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 — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...