Our Secretary Of State Is A Big, Fluffy Bunny
"Pathetic: The secretary of state steps up to the plate on Libya--and whiffs," is the headline on Bill Kristol's The Weekly Standard blog item. And here's Big Fluffy Bunny of State Clinton:
The world is watching the situation in Libya with alarm. We join the international community in strongly condemning the violence in Libya. Our thoughts and prayers are with those whose lives have been lost, and with their loved ones. The government of Libya has a responsibility to respect the universal rights of the people, including the right to free expression and assembly. Now is the time to stop this unacceptable bloodshed. We are working urgently with friends and partners around the world to convey this message to the Libyan government.
Kristol writes:
No direct condemnation of the Qaddafi regime. No expression of support for the demonstrators. No hint of action on our part--no immediate economic embargo, no threats against any individuals involved in the atrocities, no call for a U.N. Security Council meeting, no sign of possible NATO enforcement of a no-fly zone, no demand that the border be opened for humanitarian aid. Instead, the State Department is trying to "convey a message" to the Libyan government.This is your State Department at work. Surely there are some in the White House--I think there are some--who are cringing at such an absence of moral clarity on the part of the U.S. government and at such a failure of American leadership. Let's hope they persuade the president to step forward very soon to overrule the State Department, and to put the United States, in both speech and deed, strongly and unequivocally on the side of decency and freedom.
Can't we even pretend to be a world leader in power and freedom? Talk a good game? I guess even that's become too much to ask. And perhaps that's because we're spending so much time engaging in national self-loathing for what a horrrible place America is.
Gad Saad blogs about this at Psychology Today, in regard to an appearance by Tavis Smiley on Bill Maher's "Real Time." When Maher suggested that the treatment of women in the Middle East (meaning, under Islam) had to improve for a meaningful and long-lasting revolution to take place, Smiley lectured Maher about the terrible treatment women face in the USA. (Right. They're stoning us on every street corner, and forcing us to wear...uh...whatever the hell we want.)
...([Smiley] referred to the patriarchy), and accordingly (to paraphrase him), "we should clean our house before we criticize other cultures."This triggered several angry responses from Maher, as he could not understand how Smiley could argue for the moral equivalence of the realities faced by women in the United States versus in the Muslim world. Maher was equally incredulous that Smiley could not recognize that sex-based oppression occurs in various degrees across disparate cultures. Smiley refused to recognize that "degrees matter." Maher readily conceded that sexism exists in the United States, but surely he argued the plight of American women was nowhere near that faced by women in many parts of the Middle East. Here is a thought experiment: If we were to elicit the opinions of 10,000 women from the Middle East and 10,000 American counterparts, which group would proclaim possessing greater freedoms, gender equality, and life opportunities?
On Smiley's own talk show last year, while interviewing Aayan Hirsi Ali, he interrupted her and proclaimed that it was simply untrue that terrorists were more likely to be Muslim. His exact words were: "But, but, but Christians do that [blow themselves up] every single day in this country. Yes. Oh, Christians, every day, people walk into post offices, I mean- people walk into post offices, they walk into schools- that's what Columbine is - I mean I could do this all day long. There are so many more examples of Christians - and I happen to be a Christian." Smiley is arguing that since American postal workers who go on a killing rampage are likely to be Christians, and since the Columbine killers were Christian (I am assuming that this is the case), these acts of violence can be attributed to Christianity in the exact same way that terrorist acts committed by Muslims can be attributed to Islam. This oft-used "progressive" argument does leave one speechless.
Abortion clinic murders:
In the U.S., violence directed towards abortion providers has killed at least eight people, including four doctors, two clinic employees, a security guard, and a clinic escort.[6][7]
Eight? Of course, there have been many more acts of violence, and 17 more attempted murders, and I find all of vile, barbaric, and wrong, but the death toll by Christians is nowhere near that of The Religion of Peace. Just since 9/11, according to thereligionofpeace.com (yesterday), Islamic terrorists have carried out 16,846 deadly terror attacks.
Hmmm. I think that's a few more than eight, plus Jared Loughner, Columbine, and a few disturbed jerks who went postal -- many of whom weren't motivated by Christianity. (And, let me remind anybody who hasn't been bored senseless by the knowledge already -- I am no fan of religion in general, but least of all the one that hangs gay teenagers, stones raped women, etc., and no I'm not talking about the Quakers).
via @NickGillespie
Smiley made an ass of himself in that exchange with Maher on Friday night. By insisting on an equivalence in the treatment of women between the West and the Muslim world, he communicates that nothing can ever be allowed to take away from the plight of the American woman, and that all cultural traditions are equally valid.
Common law is better than Sharia, and American women have it pretty good. Smiley falsely that Christian tradition is no different from Islam, implying that somehow all treatment of women is on the same continuum, when they are truly parallel lines that will never cross. Being a victim of the male gaze is not death by stoning. Duke Lacrosse players hiring a stripper is not the gangrape of Lara Logan.
Tyler at February 22, 2011 12:58 AM
Furthermore, how many of those few "Christians" who have perpetrated terror here ever shouted "God is great!" or whatever as they shot up the place? Not a one, AIRC.
I doubt if most of them were Christians in any reasonable sense. And even if they were, not a one of them was, in perpetrating his atrocity, following the dictates of his holy book. OTOH, every single one of the thousands of terrorist acts by Muslim terrorists has followed a strategy prescribed by his holy book and related writings.
Smiley and every other Muslim apologist out there should respond to this fact before they can make a reasonable argument for practical or moral equivalence.
cpabroker at February 22, 2011 4:15 AM
The Columbine killers were Christian? They HATED Christians! They killed at least one of their victims BECAUSE she was Christian.
KarenW at February 22, 2011 5:37 AM
In cases like Libya, it's almost always a close neighbour that ends up marching in to stop the fighting or depose the dictator. Vietnam in Cambodia, Tanzania in Uganda, Australia in East Timor (albeit with a lot of backroom pressure and logistical support from the US in that case - thanks guys!), the US in Haiti, Grenada, etc. They have the most direct interest in sorting things out to stem the refugee flow, and also often have a lot of local trade.
Unfortunately, the Egyptian army is a bit busy right now.
Ltw at February 22, 2011 5:45 AM
Oh, those naughty, naughty Quakers!
And, Tavis Smiley: mostly harmless and completely ignorable.
I R A Darth Aggie at February 22, 2011 6:12 AM
The less television I watch, the better I feel. I know who Maher is, so anyone who makes him sound reasonable must be rather off.
Smiley, whoever he is, must be a product of the nonjudgemental fluff that passes for education. Put a hamburger in one hand, and a cow pattie in the other, and this guy couldn't make up his mind.
MarkD at February 22, 2011 6:24 AM
Being even remotely shocked that our "Idiot and Thief" Obama wouldn't say (hardly) a word to the atrocities of the Gaddafi regime is laughable. Why would he waste his breath on their lack of freedom when his agenda has been to remove ours.
This is American progressivism in action. Meaning their action is a complete lack of any action at all. Remember in the progressive mind America is the bad guy, and all the worlds ills can be attributed to us in some manner or another…..
Ed at February 22, 2011 6:44 AM
The U.S. should feel no obligation to offer anything other than moral support to other countries. We should not be taking any action in the Middle East as Kristol indicates. The Middle East is a conglomeration of warring tribes who have been killing each other for thousands of years. It makes no sense to step into the middle of it and naively think that America can magically bring peace or democracy. The U.S. needs to stop being the world's policeman. Our government's only responsibility should be to protect the rights of its own citizens. This means that we should not be propping up U.S. "friendly" regimes either. If we had taken this stance, then we wouldn't be in our current morass in Iraq.
AllenS at February 22, 2011 8:10 AM
On the other hand, the more America interferes, or even seems to interfere, the more Qaddafi can use that for his own political purposes. The writing is on the wall for him- probably best we wait and watch.
Eric at February 22, 2011 8:10 AM
The U.S. should feel no obligation to offer anything other than moral support to other countries. We should not be taking any action in the Middle East as Kristol indicates.
Yes, maybe it's better that we keep our mouths shut. It will save us from having yet another land war in Asia (or Africa as the case may be).
Astra at February 22, 2011 8:31 AM
Expressing our moral outrage as a nation is hardly the same thing as getting involved. All forward thinking countries must step up to the plate and express their thoughts on this matter. The political and social ramifications of what is going on in the middle east is our and the rest of the worlds problem. If we just idly sit by and what for the shit to hit the fan it will cause far more problems than speaking up, levying sanctions, creating a no fly zone and isolating the problem to them and them alone.
How many despot regimes have gone unabated in world history (Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin etc…)? We have a moral obligation to ourselves to do what’s correct. We are not isolationists, nor should we be. We live in a global community, although our first priority should be us, we should never sit silent when these atrocities are being committed…..
Ed at February 22, 2011 8:34 AM
Hey Allen - pull your head out of your ass. What country has been notably ABSENT from the headlines for the past year or so?
Iraq. And believe me, it's not because the media are covering for Bush.
brian at February 22, 2011 9:05 AM
If we were to elicit the opinions of 10,000 women from the Middle East and 10,000 American counterparts, which group would proclaim possessing greater freedoms, gender equality, and life opportunities?
If the American women were feminists, and the Middle Easterners were devout, compliant Muslims, I think both would say that the Muslim women do.
Rex Little at February 22, 2011 9:32 AM
"no sign of possible NATO enforcement of a no-fly zone..."
Some Libyan pilots have flown their fighter planes to Europe and defected rather than bomb their fellow citizens on the orders of Mad Dog Qadaffi. If the West wants to encourage more of this, I don't know if a NATO enforced no-fly zone is the answer. The instant NATO planes showed up in Libyan airspace, the mass murderers who are eagerly bombing their own civilians would be converted into heroic patriots defending Libya from infidel imperialists. If the defecting pilots are true patriots, then load up their planes with missiles & send them back to bomb Qadaffi's palace. In the meantime, freezing all Libyan assets in Western banks & declaring the Qadaffi clan (and any country that offers them shelter) pariahs would be worthwhile.
Martin at February 22, 2011 10:04 AM
@Martin - these defections are good news for us. Bad for Qaddafi, but who cares about him.
If his military deserts on him, the people will tear him to pieces.
brian at February 22, 2011 11:15 AM
You know, the major paradox of people like Qaddafi is that he has actually brought up the living standards of his people. Do they have absolute freedom? No, are they better of than they were before Qaddafi assumed power? Hell yes. These people better be careful what they ask for, so far it would seem that democracy and islam just do not mix
ronc at February 22, 2011 11:25 AM
What's the big deal about Libya?
In Afghanistan, we have created an Islamic narco-state, where they execute people for apostasy--that is, converting to Christianity.
Afghanistan is rated as one of the world's most corrupt regimes.
And we spent $1.5 trillion to get this result.
Libya? As long as all we do a blah-blah, fine with me. Just please don't spend my money.
BOTU at February 22, 2011 11:38 AM
It seems like just a year ago or two Libya was a member of the United Nations Security Council. They blow up so quickly....
Eric at February 22, 2011 11:41 AM
Maybe Gaddafi / Quaddafi / Kaddafi / Daffy should just draw another line in the sand ...
Mr. Teflon at February 22, 2011 1:59 PM
You say Gaddafi,
I say Quadaffi,
Gaddafi, Quaddafi, Quaddafi, Gaddafi,
Let's call the whole thing off....
Eric at February 22, 2011 4:17 PM
So apparently it momentarily occurred to Maher that he is a useful idiot. That's happened before. He'll forget about it shortly.
Cousin Dave at February 22, 2011 4:28 PM
The next liberal/progressive to show some real backbone against brutality or violence in other countries will be the first I've seen.
Robert at February 22, 2011 4:50 PM
I am just glad I don't have any money to spend on them. If their islamic adherents were really that keen to find peace or pushed their socalled peaceful ideology(their version of peace is somewhat weird), perhaps they would be able to find their version of peace in their desert.
WLIL at February 22, 2011 5:07 PM
Barry Goldwater said about Vietnam, "Why should we send American boys to fight a war that Asian boys should be fighting?"
If men of liberty exist in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Iran, Pakistan, etc., let them fight to the death--as did our forefathers--for their freedoms.
Sadly, I suspect there are few men of liberty in Islamic nations. It is not worth $1 or one life to prop up any of these Islamic countries, or overthrow any of these countries either.
P.U. to U.S. involvement in Islam.
BOTU at February 22, 2011 5:41 PM
Our failure to be involved now will result in them being involved here later.
Disengagement didn't discourage the Barbary pirates.
Unless you want to go the Full Buchanan and seal the borders.
brian at February 22, 2011 6:20 PM
I think the US should go the Chinese Model. Only deal with what is profitable or beneficial for you. You want oil from Saudia Arabia you protect it, but only the oil, screw politics. If somebody hits you like Afganistan - do not waste the money sending in troops - just bomb it again and again and again until they get the point that it is not worth the trouble hitting somebody bigger then you. If once a country starts to turn a partnership bad pull out and let the chips fall where they may I could see this with South Korea.
John Paulson at February 22, 2011 6:46 PM
If once a country starts to turn a partnership bad pull out and let the chips fall where they may I could see this with South Korea.
There has been a "peaceful" transition to a civilian government in SK. The majority realize they live under the barrel of a shotgun. But they do not repudiate U.S. values. They pick and choose what they can incorporate.
The problem is that the U.S. government (read Obama and crowd) believe the lies presented by the Muslim Brotherhood and crowd. They don't want to realize that the Middle East is so fucked up in so many ways.
What needs to happen is to start drilling in the U.S. and offshore again. Tell the Islamists that they can f' off -- we don't need their oil. Let them stew in their own seventh depravity.
When they want to be part of the world again, come talk to us.
Jim P. at February 22, 2011 9:07 PM
Jim -
It's not that they believe the lies, it's that they actively support anyone who is anti-U.S.
As Glenn Reynolds said - they aren't anti-war, they're just on the other side.
brian at February 23, 2011 6:40 AM
>> Why should we send American boys to fight a war that Asian boys should be fighting
That was spoken by Lyndon Johnson, the liberal, not Barry Goldwater, the conservative.
Eric at February 23, 2011 8:44 AM
Leave a comment