This seems clear - '"When he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the US government somehow being involved in AIDS; when he suggests that Minister Farrakhan somehow represents one of the greatest voices of the 20th and 21st century; when he equates the United States' wartime efforts with terrorism, then there are no excuses," Obama said. "They offend me, they rightly offend all Americans, and they should be denounced. And that's what I'm doing very clearly and unequivocally here today."' Let's focus on Obama's views, not Wright's

And this makes sense, too - 'Certainly Republican John McCain, who sought the endorsement of televangelist John Hagee, hasn't been held responsible for Hagee's various controversial statements, including his (later retracted) suggestion that the devastation of New Orleans was God's punishment for a planned gay-pride parade.

McCain has a confusing pose in regard to Hagee. Although he has rejected Hagee's controversial comments and allowed that it may have been a mistake to seek Hagee's endorsement, McCain has also said that he admires the man and remains pleased to have his support. Still, his unpersuasive attempt to distance himself from Hagee has largely been accepted.

Obama, who has now firmly repudiated Wright, deserves equal consideration.'

Maybe it would be better to stop worrying about the candidate's pastors. McCain sings that he wants to bomb Iran, and Clinton blithely talks about obliterating that whole country. Why the determination to dig up anything negative about the guy who seems to be the sanest candidate?

quote:

Originally posted by DorianGreyed:
If you don't see that Peck's acknowledgment "that he still believes that U.S. foreign policy was in many ways responsible for triggering the terrorist attacks" is very similar in meaning to what Wright said, nothing I can say will make you see it.

Actually, the reasoning is crystal clear and the concepts are congruent. But this is certainly not an original Peck idea that Wright ran with. For Wright's sermon to be considered Peck's message, a qouotation of Peck's, or even a paraphrase of Peck's, however, is far-fetched. The only basis for this is that Wright named Peck in the sermon and, it seems, misquoted him.

Having read the transcript of Wright's sermon, I think it is unclear if he was actually quoting Peck (a point which I missed earlier) or simply using different words. It can be difficult to tell from a transcript whether the speaker is quoting or simply re-stating.

Example:

Buchanan: If Canada attacked the US, the US will respond by attacking Canada.

Moore: Buchanan said that the US would respond in kind if Canada attacks.

If you heard Moore say that, but did not hear Buchanan, could you honestly say if Moore was attempting to quote Buchanan or simply giving the general idea of what Buchanan said? If you couldn't, how could someone writing a transcript tell?
--------
Wright's use of the chickens coming home to roost is a common enough phrase in black circles. Of course, it's best known because of Malcolm X's statement after Kennedy was assassinated. But the phrase is much older than that.
--------
I think that Wright used Peck because of who Peck is, a white man who served under Nixon and Reagan. Showing that such a man said that US actions, in part, resulted in terrorism acts against the US seems to show that the concept was not just the idea of radical thought.
----------
Note: I missed a great deal about Peck. Below is his political CV from Wikipedia.

Special Assistant to the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs (U. Alexis Johnson), Nixon Administration, January 1971.[1][2]

Edward Peck served as Chief of Mission in Baghdad (Iraq 1977 to 1980) in the Carter Administration and later held senior posts in Washington and abroad. He also served as a Foreign Service Officer in Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Egypt, and as Ambassador in Mauritania. At the State Department he served as Deputy Director of Covert Intelligence Programs, Director of the Office of Egyptian Affairs and as Special Assistant to the Under Secretary for Political Affairs. He served as deputy director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism in the Reagan Administration. He is president of Foreign Services International, a consulting firm that works with governments, businesses and educational institutions across the world.
--------
If someone does not think that the US's actions have not, to some extent, resulted in terrorism against the US, I ask them to consider the following.

Eisenhower sanctioned Operation Ajax, in which the CIA backed the 1953 Iranian coup d'état which removed the democratically-elected Iranian Prime Minister, and restored the Shah.

The Shah of Iran developed into one of the most brutal dictators in the Mid East. His secret police, SAVAK, "according to reliable Western source [2], use(d) all means necessary, including torture, to hunt down dissidents." [3] (Wikipedia). Many of SAVAK's agents were trained by the CIA.

The Iranian Revolution, in 1979, was a reaction to the Shah's domestic policies.

The Iran hostage crisis was an outgrowth of the Iranian Revolution.

Iran was attacked by Saddam Hussein, financially backed by Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact states, the United States (beginning in 1983), France, the United Kingdom, and Germany, along with other countries. The US supplied Saddam with chemical weapons in this war.

(Note: I only go back to 1953. Western interference in Iran's internal politics dates from at least 1921.

Is there any wonder why Iran hates the US? Is there any question, any doubt, that, to some extent, the actions of the US resulted in the Iran Hostage Crisis and later terrorist acts against the US, the UK, and Germany?

I have four acquantances who were raised in predominantly Muslim nations.

One, now a U.S. Citizen was the son of a Pakistani Ambassador and has been head of a a Pashto cultural organization. He is a Muslim.

Another, also raised in Pakistan, lived with our family during her schooling in the United States and now lives with her husband in Tennessee. She is a Christian, and experienced both gender and religious persecution in Pakistan.

Two others are American citizens who were both roommates of the Mrs., raised in oil company compounds in Saudi Arabia.

One might expect some divergence of opinion, but two common themes carry their conversations about why many (though, interestingly, not nearly all) people in the Middle East despise the United States.

1. They are sick and tired of U.S. intervention and wish we would mind our own business.

2. Some governments tend to deflect all blame for their shortcomings on the United States. It is apparently easy to make us a scapegoat for their problems.

If I lived in a smaller country, and the United States presence was felt for anything other than diplomatically agreed-to protection, I can see where I would be all over number 1. In fact, that would be pretty Southern

"2. Some governments tend to deflect all blame for their shortcomings on the United States. It is apparently easy to make us a scapegoat for their problems."

Deflecting blame is often easier than accepting it and providing remedies. Ask any US politician.

"1. They are sick and tired of U.S. intervention and wish we would mind our own business."

That's it exactly. Actions have consequences. It is the height of absurdity to believe that interfering in the internal affairs of other nations would not have negative consequences in some circumstances. If the chickens coming home to roost is an unpalatable phrase, then consider seeing it as paying the piper.

Of course, this does not mean that there are not times when taking action against another nation's government is warranted. Going after the Taliban is a perfect example; the government of Afghanistan was shielding a man who admitted being behind 9/11. We should have given them a week or two to present a living bin Laden, and then, failing that, started bombing from the borders inward. Sooner or later, the government would have turned him in or faced a revolution.* Instead, we went in without enough might, and didn't stay long enough in force to accomplish what needed to be accomplished. It could have been done cheaper, safer, and more effectively.



*As a bar and restaurant manager, I learned that the best way to get something done was to give the job to those who

a) were capable of accomplishing it, and

b) had the most to lose by failure.

I am sure that this approach is not limited to bars and restaurants.