Barak Obama has come under some scrutiny because of the comments of his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright - which are quite aggressive on issues such as foreign policy, race and social services. Let me first add that I think very little of Obama, however, there are some tremendous fallacies inherent in this “story.”
First of all, why in the world should Obama be judged for what his pastor says? None of us are safe going to church if we can be condemned for what our pastor might say. This is the same logic, taken to it’s end, that would blame all Muslims for the acts of Islamic terrorists or all Christians for the Westboro Baptist Church: guilt by association.
But does he hate America?
Well, when did loyalty to America suddenly become the most important issue? And why is it disloyal to say something like this (first Sunday after 9/11):
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.
We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.
Wright should be heralded as a prophet. This is a completely accurate, rational explanation of why 9/11 happened - because of American provocation around the globe. America, to much of the rest of the world, has stood for wanton destruction of life, liberty and property - not the upholding of these fundamental values. This doesn’t justify 9/11, but Wright is speaking truth when he notes that Americans should not be surprised in the slightest to see that all of the aggression our foreign policy reaped on 9/11.
This is the other quotation in the story:
The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.
While this kind of political activism (and much of the social gospel) is not scriptural at all - this is not a crazy idea. Racism in America has been well documented - most especially government sponsored racism through preferential laws, zoning, projects, the drug war, welfare, the minimum wage and so on. I would say Wright is guilty of acting more like a politician than a pastor, but it is illogical to say that he “hates America” and Obama is somehow responsible for this.
Other Political Links
Support for the Iraq War has risen dramatically.
John Stossel eloquently proclaims how to easily get rid of lobbyists in Washington.
An interesting argument that Social Security is just a government sponsored pyramid scheme.
How to fly through airport security.
Stocks rallied Tuesday as investors welcomed news that the Federal Reserve will lend up to $200 billion to banks and lenders as a means of loosening up tight credit markets.
Religion Links
A summation of the splits in the Anglican Church of Canada.
Which version of Leonard Cohen’s Hallelujah sucks the most: link.
Collin Hansen of Christianity Today decries the trend of delayed marriage.
More Links
I guess I fail to see where there is anything RATIONAL in that first quote. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were WARTIME attacks to stop the spread of Japanese imperialism. Furthermore, to say we “never batted an eye” is a joke. This country, more than any other, has thoroughly rethought and sometimes even regretted the bombing of those two cities.
“State terrorism” against Palestinians? He has to be joking, Israel is the one terrorized every day and we make Palestinians the VICTIM???? This retard needs to get outside of his racist, bigoted bubble a bit more.
It’s quite amazing that you don’t have the discernment to automatically see the insanity of that statement, Colin. It makes you appear to be a tin-hat lunatic to commend statements such as the above.
Regarding the second statement, again I fail to see how it is anything other than a hyperbolic proof of the pastor’s complete lack of rational thinking outside of his apparent myopic view that all whites are racist. I mean, could it possibly be that blacks who commit crimes should be held accountable for their actions??? Is that possible, or are we in such a Marxist society that no one is responsible for anything?
As for Obama and his connection to Wright… Obama may not believe all of the hate that his pastor spouts, but it is telling of Obama’s discernment and character that he continues to attend that church. Much like it is quite telling of his discernment that he continued to do business (even underhanded business) with Rezko while the guy was under indictment. If Bush attended a Fred Phelps-like church on a regular basis, would you likewise give Bush a pass? Your answer will show us how intellectually honest you are on this matter.
Wright isn’t anything like Phelps, so let’s not continue with that analogy. I don’t think much of Wright’s rhetoric, but I also don’t think that church is about the Sunday morning sermon. In fact I don’t think church is about what happens on Sunday at all. There may be many reasons why Obama chooses to attend that church, reasons that have nothing to do with the skewed, ignorants rants in Wright’s sermons.
By the way, this is exactly the reason that Hillary Clinton might make a better Democratic candidate than Barack Obama. We already know all the dirt on Clinton. Obama is unknown, and stuff like this is going to be cropping up regularly until November.
Wright is merely a black Phelps, nothing more. He preaches hate just like Wright does, just aimed at a different people group. Wright hates whites, Phelps hates gays (and anyone he believes supports gays).
So you would have no problem with someone going to a church with a Fred Phelps-like extreme preacher since church is more than just the teaching??? That’s insane, I would seriously doubt a person’s salvation if they attended a Phelps-like church, just like I would if they attended Wright’s church. He is the shepherd, and his sheep can’t be that far from him ideologically.
If you’ve ever listened to Phelps or his family you would know he’s miles more insane than Wright. It’s not even close.
Go to Obama’s church’s website… it’s full of hints that they view everything through racial lenses. It’s actually kind of interesting that Obama has tried to rise above racial issues yet his pastor is one of the biggest racists around. Which Obama is the real one, the one who campaigns above the fray or the one who listens weekly to a bigoted pastor?
But, as you just admitted, they are BOTH insane. I would admit that Phelps is worse. But when comparing hatemongers, does worse really matter on this issue? As long as the pastor is preaching hate and not Biblical truth and God’s love, does it matter the “level” of hatred he teaches? I mean, yes in a way it does if one is promoting violence and the other isn’t. But that’s not what we discussing…
Speaking of Fred Phelps-like pastors…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDxcyqeRc-4
Well sure he’s off the deep end. Wright’s world view is divorced from reality. I’m not going to defend his statements like Colin did.
Regarding the level of hatred being preached, I’d say it matters a great deal when voting for president. I’m not evaluating Obama on whether he has good Christian theology based on a sound interpretation of the Bible. I’m evaluating him on his fitness to be President. So I’m not too worried about whether Obama’s pastor is preaching the Bible correctly.
My concern is more about Obama, not Wright. I won’t be worried unless and until I see any evidence that Obama shares Wright’s extreme views–and there is no evidence except that Obama attends his church and is friends with Wright.
And Wright has been his mentor…
Right, that’s what I meant by friend. I should have been more specific.
Gotcha. “Friend” doesn’t quite do their relationship justice like “mentor” does.
I agree that Obama’s theology isn’t what should be voted on. However, whether or not he agrees with racial hate should be a deciding factor. Back when he first entered the race, I checked out his church’s website. I think it can say a lot about a man by looking at the church he attends. And the vibe I immediately got from their website was that they are really into social justice and social peace (as long as it’s pro-black justice, doesn’t matter if it’s unjust to other people groups) and light on spiritual peace and justice.
Darius, I find this comment interesting considering our past discussions.
I’m speaking purely in terms of judging someone based on his friends. As you are probably going to say next, I have said in the past that there are different “shades” of evil. And I am not refuting that here. I’m merely saying that both men are hateful pastors, and anyone under their tutelage we should be skeptical of.
I just want to add that I’m not defending the man - I don’t know anything about him. But the statements cited are not ignorant, irrational, racist or anti-American. It is not a crazy thing to say that 9/11 was not a surprise, unmotivated attack. It’s not insane for black people to speak out against racist policies and actions on behalf of a federal and local governments which are not responsive to them as equal citizens.
I’m not saying we should embrace this guy, other radicals or even our enemies as equals in rational debate. However, we must not forsake the message merely on the eccentricities of the messenger.
Colin said: “It is not a crazy thing to say that 9/11 was not a surprise, unmotivated attack.”
I agree with that, but linking it to Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a bit strange. What I find most disturbing is some of his other statements, where he compares Obama to Jesus:
Bill Cosby would scorn this guy…
Wow, that statement is even more disturbingly inane. Gotta love people who are still living in the 19th century. Seriously, dude, move on!
The comparison is accurate in that in many ways the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrorist attacks (by my own definition of terrorism). I define terrorism as a deliberate attack against civilians with the intent of breaking the will of a people. While the atomic bombs which were dropped WERE dropped on targets of military significance (weapon’s manufacturing sites), one cannot help but believe that the intent was NOT to disable military capabilities but rather to intimidate civilian populations. Note that “collateral damage” is different from “targeting civilians”, in that the intent varies greatly. One unintentionally kills civilians while eliminating military threats while the other intentionally kills civilians in an attempt to break the will of the people.
One can try to define “terrorism” as non-state sponsored warfare, but doing so results in the statement “one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter”. It also negates the meaning of “state sponsored terrorism”, which by definition would not be terrorism. The only other definition you can use is that terrorism is unjustified use of force, but again many military actions become subject to classification as “terrorism” if the criteria is one’s assessment of the justice of the reasons.
This analysis has led me to the conclusion that either the US was wrong to bomb civilian populations with atomic weapons, or there are cases where “terrorism” (defined as deliberately targeting civilian populations) is a legitimate approach to military strategy. I still haven’t formed firm convictions on this subject yet, but I have been considering whether such acts are reasonable as a show of force in order to prevent greater loss of life on both sides. I have been led to believe this was the case in WW2, and perhaps if true this would justify the decision to deliberately target civilian populations.
(Note also that bombing civilian targets appears to have been common in WW2, which might suggest that if your enemy is targeting civilians it is more legitimate for you to do so as well? Can we really criticize the UK for bombing German cities when Germany spent much of the war bombing London?)
Overall, I don’t consider attacks on the Pentagon or US troops abroad to be “terrorist attacks”. The attacks may still be unjustified and wrong, but at least they are targeted at a military target. There is a big difference between blowing up Alderaan and blowing up the planet on which the rebel alliance is hiding out.
He’s not saying that it’s correlated, but an example of American belligerence overseas. Especially belligerence against civilians.
Again, I make no claim to defend the man. But the statements cited are not crazy. Naturally, the statement you cited is pretty off-the-wall - and I’m sure he has a whole catalogue of such statements. But the premise is that he “hates America” - which is not reflected in accurately critical statements of our foreign policy and race relations. We would be wise to consider the arguments people make rather than demonize them as “America haters” (not that you are doing this, but many are using this issue to pursue these ends).
Is it your belief then that deliberately targeting civilian targets of an occupying nation* is a legitimate military technique? I fully understand that from some of these people’s perspective, attacks on US military targets might be legitimate. However, two of the three attacks on 9/11 were NOT against military targets. Instead, they were designed to kill thousands of civilians. As I’m sure you are aware, the actual death count on 9/11 was far less than anyone would have anticipated in planning it.
Also, can you provide some examples of recent example (last 20 years) of GOVERNMENT engaging in racist policies against blacks? I am fully aware that racism was not uncommon a fairly short time ago, but with the implementation of laws protecting against it such matters can readily be addressed in the court system. Anyone suffering from government racism today can likely expect to get significant compensation from a lawsuit (and rightfully so).
* I do not think the US can legitimately be considered to have been or currently be “occupying” the Middle East, but that is the position of most terrorist organizations. Even if true, it wouldn’t justify their actions.
Can you provide evidence that the US “supported” (as opposed to ignored) terrorism in South Africa and Palestine? Such evidence would vindicate your claim that these statements are not irrational.
Colin said: “But the statements cited are not crazy”
Come on. He said Jesus is a black man.
Exactly, Atanamis. Colin, how in the world are any of those statements “rational?” At least, as “rational” is traditionally defined.
He’s not saying that it’s correlated, but an example of American belligerence overseas. Especially belligerence against civilians.
Calling America “belligerent” in defending itself is the height of arrogance. We were being attacked repeatedly by an unrelenting enemy who had started the war, so we ended it in the best way we knew how (much like the Allies helped end the European part of the war by bombing Berlin to smithereens). A government is nothing more than the people it represents, and, as Atanamis alluded to, civilian casualties may very well be legitimate (even to the point of intentionally targeting them).
Colin, dude, seriously, you keep defending the guy as rational when he is most obviously flown the coop of sanity long ago. In your desperate attempt to stick to your libertarian views of foreign policy, you’re sounding less and less rational yourself. Wright is a nutcase, pure and simple. Sure, our support of Israel makes Muslims mad. So freakin’ what? And that’s NOT what Wright is getting at, just a mere academic acknowledgement of Arab reasoning. He OBVIOUSLY supports the radical Islamic agenda, probably because he thinks it hurts white people more than blacks (he should visit Nigeria, Sudan, and Ethiopia and see what Islam is doing to blacks there).
Also, to get back to something you said earlier… you asked why loyalty to the United States is a big deal. Simple: a man who wants to be president needs to show that he actually respects the country and people he could one day lead. The more I hear, the more I am starting to believe that Obama suffers from America-hating liberal guilt. His wife has made comments along those lines, and even this week with the Ferraro comments, Obama denied the obvious (he’s only where he is because he’s black) to stick with some racist image of America where being black still hurts him. Most Americans long for a black president, as it would finally put the whole black civil rights stuff behind us. It’s a POSITIVE that one can say that Obama is where he’s at because he’s black.
Sean Hannity asked John McCain about Obama’s association with Jeremiah Wright. In my opinion, McCain did the honorable thing by saying that just because someone supports you, it doesn’t mean you support everything they say. He said that he knew Senator Obama and knew that he did not agree with some of the ideas Wright espouses.
Even though I think it was right and honorable for McCain to have said these this, I have to wonder whether he said it because of his recent backing by John Hagee and Rod Parsley. He has been criticized mostly because he has not repudiated Hagee’s alleged anti-Catholic remarks.
I do think there is a difference between being supported by someone, and showing your own support for them by attending their church. But I wouldn’t want anything my pastor says to directly reflect on my reputation. I love my pastor, but I don’t always agree with him. He probably wouldn’t agree with me on many things if I really told him what I thought about them.
Being backed politically and being mentored are two very different things.
This was not my assertion. I would argue that the 9/11 attacks were illegitimate. However, they were neither unmotivated nor surprising (or at last should not have been, had we not demonized the messengers so as to disregard their threats).
Most of these policies that come to mind are indirect (as I mentioned) - such as the war on drugs. While the policy itself is not inherently racist, the effects amount to a legitimate perception of racism, regardless of intent. Sadie is more of an expert on this than me, but often the urban planning of cities involves eminent domain being exercised on black areas - and zoning laws (again, indirectly) supporting segregation in cities.
More direct actions such as racial profiling and police enforcement are heavily against black people and other minorities.
“Being backed politically and being mentored are two very different things.”
I agree. I just mainly wanted to make note of how McCain handled the question on the record.
The US has done very little in direct actions against civilians or other terrorism in Palestine. However, the Israeli military is in many ways a surrogate of the US. They operate with US funds, US weapons and with the direct approval of a strong alliance with the US. Up until recently, America was wholly sided with Israel on that issue.
I know of no evidence to support the problems in South Africa being government related.
And I called this statement off-the-wall and made complete allowances for other crazy statements. If you will reread my response, you will see that I separated your cited statement and the one’s originally cited.
The statements I cited are not crazy. There is a lot of important and rational criticism in them. We must not shoot the messenger.
Though it won’t matter to you, because your ethics are relative to whatever “side” you’re on, I am going to cite this for posterity.
I can get on board with a discussion of US foreign policy and how it makes 9/11 unsurprising. Really, the only difference between 9/11 and the terrorist attacks previous to it are the scope and location. It wasn’t the dawning of a new era, it was the continuation of something that began long ago, so we shouldn’t have been surprised by it. It was still unambiguously evil, though.
I’m not so willing to concede that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are a legitimate part of that discussion. Those were wartime decisions, made during a real all-out declared war (nothing like this so-called War on Terror). And hello! It’s not the Japanese who are attacking the United States. I’m pretty sure that Osama bin Laden isn’t mad at America for what we did to the Japanese.
I have not done this once. I am not defending this man. I am arguing that despite the fact that he’s crazy, some of his statements are quite wise.
Again, Colin, if you bother to read what I (and Atanamis, for that matter) have said about the issue of Hiroshima and WWII, the ethics are not relative. It is called ending the war in the quickest way possible, and if that means punishing the civilians of the invading/attacking enemy to get that done, so be it.
Colin, it appears you are the one not willing to be rational.
Ok, let me spell it out more simply then… the STATEMENTS ARE NOT RATIONAL!
The guy is not rational, his words are not rational… none of the above is rational. You are not getting any agreement on your claim that his statements are anything but absurd. I will give you this, connecting 9/11 to Hiroshima is creative.
Colin said: The statements I cited are not crazy. There is a lot of important and rational criticism in them.
There is something valid to be said for questioning US foreign policy. I’m not sure that Wright is making valid criticisms, though. It sounds more like he’s ranting and pushing the limits of coherency.
I guess I can agree with Wright on some things: American foreign policy is wrong, and America’s war on drugs is harmful to the nation. But I can’t agree with Wright on why he believes those things, because his reasoning and his worldview are completely tied up with his racial identity.
Good comment Jew. That’s the gist of what I’m getting at… even if Wright OCCASIONALLY is rational and coherent, his reasoning is neither, since he bases it COMPLETELY on his identity as a wronged black man.
Darius said: “It is called ending the war in the quickest way possible, and if that means punishing the civilians of the invading/attacking enemy to get that done, so be it.”
I agree partly. That’s a great argument for bombing Hiroshima. It’s not a justification for bombing Nagasaki three days later.
How is it that Wright gets a pass when he says this crap and Falwell gets lambasted for blaming 9/11 on the gay agenda and abortionists?
Well, didn’t Falwell say it live on TV? Wright isn’t as high profile. He’s just a little guy.
Yeah, Colin. You just don’t get it man. They attack us because they hate our freedoms! They hate us because we’re number one! Don’t you know that when you’re on top, the Islamic terrorists want to destroy you?! Foreign policy has nothing to do with it. We’re the U.S.A! We don’t make mistakes. We’re the good guys. They are the bad guys! I never thought I would hear so much America-hating rhetoric from you, man! Show some loyalty!
Just kidding.
Jew, wasn’t Nagasaki a major military hub? From my quick perusal of Wikipedia, it appears that it was one of the primary ship-building locations for Japan during the war. So it would make sense as a military target.
Chris, I’m not saying America NEVER makes mistakes. But we’re discussing certain SPECIFIC situations, not America’s general foreign policy history.
For Jew: On June 30, 2007, Japan’s first defense minister Fumio Kyuma said the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan by the United States during World War II was an inevitable way to end the war. Kyuma said “I now have come to accept in my mind that in order to end the war, it could not be helped that an atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki and that countless numbers of people suffered great tragedy.” - from Wikipedia
“Chris, I’m not saying America NEVER makes mistakes. But we’re discussing certain SPECIFIC situations, not America’s general foreign policy history.”
Lighten up, man. I’m just having some fun. I’m not as equipped to argue this as well as Colin, so I just say, “Yeah! What he said!” I agree with him on this, so I just defer to the master.
I’m not denying that there was some military significance to Nagasaki. I just mean that three days isn’t enough time. The Japanese hardly even know what had happened. We didn’t give them enough time to surrender before we dropped the second bomb.
I hate to second-guess wartime decisions made 60 years ago, but as I recall it was a point of debate even at that time.
Yes it was. Eisenhower was against it, Truman was for it. McArthur was also for it. They actually had a bunch more that they were planning on dropping if Japan hadn’t have surrendered.
If anyoen here didn’t read Atanamis’ statements on atomic bombs, it was you. You are revealing that by citing his claims in order to promote an ad numerum.
I’m not going to get diverted into another unrelated WWII ethics discussion. The point that is relevant is that those bombings were attacks on civilians, which were justified in a similar way to terrorist justifications of similar actions.
Your next three posts are textbook ad nausium fallacies.
Darius said: “They actually had a bunch more that they were planning on dropping if Japan hadn’t have surrendered.”
They were making more, but at the time they had only three bombs. They tested the first in New Mexico, then dropped the other two on Japan. Certainly more bombs were in the pipeline, but when Japan surrendered America didn’t have any more bombs ready to be dropped.
“How is it that Wright gets a pass when he says this crap and Falwell gets lambasted for blaming 9/11 on the gay agenda and abortionists?”
“Well, didn’t Falwell say it live on TV? Wright isn’t as high profile. He’s just a little guy.”
I do not agree or disagree with Falwell’s comments. They may very well have an element of truth to them, but no one can say for sure unless God revealed that to them. I don’t think anyone can say that his comments, however offensive to some, we’re not incompatible with God’s judgment as recorded in the scriptures.
It really doesn’t work to scrutinize a theological argument in the political arena. However, both Falwell and Wright espoused theology with political overtones to say the least. So that makes them fair game. But it also undermines whatever biblical truth their statements may have contained.
Regarding Wright and the article
You have yet to provide ANY justification for the position that Wright has EVER made a logically defensible statement. I know NOTHING about Wright other than what you wrote in your article, and the CITED STATEMENTS make Wright sound like a lunatic with little historical or cultural knowledge. From you own posts:
“I would argue that the 9/11 attacks were illegitimate.”
“While the policy itself is not inherently racist, the effects amount to a legitimate perception of racism, regardless of intent.”
“The US has done very little in direct actions against civilians or other terrorism in Palestine.”
“I know of no evidence to support the problems in South Africa being government related.”
In no case did you cite anything more than “perception of racism”, and this in regard to targeting crime that DOES take place in black communities, and DOES result in a highly disproportionate of blacks being murdered by blacks each year. Perhaps this would be reduced by a change in drug laws, but to argue that drug laws are inherently racist is supremely ignorant. I am stunned to see such complete disregard for fact in a blog written by you.
Note: NOBODY was surprised that Al Quaeda would want to harm us or what their claimed justifications were. Wright is stating that the terrorism is a legitimate response to similar actions of the US overseas. I have seen no evidence that the US or ISRAEL have deliberately targeted high civilian concentrations for death. Again, I still believe a retraction of this article is in order until such evidence is provided. Failing to have such evidence supporting this “prophet” is irresponsible of the author.
Regarding directed attacks on civilians
The only real question regarding the dropping of atomic weapons relates to the morality of killing civilians. The bombs were dropped to shock the Japanese into surrendering quickly rather than to destroy their ability to make war. The targets did have military value, but that wasn’t the primary purpose. The comparison IS meaningful because the terrorists claim to be a legitimate force using terrorism to respond to legitimate provocations in a war which they HAVE declared.
I think you’ve totally missed the point. CLEARLY Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not directly related here, but what they do is demonstrate that the US is not above targeting civilians in large numbers in some circumstances. The question is whether the attack on 9/11 could be justified under ANY circumstances, and the answer is that if Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate then there ARE some instances where such an attack would be valid. From Al Queda’s perspective, they HAVE declared a war on the US due to legitimate provocations. Osama doesn’t care what we did to the Japanese, but he DOES feel he has the same right to attack our civilians as the US dit to attack Japanese civilians. His “provocation” is the involvement of the US in the Middle East (which is mandatory for US national interests so long as we are dependent on their oil).
Atanamis, I view the difference between 9/11 and WWII Japan is that the latter bombing was to END a war that the ATTACKED had started so as to limit further casualties, whereas the former attack was to CONTINUE a war that the ATTACKER had started and to INCREASE further casualties, not limit them.
There is some legitimacy in the pastor’s basic premise. America has illegally, covertly and/or overtly meddled in other counties affairs all over the planet for well over a century. We have pissed a lot of people off in the process. The pastor is far from a prophet however.
The examples he chose were simply wrong. Amazingly, we pretty much kept our fingers out of South Africa and the Palistinians seem much more determined to commit national suicide than to work things out. This is one case where America has truly invested time and money to try to fix it. I am sure that the hundreds of thousands of troops that had been invading Japanese held islands for three years were pretty grateful for the atomic bombs. The Japanese probably suffered a lot less casualties from the bombings than would have ocurred if we had invaded. That being said, many believe the primary reason for dropping the atomic bombs (there were only two to drop, we shot our wad on uranium and plutonium making the first three) was to keep uncle joe stalin from wandering off the reservation.
He could have chosen to discuss (rant about??) the stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia, which is the cause celebre of all of middle east religious groups, or installing the shah of iran, or the fact the cia sponsered saddam husseins (of all people) assassination attempt of Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim, etc.,etc.,etc.. These type examples would have buttressed his contention that American interference in the affairs of other sovereign nations around the world would, at some inevitable point, have tangible consequences within our own borders. I have read the constitution pretty thoroughly and can’t seem to find the part about promoting democracy in other countries anywhere. Did I miss it?
On the other hand the true impetuous behind Al Queda, like almost all such religious and nationalist movements comes down to power and/or money. Western civilization, with America representing the pinnacle (at least to us), is a tempting target to deflect attention away from the total abject failure of the middle eastern religious and state leaders to provide any improvement, and usually there is a distinct loss, in the standard of living of the people.
Bottom line, is pointing out we piss people off, no matter how poor an example he choose, hating America? I guess it depends on whether you are part of the America love or leave it crowd. I think he has a point but is out of line in how he makes it.
Good column about Obama and Wright…
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjE3NDc3YTU0ZGM5NGEzZTdkNjcyZjBiNDVjMjU5MGQ=
I never will provide justification for Wright - I think he’s nuts.
My point was not that Wright is 100% accurate, but that a) his comments do not mean he “hates America” b) his comments have some truth in them
I do not need to prove that he’s even 100% factually right. Look at Wrights quote and look at my argument. Wright does cite specific things he thinks are racist - and a lot of black people feel this way, and from what I know of their perspective on things, it’s not crazy. Wright’s comments, even if outlandish, reveal a very real reality that many blacks feel there is a lot of racism in this country.
I can be faulted for hijacking Wright’s statements and discussing government racism. I will admit that this isn’t one of my most well-informed subjects, but this has no bearing on the rightness or wrongness of the article or even Wright.
But even for my part - I am not arguing that drug laws are inherently racist - but they produce an effect that can be perceived thusly. That is a FACT. Remember, racism is (like many other “crimes of intent”) highly subjective. For this reason, we can’t easily “prove” it. So I will take responsibility for going down a path where there isn’t a lot of logic to begin with - and where I am ill-equipped. However, all this grand talk about retractions reveals a lack of reading with precision on this other issues. Again, I will admit my fault in picking issues to jump on (apart from Wright) that are tough to quantify.
Colin, I’m going to accept that “never will [you] provide justification for Wright [because you] think he’s nuts.” Unfortunately your article seemed to indicate that you thought Wright made some good points, which is why so many responders jumped on you. Perhaps we misread your meaning, though statements like “Wright should be heralded as a prophet” definitely did not help. I’m not asking you to prove Wright 100% accurate, merely to justify the statement that “despite the fact that he’s crazy, some of his statements are quite wise.” You have yet to demonstrate ANY reason why ANY of his arguments should be considered wise.
I am willing to acknowledge that perceptions of racism do exist. I went to a predominantly black church for two years in college (until I graduated), and fully recognize from statements made from the pulpit that many blacks feel discriminated against. From conversations with these people though, I never heard a single case of unequal standards. The problem is that blacks in the US are being undereducated in primary schools, often come from uneducated broken families that do not encourage learning, and tend to have an expectation that the world will give them stuff. This is the result of faulty efforts to rectify the problems caused by overt racism that took place a generation ago, which have resulted in broken families, lack of respect for education, and lack of respect for law enforcement. There is very little overt discrimination, but it will likely take at least a generation for these suspicions and legitimate problems to be addressed. Expressing them as Wright does though is in no way “wise” or “prophetic”.
Bob, you are right on the money on all counts regarding the history. There are many valid reasons to criticize US foreign policy over the last hundred years, and clear reasons why Al Quaeda hates us. The statements made by Wright (and supported by Colin in his article) on the subject though could not be much more wrong (well, ok the “they hate our freedom” line is probably worse!). We should undoubtedly be assessing decisions made over the last century (including in the WW1 and WW2). Mistakes were made. When someone starts accusing the US of things like supporting apartheid in South America though, they have ceased to be doing honest assessment and are instead making things up. I think a valid argument can be made that randomly making up connections between the US and atrocities committed overseas qualifies as “hating America”. Criticizing valid connections is entirely different than making up your own.
Darius, I agree with your assessment and with Bob’s regarding why we used the bomb in Japan. Overall, I believe we were right to do so and that doing so was the best thing for both the US and Japan. That said, it is a difference in justifications rather than types of action when compared to 9/11. Under your morality, had 9/11 ended a war of oppression by the US against Al Quaeda and resulted in lower total casualties, it would have been a valid attack. From their perspective, the US did start the war of oppression and “might” have caused us to pull out of the Middle East reducing casualties there. The attack therefore changes from “wrong no matter what” to “wrong if you don’t believe the US was the initial aggressor or that the attack had a real change to end the war. I happen to disbelieve both points, so even under this definition I feel just in saying 9/11 was an immoral attack. Others though might disagree on these statements of fact.
Under your morality, had 9/11 ended a war of oppression by the US against Al Quaeda and resulted in lower total casualties, it would have been a valid attack.
Exactly. However, neither of these were the case. The USA was NOT at war with Al Qaeda nor directly oppressing Al Qaeda (since it is not a state, but rather a community of terrorists) though Al Qaeda was perhaps at war with America (Clinton treated Al Qaeda like a criminal organization). We were not causing any more casualties in the Middle East with our presence (in actuality, we have been at times a pacifying player). And Al Qaeda’s motive for the 9/11 attack had nothing to do with lowering casualties or ending a “war” (Al Qaeda exists to cause terror, not to end wars and political strife).
Wright is a prophet in that he was one of the first people, when most other Americans (including myself) were looking for the big red button to push on the middle east, who actually described the incident in a historical context of a long line of questionable tactics by the US and our allies. Obviously this is not biblical prophesy, but a useful figure of speech (see #7 definition for “prophet” on dictionary.com for something like what I mean).
I have indeed provided several reasons in the comments and in the article why some of his statements could be considered wise. I will, because I respect you in debate, gladly list them again:
- America, to much of the rest of the world, has stood for wanton destruction of life, liberty and property - not the upholding of these fundamental values. This doesn’t justify 9/11, but Wright is speaking truth when he notes that Americans should not be surprised in the slightest to see that all of the aggression our foreign policy reaped on 9/11.
- It is not a crazy thing to say that 9/11 was not a surprise, unmotivated attack.
- The US has done very little in direct actions against civilians or other terrorism in Palestine. However, the Israeli military is in many ways a surrogate of the US. They operate with US funds, US weapons and with the direct approval of a strong alliance with the US. Up until recently, America was wholly sided with Israel on that issue.
In addition to this, any person understanding a broader context of what I have written on the cite (such as yourself), has seen me mention (ad nausium) reasoning on foreign policy, 9/11 and terrorism. Obviously, these were written outside the context of this article, however, they do provide plenty of arguments along similar lines that Wright can touch on.
However, I want to make one final call to prevent too much diversion and reiterate that my central point is that asking whether this man “hates America” is not relevant. The real question should be does anything he says have any merit. I am arguing that there is some (maybe only .3% - but the .3% that is good should not be dismissed because of the other 99.7%).
I just listened to the four Hallelujah versions. I thought Bon Jovi was bad but it just kept getting worse! Bono’s version is the worst ever.
The the extent that his views are in line with bob’s post above, I think there is merit. My problem is that his “valid observation” uses invalid evidences to back up its point. This leads me to believe that he was merely lucky to get the right “final answer”. When someone does a math problem and misses every single step until the final solution, the fact that their final number matches the key means they either got lucky or they cheated. By mentioning things like South Africa, Wright demonstrates a complete lack of awareness of US foreign policy.
The fact that he was right about US intervention being used as justification for 9/11 is simply luck. I’m STILL in favor of hitting a big red button and blowing Al Quaeda off the face of the world. The US may have made some terrible mistakes in its foreign policy over the last century, but that in no way justifies the tactics used by Al Quaeda to fight us. Wright sounds like a man who “hates America”. Any correlation between what he says and truth is purely coincidental, much in the same way a stopped clock is correct twice daily. The fact that a stopped clock is accurate once does not mean it should not be ignored the rest of the time. (Note: I don’t actually think this tarnishes Obama unless we hear him supporting Wright’s politics.)
Jew, don’t try to change the subject!
Here’s a useful post on Wright and Obama… http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/2008/03/associating-wit.html
GoogleBot,
I read the article, and I would say that I am in agreement with it basically. I saw the actual interview with Jeremiah Wright done with Sean Hannity of Fox News that was referenced in the piece. It was, as usual, unfair and was set up to make Wright look like a racist without giving him the chance to defend his position before time ran out. That doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have racist ideas, just that the interview was very one-sided.
Although I have reservations about this type of theology, I see it no less troubling than Romney’s Mormonism. Many conservative Christians were willing to overlook that. If heresy can be measured by degree, the Mormon church definitely has one up on Black Theology. I mean, when you begin to identify Christ with the Devil, you are on dangerous ground. And while Black Theology twists the Bible to mean what they want it to, Moromonism created books in addition to the Bible to build their religion.
GoogleBot was me. I don’t mind voting for someone who has bad theology, except if that theology is also bad political views. So Romney’s Mormonism didn’t bother me so much, since it didn’t really affect his political views in a negative way. However, someone like Wright is a bit more worrisome since his theology mixes so much with his politics. Believing Jesus is Satan’s brother doesn’t mean much on the political stage, but feeling God thinks your race is owed something by the government has significant political repercussions.
“Romney’s Mormonism didn’t bother me so much, since it didn’t really affect his political views in a negative way. However, someone like Wright is a bit more worrisome since his theology mixes so much with his politics.”
Good point. But I guess I just had reservations because I didn’t know to what extent Mormon theology could potentially shape someone’s politics. To me, the one is overt and the other covert. I don’t think its any secret that many Evangelicals were confident in George W. Bush because they felt his being a Christian would affect policy in the Middle East with respect to Israel. I frankly don’t trust anyone to divorce their religion from their politics.
I agree, I only expect Democrats to divorce their religion from their politics. [On a side note: isn’t it funny how the media always asks if a conservative can put his Christian religion aside, but they never ask a liberal that same question? It’s almost like everyone knows that most liberals don’t really believe their own religion.]
I just think that Mormonism, as it pertains to politics, is really close to Christianity. From the polls I’ve seen, Mormons are actually MORE conservative than Christians, by and large. So, in that way, Romney’s past liberal politics were not typical of his religion. His conversion to more conservative values brought him in closer alignment with his church’s values.
“I just think that Mormonism, as it pertains to politics, is really close to Christianity. From the polls I’ve seen, Mormons are actually MORE conservative than Christians, by and large. So, in that way, Romney’s past liberal politics were not typical of his religion. His conversion to more conservative values brought him in closer alignment with his church’s values.”
I think that’s basically right with respect to social values. The question still remains: What role might Mormon theology play in foreign policy decisions? I have no idea what Mormon eschatology teaches, and that could factor in somehow.
I think by now pretty much everyone is tired of the Jeremiah Wright stuff, but I came across one of his sermons in context on YouTube. It’s the one about America’s chickens coming home to roost. I’m not defending his comments, but when I heard the sermon I found that his comments were taken out of context and spun by the media; essentially when he made that particular remark, he was quoting a former U.S. ambassador who was interviewed on Fox News. If you’re interested, here’s the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzkeoyQ
“America, to much of the rest of the world, has stood for wanton destruction of life, liberty and property - not the upholding of these fundamental values.”
Colin this is not really true prior to the Iraq invasion. I have traveled and lived overseas both before and after 9/11. The rest up the world used to consider Americans to be sort of the beverly hillbillies writ large. Increadebly wealthy, idealistic, naive in the ways of the world, but basically goodhearted hail hearty sort of fellows. Even most of the middle east, at least on an individual basis, really liked Americans. There was a feeling the the government led us astray on occasion, but as people we were fine.
I am now living in New Zealand which is probably has the most cosmopolitan and internationally diverse population on the planet. People float in and out of NZ constantly. Talking to people from all over the world, I find the change in attitude in the last 5 years shocking. We are now viewed almost universally in a much more negative and sinister fashion. The damage to our reputation will take decades to repair, if it can be repaired at all. People really believe that the war in Iraq was an oil grab, since they (or myself for that matter) can’t find any other logical explanation why we would have invaded. They find our treatment of prisoners appalling. When people from Burma and Zimbabwe are asking me about our human rights violations then you really have a problem. Worse yet, is that we keep doing things so dumb that I sometimes question if the white house isn’t secretly a recruiting arm for al qaeda.
It really is a shame we took the nadir of America’s international reputation post 9/11 and plunged it to a level that is almost totally incomprehensible. There are numerous countries that I would hesitate to travel to with a US passport these days that 10 years ago I wouldn’t have given a thought to. The next president has a very, very rough ride trying to improve this situation.
Yeah, no logical reason. After all, Saddam wasn’t killing millions of people. He wasn’t ignoring UN regulations. He was just a grand old guy. Are you seriously that ignorant? World opinion has ALWAYS been on the wrong side of morality, so why should we care if the world thinks less of us? World opinion supported Hitler, world opinion support the Soviet Union, world opinion wanted us out of Vietnam. Tell me, how did all those work out?
Really? We put Saddam in power and he was our bestest buddy in the 8 year long Iran Iraq war. We didn’t seem to mind him killing bag limit plus of iraqis, iranians, or kurds then. So what was the problem with killing a few additional iraqis later? He was definitely a nasty megalomaniacal psychopath, but hardly the only one. There are lots of equally nasty slugs out there right now killing their citizens, putting foreign aid in swiss banks, and ignoring un mandates. Coincidence that Iraq is the only one with oil?
I cannot find any historical documentation that anyone really supported hitler any more than any other dictator of the time. On a nation state level he was appeased, but hardly supported. Big difference. By the way there were quite a number of active groups in America supporting the nazis including the german-american bund that held a rally for 22,000 people in madison square garden on presidents day 1939.
I also can’t find where world opinion was so gung ho for the soviet union. The eastern european countries that the soviets stomped and fenced in weren’t exactly red bear fans. Western countries under the threat of soviet muclear arms certainly did not think russia was warm and cuddly. The chinese and russian versions of communism have been in a schism since the long march in 1934. A large number of third world dictators were glad to take soviet funding, but not too many sent any money back to prevent the collapse. Like zero.
Remind me again why we were in vietnam. Oh right, propping up a extremely corrupt, nepotistic, repressive catholic dictator in country that was 90% buddist. This was after we were actively involved in the coup and murder of the previous corrupt nepotistic dictator (president diem). Also our ally by the way. Being a former American ally can be very detrimental to your health. Involved right up to the white house. Gee whiz, what a surprise.
Excerpt from declassified documents referring to the imminent coup of diem:
The Kennedy tape from October 29, 1963 captures the highest-level White House meeting immediately prior to the coup, including the President’s brother voicing doubts about the policy of support for a coup: “I mean, it’s different from the coup in the Iraq or South American country; we are so intimately involved in this….”
Note the reference to the involvement with the Iraq coup. The one that put saddam in power. Amazing. I wonder which south american country? Maybe goulart in brazil. The cia later overthrew allende (who died mysteriously, anyone see a pattern here?) and put in pinochet in chile. That turned out swell also. We certainly hold the moral high ground on that one.
From North Vietnam documents:
Upon learning of Diệm’s ouster and death, Ho Chi Minh said, “I can scarcely believe the Americans would be so stupid”. Why? Because Ho Chi Minh knew that everyone else was a much weaker leader than diem. Somehow we didn’t.
So remind me again of the morality of our position in Vietnam and how it turned out. It is very likely that I am ignorant, but there are 58,000 dead Americans, some whom were my friends, that probably would have wished we listened to world opinion on this one. I still thank god for a high lottery number in the draft.
America is a great country and we have accomplished many great things, along with an occasional step on your schlong with golf spikes moment. But the fact is, we represent only about 4.5% of the world population. This is not 1946 where America is the only industrialized county left standing. In todays global wired world the rest of the worlds opinion does matter. Like it or not.
Your complete ignorance on all three of those subjects is amazing, as well as your misunderstanding of our involvement with Saddam. We did NOT put him into power, he took power. At the time, we did think highly of the guy, since he didn’t appear to be a psychopath. Our support of him in the Iraq-Iran war is highly exaggerated.
Regarding world opinion…. Churchill was scorned when he wanted to stop Hitler immediately. Chamberlain was the popular opinion until Hitler had most of Europe. Hitler was the Man of the Year in Time Magazine in 1936. He was preaching hate that whole time, but no one took him seriously (except Churchill). Even AFTER the war, Churchill was forced out of politics by his ungrateful political enemies. World opinion was on the wrong side there.
Regarding the Soviet Union, this isn’t even close. People like Noam Chomsky strongly supported the USSR, believing that the reports of communist repression were exaggerated (read a book like “From the Gulags to the Killings Fields” to see how they were not). Reagan was mocked when he called the Soviet Union an “Evil Empire.” Even to this day, Hollywood continues to make movies mocking McCarthy for his very important work of finding Soviet spies. Hollywood, “world opinion,” etc. have always been on the side of the Soviet Union. And why wouldn’t they be, they have a dog in the fight: communism. The liberal intelligentsia has always believed that socialism and communism are what is necessary for a utopian society.
Regarding Vietnam… world opinion wanted us out. So finally we left, and millions died. It’s actually kind of simple, I’m surprised you missed this one. World opinion was on the wrong side there as well.
Regarding Iraq… if we leave, many more people will die than if we stay. So once again, world (and your) opinion is IMMORAL! And this whole “blood for oil” idea that you keep mentioning… use your brain for two seconds, and that will prove to be a silly idea. If it was about oil, then we would have invaded Venezuela by now (since Chavez is much more inclined to hurt our oil supply). If it was about oil, then we should have lowered our gas prices, not doubled them. If it was about oil, where is all that oil going? BACK TO THE IRAQI PEOPLE. Do you pay attention at all to the reality that is going on in Iraq? The schools and hospitals being built, the wonderful things going on. And the relative peace in which it is happening. And the political progress that is being made. Right now, though it is still quite early, the Iraq War stands a good chance of being considered a success. And you will be understood as the fool you are, just like Noam Chomsky should have been when he supported the USSR.
well we can play tit for tat, he said she said forever. history including current events is not black and white. When exactly did Hollywood movies become world opinion?? Who cares what Noam Chomsky said. You do have a talent for picking a anecdote and creating a broad sweep of history from it.
Yes there were varying degrees of support at different points in history for both russia and hitler. initially communism did look like a promising new social order. It certainly looked better than the romanovs at the time. By the late 1930’s the true nature of soviet communism was becoming more apparent and many people turned against it. You could find strong supporters of soviet communism today if you looked. Not many, but some. Would this constitute world opinion? Reagan was mocked? Reagan was also heavily applauded. I believe many more people applauded, but that’s just subjective and unprovable. Reagan, other than a 5 trillion dollar post dated check, was probably the best president of the 20th century.
I never said we should leave iraq. Like colin powell said “iraq is like a china shop, if you break it you bought it”. we did it, we are stuck, it might work out, who knows. Many people, with my full and unequivocal support, are working very hard to try to make it better. However, I very much doubt it will ever be considered a success. World opinion was we shouldn’t have gone go in in the first place which was my point. If you don’t believe that getting a foothold in the middle east wasn’t a serious consideration in the leadup to the iraq war then I have swampland in florida for you.
On the issue of putting saddam in power, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck then??????. technically you are correct. we directly supported saddam in the 1959 failed assassination attempt. we put the baathist pary in power in the 1963 coup. since the cia financed, helped plan, and participated in this coup one could say that de jure but not de facto we put him in power. just semantics. A quote from “blood for oil” since we are comparing reading lists.
In retrospect, it was the ClAs favorite coup. “We really had the ts crossed on what was happening”, James Critchfield, then head of the CIA in the Middle East, told us. “We regarded it as a great victory”. Iraqi participants later confirmed American involvement. “We came to power on a CIA train”, admitted Ali Saleh Sa’adi, the Baath Party.
We gave or “loaned” billions of dollars worth of arms, chemical agents, intelligence, trucks, machine tools, etc., etc. to Iraq. How exactly is this highly exaggerated? We actually gave iraq classified intelligence on how to calibrate the use of mustard gas on the iranians. How and when did we become so sanctimonious on the the subject. go to http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php for one of the better accountings of our involvement. there are plenty of others if you don’t like this source.
Are you seriously referring to Senator Joe McCarthy?? You must be the last person on earth to realize that McCarthy was completely discredited. He was even censured by the Senate. Dude you have to start getting news from someone other than Rush Limbaugh. McCarthyism is considered a term of derision not a point of pride.
I probably am a fool. Only time will tell.
Actually, many conservatives still think highly of McCarthy. Liberals hate him, since he outed a lot of them as communists. After all, he may have been a bit overboard in his measures, but what everyone forgets is there really were Soviet sympathizers and spies in this country. And he brought some of them into the light.