Couric's "Notebook" rehashed debunked Obama rumors
In the April 12 edition of her "Notebook" video blog, CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric asked, "Is America ready to elect a president who grew up praying in a mosque?" and proceeded to repeat debunked rumors surrounding Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) childhood years in Indonesia.
Couric claimed that Obama's "background sparked rumors that he had studied at a radical madrassa, or Quranic school -- rumors his campaign denied, declaring that Obama is now a practicing Christian." However, in noting simply that Obama's campaign "denied" the rumors that he attended a madrassa, Couric ignored the fact that these allegations have been thoroughly debunked.
Couric also cited a March 15 Los Angeles Times article, claiming that the Times "interviewed people who grew up with Obama," and that it quoted "one of them," Zulfan Adi, saying, "We prayed in the mosque ... but not seriously." However, in a March 25 article, the Chicago Tribune challenged much of the Times' reporting. The Tribune noted that Adi -- who the Times claimed "describe[d] himself as among Obama's closest childhood friends" -- said "he was not certain" about his claim that Obama "regularly attended Friday prayers" at the mosque with his stepfather and that he "only knew Obama for a few months, during 1970, when his family moved to the neighborhood." The Tribune further reported: "Interviews with dozens of former classmates, teachers, neighbors and friends show that Obama was not a regular practicing Muslim when he was in Indonesia."
From Couric's April 12 "Notebook":
COURIC: Hi, everyone. Is America ready to elect a president who grew up praying in a mosque?
Barack Obama has arguably the most diverse religious background of any candidate ever. He was raised in Indonesia by a Christian mother and Muslim stepfather and attended a Catholic school -- but while growing up, also studied Islam. That background sparked rumors that he had studied in a radical madrassa, or Quranic school -- rumors his campaign denied, declaring that Obama is now a practicing Christian. Last month, the Los Angeles Times interviewed people who grew up with Obama. "We prayed in the mosque," one of them said, "but not seriously," noting that Obama also prayed with his Catholic schoolmates.
It's too soon to know what America will decide about Barack Obama or his background, but it's not too soon to wonder if America will see that as an asset or a liability.
That's a page from my notebook. I'm Katie Couric, CBS News.
We've sure come a long way in this country. Now a woman can read right wing talking points off a teleprompter and claim to be a journalist. God Bless America!
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Note to Katie: "BURN THE NOTEBOOK!"
When we want your opinion when delivering a 1/2 hour News program, you'll have your own show for your own opinion!!
A living, breathing example of what happens when the corporate media perverts the message!!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
The retort by CBS saying it is 'fair' to mention that this rumor has been debunked... is too little too late. Couric makes her claim on Nat'l TV... CBS makes a correction on the back page of their website. Is that "fair"? Like Obama or not... this is a royal screwing by CBS. Too little too late.
Walter Cronkite is screaming at his TV set, in sheer horror.
I've always seen Couric as an airhead, and this proves it.
You know how they get that sparkle in her eyes?
They aim a fill light at the back of her head.
Hey Easy!
Sometimes you have to sell hell with it and laugh and that made me laugh. I haven't laughed so hard since last night Scrub's episode. TGIF
In an online posting today, commenter Bill McKern stated that Katie Couric of CBS News referred to the Rutgers women's basketball team as"nappy headed hos." Couric has denied the charge. The controversy continues.
If that story appeared in the news it would be 100 percent accurate -- I made a charge, Couric denied it. But is the story truthful? Obviously not -- no reporter took the time to look into whether there's a record of Couric making a statement, or whether she had a motive to make it, or whether the person making the charge (me) had a motive to lie. In other words, the truth of the matter is irrelevant as long as the "journalist" takes the easy way out by merely reporting the "controversy."
I stopped defending Katie after her horrible "Some People" interview with John and Elizabeth Edwards. Plagiarism on her "Notebook" and now this hit piece? For the product she's puttin' out on CBS, she's grossly overpaid.
Said controversy being held as true by a few close friends, some imaginary.
Apologize Katie
This was a lie, has CBS news gone in the gutter.
This is ridiculous. If Katie cannot get her facts straight there is no reason to tune in. People watch the news to be better informed, not confused by the hogwash like that presented in this show.
At least Katie Couric is better looking (to me, at least) than so many of the "ugly old man" pundits currently doing service as tools of the Corporate Media. I still will not be able to turn the sound up, lest I damage my TV in my outrage at the lies, but if all I need is moving-picture background for some other activity, she is a considerable improvement on O'Lielly, Shammity, or even Gibson.
Well, Ginger Spice Is The Best Spice Girl.....But She's Still A Spice Girl.
She's got a very bland face, I think. Waxy looking, like a tight mask of rubber, all smooth and featureless, with nothing special to make it striking or unique. I work with better looking women than her.
Poor Katie Couric, caught in a two month TIME WARP where her news ticker must be made of papyrus chucking out data at a snail's pace.
I don't know enough about her to know whether it may be that she deliberately dredged up an old story to try to give it more wings, but will give her the benefit of the doubt. She may be so poorly informed as to think this story news,,, but thats pitiful.
She gets paid a bazillion dollars to ramble on with vague comments to influence our opinion. She'd like to influence the vote as well, but not all of us have adopted the "I hear and I obey" approach to what is called the news these days. Leave the opinion to folks like us who like to blog about how we see things. A high paid reporter should be a reporter and not use the reporter costume to deceive the public.
Hey Slim, Welcome To The World Of Corporate Media. This Installed Brought To You By Viacom.
Speaking of real journalists, Free Speech TV will be airing Greg Palast's latest video peice, a trip to New Orleans to survey the massive damage that's still not been cleaned up. I'm looking forward to watching that.
desperate ratings call for desperate measures, get out there and be sensational katie, engage in rumour mongering and half-truths... you'll be right up there with Hannity & O'Reilly soon enough.
Let Couric blather on about the Democrats. She is such a loser.
We know what's really going on. The email storm is brewing for Republicans. Karl Rove is a Blackberry junkie. Not one email from him has been turned over. Wassup Karl? Are you hiding something? Why? Just for the sake of hiding it? You're such an innocent kidder . . . [link to www.tpmmuckraker.com] /> Senator Leahy says you're lying Karl. Karl lie? Never! Mr. Karl "Caught Red Handed Lying About Having Nothing To Do With Outing Our CIA Agent Plame" Rove would never lie. Never. And he has built up such credibility with his sweet-nothing campaign tactics over the years, like claiming McCain fathered an illegitimate - horror of horrors - black child, or McCain doesn't support the military, or McCain is somehow connected to - double horror of horros - gay people. All of this is to say nothing of Karl's leading hand in the current scandal du jour. In the purge of Justice Karl just sat right back while the White House tried to shove Harriet Myers over the cliff for him in a brilliant sacrifice. Too bad those bad emails from your minions surfaced Karl. They were so stupid. Good thing you are so much smarter than that and will never give up your emails to let the truth out. Thank Goodness America is safe from the truth with people like you at the helm running our Country. Nothing to worry, right Karl? Nothing to look at here, right? <WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush's aides are lying about White House e-mails sent on a Republican account that might have been lost, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy suggested Thursday, vowing to subpoena those documents if the administration fails to cough them up. VIDEO: Leahy: Prosecutor e-mails not lost "They say they have not been preserved. I don't believe that!" Leahy shouted from the Senate floor. "You can't erase e-mails, not today. They've gone through too many servers," said Leahy, D-Vt. "Those e-mails are there, they just don't want to produce them. We'll subpoena them if necessary."> [link to www.usatoday.com] /> [link to rawstory.com] /> [link to www.firedoglake.com] /> And now innocent Ms. Monica "I'm A Top Justice Department Official Taking My Prophylactic 5th Amendment" Goodling is back in the spotlight. Looks like she will be lucky enough so that Congress will grant her immunity. She must be so relieved now that she can tell the truth without any possible harm whatsoever coming to her (right!). All she has to do is tell the truth. If she lies of course, she's going right to jail with Scooter. But of course she wouldn't lie now. Would she? I mean these Republicans don't lie, right? And she comes from such an honest department called Justice. Either the Attorney General Gonzales himself or Goodling's immediate superior Sampson (or more likely both) lied right through their teeth in smearing those good prosecutors who they fired because they wouldn't witchhunt Democrats. They're such an honest nice bunch. Oh the storm is brewing. The clouds are gathering for you. The Republicans who are sending our boys to die to enforce the Rule of Law in Iraq may just find the Rule of Law actually applies to them at home. They may just find there are some consequences for them for getting caught breaking the law . . . What a surprise that the most incompetent lying bunch of Republicans ever to run our country also just happen to be a bunch of lawbreakers. They are so incompetent they may just find that the law they thought they controlled actually catches up with them.
Couric has a blog. You can post a comment about her attempt to spread debunked falsehoods about Obama:
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/04/12/couricandco/entry2679014.shtml#ccmm
LOL most of the comments there slam katie hard, plus a couple desperately trying to blame Jessie and Sharpton for the Duke rape 'case'. So funny :)
Who benefits most from this rumor? I smell Hillary Clinton.
Don't worry - that will be the spin all across the Corporate Media tomorrow: "Somehow, although we cannot yet prove it, we all know that Hillary is the root cause." Some of the Righty blogs probably already started, although there may be a sanction for those who did, for failing to notify WaPo or Drudge well in advance.
"Hi, everyone. Is America ready to elect a president who grew up praying in a mosque?"
So perky . . . so ignorant . . .
The people of Minnesota didn't seem to have a problem electing a representative {Keith Ellison} who prayed in a mosque . . .
Isn't ellison in fact a CURRENT, PRACTICING Muslim?
Katie generally is criticised for being a journalistic light weight. She is widely seen as all fluff & glitter, as well as annoyingly perky. In order to counter this perception, she occasionally forays out into the world of grown up politics.
The problem is, however, that this 'seriousness' always seems to take the form of parroting RNC talking points. Who can forget the slap down that Howard Dean was forced to give her when she falsely asserted that Jack Abramoff had contributed money to BOTH parties. Or the cruel gleam in her eyes as she attempted to portray the Edwards as soulless, uncaring parents for continuing in the race despite Mrs Edward's cancer. And now here she is repeating debunked accusations against Obama that EVEN FAUX NEWS HAS STOPPED CLAIMING!
CBS might just as well hired John Gibson away from Faux, stuck him in drag, & plunked him down behind its once hallowed anchor desk.
Hey, no one in Corporate Media ever stops using a slur, completely.
Instead, they circulate the slur from one network or form of media to another, then revive it as a "what is hot" segment while it is on the other outlets, then, once every one of them has had a run with that slur, drop it back onto the "in" basket as a "retrospective" on how the electoral cycle has gone so far - but iterate each and every slur from that basket as though it were the breath-taking result of great perspicacity and an intense investigation that brings it now to light.
Personally, I feel sorry for Katie Couric. She is clearly out of her depth when it comes to being the CBS anchor; she regularly comes in last to Brian Williams at NBC and Charles Gibson of ABC. Well, Katie is behaving like that tantrum throwing child in dire need of attention.
let's face it folks..couric desperately wants hilary in the white house by any means necessary.
never seen her read the news before and i never intend to after this debacle
The girl next door has become the cat lady next door: kooky, mumbling, and drowning in clutter.
The same network that allowed Dan Rather to be pulled down by bloggers now puts this perky talking head on to read the news?
Dear Lord, no wonder nobody pays attention to the network news anymore. It's one thing when you don't correctly vet your facts, its another when you use entirely false facts and inuendo and present them as news.
Can her already!
If the media can continue to report "false" rumors about obama, who are we to assume that when the media investigated and "debunked" the rumors, they were telling us the truth? Is it so hard to believe that obama might have been involved in muslim practices? If he is such a good christian now, why wont he go to the media himself and denounce any muslim learnings/practices that he was exposed to in his youth?
Is it so hard to believe that obama might have been involved in muslim practices?
No.
If he is such a good christian now, why wont he go to the media himself and denounce any muslim learnings/practices that he was exposed to in his youth?
Not every convert has that kind of gift. To openly denounce the Islamic religion credibly, Obama would have to become fairly expert in its teachings (not just whatever he may have learned in his childhood) as well as in his current beliefs. This would take years of careful study. A legitimate Christian apologist would not only have to have at least one graduate degree in theology, but would also have to know Koine Greek, Hebrew, and tons of church history; add a concentration on Islam, and he'd need to be thoroughly acquainted with the Quran, with Islamic history, and have to have a working knowledge of Arabic. Very few people can do that, and certainly not a person currently active in politics.
Besides, Obama's strength is bringing people together, forming a consensus. His natural inclination would be to find common ground, not polarize people on the very nature of their beliefs.
The important thing to remember about Obama is whether his lifestyle is consistent with his stated beliefs (unfortunately, I feel that many professing Christians, particularly on the right, fail this test). Any past beliefs he had shouldn't matter in the slightest.
You don't need to be an expert on anything to make a comment on your own personal beliefs. If obama made a statement along the lines of this: "I am currently a practicing christian. Although I grew up with Islam around me, I do not practice that religion or anything I may have learned about it."
If that came from his mouth, it would simply set the record straight. That kind of statement doesn't segregate people of different religions either, it simply clarifies his personal beliefs. If he would just make a personal statement, we wouldn't have to wonder if the media is correct or incorrect when they speculate about him. How can we question the media when this man won't even stand up for himself?
"How can we question the media when this man won't even stand up for himself?"
-----
Don't tell me you're a Christian. Live so there will be no doubt.
The Oh-So-Pious Right wingnuts speak volumes.
All I am arguing for here is clarity, and I think you realize that...but now that you have started going down the road of personal attacks that assume things about christians and the "right," I know that you just don't want to admit that obama needs to step up.
What I find the most distrurbing aspect of Couric's commentary is how she vilifies praying in a mosque. The constant dehumanization of Muslims in the American media is a huge problem and Couric's comments, as well as this issue, is simply a tactic of using fear (Islamophobia) as a means to an end. It's wrong. Couric was wrong for agreeing to be used for this purpose and those who put her up to it are wrong.
"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." —U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Section III
What more is there to say?
There is more to say. That text was written long before muslims ran planes into our buildings, long before muslims blew up public transportation in the UK, and long before muslims went suicide bombing on an almost daily basis.
Many people think the right to bear arms is an outdated part of our Constitution because circumstances aren't the same as they were back when it was written. Many state/local laws have been made to restrict your rights when it comes to owning guns. I'm not defending a pro-gun or anti-gun stance, I'm just pointing out that there is a lot of inconsistency when bringing up what is "absolute" in the Constitution and what is open to debate about how applicable it is to modern times.
So, do we restrict it to Baptists only? Or shall we include Catholics and Methodists? How about Mormons?
Will conservatives suddenly find a part of the Constitution that is no longer applicable because their xenophobia demands it?
Oh, yeah, they've already done that...remember Habeus Corpus?
Many would argue that illegal aliens pose a greater threat to our society than terrorists. Since most illegal aliens are Catholic, shall we strike them from the list of "approved" religions?
I never said anything that even hinted towards a list of approved religions. Anyone who would just blow off the fact that a presidential candidate has a background that includes Islam is a fool (you are aware that Islamists have waged war on us, right?). By checking up on that background, nobody is passing judgement, it is a security precaution. If somebody believes that a candidate who is baptist or catholic has a suspicious background, I fully support investigating it.
However, you're changing the topic because you can't respond to a simple question: Why is it acceptable to look at some portions of the Constitution and consider them to be absolute, while looking at other portions and question whether or not they should be modified to better fit today's world?
You are aware that most mass murderers in the United States are Christians, right?
"Why is it acceptable to look at some portions of the Constitution and consider them to be absolute, while looking at other portions and question whether or not they should be modified to better fit today's world?"
I didn't respond to that question because I never advocated that position. But, since you ask, we interpret and reinterpret the Constitution all the time within the context of our present circumstances. However, dismissing certain fundamental principles because Islamic terrorists make you wet your pants seems a bit silly. "There shall be no religious test" is pretty clear, and doesn't really require any complicated interpretation. I didn't see any clause which allowed for discrimination against a given religion based on fear.
What point are you trying to make about mass murderers? I detest any mass murderer, regardless of their religion. I'm not giving free passes to christians while investigating muslims. I can't figure out why liberals always label people who advocate investigating muslim backrounds as being cowards or fearful of them. The day we aren't allowed to scrutinize a presidential candidate's past is the day America no longer exists.
Islamists, as a group, have not waged war on Americans. They are a peaceful demographic of the United States comprised of immigrants and citizens. Some Muslims around the world have been feuding with some Christians for centuries-- but their religion is no less peaceful and loving then ours (assuming that you are a Christian, John).
More people would be talking about Obama's past by now if there was much to talk about, but there is not, and it's been clear that he's an ideal candidate for the presidency for months. That is why the specious, unsourced statements Couric made are so unfair-- not to Obama, but to her viewers. Some of them likely assume that she won't provide them with blatantly false insinuations about someone's past without a solid reason.
The way you pose your above question is accusatory, and as such difficult to refute. You've inferred that gun-control laws are in violation of the second amendment, which has had more radical interpretations (on all sides of the debate) than any other. If today's world causes any of the freedoms afforded to us by the United States constitution to be compromised, it would signify an enormous step backwards for our nation.
If the masses of Muslims are peaceful, why dont they come out and publicly condemn the radicals...why don't they work to modify some of their religious doctrines to reflect their peaceful nature. Islamic religious texts clearly teach violence and refusal to accept people of other religions. Very, very few muslims on the peaceful side of the coin are calling for reformative action.
Secondly, if only 1 or 2 percent of muslims are violent, that equates to millions of them, so how can we act as if this isn't something we need look into? You are all quick to label this as discrimination or intolerance, when it is a simple matter of precaution. When you have a peaceful muslim and a violent muslim sitting next to each other, you cant tell which is which by looking at them, obviously. You need to investigate their background to find out.
First many, MANY Islamic groups have done EXACTLY that the last few times this propaganda talking point was raised I linked to a site that showed more than 50 public statements denouncing violence and terrorism. I am tired of doing the homework of rightwingers everytime they decide to ignore factual reality and repeat an already long debunked talking point in favor of their propaganda parrot duty.
Sure there are parts of the Koran that are violent. Ever read Kings? Chronicles? It is easy enough to take Biblical quotes out of their context and make the same argument against Chistianity. Stop trying to make this a Holy War. Its not in anyones best interest. The problem is not Islam. The problem are a group of extremists WITHIN Islam. Lets go get them. Lets fight them I am all for it. Lets not mulitply our enemies but just defining them AS our enemies. Lets stop using terrorism as an EXCUSE for imperialistic ventures like Iraq. Lets not give in to bigotry. I know Muslims, some of them are among the most generous, kind and God loving people I have ever met. A terrorist attack by people who WERE Muslims dont justify bigotry against Islam.
I never said it did justify bigotry, I said that because these extremists exist, and can basically move around within the muslim community without detection, we need to be precautious when dealing with them. I work in the public sector, and in my staff, I have a muslim who comes from pakistan. She is a great person and I enjoy working with her. It doesn't make me a bigot or reliously intolerant to be curious about her background...who knows if her family funds/donates to groups linked to terror? Nobody, unless you investigate. So yes, I think racial/religious profiling is very appropriate when it comes to questioning terrorism and the religion of Islam.
More importantly, investigating a presidential candidate's background that involves Islam is critical. Especially when he refuses to step up and tell the American people exactly what he does or does not retain from his exposure to Islam throughout his childhood. Discussing it briefly in a book that people have to go out and purchase doesn't cut it for a presidential candidate in question. AND the fact that Obama is known to be a blatent liar (over a year ago declaring that he would not run for the presidency or vice presidency) make it more important that his past exposure to Islam stays in the spotlight until he gives a public statement about it.
Oh, and I would like to add....if 50 or so muslim groups have spoken out against radical Islam, that is 50 out of 999,000,000 peacefuls....to be conservative with numbers , that equals much less than 1%. So, I was correct in telling you that very few are speaking out against this. Check your numbers before you post your "facts." Also, do your homework on Islam...it is a religion that wishes to eradicate every other religion. They would glady cut your head off before trying to understand you. Think about it, solon.
Oh, and I would like to add....if 50 or so muslim groups have spoken out against radical Islam, that is 50 out of 999,000,000 peacefuls....to be conservative with numbers - john174541842
There are a billion Muslim groups? "Conservative" means different things in math and politics, I guess.
There are about 1 billion muslims estimated to be in the world. I'm just proving my point that the ones who are speaking out against radical Islam are an extreme minority. Lets pretend that 1,000 peaceful muslims belong to each of the 50 groups that Solon mentioned. Thats 50,000 out of a billion, still far less than 1 percent. The day any of you can prove that there are more moderate/peaceful muslims speaking out against the radicals than there are radical muslims is the day I'll start to think that Islam is getting on the right track to ridding itself of the trouble makers.
Anyone who would hold someones religion against them Islam, Bhuddist, or worshipping the red and gold frog that jumped into their yard is not only a fool but un-American. The constitution is clear that there be no religious test for office NONE. SOME Islamic terrorists have declared war on us, which no more means all of Islam is at war with us or that an American who is Islamic is an enemy than it means they are more likely to hate mexican food its irrelevant to anyone but bigots and fools.
The two term limit on Presidents was written long before we twice elected a complete moron who lied us into an ill-conceived, optional war. I think we need to reduce that to one term...just to be safe.
The fact that Muslims flew planes into our buildings says nothing more about Islam than the fact that a Catholic blew up the Murrah building or that the BTK killer was a leader of his Christian Church in Tulsa or that Jim Jones and David Koresh considered themselves to be Christians. So did Rios Montt and Somaza both outright butchers. The message should not be blamed for the twisted messengers. The Constitution is whole Barbara Jordan was famous for saying during the Watergate hearings. Its precepts are still good ones. Bigotry against a whole religion caused by the evil actions of SOME of its adherents makes no sense.
As for suicide bombings look up the most extensive study ever done on the issue by Robert Pape. They arent done for religious reasons and the group who by far has done more than any group in the world not only isnt Muslim its not even religious. Its a quasi Marxist group called the Tamil Tigers. I notice that when the worlds worst terrorists were Jews to get their homeland or when they were Catholics in the IRA it was not blamed on their religion but that there was a political basis for their terrorism. Which no more excuses it than if it WERE religious. Now that the terrorists are Islamic there seems to be a ton of people that pretend those political reasons dont exist and their religion has made them evil.
What point are you trying to make about mass murderers? I detest any mass murderer, regardless of their religion. I'm not giving free passes to christians while investigating muslims. I can't figure out why liberals always label people who advocate investigating muslim backrounds as being cowards or fearful of them. The day we aren't allowed to scrutinize a presidential candidate's past is the day America no longer exists.
You said "I didn't see any clause which allowed for discrimination against a given religion based on fear. " --Nobody is discriminating or preventing obama from running for office based on his religious affialiations of the past. This is really about giving the people full information and letting them place their vote based on that full information. Is full information too discriminatory for you?
Is America ready for a female CBS Evening News anchor? If so, does it have to be this one?
It boggles the mind that a national newscaster would be so ignorant of the news. This story wasn't just debunked; it was laughed off the air months ago.
But this entire episode begs the question: so what? And is anyone probing Katie's religious beliefs, or lack thereof, when she was seven years old? "Some people say" she believed in witches and fairies back then. Is this the kind of person we want reading the news to our nation's youth?!
I watched Katie Couric's Notebook item on Obama and was not entirely surprised that she botched the point she was probably trying to make: Barack Obama personifies American diversity in the 21st Century.If you saw her narration of the opening ceremonies at the Olympics, you would agree that Katie falls woefully short of the knowledge of and standards set by Walter Cronkite and other predecessors at CBS News. She is a prime example of how network news has been dumbed down in the belief that Americans are idiots.Katie reads whatever her editors put in front of her and doesn't take the time to consider or have the presence of mind to recognize that what she says skews the news or can offend. Executives at CBS have already been burned by Don Imus. To paraphrase her notebook report of Obama, "it is only a matter of time before the network figures out if she is an asset or liability."
To JOHN: You don't distinguish between Muslims and Muslim terrorists. You seem to suggest that if someone really is a Muslim, they're a serious security risk. Fuzzy thinking. Perhaps there should be some shred of additional evidence to indicate someone is a terrorist.
You also say you only want people to have full information about a candidate. But you don't want to recognize the full information that is already there about Obama.
Read his first book, a candid memoir written right after he graduated from Law School, long before he went into politics. There's no agenda in it. He admits to the good, the bad and the ugly.
He was raised by his mother who he described as spiritual but not a fan of organized religion. He upbringing was non-religious, but he did attend a Catholic school for two years in Indonesia where he recited some Catholic prayers (along with his reading writing and arithmetic) and a Muslim public school where he had to recite some Muslim prayers (also along with the reading writing and arithmetic.) CNN visited the Indonesian public school and confirmed that it was a normal school, not a radical Muslim school.
In his book, you can see him evolve as an adult from an agnostic to a Christian, converting in his 20's. He has attended the same church for over 20 years. He was married there. His kids were baptized there. Why, in anybody's mind, does two years as a child attending a Muslim school outweigh over 20 years as a practicing Christian?
(Also, not that there is anything wrong with being a good Muslim. This country believes in freedom of religion. Only a very tiny minority of Muslims are terrorists, just as only a tiny minority of Christians are murderers.)
yeah yeah yeah...obama...the man who promised that he would not run for president when he was elected into the senate because "he did not have the necessary experience." Since he has already been proven to be a liar about that, what makes you think that he is being truthful about his past?
Keep in mind this statement by a muslim convert to christianity (I forget the name of the individuall): "It is a fact that not every muslim is a terrorist, but it is an unfortuanate fact that most terrorists are muslims."
Finally...a CNN report that dubunked his muslim school? That is about as reliable as getting your evening news from the corner crack dealer. Why is it so hard for you to accept that it is beneficial for us to investigate obama's muslim background as much as we can?
And it is a fact that in the early part of this century the most of the Worlds worst terrorists were Jews in terrorist groups like the Stern group, politically they were trying to get a homeland. We aknowleged the political component and didnt blame it on Judaism. In the 60's most of the worlds worst terrorists were Irish Catholics in the IRA, they were trying to get the British out of Ireland we didnt blame that on Catholocism. In the 70's there was a whole array of terrorist groups mostly in Europe and mostly secular but we didnt blame it on secularism. We didnt condone them but aknowledged the POLITICAL component to the actions. The Middle East is largly Islamic and is one of the most politically unstable regions in the world but since it is now ISLAMIC groups that are doing the terrorism suddently bigots want to blame it on Islam and IGNORE the same political rationales. Terrorism is evil no matter what its reasons but bigotry is not a positive reaction. Islam is NOT THE PROBLEM. Those who try to make it the problem are part OF the problem and not part of the solution.
Obviously she's giving legitimacy to right wing accusations and attacks, by just bringing up the subject of Madrases, knowing damn well just mentioning the word Muslim now days, is a scarlet letter. You know it's like her saying, we'll he went to bomb making class, but feel asleep. All is well. Perhaps rather than repeating fabricated & debunked stories, she can explain why CBS didn't mention the White House EMAIL sCANDAL, Friday night.
The surreal interview of John and Elizabeth Edwards, and now the blatant attempt to trash Barak HUSSEIN Obama leads me to believe that Karl Rove is now doing Courics colonoscopies. Someone should ask her that on tv and make her deny it.
But wait. CBS has "CORRECTED" their blog entry AFTER-THE-FACT. And they cleverly removed all the comments. How big of them.
cbsnews.com/sections/couricandco/main500803.php?start=10&dir=couricandco
So CBS News is now officially on my Lying Media Bastards list.
CBS, once the Tiffany's of network television news, has gone from Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite, and Dan Rather to Katie Couric. What an abysmal declension. Two weeks ago she insulted the Edwardses for making difficult, personal life choices while she repeated Limaughesque "some people" accusations that were clearly talking points fed her from the right. Yesterday, discussing Barack Obama, she again parroted more right-wing blather about his religious upbringing in Indonesia, rumors that had already been investigated and proven untrue.
Firing Don Imus was a good start. Now get rid of the highest paid TV news bimbo ever. Hire Christiane Amanpour and restore dignity and intelligence to CBS News.
Seems that Couric needs at least a few smart people around her to protect her from stumbling from one problem to another.