Maybe you missed it. But, earlier this week, President Obama signed into law the Daniel Pearl Press Freedom Act, a piece of legislation that will do nothing for anyone. And certainly not for freedom of the press.
In his tiny talk, Obama said almost nothing. “Obviously, the loss of Daniel Pearl was one of those moments that captured the world’s imagination because it reminded us of how valuable a free press is.” Pabulum.
Actually, the murder of Pearl did not remind me at all of the value of a free press. It reminded me of the precarious places in which Jews find themselves around the world. It also reminded me that the bloodlust for Jews festers among Muslim extremists, but not just among extremists. It festers among Muslims who are not extremists at all.
Apparently, the president doesn’t believe that this killing had anything to do with Pearl being a Jew ... and an American besides. What he also doesn’t seem to believe is that Pearl was a target—like thousands of other targets, named and nameless—of the Islamic jihad.
It is appalling to have to come to grips with the raw facts of Obama’s ignorance. Or with his feigning of ignorance. Disguising the enemy is... well, you finish the sentence.
I am always a bit wary when I cite Mark Steyn. Not because I don’t like his writing, wich, within measure, I do. But because my son gives me the cold shoulder for a few days after I cite him. So, here, Jesse, I court your coolness. I wouldn’t have had to do it if any liberal columnist had noticed this appalling performance by the president of the United States.
Mark Steyn: Lost in Obama’s Inagination
Barack Obama’s remarkable powers of oratory are well known...
Like a lot of guys who’ve been told they’re brilliant one time too often, President Obama gets a little lazy and doesn’t always choose his words with care. And so it was that he came to say a few words about Daniel Pearl upon signing the Daniel Pearl Press Freedom Act. Pearl was decapitated on video by jihadist Muslims in Karachi on Feb. 1, 2002. That’s how I’d put it. This is what the president of the United States said:
“Obviously, the loss of Daniel Pearl was one of those moments that captured the world’s imagination because it reminded us of how valuable a free press is.”
Now Mr. Obama’s off the prompter, when his silver-tongued rhetoric invariably turns to sludge. But he’s talking about a dead man here, a guy murdered in public for all the world to see. Furthermore, the deceased’s family is standing all around him. Even for a busy president, it’s the work of moments to come up with a sentence that would be respectful, moving and true. Indeed, for Mr. Obama, it’s the work of seconds because he has a taxpayer-funded staff sitting around all day with nothing to do but provide him with that sentence.
Instead, he delivered the one above, which, in its clumsiness and insipidness, is most revealing. First of all, note the passivity: “The loss of Daniel Pearl.” He wasn’t “lost.” He was kidnapped and beheaded. He was murdered on a snuff video. He was specifically targeted, seized as a trophy, a high-value scalp. And the circumstances of his “loss” merit some vigor in the prose. Yet Mr. Obama could muster none.
Even if Americans don’t get the message, the rest of the world does. This week’s pictures of the leaders of Brazil and Turkey clasping hands with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are also monuments to American passivity.
But what did the “loss” of Daniel Pearl mean? Well, says the president, it was “one of those moments that captured the world’s imagination.” Really? Evidently, it never captured Mr. Obama’s imagination, because if it had, he never could have uttered anything so fatuous. He seems literally unable to imagine Pearl’s fate, and so, cruising on autopilot, he reaches for the all-purpose bromides of therapeutic sedation: “one of those moments” - you know, like Princess Di’s wedding, Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction, whatever - “that captured the world’s imagination.”
Notice how reflexively Mr. Obama lapses into sentimental one-worldism: Despite our many ZIP codes, we are one people, with a single imagination. In fact, the murder of Daniel Pearl teaches just the opposite - that we are many worlds, and worlds within worlds. Some of them don’t even need an “imagination.” Across the planet, the video of an American getting his head sawed off did brisk business in the bazaars and madrassas and Internet downloads. Excited young men e-mailed it to friends, from cell phone to cell phone, from Karachi, Pakistan, to Jakarta, Indonesia, to Khartoum, Sudan, to London to Toronto to Falls Church, Va. In the old days, you needed an “imagination” to conjure the juicy bits of a distant victory over the Great Satan. But in an age of high-tech barbarism, the sight of Pearl’s severed head is a mere click away.
And the rest of “the world”? Most gave a shrug of indifference. And far too many found the reality of Pearl’s death too uncomfortable and chose to take refuge in the same kind of delusional pap as Mr. Obama. The president is only the latest Western liberal to try to hammer Daniel Pearl’s box into a round hole. Before him, it was Michael Winterbottom in his film “A Mighty Heart.” As Pearl’s longtime colleague Asra Nomani wrote, “Danny himself had been cut from his own story.” Or as Paramount’s promotional department put it, “Nominate the most inspiring ordinary hero. Win a trip to the Bahamas!” Where you’re highly unlikely to be kidnapped and beheaded. (Although, in the event that you are, please check the liability-waiver box at the foot of the entry form.)
The latest appropriation is that his “loss” “reminded us of how valuable a free press is.” It was nothing to do with “freedom of the press.” By the standards of the Muslim world, Pakistan has a free-ish and very lively press. The problem is that about 80 percent of its people wish to live under the most extreme form of Shariah, and many of its youth are exported around the world in advance of that aim. The man convicted of Pearl’s murder was Omar Sheikh, a British subject, a London School of Economics student, and, like many jihadists, from Osama bin Laden to the panty bomber, a monument to the peculiar burdens of a non-deprived childhood in the Muslim world. The man who actually did the deed was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who confessed in March 2007: “I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew Daniel Pearl, in the city of Karachi.” But Mr. Obama is not the kind to take “guilty” for an answer, so he’s arranging a hugely expensive trial for KSM amid the bright lights of Broadway.
Listen to his killer’s words: “The American Jew Daniel Pearl.” We hit the jackpot. And then we cut his head off. Before the body was found, the Independent’s Robert Fisk offered a familiar argument to Pearl’s kidnappers: Killing him would be “a major blunder ... the best way of ensuring that the suffering” - of Kashmiris, Afghans, Palestinians - “goes unrecorded.” Other journalists peddled a similar line: if you release Danny, he’ll be able to tell your story, get your message out, “bridge the misconceptions.” But the story did get out; the severed head is the message; the only misconception is that that’s a misconception.
Daniel Pearl was the prototype victim of a new kind of terror. In his wake came other victims, from Kenneth Bigley, whose last words were, “Tony Blair has not done enough for me,” to Fabrizzio Quattrocchi, who yanked off his hood, yelled “I will show you how an Italian dies,” and ruined the movie for his jihadist videographers. By that time, both men understood what it meant to be in a windowless room with a camera and a man holding a scimitar. But Daniel Pearl was the first, and in his calm, coherent final words, understood why he was there:
“My name is Daniel Pearl. I am a Jewish American from Encino, California, USA.”
He didn’t have a prompter. But he spoke the truth. That’s all President Obama owed him - to do the same.
This was a truly shocking thing that I had to live through, living in NY. And Obama, for whom I voted, twice, in the Democrat primary and the general election, disgraced himself. A man was beheaded for the whole world to see, because he was a Jew, (and perhaps, an American Jew, and also a journalist for the WSJ, a triple whammy since American Jews in finance and the media control the world, of course). And Obama cannot bear to speak the truth...can only mumble about the freedom of the press..he too is utterly silenced by the poison of political correctness, where there is no freedom to speak the truth; the endless kow-towing to Islam, the religion of peace. Maybe oil, too? Obama campaigned exclusively on the theme of "change". Sure. Sam Cooke sang it better ("A change is gonna come" - and it did). I am bitterly disappointed by him, and much of his Foreign Policy team, re-treads from the Clinton Administration who gave us the insane Oslo Peace Process. But then, who else was there for his Cabinet, and special envoys? So much for change. Give me Sam Cooke, any time.
Posted by George P. on 2010-05-31 09:54:34 GMT
Well, as I am in Israel, I can tell you they can"t say Obama here either. I see the Repubs. are winning Senate elections all over even in his State of Hawaii. I wonder if he"ll last beyond one term.
Posted by MM on 2010-05-24 15:02:15 GMT
The words of Obama reveal him to be a shallow, fatuous and unfeeling brute. The sadistic butchering of a human being was not something that "captured the world"s imagination", but something that horrified and disgusted any civilised human being. That it was the subject of celebration and joy in much of the mohammedan world tells us all we need to know about the umma which seeks to defeat us. That for Obama the murder was merely the initiator of a meaningless gesture to show his support for press freedom, diplays the values of that man. He not only fails to mention that Pearl was a Jew and that he was killed because of that, but he also fails to mention that he was killed by mohammedans living out their dreams of killing the enemy they hate most: Jews. Obama is not denying reality, he is obfuscating where his sympathies lie.
by paul2 on 2010-05-24 14:18:08 GMT