Mosque at 9/11 site

Al's comment, as I read it, was directed toward what Obama actually said re the wisdom, not the right of building the mosque. He was very clear on supporting their right:


http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/14/obama.islamic.center/index.html?iref=obinsite

Quote :

Obama, speaking on Saturday after giving a speech on the Gulf Coast oil
disaster in Panama City, Florida, told CNN he "was not commenting and I
will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque
there," referring to the area near ground zero.

As president, he is doing the proper thing on both counts. He is enforcing their rights, which are a fact, but staying mum on his opinion as to whether or not it is advisable to pursue them.

Ann

alj wrote:

Al's comment, as I read it, was directed toward what Obama actually said re the wisdom, not the right of building the mosque. He was very clear on supporting their right:

Yes, he backpedaled with the wisdom comment afterwards.

I don't call that backpedaling. He stated their right to build and refused to comment on the wisdom of the venture. Two separate issues.

Sure. But what was his point in stating that they have a right to build in the first place? I think everyone knows they have a right to build. I don't interpret that statement of the obvious as anything BUT support for the project. After many other people interpreted it the same way, he backpedaled his apparent support.

eta -I also think people may be taking his statement in context of his constant overseas Apology Tours. Like when he said he couldn't criticize China's human rights issues because "we have SB 1070" (I'm paraphrasing). lol. And I have no idea what the instructions to NASA to "reach out to Muslims" was all about.

I think whatever he says is criticized and nitpicked to death. He is amazingly well-spoken.

I will not read the President's mind. He was asked a question over and over. He responded. His responses included two messages not in my words 1) there is a legal right to build 2) he is not commenting on the wisdom of building.

Enough. The purpose in drilling him on this issue was to "catch" him saying something that could be blown into further controversy and divisiveness. Since that didn't really happen, they'll have to continue making hay from nothing.

DK,

I agree 1000%.

LC wrote:

He most certainly did say they have a right to build in lower Manhattan.

Yes, he did. And I didn't say he did not. He said they have the right, and he said that, not to confer upon them the right, or to throw his support behind their choice to exercise that right, but because a lot of heavyweight opposition (Limbaugh, Boehner, etc.) was being throw against it. It is the President's job to enforce the Constitution. He was doing his job.

He said he would not comment on the wisdom of exercising that right.

He did not offer his official or personal support to either side of the issue.

You have the right, Elsie, to pose naked for Hustler magazine. If all your friends and family tried to prevent that, and someone asked me, I would remind them of your 1st Amendment right to do so. I will not, however, comment on the wisdom of you choosing to do so.

I suggest you take my advice and educate yourself beyond the sound bites that reinforce whatever point you are trying to make, which has long since been misplaced. Know and consider the complete story, all the facts, the complete context.

Quote :

It is the President's job to enforce the Constitution. He was doing his job.

Which he does selectively. We get a glimpse of that via the occasional leaked memo like the one from Homeland Security that brainstormed ways to circumvent Congress in getting "immigration reform" (aka amnesty) passed.

If you've never worked in legislative halls, state or federal, you have no basis to pass judgment on how business is accomplished. I just love the "I'm not a politician" candidates. So long as we have the political systems in place that we do, the methods to accomplishing legislation include an entrenched system of give and take that includes closed door sessions, memos, phone calls, and whatever. If a person is not a "politician" they will get absolutely nothing done to serve their constituency. Do I love this system? Absolutely not. It is what we have. We need to elect people who understand the system working on our behalf until it changes. That includes all political parties, none less suspect than the other.

Quote :

We need to elect people who understand the system working on our behalf until it changes.

This is a thinly veiled way of saying that even if the majority of people don't want something, politicians "who know better" are entitled to ram it down our throats.

LC wrote:

This is a thinly veiled way of saying that even if the majority of people don't want something, politicians "who know better" are entitled to ram it down our throats.

But that's how a Jeffersonian Democracy aka Constitutional Democracy aka Republic is supposed to work. We elect legislatures based on our hope and belief that they will act in our best interests as best they can.

Because pure democracy is not feasible given our numbers, we have to empower a small number of people to enact our laws.

It is only shoved down our throat when we disagree with it. We gave them the power to do that.

If they fail, if their work is not what we expected, or if our expectations change, we elect someone to replace them. That's how it's supposed to work.

I am curious about how LC would like McCain's and Palin's actions and statements if they had won.

Talk is cheap when no responsibility is involved. Easier to bark at the heels than do the walk.

I think Elsie's agenda here is to promote and encourage active debate. By disagreeing with us, she gets us thinking. And there doesn't seem to be a slant to it. She assumes her iron maiden persona to disagree with just about anything. I enjoy her posts.

No doubt, she will disagree with my assessment of her motives.

She certainly gets us thinking. It is dull when she is not here.

By the way, the Muslim religion is certainly under attack everywhere in America--not fair in my way of thinking.
Probably if the news media would move on, most people would too.
By the time they get through interviewing every rabid person they can round up, it sounds pretty dire.

The more they try to disparage the Muslim religion, the more intrenched and stronger it gets.

Yes, Abe, it's much easier to strengthen indoctrination than weaken it.

alice wrote:

I am curious about how LC would like McCain's and Palin's actions and statements if they had won.

Which actions, which statements? Obama campaigned promising to be Mr. Transparency. He has been anything but.

Quote :

No doubt, she will disagree with my assessment of her motives.

Yep.

He's trying.

I am going to comment on the wisdom of building the mosque. I think they could graciously decide to go elsewhere.

Having a right and asserting it are two different things.

Elsewhere? As I asked before, how far away would be acceptable? Isn't two blocks far enough? How about three? Four? Across the river?

Failure to assert a right is tantamount to surrendering it.

That's been a big part of the problem. News reports keep speaking of a mosque "at" Ground Zero. It sounds as though it would be in the middle of the commemorative site. Once I realized that it was two blocks away, I started wondering what the fuss was about.

Ann

In my view, fuss creates news. Now they're proclaiming once again that Obama is Muslim. They have an agenda.

FOX News is no doubt enjoying and fueling the furor. The behavior of organized religion is not exactly endearing.