Anyone who thinks they have all the Answers before they've even heard the Question - is Dangerously Deluded! Real Truth Requires Vigilance, Perseverance and Courage, regardless of Party and who wields Power. Left, Right, Center, Corporations, Government, Unions, Criminals or the Indifferent.
The Judiciary Committee has voted this morning to subpoena Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff David Addington to testify and explain the development of the administrations interrogation program.
Listening to the Vice-President's Chief of staff explain how Pouring water down someone throat isn't as bad as Forcing it down their throat - never mind the ensuing suffocation either way - should be a real popcorn moment.
More from Thinkprogress which discusses ongoing efforts to bring Doug Feith, George Tenet and John Ashcroft before the committee as well.
If this had happened last year before Stonewall-Gate basically stole every once of energy from the DOJ-purge investigation, I'd be a lot more optimistic.
The best we can hope for - assuming that Fred Fielding doesn't kneecap the process with executive priveledge claims - is that these hearing may force the congress to seriously reconsider the Military Commissions Act, restore Habeaus Corpus, dismantle Gitmo, end the Kangaroo Combatant Courts and remove the immunity for torturers who acted between 2001 and 2005.
The eyes of the world are watching, particularly when we held an al Jazeera journalist for 6 years without charges or trial...
Hajj is the only major mainstream news journalist ever to be held at [Guantanemo] prison. His supporters claimed that he was being held in retaliation for US anger over the Arabic television network.
The cameraman was never prosecuted. The US never published its allegations, but said in a hearing that Hajj was classified as an enemy combatant because he worked as executive secretary for a beverage company whose director allegedly aided Muslim forces in Bosnia and Chechnya. He was also suspected of transfering money to a charity the US labeled as terrorist, and had interviewed Bin Laden.
The man worked at the company where the director was suspected of helping Muslim forces in Bosnia? In Chechnya? Talk about Guilt by Association. He gave money to a charity? He interviewed Bin Laden? So did Peter Arnett of CNN.
But Hajj isn't the worst case, the truth needs to be told. Here's what Human Rights First said about Torture two years ago in it's report on Gitmo: Command Responsibility
Since August 2002, nearly 100 detainees have died while in the hands of U.S. officials in the global "war on terror." According to the U.S. military’s own classifications, 34 of these cases are suspected or confirmed homicides; Human Rights First has identified another 11 in which the facts suggest death as a result of physical abuse or harsh conditions of detention. In close to half the deaths Human Rights First surveyed, the cause of death remains officially undetermined or unannounced. Overall, eight people in U.S. custody were tortured to death.
Despite these numbers, four years since the first known death in U.S. custody, only 12 detainee deaths have resulted in punishment of any kind for any U.S. official. Of the 34 homicide cases so far identified by the military, investigators recommended criminal charges in fewer than two thirds, and charges were actually brought (based on decisions made by command) in less than half. While the CIA has been implicated in several deaths, not one CIA agent has faced a criminal charge. Crucially, among the worst cases in this list – those of detainees tortured to death – only half have resulted in punishment; the steepest sentence for anyone involved in a torture-related death: five months in jail.
The War Crimes Act, even after it received it's Bybee inspired downgrade, still considers torturing someone to death to be a Capital Offense. High level government officials who sanction U.S. policies which led to these deaths could be charged with Conspiracy and as accesseries to Murder.
That's a conspiracy that includes Yoo, Bybee, Gonzales, Addington, Cheney - and Bush.
In a way I almost wish they would wait until the next administration, because the more that Congress shows that these people are at criminal risk, the more likely they are to get pardoned as they sneak out the back door - and we really don't need that.
MR. RUSSERT: One issue that has really defined the two campaigns here in Indiana is this debate over gasoline...
SEN. OBAMA: Right.
MR. RUSSERT: ...the price of it and whether there should be a tax holiday...
SEN. OBAMA: Right.
MR. RUSSERT: ...from the federal taxes. This is Hillary Clinton's ad talking about you. Let's watch.
(Videotape of political ad)
Narrator: Now gas prices are skyrocketing, and she's ready to act again. Hillary's plan, use the windfall profits of the oil companies to pay to suspend the gas tax this summer. Barack Obama says no, again.
People are hurting, it's time for a president who's ready to take action now.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: Why are you against giving taxpayers in Indiana, North Carolina, a relief from federal gasoline tax this summer?
SEN. OBAMA: You're right, Tim, this defines, I think, the difference between myself and Senator Clinton. This gas tax, which was first proposed by John McCain and then quickly adopted by Senator Clinton, is a classic Washington gimmick. It, it is a political response to a serious problem that we have neglected for decades. Now, here's, here's the upshot. You're looking at suspending a gas tax for three months. The average driver would save 30 cents per day for a grand total of $28. That's assuming that the oil companies don't step in and raise prices by the same amount that the tax has been reduced. And, by the way, I have some experience on this because in Illinois we tried this when I was in the state legislature, and that's exactly what happened. The oil companies, the retailers were the ones who ended up benefiting.
MR. RUSSERT: You voted for it, too.
SEN. OBAMA: I did. Exactly. And that...
MR. RUSSERT: When gas was only $2 a gallon.
SEN. OBAMA: And, and that's my point. I voted for it, and then six months later we took a look, and consumers had not benefited at all, but we had lost revenue.
MR. RUSSERT: So you learned from a wrong vote.
SEN. OBAMA: Yeah, I learned from a mistake.
Barack Obama made a mistake and learned from it. He gained the benefit of Experience (Ding Ding Ding!) on this issue, and instead of continuing to give the people empty meaningless Happy Talk about it, he's telling the truth.
The Gas Tax Holiday is not going to work.
What's worse, it won't be paid for...
Obama: And, in addition, what happens is, is that this would come out of the Federal Highway Fund that we use to rebuild our roads and our bridges. And if we don't have that fund, then we're looking at thousands of jobs being lost in Indiana and in North Carolina.
Now, Senator Clinton says that she's going to use the windfall profits tax to fill it. First of all, she's already said that she's going to use the windfall profits tax for something else, as I have, and, and that is to invest in clean energy and, and other important measures. So that money, she's already spending twice. More importantly, nobody thinks that George Bush is actually going to spend--or is actually going to sign a law for windfall profits taxes, so that's not going to happen this summer.
So what this is, is a strategy to get through the next election. And Senator Clinton's own staff told The Washington Post, "We don't think this is really going to go anywhere. We don't think it's going to work, but we think it's a good issue to use in a campaign." And that's what Washington does. We, we, we don't deal with the serious issues that are in front of us, we try to figure out what's going to poll well and what can we do to get through the next election.
There is no practical way that George Bush, who is already threatening to Veto the Webb G.I. Bill if it's attached to the latest war supplemental, is going to RAISE TAXES ON THE OIL COMPANIES.
Not. Gonna. HAPPEN.
The result will blow a $6 Billion hole in our infrastructure budget that simply won't be replaced. This kind of cynical irresponsibility is not what we need in a President.
We don't need Clinton. We really don't need McSame.
We need Barack Obama.
Let me just close by saying this proposal will only save people 30 cents a day, 30 Pieces of Silver (well ok, "copper" whatever) - if it even worked, and it's not going to work. Comedian Lewis Black of Root of All Evil said it best when he describes his reaction to a previous tax scheme from Congress.
It would be better if my Congressman simply came to on my door and just pissed on my foot!
Are your socks all wet and squishy? That's not rain.
Despite all the huffing and puffing over just when and how Hillary Clinton will finally pull a heroic Rocky-II-like comeback knock this black teenager out of the race - all the real numbers say she's already lost.
Barack Obama will be the Democratic Nominee, all he has to do is sit back and wait for it.
And you can prove it for yourself and all your friends with CNN's handy-dandy popiel-o-matic Delegate Calculator.
With this pocket-size tool, You Too, can be a Pundicator.
(Isn't it odd that no-one who actually appears on CNN knows how to use their own website?)
As of today, May 4th - my wife's birthday - the Delegate Calculator indicates that Obama has a lead of 1736 total delegates (with 289 needed to win) and Clinton has a total of 1,599 total delegates (with 426 needed to win).
The only numbers that really matter are the number of delegates needed to win - which again are 289 and 426 respectively. That's how close the nose each of our candidates has come to crossing the finish line.
What we have to remember is that either candidate must reach the magic number of 2025 only using the pledge and Superdelegates that remain, of which - according to the calculator - there only 695.
Simple, very simple, basic math says that in order to win Clinton has to gain 61% of all the remaining delegates. Each time she falls short of that number, it gets larger for the next contest. Obama on the other hand only needs 41%, as long as he stays above that number - HE WINS.
He could lose Indiana, lose North Carolina, lose Kentucky - but as long as he doesn't collapse below 41% - he will be the Nominee. Period.
And if he does better than that, things continually get worse for Clinton.
As of today the results in Guam and some of the recent Superdelegate shifts have not been counted on the calculator but that is of little matter, you and I can put them in ourselves.
Grab the Guam slider and set it 50% Obama/50% Clinton, it automatically allocates 2 delegates to each. That puts Obama at 287 and Clinton at 428 with 691 available. Their percentage requirements to win remain at 41% and 61% respectively.
The latest Zogby Poll for the Indiana Primary gives Obama a one point lead (43/42%) over Clinton. Adding this to the Calculator as best you can (52/48 Obama) gives Obama an additional 37 delegates, bringing him to 1,775 and another 35 for Clinton bringing her to 1,636.
Are you following along at home kiddies? I knew that you were, because this is where it gets fun.
With a small victory in Indiana Obama's Magic Number drops to 250 - and his percentage required for final victory also drops a bit from 41% to 40.3%. Clinton's does the opposite, with still 389 needed to win her required percentage for the remaining delegates shifts upward slightly to 62.8%.
This means simply put, that as time goes one things get worse for her - not better.
Let me just say this again, after this point Clinton has to beat Obama by an average of 22 points on all remaining contests and on all remaining Superdelegates to win the nomination.
Who in their right minds thinks that's gonna happen? (Oh, yeah, most of punditocracy on on CNN, MSNBC, FOX, ABC, NBC, and CBS - except for Chuck Todd who seems to have actually passed 5th Grade math - continues to maintain the ridiculous delusion that Hillary still has a chance to win, silly of me not to notice....)
Ok, let look at North Carolina - where the latest polls places Obama with a nine point lead (46 to 37%) over Clinton. Let's be generous and say that Obama only wins by 8 points (because the slider won't go to nine - damn you CNN!) Obama would receive 62 delegates and Clinton 53. After this contest there are only 504 available delegates, and in order to win Obama would only need to 37.3% of the remaining delegates and Clinton needs a whopping 67% to win.
Anytime she doesn't beat him by greater than that number she falls further behind and can't catch up.
If Clinton doesn't win both West Virginia (where she leads 55/27) and Kentucky (where she has a massive lead) by a pair of double digit 20 point blowouts it's still all over but the whining because those states - with only 28 and 51 delegates at stake respectively - are both too small to make up the difference.
That's right Hillary, "Small States really don't count that much" do they?
Just one week from now - there will only be 425 delegates left (which in reality is an over-estimate since many more Supers will probably be committed by this point next week) and Clinton will need to get 298 or at least 68% of them all (which is assuming that she does blow Barack out by 22 point in Kentucky and again in West Virginia as predicted)
A 22 point landslide is what she needs just to stay even at this point, she has to do much better than that to win.
Once you plug in all the remaining poll estimates, which really only includes Oregon which has Obama up by 6 points, and assume he basically loses every other state by at least 8 points except Puerto Rico where Clinton is strongly supported and there he gets again blown out again by at least 22 points...
You get this:
Even with all that, with every break she could possibly get, Clinton still needs 212 delegates to win, while Obama only needs 95. All of the 287 Superdelegates would have to break for Clinton by 73%. She needs to get almost 3 to 1 of the Supers over Obama to Win. But if Obama just barely manages to squeek by with just 33% of the Supers - it's over, it's done, finito.
He wins.
See?
Your mileage may vary depending on your assumptions generally speaking, and the Calculator isn't perfect, but even if you give her every benefit of the doubt and 2/3 of the Supers - whom she happens to have been leaking lately like water from an old radiator - she still can't win.
By all reasonable measures, she already lost, her campaign is dead - a load of sound and fury signifying nothing - she just hasn't realized or admitted it yet.
Let's get real here people. We all know what this is, we all know what this is about.
Hillary Clinton and John McCain are trying to BUY YOUR VOTE for a measley $30.
A half a tank of gas.
Is that all they think it's worth? Really? A 5% drop in the gas tax for three months that consumers may actually see only half of, which will blow a giant hole in the infrastructure budget and likely put about 6000 people in Indiana and North Carolina out of work?
Are you kidding me. We don't need to take money away from our infratructure when we already have Bridges Falling Down>
How much difference is a few more pennies a day going to make when you don't have a job to get those pennies in the first place?
Obama: This isn't an idea designed to get you through the summer, it's an idea design to get them elected in November.
This is just politics as usual, but the sad part is that this cheap parlor trick just might work with some of the voters in the upcoming primary.
Are Americans really this stupid?
Are they really going fall for it Again? Another cheap, easy, quick fix solution that won't work and is not what we need.
We need to do the right thing, we need to do the hard thing and actually implement a workable energy policy. We need to start talking about real bio-fuels, plug-in hybrids, full on electric vehicles, wind, solar and permanently ending our dependance on foreign oil.
For people who don't we can have viable electric vehicles, the Mythbusters on Discovery channel just broadcast an episode where they had an electric car drag race against a Ferrari and WIN. It also nearly beat an F1 race car.
Hello everybody, glad you could stop by. Welcome to America. Home of Fragile and the Scared. The Nation that doesn't want to "embolden the enemy" by saying anything nice about them while we smoke 'em out of their holes. The Nation that's going to round all the evil doers up and teach 'em a lesson, unless they say something mean about our troops - like call them a bunch of Doody Heads and hurt our feelings.
Even Hillary Clinton, who certainly isn't some kind of pansy and has lots of testicular fortitude - would have run away from Reverend Wright screaming.
O'Reilly: What do you think when you hear another American Citizen say things like that?
Clinton: I would not have stayed in that church. I take offense to it.
That's it, run way - Flee. That'll show him. If you can't take on the crazy reverend in the daishiki - how are you going to take on Al Qeada Hillary?
Oh, let this not be another defending Reverend Wright Post.
Well, it's not. He's toast, but what about all those things he said? Anyone else every say stuff like that before?
Anyone remember that crazy Colorado Professor who dared to hurt America's poor little feelings by saying - the terrorist aren't just a bunch a crazies and might have had a reason for 9/11?Remember Ward Churchill?
BOULDER, Colo., Feb. 4 -- The University of Colorado staunchly defends its faculty's rights of free speech and open academic inquiry. Most of the time.
But Friday, interim Chancellor Phil DiStefano launched an "academic investigation" that could lead to the firing of Ward Churchill, a tenured full professor who ignited a national firestorm by applauding the 9/11 terrorist attacks and condemning the victims as greedy, arrogant and cruel.
In a commentary he says he wrote on 9/11, Ward Churchill called some victims "little Eichmanns." In a rambling, acidic commentary he says he dashed off within hours of the attacks, the 57-year-old professor of ethnic studies described the bankers and stock traders who died in the World Trade Center as "little Eichmanns." He called their deaths a "penalty befitting their participation in . . . the 'mighty engine of profit' to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved."
Thank God he didn't mention anything about Chickens roosting.
Still they did eventually run a tenured professor out of town on a rail! - because well, y'know, we can't have people saying that kind of stuff. It might scare the children. The tiny tiny, helpless little babies - THAT ARE RUNNING OUR COUNTRY!
Hey, anyone remember that crazy Colorado School teacher that dared to compared Bush to Hitler? Whatta Maroon that dork was, eh? Anyone Remember Jay Bennish?
Officials declined to say whether social studies instructor Jay Bennish faced disciplinary action, but his attorney, David Lane, said Bennish would be back in the classroom Monday "with full pay."
Bennish had been on paid leave from Overland High School in suburban Aurora since March 1 while Cherry Creek School District determined whether he violated a district rule that teachers must present balancing viewpoints in the classroom.
During a Feb. 1 lecture in a geography class, Bennish said some of Bush's State of the Union address the night before "sounds a lot like the things that Adolf Hitler used to say."
Man, what was that guy smoking? Good thing we put the smack down on him. We can't possible tolerate anyone making the suggestion that an American President could have anything at all in common with a crazed genocidal dictator..
That's just plain CRAZY talk, right?
He sounds almost like that nutty comedian chick. What was her name, oh yeah - Rosie O'Donnel.
Oh. MY. GOD. How could she say that? It's not like any radical Christians have set off bombs or deployed chemical biological weapons like Anthrax on American soil. I mean, as long as you don't count the Selma Church Bombings, WACO, Oklahoma City, the bombing of dozens of gay clubs and shootings and murder at abortion clinics by people such as friends of Randal Terry of Operation Rescue and the Bombing of the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta by Eric Robert Rudolph.
Except for all that, it's not like we've every had any Christian Terrorism. What the frak was she thinking?
We can have people saying stuff like that IN AMERICA. We're all like Lee Greenwood, we're Proud To Be Americans, where at least we know we're free (to be harassed, harried and threatened for speaking our minds.) Where the hell does she think she gets the right, or the freedom to say batshit like that?
amendment 1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Oh ok, fine - so Congress can't make it illegal - but we can sure make it pretty damned uncomfortable can't we?
Where did Rosie get the naked gall to suggest the the deaths of a half-million Iraqis might just be the fault of - gasp - America. If the terrorists killed all those people - except obviously for those who got Shock and Awed into the next life right up front - and you say it's America's fault, you must be saying that Americans are Terrorist right?
On Wednesday’s show, O’Donnell (who leaves the show for good in three weeks) blasted Hasselbeck for not coming to her defense on the matter. "Do you believe that I think our troops are terrorists, Elisabeth?"
She pressed: "Yes or no? Do you believe it, yes or no?"
"Excuse me, let me speak!" Hasselbeck snapped. "Let me finish!"
At this point, the conversation moved into split screen mode.
"I don’t believe that you believe troops are terrorists. I have said that before," Hasselbeck continued, "but when you say something like, ‘655,00 Iraqis are dead. We invaded them...who are the terrorists?’..." She trailed off.
O’Donnell repeated: "Do you believe that I think our troops are terrorists, Elisabeth?..You would not even look me in the face, Elisabeth, and say, 'No, Rosie.' "
Hasselbeck shot back: "Because you are an adult, and I am certainly not going to be the person for you to explain your thoughts...Defend your own thoughts!"
...
O’Donnell, 45, continued: "I asked you if you believed what the Republican pundits were saying. You said nothing and that’s cowardly. Nothing, Elisabeth."
Why can't people like Rosie Support the Troops with nice shiny happy talk? Doesn't she know all they need is a little puppy love, some kisses, and smoke blown up their ass to help them get through the day? You wouldn't want to Make a Marine Cry would you? God, how could she be so insensitive? Why do they always have to Blame America First when America initiates an unprovoked invasion of an unarmed country, then completely botches the security and the reconstruction effort? Why? Why! WHY!?
Maybe because sometimes these things have to be said.
About 60 years ago there were riots in the streets over Elvis and his swiveling hips. Congress got involved to protect our youth and with the help of Dr. Frederick Wertham Batman was branded a pedophile and Wonder Woman a bondage fetish deviant.
About 40 years ago there were riots at the Democratic National Convention over Vietnam, while the Beatle's sang of Love and the Rolling Stone's sang "Street Fighting Man"
About 30 years ago we were having Congressional Hearings over "We're Not Gonna Take it" and "Animal F#ck like a Beast".
About 15 years ago there were riots in Los Angeles following the Rodney King verdict - just two year's after the release of the Bodycount's song "Cop-Killer".
In his outrage at what the song suggested - that some brutal racist cops in LA just really needed some killin' - Moses himself, Charlton Heston took some time out from a few gun toting NRA rallies to rail against this vile irresponsible hate speech. How could anyone suggest that it might be "OK" to consider fighting back against the police? (Or to consider fighting back against a currupt government that was unable or unwilling to protect the people from it's own enforcers gone wild?)
What Anti-American CLAP-TRAP is This?
How could anyone suggest that we should consider taking up arms against the most visible agents of the government itself? Against the Police?
How could anyone agree with Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 28?
, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo.
This is why we haev a 2nd Amendment - to allow the people to protect themselves from a Government gone wrong. Rather sad that Mr. 2nd Amendment, Charlton Heston, so clearly misunderstood the 2nd Amendment.
And let us not seriously consider the words of James Madison in Federalist 46.
That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.
Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made.
Extravagant a suggestion as it is - let it be made. Outrageous though it may be - let it be said. Infuriating and Offensive it is - but let it be heard.
For only if we continue to openly speak our minds and express even our most outrageous concerns, to redress our deepest grievances with our government may we yet stave of that extravagant last ditch effort, having nothing left but our courage and dispair to save our country from itself.
Amen.
I've sometimes wondered, in all seriousness, if the tendency for some Americans to react with such shock and horror to incendiary comments which have a perfectly reasonable basis in fact might just because it hits far too close to the bone. It's like we have our own national Toxic Shame.
Toxic shame, the shame that binds you, is experienced as the all pervasive sense that I am flawed and defective as a human being. Toxic shame is no longer an emotion that signals our limits, it is a state of being, a core identity. Toxic shame gives you a sense of worthlessness, a sense of failing and falling short as a human being. Toxic shame is a rupture of the self with the self.
Toxic Shame is like a viral infection of the soul. Unlike normal, healthy shame where you understand your limits and responsibilities - Toxic Shame is a deep humiliation, one that's goes right to the core of your being and existence. It is the mistake you can not undo, the stain that can't be washed out - the permanent flaw in your creation. It's a conflict that caint be reconcilled, a wound that can't be healed unless those people come to realize that what you do, and what you ARE - are two different things.
People make mistakes, Governments make mistakes - but they themselves aren't the mistake. They react like a Patriotism-Addict, who will lash out as soon as anyone tries to pull the Flag-Juice Ripple from their lips. People that can't take criticism of America, react in irrational outburst of outrage because they are hiding their own seated deep toxic shame, shame that they've tried to drown in flag-pins and rabid gingoism, hiding even from themselves that they know deep down that the criticism is not only true - bit that, in their own warped obsessive view, it can never be fixed.
They think, somewhere in their subconscious, that it can never be any different. It can never get any better.
But it can be fixed. We can heal this nation in so many, many ways. We can move forward and closer to the promise of A More Prefect Union if if we can just stand to address the issues truthfully, painful though that will be. But we can't do that yet, the last few weeks have clearly shown that America isn't ready.
Now is not the time.
But soon, soon America needs to have a frank, honest, brutal Intervention. Just like all other addicts, we need learn to accept ourselves, flaws and all. We need to have the solice and wisdom to recognize what we can't change, and the courage to change what we can.
Only then can we start fixing things. Only then can we start making the Better America, the America Of our Dreams.
So now we've reached the final chapter in the Rev. Wright novella and my overall feeling after the entire sad soap opera is disappointment.
Maybe I expected far too much.
I had hoped that some of the truth behind many of Wright's comments would eventually be examined. I wasn't so naive as to think the media would admit that they got it wrong, but that Barack would find some way to improve the quality of our discourse.
Unfortunately, Rev Wright turned out to be his own worst advocate - and Barack was left with no choice but to toss him under the bus, backup and start doing donuts.
It's really Wright's own fault, the blame has to start with him and his Grandstanding. He got start-struck. He went Hollywood. He was drunk with the power of being in the spotlight and drove his own car into the ditch, with Barack's Presidency strapped into the passenger seat.
I clearly understand that Barack had to cut him loose.
I just wish he didn't have to. I wish he didn't have to confirm all those smug media pundicators who've spent the last month mostly debating just how high the railway bridge needed to be when Barack finally kicked Rev. Wright from the train.
Those lazy ass-clown hacks don't deserve to be vindicated, and I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised. But, I admit I was surprised when Obama himself bought into the spin.
Obama feels that Rev. Wright dissed him when he said that he was a pastor and Obama was politician. Somehow Wright's rather lengthy discussion before the NAACP on how some things can be different but not deficient, was completely missed.
He wasn't insulting Barack by saying he was a "politician" - he is a politician. That's not a dirty word, it's just descriptive.
The problem wasn't that Wright wouldn't repent and renounce his previous statements, it's that in some cases he simply refused to show any sensitivity to those who may disagree or misunderstand him. When he was asked whether Barack was in the pews when he was smack talking he said...
MODERATOR: You just mentioned that Senator Obama hadn’t heard many of your sermons. Does that mean he’s not much of a churchgoer? Or does he doze off in the pews?
WRIGHT: I just wanted to see — that’s your question. That’s your question. He goes to church about as much as you do. What did your pastor preach on last week? You don’t know? OK.
Oh, OUCH! That wasn't pretty.
He also didn't really take anywhere near the proper care he should have when he finally asked the AIDS question.
MODERATOR: In your sermon, you said the government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. So I ask you: Do you honestly believe your statement and those words?
(UNKNOWN): Do you honestly believe that (OFF-MIKE)
WRIGHT: Oh, are you — is that one of the reporters?
MODERATOR: No questions -
(CROSSTALK)
WRIGHT: No questions from the floor. I read different things. As I said to my members, if you haven’t read things, then you can’t — based on this Tuskegee experiment and based on what has happened to Africans in this country, I believe our government is capable of doing anything.
In fact, in fact, in fact, one of the — one of the responses to what Saddam Hussein had in terms of biological warfare was a non- question, because all we had to do was check the sales records. We sold him those biological weapons that he was using against his own people.
So any time a government can put together biological warfare to kill people, and then get angry when those people use what we sold them, yes, I believe we are capable
So in response to the question he refers to a book by a Harvard researcher, but doesn't really bother to explain that quite a few doctors and scientists have been looking at weather polio and other vaccines first tested in Africa may have caused the HIV virus to jump species from monkey's to humans, and whether agencies such as the CDC have stonewalled and blocked attempts to either verify or refute this hypothesis.
I first came upon this idea ten years ago in the New Yorker Magazine, and based on that and some pretty simple research on wiki - there has been a lot of pushback on this and various agencies and medical journals have refused to even entertain the suggestion.
So Wright isn't really wrong here - he's not saying that it happened, he's saying we're fully capable of it and we are - he saying most of us haven't heard the whole story, and we haven't - but telling someone to "just go read the book" isn't all that convincing. It's not going to bring people over to his side of the argument.
Here's another comment I fully agree with, but I understand can't possibly go down well.
What I said about and what I think about and what — again, until I can’t — until racism and slavery are confessed and asked for forgiveness — have we asked the Japanese to forgive us? We have never as a country, the policymakers — in fact, Clinton almost got in trouble because he almost apologized at Gorialan (ph). We have never apologized as a country.
Britain has apologized to Africans, but this country’s leaders have refused to apologize. So until that apology comes, I’m not going to keep stepping on your foot and asking you, "Does this hurt? Do you forgive me for stepping on your foot?" if I’m still stepping on your foot.
Understand that? Capiche?
Holeey Crap!
It's almost frustrating that he's absolutely right, America has Not Apologized for Slavery. When Rep John Conyers was circulating a bill to simply study the idea of Reparations a decade ago it was shot down like Gary Powers over Russian.
But no one who experienced or perpetrated Slavery is still alive? Isn't an apology an admission of guilt? It's not my fault, I wasn't there - I didn't do it, why should I be held accountable and who am I supposed to be accountable too?
It was just plain pathetic.
The point is simply that admitting that it was wrong is the first step to making sure it doesn't happen again. How many people even realize that the 13th Amendment doesn't completely abolish slavery or indentured servitude?
Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished. Ratified 12/6/1865. History
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
So all you need to become a slave is for a judge and jury to sanction it. And just guess who happens to be crowded into our jails even though the Stats indicate that they don't commit most of the crimes or do most of the drugs?
'
Yeah.
Funny how it still works out this way, even in this day and age. Even in 2008.
The stuff that Wright was discussing is all, to one degree or another, true but you really can't treat people this way when talking about it. You can't come off like a dick!
Understand that? Capiche?
Oy vey!
My greatest regret is that Barack was forced by Wright's own arrogance and lack of caution in how he was speaking to initiate this split. Wright has discredited himself. He's undermined and undercut his own ideas. Now if you even attempt to discuss this kind of thing in the future you're likely to be branded as a "Rev. Wright Wackadoodle".
I think race relations and even the ability to seriously discuss sensitive subjects such as this may have just taken two giant steps backward. Our great ambitious nation conversation about Race in America is now over. Done. Finito. Stomped into oblivion at least for the time being. (Which is exactly how the Just Get Over it crowd would like it to be.)
Barack could have fixed this, I believe, but it might very well have cost him his Presidency. It would have taken every ounce of energy his campaign had to rehabilitate this mess. He ultimately had no choice. He had to pick the needs of the nation of the needs of Rev. Wright.
I myself have written something of at least a half dozen diaries defending Rev. Wright's right to speak his mind, and I've taken a ton of heat for some of it. This discussion is now dead.
Another sad thing is that this seems as much personal as political for Barack. Obama felt personally disrespected and hurt. This wasn't easy for him. Watching a 20-year friendship crash and burn isn't pretty.
What Church does he go to now? Can he mend fences with the TUCC Congregation and it's current pastor Rev Moss? Which direction do black people go, with Wright or with Obama? Will this hurt his Black Vote and are they likely to go for Hillary who was talking ridiculous smack about Wright weeks ago?
This is a mess.
And it's ironic that Obama, who has long argued that he had the willingness to reach out to people he disagreed with like Ahmadenejad, and Syria, now can't find himself sitting at the same table as Rev. Wright while Louis Farrakhan as at the far end and extreme AIDS theories are on the plate.
He simply can't go there.
And the truth is he's not the only one. America isn't ready to go there either. Not yet. And there's no telling when it will ever be ready to go there and get it all this racial baggage out on the table, the good, the bad and the ugly.
Oddly enough Barack is now turning his back on one of his own primary arguments, that he can work with just about anyone, may just be the final example of his showing some backbone and fight that a lot of Democrats have needed to see for quite a while. Being willing to diss a prominent Black preacher has shown that Barack isn't a slave to Black Orthodoxy, and just might bring a few reluctant White voters his way.
Make no mistake, my support for Obama for President is still strong I just wish he could get this outraged over torture, domestic spying, 4th branch, crony contracting, lead paint on our toys or mercury in our water instead of over Louis Farrakhan and Rev. Wright.
Over the past weekend Wright has managed to change a lot of hearts and minds, by explaining and displaying that he is not the crazed militant blackified "wackadoddle" that the media has portrayed him as - but not all.
Even though his statement of "God Damn America" - if you listen to all of it - can be understood as stemming from Deuteronomy and the idea that God does not BLESS violence against innocents, and that God does not bless a nation that acts as if it where God Itself. We should not trust in government, any government, we should trust in God.
Even though his statement about "Chickens coming home to roost" can be understood as a quote by Ronald Reagan's Ambassador to Iraq, Edward Peck, as he spoke on Fox News and that the point he was making is simply that "Violence Begets Violence", and that proper response to 9/11 is to seek God's guidance , not lash out in indiscriminate rage.
But it's not so easy to understand or explain "The Government Lied about the invention of HIV/AIDS as a means of means of genocide against people of color."
(As I type this Barack is throwing Wright under the Bus on MSNBC)
In my last diary I tried to point out how the original report on Wright's sermons by ABC was a deliberate HIT PIECE. Wright was Swiftboated They had gone through all the footage and specifically chose to highlight the most incendiary statements made by the Reverend, while deleting the sections which would have made what he was saying fairly easy to understand.
It's become clear from Wright's appearance on Bill Moyer's that the rest of the news media, simply didn't bother to do any in-depth analysis and simply repeated what ABC reported. They were LAZY and as a result...
We were duped.
But even in that diary, some people just couldn't get over the HIV/AIDs issue.
The hatred and resentment being spewed by that man from the pulpit is a disgrace to every American in this age, of every race. It should be condemned by everyone.
Wright is trying to turn the battle against AIDS into a weapon in his war against white America. It's simply insane to believe such nonsense. And anyone who advocates such policies from the pulpit is simply a disgrace.
That's someone from Dailykos saying that.
Here's the clip, taken from O'Reilly, it appears at the 1:30 mark.
Look, I don't agree with the AIDS comment - I think his facts are wrong - but it's not like the only reason he could have said it is because he's some kind of white-hating racist. He was criticizing the lies of the U.S. Government, not white people.
In that particular segment Wright also criticized the U.S. Government for lying to us about links between Saddam and Al Qeada. Guess what - they did lie.
In order to justify the invasion of Iraq under requirements put forth in the Iraq Authorization of Force, the President was required to issue a document to Congress which explained why further diplomacy would not be effective. Besides the usual claims of WMD, which were mostly based on Secretary Powell's now completely discredited UN Report, and over-stated claims of foot-dragging by the Iraqis over weapons inspections, the report (pdf) says this:
In addition, the Secretary of State’s address to the UN on February 5, 2003 revealed a terrorist training area in northeastern Iraq with ties to Iraqi intelligence and activities of al Qaida affiliates in Baghdad. Public reports indicate that Iraq is currently harboring senior members of a terrorist network led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a close al Qaida associate. In addition, Iraq has provided training in document forgery and explosives to al Qaida.
Other terrorist groups have been supported by Iraq over past years. Iraq has a long history of supporting terrorism, and continues to be a safe haven, transit point, and operational node for groups and individuals who direct violence against the United States and our allies.
Those are Lies.
Saddam was not "harboring" Zarqawi who was in the UN controlled northern section of Iraq, he was trying to capture and kill him. It's like saying Bill Clinton "harbored" Ted Kazcinski the Unibomber because he took so long to figure out which shack he was hiding in.
Saddam did not provide "explosives training" to al Qaida, that was a lie which came from Ibn Sheik al-Libi, after he was tortured in Egypt
Our President used a lie - obtained via torture - to justify a War with an unarmed country.
Is this not a considerably worse situation than the AIDS claim?
Wright went on from that to say that the Government Lied to us about WMD's in Iraq. He said that if they don't find WMD's "they'll act like the L.A.P.D. and plant the evidence".
Ok, first of all, he's clearly referring the LAPD Rampart Scandal where a group officers actually committed bank robbery, shot unarmed suspects, stole drugs from the evidence room and Planted Evidence which led to the overturning of nearly 100 convictions.
The proof of what Wright was suggesting, that people in the government would make it up if they couldn't find weapons was proven true by Rep. Peter Hoekstra and Sen. Rick Santorum claimed "We Found the WMD", except that - they didn't.
While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible Indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter,
We have people in Congress today, who actually think Hoekstra was right, people who think Global Warming is nothing more than a kooky hoax and that the internet is a series of tubes - and Rev. Wright is supposed to be the crazy one?
The question is this - did the Government Lie to us about how HIV came about?
Well, even if wasn't invented as a "means of genocide against people of color" - it has Become a means of genocide against people fo color. The AIDS epidemic in Africa has become practically catostrophic. From Time Magazine.
AIDS is taking lives in Sub-Saharan Africa, swallowing families, communities, hopes. So far 17 million have died. At least 25 million may follow.
25 Million People! Y'know what? That's Genocide.
So has the U.S. Government lied to us about it?
Yes, they have.
The U.S. Government claims that their Abstinance initiatives are "working " in Africa.
Earlier this year, the Bush Administration persuaded Congress to authorize $15 billion over the next five years to fight the AIDS pandemic in Africa and the Caribbean. The U.S. Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 is a bold legislative effort.1 About 42 million people worldwide are dying of AIDS or are infected with the HIV virus that causes the disease. Of these individuals, 29 million live in Africa. In addition, Africa is home to a staggering 11 million orphans who have lost their parents to AIDS.
The Bush Administration is basing its AIDS initiative on the success of Uganda, which has experienced the greatest decline in HIV prevalence of any country in the world.2 Studies show that from 1991 to 2001, HIV infection rates in Uganda declined from about 15 percent to 5 percent. Among pregnant women in Kampala, the capital of Uganda, HIV prevalence dropped from a high of approximately 30 percent to 10 percent over the same period.3 How did Uganda do it?
The best evidence suggests that the crucial factor was a national campaign to discourage risky sexual behaviors that contribute to the spread of the disease. Beginning in the mid-1980s, the Ugandan government, working closely with community and faith-based organizations, delivered a consistent AIDS prevention message: Abstain from sex until marriage, Be faithful to your partner, or use Condoms if abstinence and fidelity are not practiced.
This sounds all well and good, but the U.S. has place a high priority on abstinence and both in Africa and America implemented a dangerous campaign that Condoms Don't Work.
The religious right has begun whipping up the hysteria, calling the Lantos bill the "Pro-Aborts Emergency Plan for Abstinence Reduction." In fact, the bill would do nothing to alter the long-standing ban on U.S. funding for abortion. What it would do is increase the availability of contraception for poor African women -- and that is desperately overdue.
Religious groups are fixated on the need to stop HIV transmission through premarital and extramarital sex, but what's killing African women by the millions is unprotected sex with their husbands. Yet the United States spends more on promoting abstinence and fidelity programs ($198 million in fiscal 2007) than on promoting condom use ($147 million in 2007). Roughly 10 million African girls under the age of 18 are married each year, many to older men who seek HIV-free brides. To those wedded to HIV-positive men [sic], marriage often means a death sentence. They have little power to control their husbands' condom use or extramarital behavior; they are more likely than young men to contract HIV; and those who know they're infected and do not want to bear children often have no access to contraception.
FACT — BUSH’S AIDS POLICIES DIVERT FUNDS TO FAILED ABSTINENCE-ONLY PROGRAMS: Bush’s policy states that one-third of money allocated for HIV prevention overseas go to abstinence-only programs. "In fact, a full two-thirds of the money for the prevention of the sexual spread of HIV goes to abstinence." [American Prospect, 7/10/07]
FACT — BUSH’S ANTI-CONDOM STANCE ‘DOING DAMAGE TO AFRICA’: The Center for Disease Control states that latex condoms are "highly effective in preventing...sexual transmission of HIV." Yet Bush’s ABC policy — Abstinence, Be Faithful, Condoms — relegates condom use to a last resort option. In 2005, the UN special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa said, "There is no doubt in my mind that the condom crisis in Uganda is being driven by [US policies]. To impose a dogma-driven policy that is fundamentally flawed is doing damage to Africa." [CDC, 10/20/06; The Observer, 7/11/04; The Guardian, 8/30/05]
FACT — GLOBAL GAG RULE FORCES ‘A CRUEL CHOICE’ ON FOREIGN NGOS: Bush’s "global gag rule" withholds U.S. aid from any organization that mentions abortion as an option in family planning. The report found that the "the leading providers of family planning" in 13 developing nations are "no longer receiving USAID contraceptives." [Memo for the Administration of United States Agency for International Development, 1/22/01; Global Gag Rule Impact Project]
Not only is there evidence that these wrong-headed policies are proving increasing dangerous for Africa, they are proving dangerous in America where HIV infection within the Black community is rising dangerously.
"After 10 years and $1.5 billion in public funds these failed abstinence-only-until-marriage programs will go down as an ideological boondoggle of historic proportions," said James Wagoner, President of Advocates for Youth.
"The tragedy is not simply the waste of taxpayer dollars, it is the damage done to the young people who have been on the receiving end of distorted, inaccurate information about condoms and birth control. We have been promoting ignorance in the era of AIDS, and that’s not just bad public health policy, its bad ethics".
So the final question is - was HIV/AIDs "invented"?
The answer to that may not be as simple as it might seem. There has been a debate between doctors and scientist about whether or not the early testing of the Oral Polio Vaccine in Africa had anything to do with causing the HIV virus to spread from monkey's to humans.
San Antonio physician Eva Lee Snead was the first person to propose the hypothesis that AIDS could have crossed to humans via an infected polio vaccine.[21] However she also argued, incorrectly, that SV-40 might be a precursor to HIV.[21]
In May 1987, Louis Pascal heard a radio broadcast by Dr. Snead explaining her hypothesis. Based on information in medical journals published in the 1950s and 1960s, and the information about the the first cases of HIV infection, he concluded that Dr. Hilary Koprowski's CHAT Type 1 vaccine administered in Belgian Congo between 1957 and 1960 was a likely source
But the theory has had it's critics.
Journalist Edward Hooper, who had already begun to investigate the origin of AIDS when the OPV hypothesis was first put forward gradually became convinced of its truth. After nine years of investigations, he detailed the hypothesis and evidence in his 1999 book, The River. Hooper further expanded on these allegations in a 2000 meeting in London, at the Royal Society, although these claims were later rebutted in detail by some of the scientists who were present at the meeting.[29] In 2001, Dr. Hilary Koprowski responded by making a detailed rebuttal of the points made in the book, also in a talk to the Royal Society.[30] However in 2004, the Origin of Aids, a TV documentary strongly supportive of the OPV hypothesis, appeared on television stations globally.
Now I'm not particularly convinced on this issue one way or the other. But it looks to me like the detracters of the theory currently have the upper hand. Still, the point is what Wright said about the government LYING, about HIV/AIDS becoming a genocide for black people, particularly in Africa, is true. The "invention" part - not so much. However, even that is not completely out of the question. Not yet.
I admit this is a certain amount of speculation on my part about what Rev. Wright was actually talking about with that statement and as far as I have seen he hasn't been asked about it or given a detailed answer. I may be completely wrong just as much of the media has been totally wrong about Wright, but frankly, has anyone even serious bothered to think about this?
Haven't they all just considered it a "wacky conspiracy theory", just like the idea our government lied to us about WMD's, they lied to us about torture, and they lied to us about domestic spying?
If the wing-nuts had their way - all us this stuff would be just considered wacky left-wing craziness. Bill Keller at the New York times would be up on treason charges for reporting about the CIA's secret prisons, and Scooter Libby - who actually did commit treason - has been unfairly persecuted.
Update Right now Barack is distancing himself completely from Wright, and comments such as these and his performance at the National Press Club (which I haven't seen). Barack sounds personally ticked-off, and he feels that Wright was Grandstanding and that I can understand. He doesn't agree with Wright sure - if you don't really dig under the surface, of course the comments seem inflammatory and offensive - but I wonder if he isn't playing directly into the false media meme's that have been put forward on all of this? On the other hand, I'm finally glad to see Barack being willing to Start A FIGHT!. Good on 'em, even if had to be Wright he started the fight with.
Both Wright and Obama have a right to stake their own independent ground I'm staying with Obama, but that doesn't mean we should simply turn a blind-eye to the truth (and even the problematic parts) of what Wright actually has said. Not all of it was wrong, and quite a bit of it was dead-on-target.
MODERATOR: In your sermon, you said the government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. So I ask you: Do you honestly believe your statement and those words?
WRIGHT: Have you read Horowitz’s book, "Emerging Viruses: AIDS and Ebola," whoever wrote that question? Have you read "Medical Apartheid"? You’ve read it?
(UNKNOWN): Do you honestly believe that (OFF-MIKE)
WRIGHT: Oh, are you — is that one of the reporters?
MODERATOR: No questions -
(CROSSTALK)
WRIGHT: No questions from the floor. I read different things. As I said to my members, if you haven’t read things, then you can’t — based on this Tuskegee experiment and based on what has happened to Africans in this country, I believe our government is capable of doing anything.
Health professionals and those involved in infectious disease research will find Emerging Viruses startling: Harvard researcher Horowitz's studies gather evidence to conclude that AIDS and the Ebola viruses evolved during cancer virus experiments in which monkeys were infected with viral genes from other animals. Certain to spark controversy, this provides quite a different view of virus mutations and evolution.
So we have a Harvard researcher who'se been writing about this. He may be a wackadoddle, but I don't know. H seems to be following a Different theory than the one involving Polio, in this case we're talking about Cancer virus experiments and I admit I know nothing about that subject.
Again, I don't know if it's fair to completely blow this off without doing the research - problem is, we can bet that no one in the press will do that.
Today we've had posted a great video featuring Catholic Priest Michael Pfleger who forthrightly and without flinching defended both Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan against accusations by an O'Reilly Producer..
His main point resonates because maybe it's time we really stopped letting the media - any media - tell us what we should be thinking. Maybe we should listen with our own ears.
Here's what Jeremiah Wright really said about 9/11 and "Chicken's Coming Home to Roust"
As it turns out, he was quoting former Reagan's Former Ambassador to Iraq Edward Peck who had been ON FOX NEWS when he said it.
We're three weeks into this "controversy" and no one on Faux, and no one in the rest of the media has even bothered to listen beyond the 20-second clip and understand just who he was really quoting?
The Reverend's ultimate point wasn't that America is to blame for what occurred on 9/11, he was saying that instead of turning to blind revenge, instead of taking an "eye for an eye" and ultimately leaving us all blind - we needed to examine ourselves and rebuild own personal relationships with God.
Not simply subscribe to "Foxhole Religion" where everyone questions each others faith only when it's challenged.
Now here's the "God Damn America" clip... in context.
He points out that here that even though the Dred Scot decision essentially denied Blacks any rights what so ever under the constitution in 1850 - Government's Change
Prior to President Truman, the military was segregated - but Government's Change Things can get better.
However, God does Not Change.
Where Government's Lie, God does not Lie. When Government Fails, God Does not Fail.
America failed with the it's treatment of Native Americans. America failed with the internment of Japanese Americans. America failed in how it's treated it's slaves, it's failed when it attempt to "Free" the slaves into Jim Crow and segregation.
He's an interesting point - Wright didn't say that "black people shouldn't say God Bless America" because of what "White People" have done. He didn't put it in those terms - that's just what the media has told us he said - but he didn't. When he talks about America he says "WE" not "Them". We are America, and we should be held responsible - all of us - for what America and it's government does.
What I take from this is that God may "Damn" America and it's government - but ultimately that will Force it to Change not just get "Payback" on the white people.
One may not like how he says this, but none of this is false. None of this is Hate, it's Love - because it takes love to care enough to want your country to change for the better.
I will continue to disagree with what he said about the governments involvement in the spread of AIDS. (Haven't found a copy of the clip)
However I did see it previously...
And immediatly after Wright mentioned Aids, he says that America lied to us about Iraq, but Fox doesn't show that part. He goes on to mention several other lies back to back to back - WMD's, Nukes, Links to Al Qeada - and they never bother to point out that he's correct about all of them except the AIDs one.
HE was wrong about AIDS, but he wasn't wrong with WMD.
However, if Wright had said "Syphilus" (ala the Tuskegee Experiment) instead of AIDS he would been right. (He does suggest this in other sermons and it might have been a simple misstatement). Even assuming he did mean AIDS, and he didn't mispeak, if instead of "injections" he'd said that the U.S. government stood by and did nothing for years because they thought it was a "Gay disease", (Reagan wouldn't even say the word "AIDS" in public), and that even since then they've done very little to effectively help with AIDS massive spread across Africa. In fact as a result of so-called abstinence-only sex education teaching our kids and the world the LIE that condoms don't work - the spread of STDS including AIDShas increased in recent years rather than gone down.
There have been plenty of governmental lies to go around even without that one.
But the measure of a man really shouldn't be based on one over the top statement - judging him based on that is the very definition of prejudice and bigotry. Before drawing a final judgement, we should all give ourselves a chance to really know who and what we're talking about.
Maybe these soundbites do display some underlying racial hatred and grievance, and maybe we need to listen a little closer.
Here's what Trinity Church itself says about The Wright Controvery and "The Sound Bites"
Update Anderson Cooper On His Blog has brought up the fact the Wright was quoting Edward Peck.
'