TNR BLOGS

July 04, 2009 | 8:16 AM
July 03, 2009 | 7:55 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:37 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
17.03.2008
Kristol Does the Obama Campaign a Huge Favor

In case you haven't seen it, the indispensable Marc Ambinder apprears to have caught the Times' resident hack-propagandist making what appears to be a pretty serious error. Here's what Bill Kristol writes in his column this morning:

It certainly could be the case that Obama personally didn’t hear Wright’s 2003 sermon when he proclaimed: “The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, not God bless America, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people. ... God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human.”

But Ronald Kessler, a journalist who has written about Wright’s ministry, claims that Obama was in fact in the pews at Trinity last July 22. That’s when Wright blamed the “arrogance” of the “United States of White America” for much of the world’s suffering, especially the oppression of blacks. In any case, given the apparent frequency of such statements in Wright’s preaching and their centrality to his worldview, the pretense that over all these years Obama had no idea that Wright was saying such things is hard to sustain.

This particular Wright comment isn't the most egregious thing in the world to have said or heard, but it's still somewhat awkward if you're running for president.

Except that, as Ambinder points out, it doesn't look like Obama was in church that day:

The error is in trusting the source without checking.

The truth is that Obama did not attend church on July 22.

He was on his way to campaign in Miami.

(Here is some video evidence.) This was before he signed an agreement forbidding himself from campaigning in Florida.

Here is the original, false, Newsmax story:
Obama Attended Hate America Sermon. ...

Now, a simple Google search suggests that Obama spent most of the day in Miami. But a simple e-mail or telephone call to Obama's campaign might have cleared things up.  

It's possible, as this vague Newsmax clarification suggests, that the author of the original story got his dates confused but is right about the underlying facts. I'm sure this is only the first iteration of a prolonged back and forth. In the meantime, I think we can say a couple of things about where we find ourselves thanks to Wright: 

1.) Looking forward to the general election, it's obviously a concern that professional right-wing smearers like Kristol have not only jumped on the Wright controversy, which is fair game, but also feel entitled to embellish details as they please (or, at the very least, repeat them from other sources unquestioningly). This the kind of stuff that can take on a life of its own if not stamped out quickly, which is why the Obama campaign must be very grateful to Ambinder.

2.) Having said that, I think the effect of all the conservative noise-making about Wright could be very different in the primaries. The constant drumbeat from the likes of Kristol and Limbaugh could actually drive Democratic voters toward Obama. I could see the Kristol column leading to the sort of media backlash only Hillary has benefited from so far. (For the record, I don't see this netting Obama new votes, but it could neutralize the damage Wright has done among Dems.)

The irony is that Kristol's point (as opposed to his facts) isn't entirely wrong: Obama almost certainly did hear Wright say things that would make a lot of voters uncomfortable, even if they didn't rise to the level of "God damn America" or Wright's other greatest hits. And Obama almost certainly knew Wright was prone to saying outlandish things. But, thanks to Kristol's sloppiness, the Obama campaign may have some immunity against these charges. Get ready to hear Kristol invoked as a short-hand for all kinds of inaccurate reporting on Wright.

--Noam Scheiber

Posted: Monday, March 17, 2008 12:01 PM with 32 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

virginiacentrist said:

This is a great post, with one exception. Joe Lieberman's religion was explored in great depth in a critically acclaimed documentary:

www.imdb.com/.../tt0443453

March 17, 2008 12:39 PM

eweiss said:

i am afraid it is wishful thinking. Kirstol's sloppiness will be far from an immunity pill on this one. There is simply far too much legitimate stuff out there. Remember, it is not about reassuring the readers of this magazine. Most are already sold. The trouble for Obama is in convincing the common swing voter who was probably predisposed to increasing skepticism as they learned more about him anyway. Practically, his real problem is convincing the voters on the floor of the Denver Convention Center that he really can compete with McCain for the same voters. I don't see how he does it.

March 17, 2008 1:10 PM

rebml said:

Kristol got one thing right: Barack Obama masquerades as a candidate of change, but he's nothing more than an ambitious politician willing to vote "present" to avoid accountability, and to tolerate racist views from his spiritual mentor for 20 years and then lie about knowing the gentleman's philosophy.  

March 17, 2008 1:28 PM

Andrew Davis said:

You know, I bet a lot of American's go to church and hear stuff they don't agree with from time to time.  At some point, I think a lot of people are going to say, hey, stop picking on Obama for being a faithful churchmember -- hands off!

March 17, 2008 1:33 PM

jmkerr said:

"The irony is that Kristol's point (as opposed to his facts) isn't entirely wrong: Obama almost certainly did hear Wright say things that would make a lot of voters uncomfortable, even if they didn't rise to the level of "God damn America" or Wright's other greatest hits. "

That's not the irony. That's the POINT.

The reporter is going to come forward with his notes, and Obama will be put in the position of arguing that no, he *couldn't* have been in church that morning. Then there will be the timing comparisons--could he have gone to church and then to Miami?

And that leaves aside the most damning part--The Obama campaign made no protest about this story when it came out. You don't think that's going to get out? That means the story was true, regardless of what day it occurred.

"You know, I bet a lot of American's go to church and hear stuff they don't agree with from time to time.  At some point, I think a lot of people are going to say, hey, stop picking on Obama for being a faithful churchmember -- hands off!"

Delusional. Absolutely delusional.

He went from three points up to two points down in three days. But you know, tweren't nothing. Everyone will just forget.

March 17, 2008 1:49 PM

rishy said:

Someone should kick billy kristol's ass!  Figuratively, of course.  Or not!

March 17, 2008 1:54 PM

dkrieger said:

There's not agreeing with what your religious leader says, and then there's vehemently disagreeing with it and being deeply troubled and offended by it. If Obama wasn't deeply troubled or offended by "God damn America," then there's something seriously wrong with Obama...

No rabbi of mine has every said any such thing, and never will, I'm pretty sure.

March 17, 2008 1:55 PM

timteeter said:

Simply put, this is going to be a running sore for the Obama campaign for awhile.  Steps need to be taken.

However, what those steps will be, what their timing, is very important.  Rushing out some major speech, say, this Thursday, would be a mistake.  Too obviously a work of damage control.

Step one: do a Rezko.  Invite a bunch of reporters with a reputation for being even-handed in for a 90 minute Q & A on Wright.  Be honest.  "I love the guy--he did great things for me and for my community.  I'm very sorry that he has gone over the top on occasion, and that's not my politics, but I'm not going to denounce a fundamentally decent man or deny the good he's done now that he's about to retire." Or whatever.  Do nuance.  Spend an hour with Bob Herbert.  Point out that Wright was a convert TO Christianity FROM Islam.  Whatever.

Step two: at some point when it is NOT expected, give that speech, the one that everyone is calling on him to give now.  He can jujitsu this moment into a) putting some flesh and bones on his own spiritual thoughts, with references to Niebuhr et alii, and b) put the "Obama is a Muslim" business to rest once and for all.

This whole thing cannot be changed from lemons to lemonade, but it can be neutralized.  Remember who endorsed McCain.

March 17, 2008 2:05 PM

rappleton said:

dkrieger:

"No rabbi of mine has every said any such thing, and never will, I'm pretty sure."

How many members of your rabbi's congregation had their ancestors brought to this country in chains, held in slavery for generations and given second class citizenship for another century after that?  If that were the case, might not his and your perspective be just a teeny bit touched by anger and resentment?

March 17, 2008 2:18 PM

Andrew Davis said:

Delusional?  Bill Clinton had an affair and his approvals went up when he was attacked.  Obama's great sin is that he went to church.  A lot of Christians feel besieged by our culture, don't discount a pro-Obama backlash against these attacks.  Don't forget, many conservative preachers made not-to-dissimilar remarks after 9-11.

Isn't Kristol Jewish?  How does that affect this dymamic?

March 17, 2008 2:33 PM

chrisnatale said:

What Wright says isn't so shocking, with the exception of the "God damn America" soundbyte, which itself should probably be taken in more of an exaggerative sermon context (i.e., he's speaking of God's disapproval for US policy, not calling for a Jihad).

No one who has ever spent any time driving or walking through in the slums of Chicago or Baltimore or (any major American city here)  with their eyes open could find Wright's comments so unfathomable.

To me it's almost refreshing to see that black people can publicly say that racism and de facto segregation are alive and well in America and still end up on TV (or at least YouTube).

Dr.King's Dream may have been realized, but he would have to have been dreaming a lot frigging harder in order to imagine the nightmare situation we have in urban black neighborhoods and prisons these days.

It's the angry reminder of the sad state of things that rubs people the wrong way in this video.  Obama just has to distance himself from the anger and put "No Wories, I'm a Happy Black Man" spin on it in order to be accepted by moderate whites.

How bad can this really be for Obama?  It's not like he's married to the guy and has to campaign with his last name.  

March 17, 2008 2:46 PM

asnevitt said:

I have a problem with this whole thing. I have said, "Goddamn America" a lot. I get very angry with my country for the many injustices it has meted out at home and abroad. I also appreciate that I live in a country where I *can* express my anger and disappointment.

It's easy to picture that while Rev. Wright may have on the one hand taught Senator Obama about the love and compassion and vision of Jesus Christ - for which Obama may remain eternally grateful - that he also held this deeply rooted somewhat righteous, though clearly also twisted, anger at what black people have had to endure?

People are no monochromatic. They are complex. It is perfectly reasonable for Obama to appreciate the good he may have received from Wright while disagreeing with that which he finds destructive.

Wright is not an extension of Obama. Obama is not responsible for Wright's words. If there is nothing in Obama's history of words and actions that represents any of the things we find reprehensible in Wright's words, then what is the big deal?

Really. The fervor over this - which I imagine is coming mostly from non-blacks - just highlights how little ability we have to see the world from somebody else's point of view. It also highlights just how desperate we are to skewer somebody who has shown nothing but a lifetime of service. No one can find one shred of anything he has done in his political life to criticize - other than the Rezko relationship which has been beaten to death and beyond without showing any impropriety on Obama's part. He has managed unprecedented accomplishments in both the Illinois and the U.S. Senate. He's shown that he has an ability to move things forward.  Why in the world would you want to tear this mand down over something someone else said? Just because you can? Does everybody feel better now? Is your life improved? What is wrong with all of us? This is simply embarrassing.

We all need to get a life. A real life. Go out and find a way to serve people in need, desperate need. Get involved with finding ways to help the homeless. Volunteer to help a poor, sick person navigate the health care industry. Walk a mile in someone else's shoes. Even if you have managed to overcome adversity, you may finally learn that this is simply not possible for everyone. Then you might see how a cynical, desperate rage can build up. The miracle is that Obama does not seem filled with this rage. He's offering us a vision. This Wright flap just shows that we don't really want to rise above. We don't trust ourselves to do so. We'd rather tear a good man down than face ourselves.

March 17, 2008 2:53 PM

dkrieger said:

rappleton:

I don't need to go back to my ancestors to find family horrors. I never met either of my grandfathers. One was gunned down in Buchenwald days before the camp was liberated; the other never returned from the Russian front, where, as a forced laborer, he had been sent to dig trenches without being issued a weapon or a uniform. As children, both my parents lived through the siege of Budapest, under false names, without rations and in constant fear for their lives. My paternal grandfather came from a family of 13. When the war was over, only four were alive. Yet I have visited Germany several times and studied German one summer at the Goethe Institute in the Black Forest. For years my father drove German cars. I have never heard my father, my mother or ANY rabbi say an unkind word about Germans or Germany. The Germans who did these things are not today's Germans. The white Americans who traded in slaves are not today's white Americans. In both cases, there is no excuse for harboring unreasonable "anger or resentment" toward the descendants of one's tormentors.

March 17, 2008 2:59 PM

rebml said:

Andrew Davis: I'm not sure what you're fishing for or what you're implying by asking how Kristol's religion affects the dynamic. Perhaps you can be more explicit.

March 17, 2008 3:04 PM

williamyard said:

I'm beginning to wonder which of the three--Obama, Clinton, McCain--is the least unelectable.

It's nearly spring!  May a thousand Ferraros bloom, their hair turned to ashen Afros, giant dandelions gone to seed, aspersions cast on brisk March breezes!  Lesbians and Mandingos and Insane Septuagenarians swallowed whole by melanoma tumors hungrier than those giant leeches sucking folks in head-first in "King Kong."

In the room the women come and go, anchoring FOX or CNN, while bankers grab the last cabs out of New York to JFK and thence to Zurich or Bermuda where they've stashed the cash. Uppity Negro, Menopausal Bitch, or Captain Kirk's Double negotiating rooms at the Hanoi Hilton, while desperate skinny kids boost container ships in the Strait of Malacca and worldwide Kalashnikov franchises pop up faster than outlets of 1-800-GOT-JUNK fringing the American suburbs. The three finalists begin the Double Jeopardy round--Obama: "I'll take Unsavory Associates for 200, Alex"--while Russia stakes its claim to billions of barrels beneath the newly melted Arctic. (Upside to global warming: that BMW 5 Series you just ordered will now get here from Rotterdam two weeks sooner, which means your equity line of credit will take the hit in April rather than May!)  Which spouse tastes great, is less filling: Bubba, Michelle, or Cindy?, while another ten million Chinese buy automobiles and another ten million Indians earn PhDs in biochemistry and another ten million Americans, penniless at best or, more likely, leveraged up to their tits, apply for Social Security...

March 17, 2008 3:10 PM

ChanRobt said:

Noam, do you really think that Kristol has such influence that either his mistakes or his successes are going to have any impact on the electorate as a whole?

Kristol's weighing in is not going to move the needle much in either direction.  But, if anything, you're pointing out nuances here that aren't going to mitigate the problem of whatever magnitude the problem is.

March 17, 2008 3:24 PM

Andrew Davis said:

I'm fishing because I don't know what the answer is.  But as a habit I never criticize what a leader of someone else's religion says in worship.  Wright wasn't giving a political statement, he was giving a sermon.  If this charge against Wright is lead by White non-Christians, things could get real ugly real fast.  In addition, the tension between the Black and Jewish communities is already high enough without any additional exasperation  by Kristol or others.

As a liberal Protestant Christian, I have no difficulty renouncing Wright's statement.  As a White person, I hesitate.  There is such a thing as the Bloch Church, and it isn't mine to poke at.

March 17, 2008 3:30 PM

rebml said:

Obama apologists who hope to minimize the consequences of their candidate's apparent endorsement of black liberation theology have forgotten that Senator Obama offers himself as a bridge builder; a man who transcends race and can unite Americans. Such a person doesn't sit idly by and fail to rebuke those who spew hate.

asnevitt -- is correct that humans aren't monochromatic, but his defense of Obama is unreasonable. Asnevitt imagines the senator shrugging off Wright's destructive rhetoric about the very thing that he, Obama, cares most about. If that's the case, Obama lacks intellectual integrity and moral authority.  

March 17, 2008 3:30 PM

ChanRobt said:

asnevitt, the Wright flap says nothing bad about American tolerance at all.  

It says, we are given pause at the thought of a president who may have sat before a preacher for twenty years, along with his wife and young children, nodding as the Reverend preached hatred for our country.  A preacher who spread such calumnies as American having created AIDS as WMDs against blacks.

People have every right in America to preach almost any idea they like.  But what if, say, John McCain were found to have gone 20 years to a church where the pastor preached hatred for blacks or Jews or Catholics.  

Would that be received with equanimity by the media or by ordinary people?  Would McCain's disavowals that this preacher's opinions were not his, but that same preacher was his "spiritual mentor" be met with complete understanding?

March 17, 2008 3:32 PM

wildboy said:

dkrieger,

Your view about Obama and his pastor -- that he has a moral obligation to disassociate himself from the congregation if he hears things from the pulpit that are deeply, morally repugnant -- is valid, but I think it misses something in a person's relationship with his or her creed and mode of worship.  Based on what I've read recently (including Cass Sunstein's piece in the Chicago Tribune), Obama sought his first spiritual grounding in Wright's church, and that the church and its creed connect with Obama on a fundamental spiritual level.  However, he has also made clear (if it isn't clear already from his every public act and utterance) that he does not take to heart the message of Afro-Centrism or the strain of paranoia that pervades the views of Jeremiah Wright or some of his fellow parishoners.  No, it isn't "logical" that Obama remains a member of such a church when he disagrees with so many of its precepts, but logic doesn't have as much to do with it as sentiment, groundedness and a sense of community that Obama receives from the church.  I can certainly appreciate it, being an Orthodox Jew whose views on the Arab-Israeli conflict and Israel's role as a Jewish state are at odds with about 95% of his fellow congregants, a number of whom openly stated ltwo weeks ago (in light of the Mercaz Ha Rav massacre) that Arabs ought to be expelled en masse from Jerusalem as punishment.  Sure, it would be more logical to go to a Reform synagogue next Saturday to be around people and clergy whose views are more congruent with mine on this issue, but it isn't always about logic.  And it seems it's a little like that for Obama, too.

March 17, 2008 3:38 PM

dkrieger said:

Wildboy,

I understand what you are saying, and as a Reform Jew, I know that my ties to my synagogue community are much looser than what most Orthodox Jews have with theirs. Still, if you were a public figure with presidential ambitions, would it not be a sign of some serious flaw in your character -- complacency, naivete, selective deafness – for you to ignore (and tacitly condone) a stream of hateful rhetoric issuing from your spiritual guide's lips with cries of "amen" rebounding back from the pews around you? This is amazingly poor judgment at the very least. But perhaps it's just another example of Obama's readiness to talk to and listen to America's enemies...

March 17, 2008 4:14 PM

Sirhc said:

ChanRobt - Did Wright preach hatred for America?  In the context of the speech, I think what he meant was that America will not be blessed if it continues to house people in prisons, allow poverty to exist, sell drugs into the inner city etc.   That doesn't mean he hates America, it means he wants to change America.

I think a lot of people are forgetting the way that people use "damn" in church.  It means "we think America needs to change its ways."  There must be hundreds of pastors and preachers who have said that America will be damned for its treatment of the unborn etc.  

Obama and his surrogates need to make that point over and over.

March 17, 2008 4:18 PM

ChanRobt said:

One thing I am learning reading these threads, many Liberals and all of the Left can accept the ugliest lies about America as  mere "criticism".  They can't see what this flap is about or why anyone ought to be upset.

Or, when they can see how there might be some outrage at such remarks, they immediately offer up the usual rationalizations about black historical experience, black grievances, etc.

Even if I accept such excuses for an ordinary black man understandably harboring such attitudes, how could you expect any voter to want a man with such an outlook as president of the United States?

Obviously, we have no proof that Obama shares these attitudes.  And he has said explicitly that he does not.  

But, for an ordinary person employing common sense and everyda experience, it's hard to square such a claim with declarations that the Rev Wright is a spiritual mentor and with twenty years of sitting through the Rev Wright's sermons.

March 17, 2008 4:27 PM

Nippers said:

A genuine question that I haven't seen addressed elsewhere: Should Hillary have to answer for  the anti-semitic remarks made by Billy Graham, whose "crusades" she supported in her youth and whom she publicly embraced as her pastoral advisor during the Lewinsky scandal? (The embrace made the cover of Time magazine last August.) I'd rather not see either Democratic candidate waste more time on this, but it does seem oddly disproportionate to me how much more grief Obama is getting for Wright than Hillary has gotten for Graham (zero) or McCain for Hagee (a single news cycle).

March 17, 2008 4:39 PM

Sirhc said:

ChanRobt - Are there 20 years of such sermons?  I don't know.   The church has responded by saying don't judge an entire career of sermons.

Also, which parts of his sermon are lies?  I'm not asking this rhetorically.  I'd like to hear your perspective.

As I said, I can imagine a lot of people who claim to love america sitting through a lot of sermons in which the preacher says, "America will be damned."   Not true in my opinion.  I wouldn't call it a lie.

March 17, 2008 4:40 PM

rishy said:

Chan, but you don't have a problem with your guys' hating on us Jews, and Gypsies, Tramps and Thieves?  The black guy says something true, for him, and apparently in the bible, and you call him America hating.  But your guys, outright use of codewords in public to reassure the Christians that the Jews own everything and black people are dangerous don't count as divisive?  Oh, and those shackles the pastor's ancestors came in, figures into it, don't ya think?  Pot and kettle stuff it seems to me!

March 17, 2008 5:02 PM

r-ennis said:

Rev.  Wright represents what is wrong with black leadership. His speech clearly is meant to incite his parishioners to anti-white feelinmgs. Rev. Wright, I am sure, has a more positive message to give them as he is, undoubtedly, a learned man. It is a shame that he does not attempt to uplift his congregants rather than appeal to their baser instincts. He should not be given a pass because he is black.  

Furthermore, Obama's own wife admitted that, until Obama's primary success, she herself never had an opportunity to be proud of America. Did she acquire this sentiment by listening to Rev. Wright or similar pastor? My guess is yes.  

Obama's supporters have cried foul when Hillary supposedly used the race card by giving Lyndon Johnson credit for getting the Civil Rights Act passed. Now these same supporters state that Obama's choice of spiritual leader, who clearly and explicitly uses the race card, is inconsequential.  What arrogance!

March 17, 2008 5:15 PM

ChanRobt said:

Sirhc, well, one lie he repeated is that the United States created HIV as kind of a WMD to be used against American blacks.

His next statement was not a lie, it was an opinion:  that America's chickens had "come home to roost" on 11 September and that it was retribution we deserved for all our sins.  

That's a pretty intemperate remark for one week after the event.  And when evangelicals said something similar from a different point of view, namely that America was receiving divine retribution for it moral sins, all hell (rightfully) broke over their heads.

Finally, whatever our failings, an injunction to "goddamn America" does not seem consistent with the desire of most citizens to make America a better place.

March 17, 2008 5:20 PM

sportdoc62 said:

Ah, the pleasure of self exception.

Of all the "sitting idly by" in the presence of a blathering moron that has taken place over the past seven years, Mr. Obama's is mild by any measure.  Few of us stand innocent of the latter, myself included.  Sitting in a church and listening to a religious man emote is no more an "apparent endorsement" of that man than driving by that church and not stopping in for services is a rebuke.   I am as unapologetic an atheist as you will find.  Because of the people in my life, however, I have also been in many churches (and other public gatherings) and have listened to words that are incoherent, misleading, factually incorrect, aggressively sexist, and as damaging to reason and civility as can be imagined.  From which one of the latter categories shall I select for condemnation in my daily post-nonsense press conference?  

Does it occur to anyone that Mr. Obama might attend this church for a combination of personal reasons, for a sense of fellowship, and to get a sense for lives of the constituency he represents?  Is it possible to listen to such words, even regularly, and, rather than believe them, endorse them, and take them to heart, instead understand them as an expression of what the people in that time and place feel, right or wrong?   I might mention that Obama chose not to sit idly by on a central moral question of our time, and at great political peril.  I'll take his public rejection of the Bush war doctrine in exchange for his tepid reaction in the pew.

Have we scoured the spoken records of all the pastors of all three remaining political candidates to see what they might have "endorsed" while listening to them?

March 17, 2008 5:48 PM

ileonard said:

How could a person claim to be the one to bridge a divide, in this case a racial one, if he doesn't have connections, and people who trust him, on both sides of the divide?

Obama should not repudiate Wright, or denounce him personally, and he has not. He has stated in very strong terms that he disagrees with Wright's extreme pronouncements.

The organizing idea of Obama's campaign, in my view, is  that people can disagree, and sort out their disagreements, without hostility.

It's a pretty good idea.

March 17, 2008 5:48 PM

rishy said:

Chan, wanting Obama to "goddamn" his pastor, though, you think would be better for America?

March 17, 2008 6:01 PM

ChanRobt said:

rishy, you write, "...Chan, but you don't have a problem with your guys' hating on us Jews, and Gypsies, Tramps and Thieves?  The black guy says something true, for him, and...you call him America hating."

First of all, rishy, it is the Right and Republicans who have stood by Israel and the Jewish homeland even after the Left had disavowed and condemned Israel, and the Democratic Party sucks up to the Left.

As to the black guy saying something "that's true for him," since when did that become an excuse for ugly and vicious lies.  To continue on your theme, for the Brownshirts, their hatred for the Jews, and their long list of reasons why, was "true for them".  Fundamentalists who question evolution, well, that's true for them.  But, they catch a lot of ridicule for it.  Abortion is murder to millions.  That's true for them.

Are you ready to tolerate and rationalize such "true for him" assertions as that the United States created the AIDS virus as an instrument of genocide against the black man?

Is it fine to you that Rev Wright joined Rev Farakan for a trip to Libya and a meeting with Khadaffi.  A man who bombed an American airliner out of the sky?

The tolerance and the understanding of the Left and of "decent liberals" is mind boggling.

March 17, 2008 10:02 PM