LEFT OF DAYTON

GM CRASH WILL SLAM DAYTON

December 12, 2008
3 Comments

Well,  CRAP! The decision by Senate Republicans to sink the proposed “bailout/loan” for Detroit automakers
is going to have a very direct impact on the Miami Valley. A BAD impact.

In a blatant right wing assault, Southern Senators, led by Sen Shelby of Alabama, have sought to blame the Auto workers union’s for the crisis. The reality is  that errors in decision making by the Big 3 MANAGEMENT brought this crisis on.

It is said that crap rolls downhill,  and surely this is one hell of a hill we are standing on. Will GM and Chrysler be able to continue making and selling cars [that no one is buying now]  while in bankruptcy proceedings? Obviously the answers will not come easily, nor painlessly. Buckle up, friends, ’cause the ride to the bottom of this hill is going to very rough.

This mornings NY Times had the following depressing story in it…


December 12, 2008

Senate Abandons Automaker Bailout Bid

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Thursday night abandoned efforts to fashion a government rescue of the American automobile industry, as Senate Republicans refused to support a bill endorsed by the White House and Congressional Democrats.

The failure to reach agreement on Capitol Hill raised a specter of financial collapse for General Motors and Chrysler, which say they may not be able to survive through this month. (more…)

Advertisements

Obama, Ask the Kremlin about Robert Gates

November 25, 2008
Leave a Comment

Nearly 16 years ago, during the last transition from a President Bush to a Democrat, Moscow made an extraordinary gesture to Washington: The Kremlin supplied a summary of its intelligence information about secret U.S.-Iranian contacts in the 1980s.

The report was from a national security committee of the Russian Duma to Rep. Lee Hamilton, who had requested what might be in Moscow’s files as part of a task force investigation into whether the Reagan-Bush campaign in 1980 had interfered with President Jimmy Carter’s bid to free 52 American hostages then held in Iran.

The Russian report arrived late, via the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, showing up on Jan. 11, 1993, but the contents were stunning. The Russians reported that their intelligence revealed that long-rumored meetings between Republicans and Iranians in Europe during Campaign 1980 had indeed occurred. (more…)


The Great Alaskan Turkey Massacree [with apologies to Arlo]

November 24, 2008
3 Comments

The Great Alaskan Turkey Massacree [with apologies to Arlo]

A conversation with a friend provoked me to think about the Gov. Sara Palin and the Great
Alaskan Turkey  massacrree.
First, note, I am NOT a fan of Ms Palin’s politics. on the other hand I can relate to her in one important way  relevant to her seemingly blissful nonchalance about  turkey ‘s  being slaughtered in full view of the cameras during a recent interview. She’s a hunter, and, while I have not actually hunted in years, I grew up with that mindset.
My dad started taking me along on hunting trips  when I was about  eight, chasing rabbits in the western  Massachusetts  state forest and laurel groves. For a rural kid like me, it was just the way it was, our culture. If you shot it, you ate it, There wasn’t any “sport”  hunting with my Dad. You killed animals in order to eat them, otherwise you left them alone.

Which brings me back to poor disparaged  Sarah, reviled on line and made fun of on YouTube. Bringing up a question that seems to have been lost in the whole brooha, I mean>> where do the snickering masses  think the bird that sits on the Thanksgiving table comes from, anyway!!??. Really. My friend made a point in the conversation  about the author  Rita Rae Brown, who stresses in her writing about  how far away from our natural hunting and gathering roots we have gone in order to be “civilized”.

It is a sad truism that so many of us are utterly  disconnected from how we get our food. It’s all wrapped up and sanitized for us. Nice and neat on the shelf or in the meat case. That dissonance creates the atmosphere where we do not recognize how her nonchalance wasn’t really nonchalance at all. It was just the way it is. You  have to kill turkeys in order to be able to eat them. And, from her rural world perspective[and believe me Alaska IS rural] turkey’s  being killed is a pretty ordinary thing. Although she probably wishes she had stood somewhere else for the interview, I doubt that she turned off any NRA members, part of her natural constituency.

So, Sarah, this is undoubtedly  the only time I can imagine giving you and your right wing ideology a pass, but you get one for acknowledging, even if unintentionally,  that you have to kill the bird in order to eat it, and  for that we must be about giving thanks for the bird that gave it’s life for our meal, not just for Thanksgiving the holiday. I think there is a metaphor somewhere in all this about our current economic crises,  even if I’m not quite sure what it is just yet.

Posted on YouTube: The actual 3:10 minute interview…judge for yourself,  is this the future of the Republican party??



WHY DO WOMEN GIVE JOHN McCAIN A ZERO???

June 10, 2008
Leave a Comment

“If I am fortunate enough to be elected as the next President of the United States, I pledge to you to be a loyal and unswerving friend of the right to life movement.”  —John McCain

Despite his media generated image as a “maverick”, John McCain is anything but. His historical record as a legislator, while showing some slight deviation from the basic conservative Republican philosophy, has been of a social and economic right winger.

McCain’s political philosophy is fundamentally anti-choice and comes from an anti-self empowered woman perspective. It is unfortunate that some women who supported Hilary Clinton now are saying that they will vote for McCain due to her loss in the democratic primaries to Barack Obama. Ms Clinton put up a strenuous campaign advocating positions that are at the heart of progressive feminist political perspective, and for that she is to be commended. However, for any of her supporters to argue for a pro McCain candidacy is to turn their backs on all the reasons they held so important in her campaign as they related to women issues.

As Robert Greenwald of Brave New Films. creator of numerous progressive video shorts about McCain, points out…”We’re talking about a man who has voted anti-choice 123 out of 128 times. A man who wouldn’t require prescription coverage for birth control. A man who voted against allocating $100 million to preventative health services that would have reduced unintended and teen pregnancies. A man who could irreparably damage women’s rights in our country unless we get the word out about him now.”

McCain has consistently received a ZERO rating from both Planned Parenthood and NARAL [National Abortion Rights Action League]

Access the Website THE REAL JOHN McCAIN AT THIS URL>>

http://therealmccain.com/?utm_source=rgemail

John McCain is no friend of feminism….


The Bushes and Hitler’s Appeasement/by Robert Parry

May 21, 2008
Leave a Comment

The Bushes and Hitler’s Appeasement

Monday 19 May 2008
»

by: Robert Parry, Consortium News

photo
Prescott Bush and son George H. W. Bush Caption: Prescott Bush and son George H. W. Bush Credit: (Photo: Huffingtonpost.com)

The irony of George W. Bush going before the Knesset and mocking the late Sen. William Borah for expressing surprise at Adolf Hitler’s 1939 invasion of Poland is that Bush’s own family played a much bigger role assisting the Nazis.

If Borah, an isolationist Republican from Idaho, sounded naive saying “Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided,” then what should be said about Bush’s grandfather and other members of his family providing banking and industrial assistance to the Nazis as they built their war machine in the 1930s?

The archival evidence is now clear that Prescott Bush, the president’s grandfather, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from and collaborated with key financial backers of Nazi Germany.

That business relationship continued after Hitler invaded Poland in 1939 and even after Germany declared war on the United States following Japan’s bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941. It stopped only when the U.S. government seized assets of Bush-connected companies in late 1942 under the “Trading with the Enemy Act.”

So, perhaps instead of holding up Sen. Borah to ridicule, Bush might have acknowledged in his May 15 speech that his forebears also were blind to the dangers of Hitler.

Bush might have noted that his family’s wealth, which fueled his own political rise, was partly derived from Nazi collaboration and possibly from slave labor provided by Auschwitz and other concentration camps.

A more honest speech before the Knesset – on the 60th anniversary of Israel’s founding – might have contained an apology to the Jewish people from a leading son of the Bush family for letting its greed contribute to Nazi power and to the horrors of the Holocaust. Instead, there was just the jab at Sen. Borah, who died in 1940.

President Bush apparently saw no reason to remind the world of a dark chapter from the family history. After all, those ugly facts mostly disappeared from public consciousness soon after World War II.

Protected by layers of well-connected friends, Prescott Bush brushed aside the Nazi scandal and won a U.S. Senate seat from Connecticut, which enabled him to start laying the foundation for the family’s political dynasty.

In recent years, however, the archival records from the pre-war era have been assembled, drawing from the Harriman family papers at the Library of Congress, documents at the National Archives, and records from war-crimes trials after Germany’s surrender.

Managers for the Powerful

One can trace the origins of this story back more than a century to the emergence of Samuel Bush, George W. Bush’s great-grandfather, as a key manager for a set of powerful American business families, including the Rockefellers and the Harrimans. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Bush Family Chronicles: The Patriarchs.”]

That chapter took an important turn in 1919 when investment banker George Herbert Walker teamed up with Averell Harriman, scion to a railroad fortune, to found a new investment banking firm, W.A. Harriman Company.

The Harriman firm was backed by the Rockefellers’ National City Bank and the Morgan family’s Guaranty Trust. The English-educated Walker assisted in assembling the Harriman family’s overseas business investments.

In 1921, Walker’s favorite daughter, Dorothy, married Samuel Bush’s son Prescott, a Yale graduate and a member of the school’s exclusive Skull and Bones society. Handsome and athletic, admired for his golf and tennis skills, Prescott Bush was a young man with the easy grace of someone born into the comfortable yet competitive world of upper-crust contacts.

Three years later, Dorothy gave birth to George Herbert Walker Bush in Milton, Massachusetts.

Lifted by the financial boom of the 1920s, Prescott and Dorothy Bush were on the rise. By 1926, George Herbert Walker had brought his son-in-law in on a piece of the Harriman action, hiring him as a vice president in the Harriman banking firm.

By the mid-Thirties, Prescott Bush had become a managing partner at the merged firm of Brown Brothers Harriman. The archival records also show that Brown Brothers Harriman served as the U.S. financial service arm for German industrialist Fritz Thyssen, an early funder of the Nazi Party.

Thyssen, an admirer of Adolf Hitler since the 1920s, joined the Nazi Party in 1931 when it was still a fringe organization. He helped bail the struggling party out with financial help, even providing its headquarters building in Munich.

Meanwhile, Averell Harriman had launched the Hamburg-Amerika line of steamships to facilitate the bank’s dealings with Germany, and made Prescott Bush a director. The ships delivered fuel, steel, coal, gold and money to Germany as Hitler was consolidating his power and building his war machine.

Other evidence shows that Prescott Bush served as the director of the Union Banking Corp. of New York, which represented Thyssen’s interests in the United States and was owned by a Thyssen-controlled bank in the Netherlands.

As a steel magnate, Thyssen was amassing a fortune as Hitler rearmed Germany. Documents also linked Bush to Thyssen’s Consolidated Silesian Steel Company, which was based in mineral-rich Silesia on the German-Polish border and exploited slave labor from Nazi concentration camps, including Auschwitz. But records at the National Archives do not spell out exactly when Bush’s connection ended or what he knew about the business details.

In 1941, Thyssen had a falling out with Hitler and fled to France where he was captured. Much of Thyssen’s empire went under the direct control of the Nazis, but even that did not shatter the business ties that existed with Prescott Bush and Harriman’s bank.

It wasn’t until August 1942 that newspaper stories disclosed the secretive ties between Union Banking Corp. and Nazi Germany.

After an investigation, the U.S. government seized the property of the Hamburg-Amerika line and moved against affiliates of the Union Banking Corp. In November 1942, the government seized the assets of the Silesian-American Corp. [For more details, see an investigative report by the U.K. Guardian, Sept. 25, 2004.]

No Kiss of Death

For most public figures, allegations of trading with the enemy would have been a political kiss of death, but the disclosures barely left a lipstick smudge on Averell Harriman, Prescott Bush and other business associates implicated in the Nazi business dealings.

“Politically, the significance of these dealings – the great surprise – is that none of it seemed to matter much over the next decade or so,” wrote Kevin Phillips in American Dynasty.

“A few questions would be raised, but Democrat Averell Harriman would not be stopped from becoming federal mutual security administrator in 1951 or winning election as governor of New York in 1954. Nor would Republican Prescott Bush (who was elected senator from Connecticut in 1952) and his presidential descendants be hurt in any of their future elections.”

Indeed, the quick dissipation of the Nazi financial scandal was only a portent of the Bush family’s future. Unlike politicians of lower classes, the Bushes seemed to travel in a bubble impervious to accusations of impropriety, since the Eastern Establishment doesn’t like to think badly of its own. [For details, see Robert Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege.]

To this day – as President Bush showed by mocking the long-forgotten Sen. Borah and then wielding the Nazi “appeasement” club against Barack Obama and other Democrats – the assumption remains that the bubble will continue to protect the Bush family name.

However, the evidence from dusty archives suggests that the Bush family went way beyond appeasement of Adolf Hitler to aiding and abetting the Nazis.

——–

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, “Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush”, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, “Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq” and “Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & ‘Project Truth'” are also available there. Or go to Amazon.com.


DON’T BOMB IRAN>>>AGIT-POP VIDEO

May 14, 2008
Leave a Comment

The All-White Elephant in the Room/By FRANK RICH

May 8, 2008
Leave a Comment

The New York Times


May 4, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist

The All-White Elephant in the Room

BORED by those endless replays of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright? If so, go directly to YouTube, search for “John Hagee Roman Church Hitler,” and be recharged by a fresh jolt of clerical jive.

What you’ll find is a white televangelist, the Rev. John Hagee, lecturing in front of an enormous diorama. Wielding a pointer, he pokes at the image of a woman with Pamela Anderson-sized breasts, her hand raising a golden chalice. The woman is “the Great Whore,” Mr. Hagee explains, and she is drinking “the blood of the Jewish people.” That’s because the Great Whore represents “the Roman Church,” which, in his view, has thirsted for Jewish blood throughout history, from the Crusades to the Holocaust.

Mr. Hagee is not a fringe kook but the pastor of a Texas megachurch. On Feb. 27, he stood with John McCain and endorsed him over the religious conservatives’ favorite, Mike Huckabee, who was then still in the race.

Are we really to believe that neither Mr. McCain nor his camp knew anything then about Mr. Hagee’s views? This particular YouTube video — far from the only one — was posted on Jan. 1, nearly two months before the Hagee-McCain press conference. Mr. Hagee appears on multiple religious networks, including twice daily on the largest, Trinity Broadcasting, which reaches 75 million homes. Any 12-year-old with a laptop could have vetted this preacher in 30 seconds, tops.

Since then, Mr. McCain has been shocked to learn that his clerical ally has made many other outrageous statements. Mr. Hagee, it’s true, did not blame the American government for concocting AIDS. But he did say that God created Hurricane Katrina to punish New Orleans for its sins, particularly a scheduled “homosexual parade there on the Monday that Katrina came.”

Mr. Hagee didn’t make that claim in obscure circumstances, either. He broadcast it on one of America’s most widely heard radio programs, “Fresh Air” on NPR, back in September 2006. He reaffirmed it in a radio interview less than two weeks ago. Only after a reporter asked Mr. McCain about this Katrina homily on April 24 did the candidate brand it as “nonsense” and the preacher retract it.

Mr. McCain says he does not endorse any of Mr. Hagee’s calumnies, any more than Barack Obama endorses Mr. Wright’s. But those who try to give Mr. McCain a pass for his embrace of a problematic preacher have a thin case. It boils down to this: Mr. McCain was not a parishioner for 20 years at Mr. Hagee’s church.

That defense implies, incorrectly, that Mr. McCain was a passive recipient of this bigot’s endorsement. In fact, by his own account, Mr. McCain sought out Mr. Hagee, who is perhaps best known for trying to drum up a pre-emptiveholy war” with Iran. (This preacher’s rantings may tell us more about Mr. McCain’s policy views than Mr. Wright’s tell us about Mr. Obama’s.) Even after Mr. Hagee’s Catholic bashing bubbled up in the mainstream media, Mr. McCain still did not reject and denounce him, as Mr. Obama did an unsolicited endorser, Louis Farrakhan, at the urging of Tim Russert and Hillary Clinton. Mr. McCain instead told George Stephanopoulos two Sundays ago that while he condemns any “anti-anything” remarks by Mr. Hagee, he is still “glad to have his endorsement.”

I wonder if Mr. McCain would have given the same answer had Mr. Stephanopoulos confronted him with the graphic video of the pastor in full “Great Whore” glory. But Mr. McCain didn’t have to fear so rude a transgression. Mr. Hagee’s videos have never had the same circulation on television as Mr. Wright’s. A sonorous white preacher spouting venom just doesn’t have the telegenic zing of a theatrical black man.

Perhaps that’s why virtually no one has rebroadcast the highly relevant prototype for Mr. Wright’s fiery claim that 9/11 was America’s chickens “coming home to roost.” That would be the Sept. 13, 2001, televised exchange between Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, who blamed the attacks on America’s abortionists, feminists, gays and A.C.L.U. lawyers. (Mr. Wright blamed the attacks on America’s foreign policy.) Had that video re-emerged in the frenzied cable-news rotation, Mr. McCain might have been asked to explain why he no longer calls these preachers “agents of intolerance” and chose to cozy up to Mr. Falwell by speaking at his Liberty University in 2006.

None of this is to say that two wacky white preachers make a Wright right. It is entirely fair for any voter to weigh Mr. Obama’s long relationship with his pastor in assessing his fitness for office. It is also fair to weigh Mr. Obama’s judgment in handling this personal and political crisis as it has repeatedly boiled over. But whatever that verdict, it is disingenuous to pretend that there isn’t a double standard operating here. If we’re to judge black candidates on their most controversial associates — and how quickly, sternly and completely they disown them — we must judge white politicians by the same yardstick.

When Rudy Giuliani, still a viable candidate, successfully courted Pat Robertson for an endorsement last year, few replayed Mr. Robertson’s greatest past insanities. Among them is his best-selling 1991 tome, “The New World Order,” which peddled some of the same old dark conspiracy theories about “European bankers” (who just happened to be named Warburg, Schiff and Rothschild) that Mr. Farrakhan has trafficked in. Nor was Mr. Giuliani ever seriously pressed to explain why his cronies on the payroll at Giuliani Partners included a priest barred from the ministry by his Long Island diocese in 2002 following allegations of sexual abuse. Much as Mr. Wright officiated at the Obamas’ wedding, so this priest officiated at (one of) Mr. Giuliani’s. Did you even hear about it?

There is not just a double standard for black and white politicians at play in too much of the news media and political establishment, but there is also a glaring double standard for our political parties. The Clintons and Mr. Obama are always held accountable for their racial stands, as they should be, but the elephant in the room of our politics is rarely acknowledged: In the 21st century, the so-called party of Lincoln does not have a single African-American among its collective 247 senators and representatives in Washington. Yes, there are appointees like Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice, but, as we learned during the Mark Foley scandal, even gay men may hold more G.O.P. positions of power than blacks.

A near half-century after the civil rights acts of the 1960s, this is quite an achievement. Yet the holier-than-thou politicians and pundits on the right passing shrill moral judgment over every Democratic racial skirmish are almost never asked to confront or even acknowledge the racial dysfunction in their own house. In our mainstream political culture, this de facto apartheid is simply accepted as an intractable given, unworthy of notice, and just too embarrassing to mention aloud in polite Beltway company. Those who dare are instantly accused of “political correctness” or “reverse racism.”

An all-white Congressional delegation doesn’t happen by accident. It’s the legacy of race cards that have been dealt since the birth of the Southern strategy in the Nixon era. No one knows this better than Mr. McCain, whose own adopted daughter of color was the subject of a vicious smear in his party’s South Carolina primary of 2000.

This year Mr. McCain has called for a respectful (i.e., non-race-baiting) campaign and has gone so far as to criticize (ineffectually) North Carolina’s Republican Party for running a Wright-demonizing ad in that state’s current primary. Mr. McCain has been posing (awkwardly) with black people in his tour of “forgotten” America. Speaking of Katrina in New Orleans, he promised that “never again” would a federal recovery effort be botched on so grand a scale.

This is all surely sincere, and a big improvement over Mitt Romney’s dreams of his father marching with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Up to a point. Here, too, there’s a double standard. Mr. McCain is graded on a curve because the G.O.P. bar is set so low. But at a time when the latest Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll shows that President Bush is an even greater drag on his popularity than Mr. Wright is on Mr. Obama’s, Mr. McCain’s New Orleans visit is more about the self-interested politics of distancing himself from Mr. Bush than the recalibration of policy.

Mr. McCain took his party’s stingier line on Katrina aid and twice opposed an independent commission to investigate the failed government response. Asked on his tour what should happen to the Ninth Ward now, he called for “a conversation” about whether anyone should “rebuild it, tear it down, you know, whatever it is.” Whatever, whenever, never mind.

For all this primary season’s obsession with the single (and declining) demographic of white working-class men in Rust Belt states, America is changing rapidly across all racial, generational and ethnic lines. The Census Bureau announced last week that half the country’s population growth since 2000 is due to Hispanics, another group understandably alienated from the G.O.P.

Anyone who does the math knows that America is on track to become a white-minority nation in three to four decades. Yet if there’s any coherent message to be gleaned from the hypocrisy whipped up by Hurricane Jeremiah, it’s that this nation’s perennially promised candid conversation on race has yet to begin.


REV HAGEE, LUNATIC McCAIN SUPPORTER, COMPARES ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH TO HITLER

May 5, 2008
2 Comments

Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for President, has manged to so far escape reprisal from voters for his connections to some of the most scurrilous members of the right wing christian evangelical movement . He “made up” with Jerry Falwell, has visited and made supportive public statements about that hot bed of evangelical indoctrination other wise known as Bob Jones “University”. He has been ecstatic about the support of megachurch preachers like Ohio’s Ron Parsley, who says, speaking about Islam,

  • The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore

http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/john-mccain-rod-parsley-spiritual-guide.html

Or Pat Robertson of the “700 Club” another “much apppreciated”right wing evangelical McCain supporter/endorser::

  • “I want to say it again, and again, and again: Islam is not a religion, it is a political system meant on — bent on world domination, not a religion. It masquerades as a religion, but the religion covers a worldwide attempt to exercise power and to subjugate the world to their way of thinking.”

Link to Media Matters documentation… http://mediamatters.org/items/200804090011

But really, none of this is particularly fresh news.

But what is disturbing is how little attention continues to be paid to Senator MCain’s ongoing pandering to far right wing evangelicals.


Frank Rich, my favorite NY Times columnist, wrote about Hagee’s views this past Sunday and provided a url address to one of “pastor” Hagee’s outrageous rantings on YouTube, shown below. You have to see it to believe it. As a very lapsed Catholic I have no great fondness for the Catholic church’s positions on many issues, from gay’s to abortion…but when I viewed this video the hair on my neck literally stood up.

This guy is a complete NUT JOB, A WACKO LUNATIC FRINGER...who happens to have very large following. And John McCain refuses to disavow Hagee or any of of the other racist, homophobic, war mongering preachers, while his seemingly Teflon coated status insulates him from the same kind of media firestorm surrounding Barack Obama’s relationship with Rev Wright. Rev. Wright never had the unmitigated gall to come even close to the vitriolic and malignant statements made by Hagee in this much under viewed video. McCain desperately needs the pro-life Catholic vote, wider exposure of Hagees rantings will help to undermine that strategy.

It isn’t enough to just watch the video, that is far too passive. As offended as I??

Tell Mr McCain:

You can contact the Senator at

DC Address: The Honorable John McCain
United States Senate
241 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-0303
DC Phone: 202-224-2235
DC Fax: 202-228-2862
Electronic Correspondence: http://mccain.senate.gov/public/
index.cfm?
FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm
WWW Homepage: http://mccain.senate.gov/

\

This is a link to an extensive interview that the Buzzflash bloggers conducted with Cliff Schecter, the author of The Real McCain: Why Conservatives Don’t Trust Him and Why Independents Shouldn’t. Schecter has collected real evidence regarding McCain’s temper tantrums, his vitriol, his flip flop position changing and much much more.

Read this interview and you will want to get the book.

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/interviews/107


WAS [IS] REV JEREMIAH WRIGHT REALLY THAT WRONG??

May 2, 2008
Leave a Comment

Apparently I am missing something in the brouhaha over Rev Jeremiah Wright and Senator Barack Obama.

I read and reread the Chicago Tribune transcript of his comments at the National Press Club.
I watched his speech to the NAACP in Detroit. Watched major parts of it again on various “news” channels.
Watched members of the conservative wing of the Democratic Party fall all over themselves on various cable and network news shows trying to either distance themselves from or engage in attacks on Obama and Wright that were straight out the Republican play book.
Witnessed liberals being liberals; falling prey to an incipient McCarthyism. Hillary is disgusting in this respect.
Even normally rational NY Times columnist Bob Herbert denounced Wright in his column. Eric Alterman, author of Why I Am a Liberal and chief protagonist at Media Matters,fell prey in critiquing Maureen Dowd’s Times column:”
It’s his Farrakhan-like fantasies that make this preacher beyond the pale, not his feelings about the candidate”…
Didn’t see, but clearly imagined John McCain [alias Bush’s 3rd term] chortling in his scotch over the disarray within the Democratic race.
Got very disgusted.

You see, I just don’t get it.

Please, pray tell [sic] What specifically did Jeremiah Wright say that so freaked these people out??
Damned if I can figure it out.

His speech on Sunday was an old fashioned stem winder, a grandiose display of chutzpah, rhetoric and facts.
He detailed the works that his church had been involved in over tha last three decades. With Aids, with self help programs, with school scholarships and so much more.

He explained the Louis Farrakhan connection for what it is, a TWENTY YEAR OLD comment. He never endorsed the Nation of Islam or any policy of racial separation, but he did rightfully point out that in fact, the Nation, and its leader, are very serious forces in the Black community. What other African-American organization can, or has, put ONE MILLION people on the streets of Washington DC in the last twenty years?? That’s a LOT of people.

And AID as a government plot? This is NOT NEWS. I heard this same view expressed 10-15 years ago from African American acquaintances.
According to the London [ UK] Guardian:

Almost half of all African-Americans believe that HIV, the virus that causes Aids, is man-made, more than a quarter believe it was produced in a government laboratory and one in eight think it was created and spread by the CIA, according to a study released by Rand Corporation and the University of Oregon.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jan/26/aids.usa

From the NY Times: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE6DC1038F931A25756C0A964958260
The Education Forum: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/lofiversion/index.php/t3034.html

The Secret AIDS Genocide Plot :http://www.whale.to/b/cantwell19.html

And it is impossible to ignore the fact of the notorious Tuskegee syphilis experimentation carried out by our governmentfrom 1932 to 1972 on 399 black Men in the later stages of syphilis affliction. FORTY YEARS! http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762136.html]

Maybe. just maybe, there might be some basis for the fears

And Terrorism by the USA as a causative factor in 9/11???

In the latest iteration of US sponsored terrorism we need go no further than the current conflict in Iraq. Do the words Abu Grihab or Rendition bring any pleasant thought to mind? I didn’t think so.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. From the late 1800s through WWII the US military invaded one Central and South American country after another, with the end result almost always being that we ended up supporting a brutal dictatorship. In Argentina, in Chile, in Paraguay and many other countries. In the Philippines we looked the other way crimes committed by the dictator Ferdiand Marcos in part because of our need for the military bases in the Islands that were essential to the Vietnam war effort. In South Africa … wretched, racist South Africa…the US supported a brutal apartheid regime for over 30 years..

And Saudi Arabia….please, don’t get me started on the medieval mores of Bush pals the House of Saud.

Did the American people bring this on? No we did not. But acting in our name, one successive government after another, usually acting on behalf of the Corporations who are most often the beneficiaries, whether its united Fruit in South America or US financial institutions in South Africa, in part, DID. And, we the voters, we elected those people who did…

The problem is not with Rev Wright, self important grandstander though he may be. It lies with the inability of the candidates to see the truth behind the rhetorical flourishes. It lies with the Democratic candidates pandering to a neo con firestorm of fear. Rather than take the substantive issues raised by the Reverend in context we are smitten with sound bite after sound bite, always OUT of context and perversely annotated to a page in Karl Rove’s Republican Play book of Fear Mongering

And the bit about being at Obama’s White House door on January 21st…that’s Democracy. If the will of the people is embodied in a president, it is incumbent on that people to ensure that the holder of that office act on BEHALF of the people, and that, my friends, means holding his feet to the political fire. Trust, but verify.


http://www.etext.org/Politics/AlternativeOrange/2/v2n2_misa.html
http://www.easternct.edu/personal/faculty/pocock/milact.htm
http://mondediplo.com/1998/12/05safr


What we are talking about here is American Imperialism and how the empire has sought to enforce its will and prerogatives.

Now, Rev Wright did not call it that. I did. But nonetheless, the fact remains that we, the USA of A, land of Liberty, of fields of amber grain on the fluted plain, are not seen very favorably by much of the “Third” world. We are NOT loved. And it is not the least bit surprising that a conclusion could be reached that, at the very least, some of the chickens HAVE, in fact, come home to roost. That, dear reader, is also a reality.
Pew Research: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/6/arab-and-muslim-perceptions-of-the-united-states
Council on Foreign Relations http://www.cfr.org/publication/8934/perceptions_of_us_public_diplomacy.html

And, amid all the controversy. the WORDS spoken by Rev Wright are too easily overlooked…

Transcript of Rev Wright’s speech before the National Press Club on Monday April 28, 2008.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-wrighttranscript-04282008,0,3593201.story

Read. Then ask your self, how wrong was Rev Wright???


McCain Strongly Rejected Long-Term Iraq Presence: “Bring Them All Home” [FLIP FLOP, FLIP FLOP…]

April 29, 2008
Leave a Comment

Sam Stein

The Huffington Post

When it comes to getting U.S. troops out of Iraq, Sen. John McCain was for the idea before he was against it.

Three years before the Arizona Republican argued on the campaign trail that U.S. forces could be in Iraq for 100 years in the absence of violence, he decried the very concept of a long-term troop presence.

In fact, when asked specifically if he thought the U.S. military should set up shop in Iraq along the lines of what has been established in post-WWII Germany or Japan — something McCain has repeatedly advocated during the campaign — the senator offered nothing short of a categorical “no.”

  • “I would hope that we could bring them all home,” he said on MSNBC. “I would hope that we would probably leave some military advisers, as we have in other countries, to help them with their training and equipment and that kind of stuff.”
  • Host Chris Matthews pressed McCain on the issue “You’ve heard the ideological argument to keep U.S. forces in the Middle East. I’ve heard it from the hawks. They say, .keep United States military presence in the Middle East, like we have with the 7th Fleet in Asia. We have the German…the South Korean component. Do you think we could get along without it?”
  • McCain held fast, rejecting the very policy he urges today. “I not only think we could get along without it, but I think one of our big problems has been the fact that many Iraqis resent American military presence,” he responded. “And I don’t pretend to know exactly Iraqi public opinion. But as soon as we can reduce our visibility as much as possible, the better I think it is going to be.”

The January 2005 comments, which have not surfaced previously during the presidential campaign, represent a stunning contrast to McCain’s current rhetoric.

They also run squarely against his image as having a steadfast, unwavering idea for U.S. policy in Iraq — and provide further evidence to those, including some prominent GOP foreign policy figures in the “realist” camp, who believe McCain is increasingly adopting policies shared by neoconservatives.

Finally, the comments undercut much of the criticism the senator has launched at his Democratic and even Republican opponents.

On the campaign trail, for example, McCain has accused Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton of a “failure of leadership” by advocating a policy of drawing down troops. But in the MSNBC interview, McCain was arguing that U.S. “visibility” was detrimental to the Iraq mission and that Iraqis were responding negatively to America’s presence – positions held by both Obama and Clinton.

Somewhere along the way, McCain’s position changed. Perhaps twice. As Think Progress reported, in August 2007, as the troops surge was underway, McCain told the Charlie Rose Show that the Korea model was “exactly” the right template for U.S. forces in Iraq. Only three months later, and on the same show, he completely reversed himself.

“Do you think that this – Korea, South Korea is an analogy of where Iraq might be,” Rose asked in November 2007.“Even if there are no casualties?” Rose chimed in.

“No,” said McCain. “But I can see an American presence for a while. But eventually I think because of the nature of the society in Iraq and the religious aspects of it that America eventually withdraws.”

Then, in the lead up to the New Hampshire primary, the senator famously said that he wouldn’t mind seeing the U.S. in Iraq for a hundred years, “as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.” And when his political opponents used that statement against him, McCain responded by saying he was drawing an analogy to the current military presence in Japan, Germany and South Korea.

And yet, when he was asked by Matthews in 2005, if he “would you be happy with [Iraq] being the home of a U.S. garrison” like Germany, McCain again said no.

The McCain campaign did not return a request for comment.


Next Page »

About author

61 Y/O VIET VET WORKING FROM THE LEFT OF CENTER

Search

Navigation

Categories:

Links:

Archives:

Feeds