Media invent Obama "backtrack" on NYC Islamic center comments
Media figures are falsely claiming that Obama is "backtracking" on his comments regarding a planned Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero. But the president's statements on the issue have consistently emphasized, as Obama put it, a "commitment to religious freedom" and the legal right to build an Islamic center on a privately-owned site.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Media falsely claim Obama is "backtracking"
Amanpour, Roberts agree Obama is "backtracking." On the August 15 edition of ABC's This Week, host Christiane Amanpour claimed Obama is now "backtracking" on his comments regarding the community center, and NPR senior news analyst Cokie Roberts said Obama is "walk[ing] back from" them:
AMANPOUR: We're going to put up some poll numbers and just show everybody what the poll numbers are on this issue. One poll says -- when they ask about what people think about the plan to build the mosque -- that only 30 percent say it's appropriate, and 64 say it's wrong. But when they say, do the Muslim group have a right to build the mosque, 61 percent say yes, and 34 percent say no. So, I guess -- is that, you think, what caused the backtracking? Although those poll numbers were out before the speech on Friday night. Listen to what the president said in the Gulf in Florida on Saturday, yesterday.
OBAMA [video clip]: I was not commenting, and I will not comment, on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right that people have, that dates back to our founding. That's what our country is about.
ROBERTS: That's really not what he was doing -- I mean, if you listen to this. You played the first part of what he said. He said that he -- they have a right to build on private property, all of that, and, granted, he didn't say it's wise to build on private property, but it was very clearly an endorsement. And then to walk back from it is just so silly. He's already taken all of the flack for having said it.
Politico: "Obama walks back mosque stance." In an August 15 Politico article headlined, "Obama walks back mosque stance," Carol E. Lee wrote that Obama "defended his decision to wade into the controversy the night before, but backed off from his previous stance."
Liz Cheney: "I guess President Obama was for the mosque before he was against it." In the August 15 edition of Mike Allen's Politico Playbook, Liz Cheney is quoted as writing: "I guess President Obama was for the mosque before he was against it. You can quote me. Sent from my iPhone."
Obama did not "walk back" on "unshakeable" commitment to religious freedom
Obama's initial comments on Islamic center: "[O]ur commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable." As part of his speech at the White House Ramadan iftar dinner on August 13, Obama addressed the right of Muslims to build an Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero:
OBAMA: [T]hat's not to say that religion is without controversy. Recently, attention has been focused on the construction of mosques in certain communities -- particularly New York. Now, we must all recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of Lower Manhattan. The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country. And the pain and the experience of suffering by those who lost loved ones is just unimaginable. So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. And Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.
As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. And 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. This is America. And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are. The writ of the Founders must endure.
Obama later re-emphasized his support for religious freedom. While vacationing in the Gulf of Mexico, Obama addressed his comments regarding the center and, according to The Washington Post, "reiterated the stand he took on Friday night at a White House dinner." The Post reported on August 15:
Speaking to reporters during a family vacation visit to Panama City, Fla., Obama reiterated the stand he took Friday night at a White House dinner observing the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. "In this country we treat everybody equally and in accordance with the law, regardless of race, regardless of religion," Obama said.
Wash. Post: "White House officials said the president's comments Saturday were not at odds with what he had said the night before." In its August 15 article, the Post further reported that White House officials deny that Obama was "endorsing the construction of the Islamic center" or that he was contradicting himself:
[Obama] went on to explain that he was not endorsing the construction of the Islamic center. "I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there," he said. "I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding."
[...]
White House officials said the president's comments Saturday were not at odds with what he had said the night before -- and they insisted they should not be seen as Obama backing down because of political pressure. He was merely clarifying his position, they said.
Sargent: No "walkback or contradiction here." In an August 14 entry to his Washington Post Co. blog, The Plum Line, Greg Sargent dismissed claims that Obama "walked back his support" of the Islamic community center, writing that Obama "hasn't backed off [his] core assertion. Nor is it contradicted by a refusal to comment directly on the 'wisdom' of the project itself." Sargent wrote [emphasis added]:
Was yesterday's speech an "endorsement" of the project? In one sense it certainly was. He voiced strong support for the group's right to build it, and he went beyond that: He asserted that the group not only has the legal right to proceed, but that we should also welcome those with different faiths, not merely tolerate them because the law mandates it. And he declared that to do any less is un-American.
That last aspect of his speech, as I said below, is what made it powerful. Simply vouching for the group's legal rights is a no-brainer. The crux of Obama's message is that we should do more: We should welcome and respect people of all religious faiths.
Is that message diminished by what Obama has now said about the center? The "clarification" today would be a walkback if he had previously "endorsed" the project in the sense of declaring it a good idea. But he never "endorsed" it in that sense. Nor is it his place to do that.
Rather, Obama's "endorsement" of the project consisted entirely of a declaration that now that the group has decided to proceed, American ideals demand that we welcome and respect such people in situations like these. He hasn't backed off that core assertion. Nor is it contradicted by a refusal to comment directly on the "wisdom" of the project itself.
To be clear, I agree entirely with Ben Smith and others who say that today's quote was probably a political misstep. The media is mostly framing this story as: Did Obama "endorse" the project or didn't he? That's an overly simplistic framing, but you work with the media you have, not the one you want. Today's quote was bound to be interpreted as a walkback in the face of intense pressure. What Obama should have said was this: "I'm not commenting on the wisdom of the project. Nor is it my place to do that. But now that they have decided to proceed, we must respect their right to build the center and welcome them in accordance with American ideals."
That would have been more desirable, and in some ways more directly consistent with his brave stance yesterday. But even so, based on what he did say, I'm just not seeing a serious walkback or contradiction here.
--------------------------------------
The Midnight Review
As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. And 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, Day 2:
I was not commenting on and will not comment on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there.
Sounds like a backtrack to me.
The proper response should have been "America stands for religious freedom, which is why this tenet was included in our Constitution. To demonstrate that commitment with actions, not words, I will be traveling to New York City to personally dedicate this new Muslim cultural center. Religious leaders of all faiths and denominations from throughout New York City will be with me. I invite Republican Congressional leaders to join us at this event and demonstrate with THEIR actions that they are as dedicated to upholding the Constitution as I am."
Of course, you will NEVER hear a speech like that from President Obama, because that would cause him to take a strong stand on a contentious question. Instead, he'll continue to temporize, attempt to negotiate with Republicans who say "NO" to everything as a campaign tactic, and give us half measures on what he promised during his campaign while continuing to advocate for the worst excesses of the Bush administration.
If there were 99 Democrats in the Senate and 1 Republican, the body would still be paralyzed as the 1 Republican DEMANDED to have input into all legislation and the Obama administration continuously tried to negotiate with that 1 Republican in an effort to obtain "bipartisan" support, while all the while the 1 Republican could never be satisfied -- he'd be saying "no" just to stop Democratic initiatives, and Obama would let him. Axelrod, Emanuel and Gibbs would be on TV and Reid would be on the stump saying "everyone knows you can't get anything done in the Senate unless you have 100 votes".
Barack Obama will NEVER be found behind a barricade.
Obama isn't perfect. He deserves criticism from time to time. Lay off the stupid thumbs down unless you can dispute what you don't like reading. You know, like an adult would.
And I suspect that it's that others have the same opinion that I do on the topic, and, not coincidentally, the same opinion that both MMFA and the Obama Administration have - that Obama isn't/wasn't walking ANYTHING back.
If you're too stupid to NOT understand that HAVING the right to do something, and then choosing to exercise or not exercise that right ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS, and BOTH CAN BE TRUE at the same time, then the failure is 100% yours, and doesn't belong to those who can understand this simple concept!
You need to read/re-read Greg Sargent's post if you're still clueless.
Go away.
The FACT is: The President Swears An Oath to Uphold the Constitution. The FACT is he took a step to do his duty by his acknowledgment that these builders have a right to build this Mosque wherever allowed by local zoning and laws.
The FACT is Opponents to this are acting on emotions, not rational thinking.
He stated the extent of the executive branch's concern in this fight. They have a right to build under the constitution of these United States as he stated.
You and many others are injecting your OPINION into his statment, trying to frame what he meant and what it represented in a negative light.
That just doesn't fly with me.
Everyone has been trying to drag him into this irrational argument. If you don't like the cultural center, you don't have to go there, but they have every right to build it.
I'm offended by many things I see every day. I don't go crying to have them removed based on my personal opinion. Tolerance is part of living in a free society.
As much as you want to believe it, Group-think does not write our laws. Thank God (AKA Allah) for that!
Where is the tolerance on the part of the group who wants to build, despite the obvious effects it is having on the community and the rest of the country?
Secondly, there wasn't any substance to refute - the post lacking sufficient content and a single fact would be YOUR post, doofus! You simply stated that my post and Obama's comments don't pass the sniff test - you provided NOTHING other than that empty personal attack to back up the empty personal attack!
And it's not namecalling if it's true. You're clearly a troll who posts under Wesley and Bludog and likely other screen names too. I understand that you don't like having that pointed out. Too bad, so sad.
Calling out a troll post and mocking the person who made it IS the appropriate thing to do.
After a couple of opportunities for a real conversation, it is time to move on.
The Democrats had a chance to stand UNITED in opposition to Republicans and in favor of the Constitution. Instead, because President Obama watered down his initially strong remarks in favor of religious liberty, instead of aggressively condemning the Republicans, Democrats are now saying "well, of course they have the RIGHT to do it, but we really wish they WOULDN'T."
Democrats once again appear weak and spineless even though we're right. That's President Obama's fault for not sticking with his remarks on this topic as originally delivered.
The Democrats had a chance to stand UNITED in opposition to Republicans and in favor of the Constitution. Instead, because President Obama watered down his initially strong remarks in favor of religious liberty, instead of aggressively condemning the Republicans, Democrats are now saying "well, of course they have the RIGHT to do it, but we really wish they WOULDN'T."
Democrats once again appear weak and spineless even though we're right. That's President Obama's fault for not sticking with his remarks on this topic as originally delivered.
The Democrats had a chance to stand UNITED in opposition to Republicans and in favor of the Constitution. Instead, because President Obama watered down his initially strong remarks in favor of religious liberty, instead of aggressively condemning the Republicans, Democrats are now saying "well, of course they have the RIGHT to do it, but we really wish they WOULDN'T."
Democrats once again appear weak and spineless even though we're right. That's President Obama's fault for not sticking with his remarks on this topic as originally delivered.
The Democrats had a chance to stand UNITED in opposition to Republicans and in favor of the Constitution. Instead, because President Obama watered down his initially strong remarks in favor of religious liberty, instead of aggressively condemning the Republicans, Democrats are now saying "well, of course they have the RIGHT to do it, but we really wish they WOULDN'T."
Democrats once again appear weak and spineless even though we're right. That's President Obama's fault for not sticking with his remarks on this topic as originally delivered.
The Democrats had a chance to stand UNITED in opposition to Republicans and in favor of the Constitution. Instead, because President Obama watered down his initially strong remarks in favor of religious liberty, instead of aggressively condemning the Republicans, Democrats are now saying "well, of course they have the RIGHT to do it, but we really wish they WOULDN'T."
Democrats once again appear weak and spineless even though we're right. That's President Obama's fault for not sticking with his remarks on this topic as originally delivered.
Obama didn't water down his remarks! He simply stated that he wasn't going to tell us his opinion on whether or not it was a good idea to build the mosque at this location after telling us that they had every right to build there.
His comment on Saturday doesn't contradict anything he said on Friday night, or backtrack from those comments!
And Harry Reid's stance on this doesn't mean that Obama backtracked either! There's NO evidence that Reid's statement has ANYTHING to do with what Obama said on Saturday - you're making an assumption that isn't supportable by ANY available evidence!
The Democrats had a chance to stand UNITED in opposition to Republicans and in favor of the Constitution. Instead, because President Obama watered down his initially strong remarks in favor of religious liberty, instead of aggressively condemning the Republicans, Democrats are now saying "well, of course they have the RIGHT to do it, but we really wish they WOULDN'T."
Democrats once again appear weak and spineless even though we're right. That's President Obama's fault for not sticking with his remarks on this topic as originally delivered.
Even if the post doesn't seem to be going through, do NOT hit the save button again.
You may have put me on the right track, though. I'm thinking that maybe my left mouse button is sticking. I'll check it out and replace or repair if needed.
But you could be a unique case, and it could SOLELY be your left mouse button sticking, I guess. Although I'm not sure how your mouse button sticking after you press it ONCE would cause MULTIPLE posts.
Or, it could be that you're doing exactly what I described, and you don't want to admit it.
But yes, many on the right have behaved exactly as you describe.
The rest of it (starting with "your ilk") is just typical moonbat babble.
I know I know, you want so badly to make anything and everything the president does into some evil conspiracy or character failing, but I actually feel that was a great statement. He is simply saying on day 1 that he is a believer in freedom to worship, and on day 2 that he isn't going to get into a debate over it. If backtracking no longer means changing your position, and instead means you don't want to sink down and get involved in a petty squabble over the paranoid and hateful opposition, then sure, it's a backtrack, yay, you win...you made a mountain out of a molehill, changed and cheapened our discourse, and leveled another baseless attack at the president. Hooray!
Also, I despise serial killers and what they do, tomorrow I'll "backtrack" and say I don't want to get into a debate about whether or not it's wise to argue with those who support serial killers.
Seriously, get a grip. Obama has made plenty of mistakes and should get called on each and every one of them. He works for us, not the other way around. Turn off the irrational hero worship and start accepting the fact that this guy is a politician who screws up at times, and pardon us if we aren't willing to give him a pass every time Just Because. This "how dare you criticize" crap has gotten really old.
It is hardly progressive to undermine and sabotage this president like the FDL far left loves to do as they are addicted to negativity and permanent outrage and looking for corporate evil under every bed.
Spare us your purity trolling and trying to claim its progressive to undermine the democrats because you want to feel imporantant to cover for your huge insecurity and insignificance in this world by making everything about the evil obama and Rahm.
I am so sick of you far left 'progressives' I would suggest you go to a library and do a little reading on the real and true progressives and on how a government actually functions.
the far left not at all different from the far right teabaggers.
You are both insecure little people hiding behind outsized egos in thinking everything is about only you and what You and You alone wants
I have however, gotten into arguments with right wingers in person, and even after talking about how I wish President Obama would start acting like an actual liberal, or citing specific examples of things I felt he should have done differently or should have done period, those right wingers continue to accuse me and every other liberal/democrat/progressive of being mindless Obama worshipers.
Whatever mistakes President Obama has or hasn't made, whatever policies he hasn't or should be pursuing, this SPECIFIC statement is not a backtrack. The real question is why should he have to comment on this in the first place? What part of freedom to exercise your faith don't the opponents of this project understand. This debate has been turned into a political football for cheap divisive talking points, and the President didn't want to get bogged down in the minutia. He made his position clear.
Excuse me for not being angry at President Obama 24/7, I thought that was the right wing's job?
The fact that you see those things as "walking back" is simply an intellectual inability you have which you will have to struggle with.
But, it would be flawed to claim he has anything like fulfilled his promises or his Promise. Closing Guantanamo - not yet. Abolishing DADT - not yet. Managing Wall St - not enough. And so on. But i would choose him over any current Democrat (and certainly over any current Republican!) as President. Enthusiastically and without reservation.
I don't see how it's "too stupid to NOT understand", or "clueless" to interpret the President as having walked back. Nor do i see how it is helpful to treat the reasoned ideas of others in that way. I agree that "he now comes off as equivocating or worse". I agree with the post of 1st Republic 14th Star. And, i agree that "Progressives are supposed to be better than this."
1. Is it permissible for others to block their efforts.
2. Is it a good idea for them to go through with their efforts.
Two different things. Two different actors, in fact.
If YOU can't understand how saying those second thing doesn't affect, in any way, his first statement, after it's been explained multiple times, then it's your problem.
That's Obama's point. But Cheney, Rep. Peter King and the rest of the pandering pachyderms wouldn't know a nuanced argument if you shoved it up their trunks.
Randy
What about recognizing that it was not ISLAM that attacked the US on 9-11, but a bunch of terrorists who misappropriate the religion for their own ends?
What about the Muslims who were killed on 9-11? What about the Muslim victims who were killed in the 9-11 attacks?
What about the fact that Muslims have already been using this proposed new center for their activities, and no one protested?
I would no more accuse "Islam" of attacking the World Trade Center that I would suggest that "Christianity" attacked the Murrah Building -- McVeigh was clearly not acting for all Christians any more than the 9-11 attackers were acting for all Muslims.
The REAL point of this whole "issue" is that desperate Republicans think that immigration and homosexuality are not working as wedge issues, so they're falling back on the tried and true "noun, verb and 9-11" to carry them to victory in November.
The country as a whole ought to be better than that and should collectively tell these panderers ENOUGH. Sadly, President On the One Hand, On the Other Hand isn't up to taking them on.
But it's ALSO within the rights of others to comment negatively. That's the price of free speech and freedom of religion (including the freedom of NO religion). People don't have to agree with you and they are free to voice their opinions.
The position I take is invariable. Free speech is a two-way street, for conservatives, liberals and all points in between. I feel as if, concerning this issue, the Right wants to partly negate freedom of religion (don't build a mosque 2 blocks from GZ) while the Left wants to partly negate freedom of speech (just shut and accept it, Righties, that's too bad). See if I had MY way, I'd prevent building ANY religious structures of ANY kind near GZ, since GZ was brought to us by the divisiveness that ALL religions breed. To paraphrase an old jingle:
MY GOD'S BETTER THAN YOUR GOD, MY GOD'S BETTER THAN YOURS!
is a the center of every religious system, which breeds intolerance for how others choose to define and worship an imaginary friend.
Randy
FWIW, I agree that religion is the cause of a lot of evil in the world. But it's important to remember that the left isn't saying that the right can't express displeasure - they are saying you can express displeasure, but you can't stop them from building there because they aren't breaking any laws and the constitution protects them, just like it protects everyone else.
I live in the Bible Belt (North Carolina) and in some neighborhoods in my town, there is a church every block and a half.
If I and others like me have to put up with that, then they should be allowed to have another mosque.
I think there are more important issues to be dealt with in New York, of all places.
As President of the U. S. Obama was unequivocally defending the Constiution. He took an oath to do that. He was not speaking as a private citizen. On Constitutional issues he must always defend the Constiution, regardless of his personal opinion.
Day Two:
He would not comment as to the "wisdom" of putting a mosque near gound zero because The Constiution is very explicit regarding the freedom of religion. For him to comment on the wisdom of it, would be inappropriate. He would then be giving his personal opinion.
How is doing your job correctly, backtracking?
As an example I just made up to illustrate my point, you can't say "read my lips, NO new taxes!" on one day, and then on the next say "and by taxes, of course I meant only income taxes. I never said I wouldn't raise the sales tax or the property tax."
Once you start to equivocate, even if you're technically correct, people will look on it as a lack of leadership.
That certain people on this thread are so determined to deflect criticism of the President that they can pretend this didn't happen is downright frightening and more than a little creepy. It reminds me of the right-wingers who get red-faced and furious when someone criticizes Reagan. Progressives should never act like this.
Why should he be distracted by the tabloid media into getting into a big debate about his remarks the previous night.
He made them and they are public record.
he wants to spend time with his family and you make an issue of it because he doesn't feel it's the right time or place to get into a big deal while on VACATION
What is it with this guy always being on vacation!? <snark>
And you're being a dickwad for asserting that we're too wimpy or too 'something' to criticize Obama or stomach criticism from others, and there's no evidence of that! What there IS evidence of is our distaste for BOGUS criticism of Obama!
This is NOT rocket science.
There IS some behavior by Progressives that we shouldn't see - and that would be YOUR behavior.
But we SHOULD see progressives objecting to unfair criticism of Obama! And that's what we're objecting to here.
Obama is asserting that Muslims have the right to build the center at that address. Legally, this is true, and largely uncontroversial.
But what is controversial, and what Obama said on Friday and reaffirmed on Saturday, is that opposition to the center is antithetical to American values. There's a big difference there between that and simple legal rights - Obama asserts that denying denying the group the right to build the center isn't just unconstitutional from the government's perspective, but un-American from the perspective of Palin/Gingrich demagoguery.
I think the "wisdom" bit was, as Smith said, politically stupid equivocation - he didn't rule on whether it would inflame tensions too much, and would have been better off either taking a firmer stand or just not bringing it up at all. But there was definitely no backtrack here.
Why can't they just go with the late, great George Carlin who said, "There's no new news today."
Or as they used to say on SNL: "Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead!"
I think what the media is twisting is the fact that Obama made his statement and does not feel he needs to belabor the point as so many in the media and politicians do these days.
Afterall, he was on vacation and was not going to get into a big debate with Ed Henry when he had family time, a rarity in his job, to look forward to.
So then when a reporter kept asking about it, Obama said he wasn't going to comment on the wisdom of building one there, just that they were FREE to do it.
This was Obama backtracking...and according to the talkign heads at Fox he is backracking in a panic because of backlash...and because Obama said he understood that 9/11 was traumatizing, he was saying the people that don't want the mosque are crazy and that he was patronizing and elitist...
I have to turn it off because I can hear them, but they can't hear me.
I swear all they do is make up stuff about him that casts doubt on this man and his presidency.
You would think in time of real crisis, with our economy so weak and people needing the reassurance of having a strong and caring president, that the press would report in a more responsible manner.
The total free pass given to Bush was excused as it being a time of crisis.
Well, free pass Bush gave us this dire situation and instead the media is casting doubt and distrust of this president.
I am sick of the double standard and the recklessness of the media.
The problem isn't just with the media. There is a HUGE group of people who seem willing to do and say anything to tear Obama down.
No one has ever disputed the information in those memos, only the authenticity of the memos. But that case poisoned the information and no reporter would touch it again, even though it was likely true. Very interesting.
What I didn't see were claims that Bush was unpatriotic, that he had the support of the KKK, that his college thesis was somehow nefarious, that Laura's thesis was. Heck, they even got a pass from the media on true stuff that would have been all over the place had it been 8 years later - Laura' accident, Bush's oil connections, Bush's history of failure as an executive, etc.
Well, in what way is this president different from all the others? I didn't want to come to that conclusion, but how much more obvious does it need to be?
There is a partisan double standard as well: Everything Carter and Clinton did was also picked over in every possible way, too. But between the growth of the right-wing propaganda industry and that industry's blatant color issue, it's really ridiculous now.
With this being the case, the fact that the president's approval ratings are as high as they are attests 1) that he is in fact doing a decent job, and 2) that at least some people have learned to tune out the bull$#!t.
Yes. I had believed that this country had made great progress on that particular issue. I'm not so sure anymore.
That's the real back-tracking of Pres. Obama...quailing behind the intent of the founding fathers and the constitution when it suits his political maneuvering.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
Seems to me the R's are the ones trying to add nuance to the above statement.
What a weasel you continue to be.