Obama’s Insipid Rhetoric and Willful Blindness

It was disturbing when Attorney General Eric Holder refused to say the most obvious thing before the House Judiciary Committee. He was asked whether the three recent terrorist plots against Americans might have been motivated by radical Islam. This is a no-brainer. When Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was shooting American soldiers he yelled "Allahu Akbar!" That doesn't mean, in case you are wondering, that "I have a list of vague grievances." It means "God is Great!" It is sort of Islamic in origin. But you would have to water board General Holder to get him to say that Islam had anything to do with it.

It was disturbing when New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg speculated that the Times Square would-be mass murderer might have been motivated by opposition to health care legislation or anguish over bad real estate investments.

It is yet another thing when the President of the United States cannot bring himself to mention the existence of terrorism when he signs a bill honoring a victim of terrorism.

On May 17^th the President signed the Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act. Here is how he opened his remarks:

Well, hello, everybody. I am very proud to be able to sign the Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act, a piece of legislation that sends a strong signal about our core values when it comes to the freedom of the press.

All around the world there are enormously courageous journalists and bloggers who, at great risk to themselves, are trying to shine a light on the critical issues that the people of their country face; who are the frontlines against tyranny and oppression. And obviously the loss of Daniel Pearl was one of those moments that captured the world's imagination because it reminded us of how valuable a free press is, and it reminded us that there are those who would go to any length in order to silence journalists around the world.

Does the President really have no one around him competent and brave enough to point out how utterly insipid this language is?

Might the President have at least mentioned a few of the bloggers and journalists who face guns and dungeons for their efforts to report what their own governments are doing? Might he not have mentioned Omid Mir Sayafi, a 25 year old blogger who died in an Iranian prison? Mr. Sayafi dared to criticize supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Of course Iran is an Islamic Republic, so maybe the Obama Administration's speech impediment would have made that awkward.

So why not mention Nay Phone Latt, a Burmese blogger who was sentenced to twenty years in prison for posting a cartoon of the Gangster leader Than Swe? Is the Administration tongue tied when it comes to all Gangsters? It has no trouble speaking up about Israeli construction.

Worse than these sins of omission, of course, is that line about "the loss of Daniel Pearl". Loss? Pearl wasn't misplaced. He was murdered. A group of persons, persons who were no part of the Tea Party movement and had suffered no real estate losses on the American market, kidnapped him and cut his head off. One would never guess from the President's bloodless language that Daniel Pearl was a victim of radical Islamic terrorism, or indeed that he was a victim at all.

That this is self-censorship and not mere incompetence is evident from the following lines:

What this act does is it sends a strong message from the United States government and from the State Department that we are paying attention to how other governments are operating when it comes to the press. It has the State Department each year chronicling how press freedom is operating as one component of our human rights assessment, but it also looks at countries that are -- governments that are specifically condoning or facilitating this kind of press repression, singles them out and subjects them to the gaze of world opinion in ways that I think are extraordinarily important.

So we are going to "single out" governments that violate freedom of the press and "subject them to the gaze of world opinion". That ought to strike fear in the heart of Mr. Than Swe. Maybe if he does something really bad (one shudders to think) the President will actually mention him.

Of course Daniel Pearl's head wasn't sawed off by a government, exactly. His captors were terrorists, motivated by radical versions of the religion of Islam. To judge by the President's insipid rhetoric, such people do not even exist. His Administration certainly seems incapable of talking about them.

Comments

[William]

It's rather obvious that this administration lacks anyone competent and brave enough to point out how utterly insipid this and almost all of the President's language is. It's pretty much all this President has to offer.

[George Mason]

William and KB; Please do not take offense, but what bravery does it take to
speak such an obvious truth. This is cowardice manifest. Obama believes if we speak nicely to these people or simply not mention them they will suddenly love us. Obama's speech in Cairo was supposed to end all terrorist attacks against us by mesmerizing Islamists with his brilliant rhetoric. Unfortunately, as Hillary Clinton would say, they were just words, just more empty words.

[Jlio]

Under islamic law hussein obama is a muslim. Since islam considers women lower than dirt, the father's religion dictates the son's religion. Both of hussein obama's fathers were muslim, therefore hussein obama is muslim even if he was hiding in wright's hate speech church. Our own president hussein doesn't want to criticize members of his own religion.

[Douglas Wiken]

Obama is just a bit too creamy sweet. I like his rhetoric less every time I see humbug like his reception to the Mexican President as he attacked a US state. His waffling on bankster and brokersters regulation is also disheartening.

Radical religion of any kind is a threat to government and logic. Islam seems peculiarly adapted to living in sand a thousand years ago and for little else.
The jihad reaction of Islamicists to a cartoon should be an indicator to Obama and everybody else that such adherence to mythology is a threat to more than states.

[KB]

Wow, Doug! You managed to get to my right on this one. I certainly agree that there is a problem with the President's rhetoric when he can't manage to mention the existence of radical Islam but has to hesitation to call Arizona's government extremist for merely insisting on the enforcement of federal immigration law.

Jlio: Your logic is about as persuasive as that of the Mad Hatter.

[BillW]

KB

Your response to Jlio is an insult to Mad Hatters everywhere

[Miranda]

Please tell me there are not Mad Hatters everywhere!

[BillW]

Miranda - You can follow the exploits of 541 Mad Hatters here:

http://corporate.cqrollcall.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=12

That doesn't begin to include the thousands in state capitals, city halls and county seats from sea to shining sea.

Mad hatters are everywhere, my friend, and the epidemic of them is killing us.

[Anne]

I read this identical opinion in National Review, right down to the word "insipid." When I went to college this was considered plagiarism.

[KB]

Anne: I am happy to supplement your college education. No one has a copyright on the word "insipid". No one has a copyright on opinions either. It is scarcely any wonder that the National Review and I should agree on occasion.

One of the things I learned in college is that, if you are going to accuse someone of something like plagiarism, you probably ought to provide some evidence. You don't even identify the source that I supposedly plagiarized, let alone show similar wording between texts. What is written on this post is what occurred to me as I read the President's speech.