For instance, there’s the story about the 85 year old grandmother who claims she was strip searched by the TSA. Now, many of you know that I routinely get the TSA pat down since I had a knee replacement. It is no fun. I mentally check out every time they do it because it is SO invasive that to be fully present just leaves me in tears. Thank heavens our little airport is finally getting a scanner in Feb. I will take the radiation any day of the week.

Though, it doesn’t help if the scanners aren’t actually working, like when I returned from Grand Cayman last week. When you come back into the country, you have to go back through security. Charlotte DOES have scanners, but they weren’t on. Great. Another pat down.

So, you know I can totally relate to this poor woman who endured a strip search. She plans to sue, and I support her in that 100%.

Then there is this bit of religious wisdom from a Saudi Arabian legal scholar (h/t Hokma). Did you know that women having the right to drive will only lead to pornography and prostitution, not to mention premarital sex? Apparently, according to Kamal Subhi. Evidently, Mr. Subhi has never heard that prostitution is the oldest profession, and I am pretty darn sure there weren’t cars around way back when. Ahem.

And of course, as many know, Herman Cain has suspended his campaign. The MSM got just what they wanted. Reminds me of how they went after Sarah Palin, too, except nothing they said about her was true, though that didn’t stop them. Every lawsuit was dismissed, the emails exonerated, but the damage was done. I am sure the JournoListers were dancing with glee.

Oh, and I cannot leave out this little story. I am sure you will all feel very sorry for these folks. Yes, some of the poor OWSers arrested in LAmight need therapy as a result. For real. I am not making this crap up:

Most of the roughly 300 Occupy L.A. protesters were released from jail by Friday evening, with some immediately speaking out on the police raid that cleared their camp.

One speaker suggested that some of those arrested might need therapy. Several said they felt traumatized after witnessing police use nonlethal force and being forced to wait for hours in zip-tie handcuffs. Some displayed cuts on their wrists from the handcuffs. Others complained that they were forced to urinate in bags on the bus as they were transported to jails. [snip] (Click here to read the rest of these whiny, entitled, lament about how mean the police are to people who break the law.)

Seriously? What the hell did they expect, rides in limos to the Ritz? Good grief.

Blech. This is but the tip of the iceberg for the weekend. But it’s Sunday, and time to take a bit of a break, don’t you think?

It’s a Celtic Woman kind of day for me, so first for your musical pleasure, this beautiful piece, “O, America”:

Click here to view the embedded video.

And now for this beautiful, and fun, piece from Celtic Woman:

Click here to view the embedded video.

In the midst of all of the political and economic craziness, I hope this brings a bit of a respite for you.

It’s an open secret that hundreds of Saudi families and nationals were flown out of the States during the days after the attacks. The exodus was organized by Saudi Arabia’s Ambassador to the U.S., Prince Bandar bin Sulan bin Abdul Aziz, also known as “Bandar Bush” due to his closeness to the Bush family. The ambassador expedited the departures of two families: The Saudi royals and the bin Ladens. But not even the notoriously charming prince could adequately explain why or how 15 out of the 19 hijackers came from a country the U.S. had always claimed as a close ally.

It should, then, be safe to call the Saudi-U.S. relationship a “secret” marriage. Not many Americans know how strong or weak this marriage is, mostly because the Saudis spent billions — and more billions — to spruce up their image or stay hidden from the general public.

The Saudis’ initial attempts at post-9/11 damage control backfired — badly. Exhibit A: Prince Alwaleed bin Talal’s public show of contributing $10 million to New York for disaster relief. Unfortunately for the Kingdom, the prince had the poor judgment to use the opportunity to lecture the U.S. about its foreign policy at the same time. Then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani made it clear that New York had no need for his money.

Realizing that their image needed bolstering, the Saudis did what troubled totalitarian regimes the world over do: They hired a PR firm and a gang of high-powered Washington lobbyists. The PR blitz was a flop.

But this did not stop the Saudis, and now, in an ironic twist, the prince is the second-largest shareholder in Rupert Murdoch’s News Corps, the parent company of Fox News Channel, a notorious source of anti-Muslim rhetoric.

The Kingdom’s ongoing image woes have long been exacerbated by reports of a barbaric judicial system, beheadings, the second class citizen status of women and the complete absence of human rights and religious freedom. The flow of Saudi petrodollars into the coffers of terrorist groups around the world has been reported on, analyzed and criticized for years, to little effect.

It is no secret either that Saudis have also been instrumental in bankrolling and backing discrimination and violence against the Shias, as described by Khaled Ahmed in his book Sectarian War: Pakistan’s Sunni-Shia Violence and Its Links to the Middle East:

According to Barnett Rubin, in 1989, the Afghan mujahideen government-in-exile came into being in Peshawar after the Soviet retreat from Afghanistan. At the behest of Saudi Arabia, the exiled Shia mujahideen of Iran were not included in this government. The Saudis paid over $26 million a week to the 519-member session of the mujahideen shura (council) as a bribe for it. Each member of the shura received $25,000 for the deal which was facilitated, according to Rubin, by the ISI Chief Hamid Gul.

But as the world is watching the developments in the war on terror, the Saudis are out to burnish their image as humanitarians. They know that the someone somewhere might mention the fact that Afghanistan was the training ground and Pakistan was the facilitator, but the majority of the hijackers were the nationals of the Kingdom. Over the last ten years, the situation is Pakistan and Afghanistan has gone from bad to worse, while a major player of this ‘great game’ has kept itself at a distance with its petrodollars.

Given the Saudis’ penchant for funding and exporting extremism and meddling throughout the Muslim world, how would you react if you heard a Saudi prince had bankrolled an expensive research project to create a genetically modified strain of corn that could eliminate world hunger?

The prince does this not for financial gain, but as a gesture of goodwill. The prince also speaks perfect English, appreciates female arm candy and is a target for Islamic extremists at home.

Apparently, the Saudis have found a way to uplift their image.

This prince is a hero, not in a real life of course — but in a Hollywood movie, Unknown. As America prepares to mark the ten year anniversary of 9/11, this pop culture moment is nothing short of extraordinary. The Saudis have achieved a PR coup: Positive product placement. The Kingdom is re-branding.

There’s nothing particularly original about the plot, which consists of a series of predictable spy scenarios — a foreign city, inclement weather, amnesia, car chases, the Cold War, evil multinationals. It’s been done a million times.

But what is totally unexpected is the depiction of a Saudi royal as a generous benefactor, a plot point that is so rare it captures the attention. Even more remarkable is that there have been no debates, no protests, no boycotts, no outrage. The movie came and went without a peep.

Even more intriguing: The film Unknown is based on the novel Out of My Head by Didier van Cauwelaert. There is no benevolent Saudi prince in the original version of the story. So how did this plot twist come about?

Since no one in the press or the world of politics seems to care, it may be a while before we find out.

Ahem. I wish I could tell you that this is just some “Onion” type parody, but it is, in fact, true. Yes, Manal Al-Sherif, was detained by the religious police because she got into the driver’s seat:

Authorities detained a Saudi woman on Saturday after she launched a campaign against the driving ban for women in the ultraconservative kingdom and posted a video of herself behind the wheel on Facebook and YouTube to encourage others to copy her.

Manal al-Sharif and a group of other women started a Facebook page called “Teach me how to drive so I can protect myself,” which urges authorities to lift the driving ban. She went on a test drive in the eastern city of Khobar and later posted a video of the experience.

“This is a volunteer campaign to help the girls of this country” learn to drive, al-Sherif says in the video. “At least for times of emergency, God forbid. What if whoever is driving them gets a heart attack?”

Human rights activist Walid Abou el-Kheir said al-Sherif was detained by the country’s religious police, who are charged with ensuring the kingdom’s rigid interpretation of Islamic teachings are observed. [snip]

Al-Sherif has a point – at the very least, women should know the basics of driving a car for emergencies, but also because, well, it’s assholic for them to be barred from something so many of us take completely for granted. Especially since the only reason they are barred from driving is their gender.

But wait – there is more:

Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world to ban women – both Saudi and foreign – from driving (emphasis mine). The prohibition forces families to hire live-in drivers, and those who cannot afford the $300 to $400 a month for a driver must rely on male relatives to drive them to work, school, shopping or the doctor.

Women are also barred from voting, except for chamber of commerce elections in two cities in recent years, and no woman can sit on the kingdom’s Cabinet. Women also cannot travel without permission from a male guardian and shouldn’t mingle with males who are not their husbands or brothers.

[...]

Dressed in a headscarf and the all-encompassing black abaya all women must wear in public, al-Sharif said not all Saudi women are “queens” who can afford to hire a driver. She extolled the virtues of driving for women, saying it can save lives, and time, as well as a woman’s dignity. Al-Sharif said she learned how to drive at the age of 30 in New Hampshire.

[...]

“We want to live as complete citizens, without the humiliation that we are subjected to every day because we are tied to a driver,” the Facebook message reads. “We are not here to break the law or demonstrate or challenge the authorities, we are here to claim one of our simplest rights.” (Click here to read the rest.)

Well, golly gee – that’s just a little demanding, isn’t it? Wanting to live as “complete citizens” in their own country? Pushy, pushy, pushy…

All snark aside, isn’t it just remarkable that in the 21st century, one of our allies treats women as subhuman based on religious practices? We engage with Saudi Arabia on a regular basis (they have oil, you know). Hell, our president bowed down to their king (!) as if he was one of his subjects. (There is more we are doing for them, too, about which you likely have not heard about in terms of the US crafting a “private security force.” My friend, Diamond Tiger, has the story at her blog, Logistics Monster. Check it out.)

And yet, women there do not have the most basic of rights, ones we take for granted every single day. How would we fare if women in this country had to have a driver, or take a taxi, to work, to school to pick up the kids, to go grocery shopping, to do ANYTHING?? Never mind should an emergency arise. I reckon the women in Saudi Arabia are just SOL.

But, hey, they are our allies, religious police notwithstanding. Heaven forfend we expect better from them in their treatment of half the population. Don’t want to upset them, after all. That would be politically and culturally insensitive of us. I mean, we’re just talking about women, right? Right?

I don’t know if the action al-Sharif and the other women there will be successful or not, but I sure hope so. I wouldn’t expect a whole lotta help from the US on this – it isn’t like we have been adamant that women have more rights there anyway. Oh, we acknowledge there are problems, but when our president bows to their king, I just wouldn’t hold my breath if I was them. Would you?

And so, I was interested to see to whom FIFA was going to award the 2022 World Cup, especially since the US was in the running. Well, FIFA, in their “infinite wisdom,” granted to Qatar the 2022 World Cup over the United States. That’s right. Qatar. By a vote of 14 – 8, with an all male committee, I might add. Where it is 100 degrees in the afternoon during the summer. Where wearing shorts can get you into trouble. Where Sharia law is the law of the land, particularly in “family matters, inheritance, and certain criminal acts” (though their National Human Rights Committee is working toward equal rights for women. And at least women can drive there, unlike our ally, Saudi Arabia. So there’s that.).

Are you freakin’ KIDDING me? Qatar is NOT a soccer powerhouse. Hell, it barely has soccer at all! Stadiums? What stadiums? They have to BUILD the damn things first, that’s how much of a soccer country Qatar is. This WaPo article makes the understatement of the century:

On the surface, the decision by soccer’s international governing body Thursday to award the 2022 World Cup to Qatar – a desert nation smaller than Connecticut with shallow soccer roots and oppressive summer heat – instead of the United States or three other event-tested countries made little sense.

Um, no, not just “on the surface” – below the surface, to anyone with a brain in their head, it makes no sense whatsoever. Oh, but the FIFA people can justify it with some kind of logic, just like choosing Russia over England, the birthplace of “football”. Sorry, my head is spinning. Anyway, here’s the justification:

But to those close to the process who understand FIFA’s complexities and recent mission to forge history, the results of the voting were not unforeseen.

Qatar received the most votes from the executive committee by a wide margin in each of the first three rounds, and when Australia, Japan and South Korea were eliminated, it defeated the United States, 14 to 8, for the right to host the planet’s most popular sporting event.

“It’s an election, and there are lots of things that go into that,” U.S. Soccer President Sunil Gulati said from Zurich, where, in another surprise, FIFA chose Russia over England and two other European bids to host the 2018 tournament. “It’s politics, it’s friendships and relationships, it’s alliances, it’s tactics.”

FIFA seemed to regard the United States as the safe choice – the country had set attendance records when it hosted the 1994 World Cup and offered the stadiums, infrastructure and commercial rewards to pull off another successful tournament in 12 years.

But FIFA was also charmed by Qatar’s innovative stadium plans, massive financial resources and the promise of promoting harmony in a region fractured by conflict.

[snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

They were “charmed” by it? THAT is the new standard for choosing a country with essentially ZERO sports acumen over the United States of America?? They thought the US was the “safe choice”? How about the SANE choice?!

Huh – I wonder just how much “charm” Qatar promised FIFA. I guess they don’t expect too many women from abroad to go to the World Cup. Or anyone who enjoys a cold one while at the stadium (hell, I don’t even drink, but good grief – it’s SOCCER). Or who might want to hold hands with someone who is not yet their lawful spouse. Or any number of other things that are frowned upon there…

Wow. While women in Qatar may fare better than women in other Muslim countries, say, Iran, it is still a conservative country in which women wear the burka, and where most are in arranged marriages (though either party can refuse), and where polygamy is common. Women are allowed to go to (segregated) schools, and can work, but they are not in the upper echelons of society, particularly in the work place.

And so, this is the country FIFA chose over the United States. This tiny desert country with no soccer heritage of which to speak, a conservative Muslim country that is also hot as hell. Oh, yeah – I can see why they were picked over the US – all that “charm.”

But that is just the beginning of who she is. There is so much more to this woman’s remarkable life. In addition to the activism for which she is known now, she was elected to the House of Representatives in the Netherlands in 1992. Hirsi Ali has written and spoken out extensively about not only her life, but the lives of women in general living under Islam, a life of subservience, of subjugating much of what makes them who they are. She speaks of her mother’s life:

[snip]Like all Somalian women, she had been pressured all her life to suppress her personality, to sublimate everything to men and to God – to become what Ayaan calls “a devoted, well-trained work-animal”. [snip]

Hirsi Ali’s activism has not been without a price, though. She continues to live under a fatwa, even now in the United States, where she has to travel with armed guards to this day as a result of her outspokenness on Islam. But at least she is still alive. The director who worked with her on a documentary about women and Islam is not so lucky, as this article, “My Life Under A Fatwa” from the Independent UK highlights:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali was stabbed into the world’s consciousness three years ago. One wet afternoon in November 2004, her friend Theo van Gogh – a film-maker, and descendant of Vincent – left his house and was about to cycle off through Amsterdam. But a young Dutch-born Muslim called Mohammed Bouyeri was waiting for him – with a handgun and two sharpened butcher’s knives.

Wordlessly, he shot Van Gogh twice in the chest. Van Gogh howled: “Can’t we talk about this?” Bouyeri ignored his pleas and fired four more times. Then he pulled out a knife and slit Van Gogh’s throat with such strength that his head was almost severed from his body. He used the other knife to stab a five-page letter on to Van Gogh’s haemorrhaging corpse.

Ayaan explains: “The letter was addressed to me.” It said that Van Gogh had been “executed” for making a film with her that exposed the widespread abuse of Muslim women. Now, she would be “executed” too – for being an apostate.

Her story is recounted in that article, and what a life it has been. I urge you to read the rest. It is quite a story indeed.

All of that is to say, Ayaan Hirsi Ali knows whereof she speaks when it comes to Islam as a woman who grew up Muslim, and who has lived in several Muslim nations. Heaven knows, she is far more than an authority on it than I am.

And so, given the current brouhaha over the proposed mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero, and the imam who wants to build it currently on a trip to the Middle East on our dime, this seems like a good time to focus a bit more attention on what Hirsi Ali has to say. It is timely, provocative, and disturbing.

The following clip deals more with Islam in Europe, though Hirsi Ali does mention the United States. Still, what she says encompasses what is happening in the States:

And now, Hirsi Ali speaks specifically about the United States. You do not want to miss this. It is quite something:

An “unholy alliance” – WOW. The point she makes about the second type of liberal was breathtaking.

There is so, so much more to this woman’s life, and what she has to say. I encourage you to watch more of her interviews. She is quite something.

Oh, and about that mosque near Ground Zero? Well, Hamas has weighed in on this issue. Yes, Hamas, the terrorist organization, has something to say about it. They say, build it, as this S.A. Miller NY Post article, “Hamas Nor For Ground Zero Mosque” points out:

[snip]“We have to build everywhere,” said Mahmoud al-Zahar, a co-founder of Hamas and the organization’s chief on the Gaza Strip.

“In every area we have, [as] Muslim[s], we have to pray, and this mosque is the only site of prayer,” he said on “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” on WABC. [snip]

Oh, it gets better:

[snip]“First of all, we have to address that we are different as people, as a nation, totally different,” he said.

“We already are living under the tradition of Islam.

“Islam is controlling every source of our life as regard to marriage, divorce, our commercial relationships,” Zahar said.

“Even the Islamic people or the Muslims in your country, they are living now in the tradition of Islam. They are fasting; they are praying.” [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

And Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf still refuses to characterize Hamas as a terrorist organization. Right…

I understand well Hirsi Ali’s point that liberals like many of us do not want anyone to be subjected to the kind of discrimination African Americans and others (Chinese, Japanese, and Hispanics, to name a few) have experienced in the United States. I completely get that. But I think she raises some good points about how we cannot allow that to blind us to some realities we may not want to admit for fear of the historical reality some groups have faced here.

And yet, address these issues we must, with eyes wide open…

Remember back in April when Obama traveled to the G-20 and bowed to the king of Saudi Arabia? If not, here it is:

Actually, that doesn’t look as much like a bow as it does a genuflect. Not, true, says Obama’s Spokes Weasel, Robert Gibbs. Oh, no – it is just because Obama is tall, and “bending over.” I am not kidding you – that’s what he claimed. So, don’t believe what you actually SAW, just believe Spokes Weasel that it’s not what it looked like it was.

Well, it would seem Obama learned nothing from that experience when he traveled to Japan and met the Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko of Japan:

Sigh. I know it is customary to bow in Japan, but this is a bit over the top for anyone, much less a US president, or another world leader. You will notice that, while the Emperor or Empress bows in return, it is slight, almost imperceptible. Nice to see that SOME people understand decorum and protocol, even if Obama doesn’t. They were modeling the appropriate level for him, and he missed it. I might add, Obama doesn’t bow just once, he does it over and over and over again (though not as low) like a frikkin’ bobblehead. His hosts, however, are not recirpocating.

Wow. So much for the President of the United States bowing to no one. What an amateur. Respect is one thing. Subordination is another. This appears to be a case of the latter, IMHO.

Yep, the second bow heard around the world. Oh, and the topic of discussion? Green tea ice cream. I’m not making this up, people, that’s what Obama discussed with the Emperor and Empress.

Perhaps Obama could take a few lessons from Secretary of State Clinton on how one meets with other world leaders, particularly in Japan, as this video from February, 2000 demonstrates (pay special attention around the 5:10 mark when the Empress and Clinton greet each other):

You’ll notice Clinton did not bow to the Empress. Though I have to say, the looks exchanged between the two women were quite lovely. They seem to really like each other (and who doesn’t like our Hillary??). Other than that, not a bow in sight. Oh, sure, she nodded her head a few times in recognition when someone bowed to her, but a real bow? Uh, yeah, NO. Didn’t see a one.

Once again, our Amateur in Chief is on display for all the world to see, and believe you me, they all saw it, too. Seriously, he needs to get some real protocol officers instead of asking one of his frat boys from their video games (“No, really, dude – I’m pretty sure they bow to each other in Japan. At least that’s what my Samurai warriors just did to each other on my X Box…”).

How I wish I could say I was surprised at Obama’s breach of protocol after his “teachable moment” in April with the King of Saudi Arabia. But when you have a president who gives a “shout out” and CALLS it a “shout out” after finding out about a devastating attack on one of our military bases before even acknowledging the attack, this is just par for the course. It just leaves me shaking my head…

Red head: “I think it was a….a leaning over.”

Blonde: “He was clearly leaning over to shake his hand. They idea that Barack Obama would bow to him is SO ridiculous…. A person is sitting down and you lean over to shake their hand, you are not bowing…The person is sitting down and you…”

Oh ye of little intelligence…. when someone is NOT sitting down, and you bend over at the waist in front of them, you are in fact bowing.

The FOX panels goes on to discuss this in the Behind the Break segment, and they continue the argument that it is ridiculous that Obama, as POTUS, would bow to him.

But that is exactly what Obama did. Why would they not admit it? The blonde insists the King was sitting, and Obama would never bow to him.

It’s bad enough that Gibbs lied about this, scoffed at the question, and dismissed the blunder, but for *journalists* to spread the lie is WRONG WRONG WRONG.

This is the kind of thing we can expect from msnbc and CNN, and this is why their ratings are so much lower than FOX’s. But FOX needs to remove these two liars from their lineup. They are irrelevant, and are either too stupid or too biased to ever be listened to, again. And having them on future segments lowers the credibility of the station.

This just proves, to me, that if they are SO willing to LIE about something so simple, they will lie about anything. And I don’t know about you, but I am sick and tired of the media lying to us.

This story could have been killed days ago, had Gibbs given some kind of honest explanation, like Obama had met the King earlier in the day, and they were just joking around. Or that they know each other and had met years ago, through some friend of Obama’s. Or that Obama was overcome with excitement on meeting a King (but he refuses to bow to women)… SOMETHING, ANYTHING is better than a LIE. A lie so ridiculous, Gibbs can’t even say it with a straight face.

And for what it’s worth, I think Gibbs lost ALL credibility on this one as well. Obviously he won’t get fired for it, because he was doing it for Obama. But, I will no longer believe a word he utters, or stutters. And I ask again, why the lie?

The blonde woman from FOX just makes this more laughable by insisting that Obama would never bow to the King, since he DID. And the King is NOT sitting down.

Susan sent me this story, and the headline is hilarious:

“How Do You Say Faux Pas in Austrian?“ by Kathleen Parker

(One thing that really bothers me is the media’s refusal to hit Obama on his faux pas’ without also taking a whack at Bill, or Hillary or Bush. Can’t we just criticize Obama when he deserves it, without constantly running with the *But…but…but Bush/Bill/Hill did it too!!* meme. Bush was following PROPER protocol when he held hands with King Abdullah. Like it or not, it was protocol, and a sign of equal respect and friendship. Bowing is a sign of submission, and offensive to King Abdullah: “I have tremendous distaste for such matters because I believe that one only bows before one’s God, not before another human being.”)

Anyway, back to Kathleen’s piece, she calls it what it was, a bow.

“It is also not in our DNA to bow to monarchs or to act beholden to anyone save God. We kneel before no human. Yet, occasionally, we are required to behave politely in countries that still cleave to their pomp and circumstance.

For such purposes, we have hirelings to instruct us in questions of protocol. We wonder lately where they are. Who didn’t tell Michelle Obama that one doesn’t put an arm around the queen of England, no matter how endearing we renegades might find it? Who didn’t tell the president that the United States does not bow, especially not to the rulers of countries where women are less valuable than sheep?”

Whatever their other flaws, the Kennedys could be counted on to mind their p’s and q’s in public. If there were any question, Baldrige — officially White House social secretary and chief of staff to Jacqueline Kennedy — was there to fill in the blanks.

Which is to say, you do as the Romans. Or the Austrians (who speak German, not Austrian, Mr. President). That doesn’t mean we compromise our own values in the process. Hence Rule No. 1: Americans don’t bow to monarchs.

I’ve now watched the tape of Obama’s bow a dozen or more times. It is simply not possible to accept an anonymous [she missed Gibbs' lie, apparently] White House official’s insistence that Obama was merely reaching down to take the king’s hand and had to bend over because of the height difference.

Not to name drop, but I’ve met the king and I’ve met the president. We’re not talking Gulliver and the Lilliputians. Even if Obama needed to reach down for the king’s hand, why not let the king raise his hand of his own volition? When I shook hands with the king, he seemed to know what to do.

To any objective observer, Obama’s bend from the waist quacked like a duck. It was . . . a bow. Clumsy, embarrassing and unbecoming a president, yes, but not an act of treason or, as one newspaper put it, a gesture of “fealty to a foreign potentate.”

She acknowledges the bow, but then goes on to “grant him slack” and excuse it away (and takes another swipe at a former President), OK, fine. Whatever. Spin it however you want. Excuse it away.

But for crying out loud people, ADMIT it happened. And STOP they lying. Or find a new line of work.

(Has Katie Couric covered the Bow story? I would be interested on her take. I do recall her telling NBC reporter Lee Cowan during the primary that if he can’t be objective, he should not be a reporter…)

Writes Ed Morrissey for Hot Air, “The White House miscalculated on its “no-bow” response. CNN spends a couple of minutes calling them on it. … CNN compares the bow to Saudi King Abdullah and the correct protocol of a head nod to the shorter Queen Elizabeth. …”

Special Report anchor Bret Baier did a great segment on “the bow” in his daily “Grapevine“:

Now, more from Ed Morrissey:

[...]

Moos also shows that the bow preceded the two-handed handshake, and concludes that the White House is not being terribly honest. [...]

Instead of just acknowledging an error, Robert Gibbs lied about it, and all but dared the media to report it. CNN isn’t the only media outlet taking the challenge, either. The Chicago Sun-Times scolds Obama for his display, now that the White House tried to spin it:

Did he or didn’t he? Did President Obama bow to Saudi King Abdullah at the G-20 meeting in London? That question is creating a bit of a dust-up in the blogosphere. The brouhaha reminds me of the tsk-tsking a few years back when President George W. Bush was photographed holding hands with then-Crown Prince Abdullah. …

That said, the president of the United States does not bow to kings. He is not only the chief of government, he’s our head of state — the equal of any monarch. The White House says Obama didn’t bow, that he “grasped (Abdullah’s) hand with two hands and he’s taller than King Abdullah.”

Sorry, but a videotape on YouTube doesn’t quite back that up. Obama clearly bends his body toward the Arabian monarch, and Obama doesn’t grasp both the king’s hands until he’s standing straight up. As for the he’s-taller argument, the 6-foot-1-inch Obama towers over a lot of people, so we’d have seen him bowing during handshakes many times if that were the explanation. Furthermore, the king had his hand extended, so Obama didn’t have to reach down an inordinate amount to grab it.

Heads of state do not bow to other heads of state. Abdullah didn’t reciprocate with a bow to Obama, for instance, and none of the other heads of state in the original video did so much as a shoulder incline. It’s the act of a rank amateur, a man unprepared to represent a nation as head of state. Thankfully, a few people have begun to notice it.

Update: Deceiver experiences Wonkette’s “humor”, which relies heavily on fellatio.

Don’t miss our earlier stories, including the latest by American Girl in Italy.

Robert Gibbs was asked about the bow by a CNN reporter and Gibbs LIED. And the thing about it is he knew it was such a idiotic sounding lie, he couldn’t keep a straight face. And it really chaps my hide that he first, lies about it, then blows it off, and says no one cares about it. (warning: Donna Brazile alert)

Once again, Donna reveals how truly far up her head is buried in that ones derriere. She can’t tell if it is a bow? Yea, sure. How STUPID are they to lie about this?

I also read this article from Ben Smith at Politico, which discusses the White House denial that the bow was a bow. Nothing wrong with the article, except this line:

“The White House is denying that the president bowed to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at a G-20 meeting in London, a scene that drew criticism on the right and praise from some Arab outlets.”

This isn’t just drawing criticism from the Right. This is drawing criticism from anyone with a mind of their own. There is a reason Obama bowed to King Abdullah and not to Queen Elizabeth. What is that reason? And there is a reason the WH is lying about it now. Why?

The mere FACT that the White House is LYING that this was indeed a bow, is proof positive that this was a major screw up. They aren’t saying he was just showing respect, or that they know each other, and Obama was just having fun, or any other excuse for the bow. They are DENYING it happened.

“It wasn’t a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he’s taller than King Abdullah. That is the WH statement. That it wasn’t a bow, but a two handed handshake.

How stupid does the WH think we are? (well, considering they fooled so many people into voting for Obama, I guess they can assume most people will accept their LIE.)

You CLEARLY see in the video that Obama shook his hand with one hand.

And you CLEARLY see Obama managing to greet the Queen without bending over so far he can touch the floor.

The Washington Times called the alleged bow a “shocking display of fealty to a foreign potentate” and said it violated centuries of American tradition of not deferring to royalty. The Weekly Standard, meanwhile, noted that American protocol apparently rules out bowing, or at least it reportedly did on the occasion of a Clinton “near-bow” to the emperor of Japan.

The Chicago Sun Times covered this also. Finally people are starting to actually cover it. Although… they are not actually stating it was a bow, just that it was an alledged bow. How STUPID are people to not believe this was a bow?

“A photo of President Obama apparently bowing in front of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is stirring a royal-size controversy. The photo and a video were largely ignored by mainstream media outlets but created outrage in some quarters.”

Just think about that. They are LYING to the American people about something that happened right before our very eyes. Can you imagine what else they are lying about? (Well, besides all the other things we write about here…)

Did they not see the video? It wasn’t even a double handshake! And you know what?

It WASN’T a bow. It was a curtsy!

(One of our readers said that on my previous post, *obama bends over for the saudis*) and they are RIGHT!)

A bow is a bend at the waist. This was a full on knee bending curtsy.

That was the most ridiculous spin, ever.

The left is working overtime to defend Obama, deny the curtsy, and talk of it’s irrelevance. However, Bush holding hands with the King was apparently news and snark worthy.

Bush: Holding hands with the Saudis for nothing – Seattle PI

Abdullah-Bush Stroll Strikes Nerve – Images Of Leaders Holding Hands Doesn’t Sit Well With Americans – CBS News

David Letterman mocked Bush on his top ten, calling him gay. (But Dave can find NOTHING to criticize about Obama?)

Barbara Walters on 20/20 asked King Abdullah about holding hands with Bush, and he explained it is a sign of friendship. His comments on bowing are interesting, though. “KING ABDULLAH: I have tremendous distaste for such matters because I believe that one only bows before one’s God, not before another human being.” (when he said *that one* do you think he meant Obama?)

Brian Williams was still talking about it in 2007.

The New York Times wrote about it. Newsweek. Time.

So I guess, when a Republican does something (that is actually actual protocol), it generates negative news coverage, but when Obama does something that is out of protocol, and according to the King, distasteful, you only hear about it on FOX.

Camille Paglia from Salon.com chalks it up to staffing issues. (that would sure fit in well with Obama’s habit of blaming his staff for everything…)

“Obama’s staffing problems are blatant — from that bleating boy of a treasury secretary to what appears to be a total vacuum where a chief of protocol should be. There has been one needless gaffe after another — from the president’s tacky appearance on a late-night comedy show to the kitsch gifts given to the British prime minister, followed by the sweater-clad first lady’s over-familiarity with the queen and culminating in the jaw-dropping spectacle of a president of the United States bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia. Why was protest about the latter indignity confined to conservatives? The silence of the major media was a disgrace. But I attribute that embarrassing incident not to Obama’s sinister or naive appeasement of the Muslim world but to a simple if costly breakdown in basic command of protocol.”

While I agree with Camille’s comments that these events were tacky, and the media has been disgraceful, I am not sure if the problems can be blamed soley on the lack of a protocol officer. I don’t have a chief of protocol and I knew that the gifts were tacky, the appearance on Leno was the wrong place, wrong time, with very wrong comments, and I know not to be so touchy feely with the Queen (and I wouldn’t have blocked Prince Philip out of the photo either, especially if I towered over him – how tall ARE they?). And I wouldn’t have kept my back to the press pool either. But that’s just me… (I don’t want pictures of my behind!)

And I highly doubt I would bow to the King of Saudi Arabia. If I bowed to anyone, it would have been the Queen. So, this just sounds like yet another round of excuses for Obama.

Now everyone in the blogosphere is trying to figure out why.

If you remember, during the primary, I and others, wrote about Obama and his relationship to a man named Dr. Khalid al-Mansour. During an interview on NY1, Percy Sutton started discussing a friend of his, a man who contacted him and asked him to write a letter for Obama. That man was Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, and he was raising money for Obama, and helping Obama to get into Harvard. This was the original interview:

Percy mentions that Dr. Khalid al-Mansour is the principal advisor to one of the world’s richest men.

Who is Khalid Al-Mansour?

“Although many Americans have never heard of Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour (his full name), he is well known within the black community as a lawyer, an orthodox Muslim, a black nationalist, an author, an international deal-maker, an educator, and an outspoken enemy of Israel.”

So, who did Khalid work for, who was this rich man he adavised? It was Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud.

And who is Prince Al-Waleed?

He is the nephew of King Abdullah.

So, perhaps that might shed a little light as to why Obama is bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia? Maybe they go *way back*? Perhaps there is some history there? Maybe Khalid was working on behalf of Prince Al-Waleed when he *sponsored* Obama? Maybe Obama was thanking the King for his nephews donations?

Obama sure doesn’t help those *rumors* with things like bowing before the king of Saudi Arabia….

For more on The Bow, the RBO web site has a great round up of blog stories about this, including the Saudi media coverage, and lots more videos and pics.

Some people seem to think Obama was kissing his ring, but it does not appear to me, that he is. He’s just kissing his butt.

But…I’m sure it is just a coincidence….right?

Or maybe Obama just has issues about bowing down to females? (I just hope he didn’t call Queen Elizabeth sweetie!)

Memorandum has a round-up of stories on the event, too.

And don’t miss Susan’s earlier post on this.

Some of us have been warning that it was not healthy for the U.S. media to have deified rather than questioned Obama, especially given that they tore apart Bush, ridiculed Palin, and caricatured Hillary. And now we can see the results of their two years of advocacy rather than scrutiny.

We are quite literally after two weeks teetering on an Obama implosion—and with no Dick Morris to bail him out—brought on by messianic delusions of grandeur, hubris, and a strange naivete that soaring rhetoric and a multiracial profile can add requisite cover to good old-fashioned Chicago politicking.

Well, I sure cannot disagree with him there. It is really astonishing to me the lengths to which people have gone to convince themselves that Obama was not a part of Chicago-style politics, all evidence to the contrary. I know, I know – that was one of just many things about which they turned a blind eye and deaf ear, but it is a big jumping off point.

Hanson continues with his review of Obama in the White House:

First, there were the sermons on ethics, belied by the appointments of tax dodgers, crass lobbyists, and wheeler-dealers like Richardson—with the relish of the Blago tapes still to come. (And why does Richardson/Daschle go, but not Geithner?).

Second, was the “stimulus” (the euphemism for “borrow/print money”) that was simply a way to go into debt for a generation to shower Democratic constituencies with cash.

Then third, there were the inflated lectures on historic foreign policy to be made by the clumsy political novice who trashed his own country and his predecessor in the most ungracious manner overseas to a censored Saudi-run press organ (e.g., Bush is dictatorial, the Saudi king is courageous; Obama can mend bridges that America broke to aggrieved Muslims—apparently Tehran hostages, Rushdie, serial attacks in the 1990s, 9/11, Madrid, London never apparently occurred; and neither did feeding Somalis, saving Kuwait, protesting Chechnya, Bosnia/Kosovo, billions to Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinians, help in two Afghan wars, and on and on).

Fourth, there was the campaign rhetoric of Bush shredding the Constitution—FISA, Guantánamo, the Patriot Act, Iraq, renditions, etc.—followed by “all that for now stays the same” inasmuch as we haven’t ben (sic) hit in over seven years and can’t risk another attack.

Remember when Obama reneged on his campaign promise to filibuster the FISA bill? Assuring his minions there was NO way he would ever vote for something so clearly un-Constitutional?? Oh, I do. He broke that promise with nary a “by your leave,” just a “yep, I did it! You’ll still vote for me, though, won’t you?!” Or something along those lines. One of my siblings, a big Obot, shrugged his shoulders and said he was “disappointed” by Obama voting for FISA. Uh, yeah, I get “disappointed” too when my country’s Constitution is being ripped to shreds by someone who got people to buy that he is a Constitutional “scholar.” Sure, Obama.

I digress:

Fifth, Gibbs as press secretary is a Scott McClellan nightmare that won’t go away, given his long McClellan-like relationship with Obama (McClellan should have been fired on day hour one on the job). Blaming Fox News for Obama’s calamities is McClellan to the core and doesn’t work. He already reminds me of Reverend Wright’s undoing at the National Press Club—and he will get worse.

Six, Biden is being Biden. Already, he’s ridiculed the chief justice, trashed the former VP, bragged on himself ad nauseam in Bidenesque weird ways, and it’s only been two weeks.

And the result of all this?

At home, Obama is becoming laughable and laying the groundwork for the greatest conservative populist reaction since the Reagan Revolution.

His claims of “CATASTROPHE!!!” if the Senate doesn’t give him all of our money for generations to come is pretty good evidence of that.
His lack of preparedness, experience, and knowledge of policy come into play, too:

Abroad, some really creepy people are lining up to test Obama’s world view of “Bush did it/but I am the world”: The North Koreans are readying their missiles; the Iranians are calling us passive, bragging on nukes and satellites; Russia is declaring missile defense is over and the Euros in real need of iffy Russian gas; Pakistanis say no more drone attacks (and then our friends the Indians say “shut up” about Kashmir and the Euros order no more “buy American”).

This is quite serious. I can’t recall a similarly disastrous start in a half-century (far worse than Bill Clinton’s initial slips). Obama immediately must lower the hope-and-change rhetoric, ignore Reid/Pelosi, drop the therapy, and accept the tragic view that the world abroad is not misunderstood but quite dangerous. And he must listen on foreign policy to his National Security Advisor, Billary, and the Secretary of Defense. If he doesn’t quit the messianic style and perpetual campaign mode, and begin humbly governing, then he will devolve into Carterism—angry that the once-fawning press betrayed him while we the people, due to our American malaise, are to blame.

Nice of Hanson to get a little slam of Hillary in there, too. Sheesh.

Anyway, yes, this whole messianic thing is just a bit of a problem. But what kind of Messiah is in constant need of ego-strokes and propping up? I speak, of course, of the “Great job, Barry!” campaign sponsored by Senators Durbin and Boxer to tell Obama that he is just doing a bang-up, job, he’s the best president ever, and this is the best two weeks any president has ever had – YAY!!! I am not kidding you. Ani, has all of the info on this “campaign in her outstanding piece, “Maureen Dowd Berates Obama While Senators Durbin and Boxer Want Us to Kiss-y the Prez and Make-y Better.”

Just think about that. People voted for a man whose ego is so incredibly delicate that he has to CONSTANTLY be on the receiving end of praise and accolades, even when he doesn’t deserve it. Otherwise, I guess he will just go sulk in the corner, or throw a hissy fit. Like I have said all along, Obama’s petulance and requirement for non-stop adulation makes George Bush look like, well, an adult.

Can you just imagine, just IMAGINE, if this had been done by two Republican Senators back in 2001 the ridicule from all of us who opposed Bush? Jon Stewart would get mileage out of that for at least a week. Maybe a month. All of the late night hosts would be making fun of the Stewart Smalley-esque needs of the president (h/t to American Girl for reminding me of the, “I’m smart enough, I’m good enough, and dog-gone it, people LIKE me!”). But Obama? I have heard not ONE word about this campaign by two long-term US Senators. I guess not enough of these jokers have gotten their heads out of their…Obama-love.

I can say this will the fullest confidence – Hillary Clinton would never, in a gazillion years, require that kind of over-the-top praise and adoration that Obama seems to need. He needs to grow the hell up already and start worrying about his job. The one for which he CLEARLY was not ready on Day One to have. She was, which she has demonstrated with her hard work already at the State Department. Obama? Well, he’s been busy trying out all the new “toys” (read: Air Force 1, etc.) of his office (really? AF 1 to fly to VA???), going before House Democrats and acting all tough with his teleprompter on those horrible Republicans who were standing in the way of his repaying ACORN with our money. Oh, yeah.

This is the guy the DNC hand-selected. The one for whom it sold its soul. Now, go get your crayons and paper, and send the poor little president a note telling him what a bang-up job he has done in the past two-plus weeks, with the massive stimulus package he wants, the tax evader he put in charge of the IRS, as well as the other tax evaders with whom he wanted to surround himself, putting off getting the troops out of Iraq, but not wasting any time expanding Bush’s Faith Based Initiatives (more on that soon), already getting it up and running, and so much more. Let him know that you know he is the quintessential Chicago-style politician despite his “words, just words.” Remember, your job is to prop him up, not hurt his little feelings, so you should make sure you draw some little rainbows, unicorns, and smiley faces on it. That should do it.

Sure did it for me. Excuse me while I go get ill.

From the arch-conservative Weekly Standard, we get concerns unique to that one publication. (Nowhere else, in any press or blog account on last night’s interview, did I read concerns that Obama’s remarks about Iran might infer a more lax attitude towards its building of nuclear weapons, which both Obama and Secretary Clinton have said is unacceptable.) In “Obama on a Nuclear Iran: Yes They Can?,” the commentary hits on a theme that we who have questioned Obama intensely have worried about (that he’ll say whatever he thinks people want to hear, rather than conceiving his own independent judgment, hence our frequent use of terms like “backtrack” or “flip-flop”):

Wouldn’t a simple ‘no, a nuclear Iran is unacceptable to the United States and our allies’ have sufficed? Instead Obama says that Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon is “unhelpful,” that it’s “not conducive to peace.” When Obama was in Israel, he said that “a nuclear Iran would pose a grave threat and the world must prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.” He added that he would “take no options off the table in dealing with this potential Iranian threat.” In the first debate of the general election, Obama reiterated that the United States “cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran.” But when Obama has the chance to speak directly to the Muslim world, he can only muster retread rhetoric from his inaugural address about clenched fists and open hands.

President Bush was incapable of engaging the Muslim world with his own words, but neither was it possible for the Muslim world to confuse his view of American interests in that region. President Obama has the potential to secure real progress through his skill as a communicator, but there’s always been a fear that some portion of his success in negotiating difficult issues was the result of a willingness, or perhaps a compulsion, to tell his audience whatever it is he thinks they want to hear.

It is encouraging that President Obama has chosen highly seasoned experts on foreign policy such as Secretary Clinton and envoys like George Mitchell, now on a lengthy tour of the Middle East and Europe. Especially since, as Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey notes, Obama has a “charming and dangerous naivete.” Hillary would have given a very different interview, wouldn’t she. (That’s not a question, since it’s a fact.)

Hillary, by the way, is expected to give an address shortly, which we’ll get to you as soon as possible.

Since we often don’t get much insight or reflection in our own newspapers and television/radio outlets, I decided to check out foreign media outlets. Most don’t have anything written up yet, but I did manage to find the following:

While the New York Times’s laudatory title was “Obama Signals New Tone in Relations With Islamic World,” The Guardian, a liberal UK newspaper, adopted a more critical, objective approach:

Little of substance, but Obama’s tone was striking

Al-Arabiya’s exclusive with the president was an important moment, though he failed to mention Gaza

[...] Obama’s main message to al-Arabiya, the Dubai-based, Saudi-owned rival to the more popular but far more strident al-Jazeera, was that Americans are not the “enemy” of the Muslim world – a perception that has taken hold in the years since the 9/11 attacks and George Bush’s declaration of a “war on terror”. (continued below)

No matter that this was a reprise of a much-discussed theme in his inaugural address last week. It certainly bears repeating as a high-profile exercise in public diplomacy. But there was no news at all about changes to specific policies that would demonstrate the dawn of a genuinely new approach. The interviewer, Hisham Melhem, got an enviable exclusive – but not a smidgeon of a scoop.

Obama’s best line was his call for the “language of respect” in dealings with the Muslim world – though he also readily agreed with his interviewer that there had been a “demonisation” of America.

The president’s call for the resumption of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks will be welcomed as another signal of his determination to play an active role from the start – in stark contrast to Bush. That has already been underlined by the dispatch of the Northern Ireland veteran George Mitchell, his special Middle East envoy, for his first talks in the region. [...]

If the al-Arabiya interview contained little or no substance, Obama’s emollient, intelligent tone was still striking. … Read all.

New York Magazine writes:

Obama’s tack was to make a conciliatory attitude toward the Muslim world seem the most deadly threat to terrorists and their efforts to draw followers. He said men like Osama bin Laden “seem nervous” because in the face of a new attitude toward America, “their ideas are bankrupt.” …

As always, Memeorandum.com has a large collection of stories and opinion pieces (both blog and MSM) on the story. But, for some reason, they missed Ed Morrissey’s essay at Hot Air, which is very informative:

[Obama's remarks about Israel and Gaza]

I included the entire question and answer to give the entire context of this exchange, in which Obama faltered badly. The main driver of Israeli-Palestinian conflict isn’t settlements, and hasn’t been for some time. It’s the rocket launches coming from Hamas in Gaza, and to a lesser extent from Islamic Jihad there as well. How can we know this? Israel hasn’t had to conduct a military exercise in the West Bank for years, where the settlements are located. On the other hand, they’ve had to conduct several military operations in Gaza in the few years since Ariel Sharon dismantled the settlements there.

Obama should have reminded his interviewer of those facts. That’s a big failure, and a missed opportunity to get the record straight in the Arab world. And there’s more, as Scott Johnson points out:

Q: President Bush framed the war on terror conceptually in a way that was very broad, “war on terror,” and used sometimes certain terminology that the many people — Islamic fascism. You’ve always framed it in a different way, specifically against one group called al Qaeda and their collaborators. And is this one way of –

THE PRESIDENT: I think that you’re making a very important point. And that is that the language we use matters. And what we need to understand is, is that there are extremist organizations — whether Muslim or any other faith in the past — that will use faith as a justification for violence. We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith’s name.

And so you will I think see our administration be very clear in distinguishing between organizations like al Qaeda — that espouse violence, espouse terror and act on it — and people who may disagree with my administration and certain actions, or may have a particular viewpoint in terms of how their countries should develop. We can have legitimate disagreements but still be respectful. I cannot respect terrorist organizations that would kill innocent civilians and we will hunt them down.

But to the broader Muslim world what we are going to be offering is a hand of friendship.

Again, the naiveté comes through clearly in this exchange. The terrorist organizations themselves have a wide base of support among Muslims in the Arab world, as well as with the Iranian government, if we include Hamas and Hezbollah. Obama makes al-Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah sound like the Baader-Meinhofs or the tax-resister militias here in the US. They’re not. They’re well-funded and strongly supported, at least until that support starts costing people more than they’d like. Terrorism doesn’t begin and end with AQ at all, and if Obama doesn’t understand that, then he’s extremely ill-prepared for his task in the next four years of stopping terrorists, a task at which Bush succeeded after 9/11.

Unlike some others, I didn’t mind Obama’s decision to grant al-Arabiya this honor. Obama has a great deal of popularity in the Muslim world, and that can be a great asset to the US if used properly. Obama could have taken the opportunity to explain some hard truths while extending the hand of friendship. Instead, he took the opportunity to pander.

This last section, on the extremist groups, is particularly important for us to discuss. I’d especially like to get Larry Johnson’s reaction to Morrissey’s POV.

Jake Tapper has the lead print story on-line, and CNN’s Anderson Cooper is covering the breaking story as well as showing snippets of Obama’s first interview as president, made to the MidEast popular television outlet. Updates:

(1) This ties in, of course, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s naming of George Mitchell as special envoy for the Middle East, and her immediate order that Mitchell depart immediately on an extensive tour of the region — which signals, to me, that Secretary Clinton and President Obama have decided to immediately target the region’s plethora of problems and extremist influences; and

(2) The Washington Post story, “Obama Voices Hope for Mideast Peace in Talk With Al-Arabiya TV” emphasizes Obama’s “expressed optimism yesterday about the prospect of peace between Israel and the Palestinians, but he said a peace accord will take time and require new thinking about the problems of the Middle East as a whole.” From the WaPo:

“All too often the United States starts by dictating — in the past on some of these issues — and we don’t always know all the factors that are involved,” Obama told al-Arabiya. “So let’s listen. [Mitchell is] going to be speaking to all the major parties involved. And he will then report back to me. From there we will formulate a specific response.”

Mitchell will be on the road until Feb. 3, according to the State Department. He will travel to Israel, the West Bank, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, France and England. He also hopes to go to Istanbul, the site of talks between Israel and Syria. …

[..]

[Obama's] comments were a stark departure from those of former president George W. Bush, who often described the Middle East conflict in terms that drew criticism from Palestinians.

By contrast, Obama went out of his way to say that if America is “ready to initiate a new partnership [with the Muslim world] based on mutual respect and mutual interest, then I think that we can make significant progress.”

The president declined to reveal where he plans to give his first major speech in a foreign country. In the past he had said he would speak in a Muslim capital sometime within the first 100 days of his administration.

And he reiterated a point from his inaugural address: He plans to reach out to Muslims around the world who are willing to “unclench your fist” but will go after terrorists who continue to be bent on destruction. …

“Now, my job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world, that the language we use has to be a language of respect. I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries,” Obama said in the interview.

He said that the United States must be “willing to talk to Iran” and that he would lay out a “framework” for those discussions over the next several months.

Wood said Mitchell will not have contact with Hamas, the militant group that controls the Gaza Strip, but he did not rule out the possibility that Mitchell would also visit Syria or travel to Gaza. … READ ALL.

I tuned in just as Cooper was referring to the pleas of Prince Turki of Saudi Arabia, former head of intelligencce in Saudi Arabia and briefly Ambassador to the U.S., telling President Obama that the Arab countries couldn’t sustain their relationships with the U.S. as long as there was so much bloodshed and violence pouring out of the Gaza area. The heavy onslaught by Israeli military forces has enraged Muslims across the entire MidEast and Asian regions. [IMAGE: The photo of a Palestinian whose face has been gravely disfigured by shrapnel. The man's legs were also crushed. It is critical to understand that the peoples of the Middle East are seeing far too many of these photos and videos, including those of dead children which Larry Johnson posted last week. These images have a profound effect and it is natural for people in the region to assume that the U.S. is as responsible as Israel for these maimings and killings.]

As Cooper pointed out, it is highly signficant that in this interview, Obama mentioned that many members of his famiy are Muslims and that he spent part of his youth in Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim country. He is certainly the first U.S. president to be able to make that claim, and — who knows — it may help.

It is notable that, during the election cycles, Obama never brought up his familial ties to the Muslim faith because he knew that that would alienate voters. Perhaps now that he is president, and he is also worried that his standing in the Middle East is that he won’t be any different than George Bush, he feels compelled to risk discussing his background more frankly. (With the immediate dispatch of George Mitchell and this TV interview tonight, it sounds as if there is a lot of intelligence “rumblings” being heard, and that the administration feels it must act, and act quickly to change the mindset of ME and European Muslims.

Here is Jake Tapper‘s initial report:

As special envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell heads off to the region to begin work on negotiating a cease fire between Israel and the Palestinians, President Obama has sat for his first formal TV interview with the Arabic cable TV network Al-Arabiya, ABC News has learned.

The interview was taped this evening and is set to air at 11 pm ET, as Mitchell is in the air and on his way to the region.

Based in Dubai, Al-Arabiya estimates that it has a potential audience exceeding 23 million in the Gulf region.

I remember Prince Turki vividly from the great book and winner of the Pulitzer non-fiction prize, The Looming Tower. (I can’t recommend this book enough; there are sections of the book that describe in detail how Turki handled grave crises within Saudi Arabia, including the near destruction of Mecca by a group of extremists.] Turki is portrayed in such a way in that book that I would regard his warnings as critical for the U.S. to heed, particularly if he issued a stern warning to the U.S. I am hopeful that both President Obama and Secretary Clinton have heeded his admonitions that something must be done to change the course of events, and the reactions of the Israelis.

By the way, I checked Al-Arabayi’s Web site but don’t see any reports or video yet.

I must say that, from what I’m hearing, Obama is doing a great job.

Dear lord.

I hope you saw Reverend Amy’s story many hours ago in which she recalled the great speech that C.J. gave to the press corps on “West Wing”: ““Those Women” * OPEN THREAD.”

Here it is. What Reverend Amy wrote:

Oh, I sure wish “The West Wing” was still on – new episodes, that is. What a great show.

And I loved CJ Cregg, the Press Secretary. Now SHE was someone to whom I could listen about what was going on in the world. Like when she talked about the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia:

READ the rest of Amy’s post, ““Those Women” * OPEN THREAD.”

::::::

Important: Can anyone think of anything we can do to help those girls, or to try to help prevent such future attacks?