Quotes of the day
posted at 9:35 pm on June 5, 2009 by Allahpundit
“Who is a real reformer? Obama’s message is that all of this [violence] has nothing to do with Islam. He says that progress and human rights are perfectly reconcilable with Islam. ‘Islam is peace.’ He sticks to the line that there is nothing to reform in there. According to the President, we are only fighting a very small number of extremists, but it’s not Islam, so if that’s the case then there really isn’t much to reform. The true reformers — the moderate Muslims — take away from the speech that they can’t depend on the Obama administration to criticize Islam. Between the lines it’s as if he is saying that he will prevent Islam from negative stereotyping or something like that, which is ridiculous because he can’t do that. But most Muslims as we know, believe that negative stereotyping is equal to criticizing Islam.
Obama said ‘let’s speak plainly to one another’; I would have liked him to have added, ‘and that means let us face some of your religious principles and how they are radically different from American principles.’ That’s what we need to talk about. His plain speaking went as far as saying we have a right to be in Afghanistan because Al-Qaeda attacked and keeps trying to attack us… but what inspires Al-Qaeda? Why are people we call moderates not facing up to Al-Qaeda? What is it about Islamic values that causes this? His plain speaking ended exactly where George Bush’s and all the Presidents that came before him… and Tony Blair… ended: with the selective quoting from the Koran. It’s like Hillary Clinton putting on the headscarf as a ‘sign of respect.’”
***
“Sen. Jim Inhofe said today that President Barack Obama’s speech in Cairo was ‘un-American’ because he referred to the war in Iraq as ‘a war of choice’ and didn’t criticize Iran for developing a nuclear program.”
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: « Previous 1 2 3
Every “moderate” muslim commentator I’ve heard at length was just a westernized middle easterner infected with post modern moral relativism. They are as muslim as pelosi is catholic.
No. They weren’t wonderful, generous, warm people because they were muslim, they were that way because those are basic human qualities. Islam is an ideology of hate that overwhelms and oppresses those qualities. Islam has a 1500 year history of violence, atrocities, conquest and oppression. There are plenty of other ideologies with negative characteristics or historical events, islam just happens to be thorough, virulent and toxic. Fascism is another like islam and we have a president who admires both.
peacenprosperity on June 6, 2009 at 7:37 AM
I’m afraid the tipping point has been reached and the collapse is in progress. During the middle ages there were enough “unelightened” europeans that could fight back with brutality to match the muslims and fight them back to mainly the middle east. The west has become so weak and pathetic, that with democrat societies by the time public opinion reaches the point that enough people realize what needs to be done, the war will be over. There will be no Enlightenment in islam because there is no basis for it. The only love is for believers, the rest of us must be enslaved or die. The whole idea that we can win over these infected societies through kindness and communication is really rediculous. Nearly all “islamic” states are authoritarian, do we really think they are going to sit back and have the weapons by which they hold their power “dissolved” by love? Try walking across the african veldt naked and trying to win over the pride of lions you meet up with through kindness and communication. The fundamental problem with moral relativism is that those infected cannot accept that there are severe and fundamental differences in societies. It’s much easier for a more enlightened society to move down in it’s tactics and behavior then for an unelightened society to move up. That means that if the West is dealing with a culture that admires strength and brutality more then communication and intellect, the West must be more brutal to open that societies eyes to communication. But as I started, I think we’ve passed the tipping point.
peacenprosperity on June 6, 2009 at 7:53 AM
It is, after all just us Christians that the world need fear! Don’t worry about the Muslims! We are the true threat to you all! Witness the constant and increasing hatred spewed at us right here in America! The land that was founded by…let’s see…oh yea…Christians!!!
So what do Christians teach that is so threatening to the rest of the world. Love your neighbor as yourself. Serve others. The first shall be last and the last shall be first. Turn the other cheek. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Serve one another. Love one another as Christ loved us first (he died for us).
Yup…pretty scary stuff!
sabbott on June 6, 2009 at 8:07 AM
I’ve been through a lot of presidents in my time, good and bad. Never have I seen one who seemed weak and pathetic and clueless as to what is going on in the world around him. Nor have I seen one who actually seemed ashamed of what America represents. Until now.
scalleywag on June 6, 2009 at 8:24 AM
Bless all those who partook in that “Great Crusade” in 1944.
blatantblue on June 6, 2009 at 8:57 AM
If only our nation took the time to remember the final sacrifices of thousands of boys on that beach. It’s a shame only half of us (at best) does.
blatantblue on June 6, 2009 at 9:01 AM
Just young boys
unreal — its hard not to cry when you think about it
blatantblue on June 6, 2009 at 9:02 AM
Since Obama is on a mission to apologize to the world I wish he would apologize for Fanny and Freddie and for the Community Reinvestment act which caused the global financial meltdown.
It was a Governement caused disaster.
Geochelone on June 6, 2009 at 9:03 AM
Days like this are perspective shifters
Jeeze — just when I get stressed out and think about everything going on not only in my life, but in the world, I look back on what these guys went through and my stress just melts away, but is replaced by a feeling of stupidity for ever feeling stressed out in the first place — for feeling stressed in the shadow of something like D-Day.
What audacity on the part of someone like me
blatantblue on June 6, 2009 at 9:07 AM
I hope Obama apologizes to the world for thinking that the war in Iraq was lost and that we should have cut and run when we were winning. That would have caused a civil war if we pulled out and Iraqis would not even be allowed to vote. Millions would have died.
I hope Obama apologizes to the world and tells our troops he is sorry for being so stupid and seditious.
Geochelone on June 6, 2009 at 9:07 AM
Remember Private William Long,
http://logisticsmonster.com/2009/06/05/are-you-freakin-kidding-me-muslim-crashes-remembrance-rally/
Dr Evil on June 6, 2009 at 9:19 AM
His Cairo speech on Islam sounded just like his Notre Dame speech on abortion. In both he glossed over the serious issues with his ‘commonality’ pap. It was the hollow weaseling/pandering of a silver-tongued community organizer. Or, as Krauthammer put it: “Abstract, vapid, and self-absorbed”
petefrt on June 6, 2009 at 9:23 AM
Un-American is exactly the right word for it.
petefrt on June 6, 2009 at 9:26 AM
How can we ever have commonality with wahabiism? Or does he consider sharia law followers “extremists”? If he does, then he should have the cajones to say so.
ctmom on June 6, 2009 at 9:39 AM
Words! Just words! Now we find out that this administration reduced the US funding of democracy groups in Egypt to $20 million from $50 million.
Vince on June 6, 2009 at 9:41 AM
That video made me livid. I would like to see her dead.
I suppose that unless and until Christians and their few other allies start taking to the streets and protesting in front of mosques, acorn offices, code pink offices, newsrooms, congress and the like, the opposition will rightly have no fear of us.
In a similar vein, the Obama justice dept’s decision to drop all charges against the several armed black panthers who were intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling station is something so egregious that I don’t understand why their wasn’t mass rioting against the government. I’ve faxed/emailed all the Rep. members of the House judiciary committee expressing my outrage and demanding that they launch an investigation into the actions of AG Holder.
Obama is black, Holder is black, the defendents are black. The decision was racially motivated, pure and simple.
This bit*ch feels so secure and empowered that she would dare to interrupt a remembrance gathering only days after one of her co-religionists murdered the soldier and gravely wounded another.
Why does she feel so secure? Why aren’t we in her face? I see no way out short of mass protest and resistance. The “system” no longer works.
JiangxiDad on June 6, 2009 at 9:44 AM
Typical word games from the new god.
They are all wars of choice.
A country chooses to resist a threat.
Apparently too many people do not see the orchestrated take over of the country as a real threat yet and are choosing to not fight for it in fear of being called names. How cheaply we’re selling this country. On this day that remembers what evils can be defeated with unity of purpose and courage, I can’t help but think the shame those young men and women would feel for their present day country men and the ignorant passivity of so much of the rest of the world.
Maobama apologizes to the world for the America of the past??
I apologize to those men and women for what seems to be the America of the present.
Itchee Dryback on June 6, 2009 at 9:48 AM
I am watching Fox News and the D-Day anniversary coverage. PM Brown just referenced “Obama” Beach- uh, think you MAY mean Omaha Beach.
cibolo on June 6, 2009 at 9:52 AM
Freudian slip.
He may be finally realizing that Obama is the beach that the world needs to conquer.
Itchee Dryback on June 6, 2009 at 9:55 AM
.
Make that the “Post-Christian West”. It is cowardly and craven and very very dangerous. By contrast Islam is trying to stave off the future by returning to the past: social unity through jihad and Jim Crowe like oppression of non-Muslim peoples. The Post-Christian West fabricates social constructs that facilitate the grisly execution of around 50 million unborn children in the US alone since Wade vs. Roe. Now we are about to start manufacturing doomed children as raw material for industrial and consumer manufacturing. And then then there is the Post-Christian West’s fall back position of Peace through threat of Mutually Assured Destruction. Given that Homo Sapiens appears to be the only species without an instinctual brake on killing its own kind … what can go wrong?!
.
Islamic culture is founded on the “victimage mechanism”. That is after all what Jihad is: social unity and temporary internal social peace via way of murdering socially marginal victims. Unfortunately that game is up. Islam will likely dissolve in some awful fashion or another. Muslims sense this. They don’t understand it. But they sense and fear this because they know that without their traditional methods of achieving unity they will descend into a chaos of reciprocal violence and cruelty.
Mike OMalley on June 6, 2009 at 10:28 AM
The idea that Saddam would choose to be contained while we were fighting in Afghanistan and Pakistan is laughable. Look what Iran is doing openly.
At what point of Saddam forbidding inspections would you have gone in with our military? And even if you had inspections and caught Saddam doing what Iran is doing openly, how would you justify taking military action? There would be a nuclear arms race between Iran and Iraq right now. Saddam wasn’t holding onto 550 tons of uranium for nothing.
Buddahpundit on June 6, 2009 at 11:01 AM
Let’s just pull out of Iraq. I’m sure that’ll stop all the killing of Muslims there.
Daggett on June 6, 2009 at 11:25 AM
This is interesting Highly recommend this read because it isn’t being discussed anywhere I have been reading about the Cairo Speech. When Did Obama become Spokesman in Chief for Islam where is that in the Job description of the United States of America President?
http://cinie.wordpress.com/2009/06/06/the-combination-of-church-and-state/
Dr Evil on June 6, 2009 at 11:28 AM
It wasn’t by choice, but by force, that he was contained. Saddam’s nuclear program had been degraded since 1998. North Korea and Iran were known to be further along. Why pick the least advanced of the Axis to invade and leave the other two to improve their technology?
dedalus on June 6, 2009 at 11:44 AM
.
But Saddam’s nuclear program endured and could have been been fully reconstituted in 12 to 14 months. Indeed note the illicit funding that UN Oil-for-Food Program provided Saddam sufficient resource to maintain these programs and to continue WMD development is some areas such as rocket engines. Note the illicit activity in purchases ob Saddam of “dual use” development materials from firms such as Siemens.
.
Moreover, back in 2002 just about everyone’s intelligence services overrated Saddam’s capabilities and underrated Iran’s and the perhaps the Nork’s. We only discovered our error because defeated and overthrew Saddam.
.
However, Saddam may nonetheless been far more dangerous in 2002 than we now believe. Note the CIA’s incompetence at still being unable to tell us what portions of Saddam’s WMD programs were shipped out of Iraq by Russian special forces in the weeks before the US invasions.
.
Consider the CIA’s failure to predict the Sunni-Saddamite insurgency. The CIA had interviewed many Saddamite leaders who had to be aware of the pre-invassion Saddamite plans for the post-invasion insurgency. If the Cia missed that, ask yourself, how reliable was the CIA work regarding the post-invasion search for WMDs which relied on interviews with the very same men?
Mike OMalley on June 6, 2009 at 12:32 PM
Does this mean you are advocating military action against Iran right now? I didn’t think so.
Why Iraq? Because that was the country we were in the process of “containing”. A process which included inspections, UN declarations, and a schedule within the containment process that could have been complied with to prevent war.
I don’t think Hussein was this kindly uncle type figure you make him out to be. He used WMD against civilian populations and there was no reason to believe that he wouldn’t do it again in the future. We don’t even know where his known and catalogued WMDs are and that was no doubt a tiny fraction of what he held in his arsenal. But you can argue “they weren’t found so they never existed” if you like.
Buddahpundit on June 6, 2009 at 12:49 PM
I still think it was to put a democracy square in the middle of the Middle East and right up against Iran, with another democracy/western troops in Afghanistan on the eastern border.
Dr. ZhivBlago on June 6, 2009 at 12:53 PM
If there is a military solution to Iran’s nuclear program, I’m for it.
Saddam wasn’t kindly. He was a brutal mobster but the world is filled with those. The issue was his geo-politcal significance and the national security threat he posed.
dedalus on June 6, 2009 at 1:21 PM
We’ll see if Iraq can hold together after we leave. If it can avoid civil war and function as a democracy that will have a significant effect on the region.
I don’t know if anyone believes that Afghanistan will function as anything beyond a corrupt collection of tribes. If we can keep AQ out of the country that is probably the best we can do.
dedalus on June 6, 2009 at 1:31 PM
If the CIA is so unreliable that we have to go to war each time because we have to assume the CIA has missed evidence we believe is there, then reforming our intelligence process is more important than Iraq, Iran or the financial crisis.
dedalus on June 6, 2009 at 1:34 PM
Saddams Iraq was in continued violation of a ceasefire agreement after a hot fire war.
The Norks and the Mullahs of Iran were not, so where would the validation of dealing with them have come from? You seem to be suggesting that nothing should have been done at all.
At what point would you advocate that …dare I say it??…words have consequences?
Itchee Dryback on June 6, 2009 at 2:25 PM
What do you mean “if”? We have a pretty big military with lots of very powerful bombs. Are you saying that there might be no military solution and we should resign ourselves to a nuclear Iran?
If you could be convinced that there is a military solution, would you want some sort of process in place where war could be prevented, like timetables and inspections, before we started bombing them? If so, how many refusals to abide by the timetable should be tolerated before we commence with the Shock and Awe?
Buddahpundit on June 6, 2009 at 2:31 PM
Validation would come from acting based on a national security threat. If stopping Iran is essential to US national security then the decision is based on that.
With Saddam. We controlled his air space. He wasn’t going anywhere other than hiding among his palaces.
dedalus on June 6, 2009 at 2:39 PM
Iran seems intent on building a nuke. We have to establish a threshold beyond which we wouldn’t accept further development. A military operation would have to be calculated based on achieving a long-term objective at acceptable cost. Having a lot of tanks and bombs is good, but we have to be convinced that we can achieve a result of lasting value.
The number of warnings and timetables is less important than defining what the end result would be.
dedalus on June 6, 2009 at 2:46 PM
I think you are trying to require definitions for the impossible to define and predict before we could act. As for “lasting result”, define that for me and quantify the “cost” that would be to high to prevent Iran from having a nuclear missile arsenal. We aren’t going to create any utopias no matter what we do, but some outcomes are better than other outcomes.
Did Israel’s attack on Iraq’s nuclear program back in 1981 follow all your guidelines?
Buddahpundit on June 6, 2009 at 3:34 PM
Sure. The Israel strike offered a great result at little cost.
The US plans can range from an air strike to occupying the country. The first is probably not going to significantly slow down the Iranians while the second is likely too costly for the US to do alone. All the solutions that are somewhere in the middle probably have some fairly detailed feasibility studies being updated at the Pentagon.
dedalus on June 6, 2009 at 4:16 PM
Define “significantly”. Follow-up attacks are always on the table.
I don’t think you ever got around to quantifying what is too high of a cost to prevent lunatics from having an arsenal of nuclear missiles.
Buddahpundit on June 6, 2009 at 4:59 PM
But my point was that, if years of violations of a signed cease fire agreement.. among numerous other deceptions, and the almost weekly missile launches against monitoring aircraft can still cause the “lets be nice” crowd to find fault in taking action, what is the basis to believe that a policy of just throwing up an ambiguous concept of “Security Threat” would produce anything but time for him to find ways to deceive? Actually, I think it was a mistake to try and appease the voices in this country that all those steps taken to cut Saddam time to comply were “smart power”. None of that was necessary imo, and just gave time for him to cover any tracks. It should have gone like this. “You broke the cease fire agreement…Its back on Bitch”…. “FIRE!”
Your idea looks good on paper, but reality has shown time and again what trusting freedoms enemies brings. The NORKS are a recent example..Iran another.
Outside of thinky “should be like that” philosophy, what are you basing that kind of faith in?
Itchee Dryback on June 6, 2009 at 5:12 PM
Yeah… thats worked really well in the past. Lets get a bunch of politicians on both sides of an issue making a tasty word salad out of things by arguing over what “Security Threat” means, until ..like the NORKS, they announce..”Hey!..guess what?..we have big explody things now too.” and then the policy chefs and make another word salad over what to do about it, until another nutbag country has nukes.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Words have meaning. No means no.
Itchee Dryback on June 6, 2009 at 5:32 PM
My point is that we define security threat–not in conjunction with other nations. Ultimately, some politicians are involved since they get elected and tell the military what to do.
dedalus on June 6, 2009 at 6:17 PM
umm. The only reason I replied twice to your post, D. is because the first one never posted, so I didn’t want to rewrite all that crap, so I condensed it down to the 2nd. post.
Odd.
Itchee Dryback on June 6, 2009 at 6:19 PM
I understood that. I was talking about our politicians. Other nations know they don’t have to bother. We’ll shoot our own selves in the foot causing us to…drag our feet. Until its too late.
Itchee Dryback on June 6, 2009 at 6:23 PM
Amongst all the talk of the containment of Saddam, one element missing is the eventual sucession of one or both of his murderous sons; I have always thought that this was an unspoken part of the calculus involved in the containment/removal decision.
Also, as others have suggested, an ally in a stable Iraq, and a military presence there, forms a nice beach-head when Iran gets ever more militaristic. Look at the situation in Libya; absent a sponsor nation, and viewing the threat imposed by the coalition presence nearby, they volutarily gave up their nastier weapons programs.
Sometimes, the big dog in the next yard can be a deterrent.
massrighty on June 6, 2009 at 6:23 PM
volutarily = voluntarily
must. use. preview.
massrighty on June 6, 2009 at 6:25 PM
With the air strikes one concern appears to be how far underground the facilities are. We know from the past few years that our intelligence doesn’t always provide us the most accurate info.
A cost that would be too high might be one that bankrupts the country and ultimately leaves us unable to even pay for our military. That tends to be how empires decline.
dedalus on June 6, 2009 at 6:27 PM
Having the right guys win elections is the key. Right now the hawks in the GOP are getting trounced for a variety of reasons–most not due to public opinion on the military.
dedalus on June 6, 2009 at 6:30 PM
I guess we don’t yet have any examples of empires declining by allowing lunatics to build arsenals of nuclear missiles, so why concern ourselves with it?
If you were really concerned about money issues of preventing lunatics from building arsenals of nuclear missiles, you could advocate that we pay for it by paying the debt with Iranian oil.
Buddahpundit on June 6, 2009 at 7:18 PM
We do have an example of the Soviets getting spent into the ground by us. If we had to occupy Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan the cost would be more than our economy could absorb.
The oil idea is a good one, though it hasn’t worked out too well with Iraq. Iran’s oil revenues are $50B/year. That is before costs, and costs would increase if we had to secure all of the oil facilities against guerrilla attacks from those who didn’t want us to take the oil.
dedalus on June 6, 2009 at 7:34 PM
Whys that?
Play footsie forever while the enemies gets stronger with more advanced tech..or keep kicking them in the nuts as cheaply as possible. Knock their blocks down..when they bend over to pick them up, pinch their noses and kick them a few times.
The NORKS??..screw the NORKS, take out their facilities. Do you really think that Chiner will start a war over that? Iran?..screw ‘em. isolate the facilities and make them rebuild. Sounds cheaper to me than endlessly playing this cat and mouse crap.
It’s a new ballgame, and thats how its played..and it works. Its whats happening in this country with Maobama just barging past the Constitution, acting like “Laws?…screw those laws, and you ain’t seen nothin’ yet”.. its a new strategy and no one knows how to handle it. The Russians are doing it..the Com-Chi’s are doing it. South American thugs are doing it. They figured out that all that will happen is an angry look and a wagging finger.
Call the bluff and feel the audacity of having balls…..Oh Wait!…we have a pussy for a President.
Never mind.
Itchee Dryback on June 6, 2009 at 8:01 PM
May we never forget the brave men and women who gave their all 65 yrs. ago today.
blr2449 on June 6, 2009 at 8:36 PM
Were you comatose during the Carter admin?
Just kidding.
Akzed on June 7, 2009 at 7:59 PM
ALL wars are “wars of choice’”
You can choose to fight or you can choose to surrender
DSchoen on June 8, 2009 at 4:42 AM
BULLS**T. The sooner the American people come to grips with the fact, that the world is at war with Islam, and always has been since the sixth century. Proof can be found in Bosnia, and Kosovo where the Ottoman wars of the 13th century never were finished, and are still raging. But, you’d never know it, because the the MSMs have their heads up their butts, and after all folks, we mustn’t hurt Muslim feelings.
byteshredder on June 8, 2009 at 3:05 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3