http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/us/politics/15mosque.html?src=me
As we all know (except you UC Santa Cruz Community Studies majors), Obama caused a minor furor when he spoke up in favor of the Ground Zero project at an Iftar Ramadan dinner Friday night at the White House.
"As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country," Obama said, weighing in for the first time on a controversy that has riven New York City and the nation.
"That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances," he said. "This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."
That was Friday. On Saturday down in the Gulf of Mexico and faced with rising criticism and polls that show a majority of Americans oppose the project, Obama "clarified" his remarks:
"I was not commenting, and I will not comment, on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there,” Mr. Obama said. “I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That’s what our country is about.”
Now, faced with accusations of being a.......what's the word....flip-flopper, the White House let it be known that the President stands by his statement on Friday.
"The president is not backing off in any way from the comments he made last night," Bill Burton told reporters in an email. "What he said last night, and reaffirmed today, is that if a church, a synagogue or a Hindu temple can be built on a site, you simply cannot deny that right to those who want to build a mosque."
Oh well. As they say, "Tomorrow is Sunday."
Anyway, there was one passage of Ms. Stolberg's article that really got my goat. Once again, they raised that canard about the so-called racist nature of Obama's opponents.
"From the moment he took the oath of office, using his entire name, Barack Hussein Obama, as he swore to protect and defend the Constitution, Mr. Obama has personified the hopes of many Americans about tolerance and inclusion. He has devoted himself to reaching out to the Muslim world, vowing, as he did in Cairo last year, “a new beginning.”
But his “new beginning” has aroused nervousness in some, especially those who disagree with his counterterrorism policies, or those more comfortable with a vision of America as a white and largely Christian nation, and not the pluralistic melting pot Mr. Obama represents."
Oh, those evil white Christian racists!!
How many times does one have to refute that nonsense? Here we have an entire national news media pushing this propaganda that Obama's political opponents are fixated with his race. Those who oppose the New York mosque do so because they hate Muslims, according to the mainstream media personified by the NY Times. The Tea Party? Just a bunch of white, redneck racists, if you read the NYT and watch MSNBC.
But I digress. I was talking about President Obama, his clarification and counter-clarification. The good news is that since it's a weekend, Obama doesn't have to worry about Robert Gibbs (pictured below) trying to clarify this-until Monday, and God only knows what the official position will be then.
"Jake, I would refer you back to what the President said Friday...."
"Major, I would refer you back to what the President said Saturday...."
6 comments:
Gary, just what would you have the president say? He is right in every way he responds to this situation. Do you want a dictator or someone who considers all the different feelings and laws? Nothing this man ever does would please you. He isn't the "Decider" on this issue anyway and neither are you.
Ingrid,
Actually, I think we just may have a dictator. He has already taken over the car industry, the bank industry, the health industry. He has a czar who decides how much pay CEOs can make. He is suing the state of Arizona.
As to what he should say? He should inform Muslim leaders that a mosque at Ground Zero, though legal, is offensive and a bad idea. He could say all the things I have been saying on this blog about American Muslims standing with us against terror and radicalism and forgetting about bringing shariah law to America. He could stand up against anti-Semitism in America. I could go on all day, but you are quite familiar with what I have written on this blog.
I haven't weighed in on this issue because I really had to think about it for some time.
My opinion is exactly the same as to how I feel about Muslims who are offended by cartoon depictions of Mohammed. Offended? Too damn bad. Offended that there's a mosque there? Too damn bad.
We have a lot of freedoms; the freedom to never be offended is not one of them.
If they break our laws, then go after them full-force. Otherwise, allowing a mosque there (there already is one just two more blocks away) demonstrates that we're better than the Muslim extremists. People like Newt Gingrich who try to make the point about how they don't allow churches and synagogues in Saudi Arabia are idiots.
We do the kinds of things that the Saudis wouldn't because WE ARE BETTER THAN THEM.
"We do the kinds of things that the Saudis wouldn't because WE ARE BETTER THAN THEM."
Who else are we better than, Lance?
We're also better than our former colonial masters, and their Canadian lackeys. I'll get into that some other time... Canada and western Europe really don't get it about constitutional liberties. These are restraints on the power of the state, not something bestowed by a benevolent sovereign, even a collective one.
Gary, you are absolutely correct that Obama is flip-flopping. He is either trying to position himself for maximum political advantage, or he is allowing his circle of advisors to plot the words he uses, with the same purpose.
Every appeal for funds I get from the DNC, generally accompanied by an "important survey" attempting to convey that my opinion is very important to them, I write back that I want him to be bold and original, and to stop trying to scare me with stories about the threat from that pathetic little tempest in a tea party.
I appreciated what the president said the first time, and I wish he had stood by it. John F. Kennedy got a bit of recognition for a book called "Profiles in Courage" about people in political office who said what they believed and stood by it, sometimes losing the next election as a result, sometimes not. We need more of that. "This is what I believe. If you re-elect me, this is what you'll get. If you don't want it, vote for someone else."
Barack Hussein Obama is far and away a better choice for president than anyone the Republicans have on the horizon, or any Democrat who would be likely to step up if he didn't run for re-election. But that is a rather low bar. I'd like to see him aim a bit higher.
"Barack Hussein Obama is far and away a better choice for president than anyone the Republicans have on the horizon, or any Democrat who would be likely to step up if he didn't run for re-election."
!!??!?!??!
(Afflack Duck picture)
Post a Comment