Obama on 9/11

[snopes]

Comment: Got this one today:

Obama and the 9/11 murderers

-------------------------

Tomorrow is the eight anniversary of the most heinous terrorist attack
ever perpetrated on the United States. Thousands of our friends, family
and fellow Americans were murdered in cold blood by vicious terrorists who
hated America and what we stand for.

On September 19, 2001, a story ran in the Hyde Park Herald containing
then-State-Senator Barack Obama's response to the 9/11 tragedy. In this
piece (quoted in this article from the New Yorker, under the heading "The
Speech"), Obama expresses empathy for the murderers! Not anger, not
disdain, not a word of sympathy for the victims. His concern was for the
murderers

From Obama's article:

We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding
the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me,
derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the
attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and
suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain
of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history
tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. It
may find expression in a particular brand of violence, and may be
channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. Most often, though, it
grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair.

So are we to feel sorry for these people, Mr. President? It's not like it
was a mystery that there were terrorists out there in the world like this
back in 2001. We knew they weren't poor & uneducated, as Obama seems to
believe here. Ponder the fact that it is just this kind of leftist
"thinking" that is driving the Marxist/fascist policies emanating from the
White House today.

Tomorrow, please pray for the families and friends of the victims, and
pray for our country, that it not adopt the kind of thinking that Barack
Obama expressed in 2001.

(h/t to Michelle Malkin for originally posting on this last September 11)

UPDATE: Contrast Barack Obama's response with Tony Blair's:

So what do we do? Don't overreact some say. We aren't. We haven't lashed
out. No missiles on the first night just for effect. Don't kill innocent
people. We are not the ones who waged war on the innocent. We seek the
guilty. Look for a diplomatic solution. There is no diplomacy with Bin
Laden or the Taliban regime. State an ultimatum and get their response. We
stated the ultimatum; they haven't responded. Understand the causes of
terror. Yes, we should try, but let there be no moral ambiguity about
this: nothing could ever justify the events of 11 September, and it is to
turn justice on its head to pretend it could. The action we take will be
proportionate; targeted; we will do all we humanly can to avoid civilian
casualties.

But understand what we are dealing with. Listen to the calls of those
passengers on the planes. Think of the children on them, told they were
going to die. Think of the cruelty beyond our comprehension as amongst the
screams and the anguish of the innocent, those hijackers drove at full
throttle planes laden with fuel into buildings where tens of thousands
worked. They have no moral inhibition on the slaughter of the innocent. If
they could have murdered not 7,000 but 70,000 does anyone doubt they would
have done so and rejoiced in it? There is no compromise possible with such
people, no meeting of minds, no point of understanding with such terror.
Just a choice: defeat it or be defeated by it. And defeat it we must. Any
action taken will be against the terrorist network of Bin Laden.

That is the response of a leader. Obama's response was that of a coward.

[snopes]

Obama expresses empathy for the murderers! Not anger, not
disdain, not a word of sympathy for the victims. His concern was for the
murderers

Eh? It reads to me like he said the terrorists killed innocent people (in part) because they lacked empathy, not that we should demonstrate empathy towards the terrorists:

We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others.

[Jahungo]

Originally Posted by snopes

...the Marxist/fascist policies emanating from the
White House today.

Mmm...marxist/fascist policies. They go great with a side of perfect/horrible policies.

ETA: And I agree, snopes, that it is obvious the narrator in question horribly misread Obama's speech (if that is indeed his speech).

[AnglRdr]

The article is legitimate. The interpretation by Malkin, novel.

[jimmy101_again]

Originally Posted by Jahungo

Mmm...marxist/fascist policies. They go great with a side of perfect/horrible policies.

Or republican/democrat policies?
Or subterranean/space policies?

[wanderwoman]

Most likely she is referring more to this sentence:

Most often, though, it
grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair.

Because, of course, trying to understand the cause of behavior is the same thing as trying to excuse it.

But here I am, almost certainly working much harder at trying to understand Malkin's point of view than she has ever worked at trying to understand anyone else's.

[AnglRdr]

Originally Posted by wanderwoman

Most likely she is referring more to this sentence:



Because, of course, trying to understand the cause of behavior is the same thing as trying to excuse it.

But here I am, almost certainly working much harder at trying to understand Malkin's point of view than she has ever worked at trying to understand anyone else's.

I am re-reading the Tony Blair part to compare and contrast, and what I come away with is that they both say the same things.

Understand the causes of terror. Yes, we should try, but let there be no moral ambiguity about this: nothing could ever justify the events of 11 September, and it is to turn justice on its head to pretend it could.

Nowhere in the full text of the article does Obama say we shouldn't act. In fact, in the very opening he says that we have to act to dismantle terrorist organizations.

[Amigone201]

Looks to me like this:

Originally Posted by Michelle Malkin

[Bunch of stuff omitted that would completely negate my point]

We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding
the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me,
derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the
attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and
suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain
of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history
tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. It
may find expression in a particular brand of violence, and may be
channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. Most often, though, it
grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair.

[If there's any more of the speech afterward, I'll leave it out because it makes me look dumb.]

[Richard W]

Originally Posted by AnglRdr

I am re-reading the Tony Blair part to compare and contrast, and what I come away with is that they both say the same things.

Also Blair made that speech soon after the attacks (note the inaccurate casualty number), and he was in a position where he probably had to respond in some way. Obama's making a memorial speech eight years later, and action has already been taken. Is he supposed to pick another random country to invade, to prove his lack of "cowardice"?

[AnglRdr]

Originally Posted by Richard W

Also Blair made that speech soon after the attacks (note the inaccurate casualty number), and he was in a position where he probably had to respond in some way. Obama's making a memorial speech eight years later, and action has already been taken. Is he supposed to pick another random country to invade, to prove his lack of "cowardice"?

FWIW, the article Malkin is all up in arms or whatever it is she does about is one he wrote in 2001. When he was a state senator, and also in no position to officially respond.

However, I think Malkin might be happy if we went back to Vietnam and suprise the hell out of those people (h/t to an oooold Denis Leary joke).

[PatYoung]

One thing I find interesting about this is you would think that if this analysis was correct, then the people of New York, who actually did lose family and friends, would have voted against Obama.

I had to attend two 9-11 funerals, and many of my neighbors attended more. And my area voted overwhelmingly for Obama. I guess the OP would have it that New Yorkers hated our "loved ones" who were killed in the towers.

[AnglRdr]

Originally Posted by PatYoung

I guess the OP would have it that New Yorkers hated our "loved ones" who were killed in the towers.

This reminds me of this video.

[Ramblin' Dave]

Originally Posted by PatYoung

I had to attend two 9-11 funerals, and many of my neighbors attended more. And my area voted overwhelmingly for Obama. I guess the OP would have it that New Yorkers hated our "loved ones" who were killed in the towers.

Ann Coulter has said a number of things that could be interpreted in that way. I wouldn't be surprised if Malkin has too.

[PatYoung]

Originally Posted by Ramblin' Dave

Ann Coulter has said a number of things that could be interpreted in that way. I wouldn't be surprised if Malkin has too.

I forgot about Coulter saying that.

[Tom o' Bedlam]

Ye gods. Heaven forbid anyone should suggest there could have been reasons and motivations behind those attacks beyond "they hate America" or (my favorite) "they're just jealous of our rights," let alone that we should try to understand them. This sort of attitude frustrates me to no end. Yes, it was a terrible thing, but to simply demonize the perpetrators while making no sincere attempt to understand why serves no purpose for anyone.

[AnglRdr]

Originally Posted by Tom o' Bedlam

Yes, it was a terrible thing, but to simply demonize the perpetrators while making no honest attempt to understand why serves no purpose for anyone.

Except for feeding one's xenophobia.

[Chloe]

What's with the 7,000/70,000 figures? The deaths on 9/11 were closer to 3,000.

[AnglRdr]

Originally Posted by Chloe

What's with the 7,000/70,000 figures? The deaths on 9/11 were closer to 3,000.

Tony Blair's speech was given in the very early days following 9/11, when it seemed as if it could be 7000 that died.

[Lainie]

Originally Posted by Chloe

What's with the 7,000/70,000 figures? The deaths on 9/11 were closer to 3,000.

Early casualty estimates were much higher, IIRC. Perhaps the comments they're quoting from Blair (if accurate) were made while those estimates were still being used.

[Broken Sword]

Has anyone heard any rumors yet that Obama had something to do with causing 9/11? With all of the different rumors bouncing around about the government having something to do with it and Obama being a muslim who hates America and Obama just being another product of the powers-that-be who orchestrate everything and want one-world government, I'm surprised that no one has put 2 and pi and i together and come to the natural conclusion that Obama planned it himself.