Video: Laura Bush defends the hijab
posted at 1:44 pm on October 28, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Can a culture that requires women to travel with a chaperone, prohibits them from driving, and makes Islamic worship a condition of citizenship really be said to afford a “religious choice”?
Evidently so.
Update: A dilemma for HuffPo. Criticize the Bushitler’s wife for defending a symbol of oppression or clap her on the back for pushing back against the wingnuts?
Which do you suppose they chose?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Yeah, well our culture says we can denounce that oppressive and abusive act, and our tradition calls on us to keep hammering away until those who are forced to wear them have the right to not wear them.
Bad Candy on October 28, 2007 at 1:49 PM
Geez……..Laura, so what you are saying is that if a culture embraces something vile that that makes it ok? Sorry that just isn’t going to fly.
doriangrey on October 28, 2007 at 1:50 PM
So, it’s not yours or ours, so who gives a cr*p!!
CloneTrooper on October 28, 2007 at 1:59 PM
Be not ashamed of mistakes and thus make them crimes.
- Confucius
MB4 on October 28, 2007 at 2:00 PM
The real question is, what the hell is she wearing in that video?
An afghan shawl with buttons?
tad on October 28, 2007 at 2:00 PM
It was worse than a crime. It was a mistake.
- Talleyrand
Allahpundit on October 28, 2007 at 2:02 PM
Then for God’s sake, Laura, please tell your husband to leave them to their “culture,” bring home the troops, seal the borders, and get the men up in the towers.
Rational Thought on October 28, 2007 at 2:02 PM
They do not see it as subjugation of women.
Re: Stockholm syndrome.
lorien1973 on October 28, 2007 at 2:03 PM
Cultural and propaganda issues acknowledged, and still I feel no outrage at Mrs. Bush. It is actually choice, everything is – all governments consist by the consent of the governed, if you don’t consent you resist.
What are you talking about? In terms of “our tradition”, I mean.
Spirit of 1776 on October 28, 2007 at 2:05 PM
tad on October 28, 2007 at 2:08 PM
Using Mrs. Bush’s logic, they should take them off when they come here to visit or live since it’s NOT our tradition to have our women wear them.
SouthernGent on October 28, 2007 at 2:11 PM
I think Laura should have introduced them to our culture… There culture sucks.
Dasher on October 28, 2007 at 2:11 PM
It is truly scary if Laura Bush is that naive. And I do believe that she is.
Connie on October 28, 2007 at 2:12 PM
So is genital mutilation. Going no further.
stonemeister on October 28, 2007 at 2:14 PM
A peculiar thing in common about the leftist worldview and Bushite Christian worldview is that anyone who says, “It’s our culture. It’s our tradition” is a bigot. Yet, their culture and their traditions are sacrosant. In practice this means we are required to disguise the evil of Islamic headscarfs because it’s their traditions and culture, and are also are required to accept so many immigrants into our nation because a flood of illegal immigrants merely costs us our culture and our traditions.
thuja on October 28, 2007 at 2:17 PM
It is human to err, but at least no one can accuse Talleyrand of being a callous criminal.
- Holmes
MB4 on October 28, 2007 at 2:22 PM
That is a great point. The elevation of other cultures above our own on our own soil can only lead to a painful conclusion.
Spirit of 1776 on October 28, 2007 at 2:23 PM
Civilized behavior.
MB4 on October 28, 2007 at 2:26 PM
I think the first lady was trying to explain away a situation here, she surely knows of the harsh oppression of many Muslim women.
Hopefully she was just trying to identify with the women there in a cancer awareness setting, unfortunately Islamists see the first lady wearing the hijab as a victory, another step towards the world caliphate.
For me its an action that signifies too much willingness to bow before tyranny and by extension how dependent as a nation we are on foreign resources that we must supplicate ourselves to Sharia in order to maintain them.
Speakup on October 28, 2007 at 2:26 PM
Exactly … how sickening that we should afford ANY respect to a centuries old cult that has produced nothing but lies, deception and death. Disgraceful Mrs. Bush … disgraceful.
darwin on October 28, 2007 at 2:30 PM
Our tradition is a tradition of personal liberty, women aren’t forced to wear Islamotarps in this country.
Bad Candy on October 28, 2007 at 2:32 PM
“Woolsey warned against “lapsing into moral relativism” by accepting fundamentalist Islamic practices that are contrary to Western values, especially those that degrade women.”
We have to stop pretending that Islam is a moral religion. It is profoundly immoral, and we should say so. The proof of its immorality is there in a hundred different ways, especially in its sharia laws. The treatment of Women, apostates, and its barbaric punishments for minor infractions of religious laws are an abomination and affront to the civilized world.
So why all the pretense? Are we afraid to offend them?
Our Judeo/Christian moral principles are by far superior to anything that passes as morality in Islam. It’s more than just making a choice to tell Muslims the truth about their twisted religion, It’s a moral obligation on our part to confront evil whenever we see it. If we don’t, we betray ourselves, and lead Muslims to believe we respect their perverse practices and beliefs.
Woosey hit the nail on the head. Tell Muslims we do not approve of their religion and its practices – and pull no punches.
For God’s sake people [including Laura Bush], take a moral stand for a change.
- rational
MB4 on October 28, 2007 at 2:32 PM
Having studied, and being interested in the history of warfare, we are facing a situation and winning that would have been impossible for us to even understand two decades ago. Our country is running military operations in what has to be one of the most hostile places in the world (even worse before boots were on the ground). These people in the area live in a vacuum beyond what most of us can imagine. The current administration manages to kick the crap out of Muslim murderers while engaging in joint operations with other Muslims and winning hearts and minds in an area not known for much quality in either (yes, we are).
If Mrs. Bush wants to wear a head covering that was given as a gift, so friggin’ what? As someone else pointed out, this isn’t like Pelosi going over to the enemy and trying to pass as one of theirs. Mr’s Bush looked happy, Western make-up included, and nobody is going to think she is a dhimmi. Heaven knows we have thousands of them in this country and some in high government places already that can be used as an example of the real deal.
Hening on October 28, 2007 at 2:32 PM
I’ll chalk it up to Laura not wanting to be beaten with a stick by the religious police.
Dusty on October 28, 2007 at 2:33 PM
Well that’s true. But I wasn’t aware that we had a tradition of attempting en masse national religious conversions.
Spirit of 1776 on October 28, 2007 at 2:33 PM
That deserves a trademark!
MB4 on October 28, 2007 at 2:34 PM
Well, I certainly agree with that. Our tradition is one of personal liberty. Hammering at people to conform them to our views…eh, not-so-much, at least certainly not without provocation.
Spirit of 1776 on October 28, 2007 at 2:35 PM
From the link above: condition of citizenship
A waiver to persecute, lash, incarcerate, deport, and intimidate all other than Wahabi school Sunni’s.
One word: oil.
Imagine a world with no oil in the Middle East. Dream on.
fred5678 on October 28, 2007 at 2:39 PM
Religious choice in a realm where Bibles are banned, the display of a cross of any size forbidden? Lady Bush must think we’re daft.
The Saudi government not only promotes only Islam, it only promotes Wahhabism. From Allah’s link above:
T J Green on October 28, 2007 at 2:40 PM
Isn’t one of the central tenants of our culture the rejection of tyranny? In order to bring hope to the oppressed we must first be willing to acknowledge their existence. Appeasement always emboldens the oppressor by diminishing the cause of their victims.
I’ve lost respect for Laura Bush, she should have stood up for the cause of freedom.
FloatingRock on October 28, 2007 at 2:40 PM
No one is talking about that. Just calling a piece of $hit a piece of $hit and not some kind differing variety of rose.
MB4 on October 28, 2007 at 2:40 PM
What he said.
Bad Candy on October 28, 2007 at 2:43 PM
No. You aren’t talking about that, you are calling a spade a spade. That’s why I ask what the reference to a tradition of hammering meant. That’s different than a tradition of accurate labeling. The quote I asked about implies the use of US power to create and enforce human rights. Which is fine, people are welcome to that opinion, I was just curious as the assertion that it is our tradition.
Spirit of 1776 on October 28, 2007 at 2:45 PM
Wow! What can I say! The First Lady is simply underwhelming — and in so many ways!
sanantonian on October 28, 2007 at 2:46 PM
Mosques are plenty, graveyards are plenty, but morals and whiskey are scarce. The Koran does not permit Mohammedans to
drink. Their natural instinct does not permit them to be moral.
- Mark Twain
MB4 on October 28, 2007 at 2:47 PM
I’m not necessarily talking use of force, hammering is a pretty generic term, and can mean harshly criticizing as well as action.
Bad Candy on October 28, 2007 at 2:47 PM
“That’s their culture, that’s their tradition, that’s a religious choice of their’s…”
An inferior culture, a ridiculous tradition, and a religious “choice” enforced by the state of Saudi Arabia. Way to go, Mrs. Bush.
Dork B. on October 28, 2007 at 2:48 PM
That makes sense.
Spirit of 1776 on October 28, 2007 at 2:49 PM
See? I know what i’m doing!
Bad Candy on October 28, 2007 at 2:52 PM
I just want a putrid piece of $hit to be called what it is, a putrid piece of $hit and not as dhimmi Laura Bush does a differing variety of sweet rose. Is that to much to ask?
MB4 on October 28, 2007 at 2:52 PM
I wonder if the left views this site with contempt because we are so much more logical and reasonable and they are constantly at odds with common sense?
Hey lefties: you are on the wrong side of history…again. Laura is just befuddled in a PC mess.
Black Adam on October 28, 2007 at 2:53 PM
Lol. I know, that’s why I asked.
An honest assessment of the situation leads one to conclude that Laura, by going over their to address women’s health, is working in line with what I presume you want – women’s rights. By addressing the concerns of the ‘oppressed’ part of the populace, it takes steps closer to non-oppression. She is working in a different way then you prefer, and one more diplomatic and subtle, but also one that bears fruit over time.
Spirit of 1776 on October 28, 2007 at 2:56 PM
Sell out.
Tim Burton on October 28, 2007 at 3:02 PM
What? You have got to be kidding. Why would Mrs. Bush say such a stupid thing when our Country is at war with the very people who oppress women? Well with that statement one could say that Saddam and his sons didn’t think that it was wrong to rape women and hold them as slaves, that was just their culture. I am not sure Mrs. Bush understands what she has proclaimed.
Shelly on October 28, 2007 at 3:05 PM
It would have been better if she had just said nothing rather than making mountain out of what is really a mole hill…and come to think of it I should not dignify this either. Bye!
jeanie on October 28, 2007 at 3:22 PM
What are you talkiing about?
Shelly on October 28, 2007 at 3:28 PM
“Laura Bush defends the hijab”.
I fail to see the gain there. Pretend like Kerry had become President in 2004 and his wife was doing that. What would you think then?
MB4 on October 28, 2007 at 3:50 PM
If only.
Esthier on October 28, 2007 at 3:57 PM
C’mon, guys! She explained that the scarf she wore had pink ribbons on it. That makes it okay! It’s Oppression with a touch of pretty pink Awareness at the edges.
I’m surprised Muslim women are allowed to touch their own breasts to find out if there are any lumps.
aero on October 28, 2007 at 4:01 PM
If a extremely wealthy and powerful woman married to John Kerry went over there to talk about women’s health concerns and in the process accepted a hijab as a gift from a woman and wore it…I don’t see how my position would be different.
I actually can’t quit square the outrage all things consider. I don’t know your views, so not meant personally, but take for ex GW. He is trying to surgically remove the political and religious marriage in Islam by the introduction of democracy. I think it is in his view the single most likely way to undermine the continual production of violence out of the religion. Now, personally, I don’t think everyone burns for freedom, so I have very large doubts as to the possibilities of success, but can you honestly think of anything more likely to stem violence then the introduction and acceptance of a philosophy that separates religion and state and establishes a legal system of individual equality? If so, I’d like to hear it.
But still Bush gets mocked for labeling Islam a ROP. How does he calling a spade a spade, help his cause? It would be counterproductive, don’t you think? Is it our goal to poke a stick in the eye of that percentage of the world’s populace. I mean just look at the uproar about the Armenian genocide. Bryan posted a couple times on it, and the essence of the argument is that the moral issue has to take back-seat to the issue of expedience.
I think it is easy for us to sit back and say, don’t do this, or do this, etc. But while GW is trying to move pieces on the political scale, Laura works on the social scale – and if she takes a gift from one woman to another and chooses to wear it (there is no indication she was forced), I don’t see any reason to jump all over her for that. She was there to advance the concerns of women, if she had issue with it – ie if she thought it was an issue that would undermine the effect of her trip, she wouldn’t have wore it. It didn’t bother her; doesn’t bother me. I know that’s a long answer, but the multitude of positions that the right takes on these things baffle me.
Spirit of 1776 on October 28, 2007 at 4:07 PM
Laura Bush was the last person in that family I had a shred of respect for. Guess she’s helping to set up GWB for some of that cushy ex Prez cash the UAE bought DaddyBush and Clinton with.
Buzzy on October 28, 2007 at 4:08 PM
She looks and acts defensive in the video, which means that it’s all bla, bla, bla…to defend a stupid lapse. I lost all respect for her. Never thought her to be an intellectual rocket, but not a dimwit either. However, always thought that she had much common sense, drive to get things changed, her way, elegance, and that she provided a good balance for her husband. We’re ‘divorced’ now.
I agree with all that MB4 wrote at 3:50. If Kerry’s primadona would have done this, some here would hyperventilate. In these matters there can’t be nuance. One either understands Hirsi Ali and what she stands for, or doesn’t.
One can and does respect others’ cultures, without submitting to their idiocies.
We’re all going to pay the consequences.
Entelechy on October 28, 2007 at 4:23 PM
I understand exactly what you’re saying. Yes, President Bush has had to walk a tightrope, but there is a difference between accepting a gift and then expounding upon that acceptance in the way she did. I would have preferred that Wallace hadn’t asked the question at all as he must have known what her comment would, of necessity, have to be.
Connie on October 28, 2007 at 4:35 PM
Ya! A first lady who knows her place. Hillary was just too bossy. I guess after 8 years of it we had come to expect and outlandish first lady. I, for one, am glad that Mrs. Bush is that way.
By the way, did anyone notice how she cleared her throat after “religious choice”. It almost sounded like huh uh.
boomer on October 28, 2007 at 4:41 PM
Look at the video’s comments: An Iranian, someone from an oligarchy exclusively ruled by male “clerics,” berates one poster for saying that Muslim countries mistreat women. He claims that their First Vice President – this guy: http://www.iranfocus.com/uploads/img43165125044a3.jpg – is a woman, and then says the poster need to learn more about the world! Another person then says that all the commenter’s knowledge comes from Fox News. Ridiculous.
calbear on October 28, 2007 at 4:42 PM
Did you miss the words by rational (from JihadWatch) that I quoted at:
MB4 on October 28, 2007 at 2:32 PM
MB4 on October 28, 2007 at 4:50 PM
I don’t disagree. But if Chris is to be believed, the question stemmed from the response on sites like this, radio, etc.
Sure I read them, though they are given no weight above your own opinion by their origin.
What are the ramifications of this? Unconsidered. As I said already, instead of just rhetoric, Bush has taken steps to counter the threat. But here on HA, we don’t even have the stones to condemn the Armenian genocide, which shocka!, was jihad oriented against Armenian Christians. People on this site are “shush about jihad” but get mad at Laura. I’m passing.
Spirit of 1776 on October 28, 2007 at 4:57 PM
Well I take it that you give them little if any weight then.
I however give them a lot of weight, not because of their origin, but because of their profound content.
I am all ears.
MB4 on October 28, 2007 at 5:11 PM
It’s not only a Muslim custom for women to cover their heads… Especially outdoors. And Mrs. Bush wasn’t covered during the meetings etc… In the USA, for example…, Women wore bonnets and scarves for the sake of modesty.There’s nothing to get angry about here.
Rugged Individual on October 28, 2007 at 5:13 PM
Heh. Don’t sell yourself so cheaply. First though, I have not claimed that Islam is a moral religion. But pray tell, well is so profound about someone commenting on someone else’s quote (rational on woolsey). Seems to me what makes something ‘profound’ is largely simply a measure if we agree. Myself, I think that quotation fails to take account of the real world situation.
That’s my take on his action as I said above:
“He is trying to surgically remove the political and religious marriage in Islam by the introduction of democracy. I think it is in his view the single most likely way to undermine the continual production of violence out of the religion. Now, personally, I don’t think everyone burns for freedom, so I have very large doubts as to the possibilities of success, but can you honestly think of anything more likely to stem violence then the introduction and acceptance of a philosophy that separates religion and state and establishes a legal system of individual equality? If so, I’d like to hear it.”
Of course we have two options. We can sit back here and call him an idiot, or we acknowledge that at least he has an operating theory. One he believes in enough to leverage his political capital and legacy on.
Spirit of 1776 on October 28, 2007 at 5:21 PM
“Mrs. Bush only needed to say:
“No comment, and don’t quote me.”
Now she has picked up the Stupid Shovel and is just digging the familiar hole of “cover up” which undermines her scant credibility.
The attempt to cover up is always worse than the mistake.
She should have stopped while she was a little behind.
Because Islam will not stop until she is a head.
Only.
profitsbeard on October 28, 2007 at 5:24 PM
Get off her back. You have to let the culture speak for itelf. Americanization is irresistible to young people if they are free to choose. My wife said something the other day that really brought it home. She was talking about her mother’s mother, her grandmother and how she made all these protestations in Italian about how nobody was going to cut her granddaughter’s ears. Meaning no way they succumb to western sinfulness and get their ears pierced. Ear piercing was considered barbaric in Italy because it was equated to tribalism. Here we had moved beyond that and were dressing women up for fashion and sex appeal. Now with the kid’s kids, you pray ear piercing is the extent of the self mutilation and ’sinfulness’. Same deal here hopefully. Just kill the hell out of the young males that bray and harm others out of misguided honor. The rest will come along.
pc on October 28, 2007 at 5:26 PM
only african heathens and eastern gypsies cut their ears and placed jewels in the lobes. Only whores walked about without bonnet or hair covering. Deal with their insecurities and let em have a chance to catch up. Most westernized ME’er’s I know don’t handle it all that well. The freedom part. That’s probably why they are spooked. I imagine aboriginals wish they never tried alcohol. It’s going to be the cause of their extinction.
pc on October 28, 2007 at 5:29 PM
How exactly is she breaking steroypes down? It seems to me she is confriming them. Try wearing a large cross and let them be tolerant.
RobCon on October 28, 2007 at 5:46 PM
I didn’t know the women were really given much of a choice in the matter. I thought it was more like “do or die.”
INC on October 28, 2007 at 5:53 PM
I think it’s too bad Laura didn’t just thank the giver effusively and put the headscarf aside. Those women wouldn’t have been shocked to see the First Lady of the US not wearing one.
NellE on October 28, 2007 at 5:55 PM
[Spirit of 1776 on October 28, 2007 at 4:07 PM]
I concur, for the most part..
I’ve never had too much of a problem with “When in Rome …” and I wouldn’t have had a problem with Laura acting in a similar way if she were to have gone to Chile or China or who the heck knows, say, Kenya and donned traditional garb for a photo-op. The problem, as I sarcastically suggested earlier, is that Laura is respecting a tradition that is enforced by law on the people of Saudi Arabia — women are beaten for not following this “tradition”.
That said, via George, as our country’s leader, she has to face a certain reality. Whatever Laura’s personal rationalization for doing this — perhaps she doesn’t really mind a publicly superficial kissing of the feet of tyranny if she can contribute to unwinding it’s deathly squeeze some other way more long term way — the fact is we are dependent on the Saudi’s in many ways for maintaining our country’s security, both economically and militarily, and for minimizing harm to our citizens in the short to medium term. And, as with Bush, a judgment was made, in weighing the pluses and minuses, that this was act more conducive than the other options in maintaining that security.
I could be wrong in the assessment, but if I am much closer to being right, then Laura can hardly indicate so, though, this soon after the fact. We’ll have to wait until the books come out several years from now to find out if Laura was weighing, once again, geopolitical realities, or if she is truly just a closeted librarian and a smilingly naive one at that.
The one difference I have with your point is that I do have a problem with Laura’s act and moreso with her response to this little brouhaha. IMHO, the administration’s diplomatic actions seem to be as correct as can be, generally, yet its response, domestically, is pitifully inept, as in this case. Kowtowing — wearing a abaya and scarf — in Saudi Arabia is contrary to American values and abhorrent to the large majority of Americans. Yet Laura does it, then comes back here and is either (a) amateurishly unprepared to respond to the criticism, (b) couldn’t care less about opinion of her countrymen, or (c) [the author has deleted this alternative].
Personally, I think it is a combination of the three but I realize we don’t get to vote for the First Lady.
Dusty on October 28, 2007 at 5:58 PM
I’m torn on this. I don’t think that head scarves are necessarily symbols of oppression, but Burkas most definitely are and Laura Bush was wrong to say that it is a matter of “religious choice”.
I’m trying to find a photo that Drudge posted on his website (Yahoo?) that showed her on the sofa flanked by 2 women, one of whom was in full, suffocating, menacing, faceless, Burka garb. She did have that cute little pink ribbon on though.
I would have liked to have heard the First Lady talk about that.
Buy Danish on October 28, 2007 at 6:02 PM
I have no argument with that!
Spirit of 1776 on October 28, 2007 at 6:07 PM
W has about 1 year left to prove that he, and apparently everyone around him, hasn’t gone terribly soft on our enemies. The last thing Muslim women around the world, at least those longing for freedom, need to see is Laura Bush in a hijab. I wonder what W will wear if he goes to Saudi Arabia?
Halley on October 28, 2007 at 6:17 PM
Ahem.
Not too many years ago, the King of Saudi Arabia flew into Texas and, at his insistence, had all female flight tower operators removed…and with G.W. Bush’s blessing. [Then] King Fahad would not tolerate any of his pilots taking flight instructions from women.
What about OUR culture?!
There is no more contemptible aspect of the Bushes than how they have taken up residence in the pockets of the Saudi royal family.
thejackal on October 28, 2007 at 6:18 PM
If so many of our troops weren’t being killed and made limbless I would ROFLMAO at that.
Now you are making sense. Stick with that! There may be hope for you afterall!!!
Yes, one that is a grand delusion. I really doubt that even he believes it any more, not after almost 5 years in Iraq and 170,000 troops there. He is just to stuborn to admit it. Oh I know, success is just around the next corner. It’s always just around the next corner in Iraq. Pretty soon it will probably be CIC HildaBeast’s next corner. Thank you so very much George Bush.
BTW, See Dania West sometime.
MB4 on October 28, 2007 at 6:29 PM
For those arguing that the scarf is a harmless custom that is simply meant to preserve modesty and is nothing to get upset about, the difference is this: In many Islamic countries, the women are forced to cover their heads and sometimes every millimeter of skin ON PAIN OF TORTURE OR EVEN DEATH. That’s why it’s oppression and not a simple “custom” or “tradition.” It’s not optional. The women there may insist that they don’t consider it to be oppression–and that’s fine and dandy–but it IS because it’s being forced upon them. If they ever do decide that they don’t want to wear head scarves or black tents, it won’t matter–they won’t get to take them off without bloodshed. That’s why it’s oppression, and that’s why western women need to politely but firmly say no thank you when given one of these things as a “gift” (i.e. coercion to wear it for fear of being impolite).
aero on October 28, 2007 at 6:33 PM
Silly Gringo.
Silly Infidel.
Jorge “ROP” el Arbusto has got that all planned out for you. Trust him, he knows what he is doing.
Reporter: Mr President, is it true that you have decided to put a real fence along the border with Mexico rather than that phony so called “virtual fence” after all? And a follow up question sir, if so what will the physical fence look like?
George W. Bush: That is a very good question and yes I have. What will it look like? Well it will run the full length of the border and have special security gates every 100 feet.
All the security gates will have on them:
1) Press one for Spanish (with a response of “Welcome Amigo, please take a free map to the wonderful plantation owner employer of your choice. Oh and do not forget our free health care for you and your kids and our free schooling for them, including in-state tuition. Our taxpayers are more than willing to pick up the tab”).
2) Press two for Arabic (with a response of “Welcome honored member of the Religion of Peace, please make yourself right at home and don’t be afraid to ask for any changes to our country that will make you feel more welcome, anything at all, you just name it”).
3) Press three for English (with a response of “Go to Hell you damed bigoted nativist conspiracy monger islamophobic who does not want what is right for America!!!”).
MB4 on October 28, 2007 at 6:46 PM
MB4 on October 28, 2007 at 6:54 PM
I wonder if Laura had done a breast cancer awareness tour in Africa whether she’d politely remove her blouse and bra when visiting tribal groups who typically go topless. It’s just their tradition, right? It’s their culture, and I’m sure she’d respect it by wearing what they wear (or don’t wear). Right?!
aero on October 28, 2007 at 6:56 PM
Forgetaboutdat! How about the twins!!!
MB4 on October 28, 2007 at 6:59 PM
given a choice all things being equal…I would say 10% at the very most would choose to live that way.
tomas on October 28, 2007 at 7:16 PM
Not that long ago the Saudi religious police locked all of those girls in that burning school and let them die rather than let them out without proper covering.
Defending Laura’s acceptance of a symbol of the brutal oppression of women on the basis that the women of other cultures have also been known to cover their hair is tantamount to defending chains around the necks of slaves because people in other cultures wear necklaces. One is a symbol of malignant oppression and the other is not.
FloatingRock on October 28, 2007 at 7:17 PM
If a slaveholder’s best friend asks a slave if his chains are comfortable, the slave will usually answer, “Yes, master”.
FloatingRock on October 28, 2007 at 7:22 PM
Stereotypes? What stereotypes? The law says only Muslims are allowed to be citizens, and only men are allowed to drive and vote, and that women must wear the Islamotarp in public.
What part doesn’t she understand about womens’ rights?
Jaibones on October 28, 2007 at 7:22 PM
Not quite clear the source of amusement…seeing that Islam is a political and religious identity and it is impossible to alter the religious identity from our position, it only leaves one window of action.
Why the condescension? Do you believe you have all the answers sewn up there. Is my honest appraisal of both pros and cons merely read by you as an weakness in argument? This is the second time you have expressed yourself this way to me in the close of an discussion – what is the cause of this pattern?
I’m not a shill for the administration, so I repeat my question: what is the better answer? What path do you suggest aside from criticism. It’s my turn to say I’m all ears.
Spirit of 1776 on October 28, 2007 at 7:25 PM
Has anyone ever seen one of our male diplomats in the robes and the headscarf that males in Muslim countries wear?
Why the double standard? That is also their culture.
Let’s have all our male diplomats “dress up” while in Muslim countries.
Riiiiight, not gonna happen.
Babs on October 28, 2007 at 7:30 PM
Game, set, match.
MB4 on October 28, 2007 at 7:47 PM
Okay, for a second there I thought you were referring to Laura’s breasts as the “twins,” and I was horrified until I realized you were referring to her very attractive twin daughters. Less horrifying, but still mildly repulsive. Thanks for almost making me laugh soda out my nose! ;-)
aero on October 28, 2007 at 7:55 PM
You are being way overly sensitive.
Stop pretending that Islam is something so different from what it actually is. Do that and much of the rest would fall into place. Don’t do that and things will work out poorly, very poorly.
No, and that is why I learn from others. Like Hugh Fitzgerald and Diana West for example. I have posted so many links to them and others that I have lost count.
Here is an example:
Diana West’s views on Bush and Iraq
Scroll down a bit to – What President Bush should say to us -
MB4 on October 28, 2007 at 7:58 PM
Yep! that is what it is always about! Other cultures are some how higher than our own! When did this ever start?? I can certainly understand diplomats while abroad following certain trivial customs while dining, such as,, allowing the host to drink his tea first or putting your jam on your crumpet with the freshly broken twig provided as some sort of silly sign of friendship or something,, What if they had a custom of bowing down and licking the heels of their prime minister while barking like a dog? Didn’t Ronald Reagan refuse to bow to the Queen of England during a visit back in the 80’s,, ?? I believe he actually said at the time, “Americans don’t bow to Kings and Queens” I really think it is a mistake for these people to be going around bowing to every custom and tradition out there. It is a sign of weakness. Besides,, we are Americans. We are the custom and tradition everyone wants to follow. The only people that will get angry with us are those who hate us anyway.
JellyToast on October 28, 2007 at 8:05 PM
What!!! I think they are both dolls, particularly the brunet. Oh to be younger.
MB4 on October 28, 2007 at 8:08 PM
I didn’t mean that as a sensitive statement. I merely mean that when the exchange grinds down to ‘ah if only you were smarter’ I can’t help but think I’ve wasted my time bc your answer provides nothing intellectually.
What? When have I said it was sunshine and roses? I do not have illusions about the nature of that religion – and I can’t imagine what you would cite to support that statement.
Then articulate your argument. I didn’t ask what a bunch of other people think. If the argument has merit you should be able to express it’s merits. The problems (in my mind) with the links that you throw up there are things such as this:
are in line with a pattern of blunting truths. We do not a “tradition” it is a basic human right. You can not argue a defense of liberty by yielding liberty (which is not to say no immigration reform in regard to hostile countries). Moreover strategies such as these, are at best, only as valid as long as there is leadership to execute them. Diana West is “PROFOUND” until the dems pull out completely and leave the terrorists unhampered. It is change for change sake because the current course is so troubled. But I digress.
Spirit of 1776 on October 28, 2007 at 8:24 PM
I never said ‘ah if only you were smarter’, but you have just said “your answer provides nothing intellectually”.
I was responding to your question and hence refering to Bush.
You don’t like what I say (I have “articulated” my argument many times before, probably too many times for many) and you don’t like what Diana West says or probably Hugh Fitzgerald either. There is just no pleasing you.
MB4 on October 28, 2007 at 8:53 PM
LOL! The mildly repulsive part is not the girls, but rather the “dirty old man” thing you’ve got going on here. Heh. ;-)
(I’m a mom, so I get to climb on a moral high-horse.)
aero on October 28, 2007 at 9:01 PM
You are right. I should have rephrased that to say, I fail to add to my perspective. I didn’t mean to say you were void of intelligence, that was poorly written.
Ah. I don’t think Bush is a fool; I just think he is invested on a path that has higher reward, but higher risk. And at this point seems unlikely to pay off.
Heh. This actually isn’t true. I have not seen you present your case on what you think our path should be. I’ve just read criticisms of the administration and seen many links to DS. I’ll just assume I am not reading the threads (or the comments) that you have extrapolated them, that is the most likely scenario.
Spirit of 1776 on October 28, 2007 at 9:05 PM
I confess I haven’t read all the comments here, but I did see the interview. If you’re talking about the black scarf she wore in one of the pictures taken of her, she said it was a ‘gift’. Now doesn’t it seem appropriate to respond to a gift by wearing it? She was trying to be tactful, kind, respectful and make the discussion about cancer awareness and the women she met. Why would she come back here and trash the women she had just spent time with?!
And personally, I thought her green outfit, while unusual, made her beautiful green eyes shine brighter.
I’m not going to beat-up on our First Lady; she gets enough of that from *the other side*.
jatfla on October 28, 2007 at 9:26 PM
OK, tell me that you didn’t like MB4 on October 28, 2007 at 6:46 PM at all, not even a little. It is a parody that says by indirection what we should be doing.
- or -
We should crack down hard on those who employee illegals, seal our borders as much as possible, stop issuing so many visas to Muslims, especially those from Saudi Arabia (as were 14 or the 19 9/11 killers), stop the Saudi funding of their “religious” hate schools in the U.S. and get out of Iraq, except for Kurdistan, and let the Shiites and Sunnis decide for themselves if Mohammed’s rightful successor was Umar or Ali. They are going to do it at some point anyway. Our troops have got better things to do than to baby sit them.
MB4 on October 28, 2007 at 9:37 PM
Just more placating. Being all ‘nicey-nice’ isn’t going to change a damn thing. If anything, it will embolden the radical elements.
eanax on October 28, 2007 at 10:09 PM
enough of this crap. She is the First Lady of the USA she is for better or worse the “face” of America when abroad. Therefore She should present Americian culture to other countries. Not subjucate herself to their culture. We in America have make a choice to not live in the 7th century. She needs to bring that point home to all the world. This is a new low for America. I am ashamed of our leaders. clinton/Bush what is the difference. Two of a kind. We need to go in a new direction. Fred, rudy, Mitt anyone but Clinton/Bush.
unseen on October 28, 2007 at 10:17 PM
Are they really just stereotypes?? It’s not really up to the women in these muslim countries to be breaking down anything! For sh*ts sake, they’re too afraid and embarassed to do anything for themselves even when it is confirmed they have breast cancer. Sure, I’d be great to get to know them, only their male family members and their damned religion won’t allow it.
So yes, I’m still disapointed in Barbara Bush’s decision to wear the veil. For those women’s sakes, it was not a positive thing to do.
4shoes on October 28, 2007 at 10:42 PM
Sure, I’d be…= Sure, it’d be…
4shoes on October 28, 2007 at 10:44 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »