Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

The Right Finds Its New Attack on Obama

Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly at 4:22 PM on June 4, 2009.


Only a few hours after his historic speech conservatives go after the president.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get World in your
mailbox!

 

Greg Sargent flags the lead paragraph of the lead story from the Politico this afternoon.

In a nearly 6,000-word address Thursday extending an olive branch to the Muslim world, President Barack Obama managed never to utter the one word that comes to mind most often when many Americans think about Islam: terrorism.

Greg's response was spot-on: "Now, there may well be a poll somewhere finding that the word most associated with Islam is 'terrorism.' Even so, it's an awfully weird news judgment to lead with a formulation this crass on a day as historic as this one." (Update: Andrew Perez has a good item along these lines: "Is 'terrorism' really the word that comes to mind when Americans hear 'Islam'? If that's true, we can point the blame at a media which never drew the distinction between adherents of Islam and religious extremists. Gerstein's article doesn’t do much to fix this perception."

And speaking of crass new judgment, Fox News' Megyn Kelly and Bill Sammon, two of the network's more embarrassing partisans, went after the same point. Kelly asked her boss, "Not one mention of terror, the war on terror, or terrorism. What do you make of it?" He responded, "Well, I make of it that he has taken us off a war footing as a nation, and it's now clear. When you give a six-thousand-plus word speech to the Muslim world and you don't mention terror, terrorist, or terrorism, that's not an accident."

It's sad, in a way. I watched the speech this morning, scrutinizing the content, and recognizing the event as a possible turning point for U.S. relations with Middle East. It was only one speech, but it was an address that has the potential to shape the future in real and important ways. It just never occurred to me that conservatives, within a few hours of the historic speech, would go after the president, while he's still on foreign soil, for not reaching out to Muslims around the world through use of the "t" word.

Not that it matters, but the president referenced the attacks of 9/11 (three times), "violent extremists" (four times), "violent extremism" (twice), and "al Qaeda" (three times). He also expressed a sentiment that would presumably find favor among his Republican detractors:

 

"Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice; we went because of necessity. I'm aware that there's still some who would question or even justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

"Now, make no mistake: We do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We see no military -- we seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.

"And that's why we're partnering with a coalition of 46 countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists."

But this, apparently, isn't good enough for some on the right. It's reminiscent of the presidential candidate debates from 2007, when Rudy Giuliani would hyperventilate if the Democratic candidates wouldn't specifically reference the phrase "war on terror." Only now, it seems slightly more annoying.

Digg!

Tagged as: speech, republicans, gop, terrorism, obama, barack obama, cairo, arab world

Steve Benen is "blogger in chief" of the popular Washington Monthly online blog, Political Animal. His background includes publishing The Carpetbagger Report, and writing for a variety of publications, including Talking Points Memo, The American Prospect, the Huffington Post, and The Guardian. He has also appeared on NPR's "Talk of the Nation," MSNBC's "Rachel Maddow Show," Air America Radio's "Sam Seder Show," and XM Radio's "POTUS '08."


Bill Kristol: Snow's Coming and Health-Care Reform Is Really Inconvenient for Lawmakers
Let's kill the effort -- and tens of thousands of uninsured humans -- so staffers don't have to drive in the messy weather.
Post by Steve Benen. December 18, 2009.
Peggy Noonan Outdoes Herself, Blames America's Problems on "Adam Lamberts" of the World
Don't be depressed about healthcare or the economy; the real threat to our country's future wears leather pants.
Post by Liliana Segura. December 18, 2009.
Deal Reached in Copenhagen ... And it Looks Like Crap
Even when you are expecting this, it still sucks.
Post by Tara Lohan. December 18, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
"violent extremists"
Posted by: Sister_Lauren on Jun 4, 2009 4:54 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Besides running drugs, what on earth threat are the "violent extremists" to us?

I fail to understand how this group on the other side of the world can be considered a threat to the mightiest power on the planet. There is a part of this story they are just not telling us.

And you know what?

We are PAYING for this, we have a right to know what they are doing with our money. Is it some kind of drugs and snuf porn site the top brass just cant get their rocks off without? Explain to me why I should pay for that and how it keeps America safer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "violent extremists" Posted by: kagyhelen
» RE: Graham: Scared of getting caught Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: "violent extremists" Posted by: hms2004
» RE: "violent extremists" Posted by: clvngodess
OBAMA SPEECH: HOW MANY TIMES?
Posted by: reelman on Jun 4, 2009 6:09 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From Drudge June 4:
Obama calls for new beginning between USA, Muslims…
‘ANY WORLD ORDER THAT ELEVATES ONE NATION OVER ANOTHER WILL FAIL’…
‘Iran should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities’…
Reiterates support for Palestinian state…
Says extremists exploit tension between Islam, West…

Reaction…
Iranian leader: USA ‘deeply hated’ in region…
Says ’sweet talk’ not enough for Muslims…
‘Obama really buttered them up in Cairo’…
US Muslims: Speech 1st step in fixing ties…
BIN LADEN WARNS MUSLIMS AGAINST ALLIANCE WITH CHRISTIANS, JEWS…
PREPARE FOR A LONG WAR AGAINST INFIDELS…
==========
How many times is this man going to say all nations are equal in their behavioral history?
How many times is he going to get historical facts wrong?

How many times is the fawning media going to avoid challenging his serial historical errors?
How many times is he going to tell us so many things have “two sides or are equal” when that is nonsense?

How many times is he going to tell us nothing new of substance?
How many times is he going to fail to put any new foreign policy proposals “on the table”?

How many times is he going to praise other nations but rarely America?
How many times is he going to pretend that his mush mouth sermon-speeches change anything?

How many times is he going to cowardly avoid mentioning the “basic human rights” of moslem woman and the chinese people?
How many times are the thugs of the world going to laugh mockingly behind his back?

What can you expect from a man who quickly borrowed-spent trillions then told us “we are out of money and in deep debt”?
(its been said before…modern liberalism is a mental disorder…anybody remember Jimmah Carter?)

What is that old saying?….”Ignore what is said, watch what is done”

http://conservablogs.com/theconservativecrawfish

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» If I wanted to read garbage Posted by: TennMom
» RE: OBAMA SPEECH: HOW MANY TIMES? Posted by: rotorooter
A WORD ABOUT THE RIGHT
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jun 4, 2009 6:14 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For openers I think they're wrong. But they don't give up. I would like to see all the people who voted for Obama behave like them and protest the war in Afganistan. I like the president. But Iraq is getting worse by the day and it's a sure bet that Afganistan will be a whole lot worse. Getting rid of the Taliban on the Pakistan border is like trying to get rid of cockroaches. We are paying private contractors enormous amounts of money and our own military is treated like dirt. No matter what Congress says or does, enough people in the steets can do it better. The war is heating up and being lost in news about abortion, Bill O'Reilly, gay marriage, and Wall St. Not a word about Afganistan. Exactly the way there was no news about Iraq unless we looked for it. While I don't agree with the crazies on the Right, I envy their ability to shout everybody down and not give up. Maybe it's time to borrow some of their bad habits. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
The word 'terror'
Posted by: grindermonkey on Jun 5, 2009 5:23 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
like 'torture' belongs to the Republican party. They are the experts in these two diplomatic areas and the fact that PRESIDENT Obama a DEMOCRAT and not John McCain is giving this speech says more about the American people than any of these wild eyed journalists.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Miscalculation?
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on Jun 5, 2009 5:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Republican have recently become pretty good at putting a foot in their collective mouths so far as the majority of Americans are concerned. This seems to have the makings of another example.

For the last eight years we have been threatened with terrorists under every ruckus and behind every Bush. Nearly aways, we later learn that oops, it was a false alarm.

Finally, at long last, aren't we all getting a little terrorism fatigue? Isn't it time for something new for the GOP's puppet talking heads to whine about?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It was worse than a 'false alarm' Posted by: Sister_Lauren
Hey, Reelman
Posted by: Carol Burns on Jun 5, 2009 6:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Be a "real man" and stop lying. How many times do we have to listen to you say the same things we are thinking, just about the wrong man? If you want to talk "mental disease", look no further than the Republican Party and all it doesn't stand for. You disgust me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hey, Reelman Posted by:
Why is this a surprise? The Republicans have to drag Obama down any way they can.
Posted by: fcvoigt on Jun 5, 2009 12:23 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Republicans have to drag Obama down by fair means or foul.

And since there are no fair means (except kicking him for NOT having Cheneys Repugnant Cabal up for terrorism and torture, and I do understand why they don't want to go there!) . . . since there are no fair means, they are bound to use foul ones.

No matter what words he had used, they would have found or twisted a word or phrase and hit him with it. That's their job, as they see it. Or they should work with him, but they're not mature enough for that yet.

In view of the terrorist activities engaged in by Americans which include drone-bombing wedding parties and other civilian targets, standing by while hospitals are gutted, rape, murder, torture . . . . the list is probably longer than I know . . . in view of all that I think he was well advised NOT to include the words "terrorist" or "torture" in his speech.

Wait till his visit to Buchenwald hits the newsstands. You have a ways to go before you reopen Guantanamo as a memorial to the people you tortured and killed there and seriously speak the words "never again" meaning NOT US EVER AGAIN.

Civilised Americans will make the grade, just as civilised Germans have.

The others will still be running around sixty years from now in hate gangs like the neo-Nazis. The Allies banned the Nazi Party after May 1945. They made ALL Germans look at what had been done in their name in the concentration camps. And yes, the pictures were published.

Civilised Americans will make the grade, just as civilised Germans have.
Welcome the day.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Attack-a-day club
Posted by: TennMom on Jun 5, 2009 11:25 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The discussion should be: when have conservatives not attacked President Obama. When they aren't attacking him, they're going after his wife, his kids and even his dog. I voted for him, and though I don't agree with everything he's done thus far, I see his attempt to mend the many fences destroyed by the previous administration as nothing but beneficial to the safety of all Americans.

This most recent attack du jour began before the president embarked on his trip to Cairo. Interestingly, Right-Wing America was joined in its protest by Al Qaeda. That should tell us all we need to know. Right-Wing extremists and Islamic extremists share a common desire...to see Obama, and therefore America, fail.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why Would He Use A word That Incites or Is Painful?
Posted by: Razional Thinker on Jun 6, 2009 6:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since 9/11, so many ignorant people think that the word "terrorism" is synonmous with the word "Muslim"...because the identity of who "they were" was never far removed from what "they did" and it became muted. Now, the word is very insulting to an entire population of kind and caring people.. I applaud Obama for separating and labelling it as it is and has always been..."an extremist group"...i.e. extreme

1. not reasonable: going far beyond what is reasonable or normal; an extreme reaction/action


Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fundie Christians = Intellectual Vandals
Posted by: LeaderofMen on Jun 7, 2009 5:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yep, that's the word/phrase association I have each and every time one of them opens their mouth and demands that Americans stand up for torture, fear of passports, different languages, crossing borders, and other religions. Indeed, xenophobia is apparently mixed into their DNA (missionaries notwithstanding).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]