Apologizing for America

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by hapaboy, Apr 7, 2009.

Is Obama right to apologize for America?

  1. Yes. America has much to apologize for.

    7 vote(s)
  2. No. It's a disgrace.

    25 vote(s)
  3. Not sure.

    1 vote(s)
  1. Tuesday, April 07, 2009

    Mona Charen

    One of President Obama's first official acts was to grant an interview to Al Arabiya, the Arabic language network that broadcasts worldwide. It signified, aides explained, the new page that Obama meant to turn in relations with the Arab and Muslim worlds. Just as he did last week in Europe, Obama began the conversation by criticizing America. Asked about relations between Israel and the Palestinians and the appointment of George Mitchell as special envoy, President Obama said " ... what I told (Mitchell) is start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating -- in the past on some of these issues -- and we don't always know all the factors that are involved. So let's listen." Throughout the rest of the interview, Obama returned again and again to the word "respect," stressing that his administration -- unlike previous American presidents -- would base relations with the Muslim world on "mutual respect."

    In Europe, the president returned to this leitmotif, telling his audience that "there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive" toward Europe. He went on to note that Europeans had responded with an anti-Americanism that "is at once casual but can also be insidious." That sounds awfully high-mindedly evenhanded -- except that in Obama's telling, America's arrogance comes first. If that were truly the case, who could blame the Europeans for feeling resentful?

    Don't hold your breath waiting for any European to acknowledge that they have been guilty of arrogance. And before giving Obama too much credit for humility, consider that the planted axiom of these declarations is that he is different. It was that ham-handed predecessor of his who blundered through the world, disrespecting allies, needlessly insulting enemies, and crashing through drawing rooms like the proverbial bull, or perhaps like a Texas steer. But as former Ambassador John Bolton reminds us, during the glory days of the Clinton administration, French President Francois Mitterrand said this: "We are at war with America-- a permanent war ... a war without death. They are very hard, the Americans. They are voracious. They want undivided power over the world." Compared with that, the most stinging rebuke to come out of the Bush administration -- Rumsfeld's swipe about "old Europe" -- seems downright polite.

    There's nothing wrong with pleasant atmospherics, of course. And if Barack and Michelle Obama wowed the crowds in London and Prague, that's nice. But what you might have missed in all the hyperventilating in the media about the new incarnation of Jack and Jackie was that President Obama was rebuffed by Europe. He had asked them to pass stimulus bills like the one the Democrats passed in the U.S. Germany's Angela Merkel and the others turned that down flat. European nations have even graver problems with promised social safety net programs than we do, and they sensibly decided that further indebting themselves would aggravate rather than alleviate their troubles.

    President Obama further requested that more troops be sent to Afghanistan. He wasn't subtle about it either. "Europe should not simply expect the United States to shoulder that burden alone," he said. "This is a joint problem and it requires a joint effort." Adoring crowds notwithstanding, they refused that request as well. Oh, wait. That's not quite true. According to Fox News, "Belgium offered to send 35 military trainers and Spain offered 12."

    Back to relations with the Muslim world. Lest this slander pass into conventional wisdom, it must be protested. George W. Bush was never disrespectful to the Muslim world. He was extraordinarily careful to telegraph his respect for the Muslim faith -- some thought to a fault. ("Why is it," asked one wag, "that the only people who say Islam is religion of peace are Christians?") Bush made the Feast of Eid, which marks the end of Ramadan, an annual White House celebration with prominent Muslim guests. He arguably saved more Muslim lives through the African AIDS initiative than any other world leader could claim. Mrs. Bush made improving the lives of women and girls in Afghanistan her special project. In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, when this was not an obvious move, he visited the Islamic Center in Washington, D.C., to telegraph to the nation that anger toward American Muslims would be a misplaced response to the atrocity.

    This caricature of Bush as a heedless militarist and xenophobe -- which no one is doing more to promote than the current president -- is a libel.

    There is one other troubling aspect to President Obama's diplomatic debut. Being eager to ingratiate oneself with Europeans is an understandable liberal impulse. The left wing of the Democratic Party reveres European welfare states. But President Obama also bowed low (literally) before the king of Saudi Arabia. That was more than courtesy; it was abasement.
  2. Lucrum


  3. Hap, even you know that piece was just utter tosh.

    Why did you post it?
  4. Eight


    Obama knows exactly who his domestic enemies are: people making over a quarter mil, small business, taxpayers, etc.. but he goes abroad and he's really mushy about who our enemies are.

    He betrayed everybody so far, Armenians, Jews, etc... He wants to shove Turkey into the EU and they don't want them, Europe has lots and lots of muslim shit to deal with already, Chechnia, riots in Paris... He'll be sending people to pay North Korea to stop embarrassing him soon enough...

    I think he declared himself to be a Muslim at one point... he was lauded and applauded everywhere he went but when he asked for a little help with Afghanistan they all just laughed at him... what a really, really persuasive world leader, weak pos..
  5. Why do I get the sense that the only thing worrying you about him is the fact that he "MIGHT NOT" be a Jew bitch like the rest of the American presidents were.

    Why do I get the sense that he will be destroyed in the same exact manner as those who your type perceived as a threat to your state (Israel)

    Do not worry Eight, he will come back and kiss your ass. You need to give him some time to get back to his senses and know whats good for him.
  6. Ac, I'd answer your question if didn't already know what your response would be - a sanctimonious defense of the Messiah combined with a retreaded hailstorm of vindictive about Bush, Cheney, and Co.
  7. Now all of a sudden the Bush" neo-cons" are critical experts in the world of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy?

    According to who?
    Jewish Neo-conservative Mona Charen?

    Give me a break.

    Besides, who cares about Europe anyway?

    If Angela Merkel and the rest of Europe aren't interested in stimulating their own Economy, then F'-em.

    The U.S. will be the FIRST to recover and reap the rewards of capital coming back to the United States and the Dollar rallying.
  8. The Left. Europe is the icon held up as the example of what the US could be (shudder). Not to mention that how they (and everyone who hates us) think of us should guide our foreign policy...

  9. I dont give a crap about obama, nor partisan politics; all politicians are basically evil, after all.
    I like bush, cheney, rummy etc-in much the same way one would "like" a particularly rotten Bond villain.
    But writing an article with some salient points, then having a whinge because the current president isnt from the same old-money powerbrokers as the previous handful, then more whinging because what?

    He's not presidential enough, after chimp boy?
    Because the alleged euro love of the spurious , mysterious yet largely non existent "left" supports or doesn't support some piece of crap policy?
    And how the fuck would that guy know in the first place, its evident his agenda is to make worthless propaganda because

    a) he hates blacks
    b) he hates democracy and freedom
    c) he hates america, and democracy and freedom
    d) he hates everything, and would prefer to live in a communist/oligarchic/monarchy, provided everybody agrees with his personal views, and he was king of said country.

    Sure, im just venting now, but it really burns my ring that some reichtard can simply pass off this kind of irrational subjective crap as an "editorial " or similiar.

  10. It's strange how a president who takes a more diplomatic approach can be called an America hater, socialist, facist, etc by a few wingnuts with a microphone. From the sublime to the ridiculous. Like it or not we don't rule the world, and trying to act like some tin-horn dictator won't get us anywhere.

    I don't agree with all this bailout crap (bet Bush would do the same), which is all I have seen of him until his trip.
    #10     Apr 8, 2009