Powered by WebAds

Monday, February 08, 2010

Why don't Obama and Clinton care about women?

Reacting to the story of the 16-year old girl who was buried alive in Turkey for having male friends, Jennifer Rubin asks:
And why is it, then, that the Middle East wrath of the State Department (not to mention the “international community” housed at the UN) is reserved for apartment-building in Jerusalem? One would think that the monstrous brutality against women in Turkey and elsewhere would raise concern or draw comment from Clinton or Obama. But no. Like those stolen from their beds in the night in Tehran, the girls of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and the rest are on their own.
Why? Two reasons why. First, because Bush cared about these women, so Obama doesn't. Second, because there's a 'fierce moral urgency' to prevent Joooos from building in their homeland.

What could go wrong?


At 8:49 PM, Blogger nomatter said...

Turkey is not Israel.
Turkey can like Iran can, like Syria can, like the Saudi's can....just because they can.

The world tends to ignore such horrors in the Arab world while at the same time obsessing over Israel.

Questions such as why don't....etc.,etc., or you would think....etc.,etc., are all irreverent.

We all know the answer. We all should know why Israel is singled out time and time again.

Furthermore, when speaking of who cared more or who cares less is crazy. What this is a football game?
Everyone has selective memories that is for sure. So as long as we are keeping score....

Our best friend of Israel George Bush met with Mubarak on several occasions calling him a "good friend of the US and ally in the war on terror" all the while that "good friend" Mubarak allowed thousands of weapons tunnels dug from Egypt to Gaza to Israel which btw brought grave pain, death and suffering upon innocent Israelis. And what message did that send to the world especially those who hate Israel.

Bush went against a signed arrangement to not sell the Saudi's those super fast jets which deliver super fast missiles because of their close proximity to Israel.

As for the Jerusalem question, Bush promised on his first week in office to sign the Embassy Act. The embassy act would have given more legitimization of Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel. Worse part, each time he failed to sign it the Saudi's hailed his decision. For that, Bush never failed to sign the waver for the PLO office in the U.S.

As for the Turks,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/oct/10/usa.iraq1 "Bush warns Congress not to recognise Armenian genocide." (If we can not talk of Armenian genocide as to hurt the tender sensibilities of the Turks, why does anyone think anyone is going to jump down their throats for the act of burring a young child alive?

In the end our good friends often times are wolves in sheep's clothing masquerading as friends of Israel. All of them. We know who are enemies are such as Obama who has no love loss for Israel but we still struggle with seeing through the word "friend."

A lot of crap came down on Israel under Bush in the years of his war on terror which for all purposes excluded those who made terror upon innocent Israelis.

When push comes to shove, talk is cheap but actions allude them all. In the end history will be darn hard pressed to write of real friends in high places whose deeds unraveled the hell of a mess the world has placed us in.

At 9:09 PM, Blogger nomatter said...

I would like to add that I do not endorse the guardian article on the whole, just in the topic of Armenian Genocide. The rest of that piece was journalistic BS.


Post a Comment

<< Home