Hannity just can't "get over" his Rev. Wright obsession
Sean Hannity -- who claimed he "broke the story" about President Obama's controversial former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, during the 2008 campaign -- has mentioned Wright on at least 45 different episodes of his Fox News show* since Obama's inauguration. Indeed, his repeated references to Wright -- most recently in discussions about Obama and race relations in America -- have prompted his own guests to comment, "You always want to bring up Reverend Wright," and "Sean, you need to get over it."
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Hannity brought up Wright in discussions of Gates arrest
July 30: Hannity: "Now are people going to look a little bit more closely at this case? Are they going to look at the 20 years in Wright's church?" Discussing the controversial arrest of Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., Hannity said: "Let's look at this this way, because a lot was discussed about the issue of race prior to this election. Will America -- has America grown and overcome its past wrongs and injustices, and will America elect an African-American president? All right, that -- we now know the answer to that question, which I think is a good thing for the country. But now the question is, he was supposed to be post-racial. Now are people going to look a little bit more closely at this case? Are they going to look at the 20 years in Wright's church?" [Hannity; 7/30/09]
July 29: Hannity: "I don't want to keep bringing up Reverend Wright, but I think it -- I think it's relevant here." National Review editor Rich Lowry said: "And Henry Louis Gates' reaction to policemen showing up to his door based on an innocent call reflects that mindset. And the great benefit of Barack Obama during the campaign is he didn't seem to buy into that mindset at all. And now he's taking a step towards it." Hannity responded, "Look, this goes back, and I don't want to keep bringing up Reverend Wright, but I think it -- I think it's relevant here." [Hannity; 7/29/09]
July 27: Hannity: People "said guys like Hannity are wrong ... [Obama is] not Reverend Wright. And now maybe they're going to see another side of him." Hannity said: "But in that sense is that why maybe this Gates issue is important? Because people gave him the benefit of the doubt. They said guys like Hannity are wrong, that just -- they gave -- he's not Reverend Wright. And now maybe they're going to see another side of him. Does that chip away at his personal popularity?" [Hannity; 7/27/09]
Hannity claims Obama "is Reverend Wright"
July 10: Hannity: "I've said he is Bill Ayers and Reverend Wright." Hannity said, "I've said he is Bill Ayers and Reverend Wright. Not Bill Ayers the terrorist; Bill Ayers, the political radical. All right." [Hannity; 7/10/09]
July 1: Hannity: "I think he is ... Ayers and Wright." Hannity said, "And this is my take -- which makes you mad, Kirsten [Powers, Fox News political analyst] -- I think he is Ayers and Obama -- Ayers and Wright. Not Ayers the terrorist; Ayers the radical." [Hannity; 7/1/09]
June 22: Hannity: "I think he is Reverend Wright. I think he hid it well, but I think he's now implementing and proving me right." Hannity said: "But the idea, though, in his heart and in his soul, as you predicted and now you see the implementation of, the radical socialist agenda, the weakening of national defenses, his unwillingness to even speak out for freedom as we've been discussing, show a weakness with North Korea. All these things. You know, you think it's about what? Who is this person? Look, I said this statement, and every time I say it, people say, 'Hannity, you're going over the line.' But I think he is Bill Ayers." Fox News contributor Dick Morris responded, "Yeah." Hannity continued, "And I'm not -- not the terrorist, I think he shares the political ideology. I think he is Reverend Wright. I think he hid it well, but I think he's now implementing and proving me right." [Hannity; 6/22/09]
Hannity invoked Wright to bolster claim that Obama is in "blame America first" camp
Hannity brought up Wright while misrepresenting Obama to claim he engaged in "blam[ing] America first." As Media Matters for America documented, on April 3, Hannity played a clip of Obama saying in an April 3 speech in Strasbourg, France: "In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America's shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive." Hannity then said, "And the liberal tradition of blame America first, well, that's still alive. But should we really be surprised from a man who sat in Reverend Wright's church." In fact, immediately after the part of the speech Hannity played, Obama criticized anti-Americanism in Europe as well as Europeans who "choose to blame America for much of what's bad."
Guests call out Hannity on his Wright obsession
Lowry to Hannity: "You do want to bring up Reverend Wright. You always want to bring up Reverend Wright. Don't lie to the American people." In a discussion about Gates with Lowry, Hannity said: "Look, this goes back, and I don't want to keep bringing up Reverend Wright, but I think it -- I think it's relevant here. In as much as he sat in that church for 20 -- " Lowry responded: "That's not true, Sean. You do want to bring up Reverend Wright. You always want to bring up Reverend Wright. Don't lie to the American people." [Hannity; 7/29/09]
Fortune editor Nina Easton: "Sean, you need to get over it."
HANNITY: Nina, if I would have written this out on paper --
EASTON: Yes.
HANNITY: -- that a presidential candidate sits in Reverend Wright's church, "G-d America," "America's chickens come home to roost," all the stuff that he said, and he defends him, sat there 20 years, and starts in Bill Ayers' house.
EASTON: Sean -- Sean, you need to --
HANNITY: You're going to tell me to get over it. Come on.
EASTON: Sean, you need to get over it. OK?
HANNITY: I can't help myself.
EASTON: This was a -- this was an -- this was an issue that was thoroughly written about, talked about.
HANNITY: No, it wasn't.
EASTON: Yeah.
HANNITY: No, it was not.
EASTON: Oh, yes it was, Sean. And the voters decided. [Hannity; 5/19/09]
Transcripts
From the July 30 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
HANNITY: Let's look at this this way, because a lot was discussed about the issue of race prior to this election. Will America -- has America grown and overcome its past wrongs and injustices, and will America elect an African-American president?
All right, that -- we now know the answer to that question, which I think is a good thing for the country. But now the question is, he was supposed to be post-racial. Now are people going to look a little bit more closely at this case? Are they going to look at the 20 years in Wright's church? Are they going to look at his radical friends Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers that blew up the Pentagon and the Capitol, and are they going to say --
NOELLE NIKPOUR (Republican strategist): He couldn't resist it. He couldn't resist it. That's why he jumped in it, and not knowing all the facts. I mean, and look.
HANNITY: He couldn't resist it. Why?
NIKPOUR: He couldn't resist coming out of it.
HANNITY: Because this is who he really is?
NIKPOUR: Absolutely. You can't sit in someone's church for all those years and not have any recollection of anything.
HANNITY: A guy that -- a guy that --
NIKPOUR: I can't believe it.
HANNITY: -- doesn't have a fond view of America?
NIKPOUR: Absolutely.
HANNITY: A guy that has racist views? Looks at America --
From the July 27 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
MORRIS: Well, you know, there is this undercurrent that goes on. I remember back to the days before the election, when you kept talking about Reverend Wright, and I said that Reverend Wright and Obama are two completely different people. Well, I think I was wrong.
HANNITY: Yeah.
MORRIS: So now I'm not going to say that. I think that you really --
HANNITY: That's right. Any time you want to come on the show and admit I was right, Dick, you're welcome to say --
MORRIS: That's right. I know, you were.
HANNITY: But there is a connection. And I felt very strongly about this at the time, and I feel so today. That if you spend that amount of time, any of us can have --
MORRIS: Sure.
HANNITY: -- a bad association, but after you realize somebody is really extreme, you disassociate from them. He never did that.
MORRIS: Never did that. You know, police -- black-police relationships is the only field in which there is a substantial difference between black and white perceptions. You don't have it on crime or on affirmative action or anything else, but you have it on police relations. The whites say there is no bias; the blacks say there is a bias.
And it runs very, very deep in the black psyche that this is the case, particularly with the black middle class, because they feel the equal of whites, and they are, except when they're in the car they feel the cop is picking on them. And it's kind of like -- they always feel like they have to watch themselves, because they're worried about that. And I think that that runs so deep in the psyche that I think Obama blurted it out.
HANNITY: Let's talk a little bit about these polls and political trends. The president now has his lowest presidential index on Rasmussen, minus 11 now. If you look at the politicians that are in trouble, we got Corzine, Paterson --
MORRIS: Right.
HANNITY: -- two governors in New Jersey and New York. Chris Dodd, Harry Reid, Pelosi, Boxers, at record low numbers. When you look at that, how do you interpret these trends?
MORRIS: Clearly there has been a major trend in the last month, two months, but certainly the last month away from Obama. Every single poll has him dropping, has the Democratic Party dropping, has health care reform dropping, and the interesting thing about this is we always liked Obama more than we liked his programs.
Now he's using his popularity to sell his programs. The problem is that's lowering his popularity, and the lower his popularity gets the less likely health care is to pass. So when he pushes health care he's hurting health care, because he's bringing down the ratings that he needs to get it passed.
HANNITY: But in that sense, is that why maybe this Gates issue is important? Because people gave him the benefit of the doubt. They said guys like Hannity are wrong, that just -- they gave -- he's not Reverend Wright. And now maybe they're going to see another side of him. Does that chip away at his personal popularity?
MORRIS: Yeah, it does a great deal, and it makes him suspect on all of his positions. But it's not so much that he's pro-black. It's that he's coming across as anti-police. And the real issue here is not respect for the black community, but respect for the men in uniform.
From the July 10 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
RON DANIELS (radio host): My criticism of Barack Obama is he's not bold enough. He's too cautious. He's too pragmatic. He should have [inaudible].
NIKPOUR: No, he is radical. He is a radical.
HANNITY: I -- we'll end it on that accurate note. I've said he is Bill Ayers and Reverend Wright. Not Bill Ayers the terrorist --
NIKPOUR: You got that right.
HANNITY: Bill Ayers, the political radical. All right.
NIKPOUR: You got that right.
HANNITY: Guys, good to see you. Thank you.
From the July 1 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
HANNITY: For the first time in my adult life, I am concerned about the future of this country, the economy, unilateral disarmament.
MORGAN BRITTANY (actress): Me too.
HANNITY: And I feel we have a president that doesn't understand America's historic role in the world.
BRITTANY: Exactly.
HANNITY: And this is my take -- which makes you mad, Kirsten -- I think he is Ayers and Obama -- Ayers and Wright. Not Ayers the terrorist; Ayers the radical.
KIRSTEN POWERS (Fox News political analyst): I just couldn't disagree with you more.
HANNITY: I think it's true, and he shows it every day.
POWERS: And I can tell you, I think he's a fantastic president.
* Examination of Nexis hits for (show(Hannity) & Wright) after January 20.
Rev. Wright Blames "Them Jews" for Keeping President From Talking to Him
That was from june 11th, and that is why he is still talked about.
Your text to link here...
He'll say anything, Tell any lie, that's what makes Sean so Sad.
Once apon a time i held out hope for Sean, that someday the truth would come Thru.
Poor Sean, Why don't you ask Lou Dobbs to appear on your show? Don't you think his time is Due.
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
To give your meter a kick
It's quite broken here
And I have great fear
That it will make a real poet quite sick
There's no two ways about it.
Get him off the air.
Here is another.
In Hannity's head
Sounds of angry pointless rage
Loud, and yet hollow
http://www.natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives/030703/030703h.htm
Will someone please ask him "You sat in those pew's for 20 years while boys were being molested and priests shielded fron justice"
O'Reilly's diocese as well
Living in the south, I see these ridiculous bumper stickers that say "I am am thankful for the 1000s of good priests". So where were all these "good priests" during the decades of coverup?
Your analogy might make sense if the priests at Hannity's parish were molesting boys while Hannity was a parishioner and if Hannity knew about it at the time.
(As a lifelong Catholic, I am deeply offended and outraged more than most about the crimes committed by those Catholic Priests against young boys. I fully support all criminal sanctions against the priests and bishops who let this happen.)
He also said nothing about the Irish Reform school scandal that went on for over 50yrs. Both of these are far worse than some intemperant comments by Rev Wright.
I'm sure most of use at one time have sat in some church and have rolled our eyes at some of the comments.
Your post is laughable to imply that taking calls on air from some nut every now and then and trying to help the caller with the caller's drug problem makes Hannity a white Supremest?
Thanks for today's laugh.
Beyond Victor's,POV has one saying Wright can't talk to Obama because of the Jews??
Wrong isn't eggactly Wright.
They're spelled differently.
I think its fairly usual for an AbnormalAmerican post. What am I missing?
Mr. Turner seems more than just some guy who calls in for advice on his cocain addiction.
If I've misremembered that, I apologize. Otherwise, the best case scenario is that he picked it up from someone without giving two seconds' worth of thought that the "N" might have some relation to skin color.
Is the existence of these two people supposed to shield AA from any criticism of what he says?
So please specify exactly what the hell you're talking about. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke in order to defend one of your ideological comrades. Thank you in advance.
Thanks for the attempted explanation of my comment.
As you concluded, it was a a little snark on my part as you have stated and I had no derogatory racial intent.
For the record, the "Not Us" was consistent as Obama at the time was making one apology after another. Anyone who reads my posts knows I do not engage in racial slurs.
I've explained that many times but a certain troll likes to bring it up. I had never heard of the racial connotation for NOTUS either before or since except here by liberal and progressive posters using it as an ad hominem attack against me.
Anyway, thanks for the post. Lets discuss the issues. That is more fun.
At least you did after he was able to twist your words a little. The dishonesty of this guy is remarkable.
April 2: "It is true, as my Italian friend has said, that the (economic) crisis began in the U.S. I take responsibility, even if I wasn't even president at the time."
-- President Obama, at the G20 in London, as reported by Germany's Der Spiegel
Brab came to no such conclusion.He noted that your explanation made no sense, and added, very generously, that you may have simply picked up the slur without catching on to the racial connotation. The benefit of the doubt he gave you was that you may just be a little slow, as opposed to delberately making racial slurs.
I know you'd like a clean slate every day, just as most petty criminals would prefer that their record was scrubbed every day, but that's a very irresponsible mindset. Why would there be any incentive for you to improve your behavior if you got to start over every day?
Mentioning your history is NOT an ad hominem attack, and it's very much on-topic.
I dont understand why that bothers you so much Col.
You have no problem when gates says "whitey", or when wright talks about "them jews" Why the double standard? Why do you approve of some comments, but not others? Why aren't you man enough to say they were all inappropriate?
You should just sum up all of your posts with that.I have a hard time believing anybody is that thick, but I'll play along.
I never said I approved of any of the comments.I don't know where you got the idea that some "bother me" so much, when I described it as a laugh.
But, can you see a difference between ;
A. A black man, 40 years ago, encountering the people in charge at a university, while asking to be judged on his merits, and not on his race, using the term
"whitey"?
and
B. An old white man, in the 21st century, using the "N" word to refer to the first African-American president of the United States?
Are you man enough to admit that you shouldn't be threatened by Gates' use of the word "whitey" four decades ago,but should condemn AA's use of a racial slur today?
Stop pretending to be such an idiot. If you're not pretending, I apologize, and would just ask you to try a little harder to overcome your idiocy.
Finally, for once, you did not bend over backwards to defend Wright. But Gates still gets a pass for his behavior then and now. His behavior 40 years ago was the same kind of thing that got him arrested this time.
But I guess it is easy for you, I mean you write the rules as you go along, and of course make exceptions for any racist dem with an ax to grind.
When you tolerate one racist view and allow it to go unchallenged, you give your silent approval to them all. But I guess thoughts like that are above your pay grade.
I have said the comments by all were WRONG. You cant even do that. You are not man enough to say that what gates said then and what wright is saying now is wrong. You have no principles or core values.
I don't mind answering your questions, even if you're not man enough to answer mine, but if you can try expressing yourself a little more clearly, that would be a big help.
Is that clear enough?
Have you screwed up the bollix to answer any of the questions you've been asked here, or should I assume you've just given up, or "Palin-ed out"?
And please Col, what have I not answered to your satisfaction.
A. A black man, 40 years ago, encountering the people in charge at a university, while asking to be judged on his merits, and not on his race, using the term
"whitey"?
and
B. An old white man, in the 21st century, using the "N" word to refer to the first African-American president of the United States?
UNless you think that your confused comments are indirectly answering that you don't see any difference.
Very simply....Both were wrong. The former used race in a negative way against a selection committee, and it was uncalled for,unwarranted, and disrespectful.
The later used race in a negative way against the President and it was uncalled for, unwarranted, and disrespectful.
I think the overall motives behind both were the same.
My comments before were neither rambling or confused. I said they were both wrong. I hope the additional explanation clarifies the answer.
I like your answer just fine. I always like having things confirmed.
And the answer usually just confirms what I already thought I knew.
Data please. Verified links to actual behavior patterns, NOT someones "take" on it.
BTW I don't think anyone who hasn't experienced rasicsm has much right to talk about someone who has experienced racism.
This troll set you up with a straw man argument. His deliberate falsehood shows his true character I never used the "N" word to describe Mr. Obama or any other person and he knows it.
The Col. is referencing a post where I thought I was being original by using the snark "NOTUS" where I meant it to mean "Narcissist of The United States" in reference to Obama. I also found it funny that if separated, you could get two words, "NOT US" which pretty well summed up Obama's many apologies.
When people brought it to my attention that there was a derogatory racial connotation, I immediately explained myself and apologized for any misinterpretation. Any reasonable person, like Brab above, is willing to give me the benefit of the doubt. that should have been the end of it.
However, some individuals here ignore that and continue to act trollish by bringing this up every now and then.
Perhaps the Col. who brought this up matter up in this thread would be happy to list the number of times his posts in reference to me and others that have been pulled for offensive name calling?
He won't tell you. He is simply a troll.
If you're trying to call my question a strawman because nobody can read your mind,that is, nobody can prove that you were slipping in a racial slur, then just consider the white man in the question a hypothetical. The question remains the same, and Pointofview answered it.
As bad as the "narcissist" explanation was (and Brabantio has told you,once again, why it makes no sense), you may have been better off sticking with it, for a few reasons.
You slipped "NOTUS" into a commment with no preceding reference to Obama as a narcissist, and no explanation of the acronym in your post, and it's a little difficult to believe that you would be unaware enough to use any "N" word unexplained in reference to a black person...BUT...There have been items here about Rush Limbaugh using the word towards Obama, so you may have been able to convince some people you had just been programmed to use it.
Here's why your second, backup alibi hurt you;
1. For the same reason O.J. Simpson lost the benefit of the doubt with many people during his murder trial. He couldn't stick to one alibi (chipping golf balls turned into something else that was in conflict with his original testimony).
2. After years of failed attempts at the simplest jokes, you're expecting long-time posters here to believe that you're suddenly doing complex, multi-layered comedy. A bit far fetched.
3. The contradiction, noted many times between Narcissism and apologizing.
4. POTUS rhymes with Lotus. "Not Us" doesn't. Doesn't pass the smell test.
When people brought it to my attention that there was a derogatory racial connotation, I immediately explained myself and apologized for any misinterpretation
TRanslation: Busted and backpedaled.Whether through ignorance or deliberately trying to drop a slur with some plausible deniability,you stepped in it big time.
Since you are going back to O.J. As Johnny Chochran famously said, "if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit."
In this case, the glove definately fits. You've been flagged repeatedly for trolling. The definition of which is:
A member of an internet forum who continually harangues and harasses others. Someone with nothing worthwhile to add to a certain conversation, but rather continually threadjacks or changes the subject, as well as thinks every member of the forum is talking about them and only them. Trolls often go by multiple names to circumvent getting banned.
Even with your faulty memory and dishonest posts, and also having to change your name, thanks for proving my point.
I was put on "probation" once, after you became increasingly angry at my reasonable questioning of your comments.
BTW, I changed my name voluntarily, not because of any banning, and before you had ever tried to censor me. It was just out of boredom, not because I "had to" change it. Another lie on your part.
Your definition of troll is pretty accurate. Look in the mirror.
No worries, you explained it and said you were sorry. If you were truly a racist, a comment like that would not be a one time thing. Since they always attack you about one comment, I think it proves the point you are not racist.
"Well, you know, there is this undercurrent that goes on. I remember back to the days before the election,..."
Yes, there has been an undercurrent of right-wing tactics to promote fear and divisiveness, focusing attention and trying to provide credibility to an intellectual and morally bankrupt base of the right wing who would jump off a bridge or stand in front of a moving train if told to do so.
Yes, Morris remembers and longs for the days a long time ago before this election. Back to the days when he and others like him lived an prospered with their idiotic, self-serving positions, maintaining the status quo before there were equal rights. And they, the radicals in the media and talking heads, now feel threatened that they're losing that control. All the have left is to trumpet fear anyway they can to divert attention from the racists they really are.
From the Wiki:
"From 1959 to 1961, Wright attended Virginia Union University,[2] in Richmond. In 1961 Wright left college and joined the United States Marine Corps and became part of the 2nd Marine Division attaining the rank of private first class. In 1963, after two years of service, Wright joined the United States Navy and entered the Corpsman School at the Great Lakes Naval Training Center.[8][13] Wright was then trained as a cardiopulmonary technician at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland. Wright was assigned as part of the medical team charged with care of President Lyndon B. Johnson (see photo of Wright caring for Johnson after his 1966 surgery). Before leaving the position in 1967, the White House Physician, Vice Admiral Burkley, personally wrote Wright a letter of thanks on behalf of the United States President.
In 1967 Wright enrolled at Howard University in Washington, D.C., where he earned a bachelor's degree in 1968 and a master’s degree in English in 1969. He also earned a master's degree from the University of Chicago Divinity School.[8] Wright holds a Doctor of Ministry degree (1990) from the United Theological Seminary in Dayton, Ohio, where he studied under Samuel DeWitt Proctor, a mentor to Martin Luther King, Jr."
Now, what has Hannity done for this country, except gwtting paid by Roger Ailes to keep her divided...?
(1) Find out who the sponsors are of these shows. (In the case of Glenn Beck, GM, Nestle, Kraft, and Sprint to name a few.) Just go on their websites and look!)
(2)"HIT EM' IN THE POCKET!" Go to the sponsors websites and send them a message via their contact forms, RE: SUBJECT: "I WILL NO LONGER SPONSOR RACISM!" TELL THEM, I WILL NO LONGER BUY YOUR PRODUCTS BECAUSE YOU SPONSOR LOU DOBBS, GLENN BECK, RUSH LIMBAUGH, ETC.
(3) THEN, TELL YOUR FRIENDS AND ASSOCIATES TO DO THE SAME. YOU CAN CUT AND PASTE THE TEXT FROM HERE!
(4) Then, PUT YOUR $ WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS. DO NOT BUY THESE COMPANIES PRODUCTS ANYMORE, UNTIL THEY STOP SPONSORING THESE LUNATICS. That will teach CNN, Fox News, and others, for putting these lunatics on the air. You may miss your Nestles crunch bar for a while, but they will get the idea. WE CAN DO THIS PEOPLE!
Here's a radical concept: if many people object to something, then it's probably objectionable. Sponsors can take that as they like. If they think they're going to take a hit because they're sponsoring someone who's crossed a line, then they can take action to protect their good name. If there isn't that sizable (or valid) of an uproar in their opinion, they can continue to sponsor the person. I have no idea what makes this unfair. Is the idea that you can't mathematically quantify how "wrong" something is, therefore the public shouldn't express their opinion, or what?
There has to be some way of dealing with people who are acting irresponsibly. Would you agree with that? You wouldn't want some wacko left-winger kept on the air, no matter how far over the edge they went, would you? I don't think you would. So what would you recommend? If you get your feathers all ruffled up over the idea of the public doing something, the only recourse you're allowing is...
Wait for it...
The government!
Whether it's effective or not is beside the point. You spouted out "silence the opposition", which doesn't take into account the validity of the complaint. And whether you would ever speak up for what you think is right is not particularly relevant either. That doesn't say anything about the propriety or legitimacy of those actions taken by other people.
It is OK for conservatives to try to silence their critics.
It is bad for liberals to try to attain the same.
Viva la difference.
-- Peter Halsten Thorkelson
The good this country has done for the world FAR outweighs the bad. People who truly love this country and fight for it are the first to pint this out. The US is not an Empire if it were we would control half the globe. Maybe more. The real problem with people like you is you refuse to believe that evil even exists. You think that there is always a reason someone does something and if you can change that reason the evil will go away. IE it is the US policies that are to blame for terrorisms. Not the poor oppressed terrorist. Evil exists and therefore there must be someone there to stop it. Is that going to be you? I highly doubt it.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
Edmund Burke
It's not as if terrorism is going to vanish completely. But it can be marginalized.
Do you believe there are no "evil" people in America? If there are, then why hasn't anyone ever blown up the CN Tower? If terrorists hate us for our "freedoms", as we were told, why don't they attack the Netherlands? They seem more "free" than we are, socially speaking.
Is that all you wanted to address, really?
The very fact that terrorism rates and membership rises and falls shows that it is not some force of "evil" that exists independent of influencing forces. It fluctuates because of changes in the political atmosphere, and whether a cause seems compelling or not based on that atmosphere.
Evil people exploit the political atmosphere; no matter what you do there will be something that these people can exploit. IF we do to much the rally that were sticking our noses where they don’t belong do too little and your a bastard for not helping. There is nothing we can do short of agreeing to total Islamic law that we can do to appease these people.
I don't blame Bush for our Middle Eastern policy, it goes back long before him.
Were we attacked by Muslims during the 1920's? The religion was still there, and there was certainly decadence in the US at the time. We had plenty of wealth as well. Why did "evil" only sprout up after we got involved in the Middle East?
Yeah, maybe we should build a wall between us and the rest of the world?
The good this country has done for the world FAR outweighs the bad.
Boy, I think that depends on your point of view. (I know he is out there to)
There are many things the U.S. has done to help the world and different nations. Then there is all of that "meddling" that we like to do. Supporting the Shah of Iran, right wing dictators in South America, etc, etc.
If you live in a country where Americas policies have negatively affected you, you may not have the best opinion of us.
Probably true. One of the fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives is that we want to acknowledge the bad, and make the ratio skew much further on the good side, while you want to pretend the bad doesn't exist, and continue promoting it at the same time.
He continues to dumb down America, set back any hope of bi-partisan progress and sets back Race Relations several decades!!!
In reality the Birthers are merely a symptom of the Republican Party itself now devolving into a much smaller regional party, instead of a truly national one.
Crooks and Liars
And I don't even understand this
"he was supposed to be post-racial."
It's Obama fault people are still racist and ignorant?
In other words, Rev. Wright will always be an issue for Hannity as long as he's white and rich.
Daniel ........... Toronto, Canada