Right-wing media figures claim Clinton behind Obama/Muslim smears
SUMMARY: Melanie Morgan, Lee Rodgers, Rush Limbaugh, and John
Gibson all forwarded the accusation made by a website controlled by Rev. Sun
Myung Moon that Sen. Hillary Clinton was responsible for spreading information
linking Sen. Barack Obama to a madrassa, or Muslim school. None of the four
cited any evidence, other than the
article, that Clinton was responsible for promoting the
madrassa story, and the article cited no one by name.
On the January 19 editions of their radio programs, conservative talk show hosts Melanie Morgan, Lee Rodgers and Rush Limbaugh, as well as Fox News' John Gibson on the same day's edition of The Big Story, forwarded the accusation, originally published on the website InsightMag.com, that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) was responsible for spreading information about Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) -- specifically, that Obama "spent at least four years in a so-called Madrassa or Muslim seminary, in Indonesia." The article, bearing the headline "Hillary's team has questions about Obama's Muslim background," asserted that "researchers connected to Senator Clinton" disclosed the "details of Mr. Obama's Muslim past." Despite acknowledging near the end of his show that it "[d]oesn't seem" that "Hillary's fingerprints [are] on the story," Gibson said earlier in that program that "[t]he New York senator has reportedly outed Obama's madrassa past."
None of the four radio or television hosts cited any evidence that Clinton was responsible for promoting the madrassa story, beyond the InsightMag.com article, which cited no one by name. On December 13, Jason Zengerle, editor of The Plank, the weblog of The New Republic, predicted that Republicans would "launch a savage and despicable whispering campaign against the guy (Barack Hussein Obama, etc.) and then blame it all on Hillary." Zengerle responded to the InsightMag.com article on January 18:
The attribution on all this is broad enough ("political opponents within the Democratic Party"; "researchers connected to Senator Clinton") that I suppose this information about Obama could have originated with people in Clinton's orbit. But let's not forget where this information appeared. And let's be on the lookout for who goes on the cable shows and wonders whether "Barack Hussein Obama" is "The
ManchurianMadrassa Candidate." Something tells me it isn't going to be Hillary, or any liberal for that matter.
InsightMag.com is the successor to Insight on the News, a biweekly magazine published until April 2004 by News World Communications, the company controlled by Rev. Sun Myung Moon that also operates The Washington Times and the wire service United Press International. The website describes itself as a "weekly Internet news magazine."
The InsightMag.com article claimed that "sources close" to a "background check" supposedly "conducted by researchers connected to Senator Clinton" said that "[t]he idea is to show Obama as deceptive" and speculated that the "predominantly" Muslim school that Obama has admitted he once attended might have taught "a Wahhabi doctrine that denies the rights of non-Muslims":
In two best-selling autobiographies -- "The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream" and "Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance" -- Mr. Obama, born in Honolulu where his parents met, mentions but does not expand on his Muslim background, alluding only to his attendance at a "predominantly Muslim school."
[...]
The sources said the background check concerned Mr. Obama's years in Jakarta. In Indonesia, the young Obama was enrolled in a Madrassa and was raised and educated as a Muslim. Although Indonesia is regarded as a moderate Muslim state, the U.S. intelligence community has determined that today most of these schools are financed by the Saudi Arabian government and they teach a Wahhabi doctrine that denies the rights of non-Muslims.
Although the background check has not confirmed that the specific Madrassa Mr. Obama attended was espousing Wahhabism, the sources said his Democratic opponents believe this to be the case -- and are seeking to prove it. The sources said the opponents are searching for evidence that Mr. Obama is still a Muslim or has ties to Islam.
On The Big Story, Gibson read a statement from Obama's office, which said: "The idea that Senator Barack Obama attended some radical Islamic school is completely ludicrous. Senator Obama is a committed Christian and attends the United Church of Christ in Chicago."
Morgan read from the article, then asserted that Clinton "is going to try to derail the train before it gets out of the station," adding: "And we know that Hillary Clinton has used private eyes to spy on the private lives of many of her political opponents as well as the girlfriends of her husband over the years."
On his program, Limbaugh read the story and claimed: "This is Hillary's team doing this. This is not a bunch of Republicans saying this. They wouldn't dare; they don't have the guts."
Gibson addressed the InsightMag.com article as his "Big Story" at the beginning of the show and again in his "My Word" segment at the end of the program. After claiming that Clinton "has reportedly outed Obama's madrassa past," Gibson told Republican strategist Terry Holt: "Now, we have heard about dirty politics before. Republicans aren't involved in this one." Holt responded: "This was either a despicable act by an absolutely ruthless Clinton political machine -- we know that they are capable of doing this. But I also thought, you know, it wasn't directly linked to Hillary Clinton." Holt then speculated that Obama himself could have been behind the story, saying that "if you took a page out of the Clinton book and you are really shrewd and you were Barack Obama, you might want to put this out yourself so that you could deal with it early in the political campaign and get it over with." But Holt also noted that "a madrassa, before it was politicized and really taken over by the fundamentalists primarily from Saudi Arabia, it was nothing more than a parochial school, and Barack Obama was in school 40 years ago."
Still, in his "My Word" segment, Gibson said: "Americans have a visceral reaction to the word 'madrassa.' In our world, a madrassa's where zealots train your Muslim kids to hate America, to hate the West, and to be killers. Saying Obama attended a madrassa is tying Obama's name to terrorism, and that is real political hardball in action, especially when Obama himself said in his own book that he attended a predominantly Muslim school as a youngster in Indonesia."
On the Morning Show, in addition to accusing Clinton of the attack on Obama, Rodgers suggested that Obama may be a "death target" because of the revelation that he was born the son of a Muslim. From the program:
RODGERS: According to Muslim law, Islamic law, the penalty for leaving the faith is death. Today, Barack Obama proclaims his adherence to the Christian faith, he's a member of a church in Chicago -- they say he's not a regular churchgoer, but he's a member -- but will this make him a potential death target? Renouncing Islam and taking another faith is subject to the death penalty under Islamic law. Free choice has nothing to do with it. It doesn't work that way. To them, you are what you are, and if you were born the child of a Muslim father, you are a Muslim for life, whether you like it or not. And the penalty for trying to break away is death.
And that is why you hear about these cases from time to time Muslims who convert to other religions usually change -- move, change their name, hide their identity, because they know what Islam dictates as the price for abandoning Islam. The goo-goo mush-heads among us in this country don't like to believe this is the case, but it happens to be absolutely true. Now we know of cases like writer Salman Rushdie about whom a fatwa was issued calling for any Muslim to kill him, OK? He's fairly prominent in the literary world, and in the larger world not that big a deal, but if he were the most famous, popular author in the world, that's still a hell of a far cry from running for president of the United States. So, you know, make of this whatever you wish, but that is what Islam dictates.
Similar to the attacks from Morgan, Rodgers and Limbaugh, the weblog Think Progress noted that on the January 19 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends First, hosts Steve Doocy, Brian Kilmeade, and Gretchen Carlson focused an entire segment on the revelation that Obama spent four years in a Muslim school.
This most recent focus by right-wing media figures on Obama's background recalls a December 18 column headlined "Barack Hussein Obama: Once a Muslim, Always A Muslim" by right-wing pundit Debbie Schlussel, who argued that because Obama's middle name is Hussein, his late, estranged father was of Muslim descent, and he has shown interest in his father's Kenyan heritage, Obama's "loyalties" must be called into question as he emerges as a possible Democratic presidential candidate, as Media Matters for America noted.
The accusation that the madrassa story came from Clinton also recalls a suggestion by Sean Hannity and Robert Novak that Clinton was behind a "leak[]" to the press about Obama's admitted past drug use. As Media Matters noted, Obama himself disclosed in his 1995 memoir that he had used drugs.
Earlier on the KSFO program, after saying that Clinton had started her "character assassination of 'Osama Obama,'" Morgan said: "And those of you who are taping us at Media Matters, 'Osama Obama' is a reference to what Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) called Barack Obama." Rodgers, then said: "Ted Kennedy. Got that, freaks with keyboards? Got that?" "Osama Obama" is a reference to Kennedy's mangling of Obama's name at press conference in January 2005. On a January 12 special "no-holds-barred" discussion on KSFO, Morgan accused Media Matters of "thuggish tactics," and Rodgers told Media Matters President and CEO David Brock: "Dave, baby, stick it!"
From the January 19 edition of KSFO's Morning Show:
MORGAN: Well, it is big time finally watching what's going on as Hillary begins the character assassination of "Osama Obama."
RODGERS: "Osama Obama" -- all right, hold it up on that -- this is going to take some time to explain. There are several angles at work here. But of course, she's not going to sign her name to any of the attacks on him -- at least not yet.
MORGAN: Well --
RODGERS: But the wheels are in motion.
MORGAN: And for those of you who are taping us at Media Matters, "Osama Obama" is a reference to what Senator Ted Kennedy called Barack Obama.
RODGERS: Exactly.
MORGAN: It's humor. Humor, folks.
RODGERS: Teddy Kennedy. Teddy Kennedy. Got that, freaks with keyboards? You got that?
[...]
RODGERS: So far in this young, at least open presidential campaign, Senator Barack Obama really hasn't had a glove laid on him. He's a nice-looking guy, smooth, PR, says all of the right things -- they're mostly meaningless platitudes -- but so far he has been pretty much unscathed, which of course will not sustain in the rough-and-tumble presidential campaign politics when it really gets going. There are two matters that he's going to have to address and deal with. First, Insight magazine today -- and you can find the entire article on Lucianne.com, you may have to go through two or three pages to find it -- but it's from Insight magazine, and they pose this question: Are the American people ready for an elected president who was educated in a madrassa -- that's one of those Islamic schools funded by the Wahhabi sect of Saudi Arabia, the biggest supporters of terrorism in that part of the world. He was educated in one of those as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage. This is the question Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's camp is asking about Senator Obama. An investigation of Mr. Obama by political opponents within the Democratic Party -- gee, I wonder if that could mean Hillary --
MORGAN: Hmmm, no.
RODGERS: -- has discovered that Obama was raised as a Muslim by his stepfather in Indonesia. Now, to back up for a second, his father was, as everybody knows by now, a black man, a Muslim from Africa. His mother was an American woman atheist, and after they parted ways, she married a guy from Indonesia -- she's running her own U.N. or something -- anyway, and so they went to Indonesia. Sources close to the background check -- which has not yet been released -- said Mr. Obama spent at least four years in a so-called madrassa, a Muslim seminary in Indonesia. The source says he was a Muslim but he concealed it. His opponents within the party hope this will become a major issue in the campaign. When contacted by Insight magazine, Mr. Obama's press secretary says he would consult with his boss and call back. He did not.
MORGAN: Surprise, surprise.
RODGERS: Soruces said the -- yeah -- the background check conducted by researchers connected to Senator Clinton -- hmmm --
MORGAN: Hmmm.
RODGERS: -- disclosed details of Mr. Obama's Muslim past and said the Clinton camp concluded that the Illinois Democrat has concealed his prior Muslim faith and education. That's part one of the story, and it gets more complex. You decide for yourself what interpretation you want to put on this. But Thomas Lifson at the American Thinker, valuable website, easy to find on the web -- the American Thinker -- raises a question about Senator Obama that needs to be answered if he is going to run seriously for president, and it's this: He was born, as I said, to a Muslim father, which is -- that's the reason for his first and middle names -- Barack and Hussein, which is his middle name, are Islamic names. According to Islamic scripture, this is what Islam teaches its adherents: One who is born to a Muslim father is a Muslim. Forever. It's like being Jewish descends from the mother, but you can always convert out. Islam? Uh-uh.
MORGAN: Yep.
RODGERS: According to Muslim law, Islamic law, the penalty for leaving the faith is death. Today, Barack Obama proclaims his adherence to the Christian faith, he's a member of a church in Chicago -- they say he's not a regular churchgoer, but he's a member -- but will this make him a potential death target? Renouncing Islam and taking another faith is subject to the death penalty under Islamic law. Free choice has nothing to do with it. It doesn't work that way. To them, you are what you are, and if you were born the child of a Muslim father, you are a Muslim for life, whether you like it or not. And the penalty for trying to break away is death. And that is why you hear about these cases from time to time Muslims who convert to other religions usually change -- move, change their name, hide their identity, because they know what Islam dictates as the price for abandoning Islam. The goo-goo mush-heads among us in this country don't like to believe this is the case, but it happens to be absolutely true. Now we know of cases like writer Salman Rushdie about whom a fatwa was issued calling for any Muslim to kill him, OK? He's fairly prominent in the literary world, and in the larger world not that big a deal, but if he were the most famous, popular author in the world, that's still a hell of a far cry from running for president of the United States. So, you know, make of this whatever you wish, but that is what Islam dictates. And apparently, Senator Obama has not been enthusiastic about talking about his Muslim heritage and the fact that he went to a madrassa in Indonesia for four years. So the gloves may come off sooner than we anticipated.
MORGAN: I find it interesting that it's coming from Hillary Clinton's camp. This isn't opposition research done by Republicans, folks.
RODGERS: No, no.
MORGAN: This is opposition research, and we know that Hillary Clinton has used private eyes to spy on the private lives of many of her political opponents, as well as the girlfriends of her husband over the years.
RODGERS [imitating Bill Clinton]: Hillary sends her private eyes out to check on my babes.
MORGAN: That's right. A couple of those private eyes live right here in the San Francisco Bay area, and by the way, they're still a little bit ticked off that they didn't get paid in a timely fashion from Hillary Clinton, and they consider --
RODGERS: What? the Clintons failed to pay a bill? That's hard to believe.
MORGAN: Yes, I know. But this is going to get more and more interesting because she --
RODGERS: Yeah.
MORGAN: -- she is not going to allow the momentum to continue to build around Senator Obama. She is going to try and derail the train before it gets out of the station.
RODGERS: Absent this Muslim factor, as I said yesterday, I think she's like -- would like having him in the race because he deflects a lot of other competition from other candidates who, frankly, might be might be more likely to give her some real heat, and she didn't want to say that he wasn't qualified to be president of the United States because one of these days, she might want him as a running mate. But when this becomes public, I don't think she's going to want him as her running mate.
MORGAN: It looks like Hillary Clinton is playing the religious card here. And for all of those people who have criticized us on this radio station for pointing out certain truths about Senator Obama -- that he is from a Muslim father and a white mother and has been raised in relative affluence by his white maternal grandparents -- you might want to stop and rethink your criticism. We are only pointing out the obvious. It looks like Senator Hillary Clinton is playing a race card, a religious card here that is looking a little unattractive, frankly.
RODGERS: Well, it may be unattractive, but a lot of people are going to say, "Wait a minute, he went to one of those schools run by fanatical Muslims for four years? All right, so he was very young, but I'm not so sure this is the kind of gamble I want to take with my vote."
MORGAN: Well --
RODGERS: But you know, people will decide for themselves.
MORGAN: I'm just pointing out that, you know, that the Internet bloggers might want to turn some of their firepower on their own party, where it rightfully belongs.
RODGERS: Yeah. Check it out. Check out both of them.
MORGAN: Yeah.
RODGERS: Obama's history and Hillary's role in the revelations and the whole thing. Have fun, gang.
MORGAN: Yeah.
RODGERS: Have fun.
MORGAN: Just start typing away on your little keyboards there, boys and girls.
From the January 19 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: According to Insight magazine, Hillary's team is interested in his Muslim background, and is he really a Muslim and hiding it from everybody. This is Hillary's team doing this. This is not a bunch of Republicans saying this. They wouldn't dare; they don't have the guts. [laughs] And then we've gotten stories about how mainstream traditional civil rights leaders, such as the Reverend [Jesse] Jackson and the Reverend [Al] Sharpton do not find anything particularly great about Barack Obama because he's really not one of them -- born in Hawaii, educated in Africa in part. So, all these little rifts now are starting to show up. And Hillary was on Matt Lauer Today show, and we've got -- want to play this bite again, with the Clinton war room zeroing in on Obama, and we've added -- we could've played this Wednesday -- we've added my conclusion that I added on Wednesday at the end of this bite.
[start audio clip]
LIMBAUGH: Then Lauer said, look, Senator Obama has announced he's opening an exploratory committee -- is he qualified? He's been in the Senate two years, is he completely qualified to be commander in chief in your opinion?
[Today audio clip]
CLINTON: The voters will make these decisions, that's what's so great about our system --
LAUER: but do you think he's qualified? I mean, he's a fellow Democrat. Would you be comfortable with him in the White House?
CLINTON: I'm going to let all of those decisions be sorted out by voters.
[end Today audio clip]
LIMBAUGH: Meaning, wait 'til we get through destroying this guy ourselves and make it look like the Republicans did it. I'm not worried about Obama, she is saying.
[end audio clip]
LIMBAUGH: No, she's not. She's probably not worried about him at all, and -- but it's, of course, being presented that she is.
From the January 19 edition of Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson:
GIBSON: Hi, everybody. Tonight's big story: the gloves are off. Hillary Clinton reported to be already digging up the dirt on Barack Obama. The New York senator has reportedly outed Obama's madrassa past. That's right -- Clinton team reported to have pulled out all the stops to reveal something Obama would rather you didn't know -- that he was educated in a Muslim madrassa.
I was criticized on this show for outing Obama as a smoker, but look at what some anti-Obama Democrats are doing to her political rival now. They're playing the Muslim phobia card. Is this just the beginning? Is the Obama honeymoon officially over? What other dirty little secrets will come out as they battle it out in the race for the White House? With me now, Republican strategist Terry Holt. Terry.
HOLT: Hey, Bill [sic].
GIBSON: This is a -- this is appearing on a website today, the Insight magazine, which -- which is a subsidiary of The Washington Times. Here's the -- here's the question. I'm going to put it up on the screen: Barack's madrassa past. They said during the five years -- he says that "during the five years that we would live with my stepfather in Indonesia, I was sent first to a neighborhood Catholic school and then to a predominantly Muslim school." That's from his book, The Audacity of Hope. Now, meantime, this is what Democrats are saying, according to Insight magazine. They're looking into his background, they're saying, "He was a Muslim, he concealed it. His opponents within the Democrats hope this will become a major issue in the campaign."
Now, we've heard about dirty politics before. Republicans aren't involved in this one. What do you think about what's going on over there?
HOLT: John, the last time I checked, there was still a freedom of religion in this country. This is either a despicable act by an absolutely ruthless Clinton political machine -- we know that they are capable of doing this. But I also thought, you know, it wasn't directly linked to Hillary Clinton. If it wasn't her, then certainly she should disavow it because I think we've spent an awful lot of time in this country trying to tamp down, you know, anti-religious sentiments. But you know, it's also if you took a page out of the Clinton book and you are really shrewd and you were Barack Obama, you might want to put this out yourself so that you could deal with it early in the political campaign and get it over with. I don't know.
GIBSON: Let me look -- let me show you what the press secretary to U.S. Senator Barack Obama said today in a statement about this story. They said, "The idea that Senator Barack Obama attended some radical Islamic school is completely ludicrous. Senator Obama is a committed Christian and attends the United Church of Christ in Chicago." Nonetheless, Terry, what damage does it do to Obama to have the word "madrassa" attached to his name?
HOLT: Well, I think that Barack Obama is such a white-hot political property right now that I'm not sure that it does any long-term damage. He may have to explain this, but, you know, Obama's story is unique to the political field at this point, having been educated overseas. I'd also point out that a madrassa, before it was politicized and really taken over by the fundamentalists primarily from Saudi Arabia, it was nothing more than a parochial school, and Barack Obama was in school 40 years ago. So, I'm not sure that this is a campaign killer, but it does, I think, maybe put on him the burden of explanation, a little bit more about his bio.
GIBSON: Terry, this is a hotly contended -- contested race. Senator Clinton thought she had it in the bag and that she was the nominee already. He's made a surprise run at her. Does this give his team a warning of what sort of things are coming before he could possibly capture the nomination?
HOLT: Absolutely. You know, the Clinton team and the machine, make no mistake, it's still in place. They used to call themselves "the masters of disaster." And if Barack Obama gets into the race against Clinton, I think that he can count on no small amount of disaster being forced upon him by running against one of the most effective and one of the most negative political machines ever assembled in this country. But you know what? If you're going to run for president, you have to be prepared for everything and anything to be thrown at you, and in many ways, voters are looking not so much for the facts about what you've done in your past but, really, how do you handle it? Do you handle it with poise? Do you handle it with honesty and dignity? If he handles this well, I'm not sure that this puts him in a corner he can't escape from.
GIBSON: Terry Holt on the madrassa bomb dropped on Barack Obama. Terry, thanks very much.
HOLT: Thanks, John.
[...]
GIBSON: Now "My Word." Let me do a contrast and compare. Two days ago, we did a story about Barack Obama's dirty little secret -- he smokes cigarettes. I got a lot of angry email from the "how dare you" variety. After all, angry emailers said, this is old news. Everybody knows he smokes, and what difference does it make, anyway?
Well, not everybody knows, number one. And number two, many people do care if a person is a smoker. Some people view smoking as a character weakness. I used to be a smoker, and I know what people think about smokers. But smoking cigarettes is a nothingburger compared to what Hillary's people are reported to be doing to Obama.
Reported in Insight magazine today, that's a publication of The Washington Times. Insight says its sources report that the Clinton Democrats are doing background checks on Obama and are going to attach the word "madrassa" to him, as in quote "Obama attended a madrassa as a child." That, my friends, is way worse than saying he smokes Marlboros.
Americans have a visceral reaction to the word "madrassa." In our world, a madrassa's where zealots train your Muslim kids to hate America, to hate the West, and to be killers. Saying Obama attended a madrassa is tying Obama's name to terrorism, and that is real political hardball in action, especially when Obama himself said in his own book that he attended a predominantly Muslim school as a youngster in Indonesia.
The people who want to slime him are going to say "translation, madrassa." Are Hillary's fingerprints on the story? Doesn't seem so. They can deny these stories with a straight face. When the story popped up on Fox this morning, Obama's people were furious. We got a statement from them this afternoon. You saw it earlier.
It's a -- it's bare-knuckle politics, and they know they've been had. My point is simply this: The senator from Illinois is going to get a baptism by fire if he thinks he's going to challenge Hillary Clinton for the nomination. And if he thinks he's going to get a free ride, he only has to look at today's issue of Insight magazine. My little jab about him being a closet smoker is nothing more than an elbow in the paint compared to that. Picture the commercial: "Hi, I'm Barack Obama. Funny thing happened to me on my way to the White House. Somebody discovered I didn't go to a kindergarten, I went to a madrassa." This is how the big kids play politics. That's "My Word." Write to me at myword@foxnews.com. See you back here Monday.
If the smear fits, use it.
Apparently, Sen. Obama scare them far more than Hillary ever did, because he might *gasp* be elected president.
I'll just wait for all the information to unfold, before I make up my mind who th better person is!
and conquer baby, divide an conquer. Not this time.
That opposition researchers working for Clinton could have dug deeper into this story, it is just as plausible [perhaps MORE so] that Republicans are the ones that did the research and are trying to pass it off as Hillary being behind the smears. Wouldn't surprise me at all....
They [Republicans] are going to throw everything but the kitchen sink at BOTH Hillary Clinton & Barack Obama.
(Metaphorically, of course…cough cough cough…choke…)
back to Kim Jong-il …!
of the Orwellian insidiousness of this spectacular piece of doublethink. The Republicans are killing two candidates with one stone, by
1) pushing the idea that Clinton is maliciously spreading false and misleading rumors about Obama being linked to radical Islam in order to further her campaign;
2) while simultaneously promoting the directly contradictory idea that Obama is sympathetic to radical Islam and is practically Osama's best friend;
3) while remaining completely free of blame themselves; after all, they're just "repeating" what Sen. Clinton (supposedly may have possibly) said.
Whoever said the recent election killed off Rove's brand of dirty politics spoke far too soon. There are still many people in this country (the approximately thirty percent who still think the Decider is doing a "heckuva job") who will eat this talking point up.
I noticed I juxtaposed "Obama" and "Osama" in the same sentence. I guess it's only a matter of time before the Republicans start harping on the one-letter difference between Obama's last name and bin Laden's first name. But first they have to let the "his middle name is Hussein!" talking point run its course.
"start Harping" on the similarities between Osama/Obama? I know it was a long item above, but the radio rightys did it, making sure to point out that Ted Kennedy said it first.
If you haven't heard it, Kennedy accidentally said "Osama" whem referring to Obama at some event, then goofed on himself by repeating it a few times, sounded like that nervouus recovery after misspeaking.
Righty radio has been playing the tape, heavily edited into this sort of techno-sampled "obama-osama" sound effect. It seems to be sort of like a dog-training command for their listeners, and the beauty of iy is they can say "don't blame us for playing it endlessly, Kennedy said it"
I mentioned that it's been heavily edited, I can't prove that, but the rapid-fire delivery of the words as they're played does not sound natural.I heard Hannity play it one time, stressing "I haven't edited this at all", meaning somebody else edited it for him I'm guessing.
I'm not up to date on the latest right-wing slanders against Obama, I should have known that Fox News would have beat me to such an obvious talking point. Thanks for pointing that out.
Lefty
"Kennedy accidentally said "Osama" whem referring to Obama at some event, then goofed on himself by repeating it a few times, sounded like that nervouus recovery after misspeaking.
Righty radio has been playing the tape, heavily edited into this sort of techno-sampled "obama-osama" sound effect. It seems to be sort of like a dog-training command for their listeners, and the beauty of iy is they can say "don't blame us for playing it endlessly, Kennedy said it" <\i>
Aren't these guys always whining (innaccurately) about being "taken out of context?" This is a classic example of misleading by ignoring context. I guess they take Fitzgerald's bromide seriously, and feel their minds are so superior they're above mere consistency. Honesty? Puhleez!
The Rove wonks are still capitulating to him, make no mistake. Don't think that the momentary Dem majority will stop the Rove propaganda from seeing the light of day. He relishes the challenge to lie.
Don't forget that Barak's middle name is Hussein. More food for thought. C'mon... he's just one letter away from being a terrorist! ;-)
Gibson looks like such a hapless dork.
I feel sorry for his mother.
This is a good one for the Cons. You can smear two birds with one stone.......God, these people are American filth.
Sean Hannity & Michael Savage also promoted this idea on their radio programs today. It is so amazing how such a small group of big media heads can truly create a story in this country. Hannity used this story, which is 100% made up, to smear Hillary Clinton all day. Savage actually claimed that Clinton was having people sent to this madrassa to find out what exactly Obama was taught. Just a truly disgusting use of the airwaves and a big problem for democracy.
Sort of like the Duke rape case...
It seemed like a non-story to me. It just makes Faux News look like their usual foolish selves. What other mainstream media will repeat an unsubstantiated accusation in a negative way about an issue that is already known and is meaningless?
the swiftboats were a nonstory too, who became frontpage news & manipulated the election coverage.
this is going to become "conventional wisdom", just like "al gore says he invented the internet"
That's one example that fairly leaps to mind of totally unsubstantiated, unfounded, discredited allegations made by characters with at best dubious motivations that were lapped up and regurgitated endlessly by the MSM. So maybe this wholly fabricated mess of slime won't stick and make it to CNN or whatever, but they'll just keep flinging and flinging until something does, that is the tactic, and it has worked like a charm in the past. And it will continue to work unless, as Lynn suggested above, we rebel, loudly, against it by countering it every step of the way, not sitting back like the Kerry campaign did and hoping it just goes away.
didn't see the above post before I did mine!
no problem, it cant be repeated enough
It won't go away. ... No, it won't go away.
And unless the Dems find a way to neutralize it, they will always be on the defensive. The Media will constantly put them on the defensive.
Thats the point.
You can just make stuff up and it becomes the "news".
You can just make stuff up and it becomes conventional wisdom.
You can just make stuff up and try to make people stupider and mis-informed or as Media Matters does when ever a news network drops a load of steaming poo in the middle of the road, stick signs up around the pile stating "Warning! Pile of poo!"
Fear of a black president is what this is all about. The bigots of hate TV and radio will do anything to prevent Obama from advancing into a candidate that has a chance. Just wait and see what happens when Gov. Bill Richardson joins the fray, they will smear him with racist garbage as well.
I hardly think "fear a black president" is the reason. There are plenty of qualified black men who could be president. I fear that an unqualified man becomes president. You do realize Obama admits using marijuana and cocaine in his youth? Isn't that one of the left's main concerns or complaints about Bush? His drug use in his younger days?[link to en.wikipedia.org] Also, we are at war right now. Do we really need a president that has NO military experience? Isn't this another lefty complaint? That Bush ducked the war and isn't qualified to lead our military? I think if the left side holds Barack to the same standards it holds Bush to, then he will be seen as not qualified.
The left has no problem with anyone's past use of illegal substances. We have a problem with those who deny it when it's pretty clear that they are not being honest.
The left also has no problems with anyone who has not served in the military. The left does have a problem with people who support a questionable war, yet do all they can to avoid serving in the war they say they supported.
As far as I can tell, Senator Obama has never supported a war which he could have served in. He has been upfront about prior drug use.
The only standards any person should be held to are the standards they set for others. If George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, etc. supported the War in Vietnam, they could have found a way to do their part. Each chose other routes that would prevent them from serving in combat, while their support for that war sent others to fight and die in their place.
Each also is an advocate of strong penalties for drug use. 2 of the 3 people mentioned have themselves been users in the past, and in Limbaugh's case the recent past.
And the reason we're at war right now, is because of one man, George W. Bush. He was in the White House, he sold everyone on the WMDs, the aluminum tubes, the mobile chemical labs, the 45 minutes to nuclear annihilation, etc. All lies. Nothing but lies.
I can live with your complaints of admitted drug use and avoided war service, however; " And the reason we're at war right now, is because of one man, George W. Bush. " isn't even close to being correct. The reason we're at war right now is because of one man (that is correct) but you spelled Osama Bin Laden incorrectly. Are you closing your eyes to reality, or just hate Bush that much?
Also, I don't know why you included Rush Limbaugh in your rant. Didn't he have a problem with 'prescription drugs'? If you're going to call him a "drug abuser" for that then 90% of all Americans will fall into that category. Anyone who uses any drug outside of it's intended use criteria is a drug abuser. That includes all those liberals who love their "pill of choice" to make it through the day. If you're going to call a "spade a spade" include the entire deck, next time.
BinLaden had nothing to do with our invasion of Iraq. Saddam had nothing to do with the attacks of September 11, 2001. If you have evidence that proves otherwise, please present the evidence.
I've never said I hate anyone. Where did you get that?
Rush Limbaugh was involved in an illegal use of prescription medications. He also involved one of his employees in the crime. He was also caught coming back into the country with someone else's prescription drugs. His is a classic case of not only drug abuse, but abuse of the system. For someone like him to judge others for their drug use is hypocrisy.
" BinLaden had nothing to do with our invasion of Iraq. "
I never said he did. But, he certainly does have something to do with the war on terror, which is what we are involved in now. We aren't fighting Iraqis, we're fighting terrorists. We are trying to get normalcy back into Iraq, terrorists are destroying the infrastructure and inocent people (women, children, brothers, sisters).
We are definitely NOT fighting terrorists in Iraq! While there may be some members of Al Queda there, we are mostly stuck in a Civil War between rival tribes of the Shi'ites and Sunnis. Nobody seems to understand the fact that the Iraqi people want us out of their country.
We could send one million more troops over there and it will never solve the problem that they need to fix themselves. Unfortunately, we broke it, but have no ability to fix it.
you are not grounded in reality obviously if you can' separate Iraq from the war on terror. Iraq did not harbor terrorists, nor was muslim extremism present when we invaded. Currently radicals, the real terrorists, are in Indonesia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia, etc. etc. We are not fighting the war in a way that is beneficial to us. Furthermore, I don't get your logic behind not liking Obama because he has been up front about his drug use. And to bring up his lack of military experience is laughable. None of the people involved with driving this Iraq war have military experience. Don't give me Bush's half-assed Naitonal Guard duty as experience. If you have a beef with drug use you could benefit society more if you acted a little more like your saviour and tried to help them instead of condemn them. That must be your pride. Also a sin. Hmm. No surprise there.
That certainly isnt what I am reading. The Generals IN Iraq have been saying MOST of the insurrgents are home grown Iraqis. Iraq had NOTHING to do with any war on terrorism. That was drivel for the simple minded. If our war is on Fundamentalist Islamic extremist terrorists how in the WORLD was invading the most SECULAR Islamic nation in the region anything except insane. No ADD Bush LEFT fighting the terrorists, that DID attack us for a more profit friendly war in Iraq.
Calling someone who's been respectful of you, slow? I may be slow, but to be slow at least shows that there is movement towards something. Your arrogant sense of superiority shows that not only is your mind FIXED, but that you are incapable of any kind of reasoned debate. Cling to your first century beliefs and let us who live in the 21st Century deal with the problems of the day.
" If you have evidence that proves otherwise, please present the evidence. "
Forgive me for using the word "slow". I'm sure it was uncalled for and I apologize.
Now, for the evidence that the highest officials in America had knowledge and fear of Saddam's use and/or transfer of WMD's to terrorists; [link to www.freerepublic.com] and [link to www.pbs.org]
Your evidence is irrelevant. The situation in March 2003 wasn't the same as December 1998. For all that evidence is worth, you may have well said we should have invaded Japan in 2003 because they attacked us in 1941.
By the way, isn't "Proud Chrisitian" a bit of an oxymoron? At least by teaching, humility is the virtue; pride is a vice.
P.S. Thank you for preview, MMFA!
The Bush regime explicitly tied Saddam to Al Qadea many times.
Here's just one:
"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more." Source: President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003).
More at: [link to oversight.house.gov]
Saddam ran a secular country and never had involvement with Al Quada. Bush's statement about cutting off funding is just more of his bogus lies. Saddam wanted nothing to do with Al Quada.
Well, yeah, thats what he does. He lies. If you really believed that I am sorry, see above. Remember the Senate investigation on EXACTLY that, the ties between Iraq and al Queda came to the conclusion there werent any. They had some meetings, no cooperation, no ties, basically its a lie to call them allies. Ben Laden called Saddam an infidel. For a Wahabi Sunni like OBL thats a death threat.
" The Bush regime explicitly tied Saddam to Al Qadea many times. "
Not just Bush, but Clinton also. During the Nov. 4 1998 indictment of Bin Laden for murder during bombings of US embassies in Africa; " In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq. "
"Rush Limbaugh was involved in an illegal use of prescription medications"
Wrong. That's never been proven. It's funny that you guys always point out that defendants are innocent until proven guilty, except in the case of prominent conservatives. The case has been settled, and Limbaugh was never convicted of anything. Quit lying.
And now for the rest of the story...
Actually, the case is still technically open. Under the settlement, the charges will be dropped if Limbaugh continues drug treatment and stays clean for 18 months. He also has to pay supervision costs and DA investigative costs of $30,000. Fortunately for Limbaugh, the system is far more forgiving than he has been.
The analogy that comes to mind is the time I received a speeding ticket, but was allowed to take a defensive driving course and pay court costs in exchange for having the speeding violation completely dropped. Does that mean I wasn't speeding?
Check your facts again, an arrest warrant WAS issued for Rush and he plede Guilty with Roy Black getting the entire "drug problem" earased in 18 months if Little Rush can keep his hand on food and not pills.
Bush is the sine qua non of this war without him, no war in Iraq. Are you REALLY still trying to pin 9/11 on Iraq? If you are not then your Osama reference was a non sequitar. As for Rush how wonderful of you to accept HIS sad story about why HE illegally used drugs. Are you just as willing to accept the sad stories of the kid sexually abused at home forced into prostitution? Or does this sympathy only extend to those who abuse the white wealthy drug of choice to abuse? And no you dont have to attack all those who LEGALLY use them. Only the ones that doctor shop to get hundreds to use per month. Then send their maids out to get them on the street. What Rush did is as illegal as picking up a vial of crack on the street.
Isn't that what you and the rest of the right-wing God-fearing sheeple did when you voted for an alcoholic, drug-abusing loser?
And there's my point. One drug abuser (R) is considered an evil/lying entity. While the other drug abuser (D) is considered a moral man. Only a liberal can come to that conclussion.
Kind of like when liberals forget that Clinton said WMD's were present in Iraq. However, it's Bush who lied about WMD's, not Clinton. [link to www.pbs.org] You know, reading through that speach, if you didn't know it was Clinton, you'd swear it was Bush "lying" to Americans.
Clinton never threatened to invade Iraq nor did he cost over 3,000 of our military their lives. His policy of containment was working just fine. Iraq didn't have the means to threaten anybody. We never had any justifiable reason for invading that country and still don't.
" Iraq didn't have the means to threaten anybody. We never had any justifiable reason for invading that country and still don't. "
Did you even read the link I provided? It was Clinton's speach that outlined the threat posed by Saddam and his henchmen. Ok, if you don't want that one, here's another: [link to www.freerepublic.com] This is his radio speach 3 days later. Key in on the sentence: " Our long-term strategy is clear: First, we stand ready to use force again if Saddam takes threatening action such as seeking to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction, menacing his neighbors or his own Kurdish citizens, or challenging allied aircraft. " . Apparently, you think Clinton's long-term strategy doesn't count for the next president. Clinton can be ready to attack Saddam and Iraq whenever he wants, but you think Bush cannot?
Where are the WMD's that Clinton claimed were present? Did Saddam destroy them in the 2 years that no one was watching? Then suddenly, Bush made up a lie to go to war? You are crazy to think Saddam was going to run his country peacefully just because Clinton told him to. You are even more crazy to think that Bush started this war to get oil. Where were all your complaints while Clinton was doing the same thing? Only difference is, Bush succeeded in removing Saddam. Clinton couldn't succeed in that or in finding OBL, who conitinued his war on America throughout Clinton's presidency. Attacking position after position. Finally, with you liberals all looking for a reason to yell at Bush, OBL attacked America. Now you just keep yelling "illegal war" , "war built on lies", "no reason to be in Iraq". YOU HYPOCRITS!!
"Reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction" indicates that the WMD's were inoperative at the time.
>>"I think if the left side holds Barack to the same standards it holds Bush to, then he will be seen as not qualified."<<
The "left" did not consider military service or a drug-free life a requirement for a candidate. (See Clinton, Bill). Among several, real character issues with Bush was his irresponsible, unexplained avoidance of his National Guard obligations and suspicious eluding of going to Vietnam, and his less-than-convincing explanations for same. And also, it was Bush's deplorably passive endorsement of --and his refusal to disavow-- the ugly "Swift-Boating" campaign against his opponent, John Kerry.
One of the "left's" standards is competence and character. On those notes, Obama has to date received good grades. It has now been proven that the same cannot be said for the bungling George Bush--probably our worst president in modern times, if not ever.
" One of the "left's" standards is competence and character. "
Oh, why did Bill Clinton still get support from the left? Didn't he also suspiciously elude Viet Nam and well, we all know his "character" standards were VERY low. I can see if you compare Barack to Clinton that Barack is better, but you're still stuck with the criteria you gave that allowed Clinton in. So, basically, you're saying that liberals will vote for anyone who will advance their agenda, not necassarily the better person?
believe Bush has character? One part of character is admitting you are wrong about something which Bush has refused to do. Clinton admitted he lied to the public about HEAVEN FORBID some oral sex. Clinton was clearly more competent than Bush for obvious reasons which you will never admit to. Furthermore don't waste our time citing neocon talking points that have debunked and refuted about Clinton. Try using "the google" as your highly competent puts it. HEAVY SIGH!!! I fear for our country if Bush is really thought to be comeptent.
So his avoidance of the war is not an issue. GWB on the other hand was a supporter of this war. But used his fathers political connections to jump over other people who had been on the list longer than he, to get placed in the Air National Guard. Anyone joining the ANG had no expectation of ever serving in Vietnam. His getting a spot meant that someone else did not. That other person may have been drafted and sent to Vietnam.
Once again, Bush is pushing a questionable war. Once again, he doesn't have to fight it, his children don't have to fight it, someone else's children will.
And that SOMEHOW was Bush. Give me a break. By that criteria, the lying, irresponsible weasel couldnt win an election to catch dogs in inner city Phoenix. Of course we vote for the candidate who is more in line with our ideology that only makes sense. However you still dont get it. Did Clinton avoid the war, yes, did he avoid a war he SUPPORTED? NO. Bush DID strongly support the Vietnam war but didnt want his pampered butt anywhere near it. THAT is what gripes the left. Bush was all for OTHER people sacrificing THEIR lives for his ideological purity just not rich important people like HIM obviously too good to risk the sacrifice he thought should be left to working class people.
" Of course we vote for the candidate who is more in line with our ideology that only makes sense. "
And that's how I decide. Bush was against abortion, so am I. Bush wanted to get correct-thinking judges on the Supreme Court, so do I. There's my criteria. You give me a democrat that fits that criteria, and I'll vote for him. If there isn't one out there, then I'm not voting democratic, it's just as simple as your plan. If no republican goes with those ideals then I won't vote republican, either. Chances are that a republican will better fit my criteria than a democrat.
>>>"Bush was against abortion, so am I. Bush wanted to get correct-thinking judges on the Supreme Court, so do I."<<<
NO ONE is "for" abortion. But some of us are for a woman's right to make decisions about her own body, and for a right to privacy.
Right-wingers like you are AGAINST women deciding about their own bodies and AGAINST privacy. (For further info, see Bush's illegal, warrantless wiretapping of American citizens).
By the way, how did that "right-thinking" Supreme Court judgeship for Bush-crony/lapdog Harriet Miers work out for you guys??
- There's my criteria. - proud-christian
Great job on transcending party politics. It appears that you have some core values that are important to you and that is how you determine your candidate of choice.
I like your approach that "these are my values" and if a candidate wants your support...they have to demonstrate their willingness to govern accordingly...regardless of party affiliation.
Hang in there...sure you'll catch the slings and arrows from the political hacks and panderers...but in the end we need more voters with your character...regardless of which side of the issues they support.
>>>"Great job on transcending party politics.... we need more voters with your character...regardless of which side of the issues they support."<<<
Actually, my criteria is astoundingly similar to "Christian", as my judges must be "correct-thinking" as well! I'll support ANY judge of any party, as long as they "think correctly! See how open-minded I am?!
Unless, that is, that you accept the notion that there is more than one interpretation of "correct thinking".
Basically, PC, you'd sell out your country on the basis of narrow, self-righteously defined issues of morality. (Wanna teach Creationism in our schools, too?) George Bush and the Republican majority bungled the war on terror with the ill-advised (stupid, actually) invasion of Iraq. They have cost countless innocent lives, including Americans; needlessly spent billions of dollars of assets; sqauandered the good will of America around the globe; and made us less safe from terrorists. But, hey... as long you get your ant-abortion judges then vote for the immoral Republican Party.
>>"Oh, why did Bill Clinton still get support from the left?"<<
Clinton made no bones about his lack of support for the war in Vietnam.
Clinton (as others here duly note) did not use his rich Congressman daddy to get him a coveted, impossible-to-get slot in the Texas National Guard during the height of war. Even after Bush got his plum assignment, he was still character-less enough to skip-out of reporting for duty at his post. And then (as if that wasn't enough), in a display of the epitome of gall, he refuses to condemn -strictly for political reasons- the slimy, vicious smear of John Kerry---an actual, decorated Vietnam war veteran.
No, Bush had -and has- very little in the way of character, as becomes obvious to more and more Americans with each passing day.
Even during the worst days of the Lewinsky scandal, Clinton maintained a decent, even high, approval rating. Bush, on the other hand, still hasn't hit bottom, even at 34%.
The more the public knows Bush, the less they think of him. The more we knew about Clinton, the better we liked him.
"Isn't that one of the left's main concerns or complaints about Bush? His drug use in his younger days?"
no, the concern is the hypocrisy & dishonesty of "When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible"
Bush obviously wasn’t held to any standard. We elected an inexperienced, unintelligent alcoholic, cocaine user whose interests are power, big business and personal gain not the American people. He is dishonest about his flaws and intentions while continuing to use deceit to start wars and protect his ego. He surrounded himself with experienced people who have the same aspirations. He has no military experience and he does not listen to those who do. He and his “experienced” cohorts are destroying the country.
The American people see this and would rather have a hard working intelligent person of integrity whose proven interests are the American people; a person who understands and is sensitive to both national and local issues; a person who will listen to others; a person who gets it. The corrupt people with experience are a turn off.
the left's complaint about bush and military service is not that he lacked experience. it was that his experience was dodging responsibility and subsequently lying about, and having his staff and supporters help him cover this up.
it was the republicans who tried to use this 'no military experience' argument against pres. clinton
past drug use- again, this is something bush lied about, and had many others go out and lie for him., and cover up the truth. put the light under a bushel, so to speak.
past poltical experience? this was a talking point to discredit clinton when he ran, but when bush 43 ran with his lack of national experience, it was sold as not relevant. even though the governorship of texas is reportedly a position of less responsibility than any governorship in the nation.
finally, the bush campaign ran him as the "c.e.o." presidency, and nobody seemed to notice that all the companies he helmed, were run into the ground with everybody losing all their money except for him and a few close associates. (kind of like he is doing to OUR governmnet now.)
you may be a proudchristian, but can you be proud of ignoring facts and history in favor of your opinions?
like i like to ask all that boast of their faith in christ, "is this wwjd?"
" like i like to ask all that boast of their faith in christ, "is this wwjd?" "
In my opinion...Jesus would not politically support anyone who supports harming unborn humans. But, that's just my opinion. Quick question, if Jesus ran for President, would you vote for Him? I'd guess most liberals would be afraid to vote for Jesus.
"Quick question, if Jesus ran for President, would you vote for Him? I'd guess most liberals would be afraid to vote for Jesus."
With all due respect, silly question.
If Jesus came back and lived now as he did then, hanging out with the homeless, having "no visible means of support,", living on handouts, calling into question established orthodoxy, he wouldn't get to run for president. He'd be crucified again, and those howling for his death would be those to whose lips his name comes most easily now.
since the current First Lady is pro-choice, but not allowed to voice her opinion on the matter.
Repubs will NEVER out-law abortion. If they did, they'd never have a platform to run on again. Plus, what would they do when they're little daughters get knocked up?
In my opinion...Jesus would not politically support anyone who supports harming unborn humans. (Proud-Christian)
Do you think any pregnant women have been killed in Iraq?
Quick question, if Jesus ran for President, would you vote for Him? (Proud-Christian)
Aside form the fact that he's not a U.S. citizen, not to mention dead, I don't think Jesus would be able to get enough of the red states to win.
Jewish
Illegitimate child of teen mother
Pretty big on helping the poor
Wary of greedy people
Peacenik
just for starters. Sounds like a real "S.P." to me.
" Do you think any pregnant women have been killed in Iraq? "
Absolutely there have been. And the US military is there to try to protect those women from future terrorist attacks that have killed the pregnant women earlier. You DO support the US military being over there to keep further pregnant women from getting killed by terrorists, don't you?
you can't possibly think that no pregnant Iraqi women have been killed by U.S. forces or as a result of us being there.
Can you?
Come on HBL, when did I say that? Why are you insistant on saying I said things that I did not say? I said yes there have been and the US is there to try to keep that from happening again. If you just rewrite whatever I say to suit your purpose then I'll just have to figure it's because you're a liberal. Since liberals are famous for building strawmen arguements by changing what was really said, I suspect the same is happening here.
and he had a comedian on, and the guy was talking about about listening to a conversation between two new york tough guys. and one guy is saying i will f--- you up, i will kill your whole family, on and on. and the comedian goes on to describe this huge gold cross the guy is wearing....
and he'd mock someone on death row? Or preside over an alarming number of executions as Governor? Or would Jesus needlessly bomb a country, treat troops like garbage and allow the suffering he had caused in Iraq? That's a great moral code you got there. Save the unborn, to hell with children, drug users, innocent civilians. Must make you proud alright.
WWJB and WWJT, that is who would Jesus BOMB and who would Jesus TORTURE? We see the abortion thing differently that wont change. You are going to convince me its a human being at conception. Dont pretend that one issue gives the GOP some kind of moral superiority when THIS adminstration LIED to take us to an unecessary war and advocated torture.
You left one out (inocently, I'm sure)...WWJA. Who would Jesus ABORT. You try to claim moral inferiority of the right side, yet ignore your own moral indignations. ( You forget that Clinton gave a speech on the dangers of WMD's that Saddam had, yet he isn't lying to the American people, is he?[link to www.pbs.org] )
Why don't you give me an example of where Jesus or God says abortion is ok. You seem to be able to quote many times where He doesn't say it's bad, show me where He says it's good.
Who would Jesus starve?
Who would Jesus fail to evacuate?
Who would Jesus deny heath care?
Who would Jesus deny an education?
Who would Jesus send to war?
Who would Jesus hang?
Who would Jesus mock before the hanging?
Give examples where Jesus condoned pre-emptive war, condoned capital punishment, encouraged people not to pay their FAIR share of taxes, and please please show me where he thought it was a hoot to ridicule the poor for being poor.
" Jesus condoned pre-emptive war "
How about the story of Jericho. Was that not a pre-emptive war?
" condoned capital punishment "
God not only condoned, but He created capital punishment. Gen 9:6, and then went on to further expound later in the Bible. And, check what Jesus said (red lettering) in Matt 5:38-39 AND Matt 5:21-22 AND finally Matt 5:17-18 Then tell me what you think God thought about capital punishment.
Show me where Jesus condoned abortion. I'll give you more leeway (in case you don't believe Jesus is God), show me where God condoned abortion. Simple task for all those liberals who claim God never said abortion is bad. Let's hear some truth on the pro-abortion side of religion.
PC - I'm sure you realize that there are a many times greater amount of miscarriages than abortions performed. So, it's okay for your GOD to perform abortions, but not okay for man? Didn't GOD create MAN in his image? So, what did HE expect? Sounds a bit confounding to me. But, that's your belief system; not mine.
" Sounds a bit confounding to me. "
I take it you don't like being wrong? By the way you describe your beliefs then when someone dies a natural death it is God murdering them? And to think the lefties claim the righties have whacked out ideas. That one has to take the cake.
your view point; not mine. Keep posting. Your arrogance and ignorance becomes more evident with each post.
BTW: You may want to rethink that handle. I think real Christians would be offended to be associated with the likes of you.
What a self-righteous, pompous pr*ck you are.... Who are you to speak for anyone with respect to their religious beliefs? Who says your religious beliefs are not without lies, delusions and distortions? Save your homilies for the narrow-minded like yourself.
I would say the same to you. If Jesus were here today the "Christians" on the right would shun him as a radical left wing hippie. His ministry of helping the BORNED who are sick (both in spirit and body), poor, homeless, incarcerated, infirmed, and WEAK would be too much for them to tolerate. I surely don't believe his sermons would be greeted warmly in the mega Churches pastored by the Christian right wing that have become more political than spiritual and OBESSED with prosperity to the point that it has superceded the real teaching’s of Jesus. They might as well have a money-draped crucifix in the pulpit since equal reverence is assigned to Jesus and money. They are distorting Jesus’ message and I for one am quite angry with them for doing it. My other problem with the fanatical Christian right is that your compassion seems quite limited to the un-born. Moreover, I am also pretty certain that THE PRINCE OF PEACE would not support Bush’s pre-emptive war ideology. While he never spoke specifically about the topic, it’s probably reasonable to assume that this is contrary to his turn the other cheek and love thy enemy philosophy.
Would Jesus have a problem with abortion, MAYBE? Of course, I don't know that because he never preached about that topic, and I do know what he preached about because it's in my Bible in bright red lettering. The people front and center of many of his sermons are the people that the nutty right constantly insult and they are the people that are hurt the most by the priorities of the Republican Party that the Christian right has whole heartedly supported.
" Would Jesus have a problem with abortion, MAYBE? Of course, I don't know that because he never preached about that topic, and I do know what he preached about because it's in my Bible in bright red lettering. "
Check to see if this is in red lettering in your Bible: Mark 9:36-37 and check Luke 18:15-17 Do you think Jesus is advocating abortion or advocating letting children live? You decide what you think He is teaching.
You know God is make-believe, right?
Why are you ignoring the spirit of Lynn's post and all of her other comments? Hit a sore spot abortion parrot?
Great plan, ignore the other 99% of the message so you can harp on abortion.
You do realize that you have to follow all of god's commandments and teachings, not just the parts you pick on your own?
This is 2007 and YES race issues still plage this country. You would have to live under a rock not to know that.
The difference between Bush and all of his inexperience and Obama and his are as follows:
Bush cannot read, speak or understand the English language and appears to still be "under the influence"
Obama has command of the English language. He can read, speak and understand the English language, therefore his drug use is not a problem.
Bush cannot read, speak or understand the English language there fore his understanding of military issues are slim to none (Iraq)
Obama has command of the English language. He can read, speak and understand the English language, therefore military issues will not be a problem.
The Klan and others only left the spotlight, they did not die.
...of someone who can win, which puts these dorks out of power.
I meant competent not comeptent.
If Lee Rodgers were on Fox News, this would be the tagline to his ludicrously uninformed comments about what happens to those who choose to leave the Muslim faith. I mean, these vile ignoramuses are constantly invoking the actions and beliefs of conversative radical sects to imply that all followers of Islam have the same tendencies. Of course, that's blatantly false but it appeals nicely to the fears and prejudices of an audience that suffers from a giant persecution complex. Using the same logic as these conbabblers, I could just as easily infer from the statements of Rodgers and his ilk that all Americans are simplistic fools who would prey on the insecurities and ignorant beliefs of the ill-informed just to make a buck.
Madrassa simply means "primary school" in Arabic. As in, each day, I send my kids to an American public madrassa, get it yet? The media have hijacked this perfectly innocuous word, just the way they did jihad. Please, don't let this slide. Arabs in America now can't even hold a simple conversation for fear we'll use one of the taboo words and be shipped off to Gitmo because some paranoiac neighbor recognizes a word they heard on T.V.
first, her goal is for a democratic win. while i'm sure her first choice is herself, her second choice is not a republican.
second, the clintons will have enough to do to manage and counter all the dishonest slime that will be spewed on her.
third, why waste the effort when the republican spin machine will do all they can to skew the truth and paint sen. obama as his own little san fransico liberal islamic terrorist one-man al-qaeda saddamist sleeper cell, out to legalise baby-rape, purge heterosexuals, and nuke the true christian believers in the red states.
that's why the right-wingers are so against not only public education, but good education for every human. an informed society would erode their base.
Has brought this up yet...from the article, Lee Rogers from the Morning Show had this to say:
*According to Muslim law, Islamic law, the penalty for leaving the faith is death. Today, Barack Obama proclaims his adherence to the Christian faith, he's a member of a church in Chicago -- they say he's not a regular churchgoer, but he's a member -- but will this make him a potential death target? Renouncing Islam and taking another faith is subject to the death penalty under Islamic law.*
Simple translation: a President Obama could be assassinated...ONE more reason not to vote for the guy.
Way way over the line here. Unbelivable how far these guys will go!
my comment above. We are in agreement, jeter.
I hadn't even considered the assassination implication. That IS spectacularly twisted, man!
I guess I skimmed the thread too quickly, had I read the posts more carefully I would have posted my response underneath yours being we were both addressing Lee Rodgers's remarks. Good post BTW, and sadly I don't think it's too far-fetched that IF Rogers worked for Fox that could have easily been the "tagline" to his comments. And it wouldn't shock me if Rogers could very well have been hinting that the Islamic religion takes out their revenge like a Mafia "hit".
Rogers comments jumped out at me as a SLY way of implying that a President Obama could be the victim of an assassination. Sick stuff. But it wouldn't surprise me... this is how far SOME of these Right-Wingers are willing to go to scare the electorate. Of course what Rogers is selling is a load of B.S.. There are no Islamic death squads targeting Obama. And no reason they would.
I generally believe that these talk show hosts are entitled to spew an opinion even if it borders on vile. It's up to their employers to yank them, not us to demand their removal, BUT I'm curious if Rogers remarks might have crossed a line. Any lawyers out there?
I would go so far as to say that Rogers is calling for Obama's assasination--or at least trying to plant the seed of that idea in the minds of his followers.
Why would they need to Rodgers to 'plant a seed' when upstanding folk like A.Coulter will straightup call for an assasination?
Putting my nose and moistened finger in the wind, my senses tell me that the perception of Karl and his minions regarding who is most electable goes something like this (first to last):
A woman
A Jewish woman
A black woman
A black man
A Jewish man
A Muslim man
If you were Karl Rove, who would your primary target be?
It's obvious that the Clinton war Machine is back in full force and is attempting to take Muslim Barry Obama out!!
of Mark Foley's pedophilia . . . to these uninged wingnut noise polluters, any vile, evil smear, or vile, evil act, is the product of the Clintons {either one} . . .
At this rate, its only going to be a matter of time before they accuse Clinton of having caused 9/11 through neglect of bin La - oh, never mind . . .
Laura "War Whore" Ingraham also spread this on her morning radio show.
"And that's how I decide. Bush was against abortion, so am I. Bush wanted to get correct-thinking judges on the Supreme Court, so do I. There's my criteria."
You are a voter of low expectations. Such narrow minded perspective of the world is what put him power in the first place. He and rove took FULL advantage of you with these "wedge" issues. He is also taking away some of your freedoms while he's at it.
Thanks for your small minded voting. We are losing our best and brightest in the middle east. It is part of our master plan to cause pure hell in that part of the world so we can take over their natural resources. Our solders are being used as diepensable pawns. Thanks.
those soldiers are dying so Proudchristian can look down its nose at people who aren't so interested in other people's private business.
And, unfortunately, there are enough voters like it to swing an election, or at least make it close enough to fix.
" It is part of our master plan to cause pure hell in that part of the world so we can take over their natural resources. "
And you call ME dilusional. Wow!
is that delusional like voting for the most powerful leader in the world over one issue that effects an insignificant portion of the worlds population?
Or is it more like the type of delusion were you think your a "good" Christian because you crusade against abortion while ignoring all of god's other teachings?
I just wanted to crystal clear.
The neo-con fascists are at it again. This latest smear, or swiftboating, slanders Obama, Hillary Clinton, the Republic of Indonesia (there are no madrassa there--all schools whether public or religious are required to provide general education). Indonesia is an honorable country that has struggled over the past decade to establish a true parlimentary democracy. Most Muslims (who make up about 95% of the population) have roundly rejected extremism and voted for a secular government. I lived in Indonesia off and on over the past 25 years and admire these wonderful people for their tolerance and intelligence. It is a great nation and its diverse people are proud of their multicultural society.
Barack Obama is an intelligent and honorable man. He is already far more qualified to run this country than George Bush ever will be. I would be proud to have a progressive black man or a woman be president of this country. The irony is that either would have to be twice as competent, twice as virtuous as any white candidate to have any chance to get through the primaries, let alone be elected. Who knows perhaps many Americans, after realizing what a disaster George Bush turned out to be, will now realize that being president requires intelligence and a general understanding of the world.
While I'm not exactly enamored with Hillary Clinton's corporate liberalism, I am absolutely sure that she is not behind such smear tactics. She knows what it's like to be the target of slanderous lies and inuendo.
All of this smells of the same old dirty politics of Karl Rowe and other Whitehouse fascist criminals working together with the Fox propaganda network.
Michael Savage was also harping on this (pretty annoyingly, as usual) on Friday. i caught the tail-end of that discussion, but I didn't hear that it was in reference to something from Insight or anything. Savage made it sound pretty matter-of-fact.
FOX: The Hilliary Clinton Liberals forced us broad cast this slanderous innuendo over and over again.
It isn't true that Islam mandates death of muslims who convert to other religions. I don't know where the hell they got that information from.
Many people who practise Islam make up their own rules and a lot of them have nothing to do with Islam, but more with the culture of the places in question. I had a discussion similar to this with someone who thought Islam actually mandates rape of women who bring "dishonor" to their families. The fact that this is practised in some muslim countries doesn't imply it's mandated by Islam and its merely a rule made up by the cultures that practice it. It's too bad that terrorists and crazy arab cultures have to put their own spin on islam, rather than practicing it properly as it was meant to be practiced, as a religion of peace. Perhaps the necons are right in wanting to bring democracy and western culture to the arab world. Maybe that will help to extricate the muslim world from the grip of extremism and radicalism. There simply aren't enough moderate muslims in the arab world and I think this is an issue that muslims should fix, otherwise, someone else (the West) will fix it for them in a much rougher and painful way.
What a load of nonsense.
These allegations that Republicans are behind this biographical research on Obama are supported by no more fact than the allegations that Hillary Clinton's campaign is behind this. At the present time, one would, however, observe that Hillary has the most to gain from all this, at least until major parties nominate their candidates in 2008.
Moreover, to be classified a s a smear campaign, these allegations would have to be slander, that is, untrue. Thus far, nobody in the Obama camp is denying the accuracy of any of this information. Until these are proven untrue, this isn't a smear campaign.
If Sentaor Obama and his supporters do not like this situation, I suggest they reflect on this: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/22/ryan.divorce/
What goes around comes around.
CNN debunks false report about ObamaPOSTED: 5:43 p.m. EST, January 22, 2007 Adjust font size:
JAKARTA, Indonesia (CNN) -- Allegations that Sen. Barack Obama was educated in a radical Muslim school known as a "madrassa" are not accurate, according to CNN reporting.
Insight Magazine, which is owned by the same company as The Washington Times, reported on its Web site last week that associates of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, had unearthed information the Illinois Democrat and likely presidential candidate attended a Muslim religious school known for teaching the most fundamentalist form of Islam.
Obama lived in Indonesia as a child, from 1967 to 1971, with his mother and step-father and has acknowledged attending a Muslim school, but an aide said it was not a madrassa.
Insight attributed the information in its article to an unnamed source, who said it was discovered by "researchers connected to Senator Clinton." A spokesman for Clinton, who is also weighing a White House bid, denied that the campaign was the source of the Obama claim.
He called the story "an obvious right-wing hit job."
Insight stood by its story in a response posted on its Web site Monday afternoon.
The Insight article was cited several times Friday on Fox News and was also referenced by the New York Post, The Glenn Beck program on CNN Headline News and a number of political blogs.
School not a madrassaBut reporting by CNN in Jakarta, Indonesia and Washington, D.C., shows the allegations that Obama attended a madrassa to be false. CNN dispatched Senior International Correspondent John Vause to Jakarta to investigate.
He visited the Basuki school, which Obama attended from 1969 to 1971.
"This is a public school. We don't focus on religion," Hardi Priyono, deputy headmaster of the Basuki school, told Vause. "In our daily lives, we try to respect religion, but we don't give preferential treatment."
Vause reported he saw boys and girls dressed in neat school uniforms playing outside the school, while teachers were dressed in Western-style clothes.
"I came here to Barack Obama's elementary school in Jakarta looking for what some are calling an Islamic madrassa ... like the ones that teach hate and violence in Pakistan and Afghanistan," Vause said on the "Situation Room" Monday. "I've been to those madrassas in Pakistan ... this school is nothing like that."
Vause also interviewed one of Obama's Basuki classmates, Bandug Winadijanto, who claims that not a lot has changed at the school since the two men were pupils. Insight reported that Obama's political opponents believed the school promoted Wahhabism, a fundamentalist form of Islam, "and are seeking to prove it."
"It's not (an) Islamic school. It's general," Winadijanto said. "There is a lot of Christians, Buddhists, also Confucian. ... So that's a mixed school."
The Obama aide described Fox News' broadcasting of the Insight story "appallingly irresponsible."
Fox News executive Bill Shine told CNN "Reliable Sources" anchor Howard Kurtz that some of the network's hosts were simply expressing their opinions and repeatedly cited Insight as the source of the allegations.
Obama has noted in his two books, "Dreams From My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope," that he spent two years in a Muslim school and another two years in a Catholic school while living in Indonesia from age 6 to 10.