Sunday, March 27, 2011

The Moderate Arab View of Obama

My thanks to the anonymous commenter who offered a link to this article by Barry Rubin:

Here's a sample of Rubin's analysis: "In this article in al-Sharq al-Awsat (translated by MEMRI), a Saudi-controlled but also relatively liberal newspaper, Tariq al-Homayed, the chief editor, expresses the combination of shock and horror at the Obama Administration. The conflict was hot over Egypt and even hotter over Bahrain, where the Saudis want the current regime to survive and U.S. officials have criticized Saudi intervention.

"Indeed, he complains, the statements coming from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, sound 'more like what we'd expect to hear from the Iranian foreign minister.' The 'contradictory statements coming out of Washington have become more than merely perplexing; they are also suspicious.'

"Why suspicious? Because it isn't clear whether the U.S. government is more concerned about stopping revolutionary Islamism or undermining those who oppose it, more interested in containing Iran or letting Tehran's influence spread, supporting moderate Arab countries or overthrowing their regimes."


Anonymous said...

TO: Dr. Schneiderman, et al.
RE: Some River in Egypt isn't clear whether the U.S. government is more concerned about stopping revolutionary Islamism or undermining those who oppose it.... -- Barry Rubin, as cited by Stuart Schneiderman

Denial is a serious problem, but sooner or later—preferably before too much later and it's TOO late—people will realize what is going on.

You, good doctor, could do an interesting article on 'denial'.

But, in the mean time, try todays Day by Day.


[Don't you just 'love it', when a 'Plan' comes together?]

Dennis said...

I have to admit that the "Day BY Day" panels brought a tear to my eyes. It does cover a number of things that seem to be extant with Obama and company.
Consider that in order to have a revolution in this country one has to create the "proletariat," which would be impossible without doing everything one can to bring down the economy. One's worry here is not to the number of women working, but to how many young men one can create anger at the system that denigrates and marginalizes them. At the very least one gets either those who opt out or those who will make up that proletariat army of revolution. One of the reasons why the "stimulus packages" appeared to be more centered on creating jobs for women is that they don't make a very good army with the wherewithal to do what is necessary to create revolution.
One of the reasons one sees for the T.E.A. party's gender makeup being more women oriented is that I believe at a certain level they were among the first to see the ramifications of Obama and his "hope and change." It is why I asked the question if women recognized how at risk they are in this current political atmosphere.
A man who is idle is one of the most dangerous people on Earth. Add in feminist degradation and one has the conditions to get a results most of us do not want to see happen.
One also has to create a distrust of the Constitution, the republican form of government, and the "exceptionalism" that has defined this country in the past. Obama does not ignore the Congress, enforcing laws and the Courts for no good reason.
Along with the distrust for our own institutions one has to create a distrust for our place in the world and our foreign policy. I am beginning to think that much of this is planned. Are there many people who analyze this who believe we have actually created more allies for ourselves since Obama came to office? Facts denote that this is not so. If you were an Arab, or for that matter anyone else, would you trust Obama?

Stuart Schneiderman said...

When I was wondering why the TEA party contains a larger number of women I also think that some credit goes to Sarah Palin and her Mama Grizzlies. Palin and the others presented a type of woman who had been excluded from public life by the feminists who had convinced everyone that they spoke for women. The advent of Palin seems to have broken their monopoly... which is one of the reasons why they all hate her.

Anonymous said...

TO: Dr. Schneiderman
RE: Missing the Point(s)

It's not just the feminazis.

People need to broaden their perspective. Maybe it has to do with mental 'peripheral vision'.

And that could explain why so many people suffer from 'denial'. They just don't have the capacity to look beyond the bounds of their own specialization. I suspect that that's where being something of a 'generalist' comes in as an 'advantage'....such as it is....


[The easiest thing of all is to deceive one's self; for what a man wishes he generally believes to be true. - Demosthenes]