January 12th, 2015

Obama’s non-solidarity

Yesterday I wrote that the message sent by Obama’s non-attendance at the Paris march was “unmistakeable.”

But I guess it wasn’t, because there’s been a lot of chatter about it (see, for example, the long list at memeorandum) and many people profess to be puzzled by it or to think it was some sort of oversight. So I’ll be more direct.

Yes, the march was mostly an exercise in hypocrisy, because many of those participating in it certainly don’t have the guts to defy the Muslim message the way the cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo did. But the march still signified that world leaders were willing to stand up to radical Islam rhetorically and/or symbolically, and to defend free speech, which is more than Obama is willing to do. Rhetoric can be a prelude to action, although probably most of those leaders will confine their defiance to a march. But at least they’re not afraid to say the words “Islam” or “Muslim” or some variation of the two in the same breath as the word “terrorist.”

Obama is. Actually, “afraid” is not the right word, either. He’s not afraid to say those words; he refuses to say them. You can speculate on the reasons, from the possibility of his being a closet Muslim to being in sympathy with them to thinking that if he appeases them it will somehow cause them to make nice to the US. But the fact is that he is singular among Western world leaders in his reluctance to link the two.

Not only that, but he has explicitly condemned people such as the Charlie Hebdo satirists by saying, in his UN speech not long after the Benghazi attack, “The future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” Why march in solidarity with those who protest their murder, then? He wrongly and intentionally blamed the Benghazi attack on reaction to an obscure satirist. The cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo were not obscure, and the almost inevitable conclusion to draw is that Obama does not defend their right to mock Islam or its prophet.

16 Responses to “Obama’s non-solidarity”

  1. Artfldgr Says:

    its not non-solidarity, its solidarity to something else…

  2. nkbay99 Says:

    You are perceptive, as usual. Remember the Ft Hood shooting that Obama/Holder still refer to as “work place violence”.

    With all of the writing about his non-appearance at Paris, the question remains – “Where was he and what was he doing? Where was Uncle Joe Biden?

  3. DNW Says:

    Yes, the march was mostly an exercise in hypocrisy, because many of those participating in it certainly don’t have the guts to defy the Muslim message the way the cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo did. But the march still signified that world leaders were willing to stand up to radical Islam rhetorically and/or symbolically, and to defend free speech, which is more than Obama is willing to do.”

    Piss on the “leaders of the world” and those – specifically those – who put them in power. They created the situation and now they march with linked arms like schoolgirls.

  4. Lizzy Says:

    You’ve nailed it, Neo.

    Obama didn’t just not attend, he didn’t even make a brief press appearance, release a written statement expressing his solidarity, or even send a lame #JeSuisCharlie tweet. This from a guy who can’t resist commenting on celebrity deaths and announcing his NCAA brackets. For those who think he declined for narcissistic reasons, he could have found a way way to make it about himself while not attending if he wanted to; he didn’t.

    He does not side with those who (even symbolically, when politically expedient) stand up for free speech in the face of Islamic terrorists.

    He’s chosen a side.

  5. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    People see what they allow themselves to see.

    Over at the Belmont Club, Richard Fernandez points out that the Obama administration sees this crisis as an opportunity to discuss censoring Internet ‘hate’ speech.

    “We need to work more closely with Internet companies to guarantee the reporting and if possible removal of all content that amounts to an apology of terrorism or calls for violence and hatred,” French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve, speaking of Obama’s upcoming Feb. 18 ‘Global Security Summit’.

    In their hoped for future, declaring Islam itself to be the source of the violence will be declared to be a call for ‘violence and hatred’ against Muslims.

  6. expat Says:

    I suspect that some of the leaders in Paris will be on the phone with the NSA and CIA people to beef up ties.
    BTW, there is a piece at WSJ Opinion today about the “anti-immigration” protests by Pegida. The author is a US correspondent from Die Welt, which not a leftist newspaper. He points out that this group is really an East German rejection of Western culture. It’s center is Dresden, the one area of the East that was unable to get any Western TV or radio before the wall came down. This is why so many Germans protested against Pegida’s protests.

  7. Artfldgr Says:

    “As the camel falls to its knees, more knives are drawn”

  8. KLSmith Says:

    Although it is true that Obama doesn’t care about our right to free speech, I don’t believe it was anything as lofty as that that kept him home. Quite simply, the only thing other than campaigning for himself that Obama enjoys is sports. There is no way he was going to miss the NFL playoffs yesterday.

  9. jack Says:

    Let’s face the facts …

    This is not something that O cares about!

    On issues like this he will only respond when pushed to the edge of a political cliff.

    Case in point is the ISIS issue. He didn’t do anything until he felt he had no other option.

  10. parker Says:

    There is a simple explanation for bho’s refusal to link terrorism with islam. From labeling the Fort Hood massacre work place violence to his many statements exulting islam to his UN speech about slandering the prophet it is clear that he is at minimum ambivalent about jihad or an actual sympathizer.

  11. Ymarsakar Says:

    Case in point is the ISIS issue. He didn’t do anything until he felt he had no other option.

    ISIS’ funding and training came from Hussein. Is that something people still don’t know about?

  12. Matthew M Says:

    It is depressing to think about the Herculean task it will be for a post-Obama administration to fumigate the federal bureaucracies that were so assiduously stuffed with leftists. The FBI extirpated all reference to Islamic terrorism. Ditto Department of Defense. Justice Department that insists on kangaroo courts in the universities and stamps out voter ID programs in the states. Etc, etc, etc. Would Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney pare back the federal leviathan?
    And that is presuming they can even win in 2016. Would either throw back in democrats’ faces the specious projections, such as the war on women? Would they run campaign ads with soundbites of Hillary’s dismal Benghazi performance or her cackling about getting a rapist off? Or is Karl Rove sending anti-abortion mailers to the right mixture of red state voters our best hope for dragging a Republican candidate across the 270 electoral vote threshold?

  13. Retail Lawyer Says:

    Perhaps this a rare bit of honesty from Obama. He is simply not in agreement with the others at the event.

  14. Maquis Says:

    Neo: “The future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

    Actually, he said “The future MUST NOT belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

    He’s hard at work ensuring that is so.

  15. John Dough Says:

    Some forget that this was a march of the leaders of the world. Maybe Obama wasn’t asked since they don’t consider him a leader.

  16. Tara Says:

    I wish some intrepid journalist would ask Obama one question, on camera:

    “Do you think the people should have a right to mock or deride major religious figures?”

    I’d like to see him try to give an answer that subtly conveys the difference between the wholly reprehensible act of mocking the prophet Mohammed and the perfectly understandable act of mocking Jesus/the Christian God.

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>






Monthly Archives



Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge