• I don't think Universal has any experience with attending a university, so of course he doesn't understand your point....

    I've even had professors (in film/ communications classes) who didn't have more than an MA degree, but we still called then professors.

    The way you distinguish a professor (someone who merely teaches at the college level) from someone who actually has a PhD, is with the title, 'Doctor.'

    Barack has never used the title, 'Dr. Obama.'  If he did, then these guys would have a point.  

    But he didn't, so this diary should be taken down from the rec list.  It's embarrassingly asinine.

  • ... is to laugh at the most insignificant part of my comment?

    I don't really care about Rev. wright's patriotism.    No one is in a position to judge anyone else's patriotism.  That's a dangerous row to hoe, don't you think?

    My only point about Rev. Wright is that his "chickens" comment was taken completely out of context.  Are you brave enough to look at the video to acknowledge as much, or is that too much of a threat to your world view?

  • Based on her comment, she seems to believe that Barack was a U.S. Senator at the time.  He was not.  He was not in a position that would allow him to make trips around the country speaking out against the war.  (No one really even knew who he was.)

    I'm just pointing out that he did attend the anti-war rally in his home of Chicago.  Did Hillary attend any anti-war rallies in New York City?

    You should also check out the full context of Rev. Wright's 9-11 speech:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqPUXjFYh 38

    With his 'chickens coming home to roost' remark, he was actually quoting a former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and former deputy director of President Reagan's terrorism who made the statement on Fox News.

    (It also happens to be a commonly held view of many foreign policy scholars - Blowback is the term used to describe our foreign policy misadventures coming back to bite us in the ass.)

    The statement was a footnote in a larger sermon dealing with forgiveness and the dangers of cyclical violence...  It's been grossly misused in the press (no surprise there).

    Really.  Just check out the short YouTube clip to see what I mean.  Rev.  Wright is a former Marine.  How could he be anti-American?

  • Well, Obama was a state senator at the time (who also happened to be in the middle of a tight re-election campaign).  State elected officials don't typically criss-cross the nation making appearances when they have their own constituents to look out for in their home state.

    He did make his 'speech' - the one everyone here derides- at Chicago's first anti-war rally organized by Chicagoans Against War in Iraq held one week before the war resolution vote in Congress.

    You're right.  It was a tough time to be against the war.  Why don't you give Barack some credit?

    Hillary Clinton certainly didn't stick her neck on the line.  More than half of her fellow Democratic Senators voted against the resolution.  Why couldn't she?

  • Let's look at what another senator had to say before he voted against the resolution.

    This is a segment of Sen Feingold's speech:

    But, Mr. President, I am increasingly troubled by the seemingly shifting justifications for an invasion at this time. My colleagues, I'm not suggesting there has to be only one justification for such a dramatic action. But when the Administration moves back and forth from one argument to another, I think it undercuts the credibility of the case and the belief in its urgency. I believe that this practice of shifting justifications has much to do with the troubling phenomenon of many Americans questioning the Administration's motives in insisting on action at this particular time.

    What am I talking about? I'm talking about the spectacle of the President and senior Administration officials citing a purported connection to al Qaeda one day, weapons of mass destruction the next day, Saddam Hussein's treatment of his own people on another day, and then on some days the issue of Kuwaiti prisoners of war.

    Mr. President, for some of these, we may well be willing to send some 250,000 Americans in harm's way. For others, frankly, probably not. These litanies of various justifications -- whether the original draft resolution, the new White House resolution, or regrettably throughout the President's speech in Cincinnati -- in my view set the bar for an alternative to a U.S. invasion so high that, Mr. President, I'm afraid it almost locks in -- it almost requires -- a potentially extreme and reckless solution to these problems.


    But the relentless attempt to link 9-11 and the issue of Iraq has been disappointing to me for months, culminating in the President's singularly unpersuasive attempt in Cincinnati to interweave 9-11 and Iraq, to make the American people believe that there are no important differences between the perpetrators of 9-11 and Iraq.

    I provide this speech here to provide some context to Hillary Clinton's position on Iraq in 2002.  Sure, it's easy to dismiss Obama's anti-war position, because he didn't have to take a vote on the resolution.  Many Clinton supporters seem to forget that, unlike Hillary, more than half the Senate Democrats voted against the resolution.  As Feingold suggests here, they suspected that the resolution would certainly lead to war.  

    I would like to point out specifically how Feingold expressed skepticism of Bush's Cincinnati speech in which G.W.B. tried to link al queda to Saddam.  Notice what Hillary said about that same speech:

    President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

    She says that Bush's insane statements in Cincinnati tying al queda to iraq, made it easier for her to vote for the war!  That's all I need to know about her foreign policy judgment right there.  

    I know. I know.  You guys will point out that she says, "I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible."

    Were those 'just words' she inserted to cover herself politically?  It appears that other  Democrats like Feingold and Obama had the judgment and foresight to know that the adminstration was leading us into an almost certain catastrophic war.

    Why didn't Hillary Clinton?

  • Please, please, please watch the actual video of the sermon:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqPUXjFYh 38

    You can't just make accusations based on things you believe to be true, without any evidence to back it up.

  • 1) He implied that even though his own grandmother held certain stereotypes, she obviously wasn't racist.

    2) I don't recall Hillary in the speech.

    3) He pointedly said it would be a waste of time if all the media did was focus on offhand remarks like those of Ferraro's (and Wright's).

    Are you trying to be obtuse?

  • ....how speaking critically about American foreign policy can be misconstrued as hate speech.

    That is the subject of this diary, right?

    Even serious foreign policy academics have suggested that the roots of anti-americanism can be found in our own foreign policy.

    Have you read Blowback ?  That book echoes the same theme as Rev. Wright's post- 9-11 sermon.  The only difference between Wright and the author, Chalmers Johnson, is that Johnson writes with the authority of a phD in political science by his name.

    Even if Barack sat in the pews while a reverend gave a sermon on the fallacies of American foreign policy, why would that disqualify him to be president of the United States?

    I'll extend that question to the other infamous quote- "God Damn America."  Even if Barack Obama listened to that sermon, a sermon to a black congregation in which the reverend expresses the anger and frustrations of being black in America, even if Barack sat through such a sermon- how could that possibly disqualify him to be president of the U.S.?

    The question is not whether Barack heard those sermons.  Listening to a sermon does not mean you agree with it, does it?

    Obama has already said that he doesn't agree with speech that paints this country as a hopelessly racist nation, and he made a great speech to drive that point home....

    so what's your point?

    You see a problem with Obama belonging to a church which has the mission of empowering a black community to strive toward a common purpose?  You know that this church is not a raging, white-hating organization.....  You know that.

    So, again, what's your point?

  • I see absolutely nothing wrong with reflecting where we are as a country in the immediate wake of 9-11.

    The action of calling for Reflection rather than immediate revenge sure seems more constructive.

    Are you sure you're a progressive?

  • ... so what's your point?

  • comment on a post Obama was 'present' when Wright PUNKED the USA!! over 6 years ago

    Are you talking about Rev. Wright's "chickens coming home to roost" line where he quoted Edward Peck, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and deputy director of President Reagan's terrorism task force?

    That's right.  If you listened to an extended part of the sermon, you would've heard Rev. Wright quote Edward Pech in his sermon:

    We took this country by terror away from the Sioux, the Apache, Arikara, the Comanche, the Arapaho, the Navajo. Terrorism.

    We took Africans away 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 teenage and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard working fathers.

    We bombed Qaddafi's home, and killed his child. Blessed are they who bash your children's head against the rock.

    We bombed Iraq. We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed a plant in Sudan to pay back 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'd 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.

    We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff that we have done overseas is now brought right 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 is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said the people we have wounded don't have the military capability we have. But they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them. And we need to come to grips with that.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqPUXjFYh 38

    Please tell me how it's in any way controversial for a presidential candidate to listen to a post-9-11 sermon about the dangers of revenge and the cycle of hatred?

    Does the fact that the line actually comes from a quote of a former ambassador to Iraq change your mind at all?

  • I wouldn't expect anything less...

    How DARE BO claim to know what's in our hearts.  How dare he?!

    If you read Obama's remarks, you would see he is essentially saying, 'typical white people are NOT racists...'  They - like everyone else- are prone to
    react to perceived stereotypes.

    It's so sad to see supposed liberals act like right wing radio blowhards...

  • did people here actually listen to the speech?

  • I've tried and tried.... but I just don't understand the utter hatred of Obama by some on this website.  

    It doesn't matter what he says or does, you guys refuse to judge him honestly on his merits..

    It is completely irrational.



Advertise Blogads