March 21, 2008

Is Anderson Cooper Roland S. Martin Simply Making Things Up?

On Anderson Cooper's CNN blog this morning, Roland S. Martin claims that Barack Obama's radical minister Jeremiah Wright got his "chickens coming home to roost" commentary from a former Ronald Reagan official.

One of the most controversial statements in this sermon was when he mentioned "chickens coming home to roost." He was actually quoting Edward Peck, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and deputy director of President Reagan's terrorism task force, who was speaking on FOX News. That's what he told the congregation.

He was quoting Peck as saying that America's foreign policy has put the nation in peril:

"We took this country by terror away from the Sioux, the Apache, Arikara, the Comanche, the Arapaho, the Navajo. Terrorism.

"We took Africans away from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism.

"We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians, babies, non-military personnel.

"We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with stealth bombers and killed unarmed teenage and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard working fathers.

"We bombed Qaddafi's home, and killed his child. Blessed are they who bash your children's head against the rock.

"We bombed Iraq. We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed a plant in Sudan to pay back for the attack on our embassy, killed hundreds of hard working people, mothers and fathers who left home to go that day not knowing that they'd never get back home.

"We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye.

"Kids playing in the playground. Mothers picking up children after school. Civilians, not soldiers, people just trying to make it day by day.

"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff that we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost.

"Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador said that y'all, not a black militant. Not a reverend who preaches about racism. An ambassador whose eyes are wide open and who is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said the people we have wounded don't have the military capability we have. But they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them. And we need to come to grips with that."

Martin's claim is shall we say, interesting.

The most famous single citation of "The Chickens Coming Home to Roost" was as an alternate title of the Malcolm X speech, God's Judgement of White America, where X attributed the assassination death of John F. Kennedy to the historical evils of white America at that time.

I suspect that is a far more likely source for Wright's invocation of that particular phrase, especially when we consider the historical contexts of both Wright's speech after 9/11, and X's speech after Kennedy was killed.

At best, Jeremiah Wright credits here a "A white ambassador" for saying "Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism."

There is no support provided by Martin for the claim that Peck said anything about "chickens coming home to roost," or any of the rest of what he cited.

Interestingly enough, I can't find any evidence of Peck saying anything Martin attributes to him, and the only references on Google to this are liberal blog posts that uncritically link back to Martin's article, taking him at face value.

There is no doubt at all that Peck was and has been a fierce opponent of the war in Iraq, but I'd ask you to hunt through Google yourself, and see if you can find any of what Martin claims Wright quotes from Peck.

I can't find it, and like Ace, I think Martin just might be making this up as he goes.

I will be more than happy to apologize if wrong, but Martin has not "shown his work," and until he back his claim with a direct quote, and can prove that Wright was citing Pecks' lesser known comment instead of X's infamous speech, then I have no reason to trust him.

Update: First, while this was Cooper's blog, Roland S. Martin (not this guy) wrote the post, so I was wrong in attributing it to Cooper. I've updated the text and title to reflect that.

A special thanks to PG (in the comments, who also pointed out the name flub) for providing the link this illuminating video of Wright's speech:

It is over 9 minutes long, but if you'd like to get to the portion relevant to just this claim by Roland S. Martin, pay special attention to what is said by Wright from 3:14-3:46.

Wright does indeed invoke Peck, and in particular, where Peck invokes the specific Malcolm X speech cited above.

In short, Martin is being duplicitous when he claims that Wright was citing Peck, he was instead citing Malcom X through Peck.

You wouldn't get that from Martin's blog entry, but then, I don't think you were supposed to.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at March 21, 2008 01:48 PM

If you listen to the whole sermon (admittedly, much less popular than repeating small clips of it), Wright clearly says he was watching Peck on Fox News. This is not something Cooper pulled from nowhere. Wright does not claim that he is quoting Peck directly, only that Peck upset the folks on Fox News by saying that 9/11 was caused by the anger of people in some other countries, and that those people had no armies but that they did have a lot of young men ready to kill themselves to hurt America. Peck appeared on Crossfire in Oct. 2001 and said very similar things to what Wright attributed to him. (If you think Counterpunch just posted that now, check GoogleNews -- it dates the page to Oct. 2001. Folks with LexisNexis should be able to check it as well.)

Posted by: PG at March 21, 2008 02:33 PM

Oh, and you're erroneous in attributing the post you linked to Cooper himself -- it actually was written by Roland Martin, which is why the commenters are saying "Thanks, Roland."

See how easy it is to mis-attribute?

Posted by: PG at March 21, 2008 02:39 PM

Thanks for the assist of that video, PG.

Adding to the main post.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 21, 2008 02:48 PM

You mean a liberal is making up the news? I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell ya! What would be truly shocking would be if a liberal were to tell the truth.

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at March 21, 2008 03:28 PM

I have had a few interesting email exchanges with Roland Martin. He is as extreme left as it gets. His spin is extremely dishonest as well.

Posted by: Dennis D at March 21, 2008 05:28 PM

You're welcome; thanks for updating your entry.

Martin is being duplicitous when he claims that Wright was citing Peck

Why is this duplicitous? The citation is clearly central to what Wright is saying: that a white former ambassador would critique U.S. foreign policy and would suggest that 9/11 resulted from anger at that policy. Wright's whole point is that the criticism is no longer coming just from black radicals like Malcolm X and Wright himself, but has moved toward what Wright views as the white Establishment.

If this weren't the point, Wright would just cite Malcolm X directly, X being a person that not only Wright's congregation but pretty much everyone else in America actually has heard of, in contrast to former Amb. Peck.

One can fairly criticize Martin for the shallowness of the investigation he made (I would hope that CNN gives its bloggers Lexis access so they could do some bare bones research). For example, if Wright was indeed thinking of the Crossfire episode linked in my first comment, at no point does Peck appear to have quoted Malcolm X; rather, Wright is rephrasing what Peck did say* in order to connect it with Malcolm X. Wright may be guilty of misleading his audience, though I doubt that any of his congregation actually was misled re: Amb. Peck. But "duplicity" is not a sensible accusation toward Martin, though laziness may be.

* "The difficulty that we face is that I support -- because I understand how democracy works -- we have to go out and do the sorts of things we are doing. So we will mercilessly, viciously, effectively attack and destroy all kinds of symptoms. When the rubble has settled and the dust is gone, the disease is still going to be out there untouched. Because we don't want to look at why, why it is that all of these people hate us. It's not because of freedom. It's not because Brittney Spears has a belly button or because we export hamburgers. They hate us because of things they see us doing to their part of the world that they definitely do not like."

Posted by: PG at March 21, 2008 05:48 PM

Where is the evidence that Peck actually said what Wright claimed Peck said?

A lexis nexis search for edward peck shows no references to "chickens" or "roost".

Posted by: interested at March 21, 2008 06:16 PM

Here's the original transcript from that night. Link.

No where in it does he run off a list like Martin claims. Peck does have the position that al Quaeda attacked in reaction to foreign policy, not because of our culture and lifestyle. That list, however, is all Martin.

Posted by: mishu at March 21, 2008 06:34 PM

A new one over there.

The God Damn Sermon

Posted by: E Buzz Miller at March 21, 2008 06:45 PM

I don't seems as though I keep seeing the sermon as having been preached on 9/16/01...but the Peck transcript seems to be from Oct 01. How could Wright be referencing a discussion that had not taken place yet? Is there another interview with Peck that's missing? Or are the dates just incorrect?

Posted by: Shannon at March 21, 2008 07:00 PM

Also, I'm not sure if Wright was just confused or what, but Crossfire isn't on Fox News. It's on CNN.

Posted by: Shannon at March 21, 2008 07:06 PM

The Holocaust was chickens coming home to roost for the Jews because of their discriminatory lending practices.

Every action has its reaction. So, yes, our foreign policy in the Middle East caused Al-Qaeda to commit 9/11. The real question liberals like Wright should ask themselves is whether Al-Qaeda was justified in their reaction.

Posted by: Roy Mustang at March 21, 2008 07:30 PM

Right. He repeated it because he's so opposed to that view...he just conveniently forgot to insert the part where he was supposed to say he didn't agree with it.

Easy mistake.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 21, 2008 08:11 PM

So, let me get this straight. Ambassador Peck quotes Malcolm X, and it doesn't get replayed in an endless loop on television and cause a huge controversy. But Reverend Wright quotes Peck quoting Malcolm X and it does?

Fox News is right! There IS a race-based double standard in this country. Who knew?

Posted by: slag at March 21, 2008 08:28 PM

"This song was written in New York City
a rich man, a preacher and a slave
If Jesus was to preach, what he preached in Galilee
They would lay Jesus Christ in his grave
Halle- hallelujah, they would lay Jesus Christ in his grave."
Woody Guthrie "Jesus Christ"

Posted by: chris lee at March 21, 2008 08:59 PM

Who the hell cares where he pulled the comments from!

He thought they were so great... HE REPEATED THEM!!

Posted by: Mike3481 at March 21, 2008 09:56 PM
So we will mercilessly, viciously, effectively attack and destroy all kinds of symptoms. When the rubble has settled and the dust is gone, the disease is still going to be out there untouched.

You have no idea what's going on in Iraq, do you?

chris lee, you might note, on today of all days, that they killed Jesus for what he preached in Galilee and the vicinity. In NY, he'd have the ACLU behind him. OK, maybe not the ACLU, but he'd have freedom of speech and religion.

Posted by: Pablo at March 21, 2008 10:00 PM

Pablo, you're kidding right? Chris doesn't care about Jesus, he believes in Allah

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at March 21, 2008 10:22 PM


Posted by: JRW at March 22, 2008 01:37 AM

"Every action has its reaction. So, yes, our foreign policy in the Middle East caused Al-Qaeda to commit 9/11."

Which foreign policy, Bush's or Jefferson's?

Posted by: Dan Irving at March 22, 2008 05:37 AM

They say he spoke of many things
Fools and kings
This he said to me
The greatest thing
You could ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
in return

Posted by: chris lee at March 22, 2008 07:00 AM

Maybe you should send Osama an Easter card, chris. Something all full of love.

Posted by: Pablo at March 22, 2008 09:28 AM

" In NY, he'd have the ACLU behind him. OK, maybe not the ACLU, but he'd have freedom of speech and religion."

And also in Israel. But not in any Arab controlled area of the Middle-East.

Posted by: davod at March 22, 2008 09:52 AM

Love your enemies..
naaahhh just kidding.

Posted by: chris lee at March 22, 2008 10:01 AM

Over at Balloon Juice, John Cole has put up one of his unintelligible posts related to this one (I think). As is his custom, he is all in high dudgeon about some matter related to Obama, the current love of his life. One suspects that, as is also his custom, he is merely trolling for traffic on his blog. A similar kind of problem has been observed in his teaching over the last year or so.

Posted by: M. Matt Martin at March 22, 2008 10:45 AM

Hey Chris,
Isn't spending blood and treasure to rebuild a land of enemies and win their friendship instead of just bombing them a way of loving your enemies?

Posted by: Grey Fox at March 22, 2008 11:49 AM

Grey Fox

Actually the treasure is on loan from the Red Chinese.

And our children will eventually have to repay it, most likely though higher taxes or a lower standard of living.

Posted by: The Commander Guy at March 22, 2008 12:22 PM

Just like they did the Marshall Plan, Commander... right?

Oh, wait...

Posted by: DaveP. at March 22, 2008 12:58 PM

I'm not a fan of polling because the designers can usually make them say what they want and the left controls the MSM. The polling that has come out, however, suggests that Obama shot himself in the foot with his speech and left more questions unanswered than answered. If his supporters describe that as being courageous, I hope he continues to display more courage going forward.

Posted by: daleyrocks at March 22, 2008 01:28 PM

dalerocks: "The polling that has come out, however, suggests that Obama shot himself in the foot with his speech and left more questions unanswered than answered."

That must be why 7 out of 10 polled approved of it.

Posted by: zuzu at March 22, 2008 02:26 PM

zuzu - People liked the speech just fine, but look at the polls that ask whether there are now more likely to vote for him or whether he answered the questions about the relationship. If you don't find a different result, I'll post a link or two later. GTG

Posted by: daleyrocks at March 22, 2008 02:46 PM


Well, according to that CBS poll, 70% said it makes no difference in their choice, while the "more likelies" and "less likelies" are evenly split at 14%.

Posted by: zuzu at March 22, 2008 02:57 PM

PS, 71% thought he did a good job explaining his relationship with Wright.

Posted by: zuzu at March 22, 2008 02:58 PM

These are the same percentages that think he'd be a great candidate, despite knowing nothing about his stances on issues...

Posted by: Conservative CBU at March 22, 2008 04:07 PM

Could be. Though these were all people who knew about his speech.

Posted by: zuzu at March 22, 2008 04:38 PM

So a lot of people are all in a snit because Barack Obama has a minister and close personal friend who proclaims "God damn America!"? Gee, I thought he was just being politically incorrect...

Posted by: lucslawyer at March 22, 2008 04:53 PM

zuzu - CBS made a big deal about reinterviewing the same people before and after the speech, but they did not say much and neither did you about the reaction of people before the speech. Here are a few snippets from their prespeech (poll :

"Of those voters, sixty-five percent said it didn’t make a difference in their view of Obama. However, of those whose opinion is changed, the net impact is very negative. Thirty percent said it made them have a less favorable view, whereas 2 percent said it made their view more favorable."

"Democrats are especially apt to say their views are unchanged, with 76 percent saying it has made no difference of their view of Obama, 15 percent saying it made their view less favorable and 2 percent saying it made their view more favorable." No surprises there, right?

"Sixty-one percent of independent voters say they are unaffected, but 36 percent said it made their view less favorable. Two percent of independents said it made them more favorable view."

Check out a couple of other polls:

Posted by: daleyrocks at March 22, 2008 04:53 PM

I feel approximately the same way Daley does about polls, however, Survey USA has some interesting pre-Wright and post-Wright numbers for the matchup between Obama and McCain:

Alabama, 2/28/08: McCain +14.
Alabama, 3/17/08: McCain +27.

Minnesota, 2/29/08: Obama +7.
Minnesota, 3/17/08: McCain +1.

Wisconsin, 2/28/08: Obama +11.
Wisconsin, 3/17/08: Obama +4.

Massachusetts, 2/29/08: Obama +7.
Massachusetts, 3/17/08: Tied.

That's why Obama gave The Speech... Wright hurt his polling numbers badly.

Posted by: C-C-G at March 22, 2008 04:54 PM

And I suppose all the Catholics out there are just thrilled that the republicans have a candidate who actually welcomes the endorsement of a preacher that proclaims their church to be "The Great Whore"....

Posted by: lucslawyer at March 22, 2008 05:06 PM

Gee lucslawyer, McCan came out and repudiated such remarks. That's supposed to put the issue to bed, isn't it?

Posted by: Pablo at March 22, 2008 05:19 PM

If you want to read some really silly and un American stuff, go over to that Balloon juice place. Almost everybody commenting there says that we deserved 9/11 and it was our fault. Also they all seem to support Osama bin Laden as well as Obama.

Posted by: Wow at March 22, 2008 06:10 PM

lucs, did McCain sit in this pastor's church regularly for the last 20+ years?

If not, then you really have no comparison to make, do ya?

Posted by: C-C-G at March 22, 2008 06:54 PM

Hey THAT'S sarcasm...

Posted by: lucslawyer at March 22, 2008 09:24 PM

Yeah, and it highlights hypocrisy, which makes it even better. I'm glad you noticed.

Posted by: Pablo at March 22, 2008 09:26 PM

C-C-G: Has Obama ever evinced any of this "hatred by association" with which conservatives are so eager to tar him? I credit him with the ability to discern, whereas McCain kowtowed for votes to a purveyor of religious hatred and his lame mea culpa
was that of a kid with his hand caught in the cookie jar...

Posted by: lucslawyer at March 22, 2008 09:42 PM

Has McCain himself called the Catholic church any names? Can you provide links to the credible news stories?

Keep spinning, lucs, you'll be in Beijing in time for the Olympics.

Posted by: C-C-G at March 22, 2008 10:36 PM

How is McCain's repudiation of Hagee's remarks any different than Obama's repudiation of Wright's?

Well for one, McCain didn't say that Hagee is like family to him. For two, he didn't go on about how we all have to understand where Hagee is coming from.

Posted by: Pablo at March 22, 2008 10:47 PM

unless he had a time machine, there is absolutely no way Wright is "quoting,"
"paraphrasing," or doing anything else w/ Peck's comments. The only evidence of any similar comments made by Peck on the entire internet were made on Oct. 11th. Rev. Wright made his comments on Sept. 16th. if anyone would care to explain how Wright managed to "quote" someone who didn't say anything until a month later, I would love to hear it.

Posted by: ND at March 23, 2008 02:13 AM

I am always referred back to this country's Masonic roots. If you look at the back of the dollar bill you see a pyramid, unfinished, beneath an all seeing eye. The symbolism of that is that the gap between "God" and man remains and in American society we are all called to do our part to build a more perfect union, the New Jerusalem. Hopefully, in these arguments we all come together around what will be best to insure the futherance of individual freedom, domestic tranquility, justice and provision for the common defense. We argue over the means but hopefully the ends are not in doubt.
I honestly believe that in a partisan sense this is basically a "Republican" country, in the sense that we associate that with
the preference for a strong military, right to life sentiment (by that I mean -although the average person has compassion to a woman or couple that concieves unintentionally, most people are more concerned with how they can get into a good stable relationship ,have and raise children responsibly), economically-the welfare state concept is dead. People want to know how they can provide for themselves and keep their own money.
These are the "moderate" views of the body politic that the Democrats have to address, however ideally we are the party associated with reform of institutional injustice in terms of civil rights for minorities and women, fairness in labor relations etc.
All of these points are more complicated when looked at in detail I know.

Posted by: chris lee at March 23, 2008 10:29 AM

Well, if Peck did indeed say those comments, and said them on FOX News, it's possible such comments were not noticed and then transcribed in such a way that Google would record them. All it would take would be for someone to look through the FOX News video archive, if one exists. I nominate someone other than Confed Yankee for the task, since he has difficulty figuring out blog entry authorship.

Posted by: Mike at March 23, 2008 03:00 PM

1) Can we accurately date Wright's sermon? Everyone assumes it was given the first Sunday after 9/11, Sept. 16 2001, but that may not be correct.

2) The Crossfire appearance may not be what Wright was referring to. Another blogger provides a transcript of Peck's Oct. 10 and Oct. 11 appearances on Fox News. Peck probably had had prior media appearances in which he said similar things about the effect of the Iraq bombings and sanctions on Muslims' opinions about the U.S., etc.

I find it more sensible to track down Wright's media appearances for the month of September 2001 than to declare, as ND seems to be doing, that Wright somehow knew of Amb. Peck as a critic of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, yet hadn't actually seen Peck making such criticisms. It's not as though Wright is making up Peck's position from thin air -- it's quite clearly supported by the record that Peck is white, a former ambassador and critical, even if a Google search of "edward peck chickens" doesn't turn up what one is seeking.

Posted by: PG at March 23, 2008 04:06 PM

For example, here are people on a Yahoo discussion board, in messages dated Sept. 15 2001, talking about Amb. Peck's appearance on "Channel 5." They summarized him as follows, 'He said the U.S. never slammed a plane into thousands of innocent civilians because the U.S. didn't have to. He said the U.S. in its war against terror had better start respecting others' rights. He said the no-fly zone in Iraq was not in the UN agreement that ended Desert Storm; it was simply imposed by the U.S. and "the former Great Britain." He said the U.S. lawlesly imposed its will on Panama, Granada and Haiti. The Ch. 5 guy got on his high horse and said people like Chamberlain in WW II had followed the letter of the law and let the madman Hitler go on, but Peck stuck to his guns.'

Posted by: PG at March 23, 2008 04:17 PM

There seems to be some confusion about when Rev. Wright gave the 9/11 sermon or the ‘America’s chickens coming home to roost’ sermon, in which he refers to statements made by Ambassador Peck on Fox News, and to which Peck interview Rev. Wright was referring to.

According to CNN Contributor Roland Martin, this sermon was titled “The Day of Jerusalem’s Fall” and was delivered on Sept. 16, 2001.

If this is the case, Rev. Wright could not have been paraphrasing (or “quoting”) the October 11 Interview of Ambassador Peck on Fox.

However, Ambassador Peck was apparently interviewed on Fox News in September 2001 and did provoke controversy. This statement is based upon a remark made in a column published in the October 2001 issue of “The Washington Monthly” magazine and the round of letters in response to that remark, including a letter, apparently, from Peck himself.

Quoting from the “Tilting at Windmills” column written by Charles Peters in the October issue of “The Washington Monthly” magazine: “Finally, the whole country needs to dedicate itself to understanding the world of Islam. We should not be like the repellant Fox News anchor David Asman, who treated former ambassador Edward Peck with contempt as Peck tried to help viewers understand the Islamic mind. If we're going to eradicate terrorism, we have to understand its causes in order to eliminate them.”

This statement by Peters elicited a letter, titled “T.V Diplomacy”, from Nelson Marans published in the December 2001 issue of “The Washington Monthly”. The first paragraph of this letter states: “It is difficult to believe that Mr. Peters and I heard the same Fox News interview with the former ambassador to Mauretania, Edward Peck ("Tilting at Windmills," October 2001). Instead of the mentioned contempt exhibited by David Asman, the interviewer, I felt that Mr. Peck was treated with admirable restraint, considering that his views could be considered highly inimical to the U.S., particularly in the aftermath of the atrocities at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Mr. Peck blamed the U.S. for perceived transgressions against Iraq. His claim that the U.S. constantly violates Iraqi territory by monitoring flights over that nation ignores the conditions of the agreement that ended the Persian Gulf conflict allowing such overflights.”

Finally, Edward L. Peck himself apparently responded to Nelson Marans’ letter. In a letter titled “Honored Service”, which was published in the March 2002 issue of “ The Washington Monthly”, Edward L. Peck stated: “A December letter by Nelson Marans ("TV Diplomacy") attacked me and opinions I expressed on the Fox News Channel. I'd like to respond: Our nation trained me to report others' views. While the messages may not always be what we want to hear, they should generate intelligent consideration, not attacks on the messenger. I twice served with the paratroops and had the honor of representing America as a diplomat through war, coups, attacks on my home and office, life-threatening illnesses, and four family separations for security or health reasons. My patriotism is second to none and is not open to question, certainly not by someone as uninformed as Mr. Marans.”

I have had no luck locating text or video of the Fox News interview of Edward Peck by David Asman sometime in September, 2001 after 9/11/2001. This may have been the September 15, 2001 interview referenced by PG at March 23, 2008 04:17 PM.

Here are links for the Washington Monthly column and the two letters:
Tilting at Windmills (See last paragraph in first ‘note’ of column.)

TV diplomacy. (Letters).

Honored service. (Letters).

However, Ambassador Peck had made statements broadly similar to those attributed to him by Rev. Wright in a Cato Institute policy forum on February 26, 2001.

No matter exactly which Peck interview Rev. Wright was paraphrasing in his 9/11 speech the ‘Peck’ segment was a side note to the sermon, and it is clear that Rev. Wright was cautioning that “Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. Terrorism begets terrorism.” and that his main message was to warn against this cycle of violence and that “This is a time for social transformation.”

Posted by: AO at March 23, 2008 09:06 PM

C-C-G: Has Obama ever said "God damn America."? Can you provide links to credible news stories?

Posted by: lucslawyer at March 23, 2008 10:42 PM, to McCain (1)of course he wouldn't claim Hagee was like family since it was a cynical vote gathering ploy on McCain's part (2)McCain didn't need to go on about from where Hagee was coming...pure fundamentalist Protestant religious hatred and anyone who knows anything about Hagee knows that.

Posted by: lucslawyer at March 23, 2008 10:52 PM


McCain wouldn't refer to Hagee as like family because he isn't. No other reason is needed, and would be irrelevant as there is no underlying truth to the assertion. McCain has the discerment to not rationalize hate speech as being grounded in some experience or other. Obama does not, nor does he have the discernment to put lots of distance between himself and such rhetoric long before making a run for the White House.

Posted by: Pablo at March 24, 2008 05:11 AM

"Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism."

I am pretty sure Yoda said that first.

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away.

Posted by: Ken McCracken at March 24, 2008 11:01 AM

Pablo: Why don't you just get down to whatever it is about Obama's links to Wright that bothers you think Obama has taken a cue from Wright and really hates America? you think Obama is going to let terrorists attack America willy-nilly or collaborate with them to bring the U.S. to its knees? you question his judgement?...if so, how can his possibly be any worse than that of George W. Bush, whose litany of disasters is quite staggering to say the least? Instead of vague innuendo, give me some concrete examples of where you think the words of Rev. Wright negatively impact Obama's ability to govern...

Posted by: lucslawyer at March 24, 2008 02:48 PM
do you question his judgement?


if so, how can his possibly be any worse than that of George W. Bush...whose litany of disasters is quite staggering to say the least?

Obama is campaigning on creating a disaster. Bush doesn't have one to his credit, though I can see you'd like to see Obama create one to hang on him.

Posted by: Pablo at March 24, 2008 03:09 PM

Pablo: LMAO...btw I just found out that McCain not only gladly accepted the endorsement of Hagee but, according to Hagee, actually SOLICITED the endorsement of the Catholic-hating pastor...and you want to compare the judgment of Obama to that of addition, where are the examples I requested?

Posted by: lucslawyer at March 24, 2008 08:04 PM

Sorry, but what is kimerikas?


Posted by: sweeta-qs at March 25, 2008 05:29 AM

It seems that many of you refused to watch the full sermon? He didn't blame the victims of 9/11 for the attacks. However, he, like Ron Paul and Peck, considered US foreign policy to play its part. I'm a US military officer and Iraq veteran and even I can accept that. At least he didn't blame gays and abortion for God's wrath like certain preachers. His sermon was a caution to the US to end the cycle of violence which continued into our invasion of Iraq (prophetic). Personally, I disagree with his belief that we should have turned the other cheek and simply sought solace in prayer. However, that would be the Christian thing to do.

Posted by: Courtney H at March 25, 2008 01:41 PM
.and you want to compare the judgment of Obama to that of McCain..

No lucslawyer, there's no comparison. Obama has none. McCain's is far from perfect, but at least he's got a bit that shows itself at times.

Posted by: Pablo at March 25, 2008 11:08 PM

If we the people of the UNITED STATES keep
passing judgements on people as we do and claim we are a CHRISTIAN NATION of CHRISTIAN people,9/11 and all others tragic events we have faced since,(Katrina floods and others)throughout this country,Iraq will look like a Hawaiian vacation.


Posted by: John at March 26, 2008 06:30 PM