engage in any bad behavior--individual or collective--of course. That was sort of the point."

Who didn't? The Zionists? Ever heard of the Irgun? Ever heard of the King David Hotel, the headquarters of the British occupation?

Surely you are not talking about that terrorist organization, are you?

>26 FicusFan:
His responsibility as President is whatever he wants it to be, however he wants it to be as long as he meets the very few specific requirements laid down in law/oath.

Er, no. His responsibility is what is laid down in law.

There are things that a President may do at his pleasure - e.g., using the Presidential bullhorn to fight negative stereotypes of Islam - but such things are not the President's responsibility.

WHERE WOULD IT HURT?????????????????????????????????

Gross on many accounts.

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
-Ann Coulter

I cannot recall a single sentence written or uttered by Ann Coulter that I have ever disagreed with--in and of itself, an astounding mathematical fact.
-An LT Reviewer

So, now you're against forced conversion? Who's gonna break the news to Ann?

>64 oakes: "Is Obama really a Muslim? Of course not. Obama isn't really anything. He has obviously absorbed the set of leftist tropes that would have informed a non-questioning liberal over the last thirty years" -Oakes

I would insert Oakes for Obama, Catholic (or Libertarian) for Muslim, rightist for leftist, and conservative for liberal, but, for some reason, I have a strange feeling that I'd be told to fuck off.

>68 oakes: If you would agree that all of Christendom should have been judged by and for the actions that were committed by Christians in the underdeveloped theocracy that was monarchical Spain, I'd certainly be willing to consider the premise that all Muslims should be judged by and for the actions that are currently being committed by rogue jihadis--men who are, it should be noted, rebels against the state, not agents of it--in underdeveloped state of Yemen. Of course, you'd never agree to the former. Instead, I'd expect to hear something to the effect of, "mistakes may have been made, but, by God, the Catholic/Christian community should not be held accountable for the multitude of crimes that have been committed in the name of God..."

"Sixty years ago one million Jews lived in Arab countries, but violence and state-sanctioned discrimination scapegoating them as Zionist spies have forced out all but 4,000 – who remain mainly in Yemen, Morocco and Tunisia." -Oakes

Today, there are more than a million Palestinians who would have been living in Israel were it not for the Nakba. War is Hell. So is geopolitics.

53: Seriously? You think that you were supposedly being accused of being traitorous, and therefore screaming about how Bush was going to declare himself President-for Life was somehow a reasonable response? In other words, you think it is reasonable to listen to political rhetoric and assume that the speaker intends to do something entirely unprecedented in U.S. history? And that's not rampant fearmongering? I think you may need to reexamine your biases.

74

In other words, you think it is reasonable to listen to political rhetoric and assume that the speaker intends to do something entirely unprecedented in U.S. history?

I don't think I personally ever "screamed" about Bush declaring himself President-for-Life, although I did have deep concerns about the legality of some of his Administration's actions (some of which are still hotly debated among these threads) and the negative perception they were projecting about the U.S. (contemporary polling suggests I wasn't alone).

Still, it's an interesting question. You ought to ask the folks in the Political Conservatives group freaking out over President "Urkel" turning the U.S. into the world's largest collective farm.

You ought to ask the folks in the Political Conservatives group...

On second thought, nevermind. It seems they are absorbed in some vivid imaginings concerning "girly man" Osama bin Laden.

75: The question is not whether you screamed or not. The original post I responded to aired the idea that somehow, political conservatives have a corner on the market for fearmongering, mostly because some people have voices (more or less reaonable) concerns over free speech (because limitations of the type being talked about have come into vogue in a number of Western nations, and are being bandied about in the U.N.)

On the other hand, we just had eight years of liberal "the sky is falling, Bush will arrest me for saying 'the Arabs ain't so bad' and arrest all the democratic members of the House" derangement. So the point I made was that fear is not exlusively, or even primarily, a conservative political tool.

So the point I made was that fear is not exlusively, or even primarily, a conservative political tool.

Ok, I can live with that, although my biases tell me that conservatives have, until recently, had better success playing the fear card for political gain.

My own opinion is that the left is more inclined to say "I'm afraid!", while the right is more along the lines of "YOU should be afraid!"

75>
In the darkness of political defeat, a dozen foetid conspiracy theories take root. Did you know that hidden in the stimulus package was a billion dollars that is available to the Executive branch to lease black helicopters, which will be used to transport those who speak ill of Islam to unmarked ships stationed in the Indian Ocean?

79
Oakes gets a vacation in the Seychelles!?

Now I'm really pissed off.

There's no such thing as a free vacation. The detainees will be taxed for transport and accommodations under new guidelines on executive compensation.

81
I don't care if it's free, just so long as it's permanent and they suspend his LT account.

("dull" or "dishonest", indeed! *harumph!*).

:)

I forgot to mention: LT will be forcibly converted into IT (i.e., IslamicThing). On the bright side, all the satanic Harry Potter books will be banned from the site.

Throw in "Twilight", you've got a deal!

There are limits... http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2008/11/10/president-elect-obama-reads-twilight-so-is-...

LT will be forcibly converted into IT (i.e., IslamicThing)

There are some who might suggest that this has already happened...

The proposition about limitations on free speech in ostensible liberal democracies, where Islam is concerned, is testable. At least in principle.

Propose to anyone in Europe who commissions films or TV programs, a sequel to Life of Brian. If interest is expressed, explain that the new film will mock Mohammed, instead of Christ.

78: I would characterize the left's statements as more in the nature of "I'm afraid, and YOU should be TOO!".

It was forty-two years ago today that an American Warship was viciously attacked while in international waters, resulting in the deaths of 34 Americans and the wounding of 171 others. The unprovoked attack was carried out by a belligerent nation in the area. There has never been an apology or even so much as a recognition of lives lost, but then the perpetrator apparently doesn't feel the need to apologize. Both the United States and the nation that attacked us have been quietly covering this incident up. Rather than a reprisal, apparently the US just said, gosh, we're sorry we happened to be in the wrong place at the right time.

If President Obama is serious about our position in the world he should make Israel at least apologize to the families of those who died in this tragic, unnecessary, and criminal act of war on a neutral nation, minding its own business.

This is a scar on the medal caked chests of everyone in the military. How can a blatant act of war such as this go unanswered?

Well, there are two possibilities, as I see it, in trying to explain why the Israelis attacked the Liberty.

(1) Mistaken identity. Whenever I go to a dinner party with mildly nationalistic (there are no strongly nationalistic) Brits, I have to put up with (usually good-humored) sallies about the American habit of shooting down British planes or blowing up their armored vehicles in our joint wars. (I explain that the perpetrators are liberals seeking to disrupt the alliance.) So maybe the Israelis thought it was an Egyptian ship flying false colors.

(2) Insanity. The Israelis wanted to destroy any chance of support from the United States, the source of most of their support from non-Israeli Jews, and soon to be their main (only) international friend. (The American/Israel alliance had not been cemented at this time.) Even if the Israelis were up to something that they did not want the Americans to see, it would have been an act of insanity to try to sink an American warship.

You've always got to ask, "Who benefits?" What possible benefit could the Israelis have received from this act, if they did it intentionally?

Mistaken identity it was not. In released transcripts the pilots told their handlers that the ship was flying the American Flag, and they new that an American vessel was in the area. They were told to attack it anyway. They may have thought since it was an intelligence ship that we were feeding intelligence to Egypt, but that notion seems pretty far-fetched. As you say, we provided most of their support.

As far as who benefits, it seems to me the Israeli's are experts at acting against their own best interests.

No, this was an intentional attack by a belligerent on a neutral ship during a time of war. We can expect this kind of behavior from someone like N. Korea, but from Israel?

What should Obama have said? What would Robert Spencer have said?

I think the more appropriate question should be, What would John McCain have said? What would Sarah Palin have said?

What would Sarah Palin have said?

Hey! I can see the Sphinx from here!

I think international politics, and particularly the middle east, are outside the Governor's comfort zone and she has wisely kept silent (as far as I can tell). Maybe she learned from the Couric interview not to wing it: "Oh our sheets are 600 thread count Egyptian cotton."

She might be helpful at a camel butchering party, though.

Desert dress that camel!