Crossposted from OpenLeft (USA) with commentary.
This fucking guy is really something. He recently said that he knows how to politik! Is this what he means?
Obama’s Ground Zero Mosque Comments: President Recalibrates
My intention was to simply let people know what I thought. Which was that in this country, we treat everybody equally in accordance with the law. Regardless of race. Regardless of religion. I was not commenting on and will not comment on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right that people have that dates back to our founding. That’s what our country’s about and I think it’s very important that as difficult as some of these issues are, we stay focused on who we are as a people and what our values are all about.
Comments
How is that waffling?
He didn’t change his position at all. He just corrected people who misinterpreted his original statement. If he wanted to prevent Republicans from twisting he his words around, he would never say anything. Not sure how you can blame him for Republicans’ dishonesty.
by: miasmo
I disagree.
If he hadn’t meant to do anything except recite the Constitution’s freedom of religion clause, he should have kept his mouth shut. I for one construed his initial remarks as being supportive of the construction of Cordoba House. I’m sick and tired of parsing his words.
by: bmull
That’s nonsense. Republicabs only believe in the 2nd Amendment.
I think it’s a good idea for the President to remind us every now and then of the other ones.
This will turn into another example of how Gibbs was right after all.by: steviez314
I think Obama is terrible, but I don’t think he waffled on this issue
Here’s the real waffler:
435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Comby: metamars
Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League essentially said the same thing.
When Obama refused to comment on the “wisdom” of building a mosque near Ground Zero, he threw the insensitivity point back out there. And that’s all that Foxman meant to say.
What he should have said is that Muslims have a right to build a mosque anywhere in the US, two blocks from Ground Zero or otherwise. As it stands, it is as if ordinary decent Muslim-Americans must share in the blame for 9/11, which is just to stir up more Islamophobia.
by: shergald
And now we have NY Governor Patterson waffling.
You can’t really have it both ways, disagree with Foxman and then agree with him in an afterthought:
Albany – Sponsors of the proposed mosque near Ground Zero are not slamming the door on Gov. Paterson’s idea to build the center someplace else.
“We are open to a conversation to find out more on what the governor has in mind,” the center, Park51, said in a Twitter post yesterday.
While mosque opponents charge the chosen site is insensitive to 9/11 victims, Paterson doesn’t oppose the planned location.
He suggested earlier this week it might ease tensions if the center was further away from Ground Zero, and raised the possibility of offering state-owned land.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_...
Ease tensions for whom. Just who is creating the tension? Sarah Palin? What a joke this is.
by: shergald
A further thought.
If the Muslim organization is forced by dint of social pressure to move the site of the planned mosque, the 9/11 terrorists will have won another victory: they will have succeeded in chipping away at American freedoms, perhaps of even institutionalizing Islamophobia.
The Ground Zero mosque is only one of many antiIslamic efforts to stop mosque building across the country. It seems to be just another right wing GOP effort to create a new racism upon which they can recruit voters. With Reagan’s racism against Blacks having dissipated, what is left for the GOP to run against?
Muslims (terrorism) and Hispanics (aka the anti-immigration effort)!
For what it’s worth: a New York Daily News internet poll.
Poll Results
A Landmarks panel vote clears the way for a mosque near Ground Zero. Is it an appropriate location for the mosque?
Yes, there is no reason why it should not be there. 69%
No, it does not belong so near the site of the 9/11 attacks. 24%
I’m not sure. 7%
http://www.nydailynews.com/nyd...
by: shergald
Another comment from Paul Rosenberg, Open Left:
Those are pretty impressive poll results you cite.
That said, Obama’s remarks are aiming at the news organizations that focus on controversy. I don’t see this as waffling so much as trying to avoid a re-run of the Shirley Sherrod situation where the context of his original statement is ignored in order to bait him fand drive TV ratings. If you issue a new statement they have to play that statement too.
Now an argument can be made whether this is necessary and certainly whether it is healthy in our society for Dem politicians to constantly feel the need to react to network jokers, but I don’t take it as waffling per se.
As a Black Man Obama must feel he cannot be in attack mode (my preference for responding to bullshit attacks) as much as say a Bush would have been or even a Clinton. Hell Bush could hold hands with the Saudi King like two schoolgirls in love and it had no impact whatsoever. Clinton could get up in the face of the reporters and lie about his relationship with Lewisnski and no one thought anything of his aggressive media posturing. Their whiteness protected them, whereas he must feel based on his own experience and personality that calm and collected is a better strategy.
Is he right? I can’t say, but I do know many white neighbors who stereotype black people as “irrationally angry.” An in your face reaction might do more harm than good. Saying nothing allows the media to make their own stereotypical narrative out of what he said.
In this one I’m willing to give him a pass. Just my opinion.
Hell what I’d really like to see is him make any kind of similar statement about gay marriage that he did about the right to have a mosque on that site. But he has been silent for the most part and I have many gay friends who are profoundly disappointed about his reluctance to support their efforts. But we are finding that he is a very careful person when it comes to using the bully pulpit. You and I may wish it were otherwise, but it is what it is. This is his personality.
It has become a controversy, as his failure to openly condone the building of the mosque at its planned location, not commenting on the “wisdom” of it, is being interpreted as trying to have it both ways.
And yes, the backtracking on gay marriage is a downer for many of Obama’s supporters. He seems to be stepping away from the liberal agenda, maybe in anticipation of 2012 or even 2010. Still what he doesn’t get done this term is less likely to be accomplished in the second term.
From Bloomberg’s speech:
The simple fact is, this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship, and the government has no right whatsoever to deny that right. And if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
“Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question: Should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here.
“This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions or favor one over another. The World Trade Center site will forever hold a special place in our city, in our hearts. But we would be untrue to the best part of ourselves and who we are as New Yorkers and Americans if we said no to a mosque in lower Manhattan.
“Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11, and that our Muslim neighbors grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans. We would betray our values and play into our enemies’ hands if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else. In fact, to cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists, and we should not stand for that.
“For that reason, I believe that this is an important test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetimes, as important a test. And it is critically important that we get it right.
The attack was an act of war, and our first responders defended not only our city, but our country and our constitution. We do not honor their lives by denying the very constitutional rights they died protecting. We honor their lives by defending those rights and the freedoms that the terrorists attacked.
“Of course, it is fair to ask the organizers of the mosque to show some special sensitivity to the situation, and in fact their plan envisions reaching beyond their walls and building an interfaith community. But doing so, it is my hope that the mosque will help to bring our city even closer together, and help repudiate the false and repugnant idea that the attacks of 9/11 were in any ways consistent with Islam.”
From Obama’s speech and later “clarification”:
“Indeed, over the course of our history, religion has flourished within our borders precisely because Americans have had the right to worship as they choose – including the right to believe in no religion at all. And it is a testament to the wisdom of our Founders that America remains deeply religious – a nation where the ability of peoples of different faiths to coexist peacefully and with mutual respect for one another stands in contrast to the religious conflict that persists around the globe.
That is not to say that religion is without controversy. Recently, attention has been focused on the construction of mosques in certain communities – particularly in New York. Now, we must all recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of lower Manhattan. The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country. The pain and suffering experienced by those who lost loved ones is unimaginable. So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.
But let me be clear: as a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are. The writ of our Founders must endure.
We must never forget those who we lost so tragically on 9/11, and we must always honor those who have led our response to that attack – from the firefighters who charged up smoke-filled staircases, to our troops who are serving in Afghanistan today. And let us always remember who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for. Our enemies respect no freedom of religion. Al Qaeda’s cause is not Islam – it is a gross distortion of Islam. These are not religious leaders – these are terrorists who murder innocent men, women and children. In fact, al Qaeda has killed more Muslims than people of any other religion – and that list of victims includes innocent Muslims who were killed on 9/11.
That is who we are fighting against. And the reason that we will win this fight is not simply the strength of our arms – it is the strength of our values. The democracy that we uphold. The freedoms that we cherish. The laws that we apply without regard to race or religion; wealth or status. Our capacity to show not merely tolerance, but respect to those who are different from us – a way of life that stands in stark contrast to the nihilism of those who attacked us on that September morning, and who continue to plot against us today.
In my inaugural address, I said that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth. That diversity can bring difficult debates. Indeed, past eras have seen controversies about the construction of synagogues or Catholic churches. But time and again, the American people have demonstrated that we can work through these issues, stay true to our core values, and emerge stronger for it. So it must be – and will be – today.
Tonight, we are reminded that Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity. And Ramadan is a reminder that Islam has always been part of America. The first Muslim ambassador to the United States, from Tunisia, was hosted by President Jefferson, who arranged a sunset dinner for his guest because it was Ramadan–making it the first known iftar at the White House, more than 200 years ago.
Like so many other immigrants, generations of Muslims came here to forge their future. They became farmers and merchants, worked in mills and factories, and helped lay the railroads. They helped build America. They founded the first Islamic center in New York City in the 1890s. They built America’s first mosque on the prairie of North Dakota. And perhaps the oldest surviving mosque in America–still in use today–is in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
Today, our nation is strengthened by millions of Muslim Americans. They excel in every walk of life. Muslim American communities–including mosques in all fifty states–also serve their neighbors. Muslim Americans protect our communities as police, firefighters and first responders. Muslim American clerics have spoken out against terror and extremism, reaffirming that Islam teaches that one must save human life, not take it. And Muslim Americans serve with honor in our military. At next week’s iftar at the Pentagon, tribute will be paid to three soldiers who gave their lives in Iraq and now rest among the heroes of Arlington National Cemetery.
These Muslim Americans died for the security that we depend upon, and the freedoms that we cherish. They are part of an unbroken line of Americans that stretches back to our Founding; Americans of all faiths who have served and sacrificed to extend the promise of America to new generations, and to ensure that what is exceptional about America is protected – our commitment to stay true to our core values, and our ability to perfect our union.
For in the end, we remain “one nation, under God, indivisible.” And we can only achieve “liberty and justice for all” if we live by that one rule at the heart of every religion, including Islam–that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.”
his “clarification” – “In this country we treat everybody equally and in accordance with the law, regardless of race, regardless of religion. I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That’s what our country is about.
“And I think it’s very important as difficult as some of these issues are that we stay focused on who we are as a people and what our values are all about.”
Now, tell me precisely what the difference is between Bloomberg’s speech (which you clearly love) and Obama’s words even with his so-called “clarification”?
Obama’s defense of freedom of religion was strong and principled. But when asked the practical question about the “wisdom” of building a mosque near Ground Zero, he refused to comment. That refusal was interpreted by many as a proviso: yes, they have the right, but it may not be a wise decision.
What he should have said is that he supports the building of the mosque there for this or that reason, many of which were mentioned in his statements. But he didn’t, leaving the “wisdom” question open, and therefore subject to considerations, like maybe the location is not a good idea.
sorry but where did Bloomberg say that it was wise to build the mosque?
And really you are expecting President Obama to opine on whether it is wise to build a mosque there? Silly me, I thought the point of the Constitution – you know that small thing that President Obama swore an oath to uphold – set out the greater “wisdom” and underlying principles that are to apply regardless of one’s personal thoughts about any particular issue?
This is a nonsense issue and I suggest you read TPM’s coverage of this alleged “walkback” so that you get the issues straight in your head.
Either way, comparison to the odious Foxman at ADL is completely unwarranted.
I posted Paul Rosenberg’s (Open Left) comment below. From the posts on Open Left, it is evident that there is controversy and debate as to the significance of Obama’s “wisdom” non-comment and its interpretation.
There are Obama defenders and there are those people who believe that by not speaking out to affirm the site, he repeated the Foxman view.
You are among the former; I am with the latter.
I take that to mean I with the people who can understand English and you are with the people who can’t wait to bash Obama for anything whether real or imagined.
Just pointing to other people who may agree with you isn’t going to cut it. Tea baggers can point to loads of people who agree with them but that doesn’t make them right.
Obama is by now certainly aware that his statement pertain to the “wisdom” is creating about what he meant. But thus far he has not come out to clarify matters, that he believes that a Muslim organization has the right to build a mosque near Ground Zero.
We are all waiting.
“That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.”
how is that not clear?
The problem is with his subsequent statement on the “wisdom.” He needs to clarify what his silence meant so that this controversy can be settled.
Everyone can read. But many are finding the last word or nonword unsettling. Hence, the issue we are continually talking about, you and me, others.
so, you’re saying that because you and a few others have trouble understanding basic English, Obama has to clarify again for you. No, Presidents shouldn’t play to the lowest common denominator and he is not responsible for your idiocy.
and yet again from his so-called ‘clarification’: “Which was that in this country, we treat everybody equally in accordance with the law. Regardless of race. Regardless of religion.”
And by the way, he’s not some school boy that you can happily use “this fucking guy” as a way to describe him. He’s the President and the office deserves some respect, even if you are stupid enough to misunderstand everything he says and think he’s wrong.
It’s people like you that Gibbs and Rahm were referring to. I understand completely their frustration with people like you who are ruining the country even as much as the stupid wingnut republicans.
You do go too far, you do, you do. Mr. O. raised the question of so-called ‘wisdom’ as an afterthought. He raised the matter as a way of clarify his position without clarify the clarification. He wouldn’t dare tell us why it would be wise and why it wouldn’t. You see, he might get a bit plainer in his statements because we’re not all as nuanced as you and him. He will have it both ways and he won’t get either one.
My remark is in reaction to homeruk not shergald.
.
I find the manner of discussion baffling, do we lack other pressing issues like jobs and the economy? The Repugs are pushing this discussion like hell, I find it a non-issue, especially since the excellent speech by mayor Bloomberg and the religious community from New York in support of him.
We have statements from the extremists across the globe: Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar and right-winger Likudnik Geert Wilders. Let’s join the fray! Bloomberg’s leadership.
Here is more evidence the manner the Republican administration and the CIA performed under the Bush years … all tremendous policy to
root outrecruit terrorists."But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."The reality of electoral democray is that what plays well for Bloomberg in NY doesnt play well nationally. If Bloomberg were prez he would likely have said something different and if Obama were a NY poltician it would have been different.
The republicans are bringing up very dangerous issuesd which many polticians will not want to address or will want to take the moral low ground on.
Unfortuantely modern electoral politcs in the belief based society complete with media indoctrination does not encourage the bravery to make a stand (unless of course it plays well to you rlocal electorate)
It shows how little anyone really cares about the constituion which it seems according to the likes of Gingrich only exists for those of judaeo-christian religions and few quiet hindus and buddhists.
It used to be reds under the bed. Now it is……..