Thread: Obama: Don't stay in Iraq over genocide

Originally Posted by wabpilot

I don't know that he wants to destroy market capitalism, but with Democrats you always have to suspect their motives. My biggest problem with Obama is his lack of experience. The world is a much more dangerous place than it was eight years ago. Also it is much more polarized. The rise of Russian nationalism, the rise of the Peoples Republic of China and open warfare with radical Islam calls for a much more experienced hand. More experienced than George W. Bush, much more than Senator Obama. Frankly, I don't think Hillary is up to the task either.

The Democrats have a couple of secondary candidates, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden who look capable. The GOP has a big city mayor, a long serving Senator with a real anger management problem, a convincing actor who has been around Washington for a long time, a handsome olympic executive and one time Governor, and some cats and dogs who bark bigger than they bite. I would feel much more confident about the word in general if the GOP settled on Giuliani or Thompson and the Democrats settled on Richardson or Biden. That would tell me the parties are serious about what faces us.

He wants universal, govt-provided health care. That will destroy the health care market. So he's not a capitalist.

As far as who is serious, the Dems haven't been serious about governence in decades.

-dale

Originally Posted by dalem

He wants universal, govt-provided health care. That will destroy the health care market. So he's not a capitalist.

The price of admission to the Democrat primaries is a health care plan. Democrat primary voters seem not to care what the plan says, just so long as it is heavy on detail. If a Democrat gets elected to the Presidency one of his or her first acts will be to toss the health care proposal in the trash. Not because US health care couldn't do with some reform, but because all the reforms ever proposed just make our system worse.

As far as who is serious, the Dems haven't been serious about governence in decades.

-dale

Yeah, the last serious about governance Democrat to find his way to the White House as a resident was LBJ. And that didn't turn out well.

Will

The Jeremiah Wright letter

March 11, 2007

Jodi Kantor
The New York Times
22 9 West 43rd Street
New York, New York 10036-3959

Dear Jodi:

Thank you for engaging in one of the biggest misrepresentations of the truth I have ever seen in sixty-five years. You sat and shared with me for two hours. You told me you were doing a "Spiritual Biography" of Senator Barack Obama. For two hours, I shared with you how I thought he was the most principled individual in public service that I have ever met. For two hours, I talked with you about how idealistic he was. For two hours I shared with you what a genuine human being he was. I told you how incredible he was as a man who was an African American in public service, and as a man who refused to announce his candidacy for President until Carol Moseley Braun indicated one way or the other whether or not she was going to run. I told you what a dreamer he was. I told you how idealistic he was. We talked about how refreshing it would be for someone who knew about Islam to be in the Oval Office. Your own question to me was, Didn't I think it would be incredible to have somebody in the Oval Office who not only knew about Muslims, but had living and breathing Muslims in his own family?

I told you how important it would be to have a man who not only knew the difference between Shiites and Sunnis prior to 9/11/01 in the Oval Office, but also how important it would be to have a man who knew what Sufism was; a man who understood that there were different branches of Judaism; a man who knew the difference between Hasidic Jews, Orthodox Jews, Conservative Jews and Reformed Jews; and a man who was a devout Christian, but who did not prejudge others because they believed something other than what he believed.I talked about how rare it was to meet a man whose Christianity was not just "in word only." I talked about Barack being a person who lived his faith and did not argue his faith. I talked about Barack as a person who did not draw doctrinal lines in the sand nor consign other people to hell if they did not believe what he believed.

Out of a two-hour conversation with you about Barack's spiritual journey and my protesting to you that I had not shaped him nor formed him, that I had not mentored him or made him the man he was, even though I would love to take that credit, you did not print any of that. When I told you, using one of your own Jewish stories from the Hebrew Bible as to how God asked Moses, "What is that in your hand?," that Barack was like that when I met him. Barack had it "in his hand." Barack had in his grasp a uniqueness in terms of his spiritual development that one is hard put to find in the 2 1st century, and you did not print that.

What a surprise. There is definitely a market out here to formalize some aspects of the Kwaku Network. We're better off with it than without it, but really, what does this guy expect? I've been fussing that the black church is in over its head when it starts messing around national politics. Perhaps things will improve. Anyway, there's more...

As I was just starting to say a moment ago, Jodi, out of two hours of conversation I spent approximately five to seven minutes on Barack's taking advice from one of his trusted campaign people and deeming it unwise to make me the media spotlight on the day of his announcing his candidacy for the Presidency and what do you print? You and your editor proceeded to present to the general public a snippet, a printed "sound byte" and a titillating and tantalizing article about his disinviting me to the Invocation on the day of his announcing his candidacy.

I have never been exposed to that kind of duplicitous behavior before, and I want to write you publicly to let you know that I do not approve of it and will not be party to any further smearing of the name, the reputation, the integrity or the character of perhaps this nation's first (and maybe even only) honest candidate offering himself for public service as the person to occupy the Oval Office. Your editor is a sensationalist.

For you to even mention that makes me doubt your credibility, and I am looking forward to see how you are going to butcher what else I had to say concerning Senator Obama's "Spiritual Biography." Our Conference Minister, the Reverend Jane Fisler Hoffman, a white woman who belongs to a Black church that Hannity of "Hannity and Colmes" is trying to trash, set the record straight for you in terms of who I am and in terms of who we are as the church to which Barack has belonged for over twenty years. The president of our denomination, the Reverend John Thomas, has offered to try to help you clarify in your confused head what Trinity Church is — even though you spent the entire weekend with us setting me up to interview me for what turned out to be a smear of the Senator; and yet The New York Times continues to roll on making the truth what it wants to be the truth.

I do not remember reading in your article that Barack had apologized for listening to that bad information and bad advice. Did I miss it? Or did your editor cut it out? Either way, you do not have to worry about hearing anything else from me for you to edit or "spin" because you are more interested in journalism than in truth.

Forgive me for having a momentary lapse. I forgot that The New York Times was leading the bandwagon in trumpeting why it is we should have gone into an illegal war. The New York Times became George Bush and the Republican Party's national "blog." The New York Times played a role in the outing of Valerie Plame. I do not know why I thought The New York Times had actually repented and was going to exhibit a different kind of behavior. Maybe it was my faith in the Jewish Holy Day of Roshashana. Maybe it was my being caught up in the euphoria of the Season of Lent; but whatever it is or was, I was sadly mistaken. There is no repentance on the part of The New York Times. There is no integrity when it comes to The Times. You should do well with that paper, Jodi. You looked me straight in my face and told me a lie!

Sincerely and respectfully yours,
Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. ,
Senior Pastor Trinity United Church of Christ

cc: Jane Fisler Hoffman Conference Minister Illinois Conference United Church of Christ1840 Westchester Blvd, Suite 00Westchester, Illinois 60154
The Reverend John H. Thomas General Minister and President United Church of Christ 700 Prospect Avenue Cleveland, OH 44115
Senator Barack Obama
Jeri Lynne Wright, Media Director
Donna Hammond-Miller, Media

.................................................. ............................................

The events:

1. On Feb. 6, Obama asks his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, to begin Barack's presidential announcement pr event with an invocation

2. Minutes before the event on Feb. 11 '07, Obama "disinvites" the Reverend.

3. A sorta-big ado is made in the press about the move. By some estimates, it doomed his Obama's campaign from the start.

So what? Anal p.r. paranoia? Yes, fesses Obama. And yes, he came straight with his pastor about it.

Still, the Pastor responds to all this, and in particular a NYT piece written by the aforementioned Ms. Kantor during the hubbub by writing the letter displayed above.

This series of events is what got me really onto the Obama-bandwagon. Right off the bat, the guy elicits genuine support from absolutely non-partisan people like Rev. Wright.

"Different story if it'd been a white conservative politician, eh?"

Yes it would be different, because the Reverend, in this case, experienced a disinvitation, the shaft. THE MAN'S PASTOR got shunned!

I know if I were in the Pastor's position, I'd have felt betrayed, angry (as Al Sharpton did on Wright's behalf). That the Pastor was not only willing to forgive the move, but has such incredible confidence in Obama as to write a letter like this, it has to be a valid testament to Obama's character.

He's not just another Democrat, Obama.

Originally Posted by FibrillatorD

Forgive me for having a momentary lapse. I forgot that The New York Times was leading the bandwagon in trumpeting why it is we should have gone into an illegal war. The New York Times became George Bush and the Republican Party's national "blog."

Anyone who honestly believes that the NYT is, in any way, shape, or form, supportive of President Bush and/or the party and principles he represents is so far to the Left that they're technically not even on this planet.

I mean, come on.

-dale

Originally Posted by dalem

Anyone who honestly believes that the NYT is, in any way, shape, or form, supportive of President Bush and/or the party and principles he represents is so far to the Left that they're technically not even on this planet.

I mean, come on.

-dale

Dale,

While FibD overstates the case a bit, I believe he is referring specifically to the run up to OIF and the front pages devoted to Judith Miller's reporting, which turned out to be a self-fufilling planting process by Chalabi's guys on some of the Iraq intel, and not beyond that. If this is the case, then he is on target that the NYT supported the Administration's case (although I'm not sure where the "illegal" part comes from, but that is a tired argument played out way too many times on WAB).

Originally Posted by Shek

Dale,

While FibD overstates the case a bit, I believe he is referring specifically to the run up to OIF and the front pages devoted to Judith Miller's reporting, which turned out to be a self-fufilling planting process by Chalabi's guys on some of the Iraq intel, and not beyond that. If this is the case, then he is on target that the NYT supported the Administration's case (although I'm not sure where the "illegal" part comes from, but that is a tired argument played out way too many times on WAB).

Hell prior to the war I think everyone beleived in the "Slam dunk" theory. When it was proved to be false they all ran from their opinions like rats from a sinking ship....

Originally Posted by smilingassassin

Hell prior to the war I think everyone beleived in the "Slam dunk" theory. When it was proved to be false they all ran from their opinions like rats from a sinking ship....

Yes, but the reason that they believed it was that they were served up a set of facts & opinions shorn of all the questions, qualifications & doubts that more responsible analysts had placed on them.

The Administration either knew about these problems with the information & chose not to share them, or made it clear to the people providing the info that they didn't want to hear anything that didn't back their case. Such people should not be left to run a kindergarten bake sale, let alone the most powerful nation (and military) in the world.

As for the NYT & other media who simply repeated what they were told, they were derelict in their duty & they know it. Despite the most fervent wishes of Administration supporters, it isn't the job of the media to act as a dissemination service for their press releases, or those of their friends. The NYT et.al. should have done a bit more digging into Chalabi's bona fides & knocked on a few more doors in Washington & Langley before so wholeheartedly endorsing assertions that turned out to be so wrong. This obviously wouldn't have told them what we know now, but it might have made a few more people think twice before rushing headlong into this particular fiasco.

Originally Posted by Shek

Dale,

While FibD overstates the case a bit, I believe he is referring specifically to the run up to OIF and the front pages devoted to Judith Miller's reporting, which turned out to be a self-fufilling planting process by Chalabi's guys on some of the Iraq intel, and not beyond that. If this is the case, then he is on target that the NYT supported the Administration's case (although I'm not sure where the "illegal" part comes from, but that is a tired argument played out way too many times on WAB).

Well, okay (but then why is the author not more clear on that?), but given the overall tone of the rest of it I still find it difficult to find common ground with the author in any way.

-dale

Originally Posted by Bigfella

Yes, but the reason that they believed it was that they were served up a set of facts & opinions shorn of all the questions, qualifications & doubts that more responsible analysts had placed on them.

The Administration either knew about these problems with the information & chose not to share them, or made it clear to the people providing the info that they didn't want to hear anything that didn't back their case. Such people should not be left to run a kindergarten bake sale, let alone the most powerful nation (and military) in the world.

As for the NYT & other media who simply repeated what they were told, they were derelict in their duty & they know it. Despite the most fervent wishes of Administration supporters, it isn't the job of the media to act as a dissemination service for their press releases, or those of their friends. The NYT et.al. should have done a bit more digging into Chalabi's bona fides & knocked on a few more doors in Washington & Langley before so wholeheartedly endorsing assertions that turned out to be so wrong. This obviously wouldn't have told them what we know now, but it might have made a few more people think twice before rushing headlong into this particular fiasco.

Here's what I've never understood. How come I, a fairly bright and hawkish Hawk who thinks kicking in a few doors in the M.E. is a good gamble, listened to all the evidence, speeches, etc., and never went beyond "most probably" regarding WMD?

How come, although I fully expected that we'd find a few steaming vats of Death Gel, when we didn't, my heart didn't explode?

How come, even though I listened to all the same speeches you did, I've never thought that No Stockpiles = Go Home?

How come, when the President came on mah Tee Vee and said that we must not wait until Saddam's Iraq becomes an "imminent threat", I didn't translate that in my brain to think he said that Saddam's Iraq was an "imminent threat"?

How come?

This topic tires me.

-dale

What I find interesting is, normally, when a democrat encounters a government program that doesn't work, his first reaction is not to give it up, but to increase funding. Obviously a government can do anything, fix any problem, defeat any foe, if given enough funds.

Why don't they treat Iraq situation like a welfare program? It has problems? Well, let's throw some more money, hire some more bureaucrats, spend more time on it.

Or in a different way, who don't democrats abandon inefficient government agencies/programs? FEMA screwed up the Katrina operation? Let's pull it out of Louisiana. California's education sucks? Pull money out of it. Amtrak needs $1 billion a year subsidy in order to survive? Let it collapse and private sector will fill the vacuume if there is one.

Originally Posted by gunnut

Amtrak needs $1 billion a year subsidy in order to survive? Let it collapse and private sector will fill the vacuume if there is one.

The private sector was, and probably still is, all for the creation of Amtrak. The railroads were losing millions on passenger service by the late 1960s. Which is not to say that we don't subsidise aviation, automobiles and just about every other mode of transportation. We do. The question is, how much. I have seen government subsidies to the air transportation industry for all my career. For the most part, those subsidies made it possible for air transportation to exist. Without them, well those Amtrak trains would be the only way to move large numbers of people over large distances.