Why is Jeremiah Wright Still in the Dog House?

Beneath the Spin * Eric L. Wattree

Why is Jeremiah Wright Still in the Dog House?

.

In an article written for ThyBlackMan.com, Rev. R. Joaquin Willis asked why is Rev. Jeremiah Wright still in the dog house. He asked:
.
"Why is Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. still in the media dog house? When is the media going to stop referring to him as "President Obama’s former pastor?" Is there no fairness in the media? Paul tells us in Ephesians 4:32: "Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as Christ God forgave you."
.
In response to Rev. Willis' question, I can't speak for anyone else, but I refuse to forgive Rev. Jeremiah Wright because he gave his ego priority over America as a whole, and the Black community in particular. So, from my point of view, during the 2008 election Rev. Wright betrayed a severe flaw in his character. He had absolutely no hesitation in jeopardizing the best interest of the Black community for ten minutes of national fame, and you just can't trust a man who shows those tendencies. The same is true of Tavis Smiley, Cornel West, and Boyce Watkins.
.
While anyone can make an error in judgment, the good reverend refused to acknowledge his error and continued to run his mouth, thereby, jeopardizing the election of Barack Obama, and even worse, promoting the chances of John McCain and Sarah Palin taking over the reins of this government. That was grossly self-serving and irresponsible.
.
But many of Wright’s supporters counter with, "But he spoke the truth." Maybe he did, but even the very Bible that he built a career on thumping says something to the effect that there’s a time for all things - and during the midst of a heated campaign where we were trying to elect the nation’s first Black president, was neither the appropriate time, nor the place, to start trying to lecture White folks on how horrible America is. In a word, it was stupid, and if Jeremiah Wright was anything close to as brilliant as some people claim he is, he would have recognized that fact.
.
Even today Wright doesn’t seem to have gotten the point. In spite of the Biblical pronouncement cited above regarding the virtues of forgiveness, he’s still obviously smarting over forcing Obama to kick him, and his mouth, to the curb. What was Obama suppose to do, forego his quest to become President of the United States in order to remain loyal to a fool who's running around screaming "God Damn, America!"?  Where was his loyalty to Obama's efforts?
.
No, we've seen this before. They turned on the cameras, and this was Wright's chance to show the world what it REALLY meant to be Black, fearless, and "down for the cause."  But what he actually showed was what it meant to be old, Black, and stupid. So Obama was right to kick him to the curb.
.
At a recent Chicago Teacher’s Union event to commemorate Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday, Rev. Jeremiah Wright said that while the civil rights leader proclaimed "I have a dream," Obama says..."I have a drone." That was a very witty quip coming from the good reverend, but once again, in spite of his love for the Lord and his alleged "forgiving heart," it was extremely mean-spirited and stupid - and once again, it served to lend comfort to the enemies of the Black community.
.

President Obama is charged with the responsibility of preventing Al Qaeda, or any other terrorist group, from getting their hands on Pakistan's nuclear weapons - which, by the way, are essentially right around the corner from where they located Osama Bin Laden, living quite openly, and comfortably, with his family. So what would the good reverend have the president do, back-off and pray that the Lord protect us from a nuclear attack?
.
In addition, drones actually SAVE many lives during a war, because with drones we have the option of waiting until the target's family is away from the targeted area, as oppose to blindly lobbing missiles into a heavily populated location. If you lived next door to a terrorist, would you rather someone randomly start firing missiles in your direction, or would you prefer that they send drones in, where they could target his house specifically, and not yours?
.

So people like Jeremiah Wright, Tavis Smiley, and Cornel West don’t know what they’re talking about. Just like backwards-thinking people of old, they're simply blindly condemning a new technology that they don't understand. In addition, they're blindly condemning President Obama's decisions without knowing the facts.  They’re not getting CIA Condition Reports on their desks every morning like Obama, so they can't possibly know what information Obama is basing his decisions upon. All they’re doing is ranting about the way things LOOK to them, and that kind of mindless behavior clearly demonstrates that not one of them have Obama’s intelligence, and not one of them are qualified to be President of the United States.
.
Just try to imagine what it would be like to have Cornel West as President of the United States. We would be the laughingstock of the world, and not one country in the world would take us seriously. Personally, I wouldn’t be able to sleep at night, because the brother just doesn’t have the intellectual heft and sobriety to handle a job that requires that level of seriousness. When I try to imagine West in that position it makes it clear to me just how much of an entertainer and a clown he really is. As I pointed out in one of the many articles I’ve done on him, he’s the Liberace of faux intellectualism.
.
Rev. Willis, you also said, "Mr. Obama had hardly any grasp of the meaning of being a black person in the United States. By example and exhortation, Reverend Wright cured that deficiency, sending to Washington a President qualified to give America a chance to actually become a democracy!"
.
That’s also nonsense. Barack Obama probably knows more about what it means to be Black in America than most of us do. Although those of us who were raised in the Black community have undoubtedly experience racism, we had the comfort of living in Black cocoons within the inner cities with one another to lean on for support. But living with a White family from lily-White Kansas, and spending much of his life being the only African American living among others of other races and ethnicities in other parts of the world, chances are, Barack Obama knows more about racism and being an outsider than we’ll ever know.
.
So Jeremiah Wright couldn’t teach Barack a thing about being Black in America - in fact, neither Jeremiah, Tavis Smiley, nor Cornel West could teach Barack Obama much about anything, because he’s clearly demonstrated that he has, at the very least, 15 IQ points on every one of them.
.
So we need to get real here. History is going to remember Barack Obama as one of the most brilliant men that this country has EVER produced, and one of our GREATEST Presidents, while Jeremiah, Tavis, and West are garden-variety fat-mouths. Brothers like them come a-dime-dozen, and can be found running their mouths in the parking lots of liquor stores all over the hood.
.
The problem with people like Jeremiah, Tavis, and West is they’re so ego driven that in order to pursue their own agendas they're willing to lend comfort and support to those who would destroy the Black community. So by their very actions, they’ve clearly demonstrated that they don’t love the Black community nearly as much as they love themselves.
.
So Rev. Willis, that’s why Jeremiah Wright is in my dog house, and he always will be. You have to be careful what you ask for in this world, and Jeremiah Wright wanted national notoriety and fame. Well, he's got it.

.

Rev Jeremiah Wright to retire in 'white suburb'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/local-elections/1924323/Rev-Jeremiah-Wright-to-retire-in-white-suburb.html

.

Don’t Waste Obama’s Last Two Years, America - We May Not See Another Like Him For Generations

http://wattree.blogspot.com/2014/04/dont-waste-obamas-last-two-years.html

.

Eric L. Wattree
Http://wattree.blogspot.com
Ewattree@Gmail.comCitizens Against Reckless Middle-Class Abuse (CARMA)
.
Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content

A Retrospective On Life Under the GOP - September 15, 2002

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

 

WOULD BUSH'S SABER RATTLE AS LOUDLY AGAINST CHINA?

author: Eric L. Wattree           e-mail: Ewattree@Gmail.com

Only two questions must be asked to get past the Bush Administration's nonsense. First, would Bush's saber rattle as loudly against China as opposed to Iraq? And secondly, do you think invading Iraq will make America more, or less safe from terrorist attacks?

Now that we've reached the anniversary of 9-11, I am consumed by one thought--in light of what I've seen over the past year I find myself much more afraid of Bush, Cheney, and Ashcroft than I am the Al Qaeda. While I understand that terrorists strike without warning to destroy life and property to promote their own agenda, it has become increasingly clear that Bush and his cohorts threaten to be even more destructive by attacking life, liberty, and the very foundation of this nation in the promotion of theirs. Over the past year these conservative war mongers have been playing the American people like a fiddle. Now they want to sacrifice American lives for nothing more than their own political advantage. Just ask yourself, what does Saddam Hussein have to do with 9-11? Absolutely nothing. Evidence of that can be found in the fact that if Saddam had been involved in 9-11 the administration would have gone after him initially. So why is it suddenly so imperative that we invade Iraq now? I'll tell you why. Since Bush was unable to produce the head of Osama Bin Laden, he now needs another villain to take Bin Laden's place in order to keep his numbers up in the polls-- and if that means having to sacrifice a few American lives and ignite even more terrorist activity on American soil in the process, so be it. It is a well known political fact that the American people tend to rally around the president when the country's at war. That's why the Bush Administration fell all over themselves after 9-11 to declare "a war against terrorism." And the American people reacted just as planed-Bush's numbers immediately went up in the polls. But now with the mystery surrounding the fate of Osama Bin Laden, the administration has found itself without a war to sustain those numbers, so now they have to create one. While I'm not prepared to say that the Bush Administration allowed 9-11 to take place, it is clear that the timing of the 9-11 tragedy was without a doubt the best thing that could ever happened to Bush's presidency. Bush was a lame duck the minute he was sworn in. It seems that as soon as Bush entered The Oval Office the stock market began to falter and the economy started to weaken. And whenever he spoke, the next day's news was not so much what he said, but whether or not he got through the speech without falling on his face. In addition, his big tax cut that was touted as the key to boosting the economy turned out to be a bust, and he was so inept in dealing with congress that a Republican senator changed parties costing Bush control of the senate. As a result, when 9-11 took place, it was embraced by conservatives more like it was a football rally than the sober occasion that it was--thus, all the flag waving, ceremonies, and strutting about. But where was all that bluster prior to 9-11? ABC News reported on May 16th of this year that the Bush Administration acknowledged that U.S. intelligence officials informed President Bush weeks before 9-11 that Osama Bin Laden's terrorists might try to hijack a plane. It was also reported that Bush privately alerted transportation officials and security agencies, but other than that, simply sat on the information. The administration claims that the information they received was non-specific, but one would think that even if they couldn't determine exactly when and where the attack was going to take place, at the very least they could have warned the American people. If they had, maybe some of the people who died would have chosen not to fly-or possibly, chosen to leave their children behind. But no, this president who now claims to be so concerned with protecting our welfare that he feels compelled to launch an unprovoked attack against Iraq, was at that time more interested in the impact that warning us would have on the airline industry. What the American people needs to understand is that the power elite in this country doesn't view the United States in the same way as its citizens. They see the United States as a huge corporation, with its various industries as its subsidiaries. They see American citizens, particularly the lower and middle class, as simply pawns to be cajoled and manipulated in whatever way is necessary to meet the goals of the corporation. Therefore, they didn't view the tragedy of 9-11 in the same patriotic way as the average American citizen. After the initial shock, they saw 9-11 in terms of dollars and cents. Ultimately, it was viewed as an assault on their corporate superstructure. Later they recognized that the incident could be used as a distraction for the American people, and still later, an opportunity to move on Middle Eastern oil interests. So let there be no doubt, all of the flag waving, ceremonies, and patriotic speeches have nothing to do with 9-11; they are designed to whip the American people into such a frenzy that they're blinded to Bush's actual agenda. And that agenda includes the following: 1. Committing America (and American lives) to a war in order to get himself re-elected. 2. Taking control of Iraqi oil fields to benefit his friends in big business. 3. Keeping the American voter distracted from considering the ramifications of the recent corporate scandals. 4. Keeping the American people from recognizing how inept he is as president. The rest of the world sees Bush's agenda for what it is, and the American people would too if they'd stop waving their flags long enough to consider the flag's true meaning. The American flag represents freedom and justice, not trying to dictate who should lead other countries. It represents the open debate of issues, not intolerance to any and everyone who disagrees with your point of view. It represents the guarantee of personal freedom, not the suspension of the Bill of Rights. If the American people would just stop to consider these facts, it would become clear that even while Bush and his conservative cohorts are frantically waving our flag, they are simultaneously waging war against the very values that the flag and this great country represent. These issues can, and will, be debated ad nauseam, but the American people need only ask themselves two questions to put all of the administration's nonsense into perspective. First, would the administration be so anxious to go to war if we were talking about China as opposed to Iraq? And secondly, do we think that invading Iraq will make us more, or less safe from terrorist attacks? If we answer those questions honestly, it becomes clear that the administration is being disingenuous at best.   WOULD BUSH'S SABER RATTLE AS LOUDLY AGAINST CHINA? Eric L. Wattree Http://wattree.blogspot.com Ewattree@Gmail.com Citizens Against Reckless Middle-Class Abuse (CARMA) Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content

The Fool Strikes Again: Cornel West Calls President Obama a War Criminal

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

The Fool Strikes Again: Cornel West Calls President Obama a War Criminal 

Once again Dr. Cornel West has gone out of his way to inflame headlines and relegate a complex issue to the waste bin of simplistic zealotry by calling President Obama a war criminal.
.
In his typical pseudo intellectual fashion, West continues to shout the obvious - that innocent people are being killed in war - in the most inflammatory tones as though he's relating something new.
.
While most Americans are against the killing of innocent noncombatants, we also recognize that it invariably happens in every war. That’s one of many things that makes engaging in war such a horrible thing. But Cornel West is shouting from the rafters and going into public convulsions as though the first time it's ever happened is under Barack Obama. Thus, I'd like to challenge Dr. West to name one war in the history of mankind where innocent noncombatants weren't killed.
.
During WWII, a war that most Americans consider a heroic undertaking, we dropped not one, but two atomic bombs on Japan - one each on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - killing men, women, children, newborn babies, cute little puppies, and cuddly little kittens. So again, ALL wars involve killing innocent noncombatants, but now, all of a sudden, everybody wants to whole Barack Obama to a different standard than we’ve held every head of state since long before Jesus walked the Earth. We need to examine that attitude - especially Black people, because it looks an awfully lot like it’s grounded in racism.
.
So here's the problem with people like Tavis and West - they invariably shoot from the hip with inflammatory comments and disseminate disinformation in order to garner headlines to promote their own selfish agendas. As a result, instead of enhancing debate, they distract from any serious discussion of the issues - and in the process, they lend comfort to the most harsh and dedicated enemies of the Black community, but they don't seem to mind that at all.

.
In addition, West is not privy to even one sentence of the intelligence that President Obama has at his disposal. Yet, he’s shooting off his mouth as though the CIA is putting a condition report on his desk every morning for his review. We must never forget that Pakistan, right next door to Afghanistan - and where Osama Bin Laden was found and killed - is armed with nuclear weapons, and the president has a responsibility to see to it that those weapons never fall into the hands of Al Qaeda. If they do, America, and YOUR family, will fall under the dire threat of nuclear annihilation.
.

So while people like Tavis Smiley and Cornel West are jumping up and down in ignorance, and engaging in a recklessly selfish attempt to gain headlines and get the president's acknowledgment, the President is engaged in serious business - America’s business. So they have to understand, just like irate children seeking attention, that the president doesn't have time to come out and play, and regardless to how many tantrums they engage in, or how inflammatory they become, the president simply doesn't have time to come sit in the sandbox with them.
.

Adults understand that the issues aren’t as cut-n-dried as people like Tavis and West would have us believe. Yes, on the surface it seems like simple common sense that it’s wrong to kill an American citizen without due process - even if that citizen is collaborating with the enemy. But place yourself in the position of the president for a moment. Let’s say you have credible information that Al Qaeda is going to launch an attack on an American position on Tuesday morning, but you can prevent the attack by launching a preemptive drone attack on Al Qaeda's position on Monday night. You have one problem, however - you also have intelligence that indicates there’s a collaborator on the enemy site who is an American citizen. Are you going to hold off your preemptive attack because the collaborator hasn’t been afforded due process?  I don't think so, any more than a police officer is going to wait on a court order to defend himself on the street.
.
And let us not forget that once a precedent has been set of holding off attacks in order to protect the lives of American collaborators, from that point on Al Qaeda can use that against us. All they have to do is surround themselves with American sympathizers as human shields to insure themselves against attack. So these issues aren’t as simple as they might seem at first blush. While, of course, we must be careful to protect the rights and security of innocent American citizens, jumping up and down screaming and pointing fingers is not the kind of approach that is appropriate for considering such weighty concerns.
.
But a Cornel West supporter recently called me to task for constantly challenging Dr. West’s intelligence. He asked, "Eric, who made you judge and jury to attribute intelligence or lack thereof, to any individual?"
.
That's a reasonable question, so I'll try to give a reasonable response. My assessment of a person's intelligence is not based on their credentials, but on their behavior. And who am I to make such a judgment? I'm human, and human beings are called upon to make such judgments hundreds of times a day just to survive. It's called assessing your environment. In this case, it's extremely important for the Black community to assess West's competence, because, considering his flagging, but still substantial influence, failing to understand his character, motivations, and shortcomings could have a devastating impact on our community.
.
The results of the 2000 election stands as a perfect example of my contention.  George W. Bush won the 2000 election by winning Florida by 537 votes. In that same state, the Nader/West coalition peeled away 97,488 votes. So one could argue that West is more than a little responsible for the suffering that's currently going on among Black people today. And you know what? West didn't learn a thing. He tried to team up with Nader again in the last election. So either he lacks intelligence, or he's engaged in collusion with the Republican Party. It's very important, therefore, that the Black community make a valid assessment of who this man is.
.
As Min. Louis Farrakhan so adroitly pointed out to Tavis Smiley, President Obama is not turning grey-headed for nothing. He’s dealing with serious issues, and he’s privy to information in which we can only speculate. So it’s one thing to question policy, but when Cornel West goes around making incendiary comments and calling the President of the United States a war criminal, it's not only childish, irresponsible, unprofessional, and ignorant, but it lends support to the enemies of both the Black community, and the American people as a whole.

.

.
RELATED ARTICLE
Poverty Pimp, Inc.

Eric L. Wattree
Http://wattree.blogspot.com
Ewattree@Gmail.com
Citizens Against Reckless Middle-Class Abuse (CARMA)

Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content

Well, Mr. President, I warned You Over Two Years Ago

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

Well, Mr. President, I warned you over two years ago - on November 2, 2009, to be specific - about allowing the Dick Cheney and the GOP to goad you into Afghanistan. Now, with the 2012 election coming up, they don't look so bad, because you've allowed them to entice you into getting the very same kind of uselss death and destruction on your hands as they had in Iraq, and in the end, you're going to have to do exactly what I suggested back then - simply pull back, and assist Pakistan in defending their nuclear weapons. So maybe you need to trade in your advisors for my crystal ball.

.

Could Obama Fall Victim to a Change We Can't Believe in?

At this point Obama's presidency could go either way - he can either become one of the greatest presidents this country has ever known, or go down as an exciting experiment that went bad. It's all up to how he handles the expectations of Independents.

.
The biggest problem that Obama currently faces is becoming a victim of his own effectiveness. During the campaign he raised the nation's expectation so high that just being a good president won't do. He promised a change that we can believe in, which led many of us to believe that he intended to trash the way business is done in Washington, but that promise seems to be totally inconsistent with what seems to be his irrepressible desire to hold hands and sing Kumbaya with the very Republican leaders from which we wanted a change.
.
This has fueled the growing suspicion by many that both parties are beholding to the same cabal of power, and only feign having differing philosophies toward governance. That suspicion lies very close to the surface for many Independents - after all, that's why they're Independents in the first place.
.
And President Obama hasn't helped himself in that regard. For a man who is ordinarily so politically astute, even before he became president he did a curious flip-flop on the FISA issue. According to Greenchange.org, on October 24, 2007, Bill Burton of the Obama campaign indicated, "To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." But by June 20, 2008, Obama issued a statement reversing his position, indicating that our national security needs were more important than his objections.
.
That deeply disappointed many Independents, since a citizen's right to sue a telecommunications company for invading his or her privacy in violation of the law has nothing to do with national security. Those are the very constitutional rights that we're trying to keep secure. But while many Independents have kept that in mind, at least Obama had the integrity to take that stand prior to our making the decision on whether or not to vote for him.
.
But then once he was elected President, Obama made another curious statement with regard to the criminal activities and alleged war crimes committed by the Bush administration. In spite of the fact that there are strong allegations and prima facie evidence of torture, and some of the most unconscionable violations of the Geneva Convention since the Nuremberg trials, President Obama stated that he wanted to move the nation forward, and not look back.
.
Many Independents have two problems with that. First of all, President Obama seems much too willing to move forward with regard to the fat cats, while lower-ranking personnel are rotting in prison. That's in direct conflict with the American ideal of equal justice under the law. And secondly, since most of these atrocities were committed against the citizens of other nations, it is the height of arrogance for us to be "the deciders" of whether or not those responsible should be held accountable. That also runs contrary to American ideals, and the concept of "a shining city on the hill."
.
And now we're talking about sending thousands of more troops to Afghanistan. The question is, why? The nation has yet to be provided with a reasonable explanation of why we should be meddling, once again, in another country's internal affairs. One would think we would have learned something about the futility of that by now. It's a recipe for disaster.
.
There's only two legitimate reasons to have our troops in that part of the world. The first is obvious - to make damn sure the nuclear missiles in Pakistan don't fall into the hands of Al Qaeda. The second reason is to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice. So why can't we simply pull out of Afghanistan and deploy enough troops in Pakistan to protect the missiles, then let the CIA and law enforcement deal with Osama? That way we save both treasure and lives, and we're not creating more enemies for the United States by killing innocent people.
.
But many Independents suspect that there's another agenda afoot. Actually, Cheney's giving it away. Independents recognize that Dick Cheney has absolutely no integrity, so when he gets passionate over an issue we know to follow either the money or power. Thus, many Independents suspect that what's actually behind Cheney's insistence that we go recklessly rushing into Afghanistan has much more to do with Halliburton's bottom line than it does America's best interest. And while Obama has shown himself to be an excellent president in many ways, his one shortcoming - and a shortcoming that may very well bring him down in the end - is his tendency to try to appease the stupidity and greed of the GOP.
.
The President needs to recognize that there is nothing he can do that's going to make him acceptable to the GOP - that is, unless he agrees to appoint a Republican vice president, then resign. By now it should be clear that even while he's asleep, the GOP is trying to hatch plans to destroy him. So by spending more time thinking about them than he is his base, he's playing right into their hands.
.
I mentioned power as one of the reasons that Cheney's trying to rush the president into Afghanistan. I wonder if the president has considered the fact that Cheney just might be trying to get him to make the same kind of mistake in Afghanistan that the Bush Administration made in Iraq in order to take the Iraq issue off the table for the 2012 election? If during the 2012 campaign America is bogged down in Afghanistan with the useless death of thousands of U.S. troops, all of a sudden, Bush, Cheney, and the GOP won't look all that bad. The president should think about that possibility, since the mechinations of Dick Cheney makes Machiavelli look like a trainee.
.
On the other hand, if the president would have the CIA go after Osama Bin Laden (through the use of intelligence, instead of blindly shooting at rocks), then pull out of Afghanistan, and make an agreement with the government of Pakistan to help them protect their nuclear arsenal, he'll be looking pretty good in 2012, and he won't have the deaths of thousands of U.S. troops to have to justify.
.
And he'd look even better if he allowed Attorney General Holder to do his job with respect to the Bush administration's war crimes. First, he'd firm up his base by restoring their confidence that he stands for the rule of law, and he would also allay the fear that he might be a puppet, controlled by some powerful cabal.
.
Another upside to that is that once Holder begins his investigation into the Bush administration, there's absolutely no doubt that he's going to find criminality, cronyism, and corruption seeping so deep within the GOP that Republicans will be so busy snitching on one another, and covering their own asses, that they won't have the time to plot against either him, or the American people.
.
Now, THAT, would be a change that we could believe in.

. 

Eric L. Wattree

Http://wattree.blogspot.com
Ewattree@Gmail.com

Citizens Against Reckless Middle-Class Abuse (CARMA)

Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content

Mr. President, Osama’s Death Can Breathe New Life into Your Presidency

Beneath the Spin * Eric L. Wattree

Mr. President, Osama’s Death Can Breathe New Life into Your Presidency

First, Mr. President, allow me to congratulate you on bringing Osama Bin Laden to justice. That one act alone separates you from the disingenuous chest-beaters who have been manipulating American misery to gain political traction. No longer can they wrap themselves in the flag and strut around in their ineffectual, faux patriotism while they accuse the President of the United States of “palling around with terrorists.” The quiet and effective way in which you’ve gone about carrying out America’s business clearly distinguishes who’s the adult in the room, and who's the true American.

But Osama’s death could also provide you with an opportunity to correct one of the biggest mistakes of your presidency. It gives you a second chance to extricate the United States from the no-win quagmire in Afghanistan, and that part of the world.

In my November 2, 2009 article, Could Obama Fall Victim to a Lack of Change We Can Believe in?, I said the following:

"There's only two legitimate reasons to have our troops in that part of the world [Afghanistan/Pakistan]. The first is obvious - to make damn sure the nuclear missiles in Pakistan don't fall into the hands of Al Qaeda. The second reason is to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice. So why can't we simply pull out of Afghanistan and deploy enough troops in Pakistan to protect the missiles, then let the CIA and law enforcement deal with Osama? That way we save both treasure and lives, and we're not creating more enemies for the United States by killing innocent people.

“The President needs to recognize that there is nothing he can do that's going to make him acceptable to the GOP - that is, unless he agrees to appoint a Republican vice president, then resign. By now it should be clear that even while he's asleep, the GOP is trying to hatch plans to destroy him. So by spending more time thinking about them than he is his base, he's playing right into their hands.

"But many Independents suspect that there's another agenda afoot. Actually, Cheney's giving it away. Independents recognize that Dick Cheney has absolutely no integrity, so when he gets passionate over an issue we know to follow either the money or power. Thus, many Independents suspect that what's actually behind Cheney's insistence that we go recklessly rushing into Afghanistan has much more to do with Halliburton's bottom line than it does America's best interest. And while Obama has shown himself to be an excellent president in many ways, his one shortcoming - and a shortcoming that may very well bring him down in the end - is his tendency to try to appease the stupidity and greed of the GOP.

“I mentioned power as one of the reasons that Cheney's trying to rush the president into Afghanistan. I wonder if the president has considered the fact that Cheney just might be trying to get him to make the same kind of mistake in Afghanistan [and now Libya] that the Bush Administration made in Iraq in order to take the Iraq issue off the table for the 2012 election? If during the 2012 campaign America is bogged down in Afghanistan with the useless death of thousands of U.S. troops, all of a sudden, Bush, Cheney, and the GOP won't look all that bad. The president should think about that possibility, since the machinations of Dick Cheney makes Machiavelli look like a trainee.

“On the other hand, if the president would have the CIA go after Osama Bin Laden (through the use of intelligence, instead of blindly shooting at rocks), then pull out of Afghanistan, and make an agreement with the government of Pakistan to help them protect their nuclear arsenal, he'll be looking pretty good in 2012, and he won't have the deaths of thousands of U.S. troops to have to justify.”

So it seems that I was right on the money, at least, with respect to the way to go after Osama Bin Laden, and I’m virtually certain that I’m right about the rest as well. So Mr. President, at this point you should simply say, “Ok, we’ve done what we set out to do. We’ve brought Osama Bin Laden to justice so our job is done.” Then you should get the hell out of there as fast as you can go.

Eric L. Wattree

http://wattree.blogspot.com/
Ewattree@Gmail.com
Citizens Against Reckless Middle-Class Abuse (CARMA)

Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content

Could Obama Fall Victim to a Lack of Change We Can Believe in? (Reprise)

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

Could Obama Fall Victim to a Lack of Change We Can Believe in? (Reprise)

In light of what's currently going on in the country I thought this would be an appropriate time to reprise this article that was published on November 2, 2009.

At this point Obama's presidency could go either way - he can either become one of the greatest presidents this country has ever known, or go down as an exciting experiment that went bad. It's all up to how he handles the expectations of Independents.

The biggest problem that Obama currently faces is becoming a victim of his own effectiveness. During the campaign he raised the nation's expectation so high that just being a good president won't do. He promised a change that we can believe in, which led many of us to believe that he intended to trash the way business is done in Washington, but that promise seems to be totally inconsistent with what seems to be his irrepressible desire to hold hands and sing Kum By Ya with the very Republican leaders from which we wanted a change.

This has fueled the growing suspicion by many that both parties are beholding to the same cabal of power, and only feign having differing philosophies toward governance. That suspicion lies very close to the surface for many Independents - after all, that's why they're Independents in the first place.

And President Obama hasn't helped himself in that regard. For a man who is ordinarily so politically astute, even before he became president he did a curious flip-flop on the FISA issue. According to Greenchange.org, on October 24, 2007, Bill Burton of the Obama campaign indicated, "To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." But by June 20, 2008, Obama issued a statement reversing his position, indicating that our national security needs were more important than his objections.

That deeply disappointed many Independents, since a citizen's right to sue a telecommunications company for invading his or her privacy in violation of the law has nothing to do with national security. Those are the very constitutional rights that we're trying to keep secure. But while many Independents have kept that in mind, at least Obama had the integrity to take that stand prior to our making the decision on whether or not to vote for him.

But then once he was elected President, Obama made another curious statement with regard to the criminal activities and alleged war crimes committed by the Bush administration. In spite of the fact that there are strong allegations and prima facie evidence of torture, and some of the most unconscionable violations of the Geneva Convention since the Nuremberg trials, President Obama stated that he wanted to move the nation forward, and not look back.

Many Independents have two problems with that. First of all, President Obama seems much too willing to move forward with regard to the fat cats, while lower-ranking personnel are rotting in prison. That's in direct conflict with the American ideal of equal justice under the law. And secondly, since most of these atrocities were committed against the citizens of other nations, it is the height of arrogance for us to be "the deciders" of whether or not those responsible should be held accountable. That also runs contrary to American ideals, and the concept of "a shining city on the hill."

And now we're talking about sending thousands of more troops to Afghanistan. The question is, why? The nation has yet to be provided with a reasonable explanation of why we should be meddling, once again, in another country's internal affairs. One would think we would have learned something about the futility of that by now. It's a recipe for disaster.

There's only two legitimate reasons to have our troops in that part of the world. The first is obvious - to make damn sure the nuclear missiles in Pakistan don't fall into the hands of Al Qaeda. The second reason is to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice. So why can't we simply pull out of Afghanistan and deploy enough troops in Pakistan to protect the missiles, then let the CIA and law enforcement deal with Osama? That way we save both treasure and lives, and we're not creating more enemies for the United States by killing innocent people.

But many Independents suspect that there's another agenda afoot. Actually, Cheney's giving it away. Independents recognize that Dick Cheney has absolutely no integrity, so when he gets passionate over an issue we know to follow either the money or power. Thus, many Independents suspect that what's actually behind Cheney's insistence that we go recklessly rushing into Afghanistan has much more to do with Halliburton's bottom line than it does America's best interest. And while Obama has shown himself to be an excellent president in many ways, his one shortcoming - and a shortcoming that may very well bring him down in the end - is his tendency to try to appease the stupidity and greed of the GOP.

The President needs to recognize that there is nothing he can do that's going to make him acceptable to the GOP - that is, unless he agrees to appoint a Republican vice president, then resign. By now it should be clear that even while he's asleep, the GOP is trying to hatch plans to destroy him. So by spending more time thinking about them than he is his base, he's playing right into their hands.

I mentioned power as one of the reasons that Cheney's trying to rush the president into Afghanistan. I wonder if the president has considered the fact that Cheney just might be trying to get him to make the same kind of mistake in Afghanistan [and now Libya] that the Bush Administration made in Iraq in order to take the Iraq issue off the table for the 2012 election? If during the 2012 campaign America is bogged down in Afghanistan with the useless death of thousands of U.S. troops, all of a sudden, Bush, Cheney, and the GOP won't look all that bad. The president should think about that possibility, since the machinations of Dick Cheney makes Machiavelli look like a trainee.

On the other hand, if the president would have the CIA go after Osama Bin Laden (through the use of intelligence, instead of blindly shooting at rocks), then pull out of Afghanistan, and make an agreement with the government of Pakistan to help them protect their nuclear arsenal, he'll be looking pretty good in 2012, and he won't have the deaths of thousands of U.S. troops to have to justify.

And he'd look even better if he allowed Attorney General Holder to do his job with respect to the Bush administration's war crimes. First, he'd firm up his base by restoring their confidence that he stands for the rule of law, and he would also allay the fear that he might be a puppet, controlled by some powerful cabal.

Another upside to that is that once Holder begins his investigation into the Bush administration, there's absolutely no doubt that he's going to find criminality, cronyism, and corruption seeping so deep within the GOP that Republicans will be so busy snitching on one another, and covering their own asses, that they won't have the time to plot against either him, or the American people.

Now, THAT, would be a change that we could believe in.


Eric L. Wattree

Http://wattree.blogspot.com/
Ewattree@Gmail.com
Citizens Against Reckless Middle-Class Abuse (CARMA)

Christian bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content

Is there a Method to Liz Cheney's Madness?

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

Is there a Method to Liz Cheney's Madness?

Many observers have found Liz and Dick Cheney's fervent crusade to ensure that President Obama define terrorists as "enemy combatants," and the fight against terrorism as a "war" on terrorism quite curious. Why would a former vice president break the long established tradition of fading into the woodwork to engage in a silly debate over semantics? Now we also have his daughter, Liz Cheney, attacking standards set down by the United States Constitution guaranteeing due process and equal protection under the law. Liz Cheney has now branded attorneys who defended 'alleged terrorists' the "Al Qaeda 7," and she's calling the United States Department of Justice - that's simply carrying out the prescription set down by the United States Constitution - "The Department of Jihad." Could there possibly be a reasonable explanation behind such radical behavior? I think there is.

The Cheneys are engaged in a preemptive strike against the Obama administration in general, and the Justice Department in particular, in order to stir up public opinion against the prospect that the Obama administration will finally decide to prosecute Dick Cheney for war crimes - as the rule of law demands. They're busily laying the groundwork to incite insurrection across this country to counter the application of the rule of law.

While the GOP is atrocious when it comes to governance, they're absolute geniuses when it comes to stirring up their base for war - and in this case, they're preparing the nation for an all out internal conflict. One can hear it in every speech as they sprinkle little gems like 'secession', 'socialist', and 'government takeover' into the political dialogue. Thus, the threat that they pose to America makes Al Qaeda pale in comparison.

They started exactly one month after President Obama entered office when on February 21, 2009, the New York Post published a cartoon portraying President Obama as a monkey being shot by the police. There was a lot of subliminal messaging in that cartoon. True to their usual method of operation, they began to dehumanized the enemy, just like they did Saddam, by portraying the enemy - President Obama in this case - as a monkey. They then show the police shooting the president in order to prevent him from pursuing what they consider an unpopular initiative. By showing the police - respected authority figures - shooting the president, that's intended to lend legitimacy to the action.

I immediately recognized what was afoot, and I pointed it out in my article, The Assassination Cartoon:

"That cartoon literally sent a message out to every deadbeat, and bigoted loser in the country that they can finally make something of themselves. They can finally find purpose in their previously miserable and lackluster lives by assassinating the President of the United States. Thus, what the New York Post is calling a meaningless joke is actually a clarion call to every bigoted fool in the United States. It says that there are people in this country who will consider you a hero if you bring violence against the president–and they know it. Can you imagine the hue and cry coming from Republicans if the New York Times had run a cartoon depicting the assassination of Ronald Reagan?"

I also pointed out that -

"We’ve had enough experience with neo-cons and radical conservatives where anyone with even an ounce of common sense recognizes that nothing is a joke with them–especially when they’re out of power. They’re dead serious, and they’re desperate. Conservative Republicans know better than anyone that considering their atrocious eight years of governance, combined with President Obama’s competence and responsible statesmanship, that the Republican Party faces an extremely bleak future. So they’ve gone to plan B, to eliminate Obama at all cost, and by any means necessary. As ugly as it seems, anyone who doesn’t recognize that reality has blinders on.

"Look at the facts. Their proven method of operation is to demonize, dehumanize, then eliminate. When the neo-cons decided to exploit Iraqi resources instead of going after Osama, as was the intent of the American people, they first began to demonize, then dehumanize Saddam Hussein–a former ally--in order to prepare the American people to accept the idea that it was necessary to take him out."

If there was any doubt about my contention, however, it should have been immediately resolved when they trotted out turncoat and perennial loser, Alan Keyes. Keys called into question President Obama's legitimacy as president. He referred to the president as "a radical communist." He went on to say, "He's [Obama] going to destroy this country and we've either got to stop him, or America will cease to exist." He also indicated that since Barack Obama wasn't legitimately the president, if something wasn't done about it we were going to end up in "civil war." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DlTgrMCxPg&feature=player_embedded

Thus, these are people are clearly without limits, and have an absolute disdain for the United States Constitution. They're only concerned with one thing - power, and that's the only thing they respect. So President Obama's inclination to compromise and appeasement is totally lost on them. All appeasement does is give the GOP the breathing room to engage in further calculation and plotting. Their strategy was clearly demonstrated in the healthcare debate. Even after the president allowed them to water down the bill, they voted against it. That's their method of operation. They're not interested it compromise - they want nothing short of complete control.

So when the president signaled Attorney General Holder that "we should look forward, not back," even though the president was obviously ignoring the rule of law to accommodate them, they didn't appreciate that. They didn't say, "Wow, this is a good guy;" they said, "This guy is weak - we're going to run all over him."

Had President Obama followed up on his campaign promise of change, on the other hand, and simply allowed the rule of law to play itself out, his entire base would still be behind him, and the Republican party wouldn't have dared engaged in the obstructionism that they are currently engaged in. First of all, politics as usual wouldn't have flown in such an environment; and secondly, the roots of Bush and Cheney's corruption undoubtedly sink so deep into the Republican party that in response to a DOJ investigation a large percentage of the GOP would be too busy trying to cover their own butts to have time obstruct the president's agenda.

During a recent debate I was having on this issue a gentleman indicated that this was no time to investigate war crimes. "President Obama has to pick his battles." While it is true that it's important for the president to pick his battles wisely, there is no battle more important to the American way of life than protecting the rule of law.

One can only wonder if the gentleman would have taken the same position if one of the charges involved the torture and murder of a member of his own family. I think not.  Thus, the day that America can turn a blind eye to the injustice and murder of hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children - including our own troops - is the day this nation ceases to be America, and thus, effectively place us all in jeopardy. How long would it be before the Cheneys decide it's necessary to murder attorneys who represent people they don't like?

This goes beyond a personal or political issue. The fact is, in any democracy, maintaining the rule of law must always take priority over all else. Without the rule of law there can be no democracy, since a democracy is established by the rule of law.

After all, what's the sense of enacting healthcare reform, or any other law, if a precedent has been established that renders the rule of law meaningless?


Eric L. Wattree
wattree.blogspot.com

Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content

Could Obama Fall Victim to a Change We Can't Believe in?

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE Could Obama Fall Victim to a Change We Can't Believe in? At this point Obama's presidency could go either way - he can either become one of the greatest presidents this country has ever known, or go down as an exciting experiment that went bad. It's all up to how he handles the expectations of Independents. The biggest problem that Obama currently faces is becoming a victim of his own effectiveness. During the campaign he raised the nation's expectation so high that just being a good president won't do. He promised a change that we can believe in, which led many of us to believe that he intended to trash the way business is done in Washington, but that promise seems to be totally inconsistent with what seems to be his irrepressible desire to hold hands and sing Kumbaya with the very Republican leaders from which we wanted a change. This has fueled the growing suspicion by many that both parties are beholding to the same cabal of power, and only feign having differing philosophies toward governance. That suspicion lies very close to the surface for many Independents - after all, that's why they're Independents in the first place. And President Obama hasn't helped himself in that regard. For a man who is ordinarily so politically astute, even before he became president he did a curious flip-flop on the FISA issue. According to Greenchange.org, on October 24, 2007, Bill Burton of the Obama campaign indicated, "To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." But by June 20, 2008, Obama issued a statement reversing his position, indicating that our national security needs were more important than his objections. That deeply disappointed many Independents, since a citizen's right to sue a telecommunications company for invading his or her privacy in violation of the law has nothing to do with national security. Those are the very constitutional rights that we're trying to keep secure. But while many Independents have kept that in mind, at least Obama had the integrity to take that stand prior to our making the decision on whether or not to vote for him. But then once he was elected President, Obama made another curious statement with regard to the criminal activities and alleged war crimes committed by the Bush administration. In spite of the fact that there are strong allegations and prima facie evidence of torture, and some of the most unconscionable violations of the Geneva Convention since the Nuremberg trials, President Obama stated that he wanted to move the nation forward, and not look back. Many Independents have two problems with that. First of all, President Obama seems much too willing to move forward with regard to the fat cats, while lower-ranking personnel are rotting in prison. That's in direct conflict with the American ideal of equal justice under the law. And secondly, since most of these atrocities were committed against the citizens of other nations, it is the height of arrogance for us to be "the deciders" of whether or not those responsible should be held accountable. That also runs contrary to American ideals, and the concept of "a shining city on the hill." And now we're talking about sending thousands of more troops to Afghanistan. The question is, why? The nation has yet to be provided with a reasonable explanation of why we should be meddling, once again, in another country's internal affairs. One would think we would have learned something about the futility of that by now. It's a recipe for disaster. There's only two legitimate reasons to have our troops in that part of the world. The first is obvious - to make damn sure the nuclear missiles in Pakistan don't fall into the hands of Al Qaeda. The second reason is to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice. So why can't we simply pull out of Afghanistan and deploy enough troops in Pakistan to protect the missiles, then let the CIA and law enforcement deal with Osama? That way we save both treasure and lives, and we're not creating more enemies for the United States by killing innocent people. But many Independents suspect that there's another agenda afoot. Actually, Cheney's giving it away. Independents recognize that Dick Cheney has absolutely no integrity, so when he gets passionate over an issue we know to follow either the money or power. Thus, many Independents suspect that what's actually behind Cheney's insistence that we go recklessly rushing into Afghanistan has much more to do with Halliburton's bottom line than it does America's best interest. And while Obama has shown himself to be an excellent president in many ways, his one shortcoming - and a shortcoming that may very well bring him down in the end - is his tendency to try to appease the stupidity and greed of the GOP. The President needs to recognize that there is nothing he can do that's going to make him acceptable to the GOP - that is, unless he agrees to appoint a Republican vice president, then resign. By now it should be clear that even while he's asleep, the GOP is trying to hatch plans to destroy him. So by spending more time thinking about them than he is his base, he's playing right into their hands. I mentioned power as one of the reasons that Cheney's trying to rush the president into Afghanistan. I wonder if the president has considered the fact that Cheney just might be trying to get him to make the same kind of mistake in Afghanistan that the Bush Administration made in Iraq in order to take the Iraq issue off the table for the 2012 election? If during the 2012 campaign America is bogged down in Afghanistan with the useless death of thousands of U.S. troops, all of a sudden, Bush, Cheney, and the GOP won't look all that bad. The president should think about that possibility, since the machinations of Dick Cheney makes Machiavelli look like a trainee. On the other hand, if the president would have the CIA go after Osama Bin Laden (through the use of intelligence, instead of blindly shooting at rocks), then pull out of Afghanistan, and make an agreement with the government of Pakistan to help them protect their nuclear arsenal, he'll be looking pretty good in 2012, and he won't have the deaths of thousands of U.S. troops to have to justify. And he'd look even better if he allowed Attorney General Holder to do his job with respect to the Bush administration's war crimes. First, he'd firm up his base by restoring their confidence that he stands for the rule of law, and he would also allay the fear that he might be a puppet, controlled by some powerful cabal. Another upside to that is that once Holder begins his investigation into the Bush administration, there's absolutely no doubt that he's going to find criminality, cronyism, and corruption seeping so deep within the GOP that Republicans will be so busy snitching on one another, and covering their own asses, that they won't have the time to plot against either him, or the American people. Now, THAT, would be a change that we could believe in. Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content

America: Are We Really that Exceptional?

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE America: Are We Really that Exceptional? Well, there's that arrogant, xenophobic, and divisive phrase again - "American Exceptionalism." President Obama is being roundly criticized by many conservatives for refusing to go around the world promoting the conservative vision of American superiority. Their shortsighted idea of effective American diplomacy is for the President of the United States to trot around the globe telling the people of the world that we're better than they are. Liz Cheney, the daughter of the former vice president, has been all over the media complaining that "We've now seen several different occasions where he's [Obama] been on international trips where he's not willing to say, flat out, 'I believe in American exceptionalism.'" I expect such nonsense from GOP demagogues - they consider the Republican rank and file stupid, so they say whatever comes to mind to appeal to their unthinking emotions. But now I find that thoughtful conservatives have bought into this ridiculous concept, and frankly, I find it not only shocking, but frightening, how easily the minds of highly intelligent people can be manipulated through their emotions. It goes a long way towards explaining how millions of God-fearing German people could just stand in silence while Hitler carried out the holocaust. Ari Noonan stated the following in his article, The President's Difficult Relationship with His People at Home: "Consider that President Obama, the most powerful multiculturalist in the history of the world, truly believes that the United States did not have a manifest destiny, that we are no better, no worse, the utter equal, of Bulgaria, Cuba, Hungary, Venezuela, Belgium — pick any land on the globe." I couldn't believe that I was reading anyone in the 21st Century actually glorifying the manifest destiny. I thought the doctrine of Manifest Destiny was discredited in the 19th Century. If it is indeed possible for us to still have people among us who actually believe that it was God's will for Europeans to come to America and slaughter an entire civilization of people because he wanted the Europeans to have the land, then the horrors of the holocaust is far from behind us, and another one is just waiting in the wings for the next demagogue. While I love this country, I love it in spite of its shortcomings. I love it because of its potential - because of the vision of its founding fathers, and the documents that they left behind outlining the American ideal. But I am under no illusions. America has never lived up to those ideals, and I have a fundamental problem with anyone who says it has. The doctrine of Manifest Destiny is, in fact, the most profound argument against American exceptionalism. What took place as a direct result of that doctrine clearly documents that America has been any and everything but exceptional. The only way that one can believe in American exceptionalism is to view the missteps of every other country in the world through a magnifying glass, while turning a blind eye to all the atrocities against humanity that the United States has committed. The fact is, America has committed more atrocities against mankind in its short 233 year history, than it took many other countries millennia to accomplish. For example, while we demonize Nazi Germany for the extermination of 6 million Jews, we have very little to say about the 8 million Native Americans that the United States exterminated just to establish the nation. The fact is, the Nazis' could have taken a lesson from the United States, because there is still a thriving Jewish culture left, while the Native Americans have been all but wiped out as a people. Then there's the issue of slavery. American slavery was one the most brutal atrocities of one culture against another in the entire history of mankind. The effects of slavery are still being felt by the families of its victims close to 150 years after it came to an end. Then there was the Jim Crow environment that took place once slavery ended. Even in my lifetime, I remember standing up in school reciting the Pledge of Allegiance - 'One nation under God with Liberty and JUSTICE for all' - even as children younger than myself were being blown up in church, and people in the South were bringing picnic baskets to watch Black men being tortured and lynched in the town square after church. Then there was the humiliation of Black war heroes. The Tuskegee Airman were among the most effective fighter pilots during WWII. They never lost one bomber that they were charged with escorting across enemy lines. At first the White Bomber crews refused to fly with them, but by the end of the war, those same White crews said that they didn't want anyone else to escort them to their targets - they wanted to make sure they got home safely. But after the war, as these Black heroes traveled by train through the South, they were forced to give up their seats to Nazi Prisoners of war. Then there's the issue of terrorism. While we maintain that terrorism is when a malevolent group kills innocent noncombatants for political purposes, we turn a blind eye to the fact that we dropped not one, but two atomic bombs on the innocent men, women, and children of Japan. We try to justify it by saying that it saved thousands of American lives. The only problem with that argument is that it suggests that terrorism is justified under certain conditions. Then when we consider the millions of people that we killed, mutilated, and displaced in Vietnam, then during "Shock and Awe" (translated: terrorism), when we invaded the sovereign nation of Iraq for no other reason than monetary gain and a photo op, by our own definition, we're the most prolific terrorist state in the history of mankind. The only difference between the United States terror under George W. Bush and Al Qaeda terrorist is that we have a more efficient delivery system. We've made Hitler look like a wannabe. The only difference between Hitler and what the United States has done over the years is that the people Hitler killed were White, so it was considered more horrendous. So tell me about American exceptionalism, but pay no attention to my gritting teeth, because by telling me that America is exceptional, you're also telling me that the annihilation of Native Americans, the brutal enslavement of African Americans, the killing of Black children in church, the lynching of Black citizens, the humiliation of Black American war heroes, the incineration of Japanese men, women, and children, and the slaughter of millions in Vietnam and Iraq should all be fluffed off as simply, growing pains. Yes, America is exceptional all right - it's been exceptionally brutal in its hypocrisy throughout its short 233 year history. But, believe it or not, I still love this nation. My eyes still grow moist when I hear the Marine Corps hymn. But I certainly don't love what it's been - I love it for what it's striving to become. For that reason, I've dedicated my life to fighting the Cheneys of this world, who yearn for, and even cherish, the illustrious brutality of our past. Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content