The Company You Keep
February 15th, 2008 at 09:27am Mark Noonan
If you want to become President of the United States of America, then you have to expect a careful review of your actions, statements and associations. As Barack Obama has become the front-runner in the quest for the Presidency, more and more of what might at one time been his private affairs become affairs all Americans have a right to know about - including just who Obama considers to be his mentor:
Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen published a recent column that criticized the award to Louis Farrakhan of the Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award — an award that supposedly was granted to a man who “truly epitomized greatness”. As Cohen noted, Farrakhan is not only a race-baiter but also an anti-Semite and a promoter of anti-Semitism. He falsely accused Jews of cooperating with Hitler and helping him create the Third Reich, has slandered Jews by his insistence that Jews have played an inordinate role in victimizing African-Americans (he has also called Jews “bloodsuckers”). Cohen questions why Obama has stayed steadfast in his allegiance to Pastor Wright over the years.
Obama has called Wright his spiritual mentor, his moral compass and his sounding board. He was the man who gave Obama the term, “The Audacity of Hope” after all. He was also the man who told Obama that there are more black men in prison then in colleges — a statement that Obama parroted until he was told that it was false. What other “facts” has Wright taught Obama? Has he taught Obama to blame 9/11 on America because of our foreign policy?
Nevertheless, an Obama spokesman told the New York Times he is proud of his pastor and his church.The church also is the largest recipient of Obama’s charitable donations. The pastor married Obama and his wife Michelle and baptized his two daughters. Obama has shown continued allegiance to a man who preaches racial exclusiveness, the superiority of black values over white middle-class values, and whose teaching contains anti-Israel diatribes. All these are sharply at variance with what Obama himself preaches on the campaign trail.
This is a serious issue, and Obama is going to have to clarify just what his views are on the racial exclusiveness of his church, as well as the high regard his pastor has for such a racist rabble-rouser as Farrakhan. Next to the United Kingdom and Australia, the United States has no longer-term nor more steadfast ally than the State of Israel - would a President Obama abandon this alliance in favor of an alliance with Israel’s enemies? We have very little to go on in Obama’s record, so we have to seek for knowledge about him where we can - and his allegiance to Reverand Wright is troubling, to say the least, and gives rise to such questions.
The office of the President of the United States is not a minor honor - in a large sense, it holds within it the safety and liberty not just of the United States, but the whole world. We daren’t award this mighty office to someone just because he can recite high-sounding rhetoric - we have to, as far as possible, know what Obama is all about. And unless he can answer all the questions squarely, then he should be denied the White House.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Foreign Affairs
63 Comments
1. SEW | February 15th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Hussein, is that you?
2. coulterfan | February 15th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Since when is the claim that there are more black men in prison than college false?
“A new study from the Justice Policy Institute (http://www.justicepolicy.org), a Washington, DC-based think-tank that advocates for alternatives to prison, has found that after two decades of harsh criminal justice policies, there are more black men in jail or prison than in college. At the end of 2000, 791,600 black men were behind bars and 603,032 were enrolled in colleges or universities. By contrast, in 1980 — before the prison boom — black men in college outnumbered black men behind bars by a ratio of more than 3 to 1, the study found. ”
Please provide evidence that this is not true- you know, a real scientific study rather than a uncredited claim on a rightwing blog!
And, what is this? Guilt by association of his PASTOR?
Furthermore, didn’t your guy McCain compare Farrakhan to Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell? As long as we agree with McCain that all these extremists are “agents of intolerance and hatred”, we can ALL work together to rid our society of these evil influences!
3. coulterfan | February 15th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Hey, look- I actually do my own research! There ARE more black men in jail than college. . . but (here’s the issue) men of all ages are in jail wheras men 18-24 are in college.
So, Obama’s statement was technically true. But if we only look at black men ages 18-24, there are more of them in college than prison.
To Obama’s credit, he stopped using this stat when it was pointed out that it’s misleading. Unlike Bush, Rove, Cheney, etc who keep insisting things are true when they’ve been proven false time and again (Saddam was working with Al Qaeda, for instance)
Still, if Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Farrakhan are ALL ‘agents of intolerance and hate’ as McCain has said, shouldn’t we condemn them ALL. And, if guilt by association is enough to disqualify someone from public life, didn’t McCain also speak at Falwell’s University and never once call him on the carpet for spreading this hate?
4. coulterfan | February 15th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Here’s McCain’s quote:
“Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right. ”
I think we can ALL agree with McCain on that! And I don’t think you’ll find Obama pandering to any of them. . . but didn’t Sen McCain ‘pander’ to Falwell by speaking at his University???
5. navydad | February 15th, 2008 at 10:17 am
I’m voting for Obama because he believes in the future, and the future is in front of us, and he also believes in hope, and hope would put food on our tables, and hope would bring back all those highly skilled manufacturing jobs (if they’re so highly skilled then why are the un-educated Asians right out of the fields able to perform the same tasks with no education at $.19 per hour?) and hope will allow all Americans to have abortions at will, and hope will bring the Republicans over to the liberal way of thinking, and hope will get us out of Iraq (a war in which we’re kickin some serious AQ ass, I might add), and hope will keep us out of a recession, and hope will convert Vladamir Putin, Hockmodumbojob and Kim Jong Midget into peaceniks that just looove America.
Yeah…right. An empty Pied Piper suit that preys on the ignorant and stupid.
Can any liberal please tell all of us just one significant Obama accomplishment in his political career???
6. coulterfan | February 15th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Hey navydad- there’s a 65 page PDF available from Obama’s web site which gives LOTS of details for policy wonks. I’ve looked for details on McCain’s website and can’t find them. In fact, he only recently added a “Health Care” issues tab, but there’s really no plan- just empty rhetoric (it sounds like Bush’s Health Care ‘Plan’)
>>Can any liberal please tell all of us just one significant Obama accomplishment in his political career???
Sure, how about the ‘Ethics Reform Bill’ which he sponsored? It enjoyed bi-partisan support and made it tougher for lawmakers to use their political power to score HUGE PROFITS for themselves on K-Street.
Of course it didn’t stop Trent Lott from resigning before the law took effect to “Spend more time with my family. . .”
It turns out that “his family” lives on K-Street!
7. SEW | February 15th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Wow! Sponsored the ethics reform bill. Hope. Change. POTUS!
8. Ricorun | February 15th, 2008 at 10:33 am
If Obama wins the nomination over the Clintons, that I will consider his most singular accomplishment. If he can do that I will be mighty impressed. And if he doesn’t I will be mighty disappointed.
9. coulterfan | February 15th, 2008 at 10:33 am
BTW, McCain voted for the ‘Ethics Reform Package’ sponsored by Obama and Feingold, navydad!
10. Sunny | February 15th, 2008 at 10:34 am
“the United States has no longer-term nor more steadfast ally than the State of Israel ”
Exactly what does Israel do for the United States as an ally? Has Israel provided troops for the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? I know we provide billions of dollars in aid to Israel, but I have yet to see exactly what Israel does for the US? I know that we support Israel because of our Christian beliefs, but as far as Israel being an ally, I have yet to hear of anything it does for the US. Do we have a military base in Israel? I am asking because I do not know, and would really like to know why the US is so loyal to this country for reasons other than religious reasons.
As to Obama answering questions regarding his religious beliefs, I am sure he will be questioned about them just as Mitt Romney was. I didn’t believe that Gov. Romeny should have had to explain his religious beliefs, and I am not sure Obama should have to either. He is a Christian - that should put everyone’s mind at ease since there have been all of the ugly rumors he is Muslim. I know the right is desperately looking for something to use against Obama, but I doubt that attacking his Christian religious beliefs will not be the way to go.
And SEW - once again, you prove you are an idiot!
11. coulterfan | February 15th, 2008 at 10:36 am
>>Wow! Sponsored the ethics reform bill. Hope. Change. POTUS!
Well, it will be nice to have a President who believes in ethics, won’t it?
That IS a CHANGE!
12. eric | February 15th, 2008 at 10:36 am
And now, Senator Obama has Daniel Ortega’s support.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/02/14/america/LA-POL-Nicaragua-Ortega-Obama.php
Great. Now, I have to get my Nicaraguan flag to hang next to my Cuban flag.
13. coulterfan | February 15th, 2008 at 10:45 am
On the Ethics Reform package:
Fred Wertheimer, head of the reform organization Democracy 21, said in a statement: “We applaud Senators Russell Feingold (D-WI) and Barack Obama (D-IL) for the outstanding national leadership they have provided in introducing ground-breaking ethics and lobbying reform legislation that set the standard for the Senate bill that passed, and by successfully offering key amendments on the Senate floor that strengthened the pending legislation.”
This group is NON-PARTISAN and has criticized Soros extensively for his ‘illegal contributions’ to Democratic groups and ads.
14. Sunny | February 15th, 2008 at 10:50 am
eric | February 15th, 2008 at 10:36 am
And now, Senator Obama has Daniel Ortega’s support.
Can you provide any information stating that Obama asked for or embraces Daniel Ortega’s support?
15. coulterfan | February 15th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Of course you remember, eric, that Bush had Al Qaeda’s endorsement in 2004!
From Fauxnews March 18, 2004:
“Islamists Declare Spain Truce, Endorse Bush”
“The statement tells American voters that Abu Hafs al-Masri supports the re-election campaign of President Bush: “We are very keen that Bush does not lose the upcoming elections.”
The statement said Abu Hafs al-Masri needs what it called Bush’s “idiocy and religious fanaticism” because they would “wake up” the Islamic world.”
You may also recall that the CIA thought that Al Qaeda released the 2004 Bin Laden video to help GW Bush win re-election!
16. coulterfan | February 15th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Surely Al Qaeda feels the same way about Bush’s 3rd term (McCain) as they did in 2004!
So, would you rather have Ortega’s endorsement or Al Qaeda’s????
Or, would you rather just not care what radical extremists think about our election AT ALL?
17. eric | February 15th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Sunny,
Whether or not, Senator Obama asked for or endorsed this support is irrelevant. Read the article. Clearly, Ortega supports Mr. Obama’s campaign. You missed the point entirely. The Ortega’s and the Wright’s of the is world gush over Mr. Obama because they support his anti-American, anti-wealth, socialist agenda. I don’t.
I have to go run 5 miles before a lunch meeting. Be back in about an hour.
18. coulterfan | February 15th, 2008 at 11:09 am
So the fact that Bush didn’t ask for Al Qaeda’s endorsement doesn’t matter?
19. SEW | February 15th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Sunny, I know you pollute the minds of your 1st graders, but you seem better equipped for pre-K.
And what might be the relevance of asking for support be? OBL, Sadaam Hussein, Chavez, all support our liberals, in fact they threatened states if they were to vote for W in 2000 or 2004. Kerry and Gore did not request this, they were seen as wimps. As is “Barak”.
20. Sunny | February 15th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Eric, why would it be irrelevant as to whether or not Senator Obama asked for such and endorsement? Do you believe that radical groups that support a candidate without being asked is something we as a nation need to be concerned about? I put no value in such an endorsement. Have you allowed such endorsements sway your vote?
21. Sunny | February 15th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Sunny, I know you pollute the minds of your 1st graders, but you seem better equipped for pre-K. SEW
Well SEW, I would be so far ahead of you should I actually be teaching first graders. It is very apparent you should not be near young children in any manner. Did you even make it out of first grade?
22. coulterfan | February 15th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Deleted - off topic
23. coulterfan | February 15th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Deleted - off topic
24. coulterfan | February 15th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Hey, Mark, you left some of the story out:
“Wright is quoted in the magazine offering praise of Farrakhan “as one of the 20th and. 21st century giants of the African American religious experience” and also praised Farrakhan’s “integrity and honesty.” In response, Obama noted his disagreement with the decision to give the award to Farrakhan; his statement was praised by Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League.”
Now, why would you leave out the fact that Obama spoke out against his pastor’s decision? Why leave out that the Anti-Defamation League praised Obama for speaking out against his pastor?
You’re not trying to deceive people, are you???
25. coulterfan | February 15th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Here’s Obama’s statement:
“I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan,” Obama said in a statement released by his aides. “I assume that Trumpet Magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is not a decision with which I agree.”
So, when can we expect a similar statement from McCain regarding Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, both “agents of intolerance” he compared to Farrakhan?
26. Mark Noonan | February 15th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Coulter,
Didn’t leave it out - didn’t know about it; now that I do, I’ve researched it - and Obama’s disclaimers aren’t sufficient, in my view, to lay the matter to rest.
Speaking against his pastor’s decision, but remaining a member of his pastor’s church, speaks volumes, I believe, about Obama’s good sense, or lack thereof.
Face it, Coulter, if any GOPer were even remotely associated with a church which is as racially exclusive as Obama’s, you’d be calling that GOPer a racist and no amount of disavowell of the racist pastor’s actions by the GOPer would be sufficient to calm your concerns.
27. Diana Powe | February 15th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Oh, coulterfan, why would it be relevant that the director of an organization whose mission is this:
praised Senator Obama’s statement about Louis Farakhan be relevant to anything that Mark wrote here. How unfair of you!
28. Mark Noonan | February 15th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Coulter,
As I said, I did some research: Wright’s award wasn’t for Farrakhan’s rehabilitation efforts, but because of Farrakhan’s overall, racist worldview:
Wright apparantly holds the racist view of Farrkhan in high regard - it is now up to Obama to explain just why he’s a member of a church run by a man with such racist views. That is the issue - that the man who wants to be President of the United States belongs to a church which, on the face of it, would exclude people based on race.
29. Sunny | February 15th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Speaking against his pastor’s decision, but remaining a member of his pastor’s church, speaks volumes, I believe, about Obama’s good sense, or lack thereof.
Mark, I find this statement so unfair. Have you made the decision to quit the Catholic Church because of the abuse of young boys by some priests?
30. Diana Powe | February 15th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Deleted - off topic; the topic is Obama, not McCain.
31. Mark Noonan | February 15th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Coulter,
And, by the way, your “research” in pulling up a 2000 article claiming that more black men are in jail than in college is the very report Obama’s minister believed and which has long been debunked. There aren’t more black men in jail than in college - you really should keep up with the times.
32. Diana Powe | February 15th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Deleted - off topic
33. coulterfan | February 15th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Deleted - off topic: Ed. Note: Boys and girls, we WILL NOT allow this thread to be hijacked…this is too important an issue to allow misdirection to prevail. Obama’s got a problem, Obama has to deal with the problem - it isn’t McCain’s problem, it isn’t the Catholic Church’s problem. Deal with Obama’s problem, or keep silent.
34. Mark Noonan | February 15th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Sunny,
The Church has disavowed the abuse and is being gigantially over-punished by a vindictive society for its failures - this is different from Wright, who embraces the error and calls it good.
35. coulterfan | February 15th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Deleted - off topic.
36. coulterfan | February 15th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Deleted - off topic; the thread, though, is about Obama - I know, you’re caught in a bind and your talking points haven’t prepared you for this, but this is where you might have to start thinking, rather than just eagerly swallowing what is spoon fed to you on the left.
37. Sunny | February 15th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
But Mark, Barak Obama never embraced what Wright said or did, nor did he call it good. And yet, you are attacking him for something someone else did. Seems unjust to me.
38. eric | February 15th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
5.5 miles. Whew.
Coulter,
Bush is not running for President so your statement doesn’t really matter.
Sunny,
I have not let such endorsements sway my vote. I was not going to vote for Senator Obama before I saw that endorsement. I don’t like the fact that his proposed policies are a big move towards socialism. Socialism does not work. I grew up poor (poverty line poor in a single parent family with two sisters). I worked my ass off (sorry for the language Mark), graduated college and law school. The only government help that I ever received was federal loans for law school that only covered a portion of my tuition and I am paying that money back. Now, I still work my ass off, I make a decent living, and I pay a ton in taxes. Why should I have to pay more in taxes for a policy such as universal health care that is doomed for failure?
39. coulterfan | February 15th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
>>Face it, Coulter, if any GOPer were even remotely associated with a church which is as racially exclusive as Obama’s, you’d be calling that GOPer a racist and no amount of disavowell of the racist pastor’s actions by the GOPer would be sufficient to calm your concerns.
BS! GW Bush spoke at Bob Jones University and didn’t disavow their racism. I never called him a racist, though he pandered for racist votes.
In contrast, Obama made it clear he does not support anti-Semitism!
40. Joe | February 15th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Good for you eric. You ran 5 miles. You worked hard and made a good living. Excellent for you.
So screw those that can’t do it on their own… right? That is mighty Christian of you.
Not everyone is as lucky as you were. Good for you. Really, I’m clapping for you right now.
41. Jonathan | February 15th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Deleted - off topic
42. Mark Noonan | February 15th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Sunny,
True, it isn’t Barack’s statements - but if the pastor of my parish were to make such a statement, I’d be demanding his removal, and if he wasn’t removed, I wouldn’t any longer attend his church.
The company you keep is an important indicator of what sort of person you are.
43. Mark Noonan | February 15th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
coulter,
If Obama has merely spoken at Wright’s church would be one thing - worthy of passing mention and a minor condemantion. Obama is a MEMBER of Wright’s church. Big difference.
And given your own definitions here, you are saying that Obama is panding to racist votes, at the least. Is this what you want in your Agent of Change?
44. eric | February 15th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Joe,
First of all, I never claimed to be a Christian. I was raised Catholic, married into a very Catholic family (in a convent in Brazil no less), but I do not go to church. That is my failing.
Second, I never said screw those that cannot do it on their own. I donate my money to the causes that I believe in (not who the government forces me too). I volunteer and I care about the environment. Hell, I since I work at home, I sold my car.
You know nothing of me except my words that you see on Mark’s blog. I was not lucky. I worked hard and I continue to do so. Keep clapping.
45. Sunny | February 15th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Why should I have to pay more in taxes for a policy such as universal health care that is doomed for failure? eric
You should not have to pay more in taxes for such things as universal health care. I too am opposed to such a plan. You seem to think I am more liberal than I actually am. I believe in conservative values, but I also believe in fairness and respect to those who might have a different opinion than I have. I too have worked off my tush (sounds better than your descriptive word) getting through college and law school - with two young sons. I didn’t grow up in poverty, but my parents were farmers (wheat and cattle) and we never had a lot. So, like you, I appreciate the fact I can made a decent living and support myself, but I do not want my taxes going to those who are too lazy to support themselves. My only point with your statement is that Senator never asked for such and endorsement, and probably is quite embarassed by it. Now I have to run - will be back in an hour or so.
46. eric | February 15th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Sunny,
I hope the good Senator is embarassed by this endorsement and I hope to see him disavow such endorsement.
47. coulterfan | February 15th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
>>And given your own definitions here, you are saying that Obama is panding to racist votes, at the least. Is this what you want in your Agent of Change?
That’s crap and you know it, Mark. He spoke out against his pastor’s statement and was praised by the ADL for doing so!
Pandering would be speaking at Falwell’s University and NOT MENTIONING the fact that Falwell is a hatemonger.
Or giving a speech at Bob Jones and NOT SPEAKING OUT against their anti-interracial dating policy (back in 1999)!
Or being endorsed by George ‘Macaca’ Allen and not speaking out against his Confederate Flag and Noose in his law office!
Obama SPOKE OUT and is clearly not looking for racist or anti-semitic voters!
If only you held your party to the same standards- I want to plainly hear McCain say that he doesn’t want the votes of racists, bigots, homophobes, etc. Otherwise, it’s implicit that he DOES want their votes and support!
48. coulterfan | February 15th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
>>Why should I have to pay more in taxes for a policy such as universal health care that is doomed for failure?
Why should I have to pay taxes to an Iraq War and Star Wars Missle Defense when THEY are HUGE failures?!?!?
UHC is hugely successful around the world. Why do you not have faith that Americans could make it even more successful than the Canadian, British, and French systems? We pay over twice what they pay and have FAR worse outcomes!
What we need is not a line-item veto, but LINE ITEM TAXES! That way, you could continue investing your tax money in the Iraq War, while I use mine to purchase Universal Health Care and re-building the US infrastructure. How long do you think the Iraq War would last if the ‘War Supporters’ had to pay EXTRA taxes (on the line item tax form) to keep it going?
49. Mark Noonan | February 15th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
coulter,
Say what you wish, but you are the one dodging and weaving around the fact that your hero, Barack Obama, BELONGS to a racist church…
50. navydad | February 15th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Let’s face it, Barrack O’bigears is weak, as witnessed by his “No” vote on S. 1927, which was approved 60-28…how weak!
This is a perfect indicator of the left’s weakness on defense. Thus far, not one American citizen has had their civil rights violated, nor have more than three terrorist…yes, boys and girls, three terrorists, been waterboarded.
So, Coulterfan, how will O’bigears defend his position of weakness on national defense when debating McCain? Maybe he can “hope” the terrorists won’t attack the homeland.
51. Tractatus | February 15th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Geez, Mark, I had no idea you hated Christianity so much.
(Kind of annoying when any criticism of a church is met with a response of “You hate Christianity!” isn’t it? Somehow, I think the lesson here will be lost on you, though….)
52. coulterfan | February 15th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
>>Say what you wish, but you are the one dodging and weaving around the fact that your hero, Barack Obama, BELONGS to a racist church…
Alright. Whatever. Romney was a member of a ‘racist’ church in the very real sense (Kain was black as punishment from God, and black people were not allowed in the Mormon church until the 1970’s). This doesn’t mean that Romney is a racist, neither does the fact that he didn’t quit his church, does it???
Let me challenge you to read (or listen to) Obama’s two books, listen to him speak, watch his actions. Tell me truthfully if he sounds like a racist, a bigot, a homophobe, or an anti-Semite. Your accusations. . . do they come from your heart?
C’mon! Criticizing policy, or actions, or what Obama says is fair game. But this attempt at character assassination - guilt by association- is this really coming from the good Christian you want to be? What has Obama said, done, or written that makes you think he’s a racist or an anti-semite? Why are you so willing to take others at their word (and forgive their associations, like Lott and the CCC, etc, etc), yet accuse Obama of outright racism?
53. coulterfan | February 15th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
>>Thus far, not one American citizen has had their civil rights violated
How do you know this, navydad? If every telecommunication message is going into a ’secret room’ (all internet, phone, email communications in the USA according to sworn testimony from an ex-employee who described it as “connecting the wires for the Big Brother machine”)- how do you know that no one’s civil rights have been violated?
In fact, this is why Obama (enough with mocking names- it’s quite childish) opposed the bill- it gives retroactive immunity to telecoms who claim that they did nothing illegal! Now, why would they need immunity if they did nothing illegal?
Furthermore, you may trust Bush. . . but what about Pres. Hillary Clinton? If she has the same rights to wiretap without a warrant, do you trust her to never violate anyone’s civil rights? Remember that ‘Pro-Life’ groups like Operation Rescue are considered terrorist groups because of past affiliations with clinic bombers/assassins. Does this mean it’s okay to wiretap anyone’s phones who is a member of a pro-life group? Well, maybe it would to Pres. Clinton.
Bush has said “No retroactive immunity and I veto the bill”. Why is protecting the telecom industry more important than protecting Americans?
54. navydad | February 15th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Okay CF…name one American..just one..please. Speculation and hypotheticals are unacceptable when applied to terrorists and/or their desire to kill westerners. As O’Bigears so eloquently said: “We need to be right the first time”, which applies to both ends of the terrorism spectrum…wouldn’t you say?
“Furthermore, you may trust Bush ( thus far, unconditionally since we’ve not been attacked). . . but what about Pres. Hillary Clinton? If she has the same rights to wiretap without a warrant, do you trust her to never violate anyone’s civil rights?
Absolutely, as long as she protects the homeland and shows the strength necessary…no problem, and if just one American can prove a civil rights violation, then and only then will I scream. But the odds are against her since her constituency is so far off the charts left that there’s no way she’d be as strong as GWB. So your question is moot.
“Bush has said “No retroactive immunity and I veto the bill”. Why is protecting the telecom industry more important than protecting Americans?”
The telecom industry are Americans, but since you’re of the belief that all big corps are corrupt, there’s really no use trying to change your mind.
BTW, is/was/were all the “chimp” comments regarding GWB “childish?
Or how about the Rove or Cheney comments? How about your leaders such as Dirty harry, telling school age children that our President is a liar and stupid?
As far as I’m concerned, our party has a lot to make up for when it comes to name calling. If you’d like, I could go back to the B4B archives and resurrect some of the left’s comments…eh?
One last comment CF. “Never” is very unlikely when it comes to the Clintons, unless, of course your referring to them telling the truth.
55. Ricorun | February 15th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Navydad, let’s say the government installed cameras throughout your house, but you didn’t know they were there. And as far as you knew you suffered no untoward effects at all that might make you even wonder for a single moment whether someone was watching you around your house. Are your civil rights violated?
Let’s say you knew the cameras were there. Would that change your answer any?
56. navydad | February 15th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Rico,
That’s a bit of a stretch Rico, but
I agree that if that were the reality, it would effectively be the “big brother” syndrome….but it’s not, and so far, there’s been no damages to speak of..only speculative paranoia by the left.
And to be honest, what if “it” was the “reality”, who cares, other than those that have something to hide. Hell, this blog is briefed by various organizations..often I’m sure, just to see if there’s some whack ready to go off.
What I find interesting is how overblown the issue has become, but without validation.
What do you think?? Am I off base using the rational of “no harm no foul during war time?” Or does “possibility of damaging our civil liberties” carry greater weight, even though they haven’t been damaged?
It truly appears to be another talking point used by the left to discredit our President.
My question is: What if we hadn’t and we were attacked again? Would the left be screaming GWB failed to protect the homeland? You can bet your ars they would.
57. Ricorun | February 15th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Navydad: What do you think?? Am I off base using the rational of “no harm no foul during war time?” Or does “possibility of damaging our civil liberties” carry greater weight, even though they haven’t been damaged?
My feeling is that with what has been made public so far, there is no question but that our civil liberties have been damaged. What isn’t clear is whether the information was used for purposes other than the one used to justify it — i.e., combatting terrorism. IMO, that’s what we’re really arguing about. That’s what the lefties can’t prove. But if it did happen, really big heads should roll.
That being said, dire situations sometimes require extraordinary responses. And I think the period following 9-11 certainly qualifies in that regard. If Bush felt he had no adequate legal means available that would at the same time ensure national security in a time of emergency, then I think he is not only entitled, but required to break the law. As you indicated, if another attack occurred while he was trying to dance within inadequate laws, he would have been excoriated. And no, I don’t thing FISA was adequate at the time.
But that being said, I also think it is encumbent upon the President to minimize that legal breach as much as possible in both extent and duration — and to make every effort to work with Congress to bring the situation back under law. And IMO that is where Bush failed. He kept doing it for years, even though pressure was mounting within his own administration (I’m thinking about Comey and Goldsmith in particular here, though there were others) to go to congress and make things right. But he didn’t. And one wonders how long he would have kept it up if whistle blowers didn’t start blowing whistles.
I suppose one could attempt to justify Bush’s actions by arguing that we’re still at war. But come on — we could be “at war” at the present intensity for another 100 years. So that argument just doesn’t wash. And the other thing is… when he did finally go to Congress he got pretty much everything he asked for. He could have spared himself a great deal of grief if he had acted more proactively. But because he didn’t, he did get grief. IMO, he deserves it. I really don’t like this imperial presidency notion of his. God forbid if Hillary succeeds him after the precedents he has set.
As for whether or not the telecom companies should be granted immunity, I guess it’s almost a moot point now. But I think about what I would have done if I were a lawyer for one of those companies and all the president’s men came to us, asked us to cooperate in a time of a national emergency, and pointed out that if we didn’t we may be at least partially responsible if another attack occurred. And oh, by the way, if you give us a hard time you can forget ever getting a government contract again. I’m not a lawyer, so I can’t really say what the options may have been. But on the face of it it sounds like a rather persuasive argument. It sounds to me like they were damned if they did, damned if they didn’t. I don’t think they should be the fall guys. But again, I’m not a lawyer.
58. Diana Powe | February 15th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
navydad,
No one has to produce “even one” person who had their civil rights violated under the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program or any of the other programs which remain secret to know one important thing. The President of the United States violated his Constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 is U. S. law. It was even amended at this President’s request and he praised those changes. He then went on to lie about what was being done in his remarks in Buffalo, New York on April 20th, 2004 when he said, “Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.” On the face of it, the President of the United States ordered his subordinates to commit felonies and induced some of the telephone companies to participate in those felonies. That is ample grounds for the civil lawsuits that are pending against AT&T, Verizon and Sprint (Qwest is off the hook because they insisted on warrants).
59. js | February 15th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Im glad you picked up on this issue Mark.
I have a feeling that as things progress, and if the truth is actually well broadcast, that Obama will fall on face.
Then it gets easy.
60. FmrMarine | February 16th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
You keep screaming of the “intolerance” of Pat Robertson, and Jerry Fallwell.
GIVE us some examples.
Check out ole screwie lowie and listen to his RACIST RANTS, the guy is a lunatic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWxNeGOXSoA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXS_YrYp07Q
61. FmrMarine | February 16th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Diane
blah blah blah
broke the law blah blah blah
same old tired bu!! s#!t
go back to the glt websites and spew your vast knowledge of the law there.
No one here listens to your mindless ramblings.
62. chris | February 16th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
It’s really amazing how the neocons,who all live in glass mansions,make a living throwing stones.Let’s be clear about some things.George Bush and his merry band of pirates have completely dropped the ball on EVERY SINGLE THING they have put thier hands on.You could spend a thousand years TRYING to do out do their incompetence and NEVER even come close.
You just keep drinking the coolaid repulicants,and soon your party will be finished forever.Thanks George,you’ve single handedly saved the democratic party
63. Teaching on The Finance W&hellip | February 18th, 2008 at 9:39 am
[...] The Company You Keep Obama has shown continued allegiance to a man who preaches racial exclusiveness, the superiority of black values over white middle-class values, and whose teaching contains anti-Israel diatribes. All these are sharply at variance with … [...]