Bush Tells Muslims His Administration Rejects Bigotry

October 28, 2003 9:13 PM

Bush Tells Muslims His Administration Rejects Bigotry. But with Bush refusing to penalize Gen. Boykin after his Xtian fundamentalist remarks regarding Islam and the US Senate quickly pulling funding for Malaysia after Mahathir Mohamad's remarks, it seems a double-standard is at work here and many Muslims remained unconvinced of Bush's statements. NYTimes' Paul Krugman calls this Bush's Willful Ignorance.
posted by skallas (29 comments total)

Soubdbite for thought, one of America's leading religious leaders said this (from the linked Military.com article)

And action against Boykin almost certainly would create a fresh set of political problems for the administration. Some of Bush's prominent conservative allies already are warning of a backlash among the president's evangelical Christian supporters if Boykin is dumped.

"The president is bending over backwards to placate the Muslims, who themselves are trying to destroy the United States of America," Virginia Beach-based religious broadcaster Pat Robertson said on his "700 Club" telecast this week. "It isn't just a few terrorists, it's a mass of people - we're talking possibly hundreds and hundreds of millions of people."

A scary and highly paranoid statement for a very popular fellow. Is this how we look like to the rest of the world right now?
posted by skallas at 9:14 PM on October 28, 2003

Duh, dumbass rednecks are Bush's last pillar of support.

He can't turn on them to. They are the only constutuency that has ingored everything else.

/redneck racism.
posted by wah at 9:21 PM on October 28, 2003

He's walking a tightrope--he has to keep his base happy by condoning the trashing of muslims, and yet not scare off moderates who don't want to hear that shit. As long as the muslim bashing stays out of the mouths of anyone in the white house itself he may get away with it.
posted by amberglow at 9:25 PM on October 28, 2003

newsweek's fareed zakaria has been calling for boyking's removal.
posted by kliuless at 9:37 PM on October 28, 2003

aw, i thought you meant the boy king in the whitehouse.
posted by amberglow at 9:39 PM on October 28, 2003

After reading the stuff Mahathir Mohammed said, I could see why funding might be curtailed and don't know if I disagree with it. He's like a Malaysian version of Strom Thurmond.
posted by mathowie at 9:49 PM on October 28, 2003

I could see why funding might be curtailed and don't know if I disagree with it.

I wonder what would happen if the US just decided to pull the funding for everyone. Except for emergencies, medical and famine relief where they're needed...but just pulled the plug on everything else. I'm sure there's reasons why it isn't at all feasible...but it does make one wonder.

/derail
posted by dejah420 at 10:13 PM on October 28, 2003

Well, we gave money to the Taliban and look how that ended up. It just feels like money wasted if it's going to a gov't that fosters pointless hatred. We eventually pulled aid to South Africa over apartheid, right?
posted by mathowie at 10:21 PM on October 28, 2003

The pigeons are coming home to roost. The US will sleep in the bed it has made. Et tu, Brutus. Etcetera.

During the time the USA was the bully-king of the world, it could act with impunity. All the world's nations kowtowed to POTUS.

But the USA economy is failing, the US government has no credibility whatsoever, the US President has made nothing but an ass of himself, and new world powers are arising.

The next ten years are going to be hell on the USA. It's going to find that, having shat on people all over the globe, it has no friends. Bummer.

(On preview: ah, but Dejah, that funding comes all too often with strings attached, and hardly makes up for all the times the USA has actively worked to overthrow democratic governments, stymie trade agreements, or otherwise harmed other nations.)
posted by five fresh fish at 10:27 PM on October 28, 2003

We eventually pulled aid to South Africa over apartheid, right?

Funny that you should mention that. It happens that Cheney voted against the anti-apartheid sanctions 10 times during his term as congressman from Wyoming. In spite of his efforts, sanctions eventually were passed in 1986, although it required overriding a veto by Reagan. Not to stop there, Cheney also voted against a House resolution calling for the release of Nelson Mandela from prison.
posted by JackFlash at 11:38 PM on October 28, 2003

But the USA economy is failing, the US government has no credibility whatsoever, the US President has made nothing but an ass of himself, and new world powers are arising.

Actually, if you ask most economists (well, except for people like Krugman who obviously can not be viewed as anything like an unbiased source), it's picking up. And the economic problems were not isolated to the US. Germany and France are far worse off than the US as they have to completely reform their socialist systems in order to comply with the EU rules for members.

What world powers are "arising"? China? Sure but they were long before any of this recent stuff began. India? Sure but that was after nearly two decades of investing in their infrastructure and most of the business they are getting is from the US so the demise of the US would also spell their own demise. I'm just having trouble figuring out who is arising.
posted by billman at 12:23 AM on October 29, 2003

Nobody seems to have gotten around to Boykin's comments about Hindus and Catholics, which, if true, are even juicier. Blowing off the Hindu vote in America is one thing, I suppose, but if Boykin really has used a phrase like "Papist stooges", that is quite another.

If it is true--I've yet to find sources for either--but at least now I know Thomas Pynchon is a guest voice on the Simpsons this season.
Boy, so maybe those Left Behind books are for real, after all...
posted by y2karl at 12:50 AM on October 29, 2003

"The only minions of Satan are the delusions dancing around the inside of his head."

Ain't it the truth.
posted by soyjoy at 7:23 AM on October 29, 2003

NYTimes' Paul Krugman calls this Bush's Willful Ignorance.

You mean this Paul Krugman?

And to understand why he made those remarks is to realize how badly things are going for U.S. foreign policy...Not long ago Washington was talking about Malaysia as an important partner in the war on terror. Now Mr. Mahathir thinks that to cover his domestic flank, he must insert hateful words into a speech mainly about Muslim reform. That tells you, more accurately than any poll, just how strong the rising tide of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism among Muslims in Southeast Asia has become. Thanks to its war in Iraq and its unconditional support for Ariel Sharon, Washington has squandered post-9/11 sympathy and brought relations with the Muslim world to a new low.

Oh, I see! It's the U.S.'s fault he made anti-Semitic remarks! Of course, the American Jewish Committee realizes what Krugman wilfully ignores -- that Mahathir was an anti-Semite long before Bush came into power. And the ADL notes: "The last time the world saw such a hateful anti-Semitic tirade by a national leader, there was a tendency to play it down as well – as only politics, as buffoonery, as a passing thing. We know how that ended up in Germany. Let's not make that mistake again." But in Krugman's world, everything that happens can be laid at the feet of the Bush administration.
posted by pardonyou? at 7:58 AM on October 29, 2003

billman

it's picking up

That's great. Maybe the high unemployment figures and the record-breaking deficit can then be taken care of next. Then again, maybe part of the cause of the growth and the deficit is the biggest American military spending since the Korean war ...

US. Germany and France are far worse off than the US as they have to completely reform their socialist systems in order to comply with the EU rules for members

Don't you guys get tired of pointing fingers at "Old Europe"? Germany and France might not be currently meeting their stability objectives. But they have been dishing out cash to other EU members, some of which (Spain and Poland, namely) now complain that the hands that fed them all along don't know how to take care of their internal own economies. This is indeed a very compelling argument.

It's also significant how those two countries are also contrarian to the ideas that just about every other EU member has a about the future European Constitution (which is also being debated now). And, I'm not saying that it is related, but it definitely is a funny coincidence that they are the two two European countries which showed the clearest support to Dubya's military adventures in iraq.

And to say that they have to "completely reform their socialist systems" is incorrect in many more senses than I care to count.

What world powers are "arising"?

EU, for one. China and India have enormous potential. It is not where they were, it is where they're heading.

most of the business they are getting is from the US so the demise of the US would also spell their own demise

(Most? - could I have a link for that?)

In any event, this is not necessarily so. For instance, these past weeks there 's been quite a bit of discussion on how software companies in Silicon Valley are outsourcing their operations to India, which in turn undermines the economy of Silicon Valley. Taken to the extreme, this shows how actions that have a negative effect of the US economy could have a positive effect on the Indian one.

Also worth noticing is that some of the USA's economic flagships (software again, as well as entertainment) are facing quite unique challenge at the moment - hard to tell where it will all end up.

/Not that I'm wishing anything bad to happen, but to think that the US will overcome the cyclic nature of history is dangerous to say the least.

pardonyou?

The ADL also says that

Denial of the Holocaust is rampant in the media.

which is, simply put, paranoid. Pretty much like comparing Hitler to the president of a third world shithole. Where did I hear that conmparison last and where did it end?
posted by magullo at 8:11 AM on October 29, 2003

which is, simply put, paranoid.

magullo, that example came after this statement: "They come in the context of a surge of anti-Semitism in the Islamic world, and not only on the fringes. " The ADL was clearly referring to media denial of the Holocaust in the Islamic world. The ADL is not saying that western media denies the Holocaust. So, with that in mind: Is that statement still paranoid? I don't really have familiarity with Islamic media, but it doesn't seem so far-fetched to me. Maybe you have some information to counter that characterization?
posted by pardonyou? at 8:40 AM on October 29, 2003

Paranoia

More paranoia (check the date, and this seems to be the most recent piece)

/But I'd love to be proofed wrong
posted by magullo at 9:04 AM on October 29, 2003

Maybe you have some information to counter that characterization?

Not to mention the fact that accusations without evidence to support them require no evidence to counter. They are what is usually called "baseless".
posted by magullo at 9:08 AM on October 29, 2003

I have to say I find comparing Matahir's comments with apartheid South Africa offensive and obscene. In one case we're talking about brutal, murderous racial oppression, in the other case we're talking about a leader making a speech where he said that basically Jews rule the world and that Muslims should emulate them and their 'sneaky' ways. Classic hateful anti-semitism, yes, worthy of the strongest possible verbal rebuke, but to compare it to apartheid? That's just wrong.

I don't think it's a good idea to pull aid from countries based on things their leaders say. Things their leaders do, on the other hand, are far more important.

To wrap the whole thing up in a confused but ironic way, I find it vaguely hilarious that the Senate, which gives billions of dollars per year away to an already wealthy country which wants to require non-Jews to obtain permits to live in their own homes wants to take away 1.5 million dollars to a country whose outgoing leader made some offensive comments in a speech.
posted by cell divide at 9:22 AM on October 29, 2003

From y2karl's first link: "To visitors from Metafilter, Mark Kleiman, and J. Bradford DeLong, a clarification: the Boykin piece is satire. It's a regular bit of my schtick, so don't take it too seriously. I shudder to think that it might create an international incident. Don't alert Vajpayee."
posted by homunculus at 10:03 AM on October 29, 2003

Not to mention the fact that accusations without evidence to support them require no evidence to counter. They are what is usually called "baseless".

It was a press release, not a treatise. Anyway, how about this?
posted by pardonyou? at 10:12 AM on October 29, 2003

Thanks, homunculus. "Emma" oughta put that note on the entry itself since it will continue to be linked from elsewhere now. However, this is still true: "The only minions of Satan are the delusions dancing around the inside of his head."
posted by soyjoy at 10:18 AM on October 29, 2003

All I can say in my defense is that I came across that 'satire' via Brad Delong, for one thing, and did voice my suspicions, for another. Her schtick appears to have gotten Emma her 14 minutes.
posted by y2karl at 10:44 AM on October 29, 2003

The ADL is hardly an objective source.
posted by dejah420 at 11:03 AM on October 29, 2003

pardonyou, we can be throwing links at each other all night. Let me give you a better one to prove your point.

What would you know? it also proves mine. Diminished and rampant are exclusive terms, as far as I understand them. Rampant means extending without check. I'd say that things that "extend" do not "diminish" at the same time.
posted by magullo at 11:05 AM on October 29, 2003

apples and oranges, magullo. Your cites refer to anti-Semitism. However, the allegation was Holocaust denial. Those are two distinctly different things. Remember how this went: The ADL said that there was "rampant Holocaust denial in Islamic media." You said that statement was, quote "simply put, paranoid" endquote.

paranoid: Exhibiting or characterized by extreme and irrational fear or distrust of others

Now, using your word, coupled with the ADL's link to Holocaust denials in the media, do you still want to argue that the ADL's claim exhibits "extreme" and "irrational" fear?

The ADL is hardly an objective source.

Never claimed they were. I cited the ADL as a counterbalance to skallas's citation to Paul Krugman, who is also "hardly an objective source."
posted by pardonyou? at 11:41 AM on October 29, 2003

I dont think America is going to fall into a 2nd world category in the next ten years, FFF. But, and I hate to sound like chicken little, ignorance in all forms will destroy the economy and the biggest fish in the pond could rot from the inside.

First off, remove Pat Robertson from popular media. This also goes for other people who LIE and say their God told them what to do. Actions speak louder than words, pat. And your time on this earth is running out.

Second of all, we have to revolutionize American media so it's mantra ceases to be "if it bleeds it leads". We need to find a happy moderation between family values (No, not christian values. Pay attention.) and entertainment, but the nightly news can't be a 30 minute scare fest about how everyone should be worried about razors in halloween candy.

We need Social Healthcare, and who cares if the North thought of it first? That just means its a proven and guaranteed way to guarantee health coverage for all the people that make this land great. We also need a non-profit car insurance program that offers liability to a capped income limit, that will be taken through our taxes.

(Now this ones for Oregon!) School donations need to be spread evenly between all schools so there can be no more favoritism in the higher class neighborhoods. Thats right daddy warbucks, those black kids in the inner city get a piece of the pie too. It also just so happens Oregon out of all states has the lowest active school days annually. It didnt used to be like that. If my future kids could have more oppourtunities to succeed in another country that is very close to us, I will move for their sake.
I guess when more people do this the great fish of capital ignorance will rot from the inside out from her own voracious appetite.
posted by Keyser Soze at 11:49 AM on October 29, 2003

Meanwhile, at home: "Why are some nonprofit organizations that don't agree with the Bush administration's "abstinence only" philosophy repeatedly investigated by the government, while faith-based groups get a free pass?"
posted by homunculus at 12:28 PM on October 29, 2003

Cell Divide, very well put. I was going to post something similiar. Actions and words are two very different things.

The greater irony of Matt's statements, as you pointed out, is that the Palestinian situation could easily be seen as a form of apartheid. Palestine + Apartheid brings up a great deal of google hits and I've seen the wall Israel building refered to as an Apartheid Wall by media outlets and talking heads that don't usually go for hyperbole.

The double standard I'm afraid is quite real and the rest of the world is seeing the US's actions for what they are. Of course, to suggest otherwise gets one called an anti-semite, but that seems to be the price of speaking honestly about Israel nowadays.
posted by skallas at 12:47 PM on October 29, 2003