I have quietly and passively followed the story of the now-canceled award for Samira Ibrahim. Many have heard this story, but on the assumption that not all have, here it is.
Samira Ibrahim is an Egyptian woman who has spoken out about violence against women in Egypt. She experienced this first hand during the protests in Tahrir Square. She was to receive one of nine International Women of Courage awards, in a ceremony hosted by John Kerry and Michelle Obama.
The ceremony is of great significance. In considering foreign policy, the biggest representative of the US is the President. He is rarely put directly into a high profile foreign policy situation unless there is going to be a good outcome. Presidents are not the people who make the first feelers, have the first tea, or make a call publicly. They may do so privately, but their public involvement is like deploying an aircraft carrier and a marine expeditionary force- you mean it, and it is all out there for people to stare at.
Lesser level officials are often sent. For the funeral of Edward VII in 1910 there were 9 crowned emperors or kings, but also foreign secretaries and secretaries of state. In the US, the next big foreign policy fish is the VP. Here the President has the power of plausible deniability. The VP can say and do things, testing the water of opinion, without damaging the President. Of oddly greater significance although lower rank is the Secretary of State. This person is responsible for foreign policy implementation. As such, he or she is expected to know about policy, while the VP may claim ignorance. Further, statements from the Secretary of State carry a policy imprimatur not associated with VPs.
And so we come to Ms. Ibrahim. The award in question is for women's bravery. It stands to reason this is a good job for the First Lady. And in this role she is not a private citizen. She is the avatar of the President with appropriate chromosomes and clothing. She is playing the role of Mrs. President in a serious and public setting. And the other player is the Secretary of State. And his comments have policy implications.
Under such circumstances, I and I think most people would fully expect the candidates to be as carefully vetted as a site for a presidential speech. When making policy associated statements such as awards you had best be damned sure of who you are stamping with the approval of our foreign policy. So what, you ask, is the problem with an award recognizing a woman who lived through terror and advocates against violence against women?
Well, she has tweeted some really offensive items. When a bus full of Israelis was blown up in Bulgaria she wrote 'An explosion on a bus carrying Israelis in Burgas airport on the Black Sea. Today is a very sweet day with a lot of very sweet news.' On the anniversary of 9/11 she wrote 'Today is the anniversary of 9/11. May every year come with America burning.' She also tweeted a quote by Hitler implicating Jews as having a hand in every immorality and evil in the world.
And we were going to give her an award.
First she claimed her accounts had been hacked. Now she is violently defending her comments against attacks by 'Zionists'.
The State Department claims problems in her vetting and that information came to them late. Really? Come on, don't lie like that. You have the capability to track people in cars by their heat signature and tell their sex and you couldn't find a Twitter account? That's just BS. Those quotes aren't recent. They aren't a hack by some invisible enemy. They've been up for months. And I don't think the State Department didn't know about them. This was a political sop to radical Islamists and another turning of the back on Israel. And the State Department got caught with its pants down.
What about our unbiased media? Did they report this? No no. It was reported by one of those right wing kook publications that are laughed at by the knowledgeable and enlightened. It was published by the Guardian and then Fox News. Still have any respect or confidence in our media? I don't.
And can you imagine what would have happened if a white man, a Republican or a southerner had said anything remotely like this? He would have been roasted alive for days on CNN and MSNBC for his outrageous views. And if he was in a position of power he would either resign or have to do the hurt dance for a couple of weeks. He would have to kowtow to whatever group he had offended, even if incidentally let alone on purpose. And his career would be truncated. Imagine what would be going on now if this had happened with Bush as President.
Instead, because this FUBAR was perpetrated by a black Democrat, all the State Department has to do is say they made a mistake, Obama doesn't have to do anything, and the media stays asleep. Wow, what moral and factual watchdogs they are. Please give me a couple of them to keep me safe and informed.
Eventually, maybe, someday, the US will wake up to what our President is, and the policies he is quietly enacting or pursuing by executive order and federal departments. He was going to give an award to a woman hoping for violence against the United States.
She is revolting. He is revolting. And we should be angry at him and ashamed of ourselves for ever voting for such a person.
With great disgust and obvious anger,
Ted
Samira Ibrahim is an Egyptian woman who has spoken out about violence against women in Egypt. She experienced this first hand during the protests in Tahrir Square. She was to receive one of nine International Women of Courage awards, in a ceremony hosted by John Kerry and Michelle Obama.
The ceremony is of great significance. In considering foreign policy, the biggest representative of the US is the President. He is rarely put directly into a high profile foreign policy situation unless there is going to be a good outcome. Presidents are not the people who make the first feelers, have the first tea, or make a call publicly. They may do so privately, but their public involvement is like deploying an aircraft carrier and a marine expeditionary force- you mean it, and it is all out there for people to stare at.
Lesser level officials are often sent. For the funeral of Edward VII in 1910 there were 9 crowned emperors or kings, but also foreign secretaries and secretaries of state. In the US, the next big foreign policy fish is the VP. Here the President has the power of plausible deniability. The VP can say and do things, testing the water of opinion, without damaging the President. Of oddly greater significance although lower rank is the Secretary of State. This person is responsible for foreign policy implementation. As such, he or she is expected to know about policy, while the VP may claim ignorance. Further, statements from the Secretary of State carry a policy imprimatur not associated with VPs.
And so we come to Ms. Ibrahim. The award in question is for women's bravery. It stands to reason this is a good job for the First Lady. And in this role she is not a private citizen. She is the avatar of the President with appropriate chromosomes and clothing. She is playing the role of Mrs. President in a serious and public setting. And the other player is the Secretary of State. And his comments have policy implications.
Under such circumstances, I and I think most people would fully expect the candidates to be as carefully vetted as a site for a presidential speech. When making policy associated statements such as awards you had best be damned sure of who you are stamping with the approval of our foreign policy. So what, you ask, is the problem with an award recognizing a woman who lived through terror and advocates against violence against women?
Well, she has tweeted some really offensive items. When a bus full of Israelis was blown up in Bulgaria she wrote 'An explosion on a bus carrying Israelis in Burgas airport on the Black Sea. Today is a very sweet day with a lot of very sweet news.' On the anniversary of 9/11 she wrote 'Today is the anniversary of 9/11. May every year come with America burning.' She also tweeted a quote by Hitler implicating Jews as having a hand in every immorality and evil in the world.
And we were going to give her an award.
First she claimed her accounts had been hacked. Now she is violently defending her comments against attacks by 'Zionists'.
The State Department claims problems in her vetting and that information came to them late. Really? Come on, don't lie like that. You have the capability to track people in cars by their heat signature and tell their sex and you couldn't find a Twitter account? That's just BS. Those quotes aren't recent. They aren't a hack by some invisible enemy. They've been up for months. And I don't think the State Department didn't know about them. This was a political sop to radical Islamists and another turning of the back on Israel. And the State Department got caught with its pants down.
What about our unbiased media? Did they report this? No no. It was reported by one of those right wing kook publications that are laughed at by the knowledgeable and enlightened. It was published by the Guardian and then Fox News. Still have any respect or confidence in our media? I don't.
And can you imagine what would have happened if a white man, a Republican or a southerner had said anything remotely like this? He would have been roasted alive for days on CNN and MSNBC for his outrageous views. And if he was in a position of power he would either resign or have to do the hurt dance for a couple of weeks. He would have to kowtow to whatever group he had offended, even if incidentally let alone on purpose. And his career would be truncated. Imagine what would be going on now if this had happened with Bush as President.
Instead, because this FUBAR was perpetrated by a black Democrat, all the State Department has to do is say they made a mistake, Obama doesn't have to do anything, and the media stays asleep. Wow, what moral and factual watchdogs they are. Please give me a couple of them to keep me safe and informed.
Eventually, maybe, someday, the US will wake up to what our President is, and the policies he is quietly enacting or pursuing by executive order and federal departments. He was going to give an award to a woman hoping for violence against the United States.
She is revolting. He is revolting. And we should be angry at him and ashamed of ourselves for ever voting for such a person.
With great disgust and obvious anger,
Ted
Comments
Post a Comment