Skip to main content

I may not have been happy with Obama's silence on Gaza (which he has now broken) but when al-Zawahiri speaks...

... he's still an asshole.

First things first--credit where credit is due: President-elect Barack Obama has broken his silence on Gaza, just slightly--apparently in the wake of the slaughter at the UN school. He's expressed his "concern" for Palestinian loss of life and promised much more to say after January 20.

Here's the most extended quote I can find (ironically from Al Jazeera):

"After January 20 I'm going to have plenty to say about the issue, and I am not backing away at all from what I said during the campaign, that starting at the beginning of our administration, we are going to be engaged effectively and consistently in trying to resolve the conflict in the Middle East."


I still believe he should have spoken earlier--but he has spoken, and for that I both thank and applaud him.

[Although I still retain the fundamental difference of preferring a non-interventionist, non-imperial foreign policy. That doesn't equate, however, with silence.]

Unfortunately, that delay has allowed that (again, the technical term) asshole Ayman al-Zawahiri, Al Qaeda's Number Two, to attempt to smear Obama with responsibility for Gaza:

Then, al-Zawahiri diverted his attention to Mr. Obama, reminding Muslims around the world that they shouldn’t be fooled by the President-elect.

“Here is Obama, the man that the American propaganda machine tried to portray as the savior who would alter America’s policies. Here he is, killing your brothers and sisters in Gaza, with no mercy nor compassion.”


Let's be perfectly clear here: regardless of your position on Israel v Hamas, nobody in this country should give this asshole any traction for these remarks.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...

Soda tax debate reveals fundamental progressive assertions about your lack of individual rights and the "responsiblities" of the State

I thought it would be at least amusing to use the Delawareliberal comments as sub-headings regarding each category of what is wrong with the proposed tax on sodas and juice drinks. But there are so many different little strands of each comment that it would be impossible to pull them all out. So, instead, I'm going to let you read them in more or less the order they appeared, and note the assumptions. pandora: I’m perfectly okay with taxing sodas and juice drinks. Mainly because they’re total crap, and one of the main reasons our country’s children are overweight. They are also dirt cheap. Assumptions here: (1) Because "I" am perfectly okay with a new tax it should be imposed on everybody; (2) it is the government's responsibility to keep children from being obese; (3) the cheapness of the product to be taxed justifies charging people more for it. John Manifold: Soda fattens your kids [and you and your husband], shortens their lives, costs more than water [a...