i think bigtexx just hates Obama and will fabricate stuff to justify it. The head tilt??? C'mon, he's criticizing on that? Imaginary apologies? Saying all of muslims should apologize for 9/11? This is why the right has lost all credibility on this board.
Did the other presidents comment on his speech at all? Did they poll the ex-presidents every time Bush gave a speech? I don't understand what this has to do. I'm still waiting for you to point the apology. Either do it, or slink away in defeat.
Kumbaya, OLord, Kumbaya. [rquoter]Let Women Wear the Hijab: The Emptiness of Obama's Cairo Speech I know many will gush over President Obama's Cairo speech and I'm likely swimming against the tide of the media and my fellow Democrats and progressives. But reading the transcript, I was struck by two things: 1. Aside from a few platitudes, it is disappointingly weak on human rights and specifically women's rights. 2. It betrays a naiveté, perhaps feigned, about how the Arab world works. I sometimes preface my posts by explaining that my Mideast perspective is that of an American-Lebanese-Christian-Jew who grew up in Muslim West Beirut at the height (or should I say depth) of the Lebanese civil war. The tumultuous and bloody intersection of religions and geopolitical interests is painfully real to me. Yes, Obama is targeting the Arab 'street' and global public opinion - but to the corrupt regimes that dominate that region of the world, his oration means virtually nothing. Repression and suppression will go on uninterrupted. And to those whose abiding hatred of Israel (and thus America) is absolute, Obama's words will be seen as empty and hypocritical. Egyptian blogger Hossam el-Hamalawy explains: Right before he took off from DC, on what the media has been depicting as some "odyssey," to address the Muslim World from Cairo, President Obama had described the 81-year-old Egyptian President Mubarak as a "force for stability." This week Cairo and its twin city Giza have been a showcase of what this "stability" cost. The capital is under occupation. Security troops are deployed in the main public squares and metro stations. Citizens were detained en masse and shops were told to close down in Bein el-Sarayat area, neighboring Cairo University, where Obama will be speaking. In Al-Azhar University, the co-host of the "historical speech," State Security police raided and detained at least 200 foreign students, held them without charges in unknown locations. Is there an overarching purpose to Obama's speech? Is it to repair our image after eight years of a radical rightwing administration? Of course. But if the goal is to repair our image, then how about shunning the barbaric concept of indefinite detention? How about heeding the increasingly distressed calls of those who view the new administration's actions in the realm of civil liberties as a dangerous, disturbing, and precedent-setting affirmation of Bush's worst excesses? Glenn Greenwald writes: The White House is actively supporting a new bill jointly sponsored by Sens. Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman -- called The Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act of 2009 -- that literally has no purpose other than to allow the government to suppress any "photograph taken between September 11, 2001 and January 22, 2009 relating to the treatment of individuals engaged, captured, or detained after September 11, 2001, by the Armed Forces of the United States in operations outside of the United States." What kind of a country passes a law that has no purpose other than to empower its leader to suppress evidence of the torture it inflicted on people? Read the language of the bill; it doesn't even hide the fact that its only objective is to empower the President to conceal evidence of war crimes. That this exact scenario is now happening in the U.S. is all the more remarkable given that the President who is demanding these new suppression powers is the same one who repeatedly vowed "to make his administration the most open and transparent in history." After noting the tentative steps Obama has taken to increase transparency, the generally pro-Obama Washington Post Editorial Page today observed: "what makes the administration's support for the photographic records act so regrettable" is that "Mr. Obama runs the risk of taking two steps back in his quest for more open government." What makes all of this even worse is that it is part of a broader trend whereby the Government simply retroactively changes the law whenever it decides it does not want to abide by it. Glenn has been documenting - and railing against - dozens of similar instances. I echoed his concerns in a recent post: Setting aside all the campaign slogans about hope and change, what Obama really signifies is a razor sharp break from Bush, Cheney, Yoo, Rice, Rumsfeld, Addington, Libby, Bybee et al. After eight years of damage to the fabric of our Constitution and our nation, the entire point of a new face, a smart, youthful, inspiring Democratic president is to completely and totally reject the Bush years, to reject the lawless behavior, the Orwellian rationales, the blatant disregard of the Constitution. Neglecting to do so, and leaving any doubt about where Democrats stand on these issues, is profoundly detrimental to the country. Take the issue of women's rights, addressed in Obama's Cairo speech with the most tepid language: "The U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it." "I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous." "Now let me be clear: issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world." "Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity - men and women - to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams." Is that a joke? With women being stoned, raped, abused, battered, mutilated, and slaughtered on a daily basis across the globe, violence that is so often perpetrated in the name of religion, the most our president can speak about is protecting their right to wear the hijab? I would have been much more heartened if the preponderance of the speech had been about how in the 21st century, we CANNOT tolerate the pervasive abuse of our mothers and sisters and daughters. I return to the example of Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow: 13-year old Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow was stoned to death in Somalia by insurgents because she was raped. Reports indicate that was raped by three men while traveling by foot to visit her grandmother in conflict capital, Mogadishu. When she went to the authorities to report the crime, they accused her of adultery and sentenced her to death. Aisha was forced into a hole in a stadium of 1,000 onlookers as 50 men buried her up to the neck and cast stones at her until she died. When some of the people at the stadium tried to save her, militia opened fire on the crowd, killing a boy who was a bystander. A witness who spoke to the BBC's Today programme said she had been crying and had to be forced into a hole before the stoning, reported to have taken place in a football stadium. ... She said: 'I'm not going, I'm not going. Don't kill me, don't kill me.' "A few minutes later more than 50 men tried to stone her." The witness said people crowding round to see the execution said it was "awful". Enough with the perpetual campaign. True justice, true peace, these are earned through courageous decisions and bold actions. Real truth to power. If we are to fix America's image in the world and if we are to heal the planet's myriad ills, it will not be done through contrite kumbaya speeches about how we are all one world and how we should all coexist peacefully, no matter whether the remarks are delivered in Cleveland or Cairo. It will be done by leading through example, by righting the many wrongs here at home, by seeking justice and fairness for all, by doing what is right, not saying what sounds pleasing to the media elite and the pliable punditocracy.[/rquoter]
I'm pretty sure the Clinton administration issued an apology to the Iranian people when relations where thawing during the reign of Khatami.
You have no context, just as you have no argument, no point, and nothing but a desire to distort, twist, and outright lie about the President's words, whether he's ordering a burger or making one of the most important speeches about the Middle East by an American President in decades. That's your M.O., "brah," as it is basso's and the comedian's.
Some of the great things about Obama's speech was how he dealt with women's rights, and the way he highlights some of the sharp differences between Bush's policy and his own. He shows the change is real and very significant. Talking about Women's rights, Obama said this He isn't just putting empty words to the idea, like Bush did. He's putting action to it. Bush's invasion of Iraq actually made it worse for Women's rights there. That's great change, and I'm glad Obama is taking the initiative to put into action rather than just talk about it. The change between he and Bush was also highlighted. Obama mentions it here. Again the words are backed by action. Two of the biggest ares torture and gitmo are both addressed, and Obama has put the words from his promises into action very early on into his administration. He also had very evenhanded approach to the Israeli/Palestinian situation for once. This is far different than what Bush's failed philosophy was. He doesn't let either Israel or Palestine off the hook. He also addresses the role of other Arab nations in the resolution. It is refreshing to see a President calling on Israel to finally live up to its obligations while still not letting the Palestinians off the hook.
So it is true, you don't know what an apology is and just made up your own definition to fit the situation.
So, if you think that looking at the context makes what Obama said seem apologetic, then obviously when we look at the context of your comment, it seems idiotic.
The people rejoiced at possibilities galore,..O-Obama made an apology, we are bad and to blame...but lo behold we are still the same...same...we still friends with Israel, to the chagrin of muslims galore for the bible foretold who tried to destroy Israel would themselves be destroyed, and we don't want tit for tat because we know 2012 is right around the bend, below....O The people not happy we won't give in, the lefts are left to wonder why Obama won't let poor Israel die, die...Hitler tried, radical muslims too, but the end through wars and refusals to recognize and refusal to forgive us our tresspasses and they have tresspassed as well, we are here now... The point of this is like it or not left, Obama won't sway that Israel is our ally, our friend, the one country more to the right than us, it's their right...don't attack them for that, but preach your intolerance, I mean tolerance that you surely find right.....ite.... Thanks for listening to the poem/song!
One of the biggest criticisms I’ve read so far came from Ari Fleisher yesterday. He criticized the speech as being too balanced. That is wasn’t filled with a bunch of ideological catch phrases that gave a wink to one side or the other. WTF?!?!? And I loved the line about what we say publically and privately will be the same and consistent. Unlike the previous administration that apparently would say one thing publically and then say something else privately. Especially concerning Israeli settlements.
...and the Obama apology tour continues on! http://www.rightsidenews.com/200906...s-groveling-apology-to-the-islamic-world.html
lmao. a blog link from "right side news" which contains a story from a christian bible ezine with a giant "F U ISLAMZ!" jpg on the homepage. sounds credible to me! dum-dum, you are a hoot.
i'm certainly sorry for the republicans that they went from complete control to complete laughing stock in record time. oh wait, no i'm not.
I know you are being silly and not serious here, but I just thought I'd critique the article you linked. Because like you, he never once shows where Obama apologized. Also the man's concluding paragraph is an assault not only on extremist Islam, but all Islam. What a joke. What a great book that is. This guy's article has little to back up his and bigtexxx's assertions. I know that not even bigtexxx is foolish enough to believe that story. He's just linking it out of laziness and the desire to see others get worked up about it.
