I think columnist Charles Krauthammer makes some excellent points in this article from January 30. His basic argument: that President Obama has no need to apologize to Muslims for America's actions in recent years.
Krauthammer, a nationally syndicated writer for the Washington Post, asks, "is it 'new' to acknowledge Muslim interests and show respect to the Muslim world? Obama doesn't just think so, he said so again to millions in his al-Arabiya interview, insisting on the need to 'restore' the 'same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago.'"
Krauthammer is dumbfounded. What have we been doing the last 20 years? Nothing short of bleeding and dying for Muslims. As he puts it: "Astonishing. In these most recent 20 years -- the alleged winter of our disrespect of the Islamic world -- America did not just respect Muslims, it bled for them. It engaged in five military campaigns, every one of which involved -- and resulted in -- the liberation of a Muslim people: Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq."
The Balkans, in particular (along with Somalia, thrown in at this point in the article), were humanitarian missions where no vital U.S. interest was present. "In these 20 years," Krauthammer says, "this nation has done more for suffering and oppressed Muslims than any nation, Muslim or non-Muslim, anywhere on earth. Why are we apologizing?"
Excellent point. And one that is hard to dispute. Krauthammer then turns to the relationship between the U.S. and the Muslim world, noting that the great relations of 20 to 30 years ago spoken of by President Obama involved the Iranian takeover of the American Embassy in Tehran, the Arab oil embargo; the murder by Arab terrorists of the U.S. ambassador in Sudan, the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, and the assortment of terrorist attacks on U.S. interests worldwide that brought Islamic terrorism to the forefront of American foreign policy.
Krauthammer says, "...it is both false and deeply injurious to this country to draw a historical line dividing America under Obama from a benighted past when Islam was supposedly disrespected and demonized."
He couldn't be more correct.
And what of our treatment of Muslims? "In these seven years since 9/11 -- seven years during which thousands of Muslims rioted all over the world (resulting in the death of more than 100) to avenge a bunch of cartoons -- there's not been a single anti-Muslim riot in the United States to avenge the greatest massacre in U.S. history. On the contrary. In its aftermath, we elected our first Muslim member of Congress and our first president of Muslim parentage."
Well said, Mr. Krauthammer.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/01/us_respected_and_bled_for_musl.html
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
email
print
Comments: 68
This is a sore point in the Arab world. Also, Al Qaeda is having a tougher time making Obama the evil boggey man. Especialy since Obama has the Muslim name Hussien.
Seriously, is that the best you can do? Krauthammer is a gifted, intelligent, well-versed writer of commentary. He won the 1987 Pulitzer Prize for distinguished commentary, and the highest award possible for magazine writing, the National Magazine Award for Essays and Criticism.
Aside from that, can you legitimately refute any of the points he's made? Or are you only capable of childish insults?
I see you're as intelligent as L. Wade.
Sad part, he acted on those words.
Not verbatim. But the message was clear.
Does he really believe that? Not me. The ones who engineered these "wars" (Occupations) did them to take control of Middle East Oil (build a global empire...) and those who bled, the soldiers, were brainwashed into thinking that they were "fighting for freedom" and "defending America."
This isn't just some radical opinion. I do the research and the truth is painfully obvious.
You want to hear what these elite Engineers of War have to say about our brave children being sacrificed for the Corporatocracy? Here is how much those power hungry avaricious monsters appreciate all that blood.
"Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy."
-- Henry Kissinger
"Does he really believe that? Not me."
Read the history. What Krauthammer says is factually accurate. You have to make a distinction between intent and result. Why someone engaged in a war may or may not have anything to do with the outcome.
"...the soldiers, were brainwashed into thinking that they were 'fighting for freedom' and 'defending America.'"
You're speculating. Unless, of course, you're a soldier who was brainwashed. I, on the other hand, as a soldier who has participated in 3 of these wars, can you tell you firsthand that I was NOT brainwashed to believe anything.
"Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy."
Kissinger operated during a time when we had a draft military. The quality and level of individual thinking at that time was far inferior to what we have in the all-volunteer force of today.
And I find it interesting that you picked a Republican Secretary of State to quote as an example of a power hunger monster. Was it not Clinton who intervened in Bosnia and Kosovo?
The Balkans and Kosovo are not in the Middle East.
What's factually inaccurate in Krauthammer's article.
It's what he's leaving out that is outrageous. Like how we embargoed Iraq until two million civilians died. Or we're one of the main reasons that Israel feels free to do as they please with Gaza and the West Bank or that the Taliban took over Afghanistan in the first place. We support dictatorial regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt yet think that saving a few others will make up for it. The 2nd Iraq War caused massive numbers of death of civilians at the hands of American bullets and bombs.
He seems to be completely unaware of those events while only highlighting a few good ones. Does he, or you, think that the murder of two million civilians, a quarter of whom were younger than 5, does not warrant an apology? How about the imprisonment of a hundred million Muslims and Christians in Egypt and KSA with the help of the US?
"It's what he's leaving out that is outrageous."
But nothing he says if factually inaccurate.
"Like how we embargoed Iraq until two million civilians died."
What's "we?" The international community with the blessing of the United Nations.
"Or we're one of the main reasons that Israel feels free to do as they please with Gaza and the West Bank...."
Does Israel not have the right to defend itself against rocket, mortar, and suicide attacks?
"We support dictatorial regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt yet think that saving a few others will make up for it."
All countries create, maintain, and sever alliances based on their individual national interests. Sometimes that means you associate with unsavory characters; it is the national interest that prevails. This is not something that is uniquely American.
A few others? Tens of millions is a few?
"The 2nd Iraq War caused massive numbers of death of civilians at the hands of American bullets and bombs."
Actually, the vast majority of Iraqi casualties have been the result of Iraqi on Iraqi violence. I know it supports your argument better to say otherwise, but that doesn't make it true.
Krauthammer is a partisan op-ed writer who shares his misguided opinions in the Washington Post and on Fox News. I have always wondered about people like him -- what happened in his own past to bring out such venomous, (some would say racist) tirades?
That doesn't change the fact that a lot of the deaths (tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands) were at the hands of Americans, Britons and others. Do we excuse abuse of blacks by whites by noting black on black violence? Of course not. Both should be condemned. One shouldn't do what you do which is excuse the deaths of Iraqis by Americans by pointing to Muslim on Iraqi violence.
"A few others? Tens of millions is a few? "
If you noticed, I wasn't going by numbers of citizens. I was going by countries. So I was correct in saying a few others. Try to read in context next time.
"This is not something that is uniquely American. "
Never said it was but that doesn't make it right. The question still begs: do you think that aligning ourselves with the likes of KSA and Egypt would require or at least could ask for an apology?
"Does Israel not have the right to defend itself against rocket, mortar, and suicide attacks? "
Are they allowed to restrict food, aid and fuel supplies into Gaza, which starves Gazans every day? Is that a right? Are they allowed to inflict punishment upon the entire population of Gaza despite only a small fraction of them being Hamas fighters? They did the same thing in Gaza as they did in Lebanon, which was to attack civilian infrastructure. Is collective punishment a right? It is, however, a war crime.
"What's "we?" The international community with the blessing of the United Nations."
And the US is still a part of it.
You seem to be making excuses for the actions of the US, rather than disputing them. The facts remain that the US has committed amazing atrocities against Arabs and Muslims, Christians and Jews, which, to many whom have a conscience, would warrant an apology. You may think that murder, rape, torture, aggression, oppression and the condoning thereof does not warrant such an action but that doesn't mean that a legitimate argument can't be made that one does need such an apology.
"Nowhere does President Obama make an apology."
Not explicitly, but implicitly. His message is clear.
"Krauthammer is a partisan op-ed writer...."
Did you know he got his start under Carter? And that he had way more good to say about Obama in the general election campaign period than he did bad?
"...who shares his misguided opinions in the Washington Post...."
Kind of like Krugman does at the New York Times, wouldn't you say?
Ah, but you said we were responsible for at least two million deaths just from sanctions. Now we've dropped the estimate to the tens of thousands or (only by the wildest estimates) the hundreds of thousands.
"Do we excuse abuse of blacks by whites by noting black on black violence?"
Two different animals.
"Of course not. Both should be condemned."
Yet you didn't bother to mention the Iraqi on Iraqi violence. You only condemned deaths caused by the U.S.
"One shouldn't do what you do which is excuse the deaths of Iraqis by Americans by pointing to Muslim on Iraqi violence."
I'm not excusing deaths. What I am doing is demonstrating the falsity of your remarks.
"Never said it was...."
But your focus was singularly on the United States.
"The question still begs: do you think that aligning ourselves with the likes of KSA and Egypt would require or at least could ask for an apology?"
Absolutely not. Those alliances are in the national interests of our nation. A president should never apologize for attempting to achieve national interests.
"Are they allowed to restrict food, aid and fuel supplies into Gaza, which starves Gazans every day? Is that a right?"
When those same entry points are used to smuggle weapons that kill Israelis? Yes. If the Palestinians won't filter what comes into the country, then Israel has the right to deny entry of goods into the country when some of those goods are used to attack Israel.
"Are they allowed to inflict punishment upon the entire population of Gaza despite only a small fraction of them being Hamas fighters?"
Punishment of the entire population of Gaza is easily avoided if Hamas stops storing weapons in hospitals, schools, and mosques, and if Hamas stops hiding fighters among the civilian population.
"And the US is still a part of it."
But again, your focus was singularly on the United States. You fail to mention anyone else until your inaccuracies are pointed out.
"You may think that murder, rape, torture, aggression, oppression and the condoning thereof does not warrant such an action...."
Where is the U.S. government sanctioned rape? Where is the murder? Was Saddam not an oppressor of the Iraqi people? Is the world not a better place without him?
Through our actions, we have inflamed Muslim extremism and tarnished our reputation and credibility. The Bush/Cheney policy was misinformed and misguided. The soldiers themselves are trying to do their best -- my future son-in-law did two tours there, but said our forces are ill-equipped (cardboard doors on old green-camouflaged vehicles in the desert which stuck out like sore thumbs against the landscape; no flak jackets when going door-to-door, etc.)
The world will be a better, safer place when we show restraint, and when we choose our battles wisely.
You must have trouble reading. I'm not dropping the number down. I'm talking about two different events. In one event, the death toll is estimated to be about two million. In another death toll in a different event (the 2nd Iraq War), the death toll is tens to hundreds of thousands.
"Yet you didn't bother to mention the Iraqi on Iraqi violence. You only condemned deaths caused by the U.S. "
"But your focus was singularly on the United States. "
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but this discussion is about the US and its actions. Krauthammer wasn't talking about Obama apologizing for the world, but for the US. Thus, we're talking singularly about the US actions and those that are directly related. If we were talking about Muslim on Iraqi (not just Iraqi on Iraqi), then I'd talk about the violence there while leaving the US out of it. Got it? Stick to the topic at hand.
"Absolutely not. Those alliances are in the national interests of our nation. A president should never apologize for attempting to achieve national interests. "
That's fine. But then by that logic, no dictator would ever have to apologize for his actions because they can just say they're doing it for national interests. You see the slippery slope? Should Iran have to apologize for their atrocities? Should Germany apologize for the Holocaust? Russia for the Holomodor? They could all just as easily say that their actions were for the national interest and thus they are justified.
"When those same entry points are used to smuggle weapons that kill Israelis? Yes. "
Even those that is a clear war crime? You seem to have zero morality. Apparently you think that laws do not matter at all.
"Where is the U.S. government sanctioned rape? Where is the murder?"
In places like KSA, Egypt, etc. Are you really blind to the oppression that those regimes do to their citizens? We give those regimes BILLIONS of dollars, not just in spite of what they do, but because of what they do. We want their governments to crack down on their citizens and hold all of the political power.
"Punishment of the entire population of Gaza is easily avoided if Hamas stops storing weapons in hospitals, schools, and mosques, and if Hamas stops hiding fighters among the civilian population. "
No, it'd be easily avoidable if Israel didn't bomb EVERYTHING that came into sight. Israel has ADMITTED that the UN schools they destroyed had ZERO militants in them yet they destroyed them anyway with civilians inside. There goes your argument of hiding among the civilians. As we've seen in Gaza and Lebanon, they also destroy civilian roadways while telling the civilian population to USE those same roadways. They are deliberately saying to use a structure and then bomb that same structure. They are inviting them to the places where they will slaughter them.
" Was Saddam not an oppressor of the Iraqi people? Is the world not a better place without him?"
Yes. And the US supported him! So we can easily see that we made the right decision in the '80's when we funneled money and technology to him.
"I beg to differ."
Perhaps it's a matter of perception. But I can tell you this: I read Krauthammer's column every Friday, and was struck by his approach to Obama during the campaign. There was genuine admiration expressed in the writing, even if Krauthammer did not agree with a given policy. My takeaway feeling virtually every time he wrote about Obama was one of surprise.
"But our continued presence in Iraq has nothing to do with Saddam and everything to do with oil."
If only it were that simple. Our continued presence has to do with stabilizing the country so that it doesn't turn into a 1980s / 1990s Afghanistan, containment of Iran, and strategic presence in the Middle East. If it were about oil, the major contracts would not be going to Russian, Chinese, Dutch, and other firms.
In case you hadn't noticed, Muslim extremism was inflamed long before we went into Iraq. As for tarnishing our reputation and credibility, it would have been far more tarnished if we had pulled out and left Iraq a failed state, as Mr. Obama proposed in 2007.
"The Bush/Cheney policy was misinformed and misguided."
You do know that the policy of regime change in Iraq was implemented by President Clinton, don't you? Bush inherited that policy and acted where Clinton failed to. But Bush most certainly did not create the policy of regime change in Iraq.
"...cardboard doors on old green-camouflaged vehicles in the desert which stuck out like sore thumbs against the landscape; no flak jackets when going door-to-door, etc...."
That was 2003. Those problems had been remedied by mid-2004, and it is most certainly not the case today.
The trouble occurs because you hop around subject matter trying to cover inaccuracies.
"In one event, the death toll is estimated to be about two million."
By whom?
"I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but this discussion is about the US and its actions. Krauthammer wasn't talking about Obama apologizing for the world, but for the US."
Krauthammer said we had done more for Muslims than any other nation, acknowledgement that there were others involved.
"That's fine. But then by that logic, no dictator would ever have to apologize for his actions because they can just say they're doing it for national interests."
Correct. National interests, and the methods employed to achieve them, vary by nation and by the leader charged with achieving them.
"You seem to have zero morality."
Who are you to judge my morality?
"Apparently you think that laws do not matter at all."
That's not true. But Hamas' smuggling of weapons in the first place violates law. Israel is then forced to take action to protect its people.
"In places like KSA, Egypt, etc."
Can you please direct me to the official U.S. government policy that sanctions rape and murder? I'd be interested in reading it.
"No, it'd be easily avoidable if Israel didn't bomb EVERYTHING that came into sight."
No responsibility for Hamas, huh?
"There goes your argument of hiding among the civilians."
You cannot use an isolated incident as a refutation of a response to a tactic used broadly and consistently by Hamas.
"...they also destroy civilian roadways...."
That Hamas uses to transport fighters and weapons.
"They are deliberately saying to use a structure and then bomb that same structure."
Proof, please. Official Israeli government orders telling the executors of policy to lure innocents into structures so that other executors of policy can then destroy those structures with the innocents in them.
"Yes. And the US supported him!"
When it suited our national interest. When Saddam no longer suited U.S. goals in the region, the alliance was severed. That's the way the real world works.
"Correct. National interests, and the methods employed to achieve them, vary by nation and by the leader charged with achieving them."
Okay then. If that's what you believe, then fine. But I bet that most people would say that a government is responsible for their actions. Would you at least concede that some people may feel that everyone, including those in government, are responsible for their actions, regardless of their intentions (for national interests)?
That's what this is really about. Obama, like many others, feels that the government is responsible for actions that it takes and the consequences of those actions. You don't. And that's fine.
-----
I have a comment written regarding the rest of your previous comment. However, I don't feel that that debate is necessary to have again as I'm sure we've all heard it all by now. I don't see how either one of us will convince the other on those matters but if you choose, I can post it. I'm content if you would admit that others think governments may apologize for their wrongs.
Then stop jumping around.
"But I bet that most people would say that a government is responsible for their actions."
The question is not really one of responsibility, but one of accountability, and more importantly, accountability to whom?
"Would you at least concede that some people may feel that everyone, including those in government, are responsible for their actions, regardless of their intentions (for national interests)?"
Some people may feel that way, yes. And they are certainly entitled to. Some others may not. And they, as well, are entitled to their viewpoint.
"Obama, like many others, feels that the government is responsible for actions that it takes and the consequences of those actions. You don't. And that's fine."
If only it were that cut and dry. In this country, at least, we elect representatives to govern on our behalf. That's why we're a representative republic and not a democracy. In exercising that governance role, we give a great deal of latitude to those elected officials to determine what is in our best interests. They then act on their judgments, which is what we have charged them to do.
President Bush was very clear, repeatedly, that he believed he was acting in the best interests of the American people when he removed Saddam Hussein from power. We gave him that role when we elected him, and we deferred to his judgment for the execution of that role. Accountability comes in at the ballot box. If we as a nation felt that he had violated our trust in him, we could have replaced him in 2004.
So a president may take actions that have unintended consequences, but we elect him or her to make those judgment calls for us. That's the way our system works.
They may, but that doesn't mean I think they necessarily should.
"If we as a nation felt that he had violated our trust in him, we could have replaced him in 2004."
And we replaced him with Obama. Thus, we put our trust in a man who was very much against the war, as opposed to someone very for the war. In a very real way, we feel that he did violate our trust.
Really? Can you provide any statistical data from a research study or equivalent that supports that assertion?
Or are you speaking for yourself and for what you think most Americans feel?
"And we replaced him with Obama."
Bush wasn't on the ballot when Obama ran for President.
"Thus, we put our trust in a man...."
Nearly 60 million voting Americans did not. That's not an insignificant number.
Gosh, I think I've even read anti-Muslim stuff here on Gather. :)
Isolated incidences, but no pervasive presence in American political discourse.
Or are you speaking for yourself and for what you think most Americans feel? "
Look at the 2008 election. Obama won the primary in very large part due to his opposition to the war in Iraq and our actions around the world. He garnered very large portions of his voting bloc due to his appearance as being a reasonable diplomat, one who'd turned back the years of aggression that was prevalent for so long.
Maybe you don't know many liberals. But I know plenty, so I know many of their reasons for their support of Obama. Foreign policy is certainly one of them. You won't see too many of them upset over Obama apologizing for our actions.
"Bush wasn't on the ballot when Obama ran for President. "
We still replaced Bush with Obama, just like we replaced Clinton with Bush, despite Clinton not being on the ballot.
"Nearly 60 million voting Americans did not. That's not an insignificant number."
In the system of winner takes all, it doesn't matter. Just like it didn't matter in 2004. As you said, in 2004, we reelected Bush, thus reaffirming our trust in him with regards to foreign policy. Of course there were 60 million people who didn't vote for him then either. That didn't stop him from claiming a "mandate from the people". We elected Obama in 2008 to make the judgement calls for us just like in 2004 with Bush.
He also conveniently forgets to mention that harm Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay detention camp has had US image in the Middle East and around the world.
Obama did not apologize. He did say ..."We have not been perfect. But if you look at the track record, as you say, America was not born as a colonial power, and that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there's no reason why we can't restore that. And that I think is going to be an important task."
"Look at the 2008 election."
In which the popular vote was much, much closer than the electoral college. Nearly 60 million voted against him. And exit polls revealed that Iraq was near the bottom of voters' concerns by the time the elections actually took place. President Bush's surge had drastically reduced violence in Iraq and the economy was worsening, making the economic health of the country the top issue for the election.
"...one who'd turned back the years of aggression that was prevalent for so long."
You understand, don't you, that we have had an agressive foreign policy since 1945: Korea, attempted invasion in Cuba, Vietnam, Beirut, Grenada, Panama, Desert Storm, Somalia, the Balkans, Kosovo, etc. Democrats and Republicans alike. Aggressive American foreign policy did not begin with George W. Bush, and it will not end with Barack Obama. Look at his statements about increasing the military force in Afghanistan, striking inside Pakistan's borders without Pakistani consent, statements about using the military in Darfur, etc.
"But I know plenty...."
Problem is that they only speak for about half the country. Mr. Obama got 53% of the vote.
"You won't see too many of them upset over Obama apologizing for our actions."
Probably not. But you will see about half the population upset (remember, he got 53% of the vote).
"We still replaced Bush with Obama, just like we replaced Clinton with Bush, despite Clinton not being on the ballot."
Not really. Neither Clinton nor Obama could try to remain in office. To say we replaced someone infers that we were unhappy with their performance and removed them, like the country did with the first President Bush, or with Jimmy Carter.
"In the system of winner takes all, it doesn't matter."
Right. Try using that logic with the congress. Just ask Mr. Obama if he can get ANYTHING done in the Senate without Republican votes. That 60 vote requirement is a bitch if you're the president and your party doesn't hold 60 senate seats.
"That didn't stop him from claiming a 'mandate from the people'.
He controlled both houses of congress as well. Makes all the difference in the world. Now, if only branch of government mattered, it might be a different story. But this is not a monarchy.
"...Krauthammer has WAY off the mark if he really believes that our presence in Afghanistan, Iraq or Kuwait is humanitarian."
Really? In Afghanistan women can go to school again. We are building roads, schools, hospitals, electric plants, etc. We are providing food to the population. Are these not humanitarian acts?
In Iraq, we are repairing infrastructure neglected for 30 years by Saddam Hussein (who was more interested in building palaces than providing services. We have medical missions that travel out to the outlying communities in the desert, providing medicine, clothing, and shelter materials, not to mention clean water and food. Iraq just had an election today in which there were 1,100 candidates vying for just over 400 seats in the parliament. Just 6 years ago there was one name on the ballot, and everone else was appointed by the one guy you couldn't vote against unless you were tired of living.
Are these not humanitarian acts?
In Kuwait we are there at the request of the Kuwaiti government. You see, they asked us to maintain a presence after we removed Iraqi troops from their country in 1991. We liberated their country and they want us there.
"He also conveniently forgets to mention that harm Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay detention camp has had US image in the Middle East and around the world."
Do those negate all the good that has been done? Errors will always be made because we are human, but try to look at the big picture.
Now regardless of anything members of the Muslim religion may have done to us or others, those actions on our part are not acceptable. Killing innocent bystanders as part of our national policy is unacceptable. Tampering with the governments of other nations is unacceptable.
If you tell me about how bad some Muslim is in response you will remind me of my two boys who, when one would be caught doing something wrong would always say that his brother had done something wrong. It's a childish response.
I expect the United States government to have high standards for behavior. I don't expect my nation and my government to sink to the depths of depravity of some other nations. I think we should apologize for our actions because they were wrong. And if we are adults we will acknowledge our sins and try to make amends.
You are absolutely right, Larry........
They should be apologizing to US!!!!!!!
While the Iraq War was not a major focus of the Presidential Election in November, it was a very large part of the Democratic primary, which is what I discussed. Even early on in the Presidential Race, Obama had large chunks of the vote of confidence regarding Iraq, due in large part to his and the public's opposition to the Iraq War.
"Right. Try using that logic with the congress"
I'm just referring to the Presidency. Not the rule of it. Obama is the 100% President of the US. Even if he garnered only 53%, he doesn't have to share one bit of it with McCain, Barr, Nader, McKinney, etc. Nor will he. Thus, when he speaks, he's speaking for all Americans, just as Bush was.
"Probably not. But you will see about half the population upset (remember, he got 53% of the vote). "
He's still the spokesman for the US, in effect.
"In the last several years our weapons of war have killed thousands of women and children in Muslim nations."
That's a very simplistic way to approach the topic. I expected better of you based on your previous threads.
"We invaded two Muslim nations which had not attacked us."
Iraq had to be dealt with sooner or later. Bush felt 12 years of failed sanctions were enough. Saddam Hussein was a menace to the region, a threat to the free flow of oil for the international community, a mass murdering dictator, and he had attacked a U.S. ally in 1991. There were a host of great reasons for getting rid of him. Take your pick.
And while al Qaeda itself was not a country, it was allied with the Taliban government in Afghanistan, which harbored al Qaeda and was funded by al Qaeda.
"We held Muslims in Cuba without trial or other due process against our own law."
Correction--we are still holding Muslims in Cuba without trial or other due process. I have no problem with that. They are not American citizens and enjoy no equal protection under the law. As enemy combatants, they should be subjected to military justice.
"Killing innocent bystanders as part of our national policy is unacceptable."
Can you show me exactly which national policy sanctions the killing of innocent bystanders?
"I think we should apologize for our actions because they were wrong."
And I think we should not apologize for actions because I believe they were justified. wledge our sins and try to make amends.
No wonder these people supported a Marxist Candidate for President, Comrad Obama.
We should have long a go, sealed the boarders with the rest of the world, refused aircraft in these countries, and just let them kill each other, then sold their land for $1.00 an acre.
Now we have them murdering all over the world, and the mindless gulibles crying for the abuse on them.
Charles Krauthammer, hit the nail on the head on this one, except we have been helping them for much longer than 20-30 years. And they have been killing people world wide for over 45 years.
Fair enough. But it certainly came across that way.
"I'm just referring to the Presidency."
That's the problem. No president can act alone. No president can get anything done without the legislative branch. Bush had that branch on his side in through his entire presidency until January 2007, when the winners of the November 2006 mid-terms were sworn in.
"...he doesn't have to share one bit of it with McCain, Barr, Nader, McKinney, etc."
No, but as president he has to represent ALL Americans, which is exactly why you see him considering options for Iraq that do not conform to the 16-month timeline he promised; it's also why he allowed the CIA to continue to operate its overseas detention facilities (the same ones Bush was criticized for); it's also why he qualified his ban on harsh interrogation techniques with a little publicized caveat that reserved the right to use additional techniques later if the limited ones he was allowing proved insufficient; it's why he reversed himself on warrantless wiretaps.
He cannot cater to one party just because he won. If he does, he won't be around for a second term, and he knows that.
"He's still the spokesman for the US, in effect."
I think we're skirting around a similar though here, but semantics are getting in the way. I will agree that he is the spokesman for the U.S., but in fulfillment of that role he is modifying his views to be more representative of the population as a whole, and not just of the party that won the election.
there was no apology...not even alluding to an apology! Simply put, Obama stated it is time to work together, and we will not tolerate terrorists. He also stated he was willing to listen, in an effort to find a solution.
Damn REBEL! How the hell can you keep a war going on if you talk?
okay, darling (ducking before Lainie shows up)... have at it.
Okay let's take them one at a time.
Killing innocent women and children is simplistic? It's simple right enough. It's also murder however you want to slice it. We condemned it when the radicals flew into the World Trade Center, we should condemn it when it's a smart bomb instead of an airplane.
"Iraq had to be dealt with sooner or later." So does Ireland. Does that mean we should invade Ireland. We have to deal with every nation in the world. Come on, say something meaningful.
There were great reasons for getting rid of Hussein. I completely agree. Now can you think of any way that doesn't kill thousands of other people, many of them children? I can think of several. I should think the minds in our nation's Administration could come up with a few themselves.
Many nations harbor criminals who have committed crimes against the U.S. and U.S. citizens. But we don't invade them militarily. Or would you invade every nation harboring a criminal wanted in the U.S.?
So you contend that only American citizens should have the benefit of due process of law. Due process isn't the moral way for a nation to behave, it is a present we give to ourselves but must keep from others. Don't you think that it is unethical, immoral, and downright savage to not grant due process to people, to just snatch them up with no charges and haul them off to torture?
The Administration policy of invading Iraq and Afghanistan with the full knowledge that not only the guilty would be killed and injured but that also lots of others would be hurt. We all know you can't go around setting off big bombs in a city without killing some people who just happen to be nearby. It's called terrorism when the Muslims do it.
The U.S. military was under orders from the Administration to do what they did. They were following national policy.
Perhaps you can justify the murder of children but I cannot. Tell us all. How do you justify killing women and children?
In case you hadn't noticed, Obama has been quite hawkish lately--Afghanistan, Pakistan, flexible on the 16 month timeline in Iraq.....
Oh, I understood the message quite clearly.
Not explicitly, but definitely implicitly. And that olive branch was conditional, followed immediately by Robert Gibbs saying military force was still on the table.
Yes, it is. But in fairness, to include the multiple causes of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in this thread would beyond its scope; not to mention that those topics have been discussed by me and others ad nauseum on Gather already.
"So does Ireland."
More precisely, Northern Ireland, if this is truly a global war on terrorism.
"Does that mean we should invade Ireland."
If Northern Ireland posed a threat to the United States, I would support a preemptive strike. But now that problem is the UK's.
"Now can you think of any way that doesn't kill thousands of other people, many of them children?"
Sanctions didn't work. The UN didn't have the will to finish the job in 1991. We failed to support the Shiite uprising after Desert Storm. Supporting a coup was unlikely to succeed in the type of dictatorship Saddam ran. I'd say we were running out of options.
"Many nations harbor criminals who have committed crimes against the U.S. and U.S. citizens."
Harboring in and of itself is not cause for an invasion, but the relationship between the Taliban and bin Laden was much more extensive; as for Saddam, he did harbor terrorists, but there were a multitude of other reasons for him to go.
"So you contend that only American citizens should have the benefit of due process of law."
American law? Yes.
"...to just snatch them up...."
From a battlefield where they are trying to kill American soldiers.
"...with the full knowledge that not only the guilty would be killed and injured but that also lots of others would be hurt."
I haven't seen a war yet where innocents weren't killed. Iraq 2 wasn't going to be the first.
"It's called terrorism when the Muslims do it."
Terrorism is the deliberate targeting of civilians to achieve a political purpose. When you accidentally kill innocents while targeting bad guys, it is not terrorism.
"How do you justify killing women and children?"
It's not a matter of justification. But as I said, innocents always die in war.
Moreover, Mr. Obama admitted the United States committed "mistakes" in the past, but he now wants to restore "the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago." "
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/01/lethal-olive-branch/
I fail to see why context is so hard for many Liberals to understand. In this statement he is apologizing for our conduct. The fact is this has been building for some time, and much longer than either of the Bushs.
AC, you are rewriting history. Spinning the US presence in Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan as "humanitarian" is laughable.
"Dan, if you believe Obama apologized, maybe you can sell it to Ahmadinejad."
What Ahmadinejad wants is a formal apology, probably in an international forum like the UN. Such an act would be an embarrasment for the country and a sign of weakness for the President.
"AC, you are rewriting history. Spinning the US presence in Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan as "humanitarian" is laughable."
First, you have to separate Kuwait from Iraq and Afghanistan. After we liberated Kuwait from the Iraqi Army (which was a humanitarian deed), US troops stayed at the request of the Kuwaiti government.
As for Iraq and Afghanistan, do you deny the humanitarian work that is being done on a daily basis in both countries?
Well, I'm not going to get into one of those "How many righteous men..." arguments, but I've heard and read a lot of nasty anti Muslim stuff from politicians and others in the ordinary media. I've heard lots nastier stuff here on Gather. I'm sticking with "pervasive." It's "turtles all the way down."
"A lot" is a subjective term. You'll have to quantify it if you want me to buy into the "pervasive" argument. Your perception does not automatically equal reality.
If Kuwait did not have oil and Iraq threat to disrupt oil to the world, we would have sat on the sidelines like we did with Rwanda. We may have liberated the Kuwaiti people but we were being pragmatic, not altruistic.
No, but fortunately for the Afghanis and Iraqis our humanitarian work is a secondary result of our presence.
"Remember those pesky WMD's...."
You mean the ones Bill Clinton said were there? The ones virtually every intelligence agency in the world said were there? The ones Saddam himself said were there? The ones Saddam used against the Iranians and the Kurds? The ones CIA Director George Tenet said he advised the President were there?
Yes, I remember them.
"...we would have sat on the sidelines like we did with Rwanda."
Oh yes, the 1994 Rwanda genocide that occurred on Clinton's watch. Yes, I remember that too.