Rev Wright

Posted by: keymaker

Rev Wright - 05/06/08 01:49 PM

So Obama wants to distance himself from Rev Wright's comment that the US brought 9/11 on itself. Let me see bin Laden said that 9/11 was because of US foreign policy; Rev Wright said 9/11 was because of US foreign policy - hmmm seems pretty close to me, US foreign policy, US foreign policy, that's almost identical - hey! It's exactly the same! Let's get this straight, Obama wants to distance himself from the reasons for 9/11?<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Rev Wright - 05/06/08 02:47 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>So Obama wants to distance himself from Rev Wright's comment that the US brought 9/11 on itself.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Is that assertion based on a specific comment from Mr. Obama? I just went to look and am having trouble finding where he directly addresses this particular comment from Mr. Wright -- do you have a link or something I may have missed?<br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Rev Wright - 05/06/08 04:59 PM

REVEREND WRIGHT: Yes, I did. I was trying to show how people- how the anger- and we felt anger. I felt anger. I felt hurt. I felt pain. In fact, September 11th, I was in Newark. September 11th, I was trapped in Newark 'cause when they shut down the air system I couldn't get back to Chicago. September 11th, I looked out the window and saw the second plane hit from my hotel window. Alright, I had members who lost loved ones both at the Pentagon and at the World Trade Center. So, I know the pain. And I had to preach to them Sunday. I had to preach. They came to church wanting to know where is God in this. And so, I had to show them using that Psalm 137, how the people who were carried away into slavery were very angry, very bitter, moved and in their anger from wanting revenge against the armies that had carried them away to slavery, to the babies. That Psalm ends up sayin' "Let's kill the baby-let's bash their heads against the stone." So, now you move from revolt and revulsion as to what has happened to you, to you want revenge. You move from anger with the military to taking it out on the innocents. You wanna kill babies. That's what's going on in Psalm 137. And that's exactly where we are. We want revenge. They wanted revenge. God doesn't wanna leave you there, however. God wants redemption. God wants wholeness. And that's the context, the biblical context I used to try to get people sitting again, in that sanctuary on that Sunday following 9/11, who wanted to know where is God in this? What is God saying? What is God saying? Because I want revenge.<br><br>REVEREND WRIGHT (SERMON TAPE): The people of faith have moved from the hatred of armed enemies, these soldiers who captured the king, those soldiers who slaughtered his son and put his eyes out, the soldiers who sacked the city, burned the towns, burned the temples, burned the towers, and moved from the hatred for armed enemies to the hatred of unarmed innocents, the babies, the babies . "Blessed are they who dash your baby's brains against a rock." And that my beloved is a dangerous place to be. Yet, that is where the people of faith are in 551 BC and that is where far too many people of faith are in 2001 AD. We have moved from the hatred of armed enemies to the hatred of unarmed innocents. We want revenge. We want paybacks and we don't care who gets hurt in the process.<br><br>[color:purple]I heard Ambassador Peck on an interview yesterday. Did anybody else see him or hear him? He was on Fox news. This is a white man and he was upsetting the Fox news commentators to no end. He pointed out. You see him John? A white man he pointed out -an Ambassador! He pointed out that what Malcolm X said when he got silenced by Elijah Mohammad was in fact true. America's chickens are coming home to roost! </font color=purple>We took this country by terror away from the Sioux, the Apache, the Arawak, the Comanche, the Arapaho, the Navajo. Terrorism! We took Africans from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism! We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians, babies, non-military personnel. We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with stealth bombers and killed unarmed teenagers and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard-working fathers. We bombed Gadafi's home and killed his child. "Blessed are they who bash your children's head against a rock!" We bombed Iraq. We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed a plant in Sudan to payback for the attack on our embassy. Killed hundreds of hard-working people; mothers and fathers who left home to go that day, not knowing that they would never get back home. We bombed Hiroshima! We bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye! Kids playing in the playground, mothers picking up children after school, civilians - not soldiers - people just trying to make it day by day. [color:purple]We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and Black South Africans, and now we are indignant? Because the stuff we have done overseas has now been brought back into our own front yards! America's chickens are coming home to roost! Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred and terrorism begets terrorism. A White Ambassador said that y'all not a Black Militant. Not a Reverend who preaches about racism. An Ambassador whose eyes are wide open, and who's trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised-- </font color=purple><br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green> [color:green]. . . _ _ _ . . .</font color=green><br>
Posted by: FSM

Re: Rev Wright - 05/06/08 06:32 PM

the Rev. Wright also said that the American gov't introduced AIDS to kill minorities. that's just crazy talk.<br><br>the bottom line is that our American foreign policy DID contribute to the rationale used to by the 9/11 guys to carry out an attack on the USA. the Rev. Wright didn't say it in a way that was most truthful; rather, he said it in a theatrical manner that immediately turned off many Americans. he said it in a way that Obama wouldn't say it and thus he couldn't endorse the comments.<br><br><br>--<br>[color:red] Kansas Jayhawks -- 2008 National Champions </font color=red>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Rev Wright - 05/06/08 07:05 PM

[color:blue]Is that assertion based on a specific comment from Mr. Obama?</font color=blue><br><br>That's how it was presented on BBC TV News but it's also in this report that Obama described as "incendiary" and "completely inexcusable" Rev Wright's comment in a sermon after 9/11 "that the US had brought the attacks on itself through its own foreign policy."<br><br>km<br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: Rev Wright - 05/06/08 07:21 PM

I think it is the total sum of the Rev. Wright's comments, especially since Rev. Wright seems to have tried to capitalize on his media attention.<br><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Rev Wright - 05/06/08 07:27 PM

Maybe but the sum total includes everything he said. If Obama agrees with some bits and disagrees with some others he should say so and let everyone know which is which.<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: FSM

Re: Rev Wright - 05/06/08 07:34 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>So Obama wants to distance himself from Rev Wright's comment that the US brought 9/11 on itself<p><hr></blockquote><p>just to clarify, when Wright said that he wasn't saying it as Rev. Wright as the sound-bytes portray; rather, he was paraphrasing what an ambassador had said on Fox News in the previous day or so. it's unfortunate that even the BBC isn't getting that noted.<br><br><br>--<br>[color:red] Kansas Jayhawks -- 2008 National Champions </font color=red>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Rev Wright - 05/06/08 07:45 PM

The clip they showed on TV was Rev Wright saying that the US can't visit terror on others and then complain when it's visited on them (or words to that effect) and I'd be worried about any president who thought he needed to be distance himself from that truth.<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: iBookmaster

Re: Rev Wright - 05/06/08 07:49 PM

Lots of people realize it's policy. So, if you were running for president of the United States of America you would support the other crap this guy was spitting out? Wow, you would be axing yourself right out of the race if you did. Obama is too smart for that. <br><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Rev Wright - 05/06/08 08:04 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>... you would support the other crap this guy was spitting out? Wow, you would be axing yourself right out of the race if you did<p><hr></blockquote><p> I would support whatever I believed in and distance myself from what I didn't. Power is not worth having imo if it doesn't give you the right to act upon the truth. There are lots of other things you can do in life where you don't have to abandon your principles. <br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Rev Wright - 05/06/08 08:08 PM

Whether YOU believe it or not doesn't mean that Rev. Wright is Crazy.<br>It may shock you to know that many many many black people believe it.<br><br>[color:purple]"Wright repeating the canard heard often in black communities that the u.s. government spread HIV in those communities"</font color=purple><br><br>[color:green]. . . _ _ _ . . .</font color=green><br>
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: Rev Wright - 05/06/08 08:16 PM

It isn't so much abandoning your principles as it is knowing your constituency. The US public does not perceive itself as being terrorist in nature. Yes, one may believe that our antagonistic foreign policies are perpetrating terror on those with whom we disagree, but saying so is political suicide. Israel has behaved in a really negative (terroristic) way towards the Palestinians over decades, but the Israeli populace will not acknowledge that reality. Same here in the US. To most of us, we're the "good guys." That may be a distorted viewpoint, but that is the way it is. To be politically viable, one must not betray one's own beliefs in order to get into a position to change the wrongs. Proposing major changes in our relationships with the rest of the world without declaring that our current policies are the cause of our troubles is what will work with the US public.<br><br>
Posted by: iBookmaster

Re: Rev Wright - 05/06/08 08:23 PM

That's exactly what Obama did. <br><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Rev Wright - 05/06/08 08:39 PM

[color:blue]That's exactly what Obama did.</font color=blue><br><br>Exactly. Truth doesn't matter because its power for power's sake. American lives don't matter when one can hang it in the White House. Doesn't matter how you prostituted yourself to get there and when do get there it doesn't matter what you're committed to doing. Just carry on like before - more wars, more retaliation it's alright for the political classes - they're not coming back in body bags. <br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Rev Wright - 05/07/08 07:32 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>If Obama agrees with some bits and disagrees with some others he should say so and let everyone know which is which.<p><hr></blockquote><p>In his speech after Wright's appearance at the Press Club, Obama was fairly specific about which of Wright's comments he found objectionable (or, at least, were the ones that finally tipped the scale) -- the ones concerning 9/11 weren't mentioned ...<br><br>But yeah, Obama's repudiation of Mr. Wright was more of a general separation from the man and his actions rather than a statement-by-statement critique ...<br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Rev Wright - 05/07/08 09:02 AM

My personal view, I could be wrong, is that he would have got more credit specifically endorsing Wright's 9/11 comments than trying to wriggle out of them. Notice that he tried to wriggle out of them and his ratings went down. If the US electorate want to be juvenile about it then they deserve to be treated like children and what we don't do with the kids is pander around just telling 'em what they want to hear. Sometimes you have tell 'em to wind in their necks, shut up and listen, or be grounded. That was Margaret Thatcher's style and the electorate never deprived her of power.<br><br>km<br><br><br>
Posted by: iBookmaster

Re: Rev Wright - 05/07/08 09:05 AM

Right. General separation is what you do with someone who is a distant associate that says all kinds of crazy things and the media wants to tie it all to you somehow. Obama was smart to break away from that mess of a man. <br><br>
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Rev Wright - 05/07/08 09:51 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>My personal view, I could be wrong, is that he would have got more credit specifically endorsing Wright's 9/11 comments than trying to wriggle out of them.<p><hr></blockquote><p> <br><br>Well, again, I don't think he's addressed Wright's 9/11 comments specifically one way or the other, so I'm not sure it's fair to characterize him as trying to "wriggle out of them" specifically ...<br><br>His ratings were going to go down regardless of how he responded to Mr. Wrights comments -- he was either going to get criticized for not standing by his friend of 20 years, or criticized for not disassociating himself completely from the man ... as it was, he tried -- with relative success -- to walk the middle line between the two ...<br><br>Ideally, you're right -- a candidate should get credit for seriously exploring controversial points of view. Unfortunately, American politics won't stand for that kind of exploration very long before any serious discussion devolves into minute dissection of sound-bites ... sad, but that's the way things are currently. Obama is at least trying to take first steps in changing that atmosphere ...<br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Rev Wright - 05/07/08 10:30 AM

First of all:<br>Do you sound like Basil Fawlty when you make these passionate statements?<br><br>Secondly:<br>He got roasted over a spit for calling unfulfilled people "Bitter"<br>and for telling them that he understood why they felt as if it were necessary<br>to "Cling to Guns, or the Church in times of stress and disillusionment"<br><br>KRIKEY!<br>I can only imagine the ensuing lynching following the speech in which he says:<br><br>"You're all behaving like juveniles and you deserve to be treated like children, <br>so instead of pandering around or just telling you what you want to hear, we<br>demand that you all wind in your necks, shut up and listen, or be grounded!" <br><br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green> [color:green]. . . _ _ _ . . .</font color=green><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Rev Wright - 05/07/08 10:39 AM

spoton<br>I made the same observation to MoFo<br>it didn't matter which he did or both.<br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green> [color:green]. . . _ _ _ . . .</font color=green><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Rev Wright - 05/07/08 11:34 AM

He's lost his chance now to tell everyone to shut up. He's stuck with "oh sorry to have offended anyone - I promise I'll never upset anyone again. Wright has got it completely wrong - 9/11 had nothing to do with US foreign policy so we don't have to change it - we can carry on the same way as before perpetrating the same crimes as before." Just like the other two in other words. Seems to me that with the competition on its knees he had the chance to genuinely break away to new ground, and he blew it, but I could be wrong.<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Rev Wright - 05/07/08 01:10 PM

rather than unload on Obama ( join the club )<br>...look at the two alternatives.<br><br>now was not the time to set<br>things straight ... even his most<br>ardent supporters weren't ready.<br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green> [color:green]. . . _ _ _ . . .</font color=green><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Rev Wright - 05/07/08 05:15 PM

I would hope that in holding the party together instead of getting on a high horse<br>he'd be in a better position to change the direction of the foreign policy that IMO<br>did most certainly contribute the the situation and reaction leading up to 9/11. <br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green> [color:green]. . . _ _ _ . . .</font color=green><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Rev Wright - 05/07/08 10:06 PM

[color:blue]I would hope that in holding the party together instead of getting on a high horse he'd be in a better position to change the direction of the foreign policy</font color=blue><br><br>It's going to get very confusing if what a candidate says before an election doesn't have to be the same as what he does once in power. This is to vacate democracy in my opinion - you vote for one thing and get something completely different. <br><br>Iraq was like that over here - nearly everyone voted Labour because they believed what Blair was saying and printing in the Labour Party manifesto and the next thing they knew we're going around bombing and killing everyone. So now because politicians like Bliar and Brown can't be trusted to do what they say we've got to take away the royal prerogative to wage war by constitutional constraints putting the responsibility on Parliament. Great, we're under attack - let's all have a debate.<br><br>As I understand the position in the States all three candidates are committed to attacking Muslims as the way to stop atrocities like 9/11. Two of 'em know the policy is wrong because that's what caused 9/11 but they're not going say so because they think, in my view wrongly, that the electorate wants to hear that the attacks will go on. The other candidate who happens to be six sultanas short of rich fruitcake actually believes the policy is right. What a choice.<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Rev Wright - 05/07/08 10:54 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>As I understand the position in the States all three candidates are committed to attacking Muslims as the way to stop atrocities like 9/11.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Given solid proof that such actions of another state/group would lead to another attack against the country, any assertion to the contrary would be irresponsible at best -- Muslim or no ....<br><br>However, in general, I believe you understand the respective positions incorrectly ... at least in two of those cases ....<br><br>Speaking of which:<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Two of 'em know the policy is wrong because that's what caused 9/11 but they're not going say so because they think, in my view wrongly, that the electorate wants to hear that the attacks will go on.<p><hr></blockquote><p>You're really reaching to hear what you want to hear, in my opinion. One has said that she will attack a state if that state attacks on of our allies -- not an unusual position in the realm of geopolitics (although at this point a bit too aggressive and jumping the gun [if you'll pardon the unintentional pun] -- and yes, pandering to the hawks of our electorate). The other has stated he'd be willing to talk to our adversaries and at least get a dialogue going (a quite reasonable position, I think you'd agree) ...<br><br>None, as far as I'm aware, has said something to the effect of: "Attack Muslims and that will prevent events like 9/11" ... unless you have a quote to the contrary, of course ...<br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...
Posted by: eckhard

Re: Rev Wright - 05/08/08 03:11 AM

<br>[color:blue]Obama is at least trying to take first steps in changing that atmosphere ...</font color=blue><br><br>Is he really? <br>Or isn't he rather using a form of monologue, which appeals to a certain generation and demographic group?<br><br>Scratch the surface and there is the hawk, who would breech another nation's sovereignty, in order to hunt down binLaden.<br>And while he suggests a dialogue with "the enemy", this would only take place after Iran has caved in to pivotal demands.<br>Even internally, does he have the guts to address the health-care question head-on, or is he trying to play both sides?<br>His web-site reads like a complete (and I mean c-o-m-p-l-e-t-e!!) list of what ails America, and while he has a solution for each and every one of those problems, there is precious little in his biography, to suggest that he could achieve that. In German we have the saying "paper is patient".<br><br>To me Obama is pandering every bit as much as the others, except that he may be the first to aim it at a generation, which considers itself more cosmopolitan than its fellow citizens, because it reads international blogs. ;)<br><br>I wonder whether not even in these pages, that much maligned Obama-elitism may be at work.<br>Example gas tax holiday: Of course, we all understand that there must be long-term solutions and most of you won't have any problems meeting a $4/gal price level. But there are many, for whom even a few cents in summer might mean being able to take the kids to the beach. It is a great deal easier to "tighten the belt" as Poly once told me, when you have a few holes to spare.<br>Those, already at the edge, don't have that luxury and may very well appreciate some election gifts here and there.<br><br>That's the obligatory eckhard rant of the day. ;)<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Rev Wright - 05/08/08 04:50 AM

[color:blue]It's going to get very confusing if what a candidate says before an election doesn't have to be the same as what he does once in power.</font color=blue><br><br>That's the way it is. <br><br>If you replay the speeches and listen more closely <br>---the majority of the promises begin with---<br>I WANT TO give you X-Y-Z<br>or I WISH FOR you to get...<br>or MY GOAL IS to make sure...<br>I WILL TRY to give the people...<br><br>but very little <br>I WILL do it!<br><br>For one thing.. they are a PRESIDENT, not a KING<br>they can not wave a Royal Scepter and "Make it so!" <br><br>For another, making changes, of passing laws is <br>a very complicated affair, that can get derailed at<br>just about at any juncture.. especially if you've<br>managed to alienate the people you NEED to vote <br>on your proposals in order to get ANYTHING done..<br><br>And as far as "the Power to Make War" being in the<br>hands of the Senate... that's the way it's been set up<br>since we gained our Independence...UNTIL The DOUCHE™<br>decided to set himself up as KING George the 2nd.... <br>(or rather King Geo. the Turd)<br>That's ONE of the things we're hoping to set straight!<br><br><br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green> [color:green]. . . _ _ _ . . .</font color=green><br>
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Rev Wright - 05/08/08 08:27 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>[Obama wanting to take first steps to change things]<br><br>Is he really?<p><hr></blockquote><p>In comparison with candidates that I've experienced in my lifetime? Yes, I think he is. At least, vastly more so than the other two options on the table.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Or isn't he rather using a form of monologue, which appeals to a certain generation and demographic group?<p><hr></blockquote><p>Which would make him different from any other public speaker how? People who hear your message are either going to agree, disagree or be indifferent. If you stick to your message, you're obviously going to attract more and more of those who agree with you, not so much the others. Are you saying he should change his message merely to attract demographics that may not otherwise agree with him? Isn't that the very thing he speaks against?<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Scratch the surface and there is the hawk, who would breech another nation's sovereignty, in order to hunt down binLaden.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Well, this is almost a whole different conversation, but I'll hope that it will suffice here to point out that calling Obama a "hawk" in the face of the actions of the current administration borders on the ludicrous, if you ask me.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>And while he suggests a dialogue with "the enemy", this would only take place after Iran has caved in to pivotal demands.<p><hr></blockquote><p>I'm sorry -- was he not roundly criticized for saying exactly that he would be open to talking with Iran with *no* preconditions?<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Even internally, does he have the guts to address the health-care question head-on, or is he trying to play both sides?<br>His web-site reads like a complete (and I mean c-o-m-p-l-e-t-e!!) list of what ails America, and while he has a solution for each and every one of those problems, there is precious little in his biography, to suggest that he could achieve that.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Wait, first (a while back) you criticize Obama for not having *any* plans to solve the issues of today (which was incorrect) ... now he has *too many* solutions?<br><br>As for wether or not he can actually achieve any or all of those solutions, of the three options we have today, he seems the most probable of at least putting forth the effort ...<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>To me Obama is pandering every bit as much as the others, except that he may be the first to aim it at a generation, which considers itself more cosmopolitan than its fellow citizens, because it reads international blogs. ;)<p><hr></blockquote><p>If I'm going to be pandered to in any case, I'd rather it be with a message of "together we can change things for the better" than one of, say, "vote for me and I won't take your guns away" or "My god! That man's not wearing a lapel pin!"...<br><br>As for your wide-brushed characterization of an entire generation, from your description I can't tell to which one you refer ...<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Example gas tax holiday:<p><hr></blockquote><p>Yes, "elitism" at it's best. Never mind that apparently not a single reputable economist supports this idea. Never mind that there are far better ways to target those at the edge - that really need help - than a blanket universal plan that sacrifices the highway infrastructure, in no way guarantees lower gasoline prices, and generally encourages *more* optional travel during the vaunted "summer driving season" ... <br><br>That's "elite"? Can it not be that it's simply a really, really bad idea?<br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...
Posted by: eckhard

Re: Rev Wright - 05/08/08 09:14 AM

<br>[color:blue]calling Obama a "hawk" in the face of the actions of the current administration borders on the ludicrous, if you ask me.</font color=blue><br><br>I'm glad you said "borders", because all rhetoric aside, the few comments he made about military policy were anything but doveish.<br>The bin Laden thing is one, the admonishing of Europeans, to share more in the "dirty work and fighting" in Afghanistan another. I do not believe that he will do anything against the military's advice.<br><br>[color:blue]was he not roundly criticized for saying exactly that he would be open to talking with Iran with *no* preconditions?<br></font color=blue><br>Not that I read ... but I would be gladly corrected, if you could show me a quote. All I read was that he were open to talks, if Iran were to reconsider her position on nuclear power.<br><br>[color:blue]If I'm going to be pandered to in any case, I'd rather it be with a message of "together we can change things for the better" than one of, say, "vote for me and I won't take your guns away" or "My god! That man's not wearing a lapel pin!"...</font color=blue><br><br>Quite honestly, I would expect each of the three to want the job in order to improve things. We aren't doubting patriotism now, are we? That would be so ..... 20th Century! ;)<br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Rev Wright - 05/08/08 09:21 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>(attacking Muslims) any assertion to the contrary would be irresponsible at best -- Muslim or no ....<p><hr></blockquote><p> I would prefer to see an emphasis on correcting foreign policy mistakes because it's reasonable to suppose that the threat from Muslims would then go away.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>One has said that she will attack a state if that state attacks on of our allies -- not an unusual position in the realm of geopolitics<p><hr></blockquote><p>Well it's quite unusual for anyone to make an ally of persons practising genocide and crimes against humanity as part of foreign policy and of 194 nations that could have made an ally of Israel only one has done so - the United States. Hillary was talking about what she described as an unprovoked nuclear attack on Israel by Iran but she didn't explain how a country that doesn't have nuclear weapons can launch a nuclear attack on one that does. She got the nations the wrong way around - Israel has the nuclear weapons, Iran doesn't.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>None, as far as I'm aware, has said something to the effect of: "Attack Muslims and that will prevent events like 9/11" ... unless you have a quote to the contrary, of course ...<p><hr></blockquote><p>As a matter of fact I do. We all know that American forces are in Iraq as part of the so called war on terror following 9/11 and whereas most of us realised that such a justification was bogus Hillary, for example, for some of her audiences if not all, has said that she wants to keep them there at least into 2010 to fulfill the "remaining military mission" to combat what she calls "terrorists" and to counter any Iranian moves into Iraq. <br><br>By "terrorists" she includes people who are legitimately agitating against the criminal acts of Western occupying forces so let's at least correct the terminology as far as those people are concerned to 'freedom fighters." Iran of course has every right to assist persons resisting foreign occupation, homicides and human rights abuses, so the US forces she wants to keep there in Iraq are by implication to stay on for the purposes of attacking Muslims going about their lawful business.<br><br>km<br><br><br>
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Rev Wright - 05/08/08 11:03 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I'm glad you said "borders", because all rhetoric aside, the few comments he made about military policy were anything but doveish.<p><hr></blockquote><p>As I said -- that's probably another discussion ;-)<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Not that I read ... but I would be gladly corrected, if you could show me a quote. All I read was that he were open to talks, if Iran were to reconsider her position on nuclear power.<p><hr></blockquote><p> NY Times piece on Obama's Iran policy<br><br><br>Also, part of the YouTube debate:<br><br>"COOPER: Let's go to another YouTube video.<br><br>QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.<br><br>In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?<br><br>COOPER: I should also point out that Stephen is in the crowd tonight.<br><br>Senator Obama?<br><br>OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.<br><br>(APPLAUSE)<br><br>Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.<br><br>And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We've been talking about Iraq -- one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they're going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses.<br><br>They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point. But if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region."<br><br>Full transcript<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Quite honestly, I would expect each of the three to want the job in order to improve things. We aren't doubting patriotism now, are we? That would be so ..... 20th Century! ;)<p><hr></blockquote><p>You stated you thought Obama was pandering as much as the others -- my reply was that if I had to be pandered-to, I'd rather it be with a positive pandering message, than a negative or irrelevant one. Not sure where patriotism entered into things ...<br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...
Posted by: FSM

Re: Rev Wright - 05/08/08 02:48 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I do not believe that he will do anything against the military's advice.<p><hr></blockquote><p>one thing people who have met with Obama have noted is that he critically listens and debates with them and then makes up his mind even if he chooses to disagree with them. a prominent law professor who is conservative <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-oped0314obamamar14,0,7185898.story">wrote this</a>: <blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> about 20 minutes, he and I investigated the legal details. He asked me to explore all sorts of issues: the president's power as commander in chief, the Constitution's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Authorization for Use of Military Force and more.<br><br>Obama wanted to consider the best possible defense of what Bush had done. To every argument I made, he listened and offered a counterargument. After the issue had been exhausted, Obama said he thought the program was illegal, but now had a better understanding of both sides. He thanked me for my time.<br><br>This was a pretty amazing conversation, not only because of Obama's mastery of the legal details, but also because many prominent Democratic leaders had already blasted the Bush initiative as blatantly illegal. He did not want to take a public position until he had listened to, and explored, what might be said on the other side.<p><hr></blockquote><p>keep in mind, Obama is going to promote the military leaders who are more in line with his own foreign policy beliefs. i think i've told you that before, yet you seem to ignore it and continue to believe that he's going to hear what the Bush people are telling Bush.<br><br><br>--<br>[color:red] Kansas Jayhawks -- 2008 National Champions </font color=red>