The Yokels Are At It Again
Nov 14th, 2009 | 139 responses
Once again, Barack Obama has demonstrated his appalling hatred for America, and his elitism, and his arrogance, and his tearing down and bashing of his country and his predecessor’s foreign policies, by greeting Japan’s prime minister with a deep bow in a culturally appropriate way.
Conservative bloggers, of course, are apoplectic. Scott Johnson gets this out, between convulsive gasps:
Obama’s breach of protocol is of a piece with the substance of his foreign policy. He means to teach Americans to bow before monarchs and tyrants. He embodies the ideological multiculturalism that sets the United States on the same plane as other regimes based on tribal privilege and royal bloodlines. He gives expressive form to the idea that the United States now willingly prostrates itself before the rest of the world. He declares that the United States is a country like any other, only worse, because we have so much for which to apologize.
This strikes me as rank insecurity, and it’s everywhere in the right’s response to this story.
Ron Beasley points out the lack of understanding of Japanese culture. This is not about being politically correct; it’s about trying to avoid looking like an ignorant fool:
I don’t know if the Powerline crew has spent anytime in Japan but I have. In the US we shake hands – in Japan they bow. Not just to the emperor but to everyone you meet. Is it really surrender when you demonstrate a little knowledge and respect for the culture of a country you are visiting? In the wingnut world the answer is yes. Is it any wonder that the rest of the world hates a country with so many pompous a-hs? I think not!
John Steele Gordon at Commentary didn’t get the memo:
Could someone in the Chief of Protocol’s Office at the State Department please tell Barack Obama that heads of state do not bow to other heads of state? And for the head of state of the country founded on the idea that “all men are created equal,” that goes double.
Actually, they do. And sometimes they kiss and hold hands.
Gordon continues, moving on to the “sainted America” theme:
President Obama goes abroad apologizing for the supposed sins of a country that defended and extended freedom around the world at a staggering cost in lives and treasure and then grovels before the man whose country has yet to apologize for the Rape of Nanking.
It never ceases to amaze me how much more importance contemporary conservatives place on the form of democracy rather than the substance. Bowing to the leader of a country in which bowing is a respectful greeting when meeting any new person is a betrayal of democracy. Show trials in which convictions are gained using torture, hearsay testimony, and suppression of evidence are defenses of democracy.
As are nuclear weapons used on cities where hundreds of thousands of civilians live — when the United States does it. In another post on the bowing “scandal,” Donald Douglas disapprovingly notes Obama’s failure to give a direct answer to a question asked by a Japanese reporter about the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The reporter asked if, in the light of Obama’s strong interest in a nuclear-free world, he had any desire to visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and whether he felt that the United States had done the right thing in dropping the bombs.
Obama’s response to that part of the question:
Obviously, Japan has unique perspective on the issue of nuclear weapons as a consequence of Hiroshima and Nagasaki — and that, I’m sure, helps to motivate the prime minister’s deep interest in this issue. I certainly would be honored, it would be meaningful for me to visit those two cities in the future. I don’t have immediate travel plans, but it’s something that would be meaningful to me.
The president then asked the reporter what the rest of his question was, specifically saying it had several parts and he wasn’t sure he remembered the last one. I’m sure he knew that he had not answered the query about his personal feelings, or opinion, regarding the morality of the bombings — but he did leave that opening for the reporter to repeat the question and the reporter did not, for whatever reason.
Donald Douglas bluntly criticizes Obama for evading the question. I would have liked to hear his answer, too, but not for the same reason. Douglas’s post title says it all: ” ‘America’s First Pacific President’ — Won’t Defend U.S. Nuclear Attacks at Hiroshima, Nagasaki.” Emphasis is mine. And Douglas goes on to comment (at the bottom of the post):
Interesting, that, with Hawaii and all being the opening salvo of Japan’s declaration of war on the United States. Tokyo’s surprise attack was met with American power, and ultimately America’s ultimate weapon in August 1945. You’d think that a U.S. president would be able to speak frankly about the cold, hard, difficult realities of international history. Just not this president, our post American president.
Amazing. I don’t expect that Donald Douglas would understand, or that it would even occur to him to consider, that at a press conference in Japan, standing next to the youngest son of the Emperor Hirohito — you know, the guy who surrendered to the United States? — it would be the most appalling cruelty to actually defend the nuclear bombings. Look at the expression on Emperor Akihito’s face as Obama is answering the reporter, on the video at Douglas’s site.
But no — I understand that one cannot expect someone whose highest value in life is “American power” to be able to parse these subtler kinds of human interactions. Having said that, you would think that an associate professor of political science at a university in California would at least “get” the “hard, cold, international” facts of realpolitik that would make it politically and pragmatically inadvisable to defend the rightness and morality of using nuclear weapons while on an official state visit to the country on which they were used.
139 Responses to “The Yokels Are At It Again”
FrequentPoster, it was not my intention to offend unnecessarily. Anybody who knows me would be surprised by the far-right label you attach to me: I am right of center but disliked Bush only slightly less than I dislike Obama; I enjoy vigorous, frank discussion with my friends of all political stripes.
However, Ms. Kattenburg's tone – which I note you apparently do not object to, despite its patent offensiveness and, dare I say, copious “larding . . . with [left]-wing epithets” – conveyed one long, condescending sneer to a wide swath of her fellow citizens (many of whom are my friends, colleagues, and family), and I thought it appropriate to turn that back on her with evidence that her post itself revealed her to be as much a “yokel” as any of the right-wing bloggers she linked in her post. The reference to “multiculturalist libs” could perhaps have been phrased a little more diplomatically, but it describes a phenomenon I find especially loathsome, having spent 40% of my life abroad – namely, that of coastal elites (and I say this as one myself – only of a different political stripe; I don't fancy myself a tribune of the people) who think themselves superior to the vast majority of middle America because they've developed a refined appreciation for foreign cuisine and foreign art and who manage to haul themselves abroad (generally to Europe) for a vacation that's long enough to give them the multiculti bona fides they desperately seek but not long enough to force them to confront and grapple with their own assumptions both their own nation, the world in which we live, and their own deeply cherished political and other beliefs. The spectacle of these self-appointed umpires of cosmopolitanism displaying their own ignorance in their sneering condescension toward their fellow citizens who lack either the interest or the means to travel abroad themselves (and who can tell which in many cases?) is simultaneously hilarious and infuriating. And I believe that it deserves all the scorn I can muster.
Johnny Galt, in some of the examples you provided the greetings are both bows and handshakes. Though Obama's bow is obviously the deepest of bow them all.
What's more important? Showing respect and being criticized by one's enemies for not doing it quite properly OR looking into the eyes of a major world leader and instantly knowing that he can be trusted, as Bush did with Putin? And how many headaches did Putin give Bush (and the rest of us) after that?
I don't have a problem with people trying to show respect, such actions go a long way. What's important is whether Obama “gives away the store” or not during talks.
Not my point, Andy. I had no problem with Bush kissing the Saudi prince or bowing to the pope. I don't give a damn how our leaders follow, or do not follow cultural norms in other countries. But to pretend that when Obama bows to the Emperor of Japan it's America bowing down to a foreign power is just childish nonsense. I avoided such nonsense when it was Bush, but the “right” shows its hypocrisy when they ignored it with Bush, Reagan or Nixon but pitch a fit when it's Obama. Did Obama bow too low? Who the hell cares? You, apparently
What's more important?
Why choose? The president can show respect in the ways that have been traditionally accepted throughout decades. GWB making some dumb gestures (the Merkel shoulder rub was particularly bad IMO) and made that inexplicable comment about Putin doesn't have anything to do with whether or not Obama's protocol staff (or he himself if he's overriding their advice) are making good decisions.
After 8 years of sneering superiority toward our allies, Obama now signals that we like and respect our allies. You guys on the right, PLEASE keep shrieking like it's the end of America as we know it. Makes you look absurd, trite and above all shrill. We'll see how that plays out in future elections. IMO you're doing yourselves no good at all with this. So again, please keep it up.
bogopogo, “As for the whole “holding hands” thing with the King of Saudi Arabia – that wasn't a greeting – that was a gesture of friendship. Apples and Oranges. I'm not sure if the Saudi King kissed him on the cheeks – but if he had – I'm assuming it was also a gesture of friendship – and probably not at their first meeting.”
Yes, you're right that comparing Obama's bow and Bush's holding hands (and there were kisses, on the lips) is like comparing apples and oranges. However what Obama did was an attempt to show respect. The Bush family and Saudis have had close ties for many years, through the oil business and politics. Bush was never tough with his friends the Saudis and I recall when gas here was over $5/gallon that Bush pleaded with the Saudis to decrease the price (this was during the presidential campaign in 2008, May, if I recall correctly) and the Saudis refused to lower the costs. I don't think the Saudis could actually have lowered the price of gas since it is traded on world markets, but the point I'm making is that Bush groveled before them and did not get tough with them. Most of the terrorists were Saudis…. Bush invaded Iraq. Human rights in Saudi Arabia? Bush pretty much yawned over that issue. Etc.
So yes, the bow and kisses are apples and oranges. What's important is results and when push came to shove, Bush couldn't even muster the will to raise a wooden ruler to admonish the ruler of Saudi Arabia for his many actions which go against American ideals and American interests.
The bowing seems like a bit much. I know nothing about the traditional greeting protocols and etiquette of Japan, but I would assume that in a country as Westernized as Japan, a simple handshake would suffice.
I wonder, is Obama's bowing to the Japanese Emperor really that big a story in the media and around the blogosphere? It would seem to me that with the rampant federal spending being done by the Obama administration, the potential passage of the Democrats' $1.2 trillion Health Care bill, and the escalation of the war in Afghanistant, the Right would have something more substantial to be talking about.
What else would you expect from a blog titled “American Power”?
With a title like “American Power”, you might suspect that Mr. Douglas' blog promotes a neoconservative ideology. And a quick perusal of his blog archives would show that you'd be right.
The difference between nodding one's head and inclining one's shoulders while shaking hands and maintaining eye contact (gestures that, it is important to note, Akihito reciprocated) and what Obama did is not one of degree(s), but of kind.
When one performs the kind of bow that Obama did, the only eye contact that can be maintained is with one's own eyes, as reflected in the other person's (hopefully) impeccably shined shoes.
StockBoySF, “What's important is results and when push came to shove, Bush couldn't even muster the will to raise a wooden ruler to admonish the ruler of Saudi Arabia for his many actions which go against American ideals and American interests.”
Yes – and as I recall, Bush never bowed to a Saudi Prince (my mistake, it wasn't the Saudi King) – so I'm sure Obama will be much more willing to raise something much more substantial than a “wooden ruler” to slap down the Saudi's.
If it's a “matter of protocol” as the White House spin machine is now trying to put out – then perhaps they can explain why the rest of the world doesn't feel the need to follow the same “protocol”…
http://hotairpundit.blogspot.com/2009/11/presid…
And, again, if protocol – why did Obama not bow to the Queen of England?
You may not give a damn, but a lot of people do. It's a question of perception. No one is saying the President is actually giving allegiance and fealty to the Japanese Emperor, but the perception is there nonetheless. You say you don't care. On that score, I'm with you. I don't really care about all the high-level protocol, but I know enough to understand that a lot of people DO care and so I want my President to act appropriately. I don't think that's too much to ask.
Your justification really amounts to tit-for-tat logic, the logic of the schoolyard. And your hauling out of all the right-wing chestnuts is boring. Obama shouldn't have bowed to Japan's emporer; the author of this column we're commenting on shouldn't have called those who object a bunch of yokels; and you shouldn't have gotten out all of your toy cliches.
This is the sort of thing that makes it so much harder for people to talk to each other. No one's got a monopoly on right or wrong. No matter who's the president, he's going to get it wrong from time to time. Bush stood beneath a banner reading, “Mission Accomplished,” and then dared the insurgency to “Bring It On.” Stupid on both accounts. Obama bowed to the prince of Saudi Arabia, and again to the emperor of Japan. Dumb moves, both of them.
Right. Because it's much more “culturally appropriate” to declare your subservience to an emperor than it is to… what was it that Bush did that was so insensitive?
> Well, Pres. Obama could not know in advance that they weren't going to return the bow, could he?
The leader of a nation, such as the Japanese emperor, does not bow to anyone. Someone who was “culturally sensitive” would have known that.
He announced that we are the Japanese emperor's subjects.
Telling someone that they are wrong is not ad hominem.
I wonder, is Obama's bowing to the Japanese Emperor really that big a story in the media and around the blogosphere? It would seem to me that with the rampant federal spending being done by the Obama administration, the potential passage of the Democrats' $1.2 trillion Health Care bill, and the escalation of the war in Afghanistant, the Right would have something more substantial to be talking about.
As is typical of all blogosphere discussions these days, both sides spend more time on the more superficial issues than the substantive ones. It happens because one side will react to a superficial issue or event, sometimes while still also engaging in the more serious issues as well, and then the other side finds it more advantageous to try to ridicule their opponents outrage (often even overstating the degree of it) than to respond to the blog posts that focus on issues.
You can see it happening repeatedly at blogs like this one, where we see several bloggers posting about how the right is reacting to the bow and it's rare to see a blogpost seriously responding to something that a right wing blogger has written about policy (whether it be about healthcare, deficit spending, the war, etc.)
So, we should approve of Obama's submissive behavior because the people he was submitting to approve of it?
Your justification really amounts to tit-for-tat logic, the logic of the schoolyard. And your hauling out of all the right-wing chestnuts is boring.
I think what richao was getting at, and what I immediately noticed and found amusing about your initial comment, is that other people are just as 'bored' or turned off by left wing chestnuts which this blogpost is chock full of, yet you commented only on the offenses you perceived in richao's comment.
Given that most of those people bowed back, and the French Republic doesn't have a tradition of bowing – that kind of undermines your entire argument, don't you think?
Many men nod briefly when they shake hands – that's not the same as a bow.
Actually, Obama would have known (or should have known) in advance – the Japanese Emperor doesn't bow to anyone. So either due to ignorance, or simply his never-ending attempt to apologize for America's 'wrongs', he chose to anyway, instead of greeting him as head-of-state to head-of-state, which would have been proper.
the comment that was ad hominem was removed mwheinz. You didnt see it. Thanks.
It is, btw, untrue that the Emperor of Japan does not bow to anyone, as this example demonstrates:
http://www.life.com/image/53156979
But the only time you'll see him even approaching the kind of deep bow that Obama surprised him with is an occasion such as this:
http://www.daylife.com/photo/032X2rnen05OF
[...] Kathy Kattenburg thinks caring about these kinds of issues (Republic vs. Monarchy, Government by Consent vs. Divine [...]
Well I am not mortally offended. They were not mortally offended. So
where is the injury here? You are taking a minor little faux pais and
inflating it to the point of silliness and what's more other much more
serious international behavior, including are insane foreign policy is
disrespected globally. I think if you want to rant, I agree with Green
dreams, go ahead, you just sound shrill and draw negative attention to
yourself.
He pledged his allegiance to the Emperor of Japan.
Ah. Okay.
Why would they be offended that the President of the US announced that their Emperor was his liege lord?
John Galt and richao, I do believe that most of us get it. Obama should not have bowed. Albeit, I have to agree with frequentposter that “by larding your arguments with the usual far right-wing epithets, you made it harder than you needed to for Obama supporters to agree with your basic point.”
1. I don't see a single instance of anything that even remotely resembles “far right-wing epithets” in any of my posts, let alone a “larding” thereof.
2. It seems to me that richao more than adequately explained the “what is good for the goose (in this case, the author of the thread) is surely good for the gander” reasoning behind his use of epithets such as “yokels”.
3. I am glad that you, and others, understand how egregious Obama's faux pas was.
4. I would not be holding my breath, however, while waiting for the epithet-flinging Ms. Kattenburg to reach such an understanding. Something tells me that her heels would remain firmly dug in, no matter how nicely/soothingly the opposing case were to be presented to her.
It's the reaction of the right-wing blogosphere as seen in most of the comments here that keep me away from support of the Republican Party. What we've got is a President who tried to show respect to the nation of Japan through a bow. It may have been deeper than appropriate. Fine, make the argument, small breach of protocol, argue that Obama needs to make sure his Protocol people are giving him the right advice.
Fine.
Instead what you get is diatribes about the apology tour, subservience to dictators, submission of America, and tons of hypersensitive, meme-quoting nonsense.
I periodically think I should be a moderate Republican so as to hound on deficit issues and states rights; things I care about. But they'd never have me.
“I don't see a single instance of anything that even remotely resembles “far right-wing epithets” in any of my posts, let alone a “larding” thereof”
In your case you are right, JG, and I take it back.
“I am glad that you, and others, understand how egregious Obama's faux pas was.”
“egregious”: remakably bad, flagrant
No, I don't think so. Not in the larger scheme of things and especially when compared to truly egregious policies, actions, and faux of the previous administration.
You are absolutely right.
In the larger scheme of things, Obama's bow to the Emperor of Japan is certainly not as egregious a foreign policy faux pas as, say, Obama's announcing the abandonment of the missile defense project in Eastern Europe on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland.
It was “simply” an egregious breach of long established rules of etiquette, both U.S. and Japanese. Just as egregious as his breaching U.S. and Saudi rules of etiquette by bowing to King Abdullah was.
The kind of thing that, as you yourself wrote, Presidents should not do.
I'm still not sure what in my post constitutes larding with right-wing epithets. Aside from a crack at shallow multiculturalism among liberals – a phenomenon that is empirically verifiable, that, in fact, I have seen nearly every day I've lived in coastal metro areas in the US – I simply use the language that the original poster herself used. I appreciate that some on the left here find my use of that language offensive; perhaps you have sufficient empathy to understand why those of us on the right found the original poster's comments so offensive. That, as JG graciously pointed out, was the primary goal of my choice of rhetoric.
I am happy to see that the reporter who's quickly becoming the dean of the White House Press Corps has posted on his blog comments from an old Japan-hand that essentially confirm what I've written. This guy takes a more favorable view of what the president did, noting that Nixon also bowed to the Japanese emperor. But he also notes that Nixon's bow was proper (and as the photo Tapper links demonstrates, it was a proper Japanese bow between equals). Moreover, he explains:
“Obama's handshake/forward lurch was so jarring and inappropriate it recalls Bush's back-rub of Merkel.
Kyodo News is running his appropriate and reciprocated nod and shake with the Empress, certainly to show the president as dignified, and not in the form of a first year English teacher trying to impress with Karate Kid-level knowledge of Japanese customs. The bow as he performed did not just display weakness in Red State terms, but evoked weakness in Japanese terms….The last thing the Japanese want or need is a weak looking American president and, again, in all ways, he unintentionally played that part.”
Many of my friends on the left got lots of mileage out of tormenting me and other Republicans with the admittedly embarrassing image of the buffoonish Bush feeling up Merkel. I'm not sure why you guys begrudge us the opportunity to do the same when it comes to your guy.
Richao, you've move the goal post, however, in at least this last comment. What you are saying here is that nothing is wrong with a bow but Obama bowed too deeply in a way that was socially awkward in the Japanese context. That's a fine argument. But here's what many other conservatives are saying, and I will just quote from Kathy's original post and the comments below it:
From Johnson: “He gives expressive form to the idea that the United States now willingly prostrates itself before the rest of the world.”
From Gordon: “President Obama goes abroad apologizing for the supposed sins of a country that defended and extended freedom around the world at a staggering cost in lives and treasure and then grovels before the man whose country has yet to apologize for the Rape of Nanking.”
From “locomotive”: “From Cairo to Copenhagen to Chicago, this president has made it a corner stone of his administration to pander, minimize & apologize to the oppressive theocracies and brutal thugacracies of the world.”
From mwheinz “He announced that we are the Japanese emperor's subjects.”
None of this shows a bit of concern about Japanese mores. No one in Japan thinks the U.S. is subservient to the Emperor in the least. These comments are all about the ongoing meme that Obama is weak and subservient, apologizing to others. It's a completely bogus talking point that just circles and circles in the rightwing blogosphere until thousands are just so so angry about it.
Sorry, but to add a bit more, again the criticisms being given are not teasing Obama about being buffoonish. They are as angry and ashamed as they can be about our President bowing to dictators.
Thanks for that link. I'm especially amused by this sentence, since right-wing critics of Obama as well as of the critical response to Obama's critics have emphasized the first part of this bolded phrase and ignored the second:
“If the person is higher status or older than you are, you should bow deeper and longer.”
“RIPPED” by the New York Times? RIPPED? That's what that was? It seemed to me a light-hearted send-up of the difficulty Americans have in figuring out how to correctly do a bow or a curtsey, since they are so unfamiliar to our culture. I'd love to hear a consensus on that. I think you'd lose.
Looking at the video again it looks to me like the Emperor was expecting a handshake
I have no idea where you get that from. Maybe your already formed opinion is influencing your vision. At any rate, I'm with Spirasol on this one: I'd much rather have a president who tries to show respect for other countries' cultural customs, even if he does it imperfectly, than have a president who figuratively gives the rest of the world the middle finger whenever he even ventures into the rest of the world.
Actually, Richao, Obama is not the descendant of slaves. But I do understand that your larger purpose in using this turn of phrase is to convey the idea that Obama acts like a slave because his ancestors were (in your mistaken belief) slaves.
I remember a fascinating documentary that compared footage of Reagan greeting Gorbachev at their first summit meeting (Reagan walked confidently out in the cold weather without an overcoat …
That was an intentionally and carefully choreographed power move. Reagan had a coat with him but he decided not to wear it as a way of throwing Gorbachev off and seizing a psychological advantage. This was a nuclear summit, after all.
Keep at it Heinz and if you are lucky your labor will pay off and
success in this case means turning a mole hill into a mountain. Kings,
queens, feudal lords — all these old timey roles have been disempowered
and significantly diluted for many years now. They may hold some
symbolic power but that is all. Japan is a friend and an economic
partner not some feudal state. Take a chill pill, my friend, your
umbrage has no meaning.
I remember a fascinating documentary that compared footage of Reagan greeting Gorbachev at their first summit meeting (Reagan walked confidently out in the cold weather without an overcoat …
That was a calculated power move on Reagan's part, meant to throw Gorbachev off and seize the psychological advantage. As for JFK's “disastrous” summit with Kruschev, it may or may not have been, but I can tell you it didn't affect relations between them. Kruschev had enormous respect for Kennedy as a head of state, and was reportedly genuinely fond of him as a person. When he was given the news of JFK's murder (this is from a book I read about Kennedy), Kruschev actually lost control of his emotions and started to sob.
I had forgotten about Bush and Merkel. That one was priceless. I didn't know that Nixon had bowed to the Japanese emperor, and that the issue with Obama was with the depth of his bow. I had always thought that American presidents didn't bow to royalty, especially the royalty of a country we conquered. That undercuts your argument considerably.
Go back and read your postings with a dispassionate eye, if that's possible. They are full of the usual Fox News resentments and cliches. It's not that this stuff offends me, it's that it bores me and frustrates me. It's the equivalent of a starving child insisting on eating wallpaper paste instead of meat and potatoes.
richao, you're a starving man. Go eat a reasonable dinner, then come join the grownups.
Kathy,
Yes. I was very aware that Obama is not the descendant of slaves. My post above that contains this comment consists of translations of representative comments in Japanese that I found on Japanese discussion boards, and anybody who's spent any time abroad realizes that ignorance of this sort about other countries is as common in foreign lands as it is in the United States. I thought the comment was interesting because it showed how, for some Japanese, the depth of Obama's bow confirmed their own racist stereotypes of black Americans. It's a disgusting sentiment, I agree; but it's no less real for being disgusting.
FrequentPoster,
I've gone back and perused my comments closely and again can see nothing but my copious use of the very term (yokel) that are host freely used in her original post. I should have expected as much, given the fact that you yourself were unable to identify any other language in my post (other than the “multiculti lib” aside that I tried to explain – and which no one has refuted – above). I think you're allowing your own overconsumption of MSNBC to color your views of what I've written: I don't watch TV; what I've seen of Fox News in the gym and elsewhere, I despise; my tastes run to NPR (though I have my own issues with their coverage of the issues), the Atlantic, and the Washington Post, when I do look for news and commentary on current events; but on the whole I prefer to spend my time with non-political media, particularly books (and, no, I've never read Ann Coulter and don't plan on buying either Going Rouge or Going Rogue). I suspect that any vociferous, feisty, sarcastic response by somebody on the right sounds to your Rachel-Maddow-trained ears like Glenn Beck (wow, these epithets are rather easy to throw around; thanks, frequentposter, for showing me how it's done), and that's unfortunate. I can laugh at nearly all the Jon Stewart clips my left-of-center friends send me, even though – indeed, because – they make copious use of stereotype and oversimplification of the issues. Apparently, the proper response of somebody on the right in these flame wars is to label him a Michael-Moore equivalent. Thanks for pointing that out to me.
[...] blog called The Moderate Voice responded in a reasoned way to the uproar, pointing out (among other things) that George W. Bush bowed to the [...]