It's absolutely an issue and certainly shows him lacking greatly in judgment. First, the concept of listening to this kind of rhetoric for 20 years, and even worse exposing his kids to the same, finally - not condemning it... of course he might not condemn it because he agrees with the reverend he made famous (although seems like the rev likes his newfound nationwide fame, although doesn't seem to appreciate why he has it, since he's certainly not doing Obama any favors by continuing his PR tour).

Wright isn't an issue for a single group of voters - committed Obama supporters, nobody else. Obama should thank his lucky stars that this 'non-issue' hit after he pretty much got the delegates...

It's absolutely an issue and certainly shows him lacking greatly in judgment. First, the concept of listening to this kind of rhetoric for 20 years, and even worse exposing his kids to the same, finally - not condemning it... of course he might not condemn it because he agrees with the reverend he made famous (although seems like the rev likes his newfound nationwide fame, although doesn't seem to appreciate why he has it, since he's certainly not doing Obama any favors by continuing his PR tour).

Wright isn't an issue for a single group of voters - committed Obama supporters, nobody else. Obama should thank his lucky stars that this 'non-issue' hit after he pretty much got the delegates for a nomination. If it hit a few months ago - we'd all be listening to the Dems nominee H. Clinton by now.

The big problem of course is that now it's a huge mess, where unless Hillary bows out - there's going to be war erupting within the party. Even though some think gender and race are somewhat equal - it seems to me that's not the case. Denying a woman presidency nomination would probably fly... denying one to a black man won't.

You know exactly what it means... You want one thing - ok, here's one for ya "G*d damn America!". You want another one - the AIDS comment, i.e. show me full evidence of his accusation.

As for being ashamed - well, for starters Mr. O should be ashamed for exposing his kids to a man who thinks what he does of farakhan.

Obviously he doesn't HAVE TO, neither do you... to each his own, but that doesn't mean everyone else has to both listen and follow this BS, nor does it mean that everyone should not hold it against Obama going for the Presidency.

As for Hillary on O'Reilly - good for her... it is the most watched network in the US, makes perfect sense to make your points there... same with O...

You know exactly what it means... You want one thing - ok, here's one for ya "G*d damn America!". You want another one - the AIDS comment, i.e. show me full evidence of his accusation.

As for being ashamed - well, for starters Mr. O should be ashamed for exposing his kids to a man who thinks what he does of farakhan.

Obviously he doesn't HAVE TO, neither do you... to each his own, but that doesn't mean everyone else has to both listen and follow this BS, nor does it mean that everyone should not hold it against Obama going for the Presidency.

As for Hillary on O'Reilly - good for her... it is the most watched network in the US, makes perfect sense to make your points there... same with Obama last Sunday.

The bottom line is very simple - people like you, who could hardly call yourselves pro-American (well, you might, but we certainly don't) have no problems with Wright, Obama's association with such sentiments etc. - that's not rocket science. What Obama needs to do is convince people like me that even though he was exposed to the racist & worse comments in his church, & some other questionable associations (like Ayers) - he's totally opposed to their kinds of thinking & denounce them completely. Obviously he doesn't have to, but needs to if he wants to be called the President of the USA.

I can understand why that might offend, but if you heard the whole sermon, I think the context becomes clear. It is an answer to those who reflexively say "God Bless America" regardless of the actions taken in her name. Again, besides these comments, anything else that you might show as proof. Because if that is the case, that makes a lot of right-wing preachers like Hagee and Robertson as anti-American as Wright.

As for the AIDS comment, he was spouting a urban legend, which is wrong on its face, but the underlining history is just as scary and heinous.

http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2002/jul/tuskegee/

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762136.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...

I can understand why that might offend, but if you heard the whole sermon, I think the context becomes clear. It is an answer to those who reflexively say "God Bless America" regardless of the actions taken in her name. Again, besides these comments, anything else that you might show as proof. Because if that is the case, that makes a lot of right-wing preachers like Hagee and Robertson as anti-American as Wright.

As for the AIDS comment, he was spouting a urban legend, which is wrong on its face, but the underlining history is just as scary and heinous.

http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2002/jul/tuskegee/

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762136.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Study_of_Untreated_Syphilis_in_the_Negro_Male

The bottom line is very simple - people like you, who could hardly call yourselves pro-American

Whatever do you mean?

Well, since I am not an American, I don't feel the need to be pro- or anti.

Second, as Rev. Wright asked, when is decent anti-American?

(well, you might, but we certainly don't) have no problems with Wright, Obama's association with such sentiments etc. - that's not rocket science.

Again, if you think your scoring points there, you missed completely. Of course I can call me whatvere I want. It is not for you to label me or anyone else, especially when you ignore the truth.

racist & worse comments

Racist? Prove it... I heard nothing that was racist. In fact I heard condemnation of racism.

Actually, both of you are totally wrong... in your assumptions as to what I do, wouldn't do, why or why not. This is one area where I can certainly hold a higher ground.

And if you agree with Mr. Wright - fine. But based on today's speech by Mr. Obama - obviously he's coming around to my sentiments, NOT yours on these issues. I gather that your explanation for his speech today would be because of political reasons etc., and theoretically - it could be... but I'm willing to cut the guy slack based on his speech today. He said the right things for the right reasons.

As for your comments about context - that's old and isn't the case. If I was to call you a 'f*g i*t' - I don't think you'd...

Actually, both of you are totally wrong... in your assumptions as to what I do, wouldn't do, why or why not. This is one area where I can certainly hold a higher ground.

And if you agree with Mr. Wright - fine. But based on today's speech by Mr. Obama - obviously he's coming around to my sentiments, NOT yours on these issues. I gather that your explanation for his speech today would be because of political reasons etc., and theoretically - it could be... but I'm willing to cut the guy slack based on his speech today. He said the right things for the right reasons.

As for your comments about context - that's old and isn't the case. If I was to call you a 'f*g i*t' - I don't think you'd be willing to listen to any explanations as to 'the context' those words were pulled from. Same exact thing here. Some things are wrong in ANY context and being so-called American who can make that kind of comment in ANY context is simply wrong. You can be for dissent, disagree with the government, protest... whatever... but if you respect something or someone, especially being a religious figure who believes - you don't utter those words, especially being who you are and especially in a place like a church.

Ratilfar, I am really sick of you following my comments around clipmarks and posting your ignorant, trollish, and petty remarks that are meant to make every thread about me instead of the clip. I know you have nothing better to do, but you should really spend your time disinfecting your home, or something, because you are about as big an idiot as it gets. It is so typical of the idiocy of yourself and egoldstein to cast me as the "troll", as you like to say, when you are one (among others) casting every thread into a discourse on me. Why don't you and JK get together and have a hatefest in my honer. Keep your ignorance to yourself you pathetic troll! I am really not interested in hearing you...

Ratilfar, I am really sick of you following my comments around clipmarks and posting your ignorant, trollish, and petty remarks that are meant to make every thread about me instead of the clip. I know you have nothing better to do, but you should really spend your time disinfecting your home, or something, because you are about as big an idiot as it gets. It is so typical of the idiocy of yourself and egoldstein to cast me as the "troll", as you like to say, when you are one (among others) casting every thread into a discourse on me. Why don't you and JK get together and have a hatefest in my honer. Keep your ignorance to yourself you pathetic troll! I am really not interested in hearing your comments ABOUT ME, unless you want to look me up and say them in person.

willie you are the king of commenting on people, their ignorance, instead of merely talking about the topic. You set the tone long ago. You've educated us well. In fact you are the first person in this line of commentary to refer to the other clippers "the herd", the "lost sheep looking for a position". Why don't you focus on the clips and not the people?

@Recordsage context is everything. It is communication. Words without context have no meaning. Reverend Wright gives whole sermons. Don't give in to the snippet world.

One of Reverend Wrights points in the Bill Moyer's interview is that white people have wanted to tell black people what the proper manner for worship is. Now look at what y...

willie you are the king of commenting on people, their ignorance, instead of merely talking about the topic. You set the tone long ago. You've educated us well. In fact you are the first person in this line of commentary to refer to the other clippers "the herd", the "lost sheep looking for a position". Why don't you focus on the clips and not the people?

@Recordsage context is everything. It is communication. Words without context have no meaning. Reverend Wright gives whole sermons. Don't give in to the snippet world.

One of Reverend Wrights points in the Bill Moyer's interview is that white people have wanted to tell black people what the proper manner for worship is. Now look at what you have just said. He was speaking about you. What right to you have to tell him how to worship in his own church?

Traditional Anglo churches are very well mannered, quiet, reserved, play their music on pipe organs, and sing Anglican Anthems. Black churches on the other hand are boisterous and somewhat disorderly, and sing gospels.

I believe this is as much the problem as anything else. It is not what we are familiar with and that is as much what we reject as the words that were actually said.

There was a whole section on what historical black colleges were not allowed to do by their Anglo ministry sponsors, to make them respectable (or white if you want to get to the nitty gritty). Jazz could be taught at white colleges but it could not be taught at Howard University. How ridiculous is that?

So obviously you didn't really watch those interviews at all.

Personally, I would be agreeing with recordsage that it is more for political reasons. Just as John McCain may or may not believe what his anti-catholic, anti-semitic spiritual adviser John Hagee believes in, but accepts him into his campaign to placate the right wingers who hate McCain's guts and have vowed never to vote for him.

Having said that, from the sermons that received the attention that were turned into the 15 second sound bites I did not see that they were factually wrong. I have the National Press Club transcript printed out but haven't had the time to read it. I haven't run across the AIDS comment in the sermons I have read but it is out there somewhere and is probably (as far...

Personally, I would be agreeing with recordsage that it is more for political reasons. Just as John McCain may or may not believe what his anti-catholic, anti-semitic spiritual adviser John Hagee believes in, but accepts him into his campaign to placate the right wingers who hate McCain's guts and have vowed never to vote for him.

Having said that, from the sermons that received the attention that were turned into the 15 second sound bites I did not see that they were factually wrong. I have the National Press Club transcript printed out but haven't had the time to read it. I haven't run across the AIDS comment in the sermons I have read but it is out there somewhere and is probably (as far as I know) not correct but similar acts have happened (reference the Tuskegee Venereal Disease study above). The CIA did introduce crack cocaine into Oakland to fund their illegal contra activities.

My belief has always been that people confuse when the government is being accused of something that it somehow means they were personally accused of the action. The government is a living entity with a history. So when Reverend Wright says America's history is founded on racism and things have not righted themselves yet, they personalize the criticism and say well I have never lynched anybody or called anyone the "N" word. And this is where people become outraged even though, for the most part, he hasn't been wrong in his analysis and hasn't accused the individual personally.

His statement "god damn America" which in context was god condemns violence (from the Old Testament teachings of god), even violence by the U.S., isn't nearly as bad as John Hagee saying god damned New Orleans with a Hurricane for having a gay festival.

@BobbyRutan,

First of all the man worships the way he wants, I'm not stopping him nor anyone else is, as you can tell he's free to do what he wants, so your point there is without merit. Second - my issue isn't with what he does and how, but when he damns MY America - I do get offended, because it's not only his, it's mine as well and as much as he has a right to say what he wants - I certainly have the same right in the same manner, including being disgusted and offended.

I personally think he's not making the ratio of out-of-wedlock births, crime, poverty and many other issues in their community go away by using his bully pulpit to throw this racist junk, without evidence, at the people...

@BobbyRutan,

First of all the man worships the way he wants, I'm not stopping him nor anyone else is, as you can tell he's free to do what he wants, so your point there is without merit. Second - my issue isn't with what he does and how, but when he damns MY America - I do get offended, because it's not only his, it's mine as well and as much as he has a right to say what he wants - I certainly have the same right in the same manner, including being disgusted and offended.

I personally think he's not making the ratio of out-of-wedlock births, crime, poverty and many other issues in their community go away by using his bully pulpit to throw this racist junk, without evidence, at the people going to church. So, as far as I'm concerned, he's abusing the privilege and he ain't no Mother Teresa.

As for the context - I disagree. Perhaps the context could have been something like this "since the AIDS epidemic was spreading quickly, especially in the poorer neighborhoods and within the black community - the government wound up infecting people in that community as part of their research to find a cure". Here's a different context for ya - would you buy garbage like this? Even though it would be in context? Or would you take the comment about government infecting people as enough of BS, regardless of what else it stated? If this was true - it's one thing, but where is the evidence? So, if there isn't anymore than some people throwing accusations, which based on many comments we've seen here - anyone can do this with ease - what the hell is he doing making those kinds of accusations in public? What's he accomplishing, in any context, other than show bitterness... heck let's just call it what it is - racism, bigotry and hate?

If he really did care - a) he wouldn't be moving into a 10k sq ft mansion, instead sold it and distribute the money among the very poor he supposedly is trying to help, b) put up in his sermons examples of what's possible, i.e.

show a movie like "Pursuit of Happyness", invite the man himself to speak (he is alive and I'm sure would gladly do this to help his community), show people like Clarence Thomas, people who came from nothing, overcame major injustices and racism in their life and became something. And yes, don't infer to Condi Rice as a 'whore', which he so ineloquently did, but instead show her as an example that she is - being a scholar, versed in multiple languages and dealing with all kinds of people under very difficult circumstances. This would make sense. This would inspire people, not constantly moaning about events of 50 or 200 years back, with some of them being nothing but fabrications.

That's...

show a movie like "Pursuit of Happyness", invite the man himself to speak (he is alive and I'm sure would gladly do this to help his community), show people like Clarence Thomas, people who came from nothing, overcame major injustices and racism in their life and became something. And yes, don't infer to Condi Rice as a 'whore', which he so ineloquently did, but instead show her as an example that she is - being a scholar, versed in multiple languages and dealing with all kinds of people under very difficult circumstances. This would make sense. This would inspire people, not constantly moaning about events of 50 or 200 years back, with some of them being nothing but fabrications.

That's logical, if you're looking for logic, sidestepping the usual party ideology & BS that you seem to subscribe to. After living in USSR for many years I've pretty much given up on ANY parties affiliations... I haven't seen those do anything meaningfully positive. I pretty much go with logic on everything (being a programmer at heart tends to dictate it)... I just think the ideology of Democrats is a lot more destructive than Republicans, although on certain issues that's not the case. And I would (did) consider Obama, since I don't have any party affiliations or attachment to their ideologies... my problem with him is that he's too much of a socialist and I've seen that promise land and I never want to see it again.

You should take a trip to my old motherland and LIVE there for 6 months... even with all of the newfound 'freedoms' and 'enlightenment' they've experienced with perestroika... My bet is you'll come back kissing the ground here and vastly changing your opinions of how 'bad' it is here in the US. You people simply have no clue or appreciation of what you have here, which is probably the main reason it's so disappointing for me to see you knocking it without merit or any kind of logical reasoning.

And as for the comment of how I look at 9/11 comments in terms of gays etc. - I'm just as opposed to them as I am to rev. Wright's sentiments.... totally and completely opposed to them. Anyone and everyone who tells me that those 3k people deserved to die has zero credibility in my eyes... in any context.

I'm all for peace, and fully believe there are better ways to make points and negotiate than knocking down buildings full of people with planes full of people. But I also believe that once the point was made using that kind of approach - then proper retaliation is certainly in order... but that's getting off the subject.

Obama is a smart man, but he wasn't smart enough to foresee the fi...

And as for the comment of how I look at 9/11 comments in terms of gays etc. - I'm just as opposed to them as I am to rev. Wright's sentiments.... totally and completely opposed to them. Anyone and everyone who tells me that those 3k people deserved to die has zero credibility in my eyes... in any context.

I'm all for peace, and fully believe there are better ways to make points and negotiate than knocking down buildings full of people with planes full of people. But I also believe that once the point was made using that kind of approach - then proper retaliation is certainly in order... but that's getting off the subject.

Obama is a smart man, but he wasn't smart enough to foresee the fiasco that hit him now with Wright. I do believe what he said yesterday, but since it was stated so late - the credibility (or lack thereof in this case) is certainly an issue, especially for a smart man like him, and especially since he tried to be civil to Wright and the man clearly threw him under a bus... which is too bad. Personally, I think Wright is a greedy bomb-thrower, being exactly the kind of a person he's trying to denounce and even though he's the problem - Obama is the one paying the dues... And as much as I disagree with just about everything the Democrats do these days - it's too bad that things are getting to a civil-war like state more and more in their own party. After all - they may be wrong, but they're still people and still Americans. I hope they change their system of nomination to make it simpler and less prone to these kinds of problems.

No one has ever said that the people who died in the World Trade Centers deserved to die. That is a statement of your own creation.

Reverend Wright condemned all violence and suggested that the U.S. allow time for cooler heads to prevail in their response, because in war time innocent civilians are going to be killed in addition to those who were responsible. And what happened? We used the events for a justified response (Afghanistan) and then used the events to launch a BS war in Iraq that even John McCain has admitted has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

You always comment on the U.S.'s proper response now comment on the Arab world's proper response to having t...

No one has ever said that the people who died in the World Trade Centers deserved to die. That is a statement of your own creation.

Reverend Wright condemned all violence and suggested that the U.S. allow time for cooler heads to prevail in their response, because in war time innocent civilians are going to be killed in addition to those who were responsible. And what happened? We used the events for a justified response (Afghanistan) and then used the events to launch a BS war in Iraq that even John McCain has admitted has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

You always comment on the U.S.'s proper response now comment on the Arab world's proper response to having their governments overthrown and being replaced with dictators. We get to respond with military force but they are suppose to respond through diplomatic channels? You are entirely blind to one side of the equation.

And you're last statement proved that there wasn't going to be anything Obama, Clinton, or any other Democrat who had sought the nomination could do to attract your vote.

That is why I believe your comments are less about understanding the words and context in Wright's statements and more about bashing.

The Democrats nomination process works well enough. It is clear to almost everyone who the nominee will be. The headline story on Drudge is that even the Republicans know they are running against Obama. All their efforts and money are focused on Obama. Someone just forgot to tell Hillary.

With all my disrespect for Hillary, I still think she's brighter than you give her credit and nobody forgot anything. Currently she has a slight lead in Superdelegates, which is relevant to this contest... Let's also not forget that there are a number of states left, and even though Obama's camp couldn't care less - Hillary certainly has fresh on her memory the people of Florida & Michigan, both of which will likely go to her, majority-wise anyway. It's not that someone forgot to tell her - what it is is she isn't buying your line of thinking and considering who is who - I'd stick with her sentiments on the subject.

As for my personal voting ambitions - I said it before, I guess I have to...

With all my disrespect for Hillary, I still think she's brighter than you give her credit and nobody forgot anything. Currently she has a slight lead in Superdelegates, which is relevant to this contest... Let's also not forget that there are a number of states left, and even though Obama's camp couldn't care less - Hillary certainly has fresh on her memory the people of Florida & Michigan, both of which will likely go to her, majority-wise anyway. It's not that someone forgot to tell her - what it is is she isn't buying your line of thinking and considering who is who - I'd stick with her sentiments on the subject.

As for my personal voting ambitions - I said it before, I guess I have to repeat myself - don't try to guess what I would or would NOT do - you'll be mistaken almost every time. What I want is what's best the US, not what letter is next to whomever is running.

In terms of comments... didn't the man say that "the chickens are coming home to roost", didn't he accuse the US of conducting terrorism by blowing up bombs in Japan during WWII? Perhaps you don't get the connection he implied, but I certainly did along with bunch of other folks. It certainly isn't only my sentiment on this point.

No question that the US has helped various countries get new leaderships, a number of times being mistaken (hussein, khomeini, even assisting bin laden during the war with the Soviets), it certainly isn't at all to the degree that you're implying. If it was this simple - there would be no putins, castros, chavez, ah-I'll-kill-you-alls... but there are). USA has to protect its interests, and sometimes it works out (Japan, Germany) and sometimes it doesn't (old Iraq, Iran etc.)

And if you really believe that US somehow 'deserved' 9/11 or the terrorists are justified somehow in their actions - you are one sick individual, that's all I can tell you.

And as for many deaths in Iraq - no question that it's very unfortunate... just as there's no question that most of them were killed by their own.

Prior to US going to Iraq - a ton of them were dying by the hands of saddam, in even greater numbers. You don't seem to recall those 2 facts for reasons of your own. They were given a chance to live in peace and do something productive... they clearly chose to keep killing each other. Typically I'm not anti-religion, but the case here can clearly be made against theirs, since they seem bent on killing one another as a religious deed supposedly... which is ironic, considering the fact that some, seem to like calling it 'religion of peace'. B...

And as for many deaths in Iraq - no question that it's very unfortunate... just as there's no question that most of them were killed by their own.

Prior to US going to Iraq - a ton of them were dying by the hands of saddam, in even greater numbers. You don't seem to recall those 2 facts for reasons of your own. They were given a chance to live in peace and do something productive... they clearly chose to keep killing each other. Typically I'm not anti-religion, but the case here can clearly be made against theirs, since they seem bent on killing one another as a religious deed supposedly... which is ironic, considering the fact that some, seem to like calling it 'religion of peace'. But then again, there are some who believe in the same religion and do live in peace and are decent people, so perhaps it's back to my original point that it's the people who are to blame, regardless of their reasons.

I certainly feel very sorry that our guys had to die trying to make their lives better, they certainly didn't deserve it.

Once again, I have never said that those who perished in the World Trade Center deserved it and you're a jerk off to suggest that I did.

Civilians pay the price many times for leaders actions. That was what Reverend Wright was talking about that civilians are the collateral damage of military actions when he talked about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That's why his sermon was about taking time to let the passion of vengeance dissipate.

Even, an American National hero, Mark Twain wrote about the same thing in "The War Prayer" when he protested the U.S. subjugating the Filipinos under U.S. rule after they had just cast off their Spanish dictators. When we call to patriotism to go to...

Once again, I have never said that those who perished in the World Trade Center deserved it and you're a jerk off to suggest that I did.

Civilians pay the price many times for leaders actions. That was what Reverend Wright was talking about that civilians are the collateral damage of military actions when he talked about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That's why his sermon was about taking time to let the passion of vengeance dissipate.

Even, an American National hero, Mark Twain wrote about the same thing in "The War Prayer" when he protested the U.S. subjugating the Filipinos under U.S. rule after they had just cast off their Spanish dictators. When we call to patriotism to go to war we are also calling for the suffering of our enemies women and children was the topic of "The War Prayer". How did Mark Twain become a national hero and Reverend Wright becomes a traitor?

You don't have to repost it - I remember it fine. And yes, we did help him out "to do our bidding". It's not that much different than you opening a business and hiring someone to be your salesperson. They do your bidding by dealing with people you otherwise had to deal with. And when they start stealing from you or worse - you fire them. Obviously this analogy isn't perfect, but it makes that point that everyone initially goes into something based on their needs with the understanding and hope of things working out mutually beneficially. Obviously that's not always the case. Bin laden is a perfect example of arming someone for the wrong reasons and not catching the turnaround in time t...

You don't have to repost it - I remember it fine. And yes, we did help him out "to do our bidding". It's not that much different than you opening a business and hiring someone to be your salesperson. They do your bidding by dealing with people you otherwise had to deal with. And when they start stealing from you or worse - you fire them. Obviously this analogy isn't perfect, but it makes that point that everyone initially goes into something based on their needs with the understanding and hope of things working out mutually beneficially. Obviously that's not always the case. Bin laden is a perfect example of arming someone for the wrong reasons and not catching the turnaround in time to prevent a disaster (but let's not drag Bill into this, nor JC for his beautiful orchestration of dethroning the shah of Iran, that certainly worked out exceptionally well).

As for how much we were prepared or not isn't something that you or I know enough to comment. Bush Administration did NOT go to fight this war, it was the US Army, Marines and other armed forces that did and these folks haven't started their training nor combat when Bush Administration started and even though the rules of engagement were given, let's not assume that just because of that our boys didn't know what to do on the ground. You think they weren't ready, I think their hands were tied to really fight a war. Let's not debate this here... but I will say that NO SOLDIER DESERVES TO DIE, that's a given for any sane person. But that's the unfortunate price of war. 40,000 people dead during the Normandy invasion (in a single day) also didn't 'deserve' to die, nor the millions of others... and the 3,000 in the WTC didn't deserve to die either, hundreds of thousands slaughtered by saddam didn't deserve to die, yet I'm finding you strangely silent bring those topics front and center. You only seem to be able to find fault with America and Americans and it's amazing how in the same breath you seem to th

No lets not drag Reagan into this either. By the time Bill came to office Bush Sr. had already abandoned Afghanistan and left it in the hands of the Pakistanis. As for Carter, his screw ups are legendary (although he did not dethrone the Shah, where do you get your facts? he could not stop selling him the latest fighter planes), like parading around with two dictators (the Shah and the dictator of Panama), but then you also have Reagan's Iran-Contra affair (with Israel playing the go between, that worked well).

As for the war in Iraq, the only reason why their was an invasion in the first place was not because of the people Saddam slaughtered, or for democracy, but because he bit the hand t...

No lets not drag Reagan into this either. By the time Bill came to office Bush Sr. had already abandoned Afghanistan and left it in the hands of the Pakistanis. As for Carter, his screw ups are legendary (although he did not dethrone the Shah, where do you get your facts? he could not stop selling him the latest fighter planes), like parading around with two dictators (the Shah and the dictator of Panama), but then you also have Reagan's Iran-Contra affair (with Israel playing the go between, that worked well).

As for the war in Iraq, the only reason why their was an invasion in the first place was not because of the people Saddam slaughtered, or for democracy, but because he bit the hand that fed him. I bet you anything that had he not invaded Kuwait he would still be in power. 4,000 lives lost in an unnecessary war, attacking a country under false pretenses is not unfortunate, IT IS A CRIME!

Don't confuse WW2 or the souls lost on 9/11 with that. Your not doing yourself any favors.

First of all - I did NOT suggest that you indicated that 9/11 victims 'deserved' it... other people clearly stated so. perhaps you didn't read my other comment. I don't know the details of how you really feel any more than you know about me... so even though you try to go there on my account (being off 99% of the time), I wouldn't do so... you're misreading my comment, that's all.

Reverend Wright is what he is, as is Mark Twain is what he is. I don't think I called the rev a 'traitor' anywhere... I just totally disagree with his sentiments and now I think he's doing a number on Obama,which I think is a very low thing to do. Based on what I've seen - he says one thing and does something ...

First of all - I did NOT suggest that you indicated that 9/11 victims 'deserved' it... other people clearly stated so. perhaps you didn't read my other comment. I don't know the details of how you really feel any more than you know about me... so even though you try to go there on my account (being off 99% of the time), I wouldn't do so... you're misreading my comment, that's all.

Reverend Wright is what he is, as is Mark Twain is what he is. I don't think I called the rev a 'traitor' anywhere... I just totally disagree with his sentiments and now I think he's doing a number on Obama,which I think is a very low thing to do. Based on what I've seen - he says one thing and does something entirely different. But, obviously he has the full right to do so... and I of course can knock him for it as much as I want to. We're not trying to determine who's a patriot and who's a traitor. I certainly & totally disagree with the man's sentiments, on just about everything that I've heard. People say he's done a lot of good... which is great, I have no beef with that side of him, but unfortunately he has another side as well and that's the one that has been vocalized and that's the one I'm opposed to... as is apparently Obama, without whom nobody would even know that the reverend exists.

One thing I do agree with you on that it's going to be a disaster for the party if this continues. What Reed & Pelosi said is largely irrelevant, since there's a horribly low opinion of them in public. But the superpeople will have to make a call and soon, that's for sure. I agree with you about the numbers too and I think Hillary is trying to pull another Clinton stunt, which has ALWAYS worked in the past. With all of the scandals they had to come out so dry out of the water is both amazing and enough to make one think that she actually may have a plan and may pull this off somehow. At least that's the thought at this point, I could be all wrong and it will get to the disaster poin

And if you really believe that US somehow 'deserved' 9/11 or the terrorists are justified somehow in their actions - you are one sick individual, that's all I can tell you.

Sticking a "really" in there doesn't absolve you from trying to accuse me. If you were saying it to someone else then you need to indicate who you were saying it to.

What a sanitized analogy you used for the U.S. putting into power a man who you admit killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and started wars against Iran resulting in millions of deaths (with U.S. aid and support). Oh, he was just our salesman. Yeah salesman of death. Remember your outrage over 3,000 deaths.

You are amazing.

And, I never sa...

And if you really believe that US somehow 'deserved' 9/11 or the terrorists are justified somehow in their actions - you are one sick individual, that's all I can tell you.

Sticking a "really" in there doesn't absolve you from trying to accuse me. If you were saying it to someone else then you need to indicate who you were saying it to.

What a sanitized analogy you used for the U.S. putting into power a man who you admit killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and started wars against Iran resulting in millions of deaths (with U.S. aid and support). Oh, he was just our salesman. Yeah salesman of death. Remember your outrage over 3,000 deaths.

You are amazing.

And, I never said our soldiers weren't prepaed for combat.

What I did say was that the Bush Administration did not have a grasp of the bitterness between the differing Islamic sects over centuries of history that were going to prevent any rebuilding of the country from being as easy as they thought it would be.

Many military experts knew we could march into Baghdad but occupying the country would be a fiasco. Even W's father knew better than to involve the U.S. in an occupation of Baghdad. What poppy feared would happen was delivered by his imbecilic son.

Well, the fact that Democrats are as split as they are suggests that they do NOT listen to Pelosi & Reid and the comment that got lost was about a very plausible strategy by the Clintons, where their odds of retaking the White House are much better if McCain wins this time around vs Obama taking it. Of course that would only play out if things don't work out real well in the next 4 years. And she'd certainly have a chance, this wouldn't be the first time.

And the prior comment about supporting saddam - certainly a mistake on our part, no question there, which of course was part of trying to balance for the other mistake of letting Iran become an enemy, which was another mistake on our par...

Well, the fact that Democrats are as split as they are suggests that they do NOT listen to Pelosi & Reid and the comment that got lost was about a very plausible strategy by the Clintons, where their odds of retaking the White House are much better if McCain wins this time around vs Obama taking it. Of course that would only play out if things don't work out real well in the next 4 years. And she'd certainly have a chance, this wouldn't be the first time.

And the prior comment about supporting saddam - certainly a mistake on our part, no question there, which of course was part of trying to balance for the other mistake of letting Iran become an enemy, which was another mistake on our part. And I totally disagree with the concept that Bush Sr. decided not to go all the way because of some 'understanding' and the current President did because of lack of such. There are plenty of other people involved, many of which where/are there both times. That's a bogus argument.

And in terms of my outrage for 9/11 & defense of the victims and their families - what did you expect? They're my fellow citizens. As for the people saddam killed - that's why I'm so glad he was taken out of commission. It is you and yours who constantly bellyaches that this war should never been waged because WMDs were not found and totally dismissing the fact that that kind of man (monster would be a better definition) was stopped from continuing on his killing spree. One would think you being such a defender of human life would at least support this part of this mission... but that would be too reasonable to expect, G*d forbid you acknowledge any good done by your own country... a definite no-no...

Well your incorrect about one thing entirely. If the country was presented with your argument and then went to war in the constitutional manner that is prescribed, "a declaration of war by congress", then I wouldn't have such a problem.

As it was, begin stampeded under fear mongering and lies and the congress abandoning there constitutional duty, I cannot support it.

And you are also absolutely wrong about Bush Sr. The words come from his own mouth that (1) there was no United Nations mandate to do more than oust Saddam from Kuwait, and (2) he felt that the U.S. would become bogged down in a guerrilla war in Baghdad if they tried to occupy Iraq in Desert Storm.
Those are his very own word...

Well your incorrect about one thing entirely. If the country was presented with your argument and then went to war in the constitutional manner that is prescribed, "a declaration of war by congress", then I wouldn't have such a problem.

As it was, begin stampeded under fear mongering and lies and the congress abandoning there constitutional duty, I cannot support it.

And you are also absolutely wrong about Bush Sr. The words come from his own mouth that (1) there was no United Nations mandate to do more than oust Saddam from Kuwait, and (2) he felt that the U.S. would become bogged down in a guerrilla war in Baghdad if they tried to occupy Iraq in Desert Storm.
Those are his very own words not mine.

And I have acknowledge good by our country. Way up there I described how my family participated in a 20 year program building universities and agricultural expertise in a region of the world on the forefront of the fight on terrorism and that those actions will do more to prevent the spread of anti-US sentiment then does militarizing the region. However, you have conveniently avoided that.

The Marshall Plan, and the Point Four program which my parents participated in are actions that show the best side of the U.S. Overthrowing other countries democratically elected governments because you want cheap access to their oil shows the worst side of the U.S.

God forbid that you actually could see both sides of the things we do.

Well, if you heard Bush Sr., I'm sure so did Bush Jr., but I stand by my point about both of them going with recommendations of MANY other people and I'd say that both decisions weren't simply decided by them alone, for all sorts of reasons.

I accidentally missed your comment about your family's deeds, not intentionally and kudos to you and them for doing so!!! I certainly have no intention of diminishing or sidestepping such occurrences... in fact they are the reason I'm so into the US. I apologize for missing it.

You don't appear to see both sides, you only see yours, although you think/say you see both. Even if you do - it's way off balance for one side.

I do appreciate the liberals...

Well, if you heard Bush Sr., I'm sure so did Bush Jr., but I stand by my point about both of them going with recommendations of MANY other people and I'd say that both decisions weren't simply decided by them alone, for all sorts of reasons.

I accidentally missed your comment about your family's deeds, not intentionally and kudos to you and them for doing so!!! I certainly have no intention of diminishing or sidestepping such occurrences... in fact they are the reason I'm so into the US. I apologize for missing it.

You don't appear to see both sides, you only see yours, although you think/say you see both. Even if you do - it's way off balance for one side.

I do appreciate the liberals of the past... heck it was the liberals that founded America in the first place... and I have much admiration for what they started and what was accomplished afterwards (generally speaking), but the crowd of today aren't the same people... unfortunately. You and I see things very differently, on many levels, in my case it's largely due to my experience in life in the USSR and in the USA... in your case only you know why... but certainly different and I guess we'll just leave it at that.