I have always struggled to distinguish in the classical sense the difference between a comedy and tragedy. I have finally arrived at the reason for the such difficulty – a tragedy should be recast as a comedy of errors.
That, in my view, is largely what has happened this week as we look back upon events. In many ways, the 2008 election turned not simply on the collapse of the economy, but the poor handling of it by one of the candidates. John McCain on September 15 said, “fundamentals of our economy are strong.”
He was completely wrong, the fundamentals of our economy would come dangerously close to collapse. Candidate Barack Obama would immediately seize on his mistake, blasting Senator McCain for being “disturbingly out of touch” with the reality that everyday Americans face.
“I just think he doesn’t know,” Obama said in Grand Junction, Colo. “He doesn’t get what’s happening between the mountain in Sedona where he lives and the corridors of Washington where he works…. Why else would he say, today, of all days — just a few hours ago — that the fundamentals of the economy are still strong? Senator — what economy are you talking about?”
That really was the election. A moment that threatens to be similar is Mitt Romney’s series of ill-considered attacks, some of which messed up the timelines, some of which messed with our sensibilities.
But as we learned more, the entire series of errors bordered on the absurd. It would be greatly ironic if the 2012 Presidential election turned on the overreaction by a bunch of terrorists to a hate-monger’s film and the overreaction by a Presidential candidate who should have rallied around the flag but instead tried to politicize a horrible tragedy.
The story, amazingly enough, starts in Hemet, California, and a man named Steve Klein who is not a filmmaker but rather, as the Huffington Post reported, “an insurance agent and Vietnam War veteran whose unabashed and outspoken hatred of radical Muslims has drawn the attention of civil libertarians, who say he’s a hate monger.”
Mr. Klein, who promoted the film produced by another Californian, Sam Bacile, has relentlessly pursued radical Muslims in America.
Reports the Post, “He claimed to have visited ‘every mosque in California’ and identified ‘500 to 750 of these people who are future suicide bombers and murderers.’ “
“Those are the guys I’m looking for. I’m not interested in mom and pop running a pizza store or running a smoky shop, a hookah shop,” he said.
Reports the Post, as well, “The Southern Poverty Law Center says they have been tracking Klein for several years and have labeled two of the organizations he is affiliated with as hate groups.”
This is the face of hate. And while Mr. Klein may be the face of that hate, he embodies what we can only describe as a mindset that goes far deeper into the population than anyone truly wants to admit. The emergence of anti-Islamic and anti-militant Islamic hatred goes back to the September 11 attacks, and probably beyond.
There is, of course, a difference between mainstream political rhetoric and this stuff.
Writes the Post, “Klein founded Courageous Christians United, which conducts protests outside abortion clinics, Mormon temples and mosques, and started Concerned Citizens for the First Amendment, which preaches against Muslims and publishes volumes of anti-Muslim propaganda that Klein distributes. He also has helped train paramilitary militias at the church of Kaweah near Three Rivers, about an hour southeast of Fresno, to prepare for what they believe is a coming holy war with Muslim sleeper cells, according to the law center.”
“It’s extreme, ugly, violent rhetoric and the fact that he’s involved in that weapons training at that church, when you combine things like weapons training with hatred of a people, that’s very concerning to us. Those are the kind of things that lead to hate crimes,” said Heidi Beirich, director of the center’s Intelligence Project.
And so, should we be surprised that hate becomes the seed for violence on the other side of the world?
Let us be honest, the film is offensive. We should all be offended by it – Muslim or not.
According to the Associated Press, the film “accuses the Prophet Muhammad of being a philanderer who promoted child sexual abuse, with an amateur cast performing a wooden dialogue of insults disguised as revelations about Muhammad, whose obedient followers are presented as a cadre of goons.”
The intent is of the movie is clear. That the internet version set off riots in Libya and Egypt, where mobs attacked the US Embassies, should not really surprise us.
As one columnist put it: “American tradition and the Constitution obligate us to defend free speech, and Bacile is entitled to that protection, but they also allow the rest of us to regard him with the deepest contempt and to hold him responsible for the deaths of our diplomats.”
To parse it down, with rights come responsibility and these gentlemen were reckless with their rhetoric. Hate inflames hate and begets violence.
Of course, the fact that the film was stupid, with reprehensible hatred, does not excuse what happened next. The wave of violence was utterly disproportionate to the offense and, in fact, some will likely argue proves that the movie was not entirely off-base.
The response suggests that either some people on the other side of the world are overly-sensitive, or that they were simply looking for an excuse to commit horrible acts of violence.
Then comes the fateful exchange that may define this 2012 Presidential election.
As a mob was amassing outside of the US Embassy in Cairo, the embassy issued a statement: “The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.”
As a US Ambassador, a former Davis resident, was killed, Mitt Romney issued a press release late on Tuesday: “I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It’s disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”
However, his timing was off. Indeed, the statement that Mitt Romney criticized came early in the day, prior to the attacks on the two embassies. Moreover, as we noted, it was not put out by the White House, but by the Cairo embassy.
President Obama’s campaign responded, “We are shocked that, at a time when the United States of America is confronting the tragic death of one of our diplomatic officers in Libya, Governor Romney would choose to launch a political attack.”
Secretary of State Clinton would follow: “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”
So the wave of dominoes is that the hate produced by the film led to the overreaction by militants seeking an excuse to cause problems. The embassy put out a statement stating that it did not support anti-religious efforts. The violence culminated in the death of the US Ambassador and other riots around the region.
Presidential candidate Mitt Romney broke the prime directive of criticizing the government in the wake of an international crisis and was soundly derided by the media and even members of his own party – though many conservatives have since jumped on board.
It is a sad state of affairs, but at the end of the day, it is a reminder that hateful messages rarely help the situation, especially when you are dealing with people looking for an excuse to commit horrible acts of violence.
The biggest lesson of all, in my view, is that we cannot control other people’s behavior, only our own at the end of the day. The Middle East remains a dangerous and volatile reason, so why inflame passions for no clear end?
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Romney did nothing wrong. Trying to blame him is just the mainstream media trying to deflect blame away from Obama for his failed mideast policies. No surprise here either that you would also jump on the blame Romney bandwagon.
Here’s a Rich Lowry article that has it right:
When a U.S. embassy gets stormed by protesters overseas, it’s usually a matter of public concern. And it might even occasion debate between presidential candidates.
Unless one of the candidates is President Barack Obama and the other is Mitt Romney. Then, everything changes.
In the immediate aftermath of the deadly attacks on U.S. diplomatic installations in Egypt and Libya, the political debate fastened on the propriety of Romney criticizing the administration for its initial response. You know, the important stuff.
The glowing media reports from earlier this week about how President Obama would use foreign policy as a cudgel against Romney had barely faded when the press pack turned around and declared politics must stop at the water’s edge, thank you very much.
The old complaint about Romney was that he didn’t talk about foreign policy; the newly minted complaint about Romney was that he did talk about foreign policy.
Advertisement
As demonstrators gathered — supposedly in response to an anti-Islamic film promoted by Pastor Terry Jones — the embassy in Cairo released a statement that was craven and dumb. It rebuked “the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.”
The first thing to say about this is that it shamefully aped the reasoning of efforts to restrict free speech in order to protect Muslim sensibilities. The second is that it failed to appease the mob. American-hating thugs usually don’t check out the websites of their targets on the off chance that something posted there might dissuade them from trying to burn the place down.
The embassy reaffirmed its statement via Twitter even after protesters had stormed the compound. At one point the embassy had to tweet, pathetically, “Of course we condemn breaches of our compound, we’re the ones actually living through this.” These people work for the world’s lone superpower?
Late that night, Romney condemned the thoroughly condemnable embassy press release. In a rapid confirmation of Romney’s wisdom in doing so, the White House threw the embassy’s statement under the bus. But reporters and liberal pundits reacted in collective horror at Romney’s temerity.
No one should get the vapors over Romney’s critique. Matters of war and peace are inherently political. Does anyone remember the Vietnam War? I’m sure Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon would have loved a rule that put debating it off limits. Instead, anti-war protesters and politicians are still lionized.
In 1980, the foreign-policy debate didn’t stop because Americans were held hostage in Tehran. Nor did it stop in 2004 because Americans were fighting in Iraq. One of John Kerry’s ads included the graphic: “2 Americans beheaded just this week.”
The embassy attacks shine a light on our deteriorating position in the broader Middle East. The signature Obama foreign-policy success has been killing people — Osama bin Laden with a special-forces raid and a bunch of other al-Qaeda terrorists with drones. If that could be the sum total of U.S. foreign policy, we’d be in fine shape. We’re not.
Relations with Israel are poisonous. We lost an ally in Egypt, and the revolution there may yet prove Iran 1979 redux. Iraq is sliding into the orbit of Tehran and perhaps back into chaos. Iran is closer to a nuclear weapon. We have made progress in the Afghanistan War but may throw it away with an arbitrary withdrawal, and the Pakistanis hate us more than ever.
This is not the record of a modern-day Metternich. Some of this is the president’s fault, some of it is the drift of events. But none of it serves to vindicate Obama’s initial theory that as long as we sound soothing enough, pressure Israel to make concessions, and end our wars, the Middle East will enfold us in its warm embrace.
If this isn’t the time to talk about this record, when is the right time? For the press, politics doesn’t stop at the water’s edge. It stops wherever is most convenient for Obama’s reelection campaign.
[i]. . . trying to deflect blame away from Obama for his failed mideast policies.[/i]
Please try, at least every once in awhile, to avoid repeating the fact-challenged nonsense spewed by the hard right. Emphasis on the word [i]try[/i].
Rusty: You have committed a copyright violation. Link and excerpts are permissible. Not full articles.
Rusty: You statement implies that the election is simply a referendum on the President rather than a contest between competing viewpoints. Seeing as Romney is seeking to replace Obama, the question is pertinent as it signals how a Romney president would react to such events.
“Obama, Obama, we love Osama” is now being chanted throughout the Muslim world. Obama’s policies of appeasement, apologizing, backing the Arab Spring, etc…..sound like they’re really working.
The behind-the-scene Republican power structure has come to realize that, short of some political miracle, they have no hope of winning the White House and their efforts are directed towards retaining control of the House by catering to the tea-party base that gave them the House majority. It is increasingly clear that Romney is not controlling his presidential message but rather is reading the script that is handed to him which panders to this tea-party base
Romney is the personification of Grover Norquist’s dream of a Republican candidate who has no political vision or leadership qualities whose job(as he has described it) as president would be to sign the legislation that his anti-tax pledge minions will put before him.
[quote]Romney did nothing wrong.[/quote]
A rare point of agreement. Romney merely exercised his right to free speech. And quite rightly he will need to bear the consequences of the inconsistency and thoughtlessness of the timing and shallowness of his comments. For someone who does not believe in apologizing for American behavior, he was very quick to publicly disavow the supposed ( not even the actual) comments which he attributed to the freely elected President of the United States at a time when we are under attack.
And I agree, there is nothing wrong with this. Just as there was nothing wrong with the people who followed their own conscience to express their opposition to the war in Viet Nam or those who were critical of
President Bush for his choice to invade Iraq or those who chose to remain seated on a quad of a public university in protest of public policy.
[i]”… a man named Steve Klein … whose unabashed and outspoken hatred of radical Muslims has drawn the attention of civil libertarians, who say he’s a hate monger.”[/i]
The same source, The Southern Poverty Law Center, reports that Mr. Klein is associated with a far-right Christian church which is actively anti-Mormon, too.
[i]”Mr. Klein, who promoted the film produced by another Californian, Sam Bacile, has relentlessly pursued radical Muslims in America.”[/i]
‘Sam Bacile’ does not exist. It’s a pseudonym with a false background. The filmmaker is an Egyptian Coptic Christian (a group which has suffered violent hatred at the hands of Muslims in Egypt for centuries) who has a criminal history. His real name is Nakoula Basseley Nakoula.
[i]”… while Mr. Klein may be the face of that hate, he embodies what we can only describe as a mindset that goes far deeper into the population than anyone truly wants to admit.”[/i]
Really? Who has Mr. Klein ever touched? Has he attacked a Muslim or a Mormon or encouraged anyone to do so? No.
The real face of hate is in the radicalized Muslim reaction to the clip of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula’s movie.
[i]”The emergence of anti-Islamic and anti-militant Islamic hatred goes back to the September 11 attacks, and probably beyond.”[/i]
Again, this is really off base. You describe an America which does not exist. We are not a country of haters. Even the far-right nuts like Mr. Klein, who may have hatred in their hearts, are not violent. There are almost no hate crimes ever committed against Muslims in the U.S. The only religious group which is regularly attacked in our country in large numbers is Jews ([url]http://www.dearbornfreepress.com/2012/01/27/hate-crimes-fbi-stats-on-muslims-jews-gays-hispanics/[/url]) (those attacks make up 67% to 75% of all anti-religious hate crimes every year, despite Jews omly being 2% of the US population), and even those, compared with the violence committed in the name of Islam inside the Muslim world (usually against other Muslims) is very, very small.
There is, of course, a difference between mainstream political rhetoric and this stuff.
[i]”Let us be honest, the film is offensive. We should all be offended by it – Muslim or not.”[/i]
You have seen the film? And if so, tell me why I should find it more offensive than Mel Gibson’s [i]The Passion of the Christ ([url]http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-044-foxman.htm[/url])[/i]? I do not recall the Jewish reaction to Gibson’s movie murdering innocent people in the name of being offended?
[i]”Hate inflames hate and begets violence.”[/i]
This is total nonsense. There are thousands of films, works of art and other depeictions which could easily offend Christians ([url]http://www.resurrectionofpisschrist.com/[/url]) or Jews or moderate Muslims or Buddhists or modern Hindus. But in no instance do those groups rise up in dozens of countries and try to murder Americans or other innocents in response. The hatred is in the heart of the radical Islamists, and they are ceaselessly looking for any excuse to unleash their hatred. Their inflamed hatred has nothing to do with this movie. It is entirely an excuse to kill.
It increasingly looks like Obama is out of his depth, both domestically and internationally.
With regard to hatred and violence, they are certainly not to be equated. But I think that to dismiss them as unrelated is also a naive view. If one does not believe for instance that Muslims are somehow inferior or less trustworthy than are Christians or Jews, then why the accusations that Obama is actually Muslim. If Muslims were given equal respect within our culture, then it simply would not matter if he were Muslim, and yet much political writing and doubt casting is centered around this issue. One might believe that this is casting too broad a definition of “hate” but can we at least admit that it plays to people’s fears, insecurities, and xenophobic tendencies ? For me, it is not too far a leap to construe these kind of speech as intended to foment fear and yes,
even hatred.
[i]”It increasingly looks like Obama is out of his depth, both domestically and internationally.”[/i]
The latest polls do not seem to support your view: [quote] A new poll finds President Obama overtaking GOP contender Mitt Romney on the economy, despite continuing weak jobs reports, and holding [b]a decisive edge on foreign policy.[/b] … Forty-seven percent of likely voters say Obama would do a better job handling the economy to 46 for Romney. … On foreign policy, Obama holds a larger edge over his Republican challenger. Forty-nine percent say the president would do better on foreign policy than Romney at 39. … The New York Times/CBS News poll was conducted from Sept. 8 to 12 and has a 3-point margin of error. [/quote]
While I agree with David that Romney played this situation of the Muslim violence all wrong and made himself look smaller and unprepared for it, I don’t think this issue is equal to the economic meltdown of 2008, in terms of how it affects this campaign. It has looked to me for months like Barack Obama was going to win a close re-election. Since the Democratic Convention, which (aside from a couple of foibles*) went very well for Obama, the president’s lead seems to have widened, and that had nothing to do with Romney’s gaffes on the Islamist attacks on Americans. In fact, since the violence erupted in Egypt and Libya and elsewhere, Nate Silver’s forecast has shown a slight decline in Obama’s chances (though it is likely unrelated to the murders of the Americans in Libya and attacks in other Muslim hotspots).
[img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vfO-b1hrd80/UFUKlXZ0CcI/AAAAAAAAApo/zCo-CMgIS18/s1600/Obama+chance.JPG[/img]
*The two which come to mind are 1) the miserable primetime performance of Elizabeth Warren, who sounds like a candidate for the British Labor Party of the 1970s; and 2) the moronic performance of the intellectually challenged mayor of Los Angeles, Tony Villar, when Tony kept asking for revotes on the platform change.
That would be Antonio Villaraigosa.
RICH: [i]”… the moronic performance of the intellectually challenged mayor of Los Angeles, Tony Villar …”[/i]
DON: [b]”That would be Antonio Villaraigosa.”[/b]
Yes, same guy.
When he failed the state bar exam the first, second, third and fourth times, he called himself Tony Villar, not Antonio, and not Villaraigosa. When he first decided that politics was his calling, he still called himself Tony Villar. But when he was 34 years old and a political consultant told Tony that his name did not sound “Latino enough” to Hispanic voters, he changed his last name from Villar to Villaraigosa, which was a made up combination of Villar and Raigosa, the surname of his second wife, in order to advance his electoral career.
He apparently met Connie Raigosa a year or two after his first wedding, when he was just 21 years old. And according to Connie, they were having an affair most of the time Tony was married to wife number one.
Not long after Tony began calling himself Antonio Villaraigosa (pronouncing it AHN-toe-nee-oh BEE-ja-RYE-go-sah), he allegedly started sleeping with various other women beside Connie Raigosa. When his affair with a Telemundo reporter named Mirthala Salinas was exposed, while Connie Raigosa was in the hospital with thyroid cancer, Tony divorced wife numero dos.
One thing is certain about Tony’s career in politics: As long as Latinos know he is an authentic Hispanic, his electoral prospects appear to be quite strong, even if his ethics do not.
[quote]It increasingly looks like Obama is out of his depth, both domestically and internationally.”
[/quote]
[quote]The latest polls do not seem to support your view:[/quote]
The polls only indicate that more people say they are planning to vote for one candidate or another. They say nothing about whether Obama is out of his depth domestically and internationally. Evidence for that is
Domestically: Unemployment, slow growth, economic uncertainty, disastrous deficits, record numbers on food stamps, etc.
Internationally: War with Iran imminent, US diplomats murdered, embassies sacked, overseas leaders regard US government with contempt, international conflicts proliferating around the world (N. Korea, China, Japan), US troops mired in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Now we have the shameful spectacle of a man dragged out of his house at midnight by police because someone in government connects him to a film whose contents they don’t like.
The election is almost two months away. This is about the time we used to see the campaigns just get started. Those patting themselves on the back or wringing their hands over the prospects over another 4 years of Obama are way ahead of themselves. There is plenty of time for Obama to fall and Romney to surge. In fact, if I were betting on it right now, Romney seems to be in a pretty good position. The problems in the Muslim world are much easier to pin on Obama and his foreign policy approach. There is a lot to be concerned about. The question is not so much is Obama a risk in this area… because it is clear he is. What voters will be interested in is how does Romney stack up. The coming weeks will help answer that question.
[i]”Now we have the shameful spectacle of a man dragged out of his house at midnight by police because someone in government connects him to a film whose contents they don’t like.”
[/i]
What an amazing distortion. He was taken in late in the day to avoid the media. Uploading to the internet would violate the terms of his probation, since he isn’t supposed to have access to the internet without permission of his probation officer.
You could have read the news story to find out the facts.
[url]http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/09/anti-muslim-film-nakoula-basseley-innocence-muslims.html[/url]
[i]”War with Iran imminent, US diplomats murdered, embassies sacked, overseas leaders regard US government with contempt, international conflicts proliferating around the world (N. Korea, China, Japan), US troops mired in Afghanistan and Iraq.”[/i]
Yes, because of things like this I’m very glad we don’t have John McCain in the White House, and instead have the steady foreign policy team of Clinton and Petraeus, with support from Biden, advising the President. Unfortunately, Romney’s chief foreign policy advisers are the men who got us mired in Afghanistan and Iraq. As long as Romney’s listening to John Bolton, the Kagens, and Dan Senor, we definitely don’t want him as president. Americans need to realize that Mitt Romney is taking advice from the conservatives and neo-conservatives who presided over the disastrous Bush foreign policy.
[i]”In fact, if I were betting on it right now, Romney seems to be in a pretty good position.”
[/i]
I would take that bet. Electoral college, Obama near or over 300.
[quote]Not long after Tony began calling himself Antonio Villaraigosa (pronouncing it AHN-toe-nee-oh BEE-ja-RYE-go-sah), he allegedly started sleeping with various other women beside Connie Raigosa. When his affair with a Telemundo reporter named Mirthala Salinas was exposed, while Connie Raigosa was in the hospital with thyroid cancer, Tony divorced wife numero dos.
One thing is certain about Tony’s career in politics: As long as Latinos know he is an authentic Hispanic, his electoral prospects appear to be quite strong, even if his ethics do not.[/quote]
My comment is rather far from the embassy events, but I think relevant to how we tend to view our politicians
and their public and private actions. It would seem that we, as a people have another point of agreement.
No matter how ethically challenged a politician is in their private life whether their name is Villaraigosa, Clinton,
Dole or more recently Gingrich, we seem to be willing to dismiss their private ethical lapses……as long as they are on “our side”. Just another example from my point of view of being willing to excuse the same actions of those whose policies we like, while attempting to vilify those we do not. For me, this in itself is a sign of the shallowness and hypocrisy that frequently manifests not only in the private, but also in the public sphere.
“Domestically: Unemployment, slow growth, economic uncertainty, disastrous deficits, record numbers on food stamps, etc.”
I didn’t realize a president could control the domestic economy. I wonder why Obama doesn’t waive his magic wand to put us on the path to prosperity? And what’s with those European dolts? Why don’t they just snap their fingers to solve their financial and economic woes?
“War with Iran imminent, US diplomats murdered, embassies sacked, overseas leaders regard US government with contempt, international conflicts proliferating around the world (N. Korea, China, Japan), US troops mired in Afghanistan and Iraq.”
I realize that the US is influential globally, but had no idea the rest of the world were our puppets. As far as I can tell, Republicans and Democrats alike have been fairly poor puppet masters since death and mayhem have been the rule these past 200 years or so, not the exception.
-Michael Bisch
So what does my comment above have to do with the current violence at our embassy.
I would be willing to bet that the British saw the actions of what they viewed as their North American colonists as those of murderous thugs and “terrorists” had the term been in use at the time.
So since violence is as ugly, and as deadly regardless of which side is employing it, why would anyone advocate for its use and why would anyone create anything likely to insite its use ? I would say this is where the line between hatred and deliberate incitement to violence tends to get a little blurry.
[quote]I didn’t realize a president could control the domestic economy. I wonder why Obama doesn’t waive his magic wand to put us on the path to prosperity?[/quote]
This is a very good observation. One person who strongly disagrees with you is Obama. He has made multiple promises that he can fix the economy and mend international relations. In fact he continues to do so.
In an interview in 2009 he said
[quote]If I don’t have this done in three years, than this is going to be a one-term proposition[/quote]
Meds: [i]”It would seem that we, as a people have another point of agreement. No matter how ethically challenged a politician is in [s]their[/s] [b]his[/b] private life whether [s]their[/s] [b]his[/b] name is Villaraigosa, Clinton, Dole or more recently Gingrich, we seem to be willing to dismiss [s]their[/s] [b]his[/b] private ethical lapses……as long as [s]they are[/s] [b]he is[/b] on “our side”. Just another example from my point of view of being willing to excuse the same actions of those whose policies we like, while attempting to vilify those we do not.”[/i]
You are probably right about the vast majority of Americans, Meds. I don’t hold this point of view. I am not all that worried about ‘ethical lapses’ by a politician in his private life, unless he has been selling himself as ‘holier than thou.’ ([url]http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-3037338.html[/url])
[img]http://lynnrockets.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/pmavitter.png?w=604 [/img]
My largest problem with Tony Villar is that he appears to me to be not smart and to be a phony, and he has used that phoniness to exploit an ethnic appeal to Latinos. I abhor [i]’Somos los mismos'[/i] ethnic appeals as much as I abhor ethnic or racial appeals of the ‘I hate the other guys’ type. It seems to me a politician should not divide the voters based on skin color, national background, religion, etc.
And while I am perfectly comfortable voting for a guy who cheats on his wife (or wives, as Gingrich did), as long as I think he is competent in his elective office, I don’t think it is hypocritical to dislike the behavior of men who cheat on their wives or vice versa. As such, I like Bill Clinton the politician. I don’t like that he did not live up to his marital vows. But as long as he seemed competent to me, I had no trouble voting for him. I don’t think Clinton ever portrayed himself as a Puritan.
Rifs
I know many people who hold your point of view and are able to successfully compartmentalize in their minds their politician of choice’s public ethics from his/her private ethics. I tend to see this somewhat differently. If a politician is willing to knowingly and brazenly lie ( note, not be mistaken, or misinformed) in one area of his life, will he not be willing to do the same in another are of his life ? I know, we could debate this one forever, but for me a liar in one sphere is likely to be a liar in all spheres.
And, grammatical corrections are always welcome ; )
Meds, keep in mind that there are very likely a lot of poltical figures you have admired–Martin Luther King, Jr. perhaps?–who have been unfaithful husbands. I doubt with all of those you truly admire–including most whose faults in their personal lives never were exposed–you would disown entirely because they were dishonest in their marriages.
I think the lesson is this: All of us are imperfect. As long as one doesn’t go around pretending to be saintly while ripping another who had been a marital infidel or perhaps was a bad parent or perhaps was unkind to a person in need (all the sorts of things which are common among ‘high achievers’), I think a public figure deserves to be principally judged on his public perfromance, leadership, rhetoric, etc. You can, for example, at once admire the leadership of FDR in WW2 and in the Great Depression and still be disappointed in his having cheated on his wife as he did.
This film, riot, and killing incident is a perfect example where every side gets to blame the other.
The fact is, some idiots made a stupid low budget anti-Muslim trailer to a film (which likely does not even exist) and some extremist idiots in Libya and elsewhere used that as excuse to incite violence by spreading lies that it was broadcast on network TV (it wasn’t) prior to the Sept. 11 anniversary.
It doesn’t help that anti-American feelings have recently been heightened by relentless VIOLENT drone attacks (Rifkin- Americans are haters!) on innocent people.
So, let us take a moment to NOT cast blame on Romney for being a loser, for Obama for keeping violent attacks going, and the general populace of countries in which this extremism happens, and feel lucky that moderation is expanding.
Here are some encouraging photos from Libya:
http://imgur.com/a/tlCyI
My issue with Bill Clinton was not that he had an affair. Frankly, we don’t know about the Clinton’s personal lives. It is possible that Hillary said “Bill, would you leave me alone!? Go pester an intern. Just don’t get caught..”
The entire problem was that he did a bald face lie on national television denying it. It was a clear indication of his moral compass… one that said “if I can get away with it, then it is right”. More importantly,It was also a leadership lesson moment. I think at that time he did damage to the collective moral compass of the nation. He was well-liked and still is well-liked, and yet he was caught lying about something the average person could easily relate to… and this leadership lesson, I think, transcended marital infidelity and help justify a whole lot of bad behavior from average people.
Please Jeff, are you honestly claiming that anyone consciously ( or unconsciously for that matter) said to themselves, “oh, I so admire President Clinton that if he has affairs and lies about them, then it must be ok to do so? ” Gee, if you are right, maybe that is why Gingrich did the same.
Rifs – You are quite right about my feelings about FDR, JFK and Martin Luther King. I have never been more disappointed in another human being in my entire life than when I found out about the personal life of MLK.
It is true that none of us are perfect, and equally true that we do not know about the individual circumstances of each of these men and their wives, but I will stand by my statement that a lack of honesty in one area of one’s life is likely to be reflected in other areas of one’s life as well. It seems supremely ironic to me that we are willing to trust the fate of our nation to the honesty and integrity of individuals who cannot even keep what is supposedly the most sacred vow of their lives. Sorry, a particularly sensitive issue for me.
[i]”It doesn’t help that anti-American feelings have recently been heightened by relentless VIOLENT drone attacks [b](Rifkin- Americans are haters!)[/b] on innocent people.”[/i]
This entire claim seems off base to me.
Most importantly, it ignores an obvious and often made point about the radical Islamists who hate Americans–they don’t care about innocent people being killed. They never have. It’s not just the recent killings of our innocents. It’s the innocents they have been willing to sacrifice in their endless war against Israel, where they have gone so far as to break into homes and slit the throats of Jewish infants ([url]http://www.wnd.com/2011/03/278349/[/url]). Every terrorist attack against another Muslims sect or against an English city or against a bar in Chicago is designed to thrust fear into the hearts of innocents, usually with the intent of killing those innocents.
Any attempt to equate US policy with that of the radical Islamists is insane. There is no equivalency. We have always gone out of our way to fight them while trying to harm as few innocents as possible. They know that. That is why they hide in civilian areas, in order that some innocent civilians are killed. But never once has it been our policy to target civilians.
As to America being a country of haters …. Assuming you are not trying to be sardonic, you need to get out in this world to see what hate looks like. It’s not our culture. But it is out there in the radical parts of our globe, and it is especially rife among radical Muslims.
medwoman: Gingrich was never President of the United States and never went on American television in a much watched presentation to say “I never had sex with that woman”. My point was the leadership lesson. You can certainly make claims of the moral equivalency, but not the leadership lesson equivalency.
Rich: [url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2113410/US-soldier-kills-16-Afghan-civilians-deadly-shooting-rampage.html[/url]
In each case the appropriate leadership expressed dismay and regret. In each case excuses were made among the killers’ populations for their actions. But as Glenn Greenwald said at the time:
“Here’s a summary of the Western media discussion of what motivated U.S. Staff Sgt. Robert Bales to allegedly kill 16 Afghans, including 9 children: he was drunk, he was experiencing financial stress, he was passed over for a promotion, he had a traumatic brain injury, he had marital problems, he suffered from the stresses of four tours of duty, he “saw his buddy’s leg blown off the day before the massacre,” etc.
Here’s a summary of the Western media discussion of what motivates Muslims to kill Americans: they are primitive, fanatically religious, hateful Terrorists.”
Wow Don, to draw equivalency from the actions of one obviously mentally and emotionally damaged soldier to several million fanatic Islamists is just simply… well… breathtaking. Are you saying that all of these people chanting death to America and attacking our embassies and killing our people are doing so because they are drunk, experiencing financial stress, passed over for promotion, have traumatic brain injuries, have marital problems, and suffer from stress of tours of duty?
If not this, then what exactly do you propose as the reasons to justify their murderous actions?
Wow, Jeff, I didn’t know there are [b]several million[/b] fanatic Islamists. I didn’t know [b]all [/b]the people protesting were actually murdering people and chanting Death to America and stuff. I thought a lot of them were just, you know, protesting. That is simply breathtaking.
I urge you to click on this map and click on the individual links about the protests: [url]http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/09/map-muslim-protests-around-world/56865/[/url]
Your “several million” is more like thousands. In most cases, the protesters burned flags. In a couple of cases, they did more property damage. In a couple of cases, there were injuries. And in one dramatic case, American officials were killed.
I drew the “equivalency” because I felt Rich Rifkin presented, specifically in his link, another broad-brush attack on Muslims in general because of the actions of some specific fanatics.
To answer your other question: the killing of the Americans in Benghazi appears to be the work of members of Ansar al-Sharia, a Salafist Libyan group with ties to al Qaeda. They certainly meet the definition of fanatic Islamists. But there are maybe a few hundred of them.
What has made American counter-terrorism successful for the last six years or so is a practical approach in which we identify these small units and directly target them, eviscerating their leadership. The focus is on extremism. They are very small groups. By no means are there “millions” of fanatic Islamists.
[i]because of the actions of some specific fanatics.[/i]
I will dig up my references, but it is my understanding that even within the global community of Islam there is agreement that 10-15% of that population are considered extremists or fundamentalists or fanatics. Using the lower number, 10% of 2.2 billion is 202 million.
I certainly don’t believe that there are 202 million Muslim terrorists. But I do believe there is a very large population of Muslims supporting the terrorists. This is the troubling part for me. We can’t fight global terrorism if it is supported and protected in these countries. It is a cancer that is allowed to throb and grow until it breaks out again like it did on 9-11.
Pakistan is the perfect example of this problem. It is more and more clear that the military and parts of the government in Pakistan have been responsible for supporting Al Qaeda and also contributing to the death of US soldiers in Afghanistan.
The Arab Spring was supposed to be a positive and hopeful event for these Muslim nations. The Obama Administration pursued policies of apology, appeasement and either support for the rebels, or at the very least, non-involvement. But in most cases extreme elements have filled the political void and seem even more hostile to the US than they were under control of dictators.
Don, if the numbers are as small as you claim them to be, why are so many Arab leaders soft and/or completely silent in their response to these acts? The reason is that they are either supportive of the acts, or they are terrified of the consequences for angering a larger population of extremist thugs than you seem to be able accept exist.
[i]”extremists or fundamentalists or fanatics”
[/i]
You realize there is a major difference between these three things? We have lots of fundamentalists in our country, but only a very small number of extremists and fanatics. We have a fair number of white supremacists, and possibly millions who still agree with some tenets of white supremacy or at least sympathize with it. But only a handful of people who might, say, walk into a Sikh temple and start shooting.
[i]” But I do believe there is a very large population of Muslims supporting the terrorists.”
[/i]I believe you are wrong about that. However, a large percentage of people in some predominantly-Muslim countries are definitely anti-American, and anti-Israel sentiment is nearly universal in the Arab world (not to be confused with the Muslim world, if there is such a thing).
[i]”The Obama Administration pursued policies of apology, appeasement”
[/i]That is a complete myth. It is nonsense. President Obama hasn’t been “apologizing” and our anti-terror policies have been very effective. Who, pray tell, have we “appeased”?
“Don, if the numbers are as small as you claim them to be, why are so many Arab leaders soft and/or completely silent in their response to these acts? “
They aren’t. Nor are they supportive of the acts. Who did you have in mind? In some cases, they are treading a fine line.
There is no “larger population of extremist thugs.” There are relatively small populations of extremist groups, rather disparate in origin and motives and tactics.
Here is some of that Obama apology and appeasement…
[url]http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/12/opinion/la-oe-turley-blasphemy-20111210[/url]
So, here is our President giving away our free speech – one of our most valued freedoms that hundreds of thousands of Americans have given their lives to protect.
Amazing that you would be so concerned about a long-negotiated, non-binding UN resolution. But here is another perspective. I particularly urge you to read the reply by the State Department official that follows the essay. [url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/abigailesman/2011/12/30/could-you-be-a-criminal-us-supports-un-anti-free-speech-measure/3/[/url]
It’s not appeasement, Jeff. It’s not an apology. That’s just rhetoric.
[i]” I felt Rich Rifkin presented, specifically in his link, another broad-brush attack on Muslims in general because of the actions of some specific fanatics.”[/i]
I did not do what you accused me of. I drew no broad brush against Muslims in general. I drew it against the radical Islamists. I even pointed out in that post that their hatred and their willingness to kill innocents includes other Muslim victims.
We are not at war with “Muslims in general.” We are clearly at war with religious fanatics who so believe in their cause that intentionally killing innocents, including babies, is not beyond them at any time.
[quote]”Here’s a summary of the Western media discussion of what motivated U.S. Staff Sgt. Robert Bales to allegedly kill 16 Afghans, including 9 children: he was drunk, he was experiencing financial stress, he was passed over for a promotion, he had a traumatic brain injury, he had marital problems, he suffered from the stresses of four tours of duty, he “saw his buddy’s leg blown off the day before the massacre,” etc.
[b]–GLENN GREENWALD[/b] [/quote] It seems to me the real equivalent of Robert Bales is Nidal Malik Hasan. Both seem to be some form of psychotics, motivated by a combintion of bad experience and deep prejudice. Bales does not represent in any larger sense his fellow soldiers in the US Army in Afghanistan. Likewise Hasan, who killed 13 innocents and wounded many others, is not representative of Muslims serving in the US military.
The problem of radical Islamism is that it is not limited to those who are mentally ill. It may not be a majority movement anywhere (not even in Iran). But thus far no peaceful majority has ever stood up to it and peacefully shouted down or stood up to the radicals. Hopefully the Libyans will be different.
So, when a female journalist is sexually assaulted by a mob of Muslims, we say it was just a small group of bad people not representative of Muslims in general. When a terrorists slam jets into buildings and kill 3000 people, we say it was a group of bad people not representative of Muslims in general. When our libyan ambassador and three other Embassy employees were murdered, we say it was just a group of bad people, and not representative of Muslims in general.
However, when two amateur dudes from the suburbs of Fresno crate a crappy YouTube video that “insults” Islam (whatever that means), millions of Muslims chant death to America and our President and Secretary of State infer that America owes an apology to Muslims and at once tramples on American freedom of speech?
… and you wonder why some of us have such a big problem with this President, and those that support him no matter what he does?
[i]”millions of Muslims chant death to America”
[/i]
[b]Millions[/b], Jeff? What does it take to get you to stop making these exaggerations and generalizations about Islam? I already proved to you that it isn’t millions.
Those things you listed are examples of extremism and terrorism. They are not examples of “Muslims in general.” In fact, you listed actions by very different groups of people.
Don, there have been millions of Muslims chanting death to America. If not million, then certainly hundreds of thousands. There are protests in 27 countries. Have you not been reading the paper or watching the news?
From Reuters:
[quote]Embassies in central Kabul, including the U.S. and British missions, were placed on lockdown and violence flared near fortified housing compounds for foreign workers.
Rallies also took place in London, Australia, Turkey and Pakistan on Sunday, showing the global scale of the outrage.
In other developments on Monday, Iran said it would hunt for those responsible for making the film.
“The government of the Islamic Republic of Iran condemns this inappropriate and offensive action,” First Vice-President Mohammad Reza Rahimi said. “Certainly it will search for, track, and pursue this guilty person who has insulted 1.5 billion Muslims in the world.”
Iranian officials have demanded that the United States apologise to Muslims for the film, saying it is only the latest in a series of Western insults aimed at Islam’s holy figures.
The head of Lebanon’s Iranian-allied Hezbollah, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, called for protests in Beirut this week and said the United States must be held accountable.
“All these developments are being orchestrated by U.S. intelligence,” he said.[/quote]
I will make you a deal. I will try not to over-estimate the problem, if you will try not to under-estimate it.
You skipped over the main point I was making in that post. It is the actions of the Obama administration. What a sad time for America having this clown tear down our country one word and one policy at a time. He sees the US as the oppressor and aligns himself with the domestic and global collection of victims to try and be their messiah. The real problem here is that smart folks like you seem blind to, or are in support of, this agenda.
God save our children from this world we continue to screw up with our selfish and short-sighted pursuits.
Rich
“Any attempt to equate US policy with that of the radical Islamists is insane. There is no equivalency. We have always gone out of our way to fight them while trying to harm as few innocents as possible. They know that. That is why they hide in civilian areas, in order that some innocent civilians are killed. But never once has it been our policy to target civilians. “
There is a policy in management in general that I feel applies to this assertion. In cases of harassment, bullying, creation of a hostile work environment, and I would say in the case of the use of violence, it is not the intent of the perpetrator, but rather the outcome for the affected that is the primary determinant of the morality of the action. Intent is not the bottom line. Outcome is. The innocent dead are just as dead whether or not we feel remorse for having killed them. Do you suppose a grieving mother cares whether her child was killed by the deliberate and unrepentant action of a terrorist or the deliberate and repentant American soldier? The terroristt sees his action as justified within his world view, just as the American soldier sees his action is justified. The outcome for the hapless child is identical.
And your final sentence is patently untrue. The choice to drop atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was clearly the choice to target civilians , though granted in a different conflict.
Please note that the above comments are made by an avowed pacifist. They are not made to denigrate or defend the actions of any group of people. They are made by one person who believes that the use of violence is in and of itself a moral wrong regardless of which set or religious or political or economic beliefs are used to justify it. The only exception I would make would be that of direct and imminent ( not preemptive)
defense. And even then, I would argue for the use of the least amount of force necessary to secure safety.
Jeff
From your referenced article
“Although the resolution also speaks to combating incitement to violence, the core purpose behind this and previous measures has been to justify those who speak against religion”
I think this is a fine bit of cherry picking of concepts that you are doing here. In your urge to denigrate all things Obama, you have chosen to omit one of the responsible tenets of free speech. I think it is quite telling that the very first line is with regard to combating incitement to violence.
I have not interpreted Obama’s statements as apologies for the actions of the US as a whole, but rather as reasoned remarks about the imprudence of free speech without responsibility. We do not have the right to unlimited free speech. We cannot and should not yell fire in a theater. We cannot and should not incite a mob to violence through the use of incendiary language. Not so very long ago, a contributor to another thread was denouncing certain inflammatory words yelled at campus police as justification for the use of physical force in dispersing them. So clearly both sides of the idealogic divide agree that words can have serious consequences and they should be used to advance ideas, not to inflame passions which may result in violent action. Having viewed the long trailer, I can hardly see this as anything other than a deliberate inflammatory action on the part of its maker. This certainly would not fall within my definition of a reasonable portrayal or just “another point of view. So while I will defend it as legal under our system, I would certainly denounce its content and am proud of all of those representing our government who have called it out for the morally repugnant and deliberately inflammatory piece of trash it is. And I do not believe that any of our soldiers or representatives who have given their lives to protect our freedoms would have given their life defending this particular bit of trash.