Obama sets new tone in Mideast

Four months ago I was in Cairo, invited to address an international economic forum that was attended by government officials, diplomats and business leaders.

My presentation focused not only on the economic crisis still unfolding in the United States, but touched also on the foreign policies likely to be pursued by our new president. In the question and answer period following my remarks, a number of attendees asked whether the new administration in Washington would in fact significantly alter America’s mid-east policies.

Now, thanks to President Obama’s historic speech last Thursday at Cairo University, we have an answer to that question. U.S. policy in the Middle East has changed; in tone and substance.

If the Obama administration follows through on the president’s vision presented last week in the centuries-old mosque, then American influence in that troubled part of the world, which has fallen dramatically in recent years, is certain to increase.

Obama began his remarks with a noticeable omission – neglecting to thank or otherwise pay homage to his host, President Hosni Mubarak – whose nearly three-decade long tenure at Egypt’s helm, is widely criticized as making a mockery of the country’s claim of democratic rule. More important was the signal this sent that his speech was not directed to Egypt alone, but to a much broader audience.

Obama devoted much of his presentation to dramatically altering the fundamental tone of American policy from one constricted by blinders, to one of openness and understanding. Importantly, the president did this without jettisoning the fundamental planks underpinning long-standing American foreign policy. Thus, even as he spoke of a “new beginning” emphasizing understanding and respect for the Muslim world, Obama unequivocally reiterated our intolerance for terrorism and violence against civilians.

And, while reminding his Egyptian audience of American’s willingness to work in cooperation with Arab governments, he made clear this “new beginning” would not come at the expense of our long-standing, “unbreakable” ties with Israel. He similarly linked understanding of and support for the aspirations of the Palestinians for a state, without undercutting Israel’s legitimate claim to statehood.

In carefully nuanced remarks stressing that the U.S. continues to support democracy and democratic ideals in all aspects of governance, including women’s rights and education, Obama was careful to draw a clear distinction with his predecessor, who advocated (by deeds if not words) the forceful imposition of our democratic model on other countries and cultures.

The American president criticized the current Iranian regime headed by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad both for its intemperate and anti-Israeli rhetoric and policies, as well as for its efforts to obtain nuclear weaponry. Even here, Obama’s preference for a carrot-and-stick approach was evident, when he explicitly recognized Iran’s right to pursue peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The president also seemed to caution Israel against pursuing a nuclear attack on Iran, when he noted that American policy was not only to stop Iran’s acquisition of nukes, but also to prevent a regional nuclear arms race.

Another gauntlet was thrown down by the president – this one to the U.S. Congress, which recently and temporarily derailed his plan to shutter the military prison at Guantanamo. Obama seemed to call Congress’ bluff by declaring unequivocally in Cairo that the prison would be closed “by early next year.”

The well-crafted speech by an American president in the heart of the Muslim world was at once highly symbolic and substantive. But Obama was careful not to be so specific as to prematurely lock his administration into a pre-conceived road map – a mistake that doomed efforts by previous U.S. presidents seeking vainly to accomplish what this chief executive has achieved within his first five months in office.

66 comments Add your comment

The AMAZING GodHatesTrash, Superstar

June 8th, 2009
6:51 am

It’s great to have an adult in charge of America’s foreign policy, instead of a petulant, semi-retarded perpetual adolescent.

mike

June 8th, 2009
7:16 am

LOL. Someone who wastes his entire life spewing hate speech under the name “The AMAZING GodHatesTrash, Superstar” calling someone else “a petulant, semi-retarded perpetual adolescent”. LOL

drago

June 8th, 2009
7:33 am

What happened to the Bob Barr that prosecuted criminals like a eagle pursuing a fish? Does Bob agree with this clown Obama? Why does the US have to bowdown to the Muslim world when they will kill each other eventually by their internal hatred, especially of women rights, and those you oppose their fake religion.

Boots

June 8th, 2009
7:34 am

A most unbiased and thoughtful recitation of the President’s remarks and intentions, Mr. Barr. Thanks!

ByteMe

June 8th, 2009
7:34 am

Tim Friedman’s column yesterday was right: it was a great speech, but it’s going to end up being more about what the people of the region want and are willing to fight for than what we want for them. Our words are only words and so are their words only words, but their actions really matter more than ours.

ByteMe

June 8th, 2009
7:35 am

Oy. Tom Friedman’s, not Tim.

SAR

June 8th, 2009
7:42 am

Good point Mike. You can’t take God Hates His Insane Azz seriously; that poster- be it male or female or more than likely…somewhere in between, is one certified nutcase. So Obama is going to bring the Islam fanatics around and have them love, honor and respect our way of life. What a joke. I am glad to see his I Apologize for Amercia tour coming to an end. There’s only so much butt you can kiss on one trip.

Boots

June 8th, 2009
7:42 am

Drago: There are over a billion Muslims in the world. Most of them a peaceful and want only to practice their religion. Since our army has been worn out in a futile and ill-advised war in Iraq — a war that is perceived as being against Muslims — it only makes sense to reach out to the vast majority of Muslims before they, too, are radicalized.

Our previous actions have virtually alienated the US from the rest of the world, so maybe a different tact is advised.

Loel

June 8th, 2009
8:16 am

Is your real name, Jimmy Carter? That is absolutely one of the most niave collections of verbage I have ever read.

Doug

June 8th, 2009
8:22 am

Astute column, Mr. Barr. Could someone please translate Drago’s comment into English for me?

bob

June 8th, 2009
8:28 am

Boots, what radicalized the muslims prior to Bush Getting elected. If you remember, we were attacked many times before george was elected while Clinton was president. What did Clinton do to radicalize the muslims that attacked us.

Rocks

June 8th, 2009
8:42 am

So, Loel and Sar, do you propose that the christian world simply exterminate 1 billion souls? It seems to me your saviour taught us to turn the cheek and treat others as we would be treated. But, those teachings are thousands of years old and probably out of date by now.

Oatman

June 8th, 2009
8:49 am

Wow, an objective compliment toward President Obama from Bob Barr of all people! Who says there isn’t a God?

joey

June 8th, 2009
9:10 am

Bob (not Barr)

Liberterians and Republicans with that slant call the Middle East attacks on us “blowback.” They fight and strafe us because of our meddling like a Baptist pastor in their affairs and homeland. As an evangelical I agree with Barr and Obama on the issue. Treat them with respect their humans too. Jesus wouldn’t want the region he loved being bombes and destroyed.

Scott

June 8th, 2009
9:14 am

Nice to see Bob Barr uses his brain and is not beholden to “talking points” of the right wing. The simple fact is many of these Muslims in the region live in desperate poverty perpetuated by the radicals. Bush played right into their hands. These people dont want any more war, and given any kind of alternative they will take it. The elections in Lebanon where Hezbollah lost to the pro west parties says a lot for how good a speech that really was. Hamas is only in charge in Gaza because for decades they have had a huge humanitarian wing that aids the Palestinians. I’m glad to see we are finally getting smart and at least offering the carrot instead of just the stick…and glad Bob Barr sees it too. There is hope for intelligent thought in Georgia after all (as limited as it is)

JF McNamara

June 8th, 2009
9:24 am

There were two primary issues that radicalized the middle east prior to Bush getting elected.

1. The presence of foreign troops in the middle east, most notably, Saudi Arabia. Osama Bin Laden’s one consistent message has been that he wants no infidels on Middle Eastern soil.

2. That little Israel problem. You know where we (being the U.N. or westerners) took land from the Palestinians to form the Israeli state even though the Palestinians fought it at the time and swore eternal war if it happened.

Also, you are misusing the word Muslim. Muslim is a practitioner of the Islam faith. Your broad use of the term implicates Muslims living throughout the world and our “problem” is strictly in the Middle East.

If you really want to understand the Middle East situation, read Wikipedia. Here’s a link to get you started.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947%E2%80%931948_Civil_War_in_Mandatory_Palestine

sane jane

June 8th, 2009
9:24 am

Props to Barr for paying a compliment from across the aisle. A small victory for civil discourse!

Jeers to drago and SAR who twist “carefully nuanced remarks” into the “butt kissing, I Apologize for America” tour.

There’s no shame in disagreeing with Barr or Obama, but when you falsely portray the positions they take, it’s called a ’straw man’ and is fundamentally intellectually dishonest. Go sit at the kids’ table please; adults are talking.

Scott

June 8th, 2009
9:38 am

First thing…to be real here, there is no such place as Palestine. It was a broadly used British name for the region, thus there are no genuine “Palestinians”, and there has never been a country called Palestine. The Palestinian people did not vow eternal war. Their radical leaders did with the backing (mostly financial) of other Arab nations when they thought they could easily defeat the Israelis (pre 67). I have an acute understanding of the Middle East, and the above being said…these people really shouldn’t have any right to anything. They made stupid choices in their leaders who have created the way of life they suffer, but they are there and cannot be dismissed since no other Arab country wants them. If, however, you give these people some kind of hope of a better life (deserving or not) there might be a chance of turning things around in this region. I should have used the term Arab instead of Muslim in my above post…my bad, but the facts remain the same

[...] Bob Barr thinks Barack Obama has set a new tone in the Middle East. [...]

Copyleft

June 8th, 2009
10:00 am

Scott: “There has never been a country called Palestine”?

Get serious. The British Mandate CREATED the nation of Palestine, which was internationally recognized from 1920 to 1948.

It’s gone by other names throughout history, but so what? Many nations have changed their names over the years.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/The+Mandate+for+Palestine.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine#Name_and_boundaries

sane jane

June 8th, 2009
10:03 am

I have been cautiously optimistic about Obama. Refuse to drink ANY kool-aid, whether red or blue.

But the mere fact that he has upset **both** sides’ lunatic fringe pleases this moderate immensely.

JF McNamara

June 8th, 2009
10:50 am

Scott,

I’m no sure I’m buying your acute knowledge.

You realize there was no such place as Israel before 1947, right? By your logic, the Israeli’s had no right to exist prior to 1947 because changing your words…

“First thing…to be real here, there was no such place as Israel. It was a biblical term for the region, thus there are no genuine “Israelis””

There was a British Mandate of Palestine that was formed to split the Ottoman empire after world war 1. I guess that isn’t a country, but this areas existed for 28 years with the original Arab inhabitants. Whatever the inhabitants called themselves, Syrian, Jordanese, Lebanese, or Palestinians, it’s not like they were imported from Europe…They were there already.

The choice of leaders, what they deserve, and who wants them is just your opinion. They are doing what they feel is best for their self interest just like you do when you vote. If you don’t agree with their decision, it doesn’t mean it’s wrong, it just means that you don’t agree. You’re not in that situation just like I’m not, so you really don’t know anything about it.

Nuance

June 8th, 2009
11:24 am

It’s great to have an adult in charge of America’s foreign policy, instead of a petulant, semi-retarded perpetual adolescent

This from a guy who calls himself ‘The AMAZING GodHatesTrash, Superstar’. It could only happen in Libtardia, land of the libtard.

Nuance

June 8th, 2009
11:26 am

Sorry, Mike.

If I’d bothered to read the SECOND post of the day, I wouldn’t have (basically) copied your response. Nevertheless, it bears repeating.

Copyleft

June 8th, 2009
11:42 am

That’s probably a good yardstick, Sane Jane.

sd

June 8th, 2009
11:43 am

I haven’t viewed Obama’s speeches as overly apologetic as some have suggested.

I would, however, disagree with those who think that apologies are signs of weakness. I have found that in my life, by opening a dialogue with an admission of where I have been flawed and offering my sincere apologies has led to much more fruitful discussions than by opening the dialogue with an accusation.

I don’t think there is anything weak about apologizing. I also think that everyone and every country has flaws and its refreshing to hear someone take accountability for their mistakes.

Hypothetically, if Obama was to give a speech to say, the Chileans, opening by apologizing for the role the US had in propping up Pinochet, before discussing the future of our two countries I believe would be helpful in getting Chileans more open to trusting us going forward.

Jmoskow

June 8th, 2009
12:00 pm

WOW, I actually find myself thinking that Bob Barr is right. Well done Mr. Barr. Your article is thoughtful and insightful, instead of the biased filth that everyone else seems to say life Hannity and Rush and FOX, etc.

Turd Ferguson

June 8th, 2009
12:17 pm

Much like his bleeding heart constituency, Obama is a wuss.

williebkind

June 8th, 2009
12:44 pm

Yes, King Obama’s speech, after the engagement of U.S. forces with some support of other countries, has presented a different tone from the muslim oversea’s community. It kinda reminds me of North Korea and Iran after a trade embargo.

Of course you know there is no peace between Israel and the Arab world. It will continue. So go ahead drink your koolaid with ice and tell yourself everything is OK because we do not call them terrorist any more.

There will be no more suicide bombings, killing of innocent women and children, and no more honor killings in the United States. The Arabs will lie down with Israel and the world be at peace. Of course, liberals will continue to blame the US and make remarks that the US military deserve to die or we are a torture nation.

The AMAZING GodHatesTrash, Superstar

June 8th, 2009
1:16 pm

It’s not hate speech – it’s just the unvarnished solid truth, Mikey whiner.

And SAR, ask your mother. She knows. ;->

law4me

June 8th, 2009
1:19 pm

Bob, how’s the cool-aid these days? You have been mighty thirsty as of late. Is it possible your national/international ambitions have changed your critical thinking and comment?

manny

June 8th, 2009
1:21 pm

Finally, a voice of reason in the deep south.

Sarah

June 8th, 2009
1:57 pm

I’ll keep hold of my water, I am not drinking the kool-aide, no matter how thirsty I get. You really think this man will end their desire to kill us? I’d laugh at you if this were not so serious. Such blind faith.

JF McNamara

June 8th, 2009
2:33 pm

The people in the middle east are rational intelligent human beings. They aren’t homicidal maniacs trained since birth to kill Americans. They’re responding, no matter how irrationally it seems to us, in a rational way given what they’ve experienced.

I’m not sure why people doubt the sitaution can be resolved. Russians used to hate us but now we’re on pretty good terms. What Obama is using is Reagan style diplomacy. I figured most people would agree with that, since it worked so well against Russia. Apparently that has turned into being a wuss in the 21st century…

Roswell Ed

June 8th, 2009
2:40 pm

JF McNamar you are very sarcastic today!!

The people in the middle east are rational intelligent human beings. ?

Yeah right.

Visit my site for another libertarian view!!

Excerpt:
Using Muslim women as an example Mr President, let’s take a look at Muslim “principles of justice, progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”

In Saudi Arabia women who appear in public must be dressed from head to toe, they must always be escorted by a male relative and females are not allowed to drive.

In many parts of the Muslim world female genital mutilation is still a standard practice

http://libertarianhumor.com/2009/06/04/bho-we-share-what-principles-with-the-muslims/

Enjoy!!!

Copyleft

June 8th, 2009
2:42 pm

In many parts of the Christian world, women are forbidden to use birth control and have no access to abortion.

We’re not talking about the extremist loons, we’re talking about the sensible, live-and-let-live MAINSTREAM believers.

Duke

June 8th, 2009
3:08 pm

Boots said, “There are over a billion Muslims in the world. Most of them are peaceful and want only to practice their religion.” The problem is that the practice of their religion is jihad, conquering the world for God by the sword. That is what Mohammad taught, and that is what he did. Jihad is the fundamental purpose of Islam. The Pope suggested ever so reasonably that if Muslims are to live peacefully in the international community, they must renounce this aspect of jihad. The response was riots by Muslims throughout the world until the Pope apologized.

The Palestinians do not want an independent state. Their whole purpose for existing is to destroy Israel. This is crystal clear from their actions over the years. It will be made crystal clear again. As soon as they get autonomy in an area, they use that area to launch missiles at Israel.

When Israel was formed, the number of Jews who left Arab nations was about equal to the number of Arabs in Israel. The Arab nations could have absorbed those refugees simply by giving them the property the Jews had abandoned. But the Arab nations keep the Palestinians Arabs disenfranchised, so that they will be a sword aimed at Israel.

sane jane

June 8th, 2009
3:34 pm

All Muslims practice jihad, just like all Christians bomb abortion clinics.

When will groups like the Taliban and Southern Baptists realize they’re practically kissing cousins?

sane jane

June 8th, 2009
4:04 pm

It has been long known that there exists a strong, positive correlation between people’s stated fears and their own values. For example, homophobes are more likely to be deeply closeted homosexuals; spouses who “snoop” on their partners are more likely to be the one who cheats or deceives, etc.

So when Conservative voices say “Muslims hate us, want to kill us and will ALWAYS feel this way!” What they’re really feeling is…________?

Michael H. Smith

June 8th, 2009
4:07 pm

sane jane

June 8th, 2009
4:14 pm

Having said that, rioting and firebombing churches over cartoons of the prophet Muhammad is idiotic. Period. Respecting religion doesn’t mean you have to tolerate idiotic behavior.

(this goes for Westerners too!)

Mort Merkel

June 8th, 2009
4:59 pm

sane jane sure lives up to her name. Truth in advertising. Bet she’s hot, too.

sane jane

June 8th, 2009
5:14 pm

Yay, thanks mort! You made this troll feel like a princess for one hot minute!

Michael H. Smith

June 8th, 2009
6:17 pm

All Muslims practice jihad, just like all Christians bomb abortion clinics.

When will groups like the Taliban and Southern Baptists realize they’re practically kissing cousins?

Who calls that truth in advertising?

Che was a homicidal maniac

June 8th, 2009
6:22 pm

Mark Steyn: Obama’s message of weakness

A superpower that feeds on mediocrity cannot survive for long on leftovers from the past.

As recently as last summer, General Motors filing for bankruptcy would have been the biggest news story of the week. But it’s not such a very great step from the unthinkable to the inevitable, and by the time it actually happened the market barely noticed, and the media were focused on the president’s “address to the Muslim world.” As it happens, these two stories are the same story: snapshots, at home and abroad, of the hyperpower in eclipse. It’s a long time since anyone touted GM as the emblematic brand of America – What’s good for GM is good for America, etc. In fact, it’s more emblematic than ever: Like General Motors, the U.S. government spends more than it makes, and has airily committed itself to ever more unsustainable levels of benefits. GM has about 95,000 workers but provides health benefits to a million people: It’s not a business enterprise, but a vast welfare plan with a tiny loss-making commercial sector. As GM goes, so goes America?

But who cares? Overseas, the coolest president in history was giving a speech. Or, as the official press release headlined it on the State Department Web site, “President Obama Speaks To The Muslim World From Cairo.”

Let’s pause right there: It’s interesting how easily the words “the Muslim world” roll off the tongues of liberal secular progressives who’d choke on any equivalent reference to “the Christian world.” When such hyperalert policemen of the perimeter between church and state endorse the former but not the latter, they’re implicitly acknowledging that Islam is not merely a faith but a political project, too. There is an “Organization of the Islamic Conference,” which is already the largest single voting bloc at the United Nations and is still adding new members. Imagine if someone proposed an “Organization of the Christian Conference” that would hold summits attended by prime ministers and Presidents, and vote as a bloc in transnational bodies. But, of course, there is no “Christian world”: Europe is largely post-Christian and, as President Barack Obama bizarrely asserted to a European interviewer last week, America is “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.” Perhaps we’re eligible for membership in the OIC.

I suppose the benign interpretation is that, as head of state of the last superpower, Obama is indulging in a little harmless condescension. In his Cairo speech, he congratulated Muslims on inventing algebra and quoted approvingly one of the less-bloodcurdling sections of the Quran. As sociohistorical scholarship goes, I found myself recalling that moment in the long twilight of the Habsburg Empire when Crown Prince Rudolph and his mistress were found dead at the royal hunting lodge at Mayerling – either a double suicide, or something even more sinister. Happily, in the Broadway musical version, instead of being found dead, the star-crossed lovers emigrate to America and settle down on a farm in Pennsylvania. Recently, my old comrade Stephen Fry gave an amusing lecture at the Royal Geographical Society in London on the popular Americanism, “When life hands you lemons, make lemonade” – or, if something’s bitter and hard to swallow, add sugar and sell it. That’s what the president did with Islam: He added sugar and sold it.

The speech nevertheless impressed many conservatives, including Rich Lowry, my esteemed editor at National Review, “esteemed editor” being the sort of thing one says before booting the boss in the crotch. Rich thought that the president succeeded in his principal task: “Fundamentally, Obama’s goal was to tell the Muslim world, ‘We respect and value you, your religion and your civilization, and only ask that you don’t hate us and murder us in return.’” But those terms are too narrow. You don’t have to murder a guy if he preemptively surrenders. And you don’t even have to hate him if you’re too busy despising him. The savvier Muslim potentates have no desire to be sitting in a smelly cave in the Hindu Kush, sharing a latrine with a dozen half-witted goatherds while plotting how to blow up the Empire State Building. Nevertheless, they share key goals with the cave dwellers – including the wish to expand the boundaries of “the Muslim world” and (as in the anti-blasphemy push at the U.N.) to place Islam, globally, beyond criticism. The nonterrorist advance of Islam is a significant challenge to Western notions of liberty and pluralism.

Once Obama moved on from the more generalized Islamoschmoozing to the details, the subtext – the absence of American will – became explicit. He used the cover of multilateralism and moral equivalence to communicate, consistently, American weakness: “No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons.” Perhaps by “no single nation” he means the “global community” should pick and choose, which means the U.N. Security Council, which means the Big Five, which means that Russia and China will pursue their own murky interests and that, in the absence of American leadership, Britain and France will reach their accommodations with a nuclear Iran, a nuclear North Korea and any other psychostate minded to join them.

On the other hand, a “single nation” certainly has the right to tell another nation anything it wants if that nation happens to be the Zionist Entity: As Hillary Clinton just instructed Israel regarding its West Bank communities, there has to be “a stop to settlements – not some settlements, not outposts, not natural-growth exceptions.” No “natural growth”? You mean, if you and the missus have a kid, you’ve got to talk gran’ma into moving out? To Tel Aviv, or Brooklyn or wherever? At a stroke, the administration has endorsed “the Muslim world’s” view of those non-Muslims who happen to find themselves within what it regards as lands belonging to Islam: the Jewish and Christian communities are free to stand still or shrink, but not to grow. Would Obama be comfortable mandating “no natural growth” to Israel’s million-and-a-half Muslims? No. But the administration has embraced “the Muslim world’s” commitment to one-way multiculturalism, whereby Islam expands in the West but Christianity and Judaism shrivel remorselessly in the Middle East.

And so it goes. Like General Motors, America is “too big to fail.” So it won’t, not immediately. It will linger on in a twilight existence, sclerotic and ineffectual, declining unto a kind of societal dementia, unable to keep pace with what’s happening and with an ever more tenuous grip on its own past, but able on occasion to throw out impressive words albeit strung together without much meaning: empower, peace, justice, prosperity – just to take one windy gust from the president’s Cairo speech.

There’s better phrase-making in the current issue of Foreign Affairs, in a coinage of Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Committee on Foreign Relations. The president emeritus is a sober, judicious paragon of torpidly conventional wisdom. Nevertheless, musing on American decline, he writes, “The country’s economy, infrastructure, public schools and political system have been allowed to deteriorate. The result has been diminished economic strength, a less-vital democracy, and a mediocrity of spirit.” That last is the one to watch: A great power can survive a lot of things, but not “a mediocrity of spirit.” A wealthy nation living on the accumulated cultural capital of a glorious past can dodge its rendezvous with fate, but only for a while. That sound you heard in Cairo is the tingy ping of a hollow superpower.

Chewbacca

June 8th, 2009
6:24 pm

Copyleft, in muslim countries, women are beaten and raped for no reason at all.

Che was a homicidal maniac

June 8th, 2009
6:27 pm

sane jane, how many Christians have blown up abortion clinics?

I can’t name. Nor can I find any evidence of any Christian blowing up an abortion clinic.

I can however, find hundreds of facts on Muslims blowing up innocent people. Ever heard of 911?

How about the Cole bombing? How about the 7/7 attacks on England? How about the suicide bombing in Iraq yesterday?

Cheney IS a homicidal maniac

June 8th, 2009
8:00 pm

I had killed tens of thousands of innocent children and babies in Afghanistan and Iraq. In the Bush White House, we called it a crusade.

God is great, beer is good, and us Bushies are crazy.

sane jane

June 8th, 2009
11:10 pm

Michael, in all fairness, I’m pretty sure mort was being sarcastic. That’s how I took it, at least, and responded in kind.

My earlier post, however – the one you cite? My absurd comparison? That most definitely *was* sarcastic. I’m sorry the satire didn’t reach you.

Either I’m not a very good writer, or you’re not particularly observant. The truth, as usual, is likely somewhere in between.

sane jane

June 8th, 2009
11:21 pm

Well gosh Che, that’s not even the point I’m trying to make, but since you asked, here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

Before you scream “Ahh, who can trust wikis?”, feel free to jump down to the footnotes. The citations are solid. My favorite is the “Christmas Day Quartet” in 1984, who called it a “gift for Jesus, on his birthday!”

The point I was TRYING to make is that it’s absurd to make such a general statement (”Muslims ‘R’ Terrorists”) if you’re not willing to say the same about equally savage Christians. Generally speaking.

And seriously, if you “can’t find any evidence” of Christians blowing up abortion clinics… you’re not really looking.