Rep. Steve King’s Remarks on Obama
March 11th, 2008 at 09:02am Mark Noonan
This is bubbling up out there, and I figure we should have it from the source, and then render our judgements:
Comments delivered by Congressman Steve King during a radio interview in Spencer, Iowa on March 7, 2008:
“I’m going to say something here that I haven’t said in the public arena, that I think it’s time to start thinking about.”
“That is that, I don’t want to disparage anyone because of their race or their ethnicity or their name or whatever the religion of their father might have been.”
“I’ll just say this, when you think about the optics of a Barack Obama potentially getting elected president of the United States, and I mean. What does this look like to the rest of the world? What does it look like to the world of Islam?”
“I will tell you that if he is elected president, the radical Islamists, the al-Qa’ida and the radical Islamists and their supporters will be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on September 11th. Because they will declare victory in this War on Terror.”
“They will say the United States has capitulated because we will be pulling our troops out of any conflict that has to do with al-Qa’ida anywhere.”
“And additionally, it does matter. His middle name does matter. It matters because they read a meaning into that, the rest of the world,—it has a special meaning to them.”
“They’ll be dancing in the streets because of his middle name. They’ll be dancing in the streets because of who his father was and because of his posture that says, “Pull out of the middle east. Pull out of this conflict.””
“So there are implications that have to do with who he is and the position that he’s taken. If he were strong on national defense and said, ‘I’m going to go over there and we’re going to fight and we’re going to win. We’re going to come home with a victory,’ that’s different.”
“But that’s not what he said. They will be dancing in the streets if he’s elected president. And that has a chilling aspect on how difficult it will be to ever win this global war on terror.”
It is the sort of thing no one is supposed to say. We’ve had it drilled into us dissent - any dissent - is patriotic. Call our Marines murderers? Patriotic. Compare Gitmo to Gulag? Patriotic. Say the campaign in Iraq is lost? Patriotic. Call into question whether or not such statements are really patriotic? Absolutely out of the question. But it is a genuine issue, and we have to answer it by November.
It really does need to be asked: Who will be pleased by a US withdrawal short of total victory? The Iranian leaders will be pleased. The Syrian leaders will be pleased. Terrorist groups like Hamas, al-Qaeda and Hezbollah will be pleased. Russia’s tyrants will be pleased.
Next question: Is anything which pleases such people likely to be something which works out to America’s benefit?
Clearly, the answer is “no”; and yet there goes Obama, again and again, saying he’s going to “end” the war…not “win”, but “end”. In war, as MacArthur long ago pointed out, there is no substitute for victory…anything less than a victory works out to a defeat. There is absolutely no doubt that our enemies around the world will consider an Obama “end” of the war as a victory for our enemies - it doesn’t matter how we in America attempt to spin it nor how many pundits say otherwise, our enemies will view it as a victory. Keep in mind that our enemies viewed our failure to march on Baghdad in 1991 as a victory for Saddam…crushed in every sense of the word, Saddam yet emerged the victor in the minds of our enemies simply by surviving our onslaught…pull out of Iraq before we’re done, and the remnants of our enemies in Iraq will proclaim victory, and people around the Moslem world will believe it - they will believe that America withdrew not because Obama figured it was good policy, but because America was too weak and cowardly to fight for victory.
This doesn’t in any way question the purity of Obama’s motives. A fierce desire for peace is a noble thing - but as with all human actions, even the very noblest can become corrupted if they are set above all other things. Peace is a great thing, but not peace at any price. We can (and do) argue endlessly over whether we should have gone into Iraq - but such arguments are moot; we are there, and now we are to either win, or to lose. Obama proposes we lose, and the enemy will rejoice if Obama wins, and carries out his plans.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, War on Terror
61 Comments
1. js | March 11th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Nasty thing, what these politicians do.
Im still wondering what the repercussion’s will be from Obama’s being a member of a radical racist Church.
2. Darva Conger | March 11th, 2008 at 10:01 am
“Keep in mind that our enemies viewed our failure to march on Baghdad in 1991 as a victory for Saddam…”
A failure, huh? And who was the author of that failure, could it have been the current SecDef, now VP. Lets see what Cheney said about that failure in 1991:
“The notion that we ought to now go to Baghdad and somehow take control of the country strikes me as an extremely serious one in terms of what we’d have to do once we got there. You’d probably have to put some new government in place. It’s not clear what kind of government that would be, how long you’d have to stay. For the U.S. to get involved militarily in determining the outcome of the struggle over who’s going to govern in Iraq strikes me as a classic definition of a quagmire.”
If you think the war in 1991 was a failure please take it up with the Vice President.
3. Tractatus | March 11th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Yeah, that 1991 Dick Cheney was smart. What happened to him, anyway?
BTW, Al Qaida quite clearly pushed for a Bush presidency in 2004. That didn’t seem to stop you guys from voting for Bush, did it? Of course not…but it is funny to watch you now try to push the “dancing in the streets!” meme.
PS, Noonan: Another of your war justifications goes down in flames. I’m sure you’ll just pretend that this isn’t true–just like you pretend the whole lack of WMDs isn’t true–but the question remains: Will you ever get anything right about Iraq?
4. Michael | March 11th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Talk about fear mongering. That King person sure knows how to frighten people. What our enemies think about who we choose as our leader is of no concern to me. If it brings them into the streets, they’ll be easier to capture or kill. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to reject Obama for most conservatives - he’s the most liberal senator for example, that we don’t need to stoop to this level of dialog to scare people away from him based on the premises King espouses. Boo on King. Pay him no mind - he is a small, small man in his thinking and his heart.
5. Mark Noonan | March 11th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Tract,
Um, no, it doesn’t - ’cause amongst the justifications for the liberation of Iraq, “Saddam had connections to al-Qaida” isn’t one of them. You might want to go to original source documents to inform your views, rather than just have a sheep-like acceptance of whatever someone tells you.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
(Ed. Note: This is it for discussions of the start of the Iraq war - for remainder of thread, no references to Iraq events prior to January 20th, 2005 will be permitted.)
6. Mark Noonan | March 11th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Michael,
How so? He’s merely spoken the truth - are the people to be denied the truth because its hard on Obama to have it told?
7. Mark Noonan | March 11th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Darva,
So, your justification for Obama’s proposed failure is that someone else failed in the past?
Rather foolish to think that, if you ask me.
8. kipling | March 11th, 2008 at 10:45 am
beautiful Mark - you show the world what absolute trash you are on a daily basis…
9. Canadian Observer | March 11th, 2008 at 10:51 am
“when you think about the optics of a Barack Obama potentially getting elected president of the United States, and I mean. What does this look like to the rest of the world? ”
Well, I think it would show us that the majority of Americans have abandoned the fear mongering that was manufactured to keep them in line and have embraced the idea of becoming independent thinkers.
Although there will always be a certain segment of the population who have no problem with being told what they should or should not believe; fortunately, the majority will inevitably do the right thing.
10. KBR CEO | March 11th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Deleted - off topic.
11. DM | March 11th, 2008 at 11:02 am
”If you think the war in 1991 was a failure please take it up with the Vice President.”
Darva, reading comprehension is apparently not your thing.
What was said is “…our enemies viewed our failure to march on Baghdad…” where the word “failure” is used in context to mean that we didn’t do something, not that we tried and failed.
12. Dennis | March 11th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Mark, by implying that dissent = calling Marines murderers = patriotism in the eyes of your critics, you reveal your essential dishonesty.
Nobody here is calling Marines murderers and I doubt one percent of Bush policy critics do - yet you, who pretend to be so erudite and thoughtful, toss that out purely to inflame others who are equally dishonest in their characterization of American dissent.
As for Rep. King’s comments, how does he know what radical Islam thinks? I see nothing in his bio that makes him an expert on anything more than construction and agriculture. On what authority does he speak for al Qaeda? He’s pulling assertions from thin air, another American who’s probably never personally known a Muslim or traveled abroad. What gives him an iota of credibility on this topic?
When a nation finds itself the target of such hatred as the US does at present, whether that anger is rational or not the best way to begin repairing affairs is to neutralize elements of hatred that run so deep against us. This is a far better guarantor of safety than military solutions. This is the work of diplomacy, and it requires a finesse that is demonstrably foreign to the Bush administration.
Barack Obama, with his multicultural upbringing, intellectual curiosity, academic achievements, community service, organizational talent and independent travel abroad has learned by experience how the larger world thinks and works. He can claim a kind of insider’s understanding Rep. Steve King can only gaze upon. Obviously you are out there at a similar remove with Mr. King.
For whatever it’s worth, as an American who has traveled both in Africa and the Middle East I believe to have a multicultural president named Barack Hussein Obama will move us onto new, more egalitarian ground in relation to the larger world. I like the idea of that very much, and I admire the man and his accomplishments to date.
13. Casper | March 11th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Mark,
Perhaps the question that needs to be asked:
Who will be pleased by a US stays in Iraq?
The Iranian leaders will be pleased.
In the last six years, Iran has gone from being
thirdrate country to a major regional power in the Middle East. The longer we stay the more influence they gain.
Terrorist groups like Hamas, al-Qaeda and Hezbollah will be pleased. Our occupation of Iraq has helped them both in new recruits and donations. By giving them something to rally behind, we have made them stronger.
Russia’s leaders will be pleased. By keeping 160,000 troops in Iraq and spending $12 billion a week there, we don’t have the resources we would to to confront them as we have in the past.
China’s leaders will be pleased. Since we are financing this war with their money, they will continue to gain control over more of our economy.
14. Michael | March 11th, 2008 at 11:15 am
To begin with, Obama has not said that he will “surrender” or “cut and run” although some would credit him with that intent. He said he wants “an honorable peace” in Iraq. What does that mean? I don’t know what he thinks it means because no one has asked him to elaborate to my knowledge, but it doesn’t sound like cut-and-run to me. And second, I am not sure what “victory” looks like in this “war.” Are we talking the war on terror? If so, Iraq is only one small step. If we are talking the war in Iraq, militarily we won that quite a while ago. After WWII and the surrenders of Japan and Germany, it was easy to declare victory. Where was that victory in Korea? Viet Nam? War has changed and is no longer strictly defined as country against country with a clear victor and a clear loser. My guess is because the countries armed with nuclear weapons make that kind of war too frightful to contemplate. We are involved in a different kind of war now with no country to defeat only a set of conflicting ideas that cannot tolerate each other and one side has chosen violence and the other has responded in kind.
Also, King (and you) seem to think if electing Obama pleases the radical Islamics we shouldn’t elect him. You say they will declare victory. They already do that daily, accompanied with videos of beheadings. Whether they approve or disapprove our choice for president does not matter. What they say does not matter. We know the truth. Obama wants to end the war and I am not sure how he will go about it. It has become fashionable for conservatives to accuse him of just pulling back the troops without concern for the people of Iraq or our own safety. Even if he were to attempt that, I do not feel it would happen. He can’t do it by himself. He is already saying 2009 and it may be later (and likely will) before all troops are out of Iraq.
Now don’t get me wrong, I do not support Obama or his ideas on the war and what we should do. But I don’t think we should stoop to scare tactics to defeat him. Just what he stands for in spending, government expansion, and security are enough to oppose him and I think the majority of Americans will figure that out come November. I don’t like scare tactics on either side. Much of the posting here consists of finger-pointing, name-calling, and scare tactics with no real consideration given to the issues at hand. This King thing is another example of a politician espousing fear when it is not called for.
15. Mark Noonan | March 11th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Dennis,
You know, if you are going to come here in future and deliberately mislead people then I will have to ask you to cease commenting here. You know full well that people on the left have accused our Marines of murder, including hte most ill-famed case of all, Jack Murtha’s accusations:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/28/ap/politics/mainD8HSRKTG0.shtml
16. Mark Noonan | March 11th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Michael,
The first time someone wrote “surrender” or “cut and run” in this thread is in your comment - I put out what Obama said: Obama says he will “end” the war in Iraq…I observe that you can’t “end” a war…a war is won or a war is lost, and as there is no substitute for victory, what Obama’s policy on Iraq works out to is defeat.
No matter how you try to slice it and dice it, if America withdraws from Iraq under conditions other than absolutely clear victory, the enemy will benefit from what will be considered universally as a US defeat.
17. Mark Noonan | March 11th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Casper,
No, it is a foolish statement to say that our enemies want us to stay in Iraq…it is the statement of someone desperate to justify our defeat in Iraq. Its a way of saying “I’m in favor of withdrawal because its a good thing”; might help some to feel better about advocating defeat, but defeat will still be the result.
Iran wants us out, so they can move in. The terrorists want us out, so they can stop being massacred in Iraq and also be able to claim victory and rebuild their decimated ranks (another fool statement - that there are more terrorists now than at the start…if there are more terrorists, then there should be a lot more violence going on in Iraq). Getting out short of absolute victory is a defeat for the US, and our enemies want us defeated.
18. Michael | March 11th, 2008 at 11:32 am
OK, Mark, I’m all for a clear victory - what does it look like? How does it happen? When?
19. Darva Conger | March 11th, 2008 at 11:35 am
“Darva,
So, your justification for Obama’s proposed failure is that someone else failed in the past?
Rather foolish to think that, if you ask me.”
That “failure” you’re talking about was approved of and explained to the world by Dick Cheney. Are you now saying that Bush’s choice for VP was a “foolish” for not marching on Baghdad when he was SecDef?
20. Kahn | March 11th, 2008 at 11:35 am
You know, it is his middle name. His father was Muslim. Seems low, I agree.
I watched him try to explain it on O’Reilly last night and it seemed he was saying no matter how WE saw it, the middle east would see it differently.
I don’t think it’s productive to go down this route. But it’s not made up or faked - like some stuff I’ve seen. Still, it’s counter productive. Obama is NOT Muslim. And he’s not the agent of some anti-American group.
21. Mark Noonan | March 11th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Micheal,
A functioning democratic regime capable of defending itself against internal and external attempts to overthrow it.
We’re almost there - take about another year (during which time we will be able to draw down troop levels), after which we can then phase withdraw ourselves down to a few bases outside of the urban areas of Iraq…figure early 2010 for complete victory….the worst part of Obama’s plan is that it will snatch a nearly complete victory out of the jaws of defeat…it’d be like volunteering to give up a three TD lead in the last 10 minutes of the game…
22. Darva Conger | March 11th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Deleted - off topic. Don’t be a fool, Darva; the discussion is about the future in Iraq, not the past.
23. Mark Noonan | March 11th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Kahn,
I don’t get the impression that he’s playing the Moslem bugaboo, but he is stating a truth - our enemies would be happy with a President Obama. This isn’t scare tactics, but just an acknowledgement of the facts…and the choice before America in November is whether or not we wish to win, or to lose, in Iraq.
24. Kahn | March 11th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Darva - we can all cut-n-paste. Can you explain what you think would happen in the months as we draw down and the year following? You don’t think Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia will all be involved in war there?
I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. I’m assuming you think all will be well. But I’d like to see you explain your position. I’m assuming you don’t just “not care” about thousands of men, women, and children dying.
Take a chill pill, make an outline, and explain how you think pulling out will affect the area and why.
25. Darva Conger | March 11th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Deleted - complains about comment policy.
26. KBR CEO | March 11th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Deleted - complains about comment policy.
27. KBR CEO | March 11th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Deleted - off topic.
28. Casper | March 11th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Mark,
“No, it is a foolish statement to say that our enemies want us to stay in Iraq…it is the statement of someone desperate to justify our defeat in Iraq.”
Actually Mark, your statements are the foolish ones. You sound like someone desperate to justify our staying in Iraq.
As for al-Qaeda’s strength, I was referring to the overall organization which has regained its strength in the last couple of years while we have been wasting ours in Iraq.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6294526.stm
Do you honestly think Iran is weaker now than before we invaded Iraq? Can you explain how spending $12 billion a week in Iraq is helping our economy?
29. Casper | March 11th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
“We’re almost there - take about another year (during which time we will be able to draw down troop levels), after which we can then phase withdraw ourselves down to a few bases outside of the urban areas of Iraq…figure early 2010 for complete victory….the worst part of Obama’s plan is that it will snatch a nearly complete victory out of the jaws of defeat…it’d be like volunteering to give up a three TD lead in the last 10 minutes of the game…’
Do you realize how foolish that sounds. We are ahead by three TDs so we need another six overtimes to win.
We are in our sixth year Mark. If we are so far ahead then what’s wrong with starting to pull our troops out?
30. Mark Noonan | March 11th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Casper,
You do realise that “regrouped to an extent not seen since 2001″ (from your link) means precisely nothing? Regrouped? To regroup is to withdraw and reorganise…and what is “extent”? Number of troops? Amount of equipment? What?
That report is just another in a long line of leaked intel reports designed to play politics…is al-Qaeda sitting in Kabul? No. Are they growing in power in Baghdad? No. Have they struck us at home since 9/11? No. In the real measures of stength, Capser, al-Qaeda is clearly weaker.
31. Michael | March 11th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
That will take a decade. And at the end of that time we would have a democratic Iraq, an new ally, and access to the 2nd largest oil deposits in the world. BTW, during this process, we have changed the role of our military from warfighting to policing. I would like to see Iraq stand on its own but the elephant in the room is their religion and all the factions that want to eliminate each other and have had that intent for a century.
Like I said, your “victory” will take a decade of expensive military troops acting like policemen to keep the warring factions under control. I am all for what you propose, especially the bases. They, along with a friendly government will help us with our oil problems and provide a base of operations should we need to deal with others in the region (e.g. Iran). But it is costly. And BTW, my definition of victory is the elimination of terrorist attacks on the United States and its allies. “Winning in Iraq would be one small step.”
Not being an Obama fan, I don’t follow him too closely, but I have yet to hear him announce what his plan is. He has only made general statements with “clarifications” like “peace with honor” and already adding a year to how long it will take him to get the troops out. If you know of a plan by Obama, please point me at it. The opposition has accused him of cut-and-run and surrender intentions, but I have not heard him say that. Again, a pointer to somewhere he stated he would abandon Iraq to its own fate would be appreciated.
Now for the zinger. I am for a long, protracted fight around the globe at terrorists and their leaders. We must make the world a place where they cannot pull off their murderous attacks and they are looked on as crazies by the world population. That is the effort I want to go forward and that is the one I think is bigger than Obama. That is the one Obama will shrink from and try to deal his way out of like Carter did with Iran. That’s why Obama is not the right man for the job; not because some lunatic fringe dances in the streets in the Middle East. BTW, we call the Saudis our allies yet they have none of the things you say we must leave behind in Iraq. They are ruled by royalty, impose strict sharia law, provide funds and people to the other side in our fight in Iraq. And they are one of the biggest and most influential members of OPEC which is trying to squeeze us into economic chaos. Why not try that model?
32. Casper | March 11th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
“No. In the real measures of stength, Capser, al-Qaeda is clearly weaker.”
Maybe not.
“is al-Qaeda sitting in Kabul?”
No. but the Kabul government only controls about a third of Afghanistan and that’s only because of the number of NATO troops stationed there.
Are they growing in power in Baghdad?
Hard to say. I’ve read reports that go both ways. You might want to read this;
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18722376/the_myth_of_the_surge
Have they struck us at home since 9/11?
They have taken a lot of time between attacks in the past, there is no reason to expect they wouldn’t be doing the same now.
33. Darva Conger | March 11th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
“Have they struck us at home since 9/11?
They have taken a lot of time between attacks in the past, there is no reason to expect they wouldn’t be doing the same now.”
The next attack will happen in the U.S. in 2009. The nutjobs first attacked the WTC in ‘93 just weeks after Clinton took over. Then they brought them down in 2001 just months after Bush took over. They will attack in 2009 after McCain/Obama/Clinton takes over. It matters not who is in office.
Homeland Security (both Ridge and Chertoff) has said it is not a matter of “if” but “when.”
And when it happens the American people will know that all the billions spent in Iraq and all the lives lost made us no safer.
34. Joe | March 11th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Deleted - mindless insults cluttering the blog and making it an unfriendly place to visit.
35. Joe | March 11th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Deleted - mindless insults cluttering the blog and making it an unfriendly place to visit.
36. Dennis | March 11th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Mark, Rep. Murtha spoke of one incident at Haditha, saying, “I will not excuse murder.” He did not broadly characterize Marines as murderers, nor do most Bush policy critics. For you to cite calling Marines murderers as your first example of all categories of dissent is not only misleading but inflamatory, which is precisely why you did it.
As for what the future holds in Iraq, we’re in uncharted waters now. But as I stated above when a nation finds itself the target of such hatred as the US does at present, we’d better start by neutralizing some of the hatred against us. This is a better guarantor of safety than military solutions, and we can do that without giving up any of our core values. Unfortunately such diplomacy requires a finesse unfamiliar to the Bush administration. For that we must wait for Obama or Clinton.
For you to speak of us as having a lead “in the last 10 minutes of the game” is just rephrasing Dick Cheney saying the Iraq insurgency was “in the last throes” back in June of 2005. After all the Bush administration’s foolhardy predictions and their abysmal results why should anyone believe this kind of claptrap?
Discretion is often the better part of valor. And since all the trumpeted reasons for this war proved unfounded and we cannot continue it without ruining our economy, to begin military withdrawal, accompanied by serious diplomatic efforts on all sides, is the best part of national valor left to us now.
37. Sunny | March 11th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
don’t get the impression that he’s playing the Moslem bugaboo, but he is stating a truth - our enemies would be happy with a President Obama. Mark
What is your proof of this statement? Or is this just more rumor and innuendo?
38. js | March 11th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Obama appears to have sided with opposition leader Raila Odinga, head of the same Luo tribe to which Obama’s late Muslim father belonged.
Obama’s older brother still lives there. Abongo “Roy” Obama is a Luo activist and a militant Muslim who argues that the black man must “liberate himself from the poisoning influences of European culture.” He urges his younger brother to embrace his African heritage.
Beyond family politics, these ties have potential foreign policy, even national security, implications.
Odinga is a Marxist who reportedly has made a pact with a hard-line Islamic group in Kenya to establish Shariah courts throughout the country. He has also vowed to ban booze and pork and impose Muslim dress codes on women — moves favored by Obama’s brother.
With al-Qaida strengthening its beachheads in Africa — from Algeria to Sudan to Somalia — the last thing the West needs is for pro-Western Kenya to fall into the hands of Islamic extremists.
Yet Obama interrupted his New Hampshire campaigning to speak by phone with Odinga, who claims to be his cousin. He did not speak with Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki.
Would Obama put African tribal or family interests ahead of U.S. interests? (continue reading at Investors Business Daily)
On Jan. 1, the world learned from major news sources that some churches and their occupants were burned in Kenya by Kenyans who didn’t like the outcome of a recent election. The media failed to report that these were MUSLIMS killing and destroying Christians and their churches.
Why do the Muslims back the more left-leaning Odinga? Like leftists in Europe and America, Odinga and his faction want to use Islam to oppose Christianity, which is seen as an impediment to the left’s agenda. [snip]
We are talking about objectivity and its dire lack in the media.
It seems pretty clear that the mainstream media have two reasons for omitting the details of the story:
1. They sympathize with Islam because it is the “enemy of the enemy,” namely, Christianity.
2. They are cowards hoping to avoid a confrontation with Islam in their home countries. (WND)
http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2008/01/obamas-sharia-c.html
39. js | March 11th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
from above;
Obama appears to have sided with opposition leader Raila Odinga, head of the same Luo tribe to which Obama’s late Muslim father belonged.
Obama’s older brother still lives there. Abongo “Roy” Obama is a Luo activist and a militant Muslim who argues that the black man must “liberate himself from the poisoning influences of European culture.” He urges his younger brother to embrace his African heritage.
———–
Trinity United Church is racist..they espouse a black values system, urge support for the black family, black community, and a black work ethic.
If a white, or any other race, candidate were affiliated with such an organization, the stink would not cease as racist, yet, here we are with a man who endorses a political movement whose primary goal it is, is to replace a democratic government in Kenya with a tyranical Islamic sharia, and is associated with a black church, promoting african nationalism over equality for all races, through a medium that discriminates black ethics above Christian values.
I cant get enough of the half witted commentators from the liberal side, they are using a lame horse in a world class race. It doesnt matter that Obama has no real solution to our problems, he is racist and very much deceptive in his actions toward Islam.
40. Casper | March 11th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Mark,
Here is another article about how our invasion helped Iran;
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSBLA04713920080311?sp=true
41. Michael | March 11th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Here’s something Obama said recently on the subject (got it out of the Weekly Standard):
Doesn’t sound like surrender to me.
42. Mark Noonan | March 11th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Casper,
From your own link:
As Nasr is the person saying that our mission in Iraq has strengthened Iran, I think his last-minute caveat placed at the very end of the article is indicative of two things - Nasr doesn’t want to look like a fool and the MSM, by burying the lede, wants to write articles which will be eagerly swallowed by the critics of the war as “proof” they are right…keeping in mind that Reuters has been one of the most biased, anti-American news sources since 9/11 and won’t even call a terrorist a terrorist.
If you take what Nasr says at the end, what you’ve got is a statement that Iran is very powerful in the region - if the United States withdraws. This has been precisely the situation since 1991. If the US bugs out of the region, Iran becomes the predominant power…provided, of course, that Turkey (which has a long history of enmity with Iran) doesn’t step in to redress the balance of power in the region (Turkey and Iran are roughly balanced in potential power, while Turkey has more current force available to it).
The real strategic situation is that Iran is bracked north, south, east and west by American power and American allies…Iran’s only sure ally, Syria, is weak and pinned down by Israeli power. Iran wants very much to break out of the iron ring we’ve placed it in - and pulling out of Iraq before we done and allowing Iran to move in would be precisely what the mullahs want.
43. Mark Noonan | March 11th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Michael,
Obama wants very much for that 2004 statement to disappear…he’s campaigning on his 2002 speech against the war, not his 2004 statement that we have to win. In short, his 2004 statement shows that his Iraq position is one of pure calculation.
44. Casper | March 11th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Mark,
Do you really believe that Iran is weaker now than they were six years ago?
From the same article;
“The Iraqi army’s swift collapse in 2003 left Shi’ite-ruled Iran with no indigenous military rival nearby, weakening the Arab world and its mostly Sunni Muslim governments.
Windfall oil revenues have further fuelled the Islamic Republic’s heady sense of power under its combative president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has defied Western-led efforts to contain Tehran’s nuclear aspirations through U.N. sanctions.
“Every 24 hours we are earning $270 million … in hard currency — a magic amount,” said Iranian economist Saeed Leylaz. “Iran can transfer its petrodollars to buy loyalty internally and strategic partnerships externally.”
Looks to me that we are making them stronger while we are getting weaker as we spend $12 billion a week.
45. Michael | March 11th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
I don’t know which position he’s trying to “disappear” but I finally went to his site and read his Iraq plan. There is plenty in that plan to take issue with. It is naive. It is based on assumptions he has no evidence are true. He relies on the UN to take a central role in the nation-building aspect of Iraq. And there’s a lot more. I don’t see it as cut and run or surrender, just naive and dumb. YMMV.
46. Mark Noonan | March 11th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Casper,
Thought that you guys were trying to scare us with a figure of $12 billion a month? When did it become $12 billion a week? And you do realise that the government spends, overall, a bit more than $8 billion per day, aren’t you? $12 billion is chump change for the United States of America. That $270 million the Iranians gross per day is just over 3% of what the US government spends per day, and about 0.07% of our daily GDP? Trust me on this one, Casper, the United States can sustain this war far longer than Iran can sustain even a moderate conflict with us.
That aside…
You’ve really got to get past anti-Bush propaganda here - come on, you don’t really think the Iranians want us in Iraq and Afghanistan, do you?
47. Timothy Horrigan | March 11th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
One thing you can say about Willard M. Romney was… unlike Barack H. Obama, he didn’t hide his middle name, even though it sounds strange to most people. In fact Romney insisted on being called “W. Mitt” Romney just so everyone knows he’s not trying to hide his middle name.
You wonder about John McCain. His middle name is “Sidney” which is usually a girl’s name. And yet McCain keeps trying to prove he’s not a sissy, even going to the extreme of volunteering for the military during Vietnam. What is he overcompensating for?
48. Casper | March 11th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
“And you do realise that the government spends, overall, a bit more than $8 billion per day, aren’t you? $12 billion is chump change for the United States of America.”
I’ll remember this argument next time you complain about democrats spending money we don’t have.
“You’ve really got to get past anti-Bush propaganda here - come on, you don’t really think the Iranians want us in Iraq and Afghanistan, do you?”
Where did I mention Bush? As for what the Iranians want, I really don’t know. I’m not privy to their leaders conversations. Are you? You have to admit that our taking out Saddam and the Taliban has made their position stronger.
49. kipling | March 11th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
12 billion is chump change for the United States of America.
So I guess I can spend 12 billion a month (or week - after all its chump change) on “socialized pinko commie” health care for needy children?
50. FmrMarine | March 11th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
mike;
>>>>>It is naive. It is based on assumptions he has no evidence are true. He relies on the UN to take a central role in the nation-building aspect of Iraq. And there’s a lot more. I don’t see it as cut and run or surrender, just naive and dumb.<<<<
You mean like the guy that got us in this mess in the middle east?
Ole jimmah carter? the WORST president in the history of the USA.
The one who senr eight helo’s and two c-130’s to get lost, and crash in the desert to teach the Iranians not to mess with the US?
Earbama will be a donkey like jimmah if ever elected.
51. plainjane | March 11th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Deleted - off topic.
52. Freedom1 | March 11th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Needless to say, I wholeheartedly agree with the comments of Congressman Steve King. He spoke the truth.
Islam (and Muslims) view the world very differently than non-Islamic peoples. I am continually dismayed at how othewise intelligent people still fail to grasp that concept 6 long years after 9/11.
Btw, there have been 10,706 deadly Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11.
I’m so tired of seeing women get acid thrown in their faces by Muslim men: “Woman Disfigured in Acid Attack by Suspicious Husband” Man disfigures wife’s face with acid on mere suspicion - The International News (March 4, 2008)
By Aroosa Masroor
Karachi
This isn’t fear-mongering. Horrific stories like this are a daily occurrence in the Islamic world.
53. js | March 11th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
49. kipling | March 11th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
12 billion is chump change for the United States of America.
So I guess I can spend 12 billion a month (or week - after all its chump change) on “socialized pinko commie” health care for needy children?
———-
Did your mom have any smart kids? Not you of course, we can you missed that boat…..
54. Almiranta | March 12th, 2008 at 12:26 am
Tract claims: “BTW, Al Qaida quite clearly pushed for a Bush presidency in 2004.”
Oh, really? Can you back that up? Because I remember reading the comments from OSB back then and thinking of making a bumper sticker saying HWOV—How Would Obama Vote? I even talked about it on B4B. And that was based on what was going on then, not some Orwellian revisionist fantasy cooked up by a BDS veteran.
I remember Osama Bin Laden taunting Bush with comments taken right out of the radical Lib playbook, specifically referring to the “pet goat” meme you all were so enchanted with for a while.
I remember Osama Bin Laden telling us outright that the lack of response to the other A-Q attacks on America emboldened him to escalate to the 9/11 level.
No response: 9/11
Harsh response: Nothing
But I’m sure that is just a coincidence…
Darva, yes there have been fairly long periods between attacks on the US. Why don’t you just tell us how long those periods were? Let’s make it easy on you, as you clearly have a hard time processing actual facts. Just go back to 1993, the first attack on the WTC, and give us the time lapsed between attacks since then, OK?
‘Cause we’re coming up on 7 years since 9/11, and I just don’t remember any period nearly that long between attacks.
Eddicate us, Darva…………
I’ve given up on janie—she is still claiming that Iraq is in the middle of a Civil War. A civil war, janie, is a war between two factions of one country—-the vast majority of attacks within Iraq are staged by people who are not from that country.
Note that now she has changed her whine about how many people want us out of Iraq to a percentage of “NORMAL” American people. Yeah, right—-I’ve got a pretty good idea of what passes for normal on Planetjane, and it ain’t pretty. They are all very….plain.
But how many of those who have access to all the intel feel that we should scoot on out of there? It’s one thing to be a dedicated rabid Lefty who will automatically be against anything a conservative is for, another to be Joe Average whose entire view of the world is based on what he gets from the Agenda Media, but how about the people who have access to the classifed intel from Iraq and the rest of the Middle East? How many of THEM think we need to get out now?
Of course, none of them is so determinedly dumb they think it is a civil war, either…………….
55. Freedom1 | March 12th, 2008 at 7:16 am
A poster on another website describes the difference in the Islamic vs. the Western point of view on this situation rather well:
* I added the quotes around the word Christian.
56. Canadian Observer | March 12th, 2008 at 7:52 am
Cause we’re coming up on 7 years since 9/11, and I just don’t remember any period nearly that long between attacks.
54. Almiranta | March 12th, 2008 at 12:26 am
There was no need for another attack on U.S. soil, Almiranta. The irrational and illogical response Bush made to 9/11 did more damage to your country than the terrorists could ever dream. They didn’t need to lift a finger, the Bush administration did the work for them. The number of lives lost, the money wasted, American reputation shot to he**; just one sad fiasco after another.
57. Some Assembly Required | March 12th, 2008 at 8:29 am
“The irrational and illogical response Bush made to 9/11 did more damage to your country than the terrorists could ever dream.” - CO
I agree and disagree with you here. Bush made the right call into going into Afghanistan. He had UN support and world sympathy for the most part. The crucial mistake was going into Iraq. The rest of the world could plainly see it was about oil. This effectively turned world sympathy into disdain. For those of you who debate this and ask for proof or internet references, I dare you to go outside the US and mention Bush, I all but promise you the response will not be a pleasant one.
58. Joe | March 12th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Let’s try this again…………….
Rep King is nothing but another GOP-hack. Why are you treating this clown’s comments as newsworthy? A Republican saying that he doesn’t think Obama would be a good Prez. Amazing!
Let’s just look at some foolish comments:
King: “I will tell you that if he is elected president, the radical Islamists, the al-Qa’ida and the radical Islamists and their supporters will be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on September 11th. Because they will declare victory in this War on Terror.”
- How will Obama being elected make this a victory in the War on Terror? That is just a GOP fear-mongering talking point. Ooohh… if a Dem is elected, we will be attacked!!! That is just stupid. But hey, obviously SOME PEOPLE have swallowed it hook line and sinker.
King: “They will say the United States has capitulated because we will be pulling our troops out of any conflict that has to do with al-Qa’ida anywhere.”
- Wrong again. We should be fighting those that attacked us on 9/11. Nobody claimed anything about pulling out of “any action that has to do with al-Qa’ida anywhere. That is just a flat out lie.
King: “And additionally, it does matter. His middle name does matter. It matters because they read a meaning into that, the rest of the world,—it has a special meaning to them.”
– This just goes BEYOND stupid. It is a freaking name for cryin out loud. Only people that want to fear-monger will say that it means something. Only someone that wants to try and try and make simpletons think of Sadaam Hussein when they hear the name. This only works on the 19%-ers that live in fear.
King: “…If he were strong on national defense and said, ‘I’m going to go over there and we’re going to fight and we’re going to win. We’re going to come home with a victory,’ that’s different.”
– That would make him a 19%-er. That would make him a Republican. OF COURSE King is going to want that.
Other comments. Mark, nobody called the Marines murderers like you claim. Because Murtha said he could see how that could happen is one thing. Nobody is calling them murderers.
This blog has claimed that Obama is a socialist, a communist, is a backer of FARC, is a Muslim, and on and on and on and on.
Now js asks…… “Would Obama put African tribal or family interests ahead of U.S. interests?”
You people are disgusting. So go ahead and delete all you want Mark. Eventually you 19%-ers can just talk amongst yourselves and get off on Freedom1’s idiotic posts about Islam.
59. Canadian Observer | March 12th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Bush made the right call into going into Afghanistan. He had UN support and world sympathy for the most part. The crucial mistake was going into Iraq.
57. Some Assembly Required | March 12th, 2008 at 8:29 am
Agreed, SAR. The shock & awe invasion of Iraq was when he lost most of his credibility. From then on, it just went from bad to worse; ending up where he has made the U.S. an international laughing stock.
Let’s hope, with a new administration, there will be a complete turnaround.
60. Darva Conger | March 12th, 2008 at 10:10 am
“Darva, yes there have been fairly long periods between attacks on the US. Why don’t you just tell us how long those periods were? Let’s make it easy on you, as you clearly have a hard time processing actual facts. Just go back to 1993, the first attack on the WTC, and give us the time lapsed between attacks since then, OK?
‘Cause we’re coming up on 7 years since 9/11, and I just don’t remember any period nearly that long between attacks.
Eddicate us, Darva…………”
It was 8 years, 6 months and 16 days between the first WTC bombing and the attacks of 9/11. That is much longer than the “7 years since 9/11.” The fact you “just don’t remember any period nearly that long between attacks” is your problem, not mine. Whose fault is it that you cannot keep track of time?
My prediction remains. AQ attacked the U.S. in the fist weeks of the Clinton Presidency. They attacked the U.S. in the first months of the Bush Presidency. They will attack the U.S. in the first year of the Obama/Clinton/McCain Presidency. Ridge and Chertoff have said the attack is coming. Us being in Iraq will have been proven to do nothing to keep us safe at home. The attackers will not be Iraqis. Or Iranians. They will be Saudis, or Egyptians or Pakistanis, you know, our “friends”, our “allies.”
61. Tractatus | March 12th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Because I remember reading the comments from OSB back then and thinking of making a bumper sticker saying HWOV—How Would Obama Vote? I even talked about it on B4B. And that was based on what was going on then, not some Orwellian revisionist fantasy cooked up by a BDS veteran.
No, that was based on your own fantasy land. Do you think bin Laden is stupid, ‘Ranty? Do you think he’s unaware of his status in the Western word? Do you think he’s just some crazy guy who operates with no overarching strategy? Do you think he believes Americans will flatly take him at his word rather than recoil?
Fortunately, intelligence analysts don’t share your delusions (From The One Percent Doctrine, emphases mine):
And that’s just one account; I’m sure there are others out there, all coming to the same (rather obvious) conclusion: bin Laden purposely helped Bush in 2004.
See, I have actual intelligence analysts, folks who have spent a decade studying bin Laden, supporting my argument. You have, as usual, a burning desire for your views to be thought of as fact and little else.
So yes, I can “back that up” as you requested, ‘Ranty. Unfortunately for you, you cannot do the same.