OPINION & EDITORIAL
Wright critics wrong on patriotism
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Ryan Greenfield:
- Legislators leave UW lacking, lowly (March 10, 2008)
- Unpaid interns slaves to system (March 3, 2008)
- Internet access vital to economy (February 25, 2008)
- Sconnies, Coasties unite! (February 11, 2008)
- Words can't say what policy will (February 3, 2008)
Related Stories:
- Obama deserves your vote (February 14, 2008)
- Barack Obama: Political St. Nick (October 15, 2007)
- Obama to placate extremist jihadists (March 13, 2008)
- Finding America's new voice (February 17, 2008)
- Issues, not flag pin define Sen. Obama (October 10, 2007)
by Ryan Greenfield
Monday, March 24, 2008
Never underestimate the tendency for American political discourse to ignore the important issues and devolve into paranoid hysteria. Isn’t it more fun to debate whether Barack Hussein Obama is an America-hating Muslim Manchurian candidate than whether he has the best health care reform plan?
Mr. Obama’s former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, has made many controversial, inflammatory and demagogic remarks in his sermons over his tenure at the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. However, only in the last couple of weeks has a media storm erupted and outraged cries of guilt-by-association come from America’s media elites. Mr. Obama finally gave a speech on race and politics in America last Tuesday to denounce Wright’s statements but reaffirm his ties to Trinity.
What Mr. Wright said has certainly not been uplifting or easy to listen to on constant loop on cable news channels and Sunday morning talk shows. He referred to the United States as “The U.S. of KKK-A,” accused the U.S. government of creating the HIV virus, proclaimed after the Sept. 11 attacks that “America’s chickens are coming home to roost,” and infamously shouted, “…God bless America? No! No! No! God damn America!” in several of his recently publicized sermons. Some of these statements have a hint of truth, some are flat out wrong, but all of them make many Americans deeply uncomfortable, angry and defensive.
Some questions about Mr. Obama’s association with Mr. Wright are legitimate. Why didn’t he leave the church if he had heard the pastor say things he didn’t agree with or knew to be untrue? Trinity Church is an institution in Mr. Obama’s largely black state Senate district in Illinois, and he benefited politically from his affiliation with it. But Mr. Obama could have at least approached Mr. Wright to register his displeasure with statements he knew were untrue, like that the U.S. government created the HIV virus “as a means of genocide against people of color.”
Should Mr. Obama have been more courageous? Probably, although it’s not clear exactly what sermons he attended or whether he was aware of all the remarks Mr. Wright had made.
But the larger question is why are we discussing whether Mr. Obama actually agrees with Mr. Wright’s statements? Mr. Obama attended Ivy League schools, edited the Harvard Law Review, was an Illinois state senator for eight years and is by all measures a brilliant man. I have no doubt that Obama does not believe the United States somehow deserved the Sept. 11 attacks.
This debate we’re having is fundamentally not about Mr. Wright’s words but about allusions and symbols to American patriotism. Mr. Obama doesn’t wear a flag pin on his lapel, he doesn’t put his hand over his heart when “The Star-Spangled Banner” is playing, he has a Muslim-sounding name and he may have attended a madrassa in Indonesia — I don’t even know what that is but it sure sounds scary!
We Americans, believing our country is obviously the greatest on earth bar none, exhibit a remarkable lack of tolerance for self-criticism and self-reflection. While Mr. Wright clearly went way over the top with his rhetoric, he was criticizing the long legacy of racism in this country and foreign policies he disagrees with in a way he knew would generate an emotional response to his sermons. Whether he is right on the substance is extremely debatable to say the least, but nothing he said was fundamentally unpatriotic when placed in context.
It is undeniable that this country has a racist past that resonates to this day and has implemented foreign and domestic policies that have harmed our interests and hurt many American citizens over the years. We shouldn’t use Mr. Wright’s inflammatory rhetoric as an excuse not to come to terms with this reality.
Supporting everything your country does because your country is always right is not patriotism; it is foolishness.
Patriotism should not be interpreted merely as a proxy for the preservation of the status quo. This line of thinking is more about maintaining the current power structure in the country than about ensuring our presidential candidates’ loyalty to America’s interests.
Loving your country means wanting to improve it and being willing to speak out when you perceive injustice. In these terms, Mr. Wright could be considered more patriotic than a lot of Americans. He should be condemned for his inaccuracies, but not for his willingness to speak passionately about taboo subjects many Americans would like to forget about.
America’s policies anger both black Americans and white Americans. Both sides have legitimate grievances and resentments we cannot “wish away” — as Mr. Obama put it. This futile debate over who loves America the most is a distraction from bridging these divides. So can we please agree not to question each other’s patriotism this election season?
Ryan Greenfield (rgreenfield@badgerherald.com) is a junior majoring in political science and economics.
Anonymous (March 24, 2008 @ 7:47am):
Unfortunately, to answer your last question, Bill Clinton thinks we should have that debate.
Referring to Senators Clinton and McCain he said,
"I think it would be a great thing if we had an election between two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interests of the country and people could actually ask themselves who is right on the issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics."
Anonymous (March 24, 2008 @ 8:55am):
Leftists "love" America like a wife beater loves his bride-- the abuses are always for their own good.
Ryan is just a typical enabler.
Anonymous (March 24, 2008 @ 9:06am):
Ryan is uncritically repeating Obama's mischaracterization of Rev. Wright's statements as "controversial," which rather understates the matter. They were not "controversial." They were vicious and vile.
Madonna is "controversial," folks. Changing the opening theme to Monk was "controversial."
This was vicious and vile anti-Americanism and racism and anti-semitism. If those things are, to you, merely "controversial," it seems you need a teachable moment or two, rather than presuming to fill us with "understanding."
But the fact is, Obama didn't even call Wright's remarks controversial. Obama is playing it even more cute than that. He said he heard things that "could be considered" controversial. He then spent the rest of his speech telling us that what we thought was controversial is explainable due to the history of racial tension in the United States.
Reposted here is the sermon delivered on Sunday, September 16, 2001.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36T1fnIafC0
Firemen were still digging through skin-blistering ash in a futile effort to find more survivors of the 9/11 attacks. And putting their health at risk breathing heavily in air tainted with asbestos and toxins.
Now, once again: Watch Wright's relish -- his nearly orgasmic delight -- in saying "America's chickens... have come home... to roost." Watch this cocksucker dance and flutter his hands in a happy flourish as he celebrates and exults in the deaths of 3000 Americans and foreign nationals, all civilians and all innocents, as it represents a vindication of his sickening worldview and a well-deserved comeupppance for the nation he so deeply hates.
Now, Mr. Barack Hussein Obama: As your disgusting spiritual mentor and political guide is publicly celebrating the terrorism of 9/11 as blatantly as the Palestinian terrorists did that very day, and as excitedly as Al Qaeda does:
Would you say these comments are merely "controversial" or potentially "controversial"?
Would you like a second try at that?
How many prisoners did Rev. Wright "minister" to in order to cancel out this disgusting celebration of mass murder on a mega scale?
How much "Hope" and "Change" must Obama deliver to cancel out his voluntary, bear-hug embrace of this repellent seditionist?
Anonymous (March 24, 2008 @ 9:43am):
Oh, I see you like the Rodney King approach: "Why can't we all just get along?"
Your thoughts make UW-M look foolish and immature. Go learn what a Madrassa is, for one thing.
Anonymous (March 24, 2008 @ 10:16am):
There's a difference between celebrating 9/11 or even saying we deserved it, and recognizing that US foreign policy over several decades led to the attacks, as Wright did. Shamefully, that line of thinking is suppressed in this country, when that is the only real way to counter terrorism. We beat up on people, then feel completely justified in murdering them when they start to fight back. Given how that policy is continued, the only reason there haven't been more domestic attacks is a gigantic budget invested in domestic spying and foreign intelligence--not that we're actually winning in Iraq. And much of what Wright said can be attributed to his experiences working in a Chicago parish. Elite, white Madisonians, even poor, rural whites, have no idea what minorities go through in their daily lives, especially in inner cities. Instead of recognizing that many people have no trust, even feel betrayed, by their own government and society, people who offer this criticism must be marginalized and ostracized by media and political elites.
Besides, Obama shouldn't feel the need to leave because of what his pastor said. There is more to a church than just the leader: when a pastor moves, the congregation doesn't flock with him. Instead, they stay for the fellowship, for the other 500-1000 people there. That's who makes up the church, not just the pastor.
Anonymous (March 24, 2008 @ 10:27am):
Obama is exactly like someone joining the KKK, sitting in on KKK meetings and then saying "Huh, I wasn't paying attention to what they said, so don't make me into a racist just because I was a member".
Paul Heideman (March 24, 2008 @ 10:37am):
Wright's statements were certainly not controversial, on the whole. Indeed, the majority of them were incontrovertibly true. America DID bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki without batting an eye (even though Admiral Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific, and General Eisenhower, both thought it was completely unnecessary to use the bomb). America DOES throw Black people in jail in horrifying numbers (82% of those prosecuted for crack related offenses are Black, even though African Americans are a minority of those using the drug). And America DID sponsor state terrorism against Black South Africans, and currently sponsors state terrorism against Palestinians.
While there is no evidence to suggest Rev. Wright is correct in believing the US gov't invented AIDS, his other allegations are simply matters of historical truth for any serious observer.
As for the chicken's coming home to roost quote, Rev. Wright is in fact quoting Edward Peck, the former head of Reagan's terrorism task force, who described 9/11 as precisely that in an interview on Fox News.
Basically, Rev. Wright is Right!
Anonymous (March 24, 2008 @ 10:38am):
It isn't about who loves the country more - it's about who hates the country. The Wright wing folks preach HATE for whites and HATE for the country. If Obama was any kind of a "post-racial" candidate, he would have quit the church of racist hate long ago, not been in communion with it all these years.
Anonymous (March 24, 2008 @ 10:59am):
Obama is a racist.
Just imagine what would happen if any white politician ever used the phrase "typical black person".
I can imagine Michelle saying:
"Donât you give into those white devils, Barack. Theyâre just trying to divide our community."
OTOH, I give Obama some credit for not throwing his church under the bus (like he did his grandma) since all the black people will probably vote for him no matter what he says.
Anonymous (March 24, 2008 @ 11:06am):
Gosh, a liberal associating himself with a pastor who is controversially outspoken about America?
I guess it's only appropriate for conservatives to mingle with pastors, like Pat Robertson and others, who believe 9/11 and Katrina happened because we don't persecute gays.
Paul Heideman (March 24, 2008 @ 11:53am):
Talk about conservatives openly associating with bigots, look at John Hagee, whose endorsement McCain has pursued quite actively:
"[o]nly a Spirit-filled woman can submit to her husband's lead. It is the natural desire of a woman to lead through feminine manipulation of the man."
"It was the disobedience and rebellion of the Jews, God's chosen people, to their covenantal responsibility to serve only the one true God, Jehovah, that gave rise to the opposition and persecution that they experienced beginning in Canaan and continuing to this very day... Their own rebellion had birthed the seed of anti-Semitism that would arise and bring destruction to them for centuries to come.... it rises from the judgment of God upon his rebellious chosen people."
"I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that"
Anonymous (March 24, 2008 @ 12:22pm):
Did Hagee marry McCain or baptise his children? Did McCain attend his church or donate to that church?
Obama was more accepting of the endorsement of Farrakhan than McCain was of Hadee.
Now compare Farrakhan to Hagee.
For most Americans, though, Farrakhan epitomizes racism, particularly in the form of anti-Semitism. Over the years, he has compiled an awesome record of offensive statements, even denigrating the Holocaust by falsely attributing it to Jewish cooperation with Hitler -- "They helped him get the Third Reich on the road." His history is a rancid stew of lies.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/14/AR2008011402083.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Anonymous (March 24, 2008 @ 12:28pm):
I love how the same people who accuse Obama of being divisive, also refer to him as "Hussein Obama" and throw about term "seditionist." And as for calling Obama racist... WOW! Of course anyone can be a racist, but seriously, if an entire group is held in slavery along racial lines (black slaves, white masters, and no exceptions), and then after their freedom, for 100 years are subjected to racial laws (white only drinking fountains, for example... oh yeah, and not being able to vote), and even after the Civil Rights movement cannot freely practice the rights granted to them, are still the subject of racial discrimination and attacks, and are largely economically, geographically, and politically segregated from the rest of the population raises the issue of race, it's not because THEY'RE racist. It's because their plight exists because of their race. They are still treated as second-class humans because of race. And despite the pleas of well-meaning liberals and conservatives that they are not racist, many whites (myself included) still see people in terms of color.
Of course everyone sees color, regardless of their own. But there is still a typology of oppressor/oppressed that skews the debate on racism. When a black man treats a white man differently because of his race, it must be seen as different than when a white man treats a black man differently. Why? Because white racism treats blacks as inferior, and seeks to assert or reinforce dominance over them; and this dominance is backed up by the weight of society, since whites are the demographic majority, and hold a disproportionate amount of wealth and power. When blacks are "racist" against whites, it also draws from this power relationship, and seeks equal treatment, or expresses frustration over this dominance. So the next time someone complains about Obama or Wright making "racist" statements, which of these is it? Are they trying to oppress whites? Or are they merely expressing frustration with the current racialized economic and political structure in this country?
Anonymous (March 24, 2008 @ 12:33pm):
Unlike Bill Clinton, whose legions of âspiritual advisersâ at the height of his Monica troubles outnumbered the U.S. diplomatic corps, Senator Obama has had just one spiritual adviser his entire adult life: the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, two-decade pastor to the president presumptive.
***
...but the Reverend Wright knows the truth. âThe government lied,â he told his flock, âabout inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied.â
Does he really believe this? If so, heâs crazy, and no sane person would sit through his gibberish, certainly not for 20 years.
Or is he just saying it? In which case, heâs profoundly wicked. If you understand that AIDs is spread by sexual promiscuity and drug use, youâll know that itâs within your power to protect yourself from the disease. If youâre told that itâs just whiteyâs latest cunning plot to stick it to you, well, hey, itâs out of your hands, nothing to do with you or your behavior.
***
Free societies live in truth, not in the fever swamps of Jeremiah Wright. The pastor is a fraud, a crock, a mountebank â for, if this truly were a country whose government invented a virus to kill black people, why would they leave him walking around to expose the truth? It is Barack Obamaâs choice to entrust his daughters to the spiritual care of such a man for their entire lives, but in Philadelphia the senator attempted to universalize his peculiar judgment â to claim that, given Americaâs history, it would be unreasonable to expect black men of Jeremiah Wrightâs generation not to peddle hateful and damaging lunacies. Isnât that â whatâs the word? â racist? So much for the post-racial candidate.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjExNzMwYzMyMjk0MDY4YzlhOTIwM2YzYWYzNGIyNjU=
Anonymous (March 24, 2008 @ 1:33pm):
1) Wright served in the military, the United States military.
2) Hyperbole: A figure of speech in which deliberate exaggeration is used for emphasis.
3) Is Obama racist? No one has ever accused him of this.
4) Have you ever noticed that there are real issues that are less salacious, but more important?
Paul Heideman (March 24, 2008 @ 2:08pm):
It's pure fantasy to suggest that Obama is friendlier to Farrakhan than McCain is to Hagee. Farrakhan endorsed Obama of his own volition, and after he did Obama made it clear he didn't seek Farrakhan's support. McCain actively sought Hagee's endorsement, and once he received it, said he was proud to have it.
Anonymous (March 24, 2008 @ 2:46pm):
"Are they trying to oppress whites?"
I don't know - is it oppressing to hope all whites die?
Michael Johnson (March 24, 2008 @ 2:47pm):
While the U.S. did not invent AIDS, any gay person alive during the Reagan years knows the government's response to the disease was slow and tepid, as many on the christian right cheered it as the gay cancer...It was not until the famous actor rock hudson, and to a lesser degree, Magic Johnson, became infected with AIDS, did the government attack the outbreak with any strength...Ask anyone in NY's Greenwich Village about 50 people in that community alone dying of AIDS a week, and I ask them how they feel about the government's response...One should also remember that most new outbreaks effected more black and latino women than white, and of course the outbreaks in Africa...I wonder why the Pope saying that Condoms are worst than AIDS, and is against giving African nations protection against the disease is not controversial...
Anonymous (March 24, 2008 @ 3:04pm):
Pretty horribly written article - vague and unimpressive points. For a much better analysis of the issue, I'd suggest reading Obama's response earlier in the week. Now that was something America can be proud of - an honest, moving speech that gets around the bullshit and tackles the complex issues of race in the US head on.
Anonymous (March 24, 2008 @ 4:27pm):
anonymous @ 12:28pm drooled: "I love how the same people who accuse Obama of being divisive, also refer to him as 'Hussein Obama'..."
The fact that the name Hussein means "most benign" in Arabic isn't enough to persuade Obama-phules to embrace it?
"Barack" is also Arabic, from "barakah," meaning "blessing." "Obama," meanwhile, is a word in Swahili-- a language based on Arabic that serves as the lingua franca of East Africa; it refers to members of his father's tribe who converted to Islam.
In other words, "Barack Hussein Obama" is a perfectly common identifier for someone with an ethnic East African Muslim background.
Nevertheless, Obama insists that, while his father and paternal grandfather were both Muslims, he himself was never one in any way.
In Islam, of course, anyone born of a Muslim father is automatically regarded as Muslim. But Obama is hardly obliged to abide by what Muslims may or may not think of his religious status. As a citizen of a free and democratic state, he can cross from one faith to anther or have no faith at all without losing any of his rights, including the right to stand for the highest office.
What's troubling about Obama's approach to the mini-storm over his name is what looks like an attempt at obfuscation. He has behaved as if he did have a family secret, and as if the name Hussein was something to be ashamed of.
The fact that today Obama has close familial/tribal ties with Muslim supremacists in Kenya's killing fields seems entirely relevant to the electoral discussion.
If some folks are so proud of Obama's East African/Arab heritage, why do they object to other folks examining these connections?
Because Barrack Hussein Obama is today backing his cousin Odinga's Muslim tribal allies as they burn black African women and children alive in churches-- and rape and loot-- today in Kenya.
The Kenya Connection
http://www.nysun.com/article/69273
Anonymous (March 24, 2008 @ 4:37pm):
Obama's speech last week (framed by all those magnificent patriotic flags!) took real balls. This huckster gets caught dirty with an anti-American racial arsonist and yet it turns out the only way to heal those wounds is.... to elect Barack Hussein Obama President of the United States of America!
That's akin to OJ saying we could just get past all this double-murder decapitation fuss if we just appoint him California Attorney General.
Is the Obamessiah kinda-sorta suggesting that the key to racial reconciliation and healing our nation's wounds begins with an act of forgiveness almost transcendently spiritual in nature? And that that act of psuedo-divine forgiveness just happens to involve... forgiving Barack Obama and his Jew-hatin' preacher?
I thought the Messiah was to forgive us our trespasses, not the other way around.
The kingdom of Heaven is at hand: All you need to do to enter is forgive. Forgiveness will turn the key to the gates.
Are you righteous enough in your hearts to attempt the audacity of forgiveness?
Or are you a racist sinner stuck in the past?
Anonymous (March 24, 2008 @ 4:54pm):
Barack Obama is tripping over himself trying to explain why he kept race-bigot Jeremiah Wright as his pastor, mentor and advisor for so many years.
** Last year:
"I don't think my church is actually particularly controversial," Obama said at a community meeting in Nelsonville, Ohio, earlier this month.
** March 15-- 10 days ago:
"When I saw these statements which I had heard for the first time. Then I thought it was clear that I had to make a clear and unequivocal statement. None of these statements were ones that I had heard myself personally in the pews. One of them I had heard about after I had started running for president..."
** March 18-- Last week:
Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely...
** March 20-- Thursday:
"I told him (Wright) that I profoundly disagreed with his positions... And my belief was that given that he was about to retire, that for me to make a political statement respecting my church at that time wasn't necessary."
** March 23-- Sunday:
I haven't been going to church. I wasn't hearing a lot of these comments. The ones that are most offensive are ones that I never knew about until they were reported on. I had had conversations with him in the past - in fact from the day I first met him -- about some of his views.
Anonymous (March 24, 2008 @ 5:28pm):
Heideman drooled: "As for the chicken's coming home to roost quote, Rev. Wright is in fact quoting Edward Peck, the former head of Reagan's terrorism task force, who described 9/11 as precisely that in an interview on Fox News."
Don't recall Peck strutting around FOX studios in an orgasmic flurry chanting "The chickens... have come home... to roost".
Notice you deliberately refuse to provide the actual quote so we can compare Peck's quote to Wright's noxious anti-American venom. Like us to just take yoiur word for it that Peck says essentially what Wright does.
Naked assertions without evidence to back them up? Willfully withholding crucial evidence so that the public may actually make an informed judgment as to whether the writer is flat-out lying?
If all Wright's doing is "quoting" Peck-- where is the Peck quote in question? Did Peck also claim we had no right to be "indignant" over the unprovoked mass murder of 3000 innocent civilians?
It is abundantly clear to any fluent speaker of the English language that "Reverand" Wright was merely claiming (without evidence) that Mr. Peck's remarks bore out the truth of Malcolm X's phrase. He was not quoting Mr. Peck.
That is, Mr. Wright is not saying (as CNN erroneously claimed-- and you dutifully repeated) that Ambassador Peck used the expression "America's chickens are coming home to roost."
Weirder still, (according to Lexus-Nexis) Mr. Peck does not even seem to have appeared on Fox News until October 5, 2001.
According to the transcripts, Mr. Peck did not once utter the expression that "America's chickens are coming home to roost," or anything like that, in any of his appearances on Fox News.
Furthermore, again according to Lexis-Nexus, Mr. Peck appeared on only one other television show in that time frame-- on CNBC. Where again, there was no mention of chickens or roosts.
Indeed, a Lexis-Nexus search of all of Fox News for the words "chicken" and "roost" between 9/11 and 10/22/01 returns only one reference.
It comes from the Fox News program, "Live Event," on September 18, 2001. And the person who bring it up is talking about what Saddamâs Iraq was claiming:
=====
America United - Are Arab-Americans Being Unfairly Targeted?
Interview with Hussein Ibish, the communications director at the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.
GIBSON: Is a war waged on Islamic terrorists offensive to all those Muslims who are not terrorists?
IBISH: Not necessarily. I donât think so. I think that the United States clearly has a right to hunt down and punish the guilty parties and those who would assist them and make their work possible.
And I think that the entire Islamic world, with very few exceptions, has said so publicly. The Organization of the Islamic Conference, 57 states have said so. Every Arab state except Iraq has said so. And they simply have made the point that they feel â they've made basically a Malcolm X-style statement about chickens coming home to roost. But even they have not praised the terrorists who did this...
=====
Is it possible that this is what Mr. Wright was referencing? If so, we have Mr. Wright agreeing with Saddam's Iraq. [Or is it just Kaddafi?]
In any case, it needs to be stressed that it is obvious from the video that Mr. Wright was not quoting Mr. Peck. That exegesis is laughable. It's a complete canard-- a wild goose chasing a red herring around a flaming strawman.
But it is just the latest examples of what contortions Leftists will go through to defend their side. (And yes, Wright is definitely on their side.)
In any case, I think progressives clearly should do more to explain why "Wright is Right"? Americans well remember from your pasty-faced mock chants of "Allahu Akbar" in view of our still smoldering Pentagon back in November 2001 that "progressives" held these repellant opinions. Remind us again-- why?
Paul Heideman (March 24, 2008 @ 9:33pm):
I'm not sure if your search skills are simply not up to snuff or what, but there are multiple reports of Peck on Fox News in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11th. For instance, this piece by Paul Krassner, while not quoting Peck, attributes to him the same ideas contained in Wright's quote. http://www.flyingsnail.com/paul-one.html
Also, the substance of my original post, that what Rev. Wright said is largely uncontroversial to any reasonable person, has been completely uncontested.
Anonymous (March 24, 2008 @ 10:52pm):
"Americans well remember from your pasty-faced mock chants of "Allahu Akbar" in view of our still smoldering Pentagon back in November 2001 that "progressives" held these repellant opinions."
I think this should win an award for most poorly constructed sentence of the year.
Anonymous (March 25, 2008 @ 8:08am):
"Americans well remember-- from your pasty-faced mock chants of 'Allahu Akbar' in view of our still smoldering Pentagon (back in November 2001)-- that 'progressives' held these repellant opinions."
[There-- any better, Professor Snitty VonGrammar-Nazi?]
Now, answer the question. Do Leftists still trumpet these repellant ideas about America? Is "Reverand" Wright really right?
Don't you agree Americans have a right to know where Obama supporters honestly stand on these fundamental issues?
Don't hide your truthiness under a bushel. Let your bile spew before Leftists, that they may see your hard work and praise the Obamessiah!
Anonymous (March 25, 2008 @ 8:39am):
Paul Heideman @ 9:33pm pinwheeled: "there are multiple reports of Peck on Fox News in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11th"
LMAO! Watch Paul play move the goalposts.
Paul wrote "Rev. Wright is in fact QUOTING Edward Peck... who described 9/11 as PRECISELY that in an interview on Fox News." [emphasis mine]
Gee, funny how such a key quote-- the one you pretend lets Wright off the hook-- is entirely absent from your lying article.
It doesn't really matter who Wright was quoting (Malcolm X is the more likely source). Wright shucked it and jived his hate rant on film for all Americans to behold. The only reason Peck matters is another example of dishonesty on the Left.
Wright is Right, huh?
"God damn AmeriKKKa!"
Does that come in lapel pins?
Anonymous (March 25, 2008 @ 10:27am):
Paul Heideman puked: "America DID bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki without batting an eye (even though Admiral Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific, and General Eisenhower, both thought it was completely unnecessary to use the bomb)."
Yep, Democrat President Truman DID order it! And God Bless (not "damn") America's Greatest Generation for their courage, sacrifice and technological genius.
Nimitz never expressed reservations about using the bomb. "This sounds fine," he told the courier, "but this is only February. Can't we get one sooner?" Nimitz later joined Air Force generals Carl D. Spaatz, Nathan Twining, and Curtis LeMay in recommending that a third bomb be dropped on Tokyo. Meanwhile, Eisenhower commanded Allied forces in Europe, and his opinion on how close Japan was to surrender carried no special weight.
http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1995/3/1995_3_70_print.shtml
Once again, Paul distorts historical facts to defend the indefensible.
Anonymous (March 25, 2008 @ 10:49am):
Paul whined: "America DID sponsor state terrorism against Black South Africans, and currently sponsors state terrorism against Palestinians."
This is true... just not in the way "Reverand" Wright means it.
To our shame, America imposed sanctions against the South African government in support of Nelson Mandela and his ANC Marxist-terrorist thugs.
http://home.mweb.co.za/sa/savimbi/imagesterror.htm
Likewise, it is self-evident that American support of Arafat terrorism (masquerading as "peace process") only yielded rivers of innocent Arab and Jewish blood.
This generation continues to pay the price for our appeasement of Arafat and Mandela terrorism. Obama's idea of "change" is to bring back these failed policies of appeasement. So we see, Leftists learned nothing from 9/11.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
