Sunday, August 15, 2010

In the NY Times this morning, in an article on the President's backing off of his support for the ground Zero mosque, we find this line:
But his “new beginning” has aroused nervousness in some, especially those who disagree with his counterterrorism policies, or those more comfortable with a vision of America as a white and largely Christian nation, and not the pluralistic melting pot Mr. Obama represents.

What? Who are they talking about? Who disagrees with the President's counterterror policies? According to the Times in a lengthy article today, there is no disagreement from "Republican lawmakers (who) have been unwilling to take Mr. Obama to task for aggressively hunting terrorists."

There is some disagreement from the President Saleh of Yemen, who is privately furious at our policies. There is some apparent disagreement from Abdul Ghani al-Eryani, a Yemeni political analyst, who says "I think the strikes over all have been counterproductive.” And there is clearly disagreement from "Qaeda members (who) seized on video of dead children and joined a protest rally a few days later" Yes, I know they don't share a vision of America as a pluralistic melting pot.

Citing "those who disagree" with the president is a throwaway line. Serious people know the President has greatly expanded counter terror operations. Serious people also have reasonable disagreement on this administration's policy of targeting American citizens. So maybe the writer is referring to the lawsuit against the counterterror policies filed jointly by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights. Somehow I doubt it.

It's clear that the Times writers don't read the Times.

What is even more disturbing thought is "...those more comfortable with a vision of America as a white and largely Christian nation, and not the pluralistic melting pot Mr. Obama represents."

This is a serious charge that should be backed up by some detailed reporting. But that is not the argument that any of the President's critics, whom she quoted in a single paragragh, appear to have been making. (If they were making it, she should have given us the quotes.)
Mr. Gingrich accused the president of “pandering to radical Islam.” Mr. Boehner said the decision to build a mosque so close to ground zero was “deeply troubling, as is the president’s decision to endorse it.” And Mr. King flatly said the president “is wrong,” adding that Mr. Obama had “caved in to political correctness.”
Does this writer really believe that opposition to the Cordoba mosque is based on a vision of white or Christian America? Really? It has nothing to do with the 2,700 murdered men and women, not nearly all of whom were white or Christian. It has nothing to do with not wanting to give Islamists cause for another victory dance at the expense of New Yorkers?

No, none of that matters. What matters to the NY Times, and Sheryl Gay Stolberg, is that if you disagree with the President, you are a racist. Such a view is either dishonest or simply ignorant. Neither of which are desirable qualities for a serious newspaper.


Blogger miriam said...

I'm white and completely non-Christian. Do my ideas count?

Aug 15, 2010, 6:23:00 PM  
Blogger FOD said...

Of course. I'm very comfortable with the melting pot.

Aug 15, 2010, 8:22:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home