By Larry Johnson
closeAuthor: Larry Johnson
Name: Larry Johnson
Email: larry_johnson@earthlink.net
Site: http://NoQuarterUSA.net
About: Larry C. Johnson is a former analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, who moved subsequently in 1989 to the U.S. Department of State, where he served four years as the deputy director for transportation security, antiterrorism assistance training, and special operations in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism. He left government service in October 1993 and set up a consulting business. He currently is the co-owner and CEO of BERG Associates, LLC (Business Exposure Reduction Group) and is an expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, and crisis and risk management, and money laundering investigations. Johnson is the founder and main author of No Quarter, a weblog that addresses issues of terrorism and intelligence and politics. NoQuarterUSA was nominated as Best Political Blog of 2008.[1] He has worked as a private consultant on issues of international terrorism and security for the U.S. Government and private companies. Johnson has appeared as a consultant and commentator in many major newspapers and news programs.[2]
Contents [hide]
1 Background
2 Views
2.1 1996
2.2 1998
2.3 1999
2.4 2000
2.5 2001
2.6 2003
2.6.1 Plame affair
2.7 2008
3 Notes
4 References
5 External links
[edit]Background
Larry Johnson moved to Washington, D.C. in 1979 to begin work on a Ph.D. at the American University. Although he completed successfully all coursework and comprehensive exams, he did not write a dissertation. In 1978 and in 1983-85 he worked in Latin America on community development projects as a community organizer. Returning to the United States in 1985 he joined the Central Intelligence Agency, thanks in part to a letter of recommendation from Republican Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) that helped to "open doors" for him at the Agency.[3] Johnson entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985 and was a classmate of Valerie Plame. Every member of that class was undercover. After a year in the Career Trainee program, which included a stint with the Afghan Task Force, Johnson was assigned as an analyst in the Middle America Caribbean Division in the Latin American Affairs Office of the Directorate of Intelligence. He received two Exceptional Performance awards and was promoted ultimately to Senior Regional Analyst for Central America.
Johnson remained undercover in the CIA until October 1989, when he resigned from the CIA and started a new job in the Office of Counter Terrorism at the Department of State. Johnson played an instrumental role in launching the Terrorism Rewards program international advertising campaign (working with Diplomatic Security officers Brad Smith and Michael Parks). [4] Johnson also was involved in a variety of crisis management response operations, including the release of hostages from Lebanon and liaison with the Pan Am 103 families. He left government service in October 1993 and started his own business as a consultant.
After leaving government service, Johnson became a frequent guest on many major television news shows when a question of terrorism came up. He was first interviewed by CNN following the capture of Carlos the Jackal. Johnson subsequently appeared on CNN, ABC's Nightline, CBS, the BBC, MSNBC, the Jim Lehrer News Hour, NBC, and NPR. In December of 1999, for example, Johnson was hired by NBC to serve as its terrorist expert for the Y2000 and was in Time Square with Tom Brokaw and Katie Couric ("a lot of fun and the best way to see in the New Year"). Johnson also was hired in January 2002 as a Fox News Analyst and remained under contract until February 2003.
Since 1994 a significant focus of Johnson's consulting work has been with the U.S. military special operations forces in scripting and conducting military counter terrorism exercises. He traveled under orders from the U.S. military to Iraq in May 2006 to work on a short term project.
A registered Republican who supported President Bush in 2000, Johnson became a strong critic of the Bush administration in May 2003 for its conduct of the war in Iraq and, a few months later, for its role in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame.[5] He was also featured in the 2004 political documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism. Since Robert Novak's controversial disclosure of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative in July 2003, Johnson has contributed to public discourse on intelligence matters, often sparking further controversy. He has been interviewed by both the mass media and the alternative media and published commentaries on a variety of issues, including the Plame affair, the controversy concerning Mary McCarthy, and the resignation of Porter Goss as Director of Central Intelligence.
[edit]Views
This article or section may contain an inappropriate mixture of prose and timeline.
Please help convert this timeline into prose or, if necessary, a list.
[edit]1996
In 1996, Johnson noted that terrorism worldwide was on the decline. "Terrorist incidents [both internationally and in the US] have fallen to levels not seen since the 1970s. Whether measured by the number of incidents, the number of fatalities, or the number of groups, raw statistics demonstrate that the level of terrorist violence has declined since the mid-1980s. In fact, the evidence suggests terrorism was more widespread and deadly 10 years ago."[6]
He also wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times suggesting that the newer and more deadly terrorist threat to the U.S. was embodied by "networks of terrorists, mostly foreign, working within its borders." Exemplifying this threat was Ramzi Yousef, one of the masterminds behind the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. In the article, Johnson suggests that enhanced cooperation between intelligence agencies, particularly the FBI and CIA, is mandatory to meet the growing threat of terror networks.[7]
[edit]1998
In 1998, Johnson argued that while overall terrorism was declining, the threat from bin Laden and al-Qaeda should be the focus of American counterterrorism policy:
The nature of the threat posed by Bin Ladin is highlighted by my final chart, number 7. Osama Bin Ladin and individuals associated with him have killed and wounded more Americans than any other group. This chart also illustrates that groups such as Hamas and the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) prior to 1998 have killed more foreigners in the anti-US terrorist attacks. If we take into account the bombings of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Osama's status as the most lethal terrorist is certain.[8]
In addition, he told USA Today that bin Laden had participated in "virtually every major attack of terrorism against the United States" in the 1990s. Johnson underlined the threat posed by bin Laden, saying that he was possessed by "hatred and craziness." If left unanswered, "he would continue to terrorize Americans around the world. He has no compunction about killing women and children. He's a complete egalitarian in his murderous attitude."[9]
[edit]1999
In an interview with PBS's Frontline for its 1999 program, Hunting bin Laden, Johnson discussed Osama bin Laden.[10] According to Johnson, Americans had "tended to make Osama bin Laden sort of a superman in Muslim garb." "Actually," he continues, "Osama bin Laden, in my view, represents more of a symptom of a problem, and the problem is this: the Saudi Arabian government, not just Osama bin Laden but many people in Saudi Arabia, have been sending money to radical Islamic groups for years." Johnson continued:
When you look at who's killed Americans in the last 10 years, the individuals he's supported and backed--I'm basing that upon the initial information that's been released in the indictments and conversations with others in the intelligence communities--Osama bin Laden has been the one killing Americans. No other terrorist group in the world has been out killing Americans except for Osama bin Laden.... Osama bin Laden remains out there as the one really targeting us. So, we recognize that he's the threat. He's serious about wanting to kill Americans, but as long as he's in Afghanistan, as long as he doesn't have access to a cell phone, as long as he can't just hop on a plane and travel wherever he wants without fear of being arrested, his ability to plan and conduct terrorist operations is extremely limited. We have to recognize [that] he would like to do a lot of damage. He would like to kill Americans, but wanting to is different from being able to, having the full capabilities in place.[11]
In the interview, Johnson doubted the ability of members of bin Laden's organization to plan and put their lives on the line:
There's not another Ali or Mustafa out there at this point and Osama bin Laden in my view has not been a very effective organizer or leader. He talks a great game and puts out terrific threats as far as stirring the passions in the United States and maybe firing up the imaginations of some young Muslims throughout the world. But when push comes to shove, can he get a group of people who are together who will say: we are going to plan an operation, we're going to put our lives on the line, we're going to go out and try and kill people and we don't care what the consequence is? It hasn't happened.[12]
Frontline asked:
[Is it] ... fair to say what you're saying is that the president of the United States, his national security advisor, his deputy national security advisor for counter-terrorism, are basically blowing smoke [about the danger posed by bin Laden] and his followers]?
Johnson responded:
They're grossly exaggerating the problem. They are hyping it. They shouldn't be talking about rising terrorism. Instead of saying "terrorism's rising," it's not. "Terrorism is spreading," it's not. "More people are dying from terrorism," not the case. But what they should be saying is, "There's one individual out there that really doesn't like us, and he's made it his mission in life to kill Americans, and we've gotta deal with him." But we need to have a voice of reason in that process instead of putting ourselves out crying wolf, because this is essentially what's taking place right now. They call it the administration that cries wolf.[12]
[edit]2000
Johnson co-authored an article in 2000 with Milt Bearden which focused on the threat posed by al-Qaeda specifically, rather than terrorism trends in general. Beardon and Johnson note that new information emerging about the bombings at Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 points to the threat posed by Imad Mugniyah and Osama Bin Laden will require "a coordinated policy that will employ a full range of covert, clandestine, diplomatic, and military operations," concluding:
The Clinton Administration has shot its bolt on the terrorist problem with small effect, and no last minute show of force will change the record. A new administration can start afresh with a more sharply defined set of terrorism goals – Mughniyeh and bin Laden and their protectors for starters – and bring the full, coordinated force of American diplomatic, military, and intelligence capabilities to bear on the problem.[13]
[edit]2001
After Johnson's testimony to the special forum at the U.S. Senate, Gary J. Schmitt, executive director and CEO of the Project for the New American Century, refers in the Daily Standard (blog) to an op-ed piece Johnson wrote two months prior to the 9/11 attacks, claiming that Johnson argued that the US had little to fear from terrorism.[14]
In an editorial entitled "The Declining Terrorist Threat," published in the New York Times on 10 July 2001, Johnson says:
Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.... None of these beliefs are based in fact.... While terrorism is not vanquished, in a world where thousands of nuclear warheads are still aimed across the continents, terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way.[15]
Ten days after the 9/11 attacks, after quoting the above passage, Timothy Noah concludes a post in his "Chatterbox" feature at Slate: "Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong."[16] Johnson defended himself against such attacks:
The rightwing is resurrecting an op-ed I wrote in July 2001. I stand by the full article. It is still relevant today. I am accused, incorrectly, of ignoring the threat of terrorism. In fact, I correctly noted that the real threat emanated from Bin Laden and Islamic extremism. President Bush, for his part, ignored the CIA warning in August 2001 that Al Qaeda was posed to strike inside the United States.[17]
After September 11, Johnson appeared several times on FOX News to address the question of military action against terrorism. On 14 November, he defended the FBI's proposal to interview 5,000 students in the U.S. suspected of having information relevant to the September 11 investigations:
I think they should talk to everyone that they feel they have a need to talk to. I mean, look, this is war. This is not a legal proceeding. This isn't the O.J. Simpson trial. The folks that attacked us -- they murdered Americans. And we've got to recognize that in wartime, we should do things differently.[18]
[edit]2003
In January 2003, Johnson wrote an analysis of the relationship between the upcoming U.S. invasion of Iraq and the threat of transnational terrorism. According to Johnson, Bremer's response was to tell him that "it didn't matter what Saddam did or didn't do, we were going to war."[19] The paper warned that an invasion would "do little to destroy the infrastructure of radical Islamic terrorism responsible for the 9-11 attacks." Noting that Saddam Hussein's regime has been a longtime supporter of regional terrorist organizations such as the PLO, Johnson examines contacts between Saddam Hussein and transnational terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda:
There is no doubt that Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism—i.e., a country that provides financial support, safe haven, training, or weapons and explosives to groups or individuals that carry out terrorist attacks. . . . According to Central Intelligence Agency data, there is no credible evidence implicating Iraq in any mass casualty terrorist attacks since 1991. . . .
Johnson notes that the period immediately leading up to 2003 saw a rise of activity surrounding terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, suggesting that "Iraq is willing to help a movement that it would otherwise oppose on ideological grounds. Nonetheless," Johnson concludes, "it is important to understand that Iraqi entreaties to Al Qaeda, are most likely intended as a tactic to bolster Iraq’s ability to fight off a U.S. invasion rather than a deep-seated theological and ideological commitment to the terrorist agenda of Bin Laden.[20]
In that analysis Johnson also warns that the U.S.-led invasion was likely to backfire:
In fact there is a serious risk that a U.S. led war against Iraq may crystallize the diffused anger in the Arab and Muslim world — a heretofore unattained goal of bin Laden and his followers — and persuade more Muslim youths to take up the terrorist banner against America and her citizens.... If we decide to invade Iraq we must be prepared for the contingency that our attack will inspire young Muslims to pursue jihad against the West in general and the United States in particular. Just as the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan rallied many Muslims, especially young adults to the cause of jihad, a U.S. attack may enable Islamic extremists to attract new followers.[20]
Johnson also gave interviews on the topic of what to do with captured al-Qaeda leaders; while he did not condone torture, he suggested that a "sleep deprivation and reward system" might be useful for getting information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:
I don't see a constitutional right to have eight hours of sleep. You shouldn't subject someone to freezing but they don't get to wear mink coats, either.[21]
In May 2003, Johnson joined members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) in condemning the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes:
It is a misuse and abuse of intelligence. The president was being misled. He was ill served by the folks who are supposed to protect him on this. Whether this was witting or unwitting, I don't know, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.[22]
[edit]Plame affair
After Robert Novak wrote a column identifying the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson as a CIA officer, the media invited Johnson to comment on the ensuing scandal because he had been a member of the same Career Trainee class with Valerie Plame Wilson. For example, in October 2003, he appeared on Democracy Now to discuss the Plame affair. He told interviewer Amy Goodman that Valerie Wilson's cover should have been respected whether she was an "analyst" or a "cleaning lady": "if she's undercover she's undercover, period. If the media allows themselves to get distracted with those kinds of curve balls, they ignore the issue."[23]
He told a Senate Democratic Policy Committee in October 2003, "My classmates and I have been betrayed. Together, we have kept the secrets of each other's identities a secret for 18 years. Each and every one of us have kept that secret, whether we were in the CIA, in other government service or in the private sector. But this issue is not just about a blown cover. It is about the destruction of the very essence, the core of human intelligence collection activities: plausible deniability, apparently, for partisan domestic political reasons."[24]
Johnson testified at a special joint hearing of Congressional and Senate Democrats on 22 July 2005 about the consequences arising from the Plame affair.[25]
[edit]2008
In 2008, Johnson emerged as a staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton and a strong critic of Barack Obama. Larry Johnson's blog, NoQuarterUSA, became a rally point for Clinton supporters wary of Barack Obama's qualifications to be president. Supporters of Barack Obama insist that a story that first appeared on Johnson's blog--a report that Republican operatives have a tape of Michelle Obama making racially insenstive comments about caucasians--has been "refuted" Barack Obama's Fight the Smears website.[26]. However, Johnson never claimed to have the tape and reported that the Republican operatives controlling it intended to release the tape sometime after the Democratic Convention in August 2008. On October 21, however, he asserted that the operative in possession of the tape had been instructed by the McCain campaign not to release it.[27]
[edit]Notes
^ http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-political-coverage/
^ Larry C. Johnson, "About Me," No Quarter (personal blog).
^ "Former CIA Official Larry Johnson Delivers Democratic Radio Address," transcript posted on official Democratic National Committee's website for The Democratic Party, July 23, 2005], accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Interview with Larry Johnson, confirmed by his supervisor
^ "Ex-CIA official Blasts Bush on Leak of Operative's Name: Democrats' Radio Address Focuses on White House Aides' Role," CNN July 23, 2005, accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Gail Russell Chaddock, "Why Terrorists Pick On the French," Christian Science Monitor (5 December 1996) p. 1.
^ Larry Johnson, "Terrorists Among Us," New York Times (20 August 1996) p. A19.
^ Terrorism Today
^ Lee Michael Katz, "The Hunt for Bin Laden," USA Today (21 August 1998) p. 1A.
^ See Transcript of original interview with Larry C. Johnson, as broadcast on Frontline in 1999. Cf. "Interview: Larry C. Johnson," for Hunting bin Laden, transcript of interview broadcast on Frontline subsequently on 13 April 2001. See also dedicated PBS webpages for media links: Iraq and the War on Terror, Frontline PBS, online featured programs, accessed 19 November 2006.
^ frontline: hunting bin laden: interviews: larry c. johnson | PBS
^ a b [1].
^ As posted in [2].
^ Gary Schmitt, [ 07/25/2005 "Meet Larry Johnson: The CIA official Turned Democratic Spokesman Has a Pre-9/11 Mindset," Daily Standard (blog), July 25, 2005, accessed November 20, 2006.
^ *Larry C. Johnson, "The Declining Terrorist Threat," The New York Times 10 July 2001: A19.
^ Timothy Noah, "(Not Exactly a) Whopper of the Week: Larry C. Johnson," Chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics (blog), hosted by Slate September 21, 2001, accessed November 20, 2006. Note the full context of this quotation:
It is, to be sure, a little bit cheap (and slightly at odds with the usual parameters of this feature) to criticize someone for making an erroneous prediction, particularly after a tragedy. Chatterbox is especially reluctant to tag Johnson because Johnson's op-ed was argued forcefully, backed up meticulously with factual data, and bravely at odds with conventional wisdom at the time of its publication. Add in that Johnson now makes his living as a consultant to corporations about terrorism, and therefore had everything to gain by exaggerating the dangers terrorism poses, and the guy practically looks like a hero. Chatterbox, who two decades ago was an editor for the New York Times op-ed page, would have published Johnson's piece had he still been an editor there this past July. In his capacity at Slate, Chatterbox might well have written up Johnson's prediction, and perhaps even endorsed it.
But boy, is he glad he didn't! Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong. Sadly, a mistake this embarrassing cannot be ignored. As a fellow skeptic, Chatterbox in all sincerity wishes Johnson better luck next time.
^ Larry C. Johnson, "Johnson vs. President Bush," re-posted and updated by SusanHu at DailyKos (blog) July 25, 2005.
^ FOX News Interview with John Garrett (14 November 2001) Transcript #111405cb.260.
^ [3].
^ a b Larry C. Johnson, "Setting the Record Straight on Iraqi Terrorism," posted in Booman Tribune: A Progressive Community (personal blog) 27 January 2003. accessed 19 November 2006.
^ Qtd. in Toby Harnden, "CIA 'pressure' on al-Qa'eda chief," The London Telegraph 5 March 2003: 16.
^ Qtd. in Nicolas D. Kristof, "Save Our Spooks," The New York Times 30 May 2003:A6.
^ Democracy Now (3 October 2003)[4]
^ U.S. Senate, Democratic Policy Committee Meeting on the CIA Operative Leak, (24 October 2003).
^ Letter to the Senate.[Needs full source citation; see "References" section.]
^ Tumulty, Karen (2008-06-12). "Will Obama's Anti-Rumor Plan Work?", Time Magazine. Retrieved on 20 June 2008.:"a story that apparently first made a big splash on the Internet in late May in a post by pro-Hillary Clinton blogger Larry Johnson"
^ Whitey Tape, API, Phil Berg, and Andy MartinSee Authors Posts (1090) on March 15, 2008 at 6:50 PM in Current Affairs
Senator Barack Obama apparently has paid as much attention to his campaign rhetoric as he did to the racist, hatefilled sermons of his pastor, Jeremiah Wright. He has insisted in speeches before cheering throngs that “words matter.” Yet, when it comes to the words of Jeremiah Wright, not so much.
Senator Obama insisted while campaigning in Wisconsin that words matter:
the Democratic frontrunner told a packed house at an event sponsored by the Wisconsin Democratic Party, “Don’t tell me words don’t matter! ‘I have a dream’, just words? ‘We hold these truths to be self evident that all me are created equal’ - just words? ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself?’ - just words. Just speeches?
He continued: “…It’s true that speeches don’t solve all problems, but what is also true is if we cannot inspire the country to believe again then it doesn’t matter how many policies and plans we have…That is why we just won eight elections straight, because the American people want to believe in change again. Don’t tell me words don’t matter!“
Okay. Let’s agree. Words do matter. Even after the tapes emerged documenting that Jeremiah Wright is a purveyor of antisemitism and racial hatred directed at whites, Senator Obama continues to insist that Pastor Wright is like an uncle to him. Here’s the full interview with Keith Olbermann, check it out for yourself:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lk3Rra3CgMA[/youtube]
The Barack Obama is doing the okie doke, the bamboozle as he tries to explain away the recorded remarks of his “Uncle” Jeremiah. Barack asks us to believe that good old uncle Jeremiah is a kindly pastor dedicated to eradicating poverty and promoting justice for all. Barack wants us to believe that he attended uncle Jeremiah’s church for the last 17 years and never, ever heard Wright say anything hateful or controversial. On the Sundays that Wright was ranting about Jews, Israel, whites, or goddamaned America, Barack was absent. Now, Obama rejects those things if Wright said them. But he never heard them and was “shocked,” shocked I tell you, to hear Wright damning America.
Barack wrote the other day on the Huffington Post that:
As I have written about in my books, I first joined Trinity United Church of Christ nearly twenty years ago. I knew Rev. Wright as someone who served this nation with honor as a United States Marine, as a respected biblical scholar, and as someone who taught or lectured at seminaries across the country, from Union Theological Seminary to the University of Chicago. He also led a diverse congregation that was and still is a pillar of the South Side and the entire city of Chicago. It’s a congregation that does not merely preach social justice but acts it out each day, through ministries ranging from housing the homeless to reaching out to those with HIV/AIDS.
But the religious vision of Jeremiah Wright has not been hidden. Barack’s claim to the contrary notwithstanding, Uncle Jeremiah is not a respected, mainstream member of Christian clergy. He is widely known and respected as a proponent of Africentric Theology. Wright’s interpretation of the Bible is neither mainstream nor orthodox. It is both bizarre and extreme. Jeremiah Wright believes that the world is controlled by the white man, who in turn has appropriated all capital and all power and employed it expressly to oppress the black man. Wright teaches his congregation that Jesus of Nazereth, a Jew, was a black man.
Jeremiah Wright told Sean Hannity almost a year ago that:
No, we would call it Christianity. We’ve been saying that since there was a white Christianity; we’ve been saying that ever since white Christians took part in the slave trade; we’ve been saying that ever since they had churches in slave castles.
We don’t have to say the word “white.” We just have to live in white America, the United States of white America. That’s not the issue; you’re missing the issue.
As I was trying to say to you, liberation theology — and I thought Eric Rush has studied at a theological seminary that was considered — I’ve come to find out he doesn’t know anything more about theology than I know about brain surgery. . . .
If you’re not going to talk about theology in context, if you’re not going to talk about liberation theology that came out of the 1960s, (INAUDIBLE) black liberation theology, that started with Jim Cone in 1968, and the writings of Cone, and the writings of Dwight Hopkins, and the writings of womanist theologians, and Asian theologians, and Hispanic theologians then you can talk about the black value system.
And who is Jim Cone? Jason Byassee, of The Christian Century Magazine, wrote this about Cone and Trinity in May, 2007:
“There is no denying, however, that a strand of radical black political theology influences Trinity [UCC]. James Cone, the pioneer of black liberation theology, is a much-admired figure at Trinity. Cone told me that when he’s asked where his theology is institutionally embodied, he always mentions Trinity. Cone’s groundbreaking 1969 book Black Theology and Black Power announced: “The time has come for white America to be silent and listen to black people. . . . All white men are responsible for white oppression. . . . Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man ‘the devil.’. . . Any advice from whites to blacks on how to deal with white oppression is automatically under suspicion as a clever device to further enslavement.” Contending that the structures of a still-racist society need to be dismantled, Cone is impatient with claims that the race situation in America has improved. In a 2004 essay he wrote, “Black suffering is getting worse, not better. . . . White supremacy is so clever and evasive that we can hardly name it. It claims not to exist, even though black people are dying daily from its poison” (in Living Stones in the Household of God).”
Barack was not a convert to a generic, vanilla brand of Christianity. He was not responding to a Billy Graham altar call. Barack converted to a theology of Christianity that emphasized being black above all things. Unlike the theology of Dr. Martin Luther King, who focused on the content of one’s character rather than the color of one’s skin, the theology Uncle Jeremiah taught to his congregation emphasized that Jesus was black. And that to be black is to be a victim of the prejudice and persecution of the white man. Jim Cone and Jeremiah Write did not blame only white men who were slave owners or assisted in the slave trade. In their world view all whites–not just some, but all–were guilty.
Barack Obama says he rejects this kind of race baiting hatred. Those are his words. But he has almost twenty years of providing financial support to Uncle Jeremiah. He has almost twenty years of sitting under the theological instruction of Uncle Jeremiah. He asked Uncle Jeremiah to officiate at his marriage to Michelle and he asked Uncle Jeremiah to baptize his children. And he has trusted Uncle Jeremiah to teach his daughters the “gospel” of Afrocentric Christianity.
This is not an incidental, casual relationship. The problem is there is no excuse or justification to tolerate the hatred spewed by Uncle Jeremiah. Barack is supposedly a super intelligent man. Yet he spends almost twenty years going to church and listening to a man who insists that Jesus is black (a historical falsehood) and is only now learning that Jeremiah Wright is a race baiter?
In the coming days America will learn that the remarks of Jeremiah Wright have not been taken out of context. These remarks reflect the core of his theological world vision. The scrutiny of Jeremiah Wright is not just the work of rightwing bloggers. Wright’s words matter. Wright’s words express a view of history and a view of society that every member of his congregation understood. Obama will struggle in the coming days to insist he knew nothing about a man he calls Uncle. But Uncle Jeremiah is not some crazy relative living in an attic. He has been a leader in Africentric Liberation theology, a religious vision that promotes racial division and hatred. I guess Senator Obama is truly audacious because he apparently believes that America will not believe the recorded words of Uncle Jeremiah.
UPDATE: Please check out Taylor Marsh’s terrific post on this issue.
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
Ouch!!!! That’s “Ground Zero”, Larry.
For Mr. Obama to say that Rev Wright’s outrageous comments should be taken in the context of a 40 year career as a religious leader is ridiculous! That is like saying that Pope Pius XII was really a great pope if you factor out that he really hated Jews and signed an agreement with Hitler that the church would take a blind eye to the Holocaust!
A case in point. In the spring of 1971, my mother was visiting relatives over Easter. I wasn’t yet a year old. She said that the priest started saying disparaging things about Jews, etc.. My mother said that she took me in her arms, made eye contact with the priest and walked out the the church right down the center aisle to make her point. Had she sat there, her continued presence would have lent credence to the crap coming from that priests mouth. Barack Obama had the same chance over many, many, years to stop going to that church when such venom was being spewed by this travesty that calls himself a man of God; he did not. What if Senator Clinton was caught on tape standing next to members of Fred Phelp’s congregation at a fallen soldiers funeral as they chanted “God hates Fags!, and was seen nodding her head in agreement. How could she then come back at some later point in time and be believed that she didn’t share their belief? She could not! Her career would be over. Apparently the same rules do not apply to Senator Obama!
correction: walked out of…
Both the primary and secondary schools I attended were Catholic, we were never taught to hate, in fact hatred of anyone was considered a mortal sin, of sorts, as bad as murder.
We were taught to serve Christ through the performance of public service, helping others, and the nuns pretty much hammered it in.
I’m really sorry, Eurogirl.
When we came across a bigot, we’d laugh at them, they were usually pretty nuts, no matter who they were, or what they believed.
Maybe as a public service we could start an “adopt a bigot” program, you know, enlightening them to the ways of the world, teaching basic humanity, getting to the root of all that anger and hatred.
Simon:
I wish my own experience had been the same as yours. I went to Catholic School from 6th grad thru high school graduation and heard some pretty messed up things regarding other faiths. The good thing was that my parents did not subscribe to such views nor did they tolerate such views.
I
I’m very sorry, I was very fortunate in my teachers, I’m embarrassed for my church when I hear of situations such as yours.
In April 1986, I sat in the pew at Holy Trinity Church in east Honolulu, and listened dumbfounded as the priest (who was of Filipino descent) recounted in his overly emotional sermon the recent journey to Hawaii of former President Ferdinand Marcos and wife Imelda, who had fled Manila in the immediate aftermath of Cory Aquino’s “People Power” revolution, and were then living in political exile only blocks away from the church and my house.
And finally, when he dared to compare those travails with the Passion of the Christ, I couldn’t in good conscience listen to any more of that crap. I stood up, very loudly excused myself to my fellow churchgoers as I made my way to the aisle in the middle of the church, and like Eurogirl’s mother, turned my back and made a very public departure from mass during the middle of his blasphemous sermon.
Even though I live less than 100 yards from Holy Trinity, the only times I go there now is twice every election year to vote, because that’s the location of my precinct’s polling site. Otherwise, I attend mass at another parish five miles away.
What a story, Donald. Thank you for telling it to us. Stick around. We need more people who see and act.
Cheers to you Mom, Eurogirl70!!!
Thanks for sharing this story.
I have known Jews who told me that when growing up, they used to hide at Easter time. That was when the Eastern European ethnic boys from the RC junior high school would begin beating up Jewish kids. This was in the 50’s and 60’s.
The only way Obama can win the Dem nomination is if the America hating extreme far left is a big enough voting block to help him win enough of the remaining elections.
But onc thing I feel for sure, that Obama would now get trounced in the General election.
He’s lying about not knowing about Wright’s hate speech, and he will get caught on it. Hopefully pretty damned soon too.
There is rumored to be significant corruption in Washington, now, particularly among Republicans, haste rt, say, Grossman, and the rest.
I consider THAT to be America hating too, right wing, as they take money, and knowingly forsaking national security, ie, look at Plame, and Brewster Jennings.
So why is it so many of that generation, both right and left, hate America?
My guess it all started back with the Native Americans. You start out wrong, and it’s hard to get back on track from thereon.
I really don’t know what will happen in the remaining primaries. Unless this story gets more attention in the next month, Obama might still win the nomination especially since Pelosi and Dean still seem to be in his corner. However, his chances of winning the general election are slim. There is no way he is going to win a single red state he’s won so far nor will he win swing states. Even progressive whites have written about their doubts and outright shock that Obama would have a relationship with someone like Rev. Wright for nearly 20 years. Trinity UCC is an extremist church that wouldn’t appeal to 95% of Americans, even the progressive anti-war people who are have voted for Obama. This church spreads hate plain and simple. The only people who can possibly see this as a plus for Obama are blacks who believe in this Africentric doctrine.
However, this revelation about his church has allowed me to understand Obama as a person much more than any of his books, speeches, or interviews. I would recommend reading the article about Africentric Theology above: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/obamas_mentors_mentor.html
It really does clear some questions I had about Obama rejecting his European heritage and identifying himself solely as a black man rather than a man of mixed or bi-racial identity. It also ives you a better sense of who Michelle Obama is and why she didn’t see anything wrong with saying that for the first time she’s proud of her country.
Americans didn’t think Kerry was patriotic enough. Do you really think we’re ever going to elect an Africentric president? Obama must be dreaming if he thinks he can still win against McCain the war hero.
I thought this, for sure, would sink him, and it still might, but today in Iowa the majority of Edwards’ delegates actually went to Obama. Are these people on crack or what???? How delusional can they be to see this disturbing evidence and hear his ridiculous excuses and still offer their votes so he can move closer to the highest office in the country? It’s mind boggling. I keep thinking that the insanity will stop. What does he have to do–murder someone? for people to wake up and realize his words and actions do not correspond?!
This is why Democrats lose year after year. A large number of Democrats vote for someone they like because of one issue like Iraq rather than vote for the strongest candidate who can beat the Republican in the general election. At this point I don’t care if you think Clinton is a b*tch or extremely inlikable. She is the strongest candidate to go against McCain and we should rally behind her now because Obama will not win the general election. Period. Many of Clinton’s supporters will go to McCain and more will follow once the Republicans broadcast Rev. Wright’s sermons in commercials all across the country. I’m sure FOX News and the Republicans have more videos than we realize and I wouldn’t be surprised if they’ve already found a tape with Obama in it but they are going to save that for the general.
Apparently, Obama and his Uncle Jeremiah give no credit to the liberal whites and Jewish supporters of Martin Luther King, who marched WITH him and supported his message.
For me, Rev. Wright’s comments about the Clintons , given their support for the Black community over all these years, are unforgiveable, period.
Wright doesn’t blame just the “slave-trading” whites; he blames ALL whites.
So, this must mean that Obama’s “unity” schtick is just his own way to bamboozle and okie-doke the very whites who are not racists at all. All the while Obama plays “post-racial,” he’s smirking at his own bamboozlement with his Uncle Jeremiah. And this is not what MLK had in mind at all.
THAT is offensive to me, having taught years in an all-Black, inner-city ghetto school for very little money, and LOVING those kids as a MLK liberal.
I’m so deeply hurt by this stuff that it’s hard to put into words how I feel betrayed by this Black church’s hatefulness and by Obama’s deceit.
Barak Obama will never get my vote now.
Not EVER.
Larry, you say
I want to believe you that America will care; but seeing the reaction of so many people in the media and else; ready to excuse and believe Obama for this (even applauding him) leaves me with one thought: that many many people actually at some level must share Wright’s anti-semitism and other hate-speech to tolerate Obama being part of this and not question it any further.
The issue of Wright has bother me for a very long time. I knew of him for a while.
But seems there isn’t really an outrage over this out there.
The party members went out today to more than ever support him. Pelosi made last night on ABC an effectiive endorsement of Obama saying the popular vote is irrelevant and that SD should vote for the one with the plurality of pledge delegates; and today; half of the 14 delegates that Edwards won in Iowa threw their support to Obama (net gain of 7 today). All of thgese despite what happen yesterday; it seems as if they were making a statement that they do not care one bit….
I care a lot; for I know Wright would be frequent guest in an Obama WH…. Hey even Farrakhan might be allowed in the Rose garden..
Larry, why do you think anything will change in the coming days (rather than the story dying away) ?
Andy, don’t worry, these things take time, they don’t happen overnight.
The greater issue is to make others aware of Obama’s corruption.
If you ever have a chance to watch the Chicago media report Obama, you will see a significant difference in the tone of the coverage, ie Obama fleeing in black SUV’s, being chased by reporters asking questions.
Hardly King Arthur.
And if Pelosi is too stupid to see it, good riddance.
OTOH, hasn’t Obama lost some support in the polls, dropping a few points, trending down?
I don’t really pay attention to those things, as they can be skewed, so easily, but, you know…
Thanks Simon, you gave me back some honest hope (unlike the other one being trumpeted out there).
Pelosi’s comments last night to George S. on ABC News made me really mad.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=3105455&page=1
She is the person in charge of the Nov. convention (being Speaker of the House). It was her obligation to remain neutral; to shut up.
I haven’t seen any recent polls; will check though is tricky to know which ones to trust (Gallup maybe).
Andy–I feel your pain. I have written to Pelosi twice this week. First, she made the idiotic comment that a combined ticket was “impossible,” and blamed Clinton because she dared to suggest that Obama was not ready to be Commander in Chief! Then, this recent emphasis on the delegates. Her claims of neutrality are a joke. As you said, if she is going to be the Chair at the Convention (in August), she should keep her opinions to herself. Pelosi and Howard Dean are a disgrace.
Write to her and let her know how you feel:
AmericanVoices@mail.house.gov
Let’s hope Simon is right and this will have a lasting impact. Otherwise, my understanding of “reality” will be seriously challenged. Tonight, NBC did a long fluff piece on Obama’s childhood in Indonesia, and how powerful it would be for them if he is President. Barely a mention of Wright. As others have suggested, can you imagine if this was Hillary?!
Thanks Fran. I did write her this afternoon to
http://speaker.house.gov/contact/
(I am not her constituent)
The full interview will air tomorrow on ABC with G.S.
Gosh…I am bracing for Obama’s surrogates blabbing nonstop again about superdelegates….
Pelosi and Dean are a disgrace. Pelosi did a lot of damage with her comments last night and the other pretending to be outraged at Clinton
questioning Obama’s fitness to be CiC
I don’t think this thing is going away anytime soon. There are hours upon hours of videotape of sermons from this man. Somebody somewhere is wading through them as we speak, looking for the next outrageous statement to run at the top of the hour. I think Obama should have thrown him under the bus when it might’ve been able to do any good — now, it’s going to be hard to do so when he’s been giving interviews explaining that this man is family to him — an uncle, even.
And the Rovian Machine is is harder than concrete thinking of those GREAT commercials designed to SCARE the shit out of America with the “he is not the friendly knee-grow down the street” . . . it will make the bashing of Kerry, Max, 9/11-9/11-9/11 and McCain’s “black baby” seem like Nickelodeon fare . . . why do you think the Repugs worked so hard to game the primary election system?
Seems the Wright combination to win . . .
But the good news Wright is already fodder for talk radio and the conservative blogs. They are working him and Obama over like a punching bag.
Eventually the MSM will have to seriously look at the Obama-Wright-Black Liberation Theology connection. But it won’t happen until they milk every bit of ratings out of the Obama-Hillary fight. Once thats settled then expect them go after Obama.
As for Pelosi she’s been little more than a Bush enabler since her elevation to boss of the House.
She’s clearly a liability and needs to be put in a retirement home.
PS: I forgot all my “ed” in the verbs abbove. Sorry; I am far too upset about this.
Personal opinion: No Quarter is only adding to the current divisiveness among the Democrats by these unrelenting Obama attacks - kind of like what’s been happening on Dailykos aimed at Hillery.
You do know, after nomination, whoever wins is going to need all these voters to win the Presidency, right?
Obama is a threat to national security.
Period.
When a man like Auchi makes a “donation” he expects something back.
Auchi is corrupt, as is Rezko.
Get informed.
If Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee, I’ll put Country before Party. I’ve never had to do that before.
God BLESS America.
HELLO! So, if a racist is running as a Democrat we’re supposed to support him anyway?! Legitimate critical analysis of a candidate and his record and character is not “divisiveness,” it is essential. This is not some petty, trumped up charge against an innocent. This is a radical ideology that he has obviously embraced for over 20 years. And now, as usual, he is disguising it, as we’ve seen him do with every other legitimate criticism that has been raise (Rezko, Exelon, lobbyist funds, NAFTA, etc.). How can pointing out his pattern of dishonesty and opportunism (not to mention clear lack of experience) be “divisive.” We have serious problems facing this country, and who we choose to lead for the next four years is crucial. After Bush, especially, competence is critical. I will not vote for Obama under any circumstance. I have never voted Republican and dislike many of McCain’s positions, but at least he’s not a shapeshifter like Obama.
OBama’s supporters should have thought about “needing” Hillary supporters in November before trashing them and their candidate.
They have trashed the Democratic Party, and will reap what they have sown.
Physician, heal thyself.
When Rev. Wright talked about Obama’s experience as a black man, one of the things he mentioned is that Obama was raised by a single mother. What he fails to mention is that Obama was raised by his single white mother because his black father walked out on them when Barack was a very small child.
He also mentioned that HRC couldn’t possibly know what it feels like to be invisible, to be treated as a non-person. I find his complete and total dismissal of the struggle for women’s rights to be astonishing. I don’t know why I should, given the other things he says, but it floors me that a man whom Barack Obama describes as being all about social justice, a man who came of age during the 60s could so blithely dismiss the hard fought struggle for equality that isn’t nearly over yet. No wonder he doesn’t understand how HRC could know what if feels like to be invisible, he doesn’t see her. And no wonder he can’t properly credit Obama’s mother — not only was she invisible, she was the enemy. Isn’t it wonderful that this is what the Obama’s are teaching their two little girls?
Iphie, I love you. When you have an hour to spare, go to the NY Times and read all the comments on all the stories about Jeremiah Wright. Out of 3,000 comments, I have found only 2 that in any way address the outrageous sexism in Wright’s diatribe against Hillary. I’ve tried to post my own–even pointing out how minor Ferraro’s insensitivity was compared to Wright’s–but all my comments have been rejected. I can’t believe the blindness. I need a drink.
Thank you! If there’s any silver lining to this, I do think that it will be to further galvanize women — especially women who lived through the fight for women’s rights and will refuse, once again to be invisible. I also think it will wake up people of all stripes who will not tolerate this sort of bigotry.
I’ll head over to the NYTimes later, though, as you suggest, perhaps I should have a drink first!
Thank you, Iphie!!
I have felt the same about the absence of credit for Obama’s mother.
Obama willfully chose to identify with his Black father , writing that “Dreams of my Father” nonsense.
It was his father who deserted him, had multiple wives, and ruined his own life with alcohol and arrogance.
Obama’s DREAMS, and the encouragement of same, came from his white mother and maternal grandparents, who sacrificed much to love and nurture him as a young man.
I’m offended by his inability to see or recognize this publicly.
He is no Tiger Woods, who ALWAYS recognizes the love and support from his mother, too.
That Obama could not stand up for his Mom and grandparents in the face of Rev Wright calling ALL whites trouble, speaks volumes about his lack of character or gratitude.
And with all due respect to Michelle Obama, there are a LOT of white kids who never get to go to Harvard Law School, and who do not live in mansions like her own children.
I’m so sick of these Wah Wah Wah rich, elitist Blacks, who would never think about teaching in an inner-city Black school like I did, that I could spit.
These people NEVER live in the hood.
Mary - well said - Obama found it better to be a “poor Black child raised by a single working mother” - than the product of an advantaged birth, a caring WHITE independent mother, left alone to raise him (with the support of WHITE grandparents). He embraces his “father’s dreams” (dumping da bitch ta get some’m bett’a?) and racism because “black” gets the uninformed and guilt vote.
‘course I may be bias, raised by a single “black” mother . . . (well, “Sicilian” but the Italians think of them as “black” so I’ll take the “political” advantage . . .)
and actually didn’t she remarry soon afterwards quickly and Obama was actualy raised by his stepfather in Indonesia?
Barack Obama only lived four years in Indonesia; afterward, his mother and stepfather separated, and she returned with her children to Honolulu, where her parents resided. There, Barack attended one of the most prestigious prep schools in the country, Punahou — albeit on scholarship — and by all accounts thrived.
In 1974, his mother decided to return to Java, and 13-year-old Barack prevailed upon her to let him live with his grandparents and continue attending Punahou, from where he graduated in 1979 and was a member of that school’s state championship-winning basketball team.
I have both the occasion and reason to remember that particular team very well, and have the sneaker treadmarks on my backside to prove it! I was a starting forward for state runner-up Moanalua High School, and Punahou beat us very handily in the championship game, 60-38.
Good point! I didn’t even think of that. All his preaching about hostility toward “white” America, and he is half white! How does that work?
Iffie, I couldn’t agree more.
Furthermore, Obama’s own mother was a white woman. Everything Wright said about Hillary could be said about Obama’s mother. (Would Obama’s mother feel comfortable in that church during such a sermon I wonder?)
Man, that should fruck your head? No?
And they had those girls sitting through that type of trash? As Wright spews it, those bad white people would mean their grandparents on Obama’s side, too?
Man! How can such well intentioned and obviously well educated people be so blind to the horrific mixed messages of hate they are instilling in their own children? Obama is perpetuating his rejection of his white race on his children.
To hate white people means to hate a part of yourself. Shezuz.
I think Big Bird teaches better than that!
And this is the guy who will bring us together how? Now I understand why he doesn’t really have a message! We all knew he was a phony but not what he was hiding.
I get it now though instinctively, I “knews” it all along. Obama has always struck me as “militant.” Perhaps it is my own limited but unforgettable personal experience with a man who believe and preached much like Wright. He was discharged from the military after routinely holding Muslim recruiting meetings in his apartment on base housing. There is no winning a point with such a person. They loop on hate. And he hated everyone when it came down to it for even AA’s who didn’t agree with him were served a extra heaping of damnation.
Even for me, it was hard to watch Wright’s diatribe. We all know this type of blind hate exists but it is sobering to see it up close and personal like that. With so much passion and anger!
Imagine any white member in office being a member of the KKK! A 20 year card carrying member of the KKK!
The double standard is obscene.
Obama was raised by his single white mother.
That must eat at him, after twenty years of bein’ preached to hate whites, he can’t escape his white-ness.
for a long time, i was undecided. however, this “hate america” rhetoric is a deal breaker for me. obama’s associations with the ‘hate america’, hard left,michelle obama’s comments on america and his ties with unrepentant terrorists raises questions.
not only should a candidate be knowledgeable on the economy and strong on national security, he/she should have a love for this country larger than mount rushmore.
SIMON WRITES: “I consider THAT to be America hating too, right wing, as they take money, and knowingly forsaking national security, ie, look at Plame, and Brewster Jennings”
i agree. people in power looking out for their self interests and with no loyalty to this country could be our downfall (though i hope that never happens).
thank you larry, for your continued analysis and public service! this blog remains among my favorite stops on the internet!
Just wait until the Repug machine gets loose . . . with very little effort it will make the “Anointed One” into the greatest boogieman known, just using his OWN history . . . let alone what “Swiftboatarians” can conger . . .
Jane Fisler Hoffman, a Minister in the United Church of Christ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioaChVw_pUw&eurl=http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/15/203242/685/352/477632
“All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident.” -Schoepenhouer
Little Lord Obama’s pants are on fire. That, Cee, is ALL that is self evident.
Obama seems truly surprised that his Wright’s words are causing such an uproar. These were not just words from one sermon, there are several examples from the videotapes for sale on the church’s website!
I have to agree with the commenter above - a man this naive, Obama, would be a threat to national security were he to become president.
I was raised Catholic back in the 1950s and early 1960s, at which time I was told that “the Jews” had killed Jesus, implying that “all Jews” were responsible, even though Jesus of Nazareth was Jewish, as were many of his followers, both men and women. I even got into trouble with a Jewish friend in grade school when I repeated this Catholic “absolutist” lie.
As a teen, I decided to conduct my own religious studies and reach my own conclusions, without being force-fed dogmatic crap by orthodox theological nuts. One of the favorite, and most vile, tactics of these conservative nuts is “abolutism,” as in the example above. Yes, certain Jews in the temple in Jerusalem wanted Jesus and his followers silenced (especially after Jesus’ visit to the temple), but not all Jews held this sentiment. BAsed on historical patterns in multiple societies (including our own), I figure about 1/3 of the Jews in Judea wanted Jesus censored (the conservative, ultra-orthodox types), 1/3 could have cared less and didn’t want to be bothered (the independent, libertarian types), and 1/3 were sympathetic to what Jesus was teaching (the more moderate to liberal Jews).
So, the statement that “the Jews,” implying all Jews, were behind the crucifixion of Jesus is a lie. Just as Reverend Wright’s belief and teachings that all whites are responsible for the enslavement of black people is a lie. Just as the propaganda is a lie that is being pushed by some hardcore conservatives that all Muslims are guilty of the 9/11 attacks. Just as the view is a lie that all Catholics are responsible for some of the nutty, ultra-orthodox crap done over the centuries by popes and cardinals in the Vatican.
I am very, very suspicious of any absolutist stance or spin. Which is why I’ve been really suspicious of the Bush administration, because they’ve taken absolutist crap to an extreme, severely harming our democracy in the process. The Bush administration has promoted non-reality-based lies over and over again, while seeking to bury the facts and the truth. No nuances. No middle ground.
So, I am very wary of absolutism and the purveyors of absolutist crap. In my view, “righteous” absolutist-minded folks are responsible for all the horror in our world, all the suffering, all the harm done to young children. One cannot compromise with these folks. Often, one can’t even hold an intelligent conversation with them, without them bellowing out their rigid righteous absolutist talking points. Therefore, these “absolutists” are hardly “live and let live” liberals, but instead tend to be highly intolerant and bigoted…and dangerous…especially to those who don’t subscribe to the absolutist’s hardcore, right-wing mindset and belief system. The absolutist often becomes judge, jury and executioner.
Now, Reverend Wright sounds to me like any number of white Christian absolutist preachers or priests. But he also sounds like a whole lot of conservative, absolutist ayatollahs or imams…or absolutist Jewish rabbis…or the leaders of any number of absolutist ethnic, political or social groups. Us (the absolutists) versus Them (the rest of the world, those who don’t believe the same things, act the same way, dress the same, or whatever).
So, Barack Obama has a problem. While he’s trying to preach unity and inclusiveness, one of his long-time “spiritual advisers” is an individual spouting the exact opposite. John McCain has the same problem, with him trying to curry the favor of the hardcore absolutist evangelical Christian bloc of the Republican Party, which hardly sounds like he has any interest in promoting unity and inclusiveness…which in my view is what democracy is all about. The bigots, the racists, the religious absolutists (i.e., anyone with a monolithic monopolistic mind-set) are always a danger to any free, open, democratic society.
Hillary Clinton, in my view, is not a bigot, is not a racist, is not a religious abolutist, which is why I voted for her in my state’s primary.
But I want to mention that Barack Obama doesn’t strike me as necessarily being a conservative, hardcore absolutist either, so if it came down to a choice between Obama and McCain in November, I’d certainly stick with the candidate, Barack Obama, who’d reverse and undo some of the absolutist, rigid, stubborn nuttiness of the Bush outgoing administration. A McCain presidency would just give us more of the same right-wing craziness, that has hurt our country so much and harmed the well-being, present and future, of so many of our nation’s children.
But I stand by my vote for Hillary Clinton. She, and Bill, have withstood and triumphed over all the slanderous absolutist bile flung their way over the past two decades. It is this experience that makes me think she’s the one better suited to face all the crap that will be flung at whomever faces McCain in November, plus Hillary Clinton, if elected president, is the one who will work hard at righting all the criminal wrongs done by Bush, Cheney and their gang of right-wing thugs…while Barack Obama, if elected president, has already indicated that he plans on letting bygones by bygones, that is, letting the criminal Republicans get away with what they’ve done, allowing them to return later to pull the same criminal stunts again.
Sorry, I’ll trust that Hillary Clinton, as president and after all that these criminal Republicans have done, will see fit to do the right thing, and hold all these criminal Republicans accountable.
In that interview, he just said that he trusted this man for 20 years before realized that he was wrong. Good judgement indeed.
A simple two-step question for all Americans:
1. Would you let a man like Rev. Wright teach religion and faith to your children?
2. Would you let a man who allows Rev. Wright teach religion to his children to be your President?
Question 3: Would you want a mother who allows her children to hear this preaching to be your First Lady?
I don’t think so.
But I’ve always felt, on foreign policy, Obama was saying the same thing as Wright, just in an understated way. What are their feelings about American power? Whether its Hiroshima, Iraq, neo-colonialism or coercive diplomacy, you’re not just talking about American policy. You’re talking about American power.
How we use our power is a separate question from whether we should keep that power. You don’t have to grow up in the Third World to be a good diplomat (Carter in Egypt, Nixon in China, Bush 41 in Desert Storm). What does Obama mean when he says growing up in Indonesia is his strongest foreign policy credential? He’s saying he knows what it means to be a victim of American power — that’s exactly what Wright says. Now Samantha Power can write him a policy speech, but what are his instincts? It’s hard for him to repudiate Wright because that goes against his deepest convictions. Not the race stuff, but the stuff about American superpower.
I don’t believe Obama is committed to American superpower. Clinton and McCain should pin him down on that question. I’d like to see how his left-wing base reacts to his answer.
CEE…this dispicable man and so called Pastor had the nerve to say the following:
Obama’s Pastor: “God Damn America” : NO QUARTER
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/13/obamas-pastor-god-damn-america/
From Good Morning America today on the ABC network:
Obama’s Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11
Obama’s Pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Has a History of What Even Obama’s Campaign Aides Say Is ‘Inflammatory Rhetoric’
By BRIAN ROSS and REHAB EL-BURI
March 13, 2008—
Sen. Barack Obama’s pastor says blacks should not sing “God Bless America” but “God damn America.”
The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s pastor for the last 20 years at the Trinity United Church of Christ on Chicago’s south side, has a long history of what even Obama’s campaign aides concede is “inflammatory rhetoric,” including the assertion that the United States brought on the 9/11 attacks with its own “terrorism.”
yes words do matter…
these are the last words of My co-workers on board Flight 11 …right before it hit the World Trade Center…
but let me tell you something ..stop the damn lying for this man!
stop it now!
my co-worker Amy Sweeney was not a terrorist.nor did she bring it upon herself or her passengers..or this nation..
in fact she had a child who started her first day of school that beautiful sunny September morning..
And for anyone to excuse the hate, that this man, who calls himself a pastor ..must make them a hater as well.
And i will tell you..without a shadow of doubt..it was hate..hate that killed my co-workers that day..it was religious ideology mixed with hate.
I just wonder if the Pastor or Obama or any of us would have had the valor and the professionalism and the guts ..that Amy Sweeney and Betty Ong..and the entire Crew and passengers had the morning of 9/11…Amy knowing she would never see her precious child again. Betty knowing her last moments were in front of her.
One would have thought we would have learned something that horrible day..but i fear we have learned nothing..as there are Americans willing to ignore and make excuses for these kind of hateful words..and many would walk into an election booth and vote for someone who has suported this hate for 17 + years.
yes words do matter.
Words were all Amy and Betty had ..with so few minutes left…to tell people on the ground what was happening..so they could help to keep this from ever happening again.
These were her last words..
we have learned nothing it seems.
and the hate continues.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
They were now nearing New York and the World Trade Center, but on board the plane it was quiet. “You didn’t hear hysteria in the background. You didn’t hear people screaming,” said Minter.
Woodward asked Sweeney to look out of the window and see if she could tell what was going on. “I see the water. I see the buildings. I see buildings,” she told him.
On the line to Raleigh, Ong said over and over again, “Pray for us. Pray for us.” Gonzales and Minter assured her they were praying.
Sweeney told Woodward the plane was flying very low. Then, he said, “She took a very slow, deep breath and then just said, ‘Oh, my God!’ Very slowly, very calmly, very quietly. It wasn’t in panic.”
Those were the last words Woodward heard. “Seconds later,” he said, “there was a very, very loud static on the other end.”
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/attack/abc_calmbefore.html
I have to tell you that I wept reading your post recalling your two friends’ last moments that cool September morning. I immediately went back to my own experience that day and what we all collectively felt as we watched in disbelief while those towers crumbled. It was hate….pure…..undisturbed hatred that drove those planes into those buildings. Hate that comes from the pulpit of a Chicago preacher causes the same divisiveness….I need hear those words ONLY once…or even Hear of those words ONLY once and I would have the foresight and the wisdom to walk away with my wife and my two children. Barack Obama has shamed us all and insulted us all by thinking for one moment that we believe that for 17 years he had no idea what was going on in his church. Please America wake up….
Thank you so much for your words…I was deeply moved and encouraged…
Powerful statement. Powerful!
From what pulpit are the words of your heart heard?
The words spoken before the silence of eternity from those that were mudered in the name of hate will not be heard from Barak’s pulpit.
Larry, Larry, Larry!!!! There is undisputed proof that Obama never listened to Rev. Wright and his teachings!!!!
The proof is simple Larry, easy for anyone to figure out, Obama did nothing for the poor and disenfranchised in his own ward while a State Senator, instead teaming up with Rezko the slumlord! Rev. Wright constantly preached about the downtroddened and the poor and those needing help from the people in power, and Obama did nothing, so there is the proof Larry!…….lol
One thing I have noticed, is Obama orchestrated a master tactic on Friday, he compiled so much crap together that people are focusing on the item that insenses them the most, Rev Wright, yet everyone has taken their eyes off the other balls Obama put in play, namely:
Rezko, Auchi, money bundling, house, Letters, lobbyists to reform, and religion!
Obama had such poor recollection on many topics that the interviews were more like Obama doing the interviewing on his terms!
The one thing Obama has mastered during his campaigning is how to bamboozle people even the Chicago press core!
I remember when I was finishing my classics degree, a book by Martin Bernal entitled “Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization” came out. I think he wrote two more on the same subject.
Anyway, the book was very controversial because it claimed all of civilization came out of Africa and that Europeans had made up the whole classical world theory. It ignited a furious debate.
Scholars that argued against Bernal’s theory were suspected of racism. I’m sure Wright is schooled in Bernal’s conspiracy theory (and blinkered scholarship.)
[...] below, Larry has the arguments and the proof why Barack Obama is toast. Or should be. But will the elite of the Democratic party realize this in [...]
Here is an interesting article, a must read!
http://www.usvetdsp.com/jan08/obama_lou%20tribe.htm
First of all: Excellent Post!
You are absolutely correct in saying that it was not a casual relationship between Obama and Wright. 20 years is a long time to be around someone that you consider a spiritual mentor. And Obama’s excuse that he wasn’t there when Wright said these heinous things just doesn’t wash. I am absolutely certain that evidence will surface to discredit those claims.
I look forward to the coming days you mention. And I am certain you are absolutely correct.
Words do matter, but apparently on this site truth or balance does not. Larry likes the phrase “can’t they even do a Google search”. Apparently he can’t. A google search for United Church of Christ and / or Africentric Theology pulls up these radical sites–
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Church_of_Christ
http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=3392
http://www.iceol.duke.edu/resources/lastmiles/papers/11.html
Wright’s resume 2003 (before all this started)
http://www.corinthianbaptistchurch.org/jeremiah_a_wright_jr.htm
If you search on Google news from 1972 to 2006, other than articles insired by Obama’s success you find nothing controversial.
If you do news search on United Church of Christ africentric theology you only get recent 2008 searches–nothing before that.
As I’ve said before I’m a Clinton supportor, but to see such a great site lower itself to Fox News standards–and moaning that FOX the only source that seems to be telling the “truth”. Shouldn’t that tell them something?
BO is supposed to be so brilliant and possessing such great judgment, but he claims to not know what’s going on in his own church which he says is such an important force in his life, and he’s never gotten to the heart of the man that is “Rev” Wright. How in the h— will he know what’s going on in the world and how could he possiibly deal with world leaders?
Larry-
I hope your are right about the coming days. Obamanation got more delegates in Iowa. I do not want this racost loving b@#$%^d running our country. Enough is enough. I would neither vote for a white supremist nor a black racist, both are intrinsically wrong. I did hear rumors that Newsmax has some video with Obama at a sermon Wright gave that was “rough” to back up their article from last August. I hope it gets airtime!
You are right that words matter.
Obama’s words matter because he is basing hs entire campaign on his judgment and that it is better than others. Unfortunately he has shown bad judgment on two occasions in nearly as many weeks.
Wright as you said has been preaching this for decades and if Obama did not know this then he could not have been going to that Church. Yet he made “this crazy uncle” an advisor on his campaign.
Before this it was Samanta Powers. Putting aside her statemen about Hillary, she is a well known anti-Israel proponent.
Yet Obama wants to convince the Jewish community that he supports them and Israel. Powers and now Wright.
Obama’s entire campaign is asking the American publc to make leap of faith on a man with no accomplishments and limited experience. But that faith is wearing thinner and thinner.
http://hillbuzz.blogspot.com/2008/03/reverends-wright-moss-iii-obamas.html
Reverend Wright, Otis III and Barack’s true feelings on the Black Church’s Roll in Politics and supporting candidates……
first I’m so disappointed in Dean,Pelosi,and many others who is trying to game the process and the democratic system. we just have to face that realization
you got caught again Obama and then lied right in our faces…self explanatory ,don’t insult me. Being a black American I’m offended and embarrassed by your pastor Wright and your churches messages …Senator Obama now have the audacity of hope to ask us” are you going to believe me? or your lying eyes !!!
andre’wilson -
I used that lying eyes reference a while ago and now here I am again agreeing with you for using it re: another major credibiltiy/integrity problem with candidate Obama.
Add that to the lies he keeps getting caught in re: Tony and Rita Rezko and it’s a miracle that he got this far in politics.
Last week it was Goolsby with NAFTAGATE…
Next up: Auchi & Alsamare!
You can read more about James Cone and hear him yourself on podcasts from Bill Moyers Journal.
Disclaimer: I am a former student of Prof. Cone.
This Wikipedia article on liberation theology has many cross and library references. I note that American LTs that I know of do not advocate violence at all.
Among LT’s finer hours was during the dirty war in Argentina, when its adherents, including at least one rabbi, were among the few to take a public stand against the military dictatorship.
(There is more on Rabbi Meyer, and on the transformation of a society under a torture regime, in A Lexicon of Terror: Argentina and the Legacies of Torture.)
prostatedragon wrote:
Thank you, this looks interesting, I will read it.
What were her opinions on how torture affected the greater governmental infrastructure?
Did the author analyze this aspect, or was it focused solely on the greater cultural effects?
Either way, looks like a good read…
Did you see this interesting article about MO? it reminded me of this thread.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JC04Aa01.html
[...] Senator Obama, Do Words Matter? (by Larry Johnson at No Quarter) [Jeremiah] Wright’s words matter. Wright’s words express a view of history and a view of society that every member of his congregation understood. Obama will struggle in the coming days to insist he knew nothing about a man he calls Uncle. But Uncle Jeremiah is not some crazy relative living in an attic. He has been a leader in Africentric Liberation theology, a religious vision that promotes racial division and hatred. I guess Senator Obama is truly audacious because he apparently believes that America will not believe the recorded words of Uncle Jeremiah. [...]
Everything Rev. Wright said in those sermon excerpts is true. The neo-facist tone of this website is ample evidence thereof. Maybe if you folks stop hating just a bit your minds will actually start working. Barack Obama is America’s best hope. He will win in November. Believe it.
He’s done.
If you believe that everything Wright said is true then that is in conflict with what Obama believes. So why do you support him?
Also, find out what fascist means before using it idiot.
[...] when Barack insisted that words matter? He continued: “…It’s true that speeches don’t solve all problems, but what is also true is [...]