John McCain is on a trip to Colombia, and he made some comments about the Colombian terrorist group FARC, which he called "one of the worst" terrorist groups, and then baselessly accused Obama of being unwilling to help fight terrorism in Colombia. If you are familiar with McCain, you might know where this is going.
Yes, last week Carl H. Lindner Jr., former CEO of Chaquita Brands International, co-hosted a $25,000-per-person fundraiser for McCain and the Republican Party, which raised about $2 million. In addition to that, Lindner also serves on McCain's Ohio Victory Team.
Now Chaquita, while Linder was CEO, gave millions of dollars to FARC, and later to AUC, a violent right-wing paramilitary group designated a terrorist group by the US. Chaquita, via subsidiary Banadex, also engaged in arms trafficking, and provided 3,000 AK-47 rifles and millions of rounds of ammunition to AUC. AUC was also funded by the drug trade.
So of course, McCain criticizes FARC, and Obama for being "soft on terror", yet McCain gets millions from an event co-hosted by a former CEO who oversaw the funding of FARC and another terrorist organization, and was also involved in illegal arms trafficking. But AUC is also opposed to FARC, so I suppose McCain would list this terrorist group as his "allies" on the "war on terror" that Obama doesn't want to support. Maybe it is because Obama doesn't deal with terrorists, and isn't funded by people who support terrorists.
Oh yes, and Charlie Black, McCain's chief advisor and superlobbyist, lobbied for Chaquita multiple times. And we are supposed to believe McCain doesn't have any conflicts of interest in dealing with these issues? Oh yeah, did I mention that McCain has already used his political power to do favors for Lindner?:
However, in the past, McCain has done favors on Lindner's behalf. Last May, the Washington Post reported that in the late 1990s, McCain "promoted a deal in Arizona's Tonto National Forest involving property part-owned by Great American Life Insurance, a company run by billionaire Carl H. Lindner Jr., a prolific contributor to national political parties and presidential candidates."
Quid pro quo. Quid pro quo.
Why is it that McCain's campaign is run by lobbyists with seedy connections to dictators, terrorists and corporate America, yet the media doesn't seem to care at all, even when he is hypocritically attacking Obama and FARC when he is being funded by terrorist supporters and arms traffickers? Why doesn't the media care? Why do they give McCain a free pass on EVERYTHING? This isn't an isolated incident, this scenario has cropped up over and over again with McCain, and every time no one seems to care.
So here's an interesting theory I just came up with. You remember how McCain campaign advisor and superlobbyist Charlie Blackrecently said that another terrorist attack, like the one on 9/11, would be a "big advantage" for McCain? Well McCain has also made a similar comment right before the 2004 election about a tape from Osama bin Laden that had just been released:
But as McCain greets two breakfast-eating business partners, one from Stamford and the other from Bridgeport, the topic turns to the presidential race. The two men tell the senator they support President George W. Bush, and to that end, McCain says, "(Osama) Bin Laden may have just given us a little boost. Amazing, huh?"....
The two men, who requested anonymity, nod their heads in agreement. Later, while riding with Shays on an RV to a rally at the Stamford Government Center, McCain further explains, "(The video) is helpful to President Bush because it puts the focus on the war on terrorism."
(Read: It makes people afraid, and Republicans benefit when people are afraid)
Alright, so it is pretty obvious that Republicans believe terrorist attacks and threats, and anything that can scare Americans into voting against their own self-interest benefit Republicans. One could say they welcome such events, from the perspective of political strategizing. Do they welcome them enough to "accidentally" let a terrorist attack "slip" right before an election when it looks like their party is heading for their second landslide defeat in a row? Perhaps. Personally, I think you would have to have been living under a rock for the last 8 years to dismiss the possibility outright.
But here is something else I thought up, in light of this 2004 quote from McCain, what if they don't want to catch bin Laden? Does it serve the Republican interest to have him always lurking in the periphery of the voters' consciousness? Does he play the role of Emmanuel Goldstein of Orwell's 1984, the omnipresent evil, the target of the Three Minute Hate, the ready propaganda tool to overwhelm citizens with fear? We know the Republicans created this idea of the War on Terror, the war without bounds, without objectives, without an end, an infinite war against a tactic, an emotion, so that they can perpetually exploit this fear of terror to justify extraordinary violations of civil liberties, and an extraordinary expansion of the military-industrial complex which pumps the likes of Halliburton and DynCorp with floods of taxpayer money for their own profits.
But if we actually caught or killed bin Laden, wouldn't that make it much harder to keep the public fearful of the omnipresent War on Terror? It seems to me that politically, capturing bin Laden would be the worst thing for the Republicans, which may explain why they haven't done it in the 7 years since he killed nearly 3,000 Americans. Or it could just be appalling incompetence, as they clearly have more than enough of that to go around. It could be that they really just can't hunt down a single person despite the most powerful military and most advanced intelligence service in the history of the world, and it could be that needlessly dumping resources into Iraq, which had nothing to do with the War on Terror, contributed to our failure to ever capture our public enemy number one.
Or maybe they just want you to be afraid.
Maybe they want to play political games with American lives, so they keep the terrorist mastermind alive and well so he can do to Americans what he does best: terrorize.
On national security McCain wins. We saw how that might play out early in the campaign, when one good scare, one timely reminder of the chaos lurking in the world, probably saved McCain in New Hampshire, a state he had to win to save his candidacy - this according to McCain's chief strategist, Charlie Black. The assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December was an "unfortunate event," says Black. "But his knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who's ready to be Commander-in-Chief. And it helped us." As would, Black concedes with startling candor after we raise the issue, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. "Certainly it would be a big advantage to him," says Black.
Alright, now let me do a little prefacing here first. First, the article starts off with a lie, "On national security McCain wins." This is no doubt in here because Fortune is a conservative, pro-business publication. Does John McCain really win on national security? Does one of the Iraq war's biggest supporters win on national security? Given that the Iraq war has stretched our military to its breaking point, fueled anti-American sentiment around the world, no doubt greatly increasing terrorist recruitment and anti-American fanaticism in the Middle East, took our focus off the real terrorists like Osama bin Laden whom we've failed to find 7 years after 9/11, enabled al-Qaeda to build up even stronger than its pre-9/11 levels, and made Americans less safe all around (according to every intelligence agency including the CIA), I really wouldn't say that McCain "wins" on national security. McCain simply wants to continue the same failed policies of Bush that have made America less safe and more hated. No, on national security McCain most definitely loses.
Alright, now the bad part. Charlie Black, someone who would essentially be the Karl Rove of a McCain administration (that is if McCain didn't tap Karl himself, which he probably would), said that he thinks another terrorist attack on the United States, like the one on September 11th, would be a "big advantage" to McCain's campaign. What is worrisome, beyond that he would make political calculations like that, is that Republicans actually think another terrorist attack would help McCain beat Obama.
And then you have the recent Newsweek poll that shows Obama with a strong 15% lead over McCain nationally, and all of the electoral calculations showing Obama with a clear path to victory and McCain with a huge uphill battle. And then you have this running through their heads. Yes, they need a miracle. Yes, they need a deus ex machina to win this election and keep their greedy grip on power for at least another four years. Yes, a terrorist attack may be such an event, and probably the only event, that could give McCain better odds of winning on November 4th.
Now the scary part: Who is in charge of keeping a terrorist attack from happening now? George W. Bush. The same George W. Bush who ignored warnings about impending terrorist attacks before 9/11, and literally vacationed while he was letting Osama bin Laden strike.
Now imagine its October, McCain is still down in the polls by 15% or more, you can picture the media grudgingly writing his political obituary, and all looks grim for the GOP. Then Bush gets another one of those pesky intelligence warnings about an impending terrorist attack and Cheney/Rove/McCain/Black or someone else whispers in his ear "George, just look the other way", and suddenly another one slips through his fingers, and McCain gets his miracle. The Republicans spring into action with their fearmongering and attacks on Obama, they ramp up the jingo machine and drape themselves in the flag and pray that their poll numbers go shooting up just like last time they exploited a terrorist even for their political gain. Maybe it would boost McCain to a win, maybe it wouldn't, its hard to say, but the scary part is, the Republicans might believe it will. Would you seriously put it past them? Seriously.
This is what worried me about the recent FISA battle. FISA is a perfect tool to use in such a shadow plan to paint the Democrats, specifically Obama, as weak on terror. The FISA bill that just moved through the House is crap, plain in simple, it expands the president's power to spy on Americans and violate Constitutional protections over privacy, and even worse it gives telecom companies that knowingly violated the law retroactive immunity from prosecution. The presidential power part can be undone by the next, more Democratic, session of Congress and President Obama. The immunity can't be undone. Of course with Bush in the White House and a Congress completely unwilling to hold him accountable for breaking federal laws, it doesn't really matter what the law says now does it? But that is another story. Obama had to support the so-called compromise. If he opposed it and it didn't pass, the Republicans would embark in a major disinformation campaign to paint the Democrats as weak on "terror" and if a terrorist attack did occur, you can be sure that the Republicans would blame the Democrats' rejection of the FISA bill (even though the existing FISA bill already gives the president more than enough power to combat terrorism). If Obama had opposed it and it had failed in the Senate I'd be even more afraid of Bush purposely letting a terrorist attack slip so they could exploit it politically. I don't think many people who were upset about Obama's less-than-enthusiastic support of the FISA legislation (minus the telecom immunity that he has said he'll try to get removed) really had an understanding of the very fine line he has to walk. They failed to see the political context or the strategic bigger picture. They placed way too much meaning into that single vote, which hasn't even occurred yet.
Let me tell you what I hope happens now. I hope that the Democrats manage to get the telecom immunity stripped from the FISA bill and I hope they send it to Bush without telecom immunity so that he is "forced" to veto the bill, since he has pledged to veto any bill that doesn't give full legal immunity for his corporate friends. Then, the tables are turned and suddenly it is Bush who is "putting the nation at risk" by playing politics (or playing corporate whore) with national security. Suddenly if terrorists strike, it is Bush and the Republicans who are going to be in the hot seat because they put corporations over the safety of the American people (or so it would look, according to the Republicans, who like to pretend our existing laws aren't good enough). I think there is a much smaller chance of Bush letting a terrorist attack slip past if the guilt could easily be pinned on him. If that is what Obama had planned all along, he is brilliant.
Anyway, I will be on the lookout for any other hints that McCain, Bush or any other Republicans are alluding to a future terrorist attack. If such an attack does occur, it better be quickly investigated to discover whether or not the Bush administration had any warning. Let's just leave it at that for now, if the worst should happen, be suspecious, but nothing is a coincidence with these people, and nothing is sacred, just look at the war in Iraq waged for corporate profits that has led to the deaths of many more Americans than died on 9/11, you can't tell me that they wouldn't sacrifice a couple hundred or a couple thousand more Americans to change their political prospects around.
Oh yeah, and for those who don't recall Charlie Black, here is a refresher:
Barack Obama welcomes a debate about terrorism with John McCain, who has fully supported the Bush policies that have taken our eye off of al Qaeda, failed to bring Osama bin Laden to justice, and made us less safe. The fact that John McCain's top advisor says that a terrorist attack on American soil would be a 'big advantage' for their political campaign is a complete disgrace, and is exactly the kind of politics that needs to change. Barack Obama will turn the page on these failed policies and this cynical and divisive brand of politics so that we can unite this nation around a common purpose to finish the fight against al Qaeda.
Notice they begin with saying that Obama welcomes a debate over national security with McCain, perhaps to hit back at the beginning of the offending quote that asserted that McCain wins on national security. Obama has made it clear throughout this campaign that he will not shy away from the national security or foreign policy debate like other Democrats have because he knows how to fight back, and he has the facts on his side. In other words, bring it on.
Update #2: I should also point out, as the Obama campaign has, that McCain said something similar about benefiting politically from tragedy. Following the tragic assassination of Benazir Bhutto:
In an interview with reporters after the event, McCain said, "I would hate for this tragedy to affect anyone's campaign." But he was quick to add that "my theme throughout this campaign has been that I'm the one with the experience, the knowledge, and the judgment. Perhaps it may serve to enhance those credentials."
This is not insignificant, because it shows that McCain looks to major tragic events, like a political assassination or a terrorist attack as something that would help him politically by giving him an opportunity to "enhance" his "credentials" (read: fearmonger and pretend he doesn't have a horrible record on national security and foreign policy).
Today Obama hit back hard against McCain and Giuliani's weak attacks on his policy of actually focusing on fighting terrorists while still respecting the Constitution and the values our country were founded on. You see, McCain and Giuliani (and Bush) would rather violate the Constitution, international law and American values while completely failing to catch Osama bin Laden or make America any safer. That's the kind of policy they feel they can get behind. Obama wasn't having it:
I refuse to be lectured on national security by people who are responsible for the most disastrous set of foreign policy decisions in the recent history of the United States. The other side likes to use 9/11 as a political bludgeon. Well, let's talk about 9/11.
The people who were responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have not been brought to justice. They are Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and their sponsors -- the Taliban. They were in Afghanistan. And yet George Bush and John McCain decided in 2002 that we should take our eye off of Afghanistan so that we could invade and occupy a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. The case for war in Iraq was so thin that George Bush and John McCain had to hype the threat of Saddam Hussein, and make false promises that we'd be greeted as liberators. They misled the American people, and took us into a misguided war.
Here are the results of their policy. Osama bin Laden and his top leadership -- the people who murdered 3000 Americans -- have a safe-haven in northwest Pakistan, where they operate with such freedom of action that they can still put out hate-filled audiotapes to the outside world. That's the result of the Bush-McCain approach to the war on terrorism.
Talk about a cold hard slap of reality.
It is funny that the Republicans actually came into this election thinking they could use the same tired old attacks against Obama that they used against Kerry, even after they failed to save them in 2006. Americans are on to their games now, and Obama isn't going to roll over like they were hoping. Instead, he knows how to hit back and hit back hard, and they never saw it coming. Now the only question is how long til they realize they are losing the national security fight and stop coming back for more abuse.
Oh yeah, legal scholars (other than Obama, who taught Constitutional law for over 10 years so I think it is safe to say he knows the Constitution a bit better than McCain or Giuliani) find Bush/McCain/Giuliani's attacks absolutely baseless, for the reasons I've already laid out:
"I have not doubt that there would be no problem establishing an evidentiary basis to hold Osama bin Laden," said adviser Greg Craig. Added Rep. Adam Smith: "Do Rudy Giuliani and others really think a court would look at Osama bin Laden and say you have no legal reason to hold him?"
Indeed, legal scholars are equally baffled at the argument that Supreme Court's recent decision hinders the broader war on terror.
"It would not mean that Osama bin Laden would be released," said David Cole, a professor at Georgetown University's law school. "It would simply mean that the government would have to justify his detention under the rule of law. And as Colin Powell himself said when the subject came up of closing Guantanamo and bringing people to the U.S... 'We should have no fear of justifying their detentions'... The right recognized by the Supreme Court is a fundamental one. It is only the right to go to court, it is not the right to be released unless the court concludes that there is no legal authority to continue to be detained. The whole argument that we wouldn't have a justification to keep Osama bin Laden legally detained is delusional."
Once again, we have seen that Senator Obama is a perfect manifestation of a September 10th mindset. If Senator Obama did receive that 3 A.M. call, his response would be to call the lawyers in the Justice Department.
Throughout this campaign, I have been very concerned that the Democrats want to take a step back to the failed policies that treated terrorism solely as a law enforcement matter rather than a clear and present danger. Barack Obama appears to believe that terrorists should be treated like criminals -- a belief that underscores his fundamental lack of judgment regarding our national security.
See, Rudy "9/11 9/11 9/11" Giuliani seems to lack a fundamental understanding of what "justice" means. First, we have a little saying in this country, I don't know if you've heard it, "Innocent until proven guilty"? It is pretty central to our system of law, and to fundamental protections of people from the tyranny of an unrestrained abusive government. You see, included in with the terrorists held by the United States, there are MANY people who aren't guilty of any crimes or wrongdoing. There have been MANY instances of people being abducted by the US military by mistake, or on false intelligence, or just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time while Arab. These people have been held for years without any justification, they have been tortured, and the US government didn't even have to accuse them of any wrongdoing, or provide any evidence that they did anything wrong, all the US government had to do was say "We say you are bad, so you are bad, and now you have no rights and we can do whatever we want with you for as long as we want because as long as we say you are bad, you don't exist to the outside world." So, Rudy (and McCain/Bush), this isn't about "terrorists", because all of the people who have been denied any right to challenge their unlawful imprisonment weren't terrorists. There are innocent people there, and we can see this plainly because after months or years of confinement and torture/abuse, many have been released without charge. Those weren't terrorists (although some probably became terrorists soon after out of revenge for their mistreatment). So yes, these people should be treated not like criminals, but like human beings, and we have no right to hold these people indefinitely without justification.
Now what McCain and Giuliani don't want voters to understand is that if the government actually has a reason to hold these people (in other words if they are actually terrorists), then their detention will be seen as lawful, and they will have to stay to face trial. The only people who this decision will help are the innocent people that the US government has no reason, and no right, to hold. The logic here is simple, if you have evidence against people, use it and give them a fair trial, and if the evidence indeed shows that they are guilty, then they will be proven guilty and can be locked up accordingly. If you don't have any evidence which would suggest these people have done anything wrong, and thus have no reason to be holding them, you should have to admit as much and let them on their ways, because holding innocent people for years for no reason, while abusing them, is NOT HOW AMERICA SHOULD ACT!
Giuliani and McCain also doesn't seem to understand what these unconstitutional and immoral arbitrary detentions and torture are doing to the image of America overseas, especially in the Arab world. People around the world, correctly, see the US acting as a tyrannical dictator, above the law, above remorse, above morality--because that is what we are acting like, that is the behavior that Bush/McCain/Giuliani are defending, and blasting Obama for not supporting, even though such behavior just fuels anti-American sentiment and terrorist recruitment and makes us all less safe. And apparently living up to the values of our Founding Fathers and the US Constitution is a "September 10th mindset"; in the post 9/11 world the US government plays the role of terrorist and dictator and rules with an iron, and incredibly counter-productive, fist. That's the Republican way.
Richard Clarke, counter-terrorism specialist most notable for warning the Bush administration of intelligence that predicted the September 11th attacks, and then subsequently being ignored by the Bush administration which then allowed 9/11 to happen, hit back at McCain/Giuliani and defended Obama:
"I'm frankly disgusted at my friends on the McCain campaign," Clarke said, perhaps being a bit optimistic in describing those folks as still being "friends" of his. Clark referred to the McCain camp's claim that Dems only favor a law enforcement approach to terrorism, and accused McCain advisers of "completely and utterly distorting the record of that party."
"They said that about Bill Clinton," Clarke continued. "They said that about John Kerry. And now they're saying it about Barack Obama. I'd like them to show where in the record Barack Obama has favored only a law enforcement approach."
The Obama camp hastily assembled the call after the news spread this morning about the McCain camp's attacks.
Clarke emphasized that Obama has unveiled a comprehensive anti-terror plan and has said that he would be willing to act on actionable intelligence to pursue Al Qaeda suspects in Pakistan. "This is the Karl Rove strategy of taking what the truth is, and stating the opposite," Clarke said of the McCain team's charges.
This is just pointing out the obvious, that just because Obama supports the US government following the Constitution instead of locking people up without cause and torturing them like a third world dictatorship, that doesn't mean that is his ONLY recourse against terrorism. Bush/McCain/Giuliani and the rest of the Republicans, as usual, are trying to play the voters for fools by distorting Obama's policies. In reality Obama has a much more intelligent and developed counter-terrorism plan than the Republicans have, and now that you mention it, it doesn't seem like the Republicans' plan has worked all that well...what ever happened to Osama bin Laden anyway...? Let's ask Obama:
Sen. Barack Obama rejected accusations from the McCain campaign that he is soft on terrorism on Tuesday, saying that Republicans who have failed to capture Osama bin Laden over the last seven years have little ground to criticize him for supporting some habeas corpus rights for suspects.
"Let's think about this: these are the same guys who helped engineer the distraction of the war in Iraq at a time when we could have pinned down the people who actually committed 9-11," Obama told reporters on his campaign plane. He said his statements about Guantanamo were intended to suggest that suspects have a right to be heard, not freed, and accused McCain of playing political games on national security.
"What they're trying to do us what they've done every election cycle, which is to use terrorism as a club to make the American people afraid," Obama said.
Reminded that the Republican playbook worked in the 2004 presidential race, Obama countered: "Well, it's 2008."
"I'm looking forward to having a robust argument about this issue," he said. "I don't shy away from it. The way these issues have been framed have done a great disservice to America. They have not made us safer."
Oh yeah, that's right, the Republicans are defending failed positions that have left us more hated and less safe than ever! And they actually think that attacking Democrats on foreign policy and national security is a good idea, even though it failed miserably in 2006! So sad, the same tired old tricks from 2004, after 7 years of miserable failure. What it is that they say...?
Update: A nice catch by TPM. After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the convictions for it in 1994, Rudy Giuliani had this to say about using legal (as opposed to illegal) means to combat terrorism:
Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani declared that the verdict "demonstrates that New Yorkers won't meet violence with violence, but with a far greater weapon -- the law."
Now isn't that interesting? Giuliani is running around saying we have to break the Constitution and violate the most sacred tenets of our justice system and American values to effectively fight terrorism, yet back in the 90s he said that the law was our greatest weapon in the fight against terrorism. Hmmmm. Yes, those terrorists are behind bars now, whereas with the Bush/McCain/Giuliani08 policies, we can't get anyone convicted of terrorism because we have so little evidence and we used torture to get unreliable information that would never hold up in court.
Update #2: Senator Biden, who has a lot of foreign policy experience, hit Giuliani over his new spokesperson role, and McCain over his support of Bush's failed policies, and he hit both nails squarely on their heads:
It's no surprise that it takes a man with zero national security and foreign policy experience to defend the policies of John McCain and President Bush.
Sen. McCain insists that Americans must choose between our values and our security. That's exactly wrong. Our values reinforce our security. Our failure to live up to them has been Al Qaeda's biggest recruiting tool.
It was Lehman who, during a Sept. 11 Commission hearing in NY City, took the Giuliani administration to task for the failure to have effective radio communications in place on Sept. 11, leading to chaos.
"I think the command and control and communications of this city's public service is a scandal," Lehman said at the time. In his most memorable quip, he said the city's disaster-response plans were "not worthy of the Boy Scouts, let alone this great city."
Funny how McCain is trying to turn Giuliani into a leading surrogate on national security now, even though his own advisors acknowledge he was asleep at the wheel when 9/11 happened.
While our military is stuck in a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and no connection to al-Qaeda, being overstretched and unable to fight the actual terrorists, 870-1000+ inmates, including nearly 400 Taliban members, were freed by the Taliban in Afghanistan in a huge prison break, leaving the troops there shocked and unprepared. Nice work.
Of course it is hard to say how many of these people had actually committed crimes, or were terrorists, because it seems the vast majority of people we lock up (notice the "inmates", not necessarily convicts because they haven't necessarily been convicted of anything, or even tried) aren't actually criminals. Needless to say, I'm sure some bad guys got away, and will go back to fighting against the occupation there.
Maybe if he hadn't taken our eye of the real threats by invading Iraq we'd have Afghanistan cleaned up by now and Osama bin Laden would have been captured or killed by now, and al-Qaeda wouldn't be just as strong as it was before 9/11, 7 years later. Instead, we have this.
We all know John McCain doesn't know much about what is going on in Iraq or Iran, or Cuba, or America, or anywhere else. Sadly enough though, he apparently doesn't even know what is going on in the Senate, where is supposedly works. Even worse, McCain doesn't know what is going on in the Senate, concerning big changes in US foreign policy, toward Iran, which he has been attacking Obama over. Oh, and the big legislation he doesn't know about? It just happens to be Obama's legislation. Here is the scoop from the Huffington Post:
That trip-up [McCain's Katrina lie earlier today], however, was mild in compared to the gaffe that happened earlier in the day, when McCain acknowledged he was not aware that Obama had introduced a bill that called for international divestment from Iran.
Reporter: Are you familiar with his disinvestment bill?
McCain: No, I am not familiar with it at all. I do not know if it passed the senate or had any hearing or anything else. I had, so, literally thousands and thousands pieces of legislation are proposed every year. I know what he did. He voted against the Iranian revolutionary guard being declared a terrorist organization.*
The admission could prove damaging for a variety of reasons. For starters, Obama's bill, which passed overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives, is currently being held up in the Senate by Republican Sen. Richard Shelby. More significantly, two McCain surrogates, Sen. Joseph Lieberman and Rep. Eric Cantor, are co-sponsors of Obama's measure despite, on Wednesday, ripping the Illinois Democrat for not having the experience to deal with Iran.
Hm, so Obama supposedly doesn't know anything about Iraq, but he is actually leading on US foreign policy toward Iran, and McCain is the one who doesn't know anything about it, even though it is being considered by the place he supposedly works. Although, it makes sense that he wouldn't be aware of what is going on there, since he has managed to miss more votes during this campaign than any other candidate, this despite the fact his nomination was wrapped up months earlier than the Democrats.
I'm obviously going to need to come up with a term to encompass all of McCain's gaffes/lies/ignorance, because he essentially messes up at least once a day.
*Note: Obama's opposition to the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, which labeled Iran's Revolutionary Guard (part of its official military) as a terrorist organization is actually a good thing. Using the rationale McCain employed in supporting that amendment, the United States military would be a terrorist organization, indeed it would be a MUCH MUCH MUCH bigger terrorist organization that Iran (they actually have no evidence of Iran committing any acts of terrorism, or even aggression), or al-Qaeda, or any other terrorist organization in the world. The same goes for Israel's military. The precedent it sets is incredibly dangerous, and reckless.
American politicians generally make a point of not attacking fellow Americans while overseas on diplomatic trips. In fact it is quite frowned upon, for obvious reasons, pretty unusual and taboo. Well leave it to Bush to not rest on tradition. While delivering an address yesterday before the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, commemorating the 60th anniversary of Israel, President Bush said that Sen. Barack Obama and Democrats favor a policy of appeasement toward terrorists, simply because Obama, like many foreign policy experts, believes that diplomacy is a sign on strength, and we can only make progress if we will engage our enemies as well as our allies. CNN reported that Bush compared Obama to "other U.S. leaders back in the run-up to World War II who appeased the Nazis" for his willingness to actually talk to leaders we disagree with (something Bush has strongly opposed for almost 8 years, and look how great that worked out). Bush wasn’t the first person to attack Obama for this, that honor goes to Hillary Clinton, in what was basically the first negative attack of the Democratic primary (fittingly it came from her), when Obama first stated that he would be willing to meet with foreign leaders who don’t agree with us, and Hillary attacked him as naïve and inexperienced, even though his position made absolute sense. Obama didn’t back down, and many foreign policy experts agreed with Obama’s policy of strength through diplomacy. Hillary eventually quieted her attacks on that topic after it became obvious she was on the wrong side of that argument, but Bush apparently thought it was a good one (not the first or the last time Hillary and Republicans will share talking points), so he fired this off yesterday in front of the Israeli Parliament:
Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.
Okay, so I’m going to ignore the fact that Bush just quoted Republican Senator William Edgar Borah there, and move on to point out that diplomacy, talking to your enemies, is not appeasement, and that is not what emboldened Hitler during the events running up to the start of the Second World War. This is something Republicans, ever fond of talking out their asses, don’t seem to understand, as Chris Matthews showed amazingly well last night when he put a right-wing radio host in his place after he spouted a bunch of ignorant nonsense:
That was probably one of the greatest things I’ve seen since:
Anyway, then, not surprisingly, McCain jumps on board:
Asked if he thought Mr. Obama was an appeaser — the Democratic candidate has said he would be willing to meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran — Mr. McCain sidestepped and said, "I think that Barack Obama needs to explain why he wants to sit down and talk with a man who is the head of a government that is a state sponsor of terrorism, that is responsible for the killing of brave young Americans, that wants to wipe Israel off the map, who denies the Holocaust. That’s what I think Senator Obama ought to explain to the American people.'’
Now it cannot be denied that Ahmadinejad is an unsavory character, but the US government has offered no evidence that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, or responsible for killing Americans. In 2007 the Republicans (and hawkish Democrats like Hillary) took the unprecedented step of labeling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, a branch of a foreign government’s standing army (focused on homeland security and defense), a terrorist organization, again, with no evidence to back that up. But that doesn’t make it true, you still need facts to back that claim up, especially such a serious claim. And I have to say that if the use of force by militaries of sovereign countries can now be interpreted as terrorism (as it should, when they actually do harm, war is terrorism), the United States, and to a lesser extent Israel, would be the largest terrorist organizations operating in the world, by the logic of McCain, Bush, the Republicans and hawkish Democrats like Hillary. That is why their throwing around the term terrorism like that was unprecedented, and very unwise—which actually makes Hillary’s (and the Republican’s) positions on foreign policy extremely reckless, irresponsible and ignorant—not Obama’s.
Oh yeah, and then you have McCain two years ago, sounding more like Jimmy Carter than George Bush, saying that we need to negotiate with Hamas, because they represent the Palestinians and we have to deal with the realities of the situation if we want to solve anything, thus proving that the Clintons don’t have a monopoly on hypocrisy and doublespeak after all:
Q: "Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?"
McCAIN: "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."
And then we had former Democrat Joe Lieberman, the GOP’s favorite puppet and McCain’s top cheerleader adding to the pile on against Obama:
President Bush got it exactly right today when he warned about the threat of Iran and its terrorist proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah. It is imperative that we reject the flawed and naïve thinking that denies or dismisses the words of extremists and terrorists when they shout "Death to America" and "Death to Israel," and that holds that — if only we were to sit down and negotiate with these killers — they would cease to threaten us. It is critical to our national security that our commander-in-chief is able to distinguish between America’s friends and America’s enemies, and not confuse the two.
Again, we see that the preferred method of conflict resolution from conservatives is bloodshed before diplomacy. Why try to resolve conflicts peacefully when you can fight til the last one standing, which is essentially what they are all advocating. If they didn’t fight til the last man (or woman or child) was standing, then that would mean that at some point the fighting would end is a cease fire, and they would come together and talk to make peace, which is exactly what they are saying cannot happen. Ceasefires are tools of the weak for McCain and the rest of the hawks, so it wouldn’t make any sense to ever cease fighting, because if you eventually have to stop and make peace through diplomacy, there would have been absolutely no reason to not try diplomacy first, you know, before thousands or millions of civilians were slaughtered, maimed and displaced.
So Obama fired back at Bush, specifically on the issue of engagement with actual terrorists:
It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.
And then Obama’s Democratic posse, which has been coalescing around him since his wins in North Carolina and Indiana got his back, first Senator Biden, with color:
This is bullshit, this is malarkey. This is outrageous, for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, to sit in the Knesset . . . and make this kind of ridiculous statement.
He is the guy who has weakened us. He has increased the number of terrorists in the world. It is his policies that have produced this vulnerability that the U.S. has. It’s his [own] intelligence community [that] has pointed this out, not me.
Well said. Next, Speaker Pelosi went after Bush’s choice of venue, and took a shot at McCain:
We have a protocol, sort of a custom, informally around here that we don't criticize the president when he is on foreign soil. One would think that that would apply to the president that he would not criticize Americans when he is on foreign soil.
I think what the president said in that regard is beneath the dignity of the office of the president and unworthy of our representation at that observance in Israel.
I would hope that any serious person would disassociate himself from the president's remarks who aspires to leadership in our country.
And then Senator Kerry added his criticism:
What an irony to have the current president in Israel blasting Democrats from the Knesset when his policies have actually seen al-Qaeda get strengthened, they've seen al-Qaeda be reconstructed, they've seen Hezbollah get stronger, they've seen Hamas get stronger, Israel more threatened, Iran is stronger and Iraq is in chaos. This is a disgraceful statement by the president ... He ought to apologize to the American people for going to Israel and using the Knesset and the celebration of the 60th anniversary of a state and a people that we all support and that we're all proud of and using it for politics.
Then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid:
Not surprisingly, the engineer of the worst foreign policy in our nation's history has fired yet another reckless and reprehensible round. More than seven years into his Presidency and in the sixth year of the directionless Iraq war, President Bush has yet to learn that his brand of divisive partisan rhetoric is precisely what has made America and our allies less secure. And for the President to make this statement before the government of our closest ally as it celebrates a remarkable milestone demeans this historic moment with partisan politics.
And Howard Dean rounds out the Democratic leadership by going after McCain:
On the same day John McCain is talking about putting partisanship aside, the President launched a cheap political attack while on a state visit honoring the 60th anniversary of Israel, one of America's greatest allies. Bush's outrageous comments are an embarrassment to our country, not based in fact and bring us no closer to our goal of ending terrorist attacks against Israel and bringing peace to the region. If John McCain is really serious about being a different kind of Republican, he'll denounce these remarks in the strongest terms possible.
But of course we know he didn’t denounce them, he parroted them, and then his parrot in turn played the echo chamber. And amazingly enough, Hillary came to the defense of Obama and Democrats for a change, even though she was the first one to raise similar right-wing attacks:
President Bush’s comparison of any Democrat to Nazi appeasers is both offensive and outrageous on the face of it, especially in light of his failures in foreign policy. This is the kind of statement that has no place in any presidential address and certainly to use an important moment like the 60th anniversary celebration of Israel to make a political point seems terribly misplaced. Unfortunately, this is what we’ve come to expect from President Bush.
I applaud her for that, and for not adding "Obama isn’t a Nazi appeaser or terrorist, as far as I know" at the end.
In the end it was a good exchange, because it highlighted how very wrong the Republicans are on foreign policy, like everything else, and it was an occasion for the biggest show of Party unity from the Democrats in quite some time. If we keep our eye on the prize and everything in perspective, we can do some great things come November and beyond. All this gives me hope.
Note: Word on the street is that Obama will "respond forcefully" to Bush today in a speech.
Update: And here is Obama's response:
This is where it is a very good thing that our candidate didn't vote for the war, or vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. He couldn't go after Bush, McCain and the Republicans nearly as effectively if he was complicit in their worst mistakes.
Update #2: McCain responds with his characteristic distortions:
Earlier today, Sen. Obama made a few remarks I would like to respond to. I welcome a debate about protecting America. No issue is more important. Sen. Obama claimed all I had to offer was the ‘naive and irresponsible belief’ that tough talk would cause Iran to give up its nuclear program. He should know better. I have some news for Sen. Obama: Talking, not even with soaring rhetoric, in unconditional meetings with the man who calls Israel a ‘stinking corpse’ and arms terrorists who kill Americans will not convince Iran to give up its nuclear program. It is reckless to suggest that unconditional meetings will advance our interests.
It would be a wonderful thing if we lived in a world where we don't have enemies. But that is not the world we live in, and until Sen. Obama understands that reality, the American people have every reason to doubt whether he has the strength, judgment and determination to keep us safe.
And Obama responds with a complete smackdown:
What's reckless is continuing the Bush-McCain foreign policy that has cost us thousands of lives and a trillion dollars in Iraq, strengthened Iran, enabled Hamas to take Gaza, took our eye off al Qaeda, failed to capture Osama bin Laden, failed to finish the job in Afghanistan, and left us less safe and less respected in the world. No amount of utterly predictable fear-mongering and tough talk can change the fact that John McCain is running to continue the most disastrous foreign policy in recent American history.
BAM!! I suggest McCain take the rest of the weekend off to recover from that verbal lashing. He'll need to be nice and rested for his next dose.
On The Countdown last night, Keith Olbermann straight up eviscerated Bush over a recent interview in which he lied about the administrations distortions of the intelligence and their campaign to lead a deceived nation to war. He also lambasted Bush for his comments that he gave up golf out of respect to the soldiers who have died in Iraq, and then goes on to prove that Bush had lied, and was photographed golfing just a few months later. An understandably outraged Olbermann closed with telling Bush to "shut the hell up." Definitely not something you want to miss:
Update (5/15): Olbermann follows up on the "giving up golf" lie, here.
So here was McCain a few days ago trying to link Obama with the goals of Hamas, and "terrorists" in general, because according to McCain "terrorists" want Obama to win because he would supposedly engage in foreign policy more beneficial to them (don't mention the fact that the vast majority of people in nearly every country wants Obama to win and the Republicans to lose):
Barack Obama's foreign policy plans have even won him praise from Hamas leaders. Ahmed Yousef, chief political adviser to the Hamas Prime Minister said, "We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election. He has a vision to change America."
We need change in America, but not the kind of change that wins kind words from Hamas, surrenders in Iraq and will hold unconditional talks with Iranian President Ahmadinejad.
And here was Obama's response:
And here is McCain yesterday backsliding away from his comments:
It's very obvious to everyone that Senator Obama shares nothing of the values or goals of Hamas, which is a terrorist organization. But it's also fact that a spokesperson from Hamas said that he approves of Obama's candidacy. I think that's of interest to the American people.
[...]
Every issue that the American people want to be an issue, if it's part of their discussions, it's fine with me, it's fine with me. Just as the Rev. Wright’s remarks. I don’t believe that Sen. Obama shares his views in any way, but he has said it’s a legitimate topic of discussion. If that’s what the American people want to discuss, that’s fine.
So now that McCain and the Republicans have tried for days to connect Obama with being friendly with terrorists, now McCain says "well of course I know he isn't pro-terrorist and doesn't share the values or goals of Hamas, and I wouldn't bring it up, but its the voters that are making me do it!" Just like with Rev. Wright apparently. Funny, I don't remember the voters clamoring to associate Obama with Hamas, or the voters clamoring to associate Obama's former pastors comments with Obama, it was the media, the Republicans, and at times Hillary that pushed this. But now McCain is pulling a Hillary and putting the blame on the people, as if voters actually think Obama would be weak on terrorists, and as if people really don't want to be distracted with the issues that actually matter to them. Classic Republican bullshit.
To McCain's credit, at least he didn't say "Obama doesn't share the values and goals of Hamas, as far as I know."
[Right before Halloween last year, David Horowitz, rabid anti-intellectual neoconservative scumbag, declared that it was Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week. I was of course depressed that such a week only came once per year, but apparently it comes many times a year, because it is here yet again! I really would have liked some warning, as I haven't had time to run up to the attic to get down my decorations yet! I'm very embarrassed, I don't want to be the only house on the street unadorned with bigoted and misogynistic propaganda! For those scratching your heads wondering what this magical time(s) of year is all about, here is a quick breakdown from The Nation, circa last October's IFAW, enjoy:]
I've never been able to explain Halloween to the kids, with its odd thematic confluence of pumpkins, candy and death. But Halloween is a piece of pumpkin cake compared to Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, which commences today. In this special week, organized by conservative pundit David Horowitz, we have a veritable witches' brew of Cheney-style anti-jihadism mixed in with old-fashioned, right-wing anti-feminism and a sour dash of anti-Semitism.
A major purpose of this week is to wake up academic women to the threat posed by militant jihadism. According to the Week's website, feminists and particularly the women's studies professors among them, have developed a masochistic fondness for Islamic fundamentalists. Hence, as anti-Islamo-Fascist speakers fan out to the nation's campuses this week, students are urged to stage "sit-ins in Women's Studies Departments and campus Women's Centers to protest their silence about the oppression of women in Islam."
Leaving aside the obvious quibbles about feminist pro-jihadism and the term "Islamo-Fascism," which seems largely designed to give jihadism a nice familiar World War II ring, the klaxons didn't go off for me until I skimmed down the list of Islamo-Fascist Awareness Week speakers and found, incredibly enough, Ann Coulter, whom I last caught on TV pining for the repeal of women's suffrage. "If we took away women's right to vote," she said wistfully, "We'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream; it's a personal fantasy of mine."
Coulter is not the only speaker on the list who may have a credibility problem when it comes to opposing oppression of women in Islam or anywhere else. Another participant in the week's events is former Senator Rick Santorum, whose book, It Takes a Family blamed "radical feminism" for pushing women into the workforce and thus destroying the American family. A 2005 column on that book in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, began with: "Women of America, I hope you look good in a burqa. If Senator Rick Santorum,R-PA, has his way, we will all be wearing the burqas discarded by our recently liberated sisters in Afghanistan..." (This was the before the Taliban re-emerged.)
Not quite in the burqa-promoting league, but close, is another official speaker for the week, Christina Hoff Sommers, who has made her name attacking feminism for exaggerating the problem of domestic violence and eliminating opportunities for boys. These are the people who are going to save us from purdah?
Another disagreeable feature of jihadism--anti-Semitism--is also represented on the list of speakers for Islamo-Fascist Awareness Week, again by the multi-faceted Coulter. Just last week on CNBC, she referred to America as a "Christian nation." Asked where this left the Jews (not to mention the Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans and atheists), she said they could be "perfected" by converting to Christianity.
You might imagine that this view of Jews as "imperfect" would bother Horowitz, who is famously alert to any hint of anti-Semitism on the left. But no, he defends Coulter, writing that "If you don't accompany this belief by burning Jews who refuse to become perfected at the stake why would any Jew have a problem?" Sure, David and if that's the threshold for intolerance, Osama bin Laden could probably win an award for humanitarianism.
Maybe none of this should be surprising. When Mel Gibson, who is not known to be a member of the Hollywood left, unleashed a drunken anti-Semitic tirade on his arresting officers, Horowitz also rose to his defense, arguing that ensuing outrage reflected a "hatred"--not of anti-Semites but of Christians.
As for the anti-feminism of Islamo-Fascist Awareness Week: This fits in neatly with the thesis of Susan Faludi's brilliant new book, The Terror Dream: Fear and Fantasy in Post-9/11 America. She shows that, in the wake of an attack by the ultra-misogynist Al Qaeda, Americans perversely engaged in an anti-feminist campaign of their own, calling for an immediate restoration of traditional gender roles. Coulter was part of that backlash, opining in 2002 that "feminists hate guns because guns remind them of men."
Before you put on your costumes to celebrate Islamo-Fascist Awareness Week, let me set the record straight. American feminists do not condone, defend, or ignore jihadist misogyny. In fact, we were warning about it well before Washington turned against the Taliban and have been consistently appalled by the gender dictatorships of Saudi Arabia and Iran.
But if the facts don't fit in with Islamo-Fascist Awareness, they have to go. For example, in a May '07 column in The Weekly Standard Christina Hoff Sommers listed me as one of the "feckless" feminists who refuse "to pass judgment on non-Western cultures." What? If Sommers had even done ten minutes of research she would have noticed, among other things, a column I wrote in the New York Times in 2004 stating that Islamic fundamentalism aims to push one-half of the Muslim world--the female half--"down to a status only slightly above that of domestic animals."
Yes, feminists tend to hate war and sometimes even guns and this may be why Horowitz and company hate us. They should know, though, that we especially hate a war that seems calculated to inflame Islamic fundamentalism worldwide. If many Muslim women around the world willingly don head scarves today, it's in part because our war in Iraq has, tragically, pushed them to value religious solidarity above their feminist instincts.
Or maybe I'm missing the point of Islamo-Fascist Awareness Week. Maybe it's really an effort to show that our own American anti-feminists (and anti-Semites) are just as nasty as the ones on the other side. If so, good job, guys! No need to continue with the trick-or-treating, you've already made your point.
[Update: Please come by and celebrate at DailyKos!]
If you want to see the actual context of Rev. Wright's comments, instead of just the cherrypicked versions the media is forcing down everyone's throats, you can watch them here:
The second video shows how his "chickens coming home to roost" comment actually comes from the comments of a US ambassador, which he then relates to a lesson from the Bible, not nearly as shocking when it isn't being distorted by the media.
Yes, he speaks rather flamboyantly, but in reality his comments weren't all that out there if you look at the substance. His comments were born out of frustration and a personal understanding of racism and history in our country, something that most people want to pretend doesn't exist and doesn't matter anymore. And to use one example, his condemnation of our foreign policy and drawing the link between our foreign policy and 9/11, what is most amazing is that so many people were shocked by his statements (even if taken out of context), that somehow drawing the link between our foreign policy and 9/11 is taboo, despite bin Laden flat out saying that our foreign policy as the reason for terrorist attacks against Americans. We are so caught up with Bush's rhetoric about terrorists hating "our freedom" and "our democracy" that to mention the obvious facts of our past and current involvement in the Middle East (and around the world) is somehow sacrilege. We have employed terrorism and backed ruthless dictators all over the world, at least he is pointing out the real reasons for anti-Americanism, albeit in a somewhat sensationalized manner, instead of white fundamentalist Christian hacks like Pat Robertson who say that the blame for 9/11 falls on homosexuals, feminists and not having enough prayer in schools.
Now on his comments about the government's involvement with spreading AIDS I think people should be a little more historically open minded. But first, let's actually look at the context of his comment:
This government lied about their belief that all men were created equal. The truth is they believed that all white men were created equal. The truth is they did not even believe that white women were created equal, in creation nor civilization. The government had to pass an amendment to the Constitution to get white women the vote. Then the government had to pass an equal rights amendment to get equal protection under the law for women. The government still thinks a woman has no rights over her own body, and between Uncle Clarence (Thomas), who sexually harassed Anita Hill, and a closeted Klan court, that is a throwback to the 19th century, handpicked by Daddy Bush, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, between Clarence and that stacked court, they are about to un-do Roe vs. Wade, just like they are about to un-do affirmative action. The government lied in its founding documents and the government is still lying today. Governments lie.
The government lied about Pearl Harbor. They knew the Japanese were going to attack. Governments lie. The government lied about the Gulf of Tonkin. They wanted that resolution to get us in the Vietnam War.Governments lie.
The government lied about Nelson Mandela and our CIA helped put him in prison and keep him there for 27 years. The South African government lied on Nelson Mandela. Governments lie.
The government lied about the Tuskegee experiment. They purposely infected African American men with syphilis. Governments lie. The government lied about bombing Cambodia and Richard Nixon stood in front of the camera, ‘Let me make myself perfectly clear…’ Governments lie.
The government lied about the drugs for arms Contra scheme orchestrated by Oliver North, and then the government pardoned all the perpetrators so they could get better jobs in the government. Governments lie.
The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. Governments lie. The government lied about a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein and a connection between 9.11.01 and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Governments lie.
The government lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq being a threat to the United States peace. And guess what else? If they don’t find them some weapons of mass destruction, they gonna do just like the LAPD, and plant the some weapons of mass destruction. Governments lie.
Now I'm not offering a blanket endorsement of Wright's views on every subject, but in his examples here he is absolutely right. His point in this sermon was that governments lie to citizens from time to time, which was undoubtably part of a larger point which was to show that God is more perfect and honest than government, that people should put their trust in God. Now whether or not you believe in God, or gods, or the Tooth Fairy, you should be able to see that this wasn't the paranoid rant Fox News and the rest of the media (and Hillary) made it out to be.
And in response to the AIDS comment specifically I can certainly understand suspicion in the black community toward the government when it comes to diseases. At the time Wright was forming his worldview it was revealed that the US government was involved in unethical medical experiments on blacks where they denied the black subjects cures for syphilis--the US government was essentially using blacks as lab rats. Our government has used smallpox to help eradicate Native Americans. As recently as a few decades ago our government was funding research on torture on unwilling participants (MKULTRA), and we are currently torturing people today. On top of that, the original source of HIV/AIDS is still disputed, and one of the theories involves it being spread in Africa through polio vaccinations with US government funding, which I'm assuming is what Rev. Wright was referring to. Now I have no idea what the truth is (as I haven't studied the subject extensively), but given the history, and the unanswered questions, I don't think it is all that crazy for some people to think something like that is a possibility. I personally wouldn't make the claim without having some good evidence (and there have been books written on this, which I haven't read, so I can't say whether or not the evidence is conclusive), but I know, as does Wright, that our government has done very immoral, very horrible and unethical things, so it is hard to put much past them.
Anyway, I wish I could say that this was all Fox News, but all of the mainstream media is pretty much complicit in spreading this crap story using clips deliberately taken out of context. Of course Fox has taken the lead, especially Sean Hannity.
But hey, I guess that's what happens when the media is so head over heels in love with you. Poor Hillary, it must be so hard to have the media attacking her like this...
Oh...wait...
Update (3/26): Here is another video that goes against the media's (primary lead by Fox News) attempt to paint Rev. Wright and his church as racist, crazy and black separatist. While I find religion pretty silly in general, I at least understand it, and I can at least realize that the flamboyant nature of these sermons aren't as out there as they may seem to some outsiders.
The video contains some examples of "weirder" religious customs, and I'll add another one, close to home for the conservative religious fundamentalists who are leading the attack against Obama. Watch this and tell me who is more out there, who is more sadistic and immoral, the person who correctly points out that US foreign policy has something to do with anti-Americanism and terrorism, or these shameless snakes:
Or let's be outraged by the priests who molest children, and then get little more than a slap on the wrist afterwards. So really, a little perspective and reason is well deserved.
Update (3/26): A pastor at Hillary's longtime church defended Rev. Wright, and specifically in response to Hillary's shameless attempt to revive the fiasco (read: Fox News smearjob) for her political gain:
The Reverend Jeremiah Wright is an outstanding church leader whom I have heard speak a number of times. He has served for decades as a profound voice for justice and inclusion in our society. To evaluate his dynamic ministry on the basis of two or three sound bites does a grave injustice to Dr. Wright, the members of his congregation, and the African-American church which has been the spiritual refuge of a people that has suffered from discrimination, disadvantage, and violence. Dr. Wright, a member of an integrated denomination, has been an agent of racial reconciliation while proclaiming perceptions and truths uncomfortable for some white people to hear. Those of us who are white Americans would do well to listen carefully to Dr. Wright rather than to use a few of his quotes to polarize.
Update (4/7): Watch as The O'Reilly Factor's producer goes out on a witch hunt against Rev. Wright (yes, both Fox News and the Hillary campaign are both pushing this still, beating the dead horse), and watch as Father Pfleger puts him in his place:
It turns out John McCain, Mr. "National Security" himself, doesn't even have the most basic understanding of what is going on in Iraq and the greater Middle East. While on a tour of the Middle East for the last couple days he has made repeated misstatements about Iran, al-Qaeda, and the feuding Sunni and Shiite religious factions:
"Today in Iraq, America and our allies stand on the precipice of winning a major victory against radical Islamic extremism. The security gains over the past year have been dramatic and undeniable. Al Qaeda and Shia extremists -- with support from external powers such as Iran -- are on the run but not defeated."
On Tuesday, the senator, appearing in Israel, made a nearly identical assertion that al-Qaeda was leaving Iraq to retool and regroup in Iran.
It was, he said, "common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known. And it's unfortunate."
Sen. Joseph Lieberman, who was accompanying McCain on the trip, was forced to lean over and whisper in McCain's ear that it was Shiite extremists, not Sunni al-Qaeda, that was going to predominantly Shiite Iran.
Now I don't expect the average blue collar worker to understand the differences between Sunni and Shia, but considering it is virtually impossible to conduct foreign policy in the Middle East without understanding these basic dynamics it definitely calls into question the qualifications of John McCain.
Obama also called McCain on his ignorance:
Just yesterday, we heard Sen. McCain confuse Sunni and Shiite, Iran and Al Qaeda. Maybe that is why he voted to go to war with a country that had no Al Qaeda ties. Maybe that is why he completely fails to understand that the war in Iraq has done more to embolden America's enemies than any strategic choice that we have made in decades.
Why do people keep calling it a "gaffe"? If he's stating something that's flatly wrong three times in two days, it's not a gaffe, it's a talking point.
All recent evidence has indicated that McCain has simply internalized the central Bush lesson of his war: if the facts are against your desired policy, make up new facts and continue on your way. A sufficient percentage of the population will believe it.
McCain didn't get where he is today by being stupid. He did get there, however, by being manipulative when the situation has warranted, by misrepresenting facts when they worked against him, and by knowing which wings of the Republican Party to cozy up to at which times. If he's completely misrepresenting one of the most fundamental facts of the war, there's two possibilities. The first is that he's dumb as a post. Possible, but unlikely.
The second is that, like Bush, he simply isn't interested in letting the facts get in the way of a good speech about the shocking, scary, I'm-holding-a-flashlight-under-my-chin-right now bugaboo of the moment. Since Iraq has turned out to be such a disaster, and since McCain supports Bush's bloody legacy, there's only one rationalization possible to explain why things aren't working out: it must all secretly be Iran's fault.
Third Bush term, indeed.
And yes, if this seems familiar, this is the same question that has repeatedly arisen when discussing Hillary's statements -- is she just ignorant of the truth, or is she purposely trying to deceive voters to get what she wants? Despite her incompetently run campaign, she isn't stupid, so I think it is safe to say both her and McCain (and all Republicans) have deception in common.
Now the scary part: Who is in charge of keeping a terrorist attack from happening now? George W. Bush. The same George W. Bush who ignored warnings about impending terrorist attacks before 9/11, and literally vacationed while he was letting Osama bin Laden strike.
