Michele Bachmann re-enters the political fray with accusations against prominent Muslims in public life

July 24, 2012

Michele Bachmann  has accused  [Democratic] Representative Keith Ellison, of ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, a group she says is seeking “America’s demise.”

A report in the Boston Herald outlines the emerging story:

Ellison, a Muslim whose congressional district borders Bachmann’s, said Friday that he saw Bachmann’s remarks less as a personal attack than as a broadside against Muslims in public life. Earlier in the week he had criticized Bachmann for similar allegations against Huma Abedin, a top aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.  

Ellison said of Bachmann, “I knew when I raised the issue of her unfounded accusations of disloyalty that sooner or later she was going to get around to accusing me. I will say for the record that her allegations are false.”

He pointed out that Ms Abedin would have had to pass rigorous background checks to obtain the security clearances needed for her position.  If Bachmann’s allegations are not challenged, he noted “there literally could be no Muslim who could hold a position of responsibility in government.”

A growing wave of negative reaction has emerged from within Bachmann’s own party, beginning with Senator  John McCain, who took to the Senate floor [Wednesday 18th July 2012] to defend Abedin.

Bachmann sits on the House Intelligence Committee, a post she has cited in an attempt to give heft to her allegations. But that committee’s chairman told USA Today that Bachmann’s remarks about the Muslim Brotherhood’s infiltration efforts are false.  With Republicans distancing themselves from Bachmann’s remarks, many Democrats have stayed on the side lines, but House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said:

“New immigrants to America have always faced a wave of ignorance and discrimination.  I would have hoped that this type of discourse no longer existed in our country, but clearly we have more educating to do with respect to what America is about.”

 

A few Bachmann defenders argue that the political storm represents an overabundance of political correctness.

Ironic

 

As happens in politics, attacks invite counter-attacks.  US TODAY correspondent DeWayne Wickham addressed an irony he found in the story:

After she dropped out of the GOP presidential race following her [poor] showing in the Iowa caucus, [Bachmann] was granted Swiss citizenship [in May 2012]. Because her husband has Swiss parents, she could have obtained Swiss citizenship in 1978, the year of her marriage.

Why did she wait 34 years? Bachmann said through a spokesperson after the story was broken by a Swiss broadcaster, that her children  “wanted to exercise their eligibility for dual-citizenship, so they went through the process as a family.”

Two days later, Bachmann renounced her Swiss citizenship. “I took this action because I want to make it perfectly clear: I was born in America, and I am a proud American citizen. I am, and always have been, 100% committed to our United States Constitution and the United States of America,” Bachmann said in a statement.

In other words, Bachmann didn’t want her followers to see in her what she so often claims to have discovered in others: a lack of commitment to the country of their birth. By this, I don’t mean those who hold dual citizenship are less American. But I suspect Bachmann realized she would have a hard time explaining her shared citizenship to the people who back her attacks on those who are not thought to be American enough.

What goes round comes round

Or, in a dirty fight everyone gets muddy. At election times,  attacks on opponents are part of the spectacle.  But there is much to learn from military wisdom that attackers should always consider the possibility of leaving a hostage to fortune in the hands of the enemy, which could lead to personal disadvantage.

 

 

 

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Tudor Rickards

Obama’s Obituary for Gadaffi and justification for his ‘leading from behind’ policy

October 21, 2011

President Obama offered an obituary on Muammar Gaddafi which permits reflection on American foreign policy of “leading from behind”. It indicates the dilemmas of leadership within the context of the death of a political enemy

The snippet of his speech above also provides links to various other videos of the President and Colonel Gadaffi.

Mardell’s analysis for the BBC

Mark Mardell of the BBC offered a thoughtful critique of President Obama’s foreign policy based on his speech which had been made within hours of Gadaffi’s capture and death. Mardell speculated on why the President spoke as he did. It indicates the dilemmas of leadership within the context of the death of political enemy. What follows is an abbreviated version of his analysis:

Gaddafi’s death will be a relief to President Obama and his administration. That’s on the fairly simple grounds that he backed NATO action, called for him to go, and now he’s gone. In an awkward phrase, coined by an anonymous official, the policy was “to lead from behind.”

The road that led us to this day tells us a lot about Barack Obama’s foreign policy as a whole, and its sometimes uncomfortable mix of idealism and realism. [This policy] is driven by a sense that, particularly in the Arab world, the US must step back a pace, not be seen as a bully, always hectoring or imposing its will using physical force.

Even though they didn’t shout about it from the rooftops, American forces were deeply involved. The total cost to the US so far stands at just over $1bn. Without American involvement behind the scenes it probably couldn’t have been done.

A good deal of muddle

The perception of the American position wasn’t all deliberate. There really was a good deal of muddle. As so often Obama took a while to decide what to do. Crucial allies like the UK and France were kept in the dark as some argued for intervention to prevent a humanitarian crisis, while others said that America could not afford, in any sense, another military adventure in the Arab world.

Fear of moral failure

In the end it was fear of being judged a moral failure that drove the decision. The president was told that thousands could die in a massacre in Benghazi and he wasn’t going to be held responsible for that.

But if President Obama’s policy has been a success on its own terms, it leaves others in the US deeply worried. They don’t think their country should encourage, cajole, help and guide. They think it should [be seen] to lead in fact and in deed. There are others who think that backing the people in the Arab world, however quietly, is paving the way for jihadist regimes that will be hostile to American interests.

Dilemmas of leadership

Students of leadership may find it instructive to takes these seven short paragraphs and make sense of them by identifying the dilemmas facing President Obama as he offered his public statement on the capture and death of his political enemy.

The English edition of Aljazeera summarised quotes from around the world. The article concluded with the words of Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to the US Congress:

“Libyans are safer now after Gaddafi’s death and the Arab world is breaking free. But never celebrate death of anyone, even bad people.”

2 Comments | Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Tudor Rickards