Balkinization: "Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president?"

"Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president?"

Colin Powell, reaffirming basic American values that seem to have been discarded in contemporary politics, on the Republican Party's use of the term "Muslim" as an scare tactic:

I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, "He's a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists." This is not the way we should be doing it in America.

I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards--Purple Heart, Bronze Star--showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian cross, it didn't have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life. Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way. And John McCain is as nondiscriminatory as anyone I know. But I'm troubled about the fact that, within the party, we have these kinds of expressions.

Posted 3:15 AM by JB [link]

Comments:

""Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president?""

Of course not. Muslim does not equal associating with terrorists.

The fact that Mr. Obama bears a muslim sounding name does not mean that he associates with terrorists.

Unfortunately, Mr. Obama did in fact have a long and intimate working relationship with an unrepentant domestic terrorist and thought nothing of it.

Unfortunately, Mr. Obama has no trouble entering into negotiations without preconditions with terrorist regimes, which garnered him the endorsement of Hamas.

Powell's attempt to brush that aside as mere negative campaigning is disturbing from a man who should know better. What would he say about McCain's judgment if Timothy McVeigh had been released because the evidence against him had been suppressed as was the evidence with William Ayers and then McCain spent the next twenty years working with McVeigh as a colleague?

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:17 AM

"Unfortunately, Mr. Obama did in fact have a long and intimate working relationship with an unrepentant domestic terrorist and thought nothing of it."

Little Lisa's bro surely knows of McCain's connections with G. Gordon Liddy, which continue to date. Now what was it G. Gordon Liddy did? Was he Joe the Plumber of the Richard "I am not a crook" Nixon days of Watergate? Little Lisa's bro may admire a man who would press a lit cigarette into one his palms to show his courage. And how old was McCain when Liddy did his diddly (as compared to Obama's 8 years of age when the terrorist did his thing)? And when Liddy did his diddly he was an attorney, a member of the bar. If Watergate had not been exposed, what would have been the damage to our republic? Who was the greater threat to democracy? Surely it was government rotting from within. My, my, little Lisa's bro's backpack of lies keeps growing like Pinocchio's nose.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 11:08 AM

Thanks Colin, for calling the McCain campaign's vicious "he's a Muslim" crap for what it is: racism and religous bigotry -- and that's as un-American as it gets.

The children in the playground

The faces that I see

All races and religions

That's America to me

# posted by

jpk : 12:02 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 12:56 PM

Muslim does not equal associating with terrorists.

I wonder where Powell got the idea that you wingnuts equate muslim with terrorists?

# posted by

Bartbuster : 1:51 PM

... and then McCain spent the next twenty years working with McVeigh as a colleague?

Objection, your Honour, assumes facts not in evidence.

And a preemptive objection: Freeperville, LittleGreenSnotballs, and ClownHall are not valid authorities....

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 1:52 PM

Bartbuster:

I wonder where Powell got the idea that you wingnuts equate muslim with terrorists?

From wingnuts like "Bart" that have harangued about the desire of Moooossslliimms to establish a caliphate across the world. "Bart"'s anti-Moooossslllimm rants are legion.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 1:55 PM

Arne, stop giving hints. I wanted to see if the wingnut could figure that out on his own.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 1:59 PM

shag:

Liddy is hardly a terrorist and he is not a long term colleague and political sponsor of McCain.

Try again.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 2:17 PM

Liddy is a convicted felon and is indeed, a longtime associate with McCain and someone that McCain has had positive words for and has not repudiated.

Liddy has also advocated killing federal agents in the line of duty which I think makes him a terrorist sympathizer.

Until conservatives start recognizing the consequences of their speech and start insisting on some accountability among themselves over moevemnt excesses they will make no progress persuading reasonable middle-of-the-roaders.

# posted by

Seth Owen : 2:51 PM

seth:

You are free to list all the organizations that Liddy and McCain ran together and the last time Liddy ran fundraisers for McCain.

Also, please provide the cite to Liddy advocating terrorism against law enforcement. I am guessing here that you are probably referring to Liddy commenting on the right of self defense to kill law enforcement attempting to murder you or your family ala Ruby Ridge or Waco. If so, such self defense is perfectly legal as law enforcement may only use deadly force against others when carrying out their lawful duties.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 3:10 PM

"Bart" DePalma:

Liddy is hardly a terrorist ...

Outside of plotting to bomb the Brookings institute and kidnap people, amongst other crimes. Not to mention his exhortation to shoot BATF people in the head.

... and he is not a long term colleague and political sponsor of McCain.

... outside of going on his show and having a fundraiser at Liddy's house (see above link).

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 4:22 PM

"Bart" DePalma:

If so, such self defense is perfectly legal as law enforcement may only use deadly force against others when carrying out their lawful duties.

And BATF is an illegal gummint organisation (unlike, ferinstance, the CIA and their "contractors").

But FWIW, breaking your door down is not "deadly force". They'll shoot you if you start shooting at them.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 4:29 PM

You are free to list all the organizations that Liddy and McCain ran together and the last time Liddy ran fundraisers for McCain.

Not sure about the former, but he held a fundraiser in his home for McCain in 1998 (three years more recently than Ayers did for Obama).

But it doesn't matter, really. Candidates shouldn't be considered the sum of their endorsements or their contributors. I don't assume that McCain wants to shoot federal agents in the head or groin just because Liddy wants to do so. I don't assume that Obama thinks bombing the Pentagon is an actionable strategy for change.

The fact of the matter is that a careful investigation of all the people who have donated time and money to either campaign would turn up a long list of people with insane ideas about how violence could favorably change the world. It makes no sense to represent any of those contributors' misguided perceptions as necessarily indicative of a candidate's intentions or beliefs.

# posted by

PMS_CC : 5:43 PM

The fact of the matter is that a careful investigation of all the people who have donated time and money to either campaign would turn up a long list of people with insane ideas about how violence could favorably change the world. It makes no sense to represent any of those contributors' misguided perceptions as necessarily indicative of a candidate's intentions or beliefs.

Exactly. The only thing such arguments tell you is that the person making them is dishonest (except as a counter-argument tu quoque).

# posted by

Mark Field : 7:20 PM

As long as little girls who drop their "g's", like my nieces, understand that the Prof. Balkins and Mark Fields of the world are violently opposed to their ever becoming vice president, it's all fine, I think.

# posted by

sean : 8:13 PM

Sean:

As long as little girls who drop their "g's", like my nieces, understand that the Prof. Balkins and Mark Fields of the world are violently opposed to their ever becoming vice president, it's all fine, I think.

In case you hadn't noticed, the objection by many to Palin is not that she drops her "G"s (or whatever), but rather that she's pig-ignerrent (and a wacko fundy to boot) ... as well as an example of all that MsInsane claims to be opposed to (abuse of power, pork-barrel spending, etc.). I think that applies here; no one but you has brought up her diction. You betcha (andI can fairly say that, having been raised in Minnesnoter....)

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 1:07 PM

Arne: "...the objection by many to Palin is not that she drops her "G"s..."

Yeah, but truth is, Sean wins that one on points, 'cause you took the bait. Some kinds of idiotic twaddle really are only best answered with thundering silence.

I'd paypal ya five bucks if you'd promise to post once to one of the sane folks around here (e.g., PMS_Chicago, Mark Field, ...) for even every three replies you give the wingnuts. I know you know it only eggs them on.

Peace,

rl

# posted by

Robert Link : 10:59 PM

Robert Link:

I know you know it only eggs them on.

While Kris and I could use the money (being off a substantial chunk of our early retirement cash in recent months), I can't take your money. Really.

But you know as well as I that they'll keep posting no matter what (not to mention, "Bart" hardly continues his rants in response to me; he studiously ignores my eviscerations).

But thanks anyway, and I do appreciate your commitment and desire for more rational dialogue.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 1:38 PM

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

# posted by

Unknown : 6:50 PM