Tweet
THE APOLOGY TOUR: WILL IT EVER END?
Power Line
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/04/023 262.php
April 6 2009
Earlier today, President Obama addressed the Parliament of Turkey. What
made news were his positive references to Islam:
"Let me say this as clearly as I can," Obama said. "The United States
is not at war with Islam. In fact, our partnership with the Muslim
world is critical in rolling back a fringe ideology that people of
all faiths reject."
This is, of course, indistinguishable from many similar pronouncements
that were made by President Bush.
What I want to focus on is Obama's continuing attack on his own
country, unprecedented, to my knowledge, for a President on an overseas
tour. Here are Obama's comments on his own country's history:
An enduring commitment to the rule of law is the only way to achieve
the security that comes from justice for all people. Robust minority
rights let societies benefit from the full measure of contributions
from all citizens.
I say this as the President of a country that not too long ago made
it hard for someone who looks like me to vote.
This is untrue. A minority of states did "make it hard" for someone who
"looks like Obama" to vote until "not long ago," but most did not,
and the federal government certainly did not. There has never been
a time when it was hard for people who look like Obama to vote here
in Minnesota, for example.
As we've seen before, Obama appears to betray a surprising lack of
knowledge of American history. It seems that instead of actually
having studied his own country's history, Obama has merely absorbed
the ignorant, left-wing narrative that is peddled by Jeremiah Wright
and others of his ilk. As a result, Obama not only confesses his
country's sins overseas, he confesses wrongly.
But it is precisely that capacity to change that enriches our
countries. Every challenge that we face is more easily met if we tend
to our own democratic foundation. This work is never over. That is why,
in the United States, we recently ordered the prison at Guantanamo
Bay closed, and prohibited -- without exception or equivocation --
any use of torture.
Torture has been illegal for a number of years, and President
Bush insisted just as strongly as Obama that the U.S. does not
torture. There was a legitimate debate about waterboarding, which does
no physical injury, and which I do not believe constitutes torture. But
according to press reports, only two or three top-ranking terrorists
were waterboarded, none after 2003. And waterboarding has been
banned by the U.S. military since 2006. So what was Obama's purpose
in implying that until he came along, his own government was engaged
in torturing prisoners? His speech was carried live by Al Jazeera
and Al Arabiya, broadcast into countries where "torture" doesn't
mean getting your face wet. Obama at least impliedly exaggerated the
supposed sins of his predecessors and the "change" brought about by
himself. Why? For what purpose? Isn't the campaign over?
Another issue that confronts all democracies as they move to the
future is how we deal with the past. The United States is still working
through some of our own darker periods. Facing the Washington monument
that I spoke of is a memorial to Abraham Lincoln, the man who freed
those who were enslaved even after Washington led our Revolution. And
our country still struggles with the legacy of our past treatment of
Native Americans.
Human endeavor is by its nature imperfect. History, unresolved,
can be a heavy weight. Each country must work through its past.
These words were a lead-in to Obama's comments on "the terrible events
of 1915," i.e., what Obama himself has referred to as the "Armenian
genocide." So what was the point of Obama's gratuitous reference to
"our past treatment of Native Americans"? Did he mean to suggest that
it was somehow equivalent to the Armenian genocide? If so, once again,
he needs to be better educated about history. If not, why on earth
is he throwing it into this part of his speech as a mea culpa?
Obama's seemingly compulsive need to apologize to foreign audiences
on behalf of the United States cannot be explained as a rational
approach to diplomacy. As Paul suggested here, the roots of
Obama's America-bashing seem to lie in a combination of ideology
and psychology.
Thank goodness he's coming home soon.
Power Line
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/04/023 262.php
April 6 2009
Earlier today, President Obama addressed the Parliament of Turkey. What
made news were his positive references to Islam:
"Let me say this as clearly as I can," Obama said. "The United States
is not at war with Islam. In fact, our partnership with the Muslim
world is critical in rolling back a fringe ideology that people of
all faiths reject."
This is, of course, indistinguishable from many similar pronouncements
that were made by President Bush.
What I want to focus on is Obama's continuing attack on his own
country, unprecedented, to my knowledge, for a President on an overseas
tour. Here are Obama's comments on his own country's history:
An enduring commitment to the rule of law is the only way to achieve
the security that comes from justice for all people. Robust minority
rights let societies benefit from the full measure of contributions
from all citizens.
I say this as the President of a country that not too long ago made
it hard for someone who looks like me to vote.
This is untrue. A minority of states did "make it hard" for someone who
"looks like Obama" to vote until "not long ago," but most did not,
and the federal government certainly did not. There has never been
a time when it was hard for people who look like Obama to vote here
in Minnesota, for example.
As we've seen before, Obama appears to betray a surprising lack of
knowledge of American history. It seems that instead of actually
having studied his own country's history, Obama has merely absorbed
the ignorant, left-wing narrative that is peddled by Jeremiah Wright
and others of his ilk. As a result, Obama not only confesses his
country's sins overseas, he confesses wrongly.
But it is precisely that capacity to change that enriches our
countries. Every challenge that we face is more easily met if we tend
to our own democratic foundation. This work is never over. That is why,
in the United States, we recently ordered the prison at Guantanamo
Bay closed, and prohibited -- without exception or equivocation --
any use of torture.
Torture has been illegal for a number of years, and President
Bush insisted just as strongly as Obama that the U.S. does not
torture. There was a legitimate debate about waterboarding, which does
no physical injury, and which I do not believe constitutes torture. But
according to press reports, only two or three top-ranking terrorists
were waterboarded, none after 2003. And waterboarding has been
banned by the U.S. military since 2006. So what was Obama's purpose
in implying that until he came along, his own government was engaged
in torturing prisoners? His speech was carried live by Al Jazeera
and Al Arabiya, broadcast into countries where "torture" doesn't
mean getting your face wet. Obama at least impliedly exaggerated the
supposed sins of his predecessors and the "change" brought about by
himself. Why? For what purpose? Isn't the campaign over?
Another issue that confronts all democracies as they move to the
future is how we deal with the past. The United States is still working
through some of our own darker periods. Facing the Washington monument
that I spoke of is a memorial to Abraham Lincoln, the man who freed
those who were enslaved even after Washington led our Revolution. And
our country still struggles with the legacy of our past treatment of
Native Americans.
Human endeavor is by its nature imperfect. History, unresolved,
can be a heavy weight. Each country must work through its past.
These words were a lead-in to Obama's comments on "the terrible events
of 1915," i.e., what Obama himself has referred to as the "Armenian
genocide." So what was the point of Obama's gratuitous reference to
"our past treatment of Native Americans"? Did he mean to suggest that
it was somehow equivalent to the Armenian genocide? If so, once again,
he needs to be better educated about history. If not, why on earth
is he throwing it into this part of his speech as a mea culpa?
Obama's seemingly compulsive need to apologize to foreign audiences
on behalf of the United States cannot be explained as a rational
approach to diplomacy. As Paul suggested here, the roots of
Obama's America-bashing seem to lie in a combination of ideology
and psychology.
Thank goodness he's coming home soon.