Does ANYONE think President Obama should have held his

[babylonsister]

tongue regarding Muslims and their community center in NY that's not at Ground Zero?

I've just zoomed past nbc and cnn, and it's the talk of the pundit town. EVERYONE seems to think Obama opened up a can of worms. Do you?

Me, I think he HAD to say something, and he sounds like one of the few rational people out there, including the talking heads.

[mediaman007]

1. Always good to point out Republican hate!

He was right to speak.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eleny]

2. It depends on his goal

[babylonsister]

7. His goal might have been to reinforce the Constitution's ideals.

It's very sad so many seem to have forgotten what they are. Benen says it well...

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_08/025208.php

The message on Friday emphasized constitutional principles, religious liberty, and the importance of Americans being treated equally. We have certain rights in this country, and those rights should be celebrated, not cast aside for political expediency.

[eleny]

18. That's sort of along the lines of my response to you in your other thread

To the question in your OP, I think you were asking if it was good or bad politically. We'll have to wait for that answer as the next two election cycles unfold.

But I've come to the conclusion that he had to do it because his oath of office demands that he defend the Constitution.

[sandnsea]

3. He was speaking to Muslims

At the Iftar Dinner during Ramadan. Obviously he had to say something about religious freedom.

Rational people? Please, tell me where they are because I want to go there.

[babylonsister]

6. Yes, but he knew whatever he said would be scrutinized endlessly.

That's precisely what's happening. Do you think he made a mistake? As prez, I'm so very glad he said what he said, regardless of people trying to spin it.

[sandnsea]

37. The irrational ones being CNN & MSNBC

and all of those trying to spin this six ways from sunday.

I was responding to the uproar and whether he should have spoken out. My point was, he *had* to talk about religious freedom, he was speaking at a religious gathering. It would be kind of bizarre if he didn't talk about the right to build a mosque in lower Manhatten at a Muslim religious gathering, don't you think?

I am so sick of people today, I could literally just vomit.

[babylonsister]

39. I've been out all day, and ready to vomit right along with you,

re: the pundits and their spinning, which is what inspired this thread. I agree, he had to talk about religious freedom, but he could have been a lot more inscrutable about it. I'm glad he wasn't.

[Kber]

97. He had to.

the Muslim baiting has gotten out of hand and to keep quiet would have shown inexcusable moral cowardice.

[blaze]

4. Very glad he spoke up!!

Talking heads!!! :crazy:

[peacebird]

5. IF America is to remain the home of religious tolerance, then he HAD to speak out.

I agree with him in this instance - and I believe he needed to speak out.

[OmahaBlueDog]

8. Truth?

I think he should have said it's a local zoning issue, and stayed the Hell out of it.

Maybe then, he could point out that Mayor Bloomberg does seem to support this.

[PopSixSquish]

9. If the President of the United States Cannot Speak Out for Religious Freedom Then Who Will?

"For in the end, we remain "one nation, under God, indivisible." And we can only achieve "liberty and justice for all" if we live by that one rule at the heart of every religion, including Islam--that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us."

I have never been more proud of the man...

[babylonsister]

12. Exactly! Thank you! I'm very proud of him, too, because we know

he knew he'd get a ration of shit for what he said, but felt compelled to say it anyway. He could have taken the silent way out, and he didn't. :fistbump:

[ProSense]

10. Nope.

Look at what the media is trying to create a controversy around: The President of the United States defended the Constitution and stood up for religious freedom.

[TreasonousBastard]

11. The talking heads are by definition irrational...

elsewise they would have little to talk about.

Of course he had to say something at Ramadan festivities-- both to assure Muslims that we are indeed welcoming of all beliefs, including Islam, and maybe to stick a little jab about US freedom of religion vs, say, the Saudis.

[jaxx]

13. No way should he have kept quiet about it.

The nuts are trying to get by with pissing on the Constitution.

I'm sick of the nuts thinking they can get by with anything because nobody will dare call them on their bigotry.

[babylonsister]

14. Also, if this is a trend that's sweeping the country, i.e., Muslim

bashing, the President really had to insert some common sense into the argument.

[ProSense]

17. Republicans are still

searching for Obama's Katrina and Waterloo.

[Booster]

15. If he had not spoken of it at all, they would have blasted him for that.

[polmaven]

49. To be honest...

If he had not said anything I would have blasted him for it.

[babylonsister]

62. Great point; that's why I'm so glad he spoke up! nt

[Rowdyboy]

16. I agree with you, I think he had to. His job is to lead and unlike our last "leader"

he takes the job seriously. Politically, its a loser but I'm still glad he had the guts to say what needed to be said about our tradition of religious liberty.

[saracat]

19. He was brave to speak out but he ruined the gesture when he weaseled.

That being said, this is a decision for New Yorkers and I really with no national figures had weighed in.

[jaxx]

20. He didn't weasel, but thanks for your concern.

[babylonsister]

22. He ruined it. Sure he did; maybe you're too susceptible to pundits.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_08/025208.php

I can understand why he doesn't want to get involved in NY politics, and that's precisely what this is.

Meh.

I'm glad he said what he did, and don't think he weaseled anything, though coming from you, this is no great surprise.

[saracat]

26. Look, I admired him for saying it, and I get why he "explained " but it watered down the gesture, or

attempted too. It handed the RW ammo. That was why I said that he likely shouldn't have waded in to begin with but I admired that he did so because he took a risk. But this is one of those you are all in or you are not. He wouldn't have had to try to explain and weaken the point if he hadn't jumped in to NY politics, which it in fact is. I really resent any national pol wading into something that is very local , like city politics. I was a born and raised NY er and it really irritates me to see anyone do this.
Here is AZ, Jon Kyl dictated the appointment of a Phoenix City Council seat and it infuriated me. All politics is local but some politics are just that, local.

[babylonsister]

28. No, you had to get your dig in, as usual. So predictable. nt

[saracat]

46. It isn't a "dig" it is an opinion. I admired the first effort, understood but didn't agree with the

second. It is really too bad some people can't have a discussion about politicians and their actions. Barack Obama is a politicin. And not everythhing he does is perfect and everything he does is subject to comment both public and private.

[saltpoint]

48. No, it was a dig.

And it isn't the first, either.

You cite Obama's imperfection as a human, but forget that we all wear that same badge of imperfection.

The original poster offered praise for a demonstrably good act by this president and you simply could not manage to participate without your usual dig.

[saracat]

55. That is your "opinion"

:)

[saltpoint]

56. Is it your view that the President was

mistaken in citing the Constitution's sanctioning of citizens' right to build a Center in a given location?

It seems to me that an "opinion" was not being expressed. The Constitution's Preamble begins with "We the People," and that means all of the people, including ones who are not of the President's own religious tradition. There is no prohibition to the construction of a civic center in New York City or anywhere else.

The President correctly cites the Constitutional precedent and legal pre-eminence in this debate. He was asserting its purpose against bigotry. If it's your "opinion" that he misspoke or is factually incorrect, you should say so.

[saracat]

57. It is my opinion that where the City of NY chooses to build a Mosque is for the City of NY to

decide. The president had every right to defend the right of the mosque to be built and demonstrated political courage in doing so at this moment in time. However diluting his stance to what would have been more pragmatic politically and to perhaps the position he should have taken initially,seems triangulating to me. Ironicly, triangulating or not, the second statement is also one I can agree with. It is a shame it mitigates the power of the first.

That being said, the Constitution grants citizens the right to elect places of worship. The location of those places of worship is the purview of the City in which they are located, in this case NY.

Once again, I will state in general I am opposed to the meddling of national figures in matters pertaining specifically with localities. Sarah Palin also spoke to this issue and I feel it was none of her business either.

In all fairness, The president's second statement seems to echo the idea that he is not entitled to an opinion as to "location" and he is correct.

[saltpoint]

58. You repeat the obvious. If zoning regulations are

met construction should not be impeded, and those are givens in all other projects undertaken by socially sanctioned groups. It is the Right who squawked here, making the "mosque" an issue by which to embarrass the president, notably this particular president, who as anyone at FOX News will tell just might be a secret Muslim born in Kenya; hence, the "mosque" he's "building" at Ground Zero.

That's the landscape.

Obama knows the Constitution. This isn't about real estate. This isn't about whether the building code criteria have been or will be met. It's not about anything involving the City at all, as the City has no objection to the construction, witness its Mayor's strong endorsement of the project.

Presidents are as free to speak on any issue as you and I are, and it most certainly does not matter if you like it or not. They're free to show up at ball games and invite champion college teams to the Rose Garden. It's anyone's business to speak as they please on anything they wish, including you, including me.

You're mistaken about the president's second comment. Again, you missed the hinge entirely. The City and "the location" already have basic logistics in hand.

[saracat]

67. I wasn't talking about merely "zoning" issues. ALL issues pertaing to this rest with the City Of NY

for a multitude of reasons. This is first and foremost a question for the citizens and officials of NYC. This was their tragedy. This is their memorial that OTHERS seem to have assumed an interst in. You are the one missing the point.

[saltpoint]

75. The Mayor of New York agrees with Obama, and

Obama with him:

- - -

"The government has no right whatsoever to deny that right – and if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question – should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here. This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions, or favor one over another."

--Michael Bloomberg

- - -

The Mayor -- rightly -- frames this as a Constitutional concern, not a city-only matter.

[saracat]

93. Of course. You apparently do NOT understand what I wrote.

I agree with this too.That was not the point.

[SoxFan]

84. The Usual Suspects

I'm surprised these people don't trash Obama as being disrespectful to Minnesotans because he wears a White Sox cap.

[karynnj]

30. It is actually weird - as it is national politics

When polled the residents of Manhattan were about 53% ok with it - from a Sunday morning show. If you drilled down further, to the neighborhoods in proximity to the WTC (say below 14th street or below Houston) it likely would have been far more in favor.)

[Whisp]

61. it's not a local issue, it's a matter of religious freedom everywhere

but whatever. foam on.

[lumberjack_jeff]

88. If it is, then it's up to courts to decide.

He can't order the NYC planning commission to approve the building. It was a plastic turkey for a perceived liberal base which has taken far too many hits lately.

[CBR]

27. ...

[vaberella]

66. "weaseled" how so? How is that weasling...lordy. n/t

[geek tragedy]

94. He didn't weasel but thank you for repeating RW garbage spin here.

Consistent as always.

[saltpoint]

21. The flare-up is almost all from the far-Right, and it's

a flare-up of racial bigotry and xenophobia, with healthy doses of manipulation and fake outrage.

If the damn Mormons are 70 percent or so of the Nevada population and can tolerate Las Vegas casinos and showgirls, it does seem to me that the rest of the country can accept an Islamic Community Center in Manhattan. I doubt if New Yorkers give a tinker's damn about it if they are not themselves likely future members.

Obama is familiar enough with the Constitution, to say the least, to know what the Right is doing. I think the Michigan primary, for example, becomes easier for the blue team candidates if he stands by the right to build it. His weighing in -- Michael Bloomberg's as well -- actually puts the pressure on the Republicans, who must either adopt a radically hateful and bigoted position to oppose the "mosque," or risk alienating the nutbag base.

The President said in Texas the other day that "The Republicans have forgotten that I can politic pretty well."

Yeah.

Recommended.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

23. HE IS CITING THE CONSTITUTION, THAT IS ALL

[RufusTFirefly]

24. No way.

It's the best thing he's said in months.

The utter ignorance in the principles of the Constitution -- both in the community center issue in New York and the outrage from bigots at the Court's no-brainer overturning of California's Prop H8 -- is just appalling to me.

On one level it's depressing that the President has to provide the nation with a basic lesson in civics, but that said, I'm really glad he did. Many people obviously needed it.

It's no secret that I've been deeply disappointed (though not surprised) by the President's policies. But whenever he speaks up on behalf of the better angels of our nature, I am proud of him.

[nevergiveup]

25. There is no way in the present tense

this will help him politically but it was the right and moral thing to do. In retrospect I am sure he wishes he had worded the original statement a little but what is done is done. In the long term America always becomes just a little better place when its president speaks to justice and fairness for all.

[karynnj]

29. I think he should have framed it the way he did on Saturday from the begining if that was where he

intended to go. It was 100% predictable that there would be a major backlash to his courageous words at the Ramadan event. It is likely that someone wrote the speech he gave. Someone should have anticipated the furor - and the President should have either opted to speak as he did - implicitly endorsing the mosque or it should have been qualified.

By qualified, I mean in exactly the way the President was going to respond if challenged. Maybe in the form of saying what he did, but adding that in the case of the site near (a few blocks away - and given NYC buildings in that area - not visible from there) the site of the WTC., the unique circumstances need to be considered.

(I actually don't like the way he spoke of considering the feelings of people - as that is too easily expandable. In some red states, the "feelings" of people might preclude a mosque anywhere. It was also noteworthy that slightly over 50% of the residents of Manhattan were ok with it. (I would bet that the number would be even higher if limited to residents south of 14th street (or Houston street in Manhattan. Both of these are still broad definitions of neighborhood. Manhattan has about 3 times as many people as the entire state of Wyoming.)

[babylonsister]

31. I like the fact he focused on the Constitution; that's difficult

for anyone to fault him for, though they're (Cornyn) trying mightily.

As for endorsing the community center, he sounds like he doesn't want to get involved in a local political issue, though it's gone national.

Along with that, lots of contention regarding Muslims going on in a lot of states. Makes my head and heart hurt.

[karynnj]

33. I do too, but in the context it sounded like he was speaking of the mosque

I think it is interesting that the red states are trying to direct what very very blue Manhattan does. Where do they get that right?

(OT only slightly related comment. Parts of lower Manhattan got over the 911 paranoia of the 2001-about 2005 very quickly. My husband, daughters and I went to an off Broadway play, Tick Tock Boom, written by the man who wrote Rent about a month after 911. The play dealing with his feeling of approaching being 30 and not being successful. It was written during the years GHWB was President. One kine in the show - was in a monologue where he was speaking of it being a time of mediocrity - then he said "after all Bush is President". The reaction was interesting there was an audible intake of air, followed by thunderous, enthusiastic applause - more than any other line in a well received play. I seriously can't imagine that happening in many places that soon after 911. This was one month later - on Jane street (about 10 blocks or less from WTC). In addition, when we ate at a cafe nearby - there were multiple police cars streaming towards the site at least 4 or 5 times in the hour or so we were there.)

[State the Obvious]

32. Maybe someone could develop an animated version of the Bill of Rights....

... simply so Republicans can understand.... :crazy: President Obama was defending one of our basic freedoms.

Once a teacher.....always a teacher. Thank you, President Obama.

[sarge43]

34. A group of Americans want to build a community center.

They'd like a small part of it set aside to practice their religion. President Obama pointed out it is their constitutional right to do so.

Good for him; it's about time the bigots were told to STFU.

[Cali_Democrat]

35. Of course the mediawhores think defending the Constitution is a bad thing.

Islam is being unfairly singled out here and the media pundits could care less. It's all about how bad this makes Obama look.

What a joke.

[rocktivity]

36. Obama said the right thing: Freedom of religion is guaranteed by the Constitution,

and upholding it is his job.

The talking heads are just masturbating again--if Obama had said something during while the controversy was going on, they would have accused him of using his federal-level power to meddle in a local matter. And if he'd said nothing at all, they would have accused him of being unaware of things...

:boring:
rocktivity

[joeybee12]

38. Well, I was glad when he originally came out saying it was their right...as Prez, I think he had a

responsibility to speak on this...however, his later "clarifications" made him look wishy...

[pnorman]

40. K & R!

I do this frequently, when I come across an interesting thread. Mainly, it's to be able to add it to My Journal for easier access later on.

(Sorry for the frivolous bandwith consumption)

[JoePhilly]

41. Politically, it was a mistake ... the angry left is already staying home ...

And this won't bring them out in November.

The GOP will go nuts.

And those in the middle will be told how bad this is by the media. And agree.

It was the right thing to do ... and it will hurt him, and the Dems, in 2010.

[babylonsister]

44. Then decency and 'the right thing to do' trumps politically correct.

I'm very fine with that.

[JoePhilly]

72. Yes, its just unfortunate.

That's why I said "politically" it was a mistake.

I'll bet that today we'll still have more "Why Gibbs makes me angry" posts than we will "Obama's protection of the Constitution energizes me for 2010" posts.

[MadMaddie]

42. No! I think he did the right thing!

It was another opportunity for the Republicans to show their hatred of another minority group in America. They believe that no Muslim can be a patriotic American.

What should happen is when another Christian church deceides to build in the same area that the Mosque was going to be built they should be given the same treatment.

The Republican right believes that freedom of religion only pertains to their brand of Christianity.

It is time for them to have a taste of their own medicine.

[hulka38]

43. He had to say something.

I liked what he said on Friday and was surprised he said it.

[chieftain]

45. He's President of course he had to speak out.

A fundamental principle that the country was founded on is under attack by bigots, charlatans and demagogues. The mosque in a former Burlington Coat Factory store is but an example of the RW assault on the Constitution. If we are to keep our democracy, imperfect though it be, we must speak out in defense of our core beliefs. Obama has done so.

[DFLforever]

47. I agree with you.

He's head of state (as well as government).
He can't stand aside on this issue, however unwise it may appear to the Dem politicians... they can disagree with him if that's how they feel.

[saltpoint]

50. I already rec'd this thread but I wish I could find a

way to rec it again.

Obama knew the idiots and fixers at FOX would grandstand this issue, and he offered the Constitutional imperative of a group of U.S. citizens to build the Center.

It was a strong suggestion to his detractors and to racists and bigots and xenophobes everywhere that the Constitution pervades across all zip codes. Its jurisdiction includes two blocks any direction from Ground Zero and it includes every exit off every freeway from Boston to Bakersfield.

It is certainly a political risk for him to take this close to the November ballot, but he is president of all the citizens and spoke and acted accordingly.

I doubt if many of the teabagging squawkers have even read the U.S. Constitution, but its preamble begins with, "We the People..." -- and by all fair counts President Obama believes that that means what it says.

Kicked.

[denimgirly]

51. I wish he didnt walk it back...that causes more frustration by both sides now...

The problem with obama is he loves to split things down the middle instead of taking a strong stand on something...this is why i was a bit surprised by his progressive speak on friday...granted we are in mid-term season and so it is now whne he will act progressive but still he always seems to be very much aware of the "right" and making sure they dont get angry at him.

[babylonsister]

52. Yawn. He didn't walk anything back. Two different issues:

what's right vs. local politics.

[TheKentuckian]

53. He reinforced a very basic American principle. Those that have an issue are in the wrong country

If you are an American in your heart then there is no problem.

[snot]

54. I think he did right, and wish more would.

[applegrove]

59. Obama is about hope and change .... not fear. How could he stay silent on an issue which

is becoming bigger by the day...even if Obama had said nothing it would be growing. At some point Americans have to ask themselves "are we going to hate and be afraid?. Or are we going to embrace change with hope?".

[butterfly77]

60. The media and the talking heads ..

are full of shit! What about this do they not get..Obama said Friday that "Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country."

Are the republiCONS saying they don't because they are muslims..

"That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances," Obama said.

Now will the republiCONS try to change the local laws and ordinances???

The spot seems to be sacred to them because it represents bush and terra,terra,,time for the three farts to appear on in the media all singing in unison terra,terra,911,911 go find some old videos of lindsey graham,LIEberman,and shitty McCain..

[Recursion]

63. I think the 299 million or so Americans who don't live in NYC should STFU about it

Personally.

[Beacool]

64. Hear, hear!!!!!!!!!!!!

:applause:

[vaberella]

69. Amen to that. n/t

[vaberella]

70. dupe. n/t

[vaberella]

65. I don't think he had to say anything, although I'm glad he did.

There's no requirement here in an instate issue. Especially when the animosity is coming from some groups in the US who are more conservative or even prejudice leaning, dare I say. I find that Obama was not necessary in this situation, but what he did say was good and he made sure to state we're a country built on freedom, particularly religious freedom and we should remember that. His statement was great, but again, not a necessity in this situation.

[greymattermom]

68. the right wing views on Muslims should be pushed

by asking them a series of questions in public.

Should Muslims have to wear a crescent symbol
Should they have to live in their own gated communities
Should the gates be locked at night
Should they be fired from important academic and government positions
Should they be allowed to serve in the military
Should they be sent to labor camps

You get the idea. It just feels like the return of hate by a group that thinks they're pure to me.

[LatteLibertine]

71. No President Obama

should speak out for religious freedom and on behalf of the overwhelming majority of Muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism. I'm glad he did it.

I do hope the Democrats keep reminding folks that the GoP is about concentrating power and money upwards to the most wealthy at the expense or interests of the overwhelming majority of the US population. Keeping that foremost in folks minds is how we excel in November.

In addition, we need to remind people how the GoP actually govern when in the majority; increased crony capitalism, tax breaks for the most wealthy, low to no regulation and endlessly dumping money into the military industrial complex.

President Obama should end the discussion of any issue with talking about how poorly the GoP represent the majority of the US population and how they go to bat for the most wealthy every time. Heck if they asked me about the weather I'd still end with that shit :D

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

73. He should have ignored it, or used the Gibbs tool

The prez is not going to impact the outcome, so why get into it? It's a local planning and zoning issue. NYC can handle it.

Sometimes presidents get involved in issues that should be handled at a much lower level or a local level. Like Elian Gonzalez, or Terri Schiavo.

[impik]

74. He did the right thing. He defends the constitution. It's not his fault

that this country is beyond stupid.

[Edith Ann]

76. Opinion

The President's job is to protect the Constitution, not give his opinion. It doesn't matter whether he agrees or not, it's call Freedom of Religion. We all get to choose how we worship. If it's wrong for a Masque to be 2-3 blocks from "ground zero", Then the Baptist Church and other churches in the area need to get away from the site of the Oklahoma City bombing. After all Timothy Mcveigh was a Christian Conservative.

[bigwillq]

77. No (nt)

[Bluenorthwest]

78. The hope is that he is practicing his Fierce Advocate bit on this

and that he will begin to address other issues with a similar level headed and direct leadership. Ya know?

[derby378]

79. Some of the comments from the anti-mosque crowd were abysmal

One of them was something like "You towelheads can build a mosque at Ground Zero when we can build a McDonalds in Mecca" or something of that sort. What next, a pork chops vendor at the Wailing Wall? Idiots.

[sarge43]

86. That is a great argument. We should behave like the Saudis.

Just in case: :sarcasm:

[Doctor_J]

81. Big Media would be filled with Obama hatred anyway

The talking heads are not rational, nor are the journalists. They are right-wing propagandists, whose ranks we need to thin drastically if we're ever to get democracy back

[harun]

82. Hell no. Right is right.

[backscatter712]

83. No, he did the right thing.

Sometimes you have to take a lump for the country.

[lumberjack_jeff]

85. Yes. I do.

He should have talked about net neutrality. He should have talked about preserving food stamps. He should have talked about protecting the cost control mechanisms in health care reform. He should have talked about one of the million things that are within his responsibility.

Zoning laws in NYC are not one of them.

The only time you talk about shit which is none of your business is when you know it will yield support for the stuff which IS your business.

[babylonsister]

89. It's not just about zoning laws; it's about religious freedom

vs. persecution. Turn on the tube and see what they've been talking about. They'd be talking about this whether Obama said anything or not. From him:

Deputy White House press secretary Bill Burton said it was "not politics" but Obama's feeling that he had the obligation as president to "make sure people are treated equally" under the Constitution.

I think this is pretty darned important, too.

[lumberjack_jeff]

90. In which case, it's the business of courts.

The beauty of courts is they can step in to protect persecuted minorities.

Politicians don't have that luxury. They serve at the pleasure of the majority.

[babylonsister]

91. And the Prez felt he had to express himself regarding rights

of and for all Americans. I applaud him for doing so.

[lumberjack_jeff]

92. I often feel like I have to express myself too.

Because of that, I suspect I'm on a great many DU'ers ignore lists.

I have the luxury of that kind of self-indulgence.

[uponit7771]

87. No, they would've blasted him for not speaking out at all...might as well do the right thing

[DirkGently]

95. A good thing, but the backpedal was unfortunate & emblematic

It was a brave thing to say, but better to either make a stand or not make it. Backpedaling after the fact looks like weakness and just confuses things.

[phleshdef]

96. Its a complete and absolute LIE that there was a back pedal.

[DirkGently]

98. That's a little silly to say. He made a strongly supportive

statement, and then backpedaled in saying he wasn't commenting on the "wisdom" of building there. You can object to the term "back pedal" if you want, but it's certainly not a lie to call it that, and that's certainly the way it was perceived.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DirkGently]

100. You're still overstating your case. Mr. Obama made a strongly

supportive statement vis a vis the building of the Muslim cultural center, and then qualified and softened it by "clarifying" that he didn't necessarily mean that it *should* be built. So statement 1) is "This is America. They have the right because we have religious freedom here." Statement 2) opened the door to the idea that "but maybe they shouldn't build there because it would offend people."

Call it backpedaling, softening, "walking it back," qualification, or whatever you'd like, but calling it a backpedal is in no way a "lie."

It's not a huge deal either way, but there is an argument to be made that if Mr. Obama wanted to comment on the situation, which he might have avoided as it was essentially resolved, he should have made one statement and left it at that. Making a very strong, pro-First Amendment statement, and then allowing that perhaps it might not be "wise" for the Muslims in question to exercise that freedom comes across as a retreat. It might not have seemed that way if he'd said both things at once, instead of following a strong statement with an equivocation, but there you have it.

[phleshdef]

101. Only in the world of a creative imagination was the statement "softened".

It doesn't soften the original statement at all to say that you aren't advocating whether or not a church should be built when your original statement never advocated it. The message in both statements was that they have the right to do it regardless of what anyone thinks. That was the statement made and that was the statement the President has stuck by. You are so desperate to delegitimize any positive thing this President does that you have resorted to petty, overly imaginative parsing such as this.

[DirkGently]

102. There's some desperation here, maybe, but not on my end.

He defended the building of the Muslim center. Then he suggested it might not be wise. Advance and retreat. Statement and qualification. Back. Pedaling. It's not the disaster you seem to think people are claiming, but it is what happened, and it's not the Obama haters of the world interpreting things this way as you're suggesting. It's anyone not being -- no offense -- wildly overly defensive of the President.

We're going to have to disagree on this one, I'm afraid.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DirkGently]

104. Oh dear. With the "liar" this and the "liar" that.

You're not even trying to have a discussion here. Just claws out and flailing. Of course by saying he wasn't commenting on whether building the Muslim center was wise, he was suggesting that it might be unwise. And of course that undercuts supporting the right to do so in the first place.

Again, it's not a huge deal, but this painful straining because you object to the term backpedaling does not change things, nor does calling someone who you disagree with a liar because you are unable or unwilling to understand what they are saying.

Try this:

"While you have the right to try to argue semantics and logic .... I'm not commenting on whether or not it's wise for you to do so."

See what I mean?

:)

[GeorgeGist]

105. As one prominent Republican observed ...

if the Muslims need support for their constitutional rights, Obama would first question their wisdom.

[whistler162]

106. Why both sides would have screamed about him "NOT"

saying anything if he had said nothing.

sides = far right and far left