The Speech Obama Didn’t Give

Sunday, June 7, 2009

By PMA

In Dennis Prager’s “The Speech President Obama Won’t Give In Egypt”, he powerfully points to the real enigma regarding the sorry state of Muslim-American relations, namely, the Muslim world’s sheer ingratitude for the numerous times the U.S. has put their necks on the line to help Muslims, save Muslims, and feed Muslims. All we’ve ever received in return has been ridicule, criticism, blown-up ships, blown-up buildings, captured soldiers, dead soldiers, and all-out terrorist attacks. And yet, we’re supposed to feel like it’s our shortcoming to fix.

This is something Obama will apparently never see, as he continues his World Apology Tour, kissing one Arab ass after another along the way.

Here’s an excerpt:

In the last 20-30 years America did not just respect Muslims, it bled for Muslims. We Americans engaged in five military campaigns on behalf of Muslims, each one resulting in the liberation of a Muslim people: Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Bosnia and Kosovo, as well as the failed 1992-93 Somalia intervention to feed starving African Muslims — in which] 43 Americans were killed — were all humanitarian exercises. In none of them was there a significant U.S. strategic interest at stake. So, in fact, in these 20 years, my country, the United States of America has done more for suffering and oppressed Muslims than any other nation, Muslim or non-Muslim.

While I recognize that gratitude is the rarest positive human quality, I need to say — because candor is the highest form respect — that America has not only not received little gratitude from the Muslim world, it has been the object of hatred, mass murder, and economic attack from Muslim individuals, groups, and countries.

Possible Related Posts:

Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Tags: Islam, Obama

This entry was posted on Sunday, June 7th, 2009 and is filed under Featured, Politics, World Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

Joey

June 7, 2009 at 11:17 am

If you think these wars were merely “on behalf” of Muslims and not part of a self-interested American scheme, you are extremely naive.

PMA

June 7, 2009 at 11:34 am

Whether or not you want to claim some self-interested “scheme” or conspiracy theory still doesn’t change the fact that we did put our necks on the line for them.

And maybe I am naive because I cannot at all figure out what our “scheme” was in bringing aid to starving Muslims in Somalia. Maybe you can enlighten me…

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
please wait...
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)


#3

LastSilmaril

June 9, 2009 at 1:58 am

The outcome of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is hardly certain, even today. I would not describe either of those countries as “liberated”.

We did not fight these two wars in the name of freeing Muslims, or because America by and large “respects” them, which is a ridiculous notion. B. Hussein Obama, anyone? We fought them in the name of national security first. So fighting these wars – inevitably against Muslims – does not prove anything regarding American respect for Muslims. To the contrary, one might say that America didn’t respect the people of Afghanistan or Iraq enough to take care of their own problems. In the case of Iran and Afghanistan, it seems they haven’t for quite a while.

This is not to say that our intervention was wrong, or to say that American disrespect for the Muslim world isn’t understandable, even if I disagree with it. Just pointing out that Prager is clearly spinning history here, and it can just as easily if not more easily be spun my way.

June 9, 2009 at 2:04 am

Also, the Muslims of the Balkans love America, and have show us gratitude. Another hole in Prager’s argument.

PMA

June 9, 2009 at 7:31 am

I agree that Afghanistan can be spun either way (despite the clear liberation from the Taliban of the “moderate” demographic, i.e., persecuted segments of the country like Karzai), because we were clearly intent on rooting out anti-American terrorists.

Iraq can also be spun either way, but less so, because of the clear oppression that Saddam exercised over his people, as evident by the celebrations across most of the country after his downfall. In this case, our interests coincided with most of the oppressed [Muslim] citizens of Iraq, so even if you want to say we had our own interests in this (with which I readily agree), you still can’t deny the fact that we brought liberation to a Muslim country oppressed by a lunatic dictator.

Beyond that, I think there is very little question about Kuwait, Bosnio, Kosovo, and Somalia… all cases where American self-interest is not readily apparent (i.e., you have to do some real “creative thinking” to come up with a selfish reason for going in there to help Muslims–and the looney Left’s “oil” shibboleth holds no water because our troops never came back with transport planes stocked with barrels of oil).

June 9, 2009 at 7:33 am

As for the Balkan Muslims loving America, that is a distinct minority of the Muslim world and barely makes a dent in the Muslim’s overall opinion and, consequently, barely makes a dent in Prager’s argument.

June 9, 2009 at 12:58 pm

How? Two out of five of the countries he listed were from that region. He could have said “with the exception of the Balkan wars”, but he didn’t. Either he is being ignorant or intentionally dishonest.

As for Iraq: in the process of getting rid Saddam our way, we have created 1mn+ refugees (and still do not let the large majority of them emigrate to the US), wrenched apart families, unleashed extremist forces and turned the place into an extremist battleground, strengthened the hand of Iran, and mercilessly tortured people at our famed prison. (I can no longer buy Tricky Dick’s argument about it being carried out by a few sadists in the Army. The Bybee and Yoo memos have made it clear that torture was – shamelessly – the MO of the Bush Administration. Ah, the banality of evil…)

So while getting rid of Saddam was wonderful, the manner in which we went about it was completely botched. It still depends on how you look at it, and things I mentioned are extremely difficult to ignore. So forgive me if I’m not shocked that most Iraqis are not thanking us profusely for the invasion (one predicated on false pretenses). It’s still an open question – five, ten years from now, maybe Iraq will be an ally of ours in the region, and we’ll get our gratitude. Certainly Obama’s speech in Cairo was well-received in the Muslim world, even if it had some glaring flaws. (Some people are even hopeful about the Iranian elections. Of course, the President is only a figure-head, but maybe more people will recognize that with someone not denying the Holocaust or calling for Israel’s destruction every third day.)

#10

June 9, 2009 at 2:57 pm

Nice try. You’re an ever better spin doctor than Prager. While I agree that the war was not run well at all, it still wasn’t the disaster you make it out to be with your moveon.org talking points.

1. We didn’t wrench apart families unless those families counted terrorists as members.

2. We didn’t unleash any extremists that weren’t already there.

3. Only a small fraction of the country can be considered “an extremist battleground”. The rest of the country is undoubtedly better off than they were under Saddam.

4. If you’re worried about strengthening the hand of Iran, then you should have much bigger problems with our current president who seems to think that Iran has a right to nuclear technology.

5. If you buy into the hype that we were “torturing” people in our prisons because of one or two isolated incidents, then it’s no wonder you believe all the other liberal kool-aid you’re been regurgitating. I suppose you think the people at Guantanamo are innocent and that the only reason Obama changed his mind about closing it immediately is because he’s trying to find more comfy accommodations for them?

6. The Bybee and Yoo memos did nothing of the sort. Please provide exactly what sentences in those memos convinced you that torture was the MO of the Bush Administration specifically.

In short, you are attacking one campaign out of all the campaigns I listed–and even attacking it poorly, at that. You apparently have no answer for the rest of the campaigns I listed and apparently cannot explain why the world’s Muslims have a right to hate us, a position you obviously seem to support.

#12

June 9, 2009 at 6:19 pm

1.Um, dude. In war, families get wrenched apart….that’s just how it works.
2. It is widely known that because of Iraq’s porous borders early on that militants entered the country by the busload. That is not to say that there were no people with militant tendencies there before. But it cannot be disputed that they were irrelevant before the war, and our invasion of Iraq simply opened up a new front in the struggle against those people.
3. The Green Zone is supposed to be the safe part of Baghdad, and someone just got stabbed there. The city and country is still unsafe. Suicide bombings, while the media doesn’t report them any more – CBS actually closed their Baghdad bureau! – are still going on. I am sure there are portions of the country that are better off. But do we really know what residents of those areas think of America? We do not have a pulse with them. The Kurds like us, but I suspect that when you say “Muslim” you mean “Arab Muslim” so mentioning them is irrelevant.
4. You did not addressed this and deflected. You are also projecting your concerns with Obama on to him. He has made it clear that the nuclear program is unacceptable, and never took the military option off the table.
5 and 6. We will find no common ground because we’ll just keep accusing each other of drinking the Kool-Aid of the right or left. So much has been written about the torture regime already. If you want to ignore the reams of info out there, that is your prerogative.

For the record I have never visited, read, or donated money to MoveOn.org.

“In short, you are attacking one campaign out of all the campaigns I listed–and even attacking it poorly, at that.”

Come on, man. You spent most of your follow-up post talking about Iraq, so I did, too. You did not acknowledge the fact that I did mention the Balkans at the beginning of the last post, pointing out the failure of Prager to acknowledge that they love us over there. (But again, like you, I suspect that he means “Arab Muslim” when he says “Muslim”). Meanwhile, the other countries I already addressed in my original post.

#14

June 9, 2009 at 8:32 pm

1. “Dude”, yes, that’s how it works if the families get involved in fighting when they shouldn’t.

2. Let me clarify: we didn’t unleash extremist forces that weren’t already in existence. Whether they poured in through the porous borders or not is irrelevant. If they are terrorists, their location is irrelevant because they fight globally. So, if they came in from Syria, it just means that terrorists that used to be in Syria are now in Iraq. We didn’t CREATE any new terrorists, as you’d have us believe.

3. “Someone just got stabbed”. If that’s your definition of an “extremist battleground”, then our lovely city of New York must be the depths of Hell to you.

4. He didn’t have to formally take the military option off the table. His decision to pursue diplomacy for at least an entire year is de facto giving Iran the time they need to finish getting the bomb, at which point we cannot use the military option even if we wanted to.

And, what exactly is your wonderful Obama doing about this problem anyway? Diplomacy? Talks? NOTHING. He is doing nothing. He is following in the same mistaken footsteps that were taken with North Korea and look where that got us. Now it’s too late to take that back with North Korea and pretty soon, with Obama’s great inaction, we’ll be in the same position with an even crazier Iran.

#18

June 9, 2009 at 9:10 pm

1. Um, no. Civilians die in wars, regardless of whether they are directly involved in fighting the enemy or not.
2. Last I checked, unleash doesn’t mean create. We definitely did create a new front for their fighting. Iraq was not teeming with terrorists before we got there. But who’s to say that our invasion of Iraq did not inspire some people on the brink to turn to terror? Isn’t that the Arabs main grievance against us, that by stationing troops in Arabia, Mesopotamia etc we are ‘taking over’ Muslim land? (Not saying the grievance is legitimate…)
3. Point wasn’t that it’s an extremist battleground. Point was, murder happened even in the safest, most locked-down place in the entire country, the part we have the most control over. I know there have been major gains in a bunch of categories, and in a few places we have things running above prewar capacity, which is wonderful. But until Iraq is really, truly, a safe place to live and a strong, independent, functioning democracy – a prospect which is far from certain – how can you expect Arab Muslims to kiss our feet? Slip inside their shoes first…
4. Neither of us know just how far Iran is; the President, we can assume, is far better informed. If the nukes are indeed that imminent a threat, I extremely doubt he’d let it get that far. Of course, I gather that you believe the man is completely incompetent, so it makes sense for his percieved inaction to drive you bonkers

As for what Obama is doing about this…he can’t be everywhere at once. I suspect he was waiting for the results of this week’s election to prevent doing negotiations with potentially a lameduck government (because, unfortunately, we do not have direct access with the real people in charge). If he doesn’t get a move on within the next, say, two months, then you’ll have some real cause for concern.

#20

June 10, 2009 at 1:26 am

Ah – our propping up of reactionary and unpopular regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt probably doesn’t help either. (We have the architects of the 1950s Iranian coup to thank for today’s predicament, ultimately.)

Not saying we shouldn’t be doing those things to avoid a far more unpleasant alternative, but it sure doesn’t help our image to prop up unpopular regimes in the leading countries in the Arab world.

#22

June 10, 2009 at 3:08 pm

1. Um, civilians were dying left and right already at the hands of Saddam and his sadistic sons.

2. Iraq was not teeming with terrorists before we got there? What about the al Qaeda training camps? What about the terrorists that were going back and forth between Iraq and Syria/Lebanon? What about the weapons funneled to terrorists through Syria?

3. No one is asking to have our feet kissed, despite your cute mixed metaphor. We simply want acknowledgment that our war in Iraq was not one against Muslims, or against Iraqis, but against terrorists and against a murderous tyrannical regime who collaborated with those terrorists. Acknowledgment that we were trying to do what was best for the most people overall and not starting a new wave of Crusades.

4. You can assume, I won’t. Our intelligence estimates have been proven to be consistently wrong in the past and when it comes to something like Iran gaining nuclear arms, this is a situation that calls for erring on the side of preventing that from happening, not erring on the side of inaction.

#24

June 10, 2009 at 5:37 pm

1. As many people died at the hands of the police state than during our war? As many people were displaced? Whatever, let’s leave this point be.

2. If you want to believe Al-Qaeda was always in Iraq, and didn’t appear on the scene before we got there, or that somehow Saddam would tolerate domestic terrorism, that’s your prerogative. Not much to discuss.

3. Metaphor? I missed it. That’s not good. Metaphors are very dangerous, and it’s never good to let them do the thinking for you. That might be a more reasonable demand, but it the indignant tone of Prager suggested that he expected, far, far more than just that. I believe that to be far more likely in the next few years – especially if Iraq gets its act together.

4. You did not address the second half of my point. Give it some time. Wait till after Friday at the very least. Assuming the worst and acting on gut perceptions that Iran is that close instead of something more solid is just what got us into Iraq. It’s irresponsible.

#25

June 10, 2009 at 5:54 pm

1. No, let’s not let the point be if you’re going to whitewash Saddam’s murderous regime. Yes, more people died at his hands than during our war. Did you forget already about all the Kurds that he ethnically cleansed?

2. Saddam did more than tolerate terrorism, he financed it. Did you forget the $25,000 he paid to the families of each suicide bomber? And did you forget about the training camps in Iraq? Of course we didn’t tolerate domestic TERRORISM—he tolerated domestic TERRORISTS. Big difference. They weren’t targeting their own country, they were targeting Western targets, so of course Saddam had no problems with them. Apparently not much to discuss for you, because you have no answer, unless you try to rewrite history here too.

3. I was referring to your mixed metaphor of kissing feet and wearing shoes. I can’t imagine what’s dangerous there. Anyway, again, I reiterate that we’re not necessarily looking for overt displays of gratitude; but, laying off the Crusades rhetoric and the “anti-Islam” rhetoric is definitely a reasonable demand to make of them.

4. While I agree that the course of the war wasn’t handled well for a good part of it, I fully maintain that getting into Iraq was not “irresponsible”. Iraq had a murderous dictator who was funding terror against us and Israel, as well as stockpiling and USING weapons of mass destruction (against his own people, no less). If that’s not a regime worthy of invading and overthrowing, then I don’t know what is. In fact, it would be IRRESPONSIBLE to sit idly by while a lunatic like that continues his reign. Isn’t that what we said about the world when they didn’t act quickly enough to do something about Hitler?

#26

June 10, 2009 at 9:29 pm

1. I wasn’t trying to whitewash anything. The major ethnic cleansing, to my knowledge, was not going on when we invaded Iraq, and was not parted of our stated rationale for going to war. The point is, what we did had consequences, consequences which nobody in the upper echelons apparently appreciated at all when deciding to engage in a reckless and falsely-predicated war.

2. Come on. How many times did Saddam actually make good on that blustery promise? How many suicide bombers, before the Iraq war, were of Iraqi origin? I thought so. Stop blinding yourself. (That’s why I said there’s not much to discuss. We’re not going to agree.)

3. I just went back and read it. Putting those two together was completely accidental, but harmless I guess. In general though, one should pay attention not to use metaphors improperly, or pile them on. They eventually only obscure what you say. See Orwell’s classic essay on this here:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

4. Where’s the evidence he was funding terror. The WMDs are a figment of the right’s overactive imagination. (there’s a little thing called time. It passes.) Again, no common ground.

By your logic, it would have been just as OK to invade, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. Certainly Kim Jong-Il was and is as least as much of a threat to the world as Saddam.
(Iraq at least has oil to export – North Korea…? All they’ve got are nukes.) As far as I’m concerned, they are the scariest players on the world stage right now. Why haven’t we invaded them? Since when is it the job of the United States to remove every dictator in power?

And therein lies our difference in opinion. You believe in preemptive warfare under, it seems like, all circumstances. I do not.

The case for war against Iraq was played up, starting right after the attacks on September 11th, actual facts be damned. Meanwhile, we had another war going on, against another intractable enemy – indeed, the ones that, gee-wiz, actually attacked us. Prediction: Osama bin Laden will still be at large on September 11, 2011, because we took our eye off the ball at Tora-Bora.

Shame. I thought we’d end up agreeing on a few things…

#27

June 10, 2009 at 9:31 pm

And I didn’t even address the Hitler comparison for a reason. Godwin’s Law strikes yet again…and by the way, when Saddam actually was taking his Sudetenland, we clocked him.

#28

June 11, 2009 at 12:13 am

1. The ethnic cleansing was not a continuous government program, like the Holocaust, but it was a series of periodic attacks on villages under his control. You cannot choose to shrug your shoulders at this mass murder by Saddam’s regime and then turn around and pretend to care about other people getting killed by our invasion. Not only is that hypocritical, but it’s ridiculous because on the one hand, the mass murder was Saddam’s INTENTION, while any innocent deaths caused by our invasion is an unintended casualty of war. Our soldiers do not target innocents and if you mean to imply that, then you are slandering the good men and women of our armed forces.

2. How many times? At least several times, based on news stories and photo ops of him grandly signing the big checks. Is that enough for you? Is ONE TIME even enough for you? It is for me. Anyone doing that even once convinces me that he’s a proud supporter of terror. One’s standards for what constitutes support of terror must be pretty corrupt not to recognize this.

4. The evidence that he was funding terror??? Again, the money he gave to the Palestinians, which we didn’t have to dig too hard to find, since he was proudly advertising it all over the place HIMSELF! And how about the training camps that he allowed in his country?

And, as for WMDs being a figment of anyone’s imagination, you must be dreaming. What do you think he used to kill the Kurds? Rifles? Swords? No. He used chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction–WHICH WERE FOUND IN HUGE STOCKPILES when we gained control of Iraq. Are those figments of anyone’s imagination? Try telling that to the Kurds lucky enough to have survived some of those chemical and biological attacks (many with lifelong health issues now), and see what they do to you. Are you so ideologically blind with hatred of conservatives that you want to whitewash the mass murder that was done? Do you realize what you’re saying?

And yes, by my logic, we should have invaded North Korea before they got the nuclear bomb. Alas, now, it’s too late. But, obviously you (and Obama) don’t learn from history, because you’re waiting until Iran now gets the bomb to say “oh, maybe we should have done something different.”

Finally, there’s no need to resort to exaggeration. I certainly do not believe in preemptive warfare under “all circumstances”. I would hardly consider the acquisition of nuclear weapons just any circumstance. Why don’t you describe to me: (a) what circumstances you think are THAT much more serious than a letting the nuclear bomb go to a crazed country which threatens over and over again to destroy others; and (b) what exactly you think is a better idea with this ticking bomb problem? If you have a better idea that will mostly guarantee Iran not getting the nuclear bomb, let’s hear it.

#29

Help!

Featured Posts

The Speech Obama Didn’t Give

Possible Related Posts:

19 Responses to “The Speech Obama Didn’t Give”

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

Comments

Leave a Reply

Search

Blog History

Tags

Latest Posts

Popular Posts

June 2009
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
				Jul »
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30