Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Obama’s Comments are Disgusting

Obama’s Comments are Disgusting

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

This is not about supporting Ahmadinejad and not about opposing President Barack Obama. This is about how President Barack Obama responded to the comments made by the head of a state. This is about the context in which the president of the US chose to condemn the comments of the Iranian President Ahmadinejad.

How should he respond?

Mr. Obama should have responded by directly addressing the comments of Mr. Ahmadinejad. Condemning notionally such comments is a way of responding, but it is not enough for the head of the state of the United States of America, who repeatedly talks about humanity, America’s reputation, support for America, the relevance of American supremacy, the pride of the USA and its uniqueness.Obama vs Ahmadinejad

Let us review Mr. Ahmadinejad’s remarks,  He said, “Some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy, and its grip on the Middle East, in order to save the Zionist regime.” He said most of the people of the world and the US believe this theory. This was the essence of comments of Mr. Ahmadinejad on the UN podium regarding 9/11 attacks. These comments involve the aspects of politics, economics, sociology and culture of the politics.

It would have been perfect if Mr. Obama had asked Mr. Ahmadinejad to name the element of the US establishment he believed to be behind the 9/11 attacks. He should have said why the American economy was not declining then. He should have rejected the idea that the US was attempting to retain its grip on the Middle East, and he should have told the people of the US and the world why and how the US regime did not intend to save the Zionist (or Israeli) regime, if it was not.

Possibility

Furthermore, Mr. Ahmadinejad linked the interests of the US in the Middle East to the 9/11 attacks. President Obama should have explained how they were not linked. He should have revealed that there was a possibility, and only a possibility that there could have been attacks irrespective of the US interests in the Middle East. However, Mr. Obama did not choose to respond in that way. He simply made a counterattack on Ahmadinejad’s remarks terming his comments “hateful,” “outrageous,” and “inexcusable.” He chose to divert the attention of the people of America as well as the world by linking just the places of different incidents.

Disgusting

The most disgusting remarks in Mr. Obama’s response were about the linking of the place where Mr. Ahmadinejad delivered his speech, and the site of the twin towers.. Obama said, “It was offensive. It was hateful. And particularly for him to make the statement here in Manhattan, just a little north of Ground Zero, where families lost their loved ones, people of all faiths, all ethnicities who see this as the seminal tragedy of this generation. For him to make a statement like that was inexcusable.”

This is not the way to respect those who died in the seminal tragedy of this generation. This is not how to honor the sentiments of those who lost their beloved in the attack.

Suppose that Ahmadinejad had made his comments in Washington or in California instead of New York, would they have been  justified? How much distance must Ahmadinejad had to have maintained to make such comments? Is it one kilometer, 100km or 1000km? This context of distance between the UN General Assembly and the twin towers was raised first by a spokesperson of the President. This author noted that it was only a spokesperson and that Obama would not have raised such a context. However, astonishingly, Obama himself repeated the same context to condemn the comments.

Bottom Line

The bottom line is that the Iranian President made his point straight and the US president did not. Moreover, Mr. Ahmadinejad asked to constitute a fact-finding mission to ascertain what really happened. Even after the furor over his comments, the Iranian President did not back down. He defended his statement, saying, “I did not pass judgment, but, don’t you feel that the time has come to have a fact-finding committee?” He added, “The fact-finding mission can shed light on who the perpetrators were, who al-Qaeda is… where it exists? Who was it backed by and supported? All these should come to light.”

What Ahmadinejad demanded is potentially beneficial to the people of America, because their right to know the truth has not been fulfilled. If the people of America were to know the truth, the base of American imperialism and the chain of the imperialist soil-legged demon spread among the developed world, would be shattered. If the people of the US knew the truth, that truth could be the beginning of the end of the imperialist regimes.

US imperialism stands on a fake base built with lies. It is not faithful, but hateful. Falsehood is strength temporarily, but disastrous for the future. The US kingdom is keeping its people in the darkness of lies. That is why it does not dare to appoint a fact-finding mission. It lacks the guts to prove why Mr. Ahmadinejad was wrong in his comments.

Inciting The Iranian People

Mr. Obama’s machinations did not stop with diverting attention from the comments made by Ahmadinejad, but extended to inciting the Iranian people against their president. He said in his exclusive interview with BBC Persian television, which broadcasts to Iran and Afghanistan, “There were candlelight vigils and I think a natural sense of shared humanity and sympathy was expressed within Iran,” Mr Obama told the BBC. “It just shows once again the difference between how the Iranian leadership and this regime operate and how I think the vast majority of the Iranian people, who are respectful and thoughtful, think about these issues.”

One should wonder where the natural sense of shared humanity of Mr. Obama was, when he decided on an increase of 30,000 troops in Afghanistan, throwing them into fire and subjecting the people of Afghanistan to more killings, attacks, blasts and tragedy.

Mr. Obama was correct when he was talking about candlelight vigils. He was right when he described the Iranian people as respectful and thoughtful about the issues. However, President Obama was pathetic when he tried to draw a negative parallel between the greatness of the Iranian people and the comments of their president in the General Assembly.

The two contexts were different. The Iranians expressed their shared humanity to those who became scapegoats in the machinations of the inhuman vested interests people, no matter whether they were terrorists or certain sections of the US establishment. Mr. Ahmadinejad asked the natural questions “who the perpetrators were, who al-Qaeda is… where it exists? Who was it backed by and supported?” What the Iranian people showed was humanity, what the Iranian president asked was responsibility and how Mr. Obama responded was profanity.

Actually, these questions should be asked by the US rulers and their people, but they have not been. If someone asks for the truth to be revealed, he should be given due respect. Instead, the US President chose the other way, not showing any interest in properly answering the questions and trying to divert attention.  This is how the US and the other imperialist regimes survive.

Powered by

About Sekhar

  • Baronius

    Sehkar – When you’re writing about an exchange like this, first cite what each party said in chronological order. Don’t assume that we know the material you’re analyzing as well as you do.

  • http://financialpolitics.com/ Sekhar

    I’m extremely sorry about it, but I’ve mentioned the dialogues and they were in chronological order as they appear in the article.

    Thanks for reminding me.

  • Average American

    Obama does not speak for the views of most Americans. He won the presidency by vague promises of change and hope that he never described in detail. Now that he is in office, Americans do not like the views he is pushing and his efforts to push his agendas are failing. He is not an eloquent speaker. Even with a teleprompter he stammers and does not present himself as passionate about anything, except for his hatred of anything of a conservative nature. The events of 9/11 have been research and documented, so maybe Ahmadinejad needs to be given some of that material to read. The US government was not responsible for plotting, or carrying out any of the attacks that day. Obama used the same dismissal techniques to dismiss the remarks by Ahmadinejad that he uses to deflect any criticism about himself or his policies. He can’t address an issue with facts to rebut the argument, because, even though he may be very smart, he chooses to only be informed of opinions and ideas that he agrees with.

  • http://financialpolitics.com/ Sekhar

    As an American you can see the difference between Bush and Obama. But, the people of the third world countries can only see the hegemonic policies of the US, being persistent and perpetual irrespective of the person or the party that is in power.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Sekhar,

    First: Ahmadinejad deserves little more than profanity. He and his regime are nothing short of totalitarian thugs. Still, the entire premise of your article is full of vague and insubstantiated admonishments regarding supposed American imperialism.

    I never fail to be amazed at just how many people know just what someone else should have done or said, when, in reality, they don’t have any idea what they’re talking about.

    As to Average American’s comment – little in his statement rings true. There are certainly those who hate Obama, and those who hate Democrats. That’s a given.

    AA says: “He won the presidency by vague promises of change and hope that he never described in detail.”

    That is no more nor less true than what ANY political candidate says during a campaign.
    Anyone who takes campaign promises with anything more than a grain of salt is delusional. It’s just that McCain was far more full of crap than was Obama.

    AA goes on to say: “Americans do not like the views he is pushing and his efforts to push his agendas are failing. He is not an eloquent speaker. Even with a teleprompter he stammers and does not present himself as passionate about anything, except for his hatred of anything of a conservative nature.” That is a load.

    Again, right wingers don’t like his agenda, but – surprise, surprise, not ALL Americans are politically to the right of Atilla the Hun. It is the right that is constantly spewing hatred – making refernce to “second ammendment remedies”

    Obama IS in fact a very eloquent speaker. Unlike his predecessor, he actually has some knowledge of our language and has a grasp of English grammar.

    Far too many people in this country exult in their ignorance – as if being uneducated or stupid is somehow a badge of honor.

    Back to Sekhar – I am not an American apologist. I am fully aware of just how we have bullied our way around the world. But Ahmadinejad is the last person to criticise the US about anything.

    B

  • Ruvy

    Baritone, you really miss the boat on your comments here. The real point you should be focusing on is this – As an American you can see the difference between Bush and Obama. But, the people of the third world countries can only see the hegemonic policies of the US, being persistent and perpetual irrespective of the person or the party that is in power.

    To those of us fortunate enough NOT to be living in the United States, all of your leaders pretty much stink alike. Your internal divisions are increasing irrelevant to us as your real power decreases, and the ugliness of your policies become more obvious. Any country being used as a “condom state” by the American government – Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Georgia, Israel – all can see “only evil opposite your faces.”

  • Ruvy

    Mind you, I’m not necessarily agreeing with the writer here in “defending” Ahmadinejad. A truly intelligent leader would have used America’s considerable intelligence community to pull off a “Kahane” or “Rabin” in New York, and would have dispatched Ahmadinejad to “Pardes”. That would require a truly intelligent – and devious – leader. The more I read and see what Obama does, the more I’m convinced he’s just a lazy slacker bored with his job. And his job, unfortunately, is to be the dancing boy to the investment bankers stealing your money and progressively impoverishing you and yours. Go check out Joanne Huspek’s article to see what I mean.

  • http://financialpolitics.com/ Sekhar

    Hi Baritone,
    Ruvy resolved most of the issues raised by you, even if he is not necessarily agreeing with that of mine. I appreciate his sincerity in taking issues.

    I observe a contradiction in your comment. In the beginning you said, “Still, the entire premise of your article is full of vague and unsubstantiated admonishments regarding supposed American imperialism.”

    At the end you concluded, “I am not an American apologist. I am fully aware of just how we have bullied our way around the world.”

    When you say, “Supposed American imperialism,” do you mean to say that there is no American imperialism? Again, you say you are aware of the US’ bullying around the world.

    If the US is bullying around the world, as you admitted, it will be imperialism. If American imperialism is not there, America will not be bullying. What is true in your two contradictory observations? The US is bullying its way around the world, because it is imperialist state. It is the leader of the imperialist regimes of the west.

    There are many books, maybe hundreds of thousands, in almost all languages on this planet that substantiate the admonishments regarding the worst most American imperialism. Many of them are written in English only.

    I really wonder how you substantiate the military attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, and hundreds of military bases of the US around the world. Is it only bullying the world? Don’t they constitute an Imperialist state?

    You have to understand that I cannot substantiate my admonishments regarding American imperialism in a single article, while there are hundreds of thousands of books around the world.

    Regarding Ahmadinejad, kindly allow me to say that I’m not with him when I’m with Iranian people. I defend him as far as his opposition to the American imperialism is concerned. There are many totalitarian states that are considered democratic.

    For the sake of interests of the people of the world, one has to be able to differentiate the people of a country from their regimes. If we cannot see who is our friend and who is our enemy in particular and in general also, we can analyze at least we can see nothing but complexities and confusions like your amazement.

    As Ruvy reminded we do not and need not see the differences between Republican and Democratic parties. They display some differences in order to convince their people that they have differences. I don’t mean that they are one. They have their own contradictions about how fast to move in bullying.

    You have to see that the both parties are funded by the same corporate industries of the US as well as the EU. There may be a few exceptions, but they are exceptions.

    Thank you and thanks to Ruvy.

  • Luke

    How come everyone on this site believes the official 9/11 story? There’s plenty of evidence that strongly suggests that parts of the attack were staged, you’re free to disagree with me if you search “NATIONAL SECURITY ALERT – SENSITIVE INFORMATION” on youtube and watch the documentary.

  • http://financialpolitics.com/ Sekhar

    Hi Luke,

    I’ve seen the video but on a different site. I tried to download it to upload on this site but failed. I tried to link the video to this article but again failed. It was embedded to the site’s page in a way that it cannot be linked or downloaded. Of course I’m technically a novice. The site seemed to be dedicated to the 9/11 and its aftermath, but appeared updated long back.