Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Obama Blasts Rev. Wright. Bravo (Does he Read The Ostroy Report?)

Sen. Barack Obama did exactly what he needed to do Tuesday in separating himself and his campaign from the destructive behavior of his former pastor, mentor and spiritual advisor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. He did exactly what I suggested he do in the piece I wrote Monday evening.

Here's what I said Obama must do immediately:

If he's going to salvage his campaign, he must quickly disengage from his once-friend and mentor with a strongly worded repudiation of what this megalomaniac religious fraud stands for. He needs to convincingly tell America--yes, perhaps white working class America--that "Wright does not speak for me, does not speak for black America, and is not the man I once knew. I unequivocally denounce his incendiary, racially-divisive rhetoric."

And here's what Obama said:

..."I am outraged and saddened by Rev. Wright's comments yesterday....The person that I saw yesterday was not the person I met 20 years ago.... His comments were not only divisive and destructive but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate ....they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church. They certainly don't portray accurately my values and beliefs..His statements offend me, they rightfully offend all Americans, and they should be denounced. That's what I'm doing very clearly and unequivocally here today....he does not speak for me, he does not speak for my campaign."

Of course, I'm sure Obama and his team put together his speech without the help of yours truly, but it sure is fun thinking otherwise.

But the real story here of course is that Obama has finally divorced himself from the raging Reverend. Perhaps the candidate can now focus his campaign on the issues, and of battling his opponent Sen. Hillary Clinton, without being dragged down by the inflammatory rhetoric and bizarre behavior of Rev. Wright.

Given Wright's gargantuan ego, it'll be very interesting to see just what he does in response to Obama's strong repudiation of his "outrageous, shocking" behavior these past several days.


Sidney Condorcet said...

Food inflation is the worst it has been in over 20 years. The cost of rice, corn, wheat are going to continue to skyrocket in the face of global warming-related droughts and the population boom and economic success story, and the concomitant increase in demand, currently occurring in India and China.

The price of a barrel of oil will near $200 by the end of the year. A gallon of gas may cost $10 in the not-too-distant future. Such a price will crush the American economy as our transportation system has been almost entirely geared toward car travel since Eisenhower's 1955 highway bill. We just do not have the money (what with the tax cuts for the rich, corporate tax loopholes, and Iraq war siphoning money out of the treasury faster than anyone could imagine) to fund a real mass transit system that would take into account our depleted energy reserves.

Wages are stagnant. People are working harder every day for less money. 47 million Americans are without health care. One catastrophic accident or illness can send a middle class family into bankruptcy. Bankruptcy itself has become less accessible after the credit card industry's Bankruptcy reform act passed in 2005. Home foreclosures are skyrocketing. The value of the dollar has been in rapid decline for several years. Our great grandchildren will be paying our Chinese creditors.

This country faces grave obstacles. Our moment as the "city on the hill" is nearing its end as our economy crumbles and our moral credibility diminishes(see: torture, iraq, global warming nonaction).

And this is what matters to you Ostroy? This is what you post about? This is what the "freak show" MSM gives us day in and day out.

Obama has just demonstrated his righteous indignance.

We're at a cross-roads. America needs smart, bold leadership that cuts across ideological differences if we are to solve the very real threats we're facing.

Try blogging about food inflation or energy concerns for once, Andy. Your readers will appreciate it.

You only blog about the horse race, and your chosen horse isn't going to be getting the garland. So let's focus up on what really counts.

Anonymous said...

That was not a "blast" but a whimper. He was listless, very slow on his feet to answer questions, and his answers idiotic.

Suddenly after twenty years Wright is a man he doesn't know? Yesterday was a side of Wright he has never seen?

Obama said he knows nothing about Black Libertaion Theology since he's not a theologian. He just heard sermons about social reform.

I heard the new pastor say he was coming "with the sword" mentioned in a Bible verse, and a reporter asked Obama that even though the new preacher defended Wright, would he continue to go to the church. Obama said he had to think about it. That he goes to chruch, not for the pastor, but to get more faith.

Obama acted as if he had never heard the AIDS claim made by Wright, or any of the sermons about God condemning governments that were evil, or that the USA was a terrorist country and all the other stuff we listened to over the weekend. It's all new to Obama.

And, even MSNBC, Andrea Mitchell, was asked her panel why at eleven o'lcock last night Obama was seemingly unperturbed by Wright and "brushed off" his remarks, while today he's "outraged." What happened? Surely he didn't decide to act like a politican after seeing the polls and listening to all the TV talk last night about Wright.

He didn't denouce him forever, either. They'll probably talk in the future he said.

Anonymous said...


Like a dog to a bone.

No, not Obama to Wright but you to a pernicious non-story. If this is how your candidate needs to win, just know that those who play with fire eventually get burned.

The Ostroy Report said...

A non-story? You're the reason why Democrats rarely win. Because you simply "will something away" doesn't actually make it go away. Having been home sick with the flu and in bed all day today I can assure you that this non-story has been discussed non-stop today on CNN, MSNBC, Fox etc as a major story...one that has the potential to sink Obam's campaign. Stick your head in the sand if you wish...trash me if it makes you feel better...but this story is huge and needs to disappear or Obama's toast.

Anonymous said...

I'm the reason Dems rarely win? You don't know anything about me so may I suggest you lay off the Nyquil.

If you accept the politics and practice of guilt by association as acceptable, fine. But that's a tactic of the McCarthyite Republicans and not Democrats. If you believe that it's what we need to do in order to win elections, I don't want to be a part of your party.

This is NOT a story that should matter to anyone. If we had real media that was interested in issues that matter to the American people's lives and future instead of a corporatized media only interested in immediate ratings and profits, Jeremiah Wright would have been a blip already forgotten.

I thought this site was supposed to recognize things like this since it's supposed to be about attacking the right wing media spin...

Anonymous said...


Get a grip. You are dripping with hate. What are your real issues? Think about it.

This is a story worth discussing (not as in the 24/7 fluff piece on on the msm).

But, like him or not, Obama has been lame on handling the issue of Wright and all that's been said.

I honestly thought Obama was going to talk to us about race relations, what it's been like for him, how we need to embrace diversity because this is who we are. What unites us as a country needs to be embraced along with our diversity.

I feel that Obama runs away from race so as not to offend white Ameica. He talks too much in generalites.

All I want is a Dem in the White House. What do you want Sidney?

Sidney Condorcet said...

"You're the reason why Democrats rarely win?"

Wow. Overstate things much, Andy? You want to know why Democrats rarely win? Because this is a center-right country, that's why. I say this as an unabashed liberal. My supposition has been proven right by this nation's entire history. Your supposition, Ostroy, has been proven right by about 20 years of American history.

The greatest age of American liberalism came during the FDR years and was only a response to economic cataclysm that set the political pre-conditions to allow us such a liberal foray.

We are the only industrialized nation that has never had a viable people's party or socialist movement. (apologies to the ghost of Eugene Debs) To all Republicans who believe that the democrats are socialists, i say "read a fuckin book."

Our media has always played its small part to ensure that our nation remains center-right. Sure, they get hard on the Elephants when their excesses are on full, gross display. But in actuality, the media is almost universally more lenient with Republicans. Republicans never have to be as smar or as pitch-perfect in their public utterances or personal allegiances.

And it will continue to be this way...So while no one has paid any legit attention to McCain's myriad issues (let alone Bush's in 2000), we get the Rev. Wright story which is a non-story, but because of our American penchant for hating on the liberal, the minority, the "other", we tar and feather the guy.

Anonymous said...

It's clear that the media is destroying the United States of America. We are junkies addicted to the drug. And no matter how awful the drug, no matter how halucinating and mind destroying it is, we take it..we eat it...we watch it. While we watch the killing of Barack Obama's candidacy, we watch more and give the pundits even more power. We are sick. But we cannot stop because we are addicted. Some of us are clear minded enough to start leaving. We are going to Canada, New Zealand, Europe, whereever. America is over. Adieu. Too bad. It was great while it lasted...

Anonymous said...

Yikes. We really seem a bit testy tonight.

I don't support Obama. Why? He's not a fighter. He seems light weight. He's too general. He's make a great VP.

Hillary and her well oiled political machine is working on all burners. She's a fighter, has plans, lays them out and keeps on working hard.

And like it or not, many in this country are not ready to vote for a black man for president. We are moving that way and will get there, but not in November 2008. Not all racists are dead yet. It's not even clear if all sexists are dead yet.

As for FDR and the economic times being ripe for progressive programs, don't our current economic times warrent a new progressive movement? What is going on economically is bigger than most of us have ever experienced.

Why is that Sidney guy so full of anger? it flies off the monitor.

Anonymous said...


I realize you are in a stupor but the facts are the facts:

Pennsylvania exit poll regarding Reverend Wright - 24% said Obama's handling of the issue made them think more highly of him; 15% said it made them think less highly of him; 58% said it made no difference in their views.

Simply because the nattering nabobs blather on about Wright does not make it a real story. It's a distraction. Why in the hell are we, as Democrats, playing the game as defined by Lee Atwater, Karl Rove and the f****** Republicans? Let's write our own damn script!

Here's the legacy of their party:

The economy is in the toilet. The occupation of Iraq is draining the lifeblood of our military and the coffers of our treasury. Al Qaeda is stronger in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We have no coherent energy strategy for the next generation. Our healthcare system is a travesty. The poverty rate for children in the United States is the highest in the developed world.

For each of these issues, the right wing of the Republican Party offers two solutions: lower taxes on the top 1% of taxpayers and a jingoistic "win the war" on terrorism. They are morally and intellectually bankrupt.

That we, as Democrats, are spending this time repeatedly bitch-slapping each other over the words of Obama's PREACHER, not Obama himself, is like seeing a thief enter your home and hitting your spouse - instead of shooting the damn thief.

John McCain is the enemy, not Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. When are we going to wake up and realize this????

Anonymous said...

I am so very disappointed in Obama. he has no more integrity and courage than does al gore, Hilary or george bush. To throw away a friendship, mentorship of over 20 years to enhance your zero chance of being "voted" into the presidency of the usa is disheartening. obama will be out of this race by the denver convention, the superdelegates will fold and 'vote", democratically, of course, to nominate hilary as the dem candidate. all predictable, all disgusting , and all the absolute disgrace that is the usa political election system. I am 54 years old and even i, the believer, have lost my last strip of belief left since 12122000.
Hope is for children - the don't know any better.

Anonymous said...

It's naive Obama supporters who view Hillary as the enemy. Many are first time voters and support Obama only. They are not interested in voting for anyone else.

We do have many issues other than Rev Wright, but Obama could have used the whole mess to really have a discussion on race. It is an issue that belongs with all the other ones (economy, health care, Iraq War, education, environmental issues, etc.) we need to address. As a country, we hold ourselves back by not really have that discussion on race.

Anonymous said...

Clinton and Obama should run together. It would be a great ticket.

Anonymous said...


Please. Exit polling shows that it is Clinton supporters who say they will not support Obama at a higher rate than the reverse and her own hometown paper, which endorsed her, ripped her for going negative.

And did you somehow manage to miss the Philadelphia speech on race? Have you ever seen Obama on the stump? His whole freaking story is about bridging the divide between races and his life and very existence is the personification of such a bridge.

Sidney Condorcet said...


What's wrong with being angry? I applaud your ability to remain placid in the face of the ominous challenges besetting America and the world and the media's decision to focus on "freak show" politics and celebrity scandals.

Oh, and Hillary is not a "fighter" for the people. She's a fighter for corporate interests. She's been a corporate shill, a DLC-type for years...2.3 billion in earmarks? Most PAC and lobbyist money of any candidates running this year? Her vote on the credit-card industry's favored Bankruptcy Bill?

Please, if she's a "fighter" then Obama is "change we can believe in." Let's try not to swallow and then regurgitate campaign slogans. Sheesh...It shows your inability to cut through the bullshit propaganda that shrouds every politician.

Anonymous said...

Andy is a coward. He can't answer a simple question.

What is worse?

Hillary knowingly voting in favor of a pointless war, just to position herself as a moderate during the general she "knew" she'd be in which resulted in thousands of dead Americans


Someone Obama is close to saying stupid stuff.

Anonymous said...

I would to heaven you people would get it right. Hillary and the others did not vote for the war. They voted for Bush to go to the UN and insist Sadam let the inspectors in again. In the meantime, Bush was "fixing" the intelligence and told Congress that there was an imminent threat Remember Condi's "mushroom cloud" threat. Congress voted for Bush to get the inspectors in and then if we were in danger, as the CIA claimed. protect us.

It would have been irresponsible to not allow that if the "facts" our Presaident declared had been true. If he had been truthful and Saddam dropped a nuke -- well, look at the responsbiility they faced. Obama faced nothing accept disapproval of his constituancy in IL. if he'd voted in line with Congress.

Anonymous said...

When we elect a Religious Right person we get someone who is against abortion for sure. If we vote for a Mormon the chances are they are against women's rights, If we vote for a Catholic you can be sure he is against abortion, If you vote for a Muslim you can be sure he will not use the Bible to be sworn in and will have other religious considerations. If you vote for a Zionist you can be sure how he will feel about Israel. If you elect a member of the KKK you can be pretty sure how he feels about racism. I know very little about religions other than my own, so I find it imperative that the candidate's religious and other affiliations be fully explained so we know what we're voting for.

You simply cannot separate a man/woman from their beliefs -- that is why it is important to ask Romney, Obama, and all to explain how they think. Kennedy was asked this and he promised not to vote necessarily as the Pope would have him vote. As they believe, they act. Why is it so difficult to understand that?

Anonymous said...

10:08 - come on, everybody knew what Bush was going to do with the AUMF. Anyone who voted for it "in good faith," thinking Bush was going to do anything other than invade, has no judgment whatsoever - and anyone who voted for it knowing what he would do was voting for war. Worst of all are those who voted for it, knowing what Dubya would do with it, and anticipated using the story that they thought Bush would go to the UN and force Saddam's hand - because those people are out-and-out hypocrites.

As for letting the inspectors back in - the inspectors WERE in. They left because they heard the bombs dropping.

Anonymous said...


10/10/02 - Senate Joint Resolution 45; A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.

This JR included the very specific language, "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate." Every single Senator knew damn well and good that a vote for the resolution was a vote to go to war, no matter how much they may have equivocated in their floor speech.

Did Senator Clinton vote "yea" or "nay"?

Anonymous said...


Not all Catholic members of Congress are for abolishing abortion and I can tell you for a fact that George Bush defied his pastor at Tarrytown Methodist Church in Austin on many, many occasions.

There is no Constitutional litmus test on religious affiliation for President of the United States. Nor should there be one.

Anonymous said...

hmmmm....Guiliani is a Catholic and he is not against abortion. That disproves anonymous 10:19's theory.

Anonymous said...

2008Q1 economic statistics are finally available and we are still not in a 'recession' technically. Anyone that claims we are, like Sidney the Racist, is a liar. The economy is stalled, but we are not in a recession.

If you state that we are in a recession, you are either unaware or lying like a Clinton. This is all another liberal scare tactic, just like we were told in 1994 by Al Gore that his tie breaking vote to mandate methanol will not affect the price of food. Sidney the racist will tell you that food prices are the fault of Republicans, but of course he is wrong. Look to 1994 and Al Gore's tie breaking vote to see the root cause of today's food prices.

Anonymous said...


John McCain stated that the economy is in recession just two weeks ago. Did he have yet another senior moment or is he a liar?

Sidney Condorcet said...

Sidney the Racist?

Wow, grasping at straws in the dark ehh? Boy, you're one sad, sorry S.O.B., 10:58pm.

Oh, and i think it's "ethanol" and not "methanol" you douche. Perhaps you're confusing ethanol with your drug of choice, crystal meth....

Anonymous said...


He's not only confused about ethanol and methanol but he's probably forgotten that GHW Bush and Bob Dole also supported ethanol over methanol.

Anonymous said...

Also, a United States Appeals Court struck down the ethanol mandate in 1995.

As usual, Republicans at tilting at windmills...

Anonymous said...

Sidney, and you other snobs, not everyone types his own entries to this blog. It may be that a busy mother asks her teenage child to type, or it may be that a CEO asks his immigrant secretary who has not mastered English. For one(s) who pride himself/themsleves on their "elite" capabilities, "yall" certainly jump to really dumb conclusions without proof more times than not. (I hope there're no typos or other erros. I didn't type this and I paid plenty to have it done.)

Anonymous said...

Of course there is no litmus test which is why all the information we can find out about a future president is vital. Aren't those who knew Rudy was a Catholic glad they found out he was not with them on one of their key issues. Your exceptions have proven the rule. Now wouldn't we all think Obama knew about Black Liberation Theology and agreed with its tenets since it was taught at his church which he attended for twenty years. I'm so glad that's been cleared up. Now I know he's not the excellent student I had thought him to be.

Anonymous said...

I'm amazed at how many who contribute to this blog are mind readers and clairvoyant. Those are rare gifts to a very few and we are surely blessed to have them tell us exactly what Bush was thinking and also the thoughts of those who voted for his going to the UN. And, they must know despite all reports, that the inspectors were not banned by Saddam and were on the job; and, that there were no WMDS. I would they were running for president so we would no longer live in doubt and danger.

However, since tbose same people who think Hillary is a "slug", a "drone" and at the least prosaic, can't for a moment think she is endowed with the gift of mind reading and prophesy, and so she should surely be exonerated for her crime of not knowing Bush was a liar.

Some of you must have called Obama to share your knowledge before his speech about the war, since he is obviously one not able to read minds or he would have known the trouble he was going to have from his "mentor"

Anonymous said...

I truly wish Obama, that Harvard grad and intellectually elite, would stop saying "He married Michelle and I."

Anonymous said...


You don't have to be a mind-reader or clairvoyant. All you have to do is read the title of the Senate Joint Resolution.

And have a memory as to the rhetoric coming out of the White House at that time...


My exception to your characterization of religion determining how a politician will vote only proves that a litmus test on religion is ludicrous and we can thank the Founders for their wisdom.

Do you know about Hillary Clinton's religious affiliations? Have you heard of Doug Coe and The Family?

Do you know about John McCain's religious affiliations? His mysterious switch between Episcopalian and Baptist faiths (despite not being baptised - kinda important to most Baptists I know) or his "spiritual advisor" Rod Parsley who believes the US was formed in part so as to destroy the Islamic faith and also believes the US Government is complicit in genocide of African-Americans by allowing abortion?


He who lives by the grammar sword often is hoisted upon his own petard... or something like that.


Anonymous said...


I'm sorry I forgot to conclude my comments to you.

Can you acknowledge that the politics of guilt by association knows no bounds and cheapens the body politic?

Anonymous said...

I suppose those of you who do not care to know about a candidates religious or philosophical views would probably vote for Wright were he running for president. He is certainly a successful leader, very well educated, has done much good work, very intelligent and ineterest in people and can work with them to achieve results. A uniter, so to speak. A proven leader. Who cares what his religion is?


Anonymous said...

I am still waiting for Andy or at least one other Hillary Kool-Aid Drinkers to explain why they are okay with her knowing intentional vote to send American soldiers to die so she could position herself as more of a centrist for the general election but not okay that someone associated with Obama said some bad things.

And spare us all the phoney baloney nonsense about only voting to authorize him, but not expecting him to use it. That doesn't pass the giggle test at Kinderland.

Anonymous said...

Democrats are so far off their message its just silly at this point. WTF is Hillary still doing "in the race" ? Nominate Obama and lets start the era where criticism of the President means you're a racist. Woot.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Atheist: You miss the point. It is not the religion per se. Wright is supposedly a Christian. It is his interpretation and really anti-Christian beliefs that are distrubing. However, the point is what a candidate believes and the values he has which he translates into actions. is the point.

Why do you think the Republicans are desperate to pick the next Surpreme Court judge? They want to pick one with conservative values and who are anti-abortion so he will decide in their interests.

You, yourself, do project something of your internal machinations or you would not have misinterpreted the contribution about vetting and religious beliefs.

Anonymous said...

4:18 You're as zany as Wright. Are you so deranged that you really believe that Hillary sat down and thought about how much she really hates Amewrican young men and women and she'd really get off on sending them to their deaths? Or do you imagine she thought that a good way to undermine the Republican Party so she could be elected President later after Bush's error and lies had been discovered, would be to vote for his war, even though she knew that all he and the CIA were saying were lies? Next you'll be saying she or/and Bill were participants in the government's plot to apread AIDS among the blacks. You are a hopeless inept thinker

Anonymous said...

4:18 Maybe when, or if, you graduate from Kinderland, you'll be able to think more maturely and understand complexities. In the meantime, continue to amuse yourself by watching Wright's antics. I'm sure your little chums enjoy him too. Didn't you really laugh when he made faces and then saluted? My little son's favorte was when he turned around and around waving his arms. He also liked it when he was a white band and then a black band.

Anonymous said...

There is nothing complex here. Hillary was SURE she was a lock for the nomination. That's why she tried to position herself for the general election where being a centrist helps you with the independent and crossover voters.

So she voted for war and yes she knew there would be a war. And there's never been a war where people didn't die.

So yes, Hillary knew Bush would go to war, she knew American boys would die and yet what was more important to her was her positioning for the general election.

That is the kind of person she is - a - person who asks her husband to pardon Puerto Rican terrorists who murdered New Yorkers to help her with the Latino vote in the NY Senate election, who helped corrupt Rabbis with their criminal issues involving theft from the Federal government so that a conservative community normally GOP leaning gave her 90% of the vote, whose brother represented narco criminals in CA who just happened to get pardoned and whose important contributors fugitive ex-husband got a pardon even though he ran to Europe and was never called to account for his crimes.

This is the kind of person we are talking about.

Anonymous said...

Yes, there are more important issues than this drama. However, IT DOES SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THE CANDIDATE. When it is obvious that Senator Obama is distancing himself only now, after many years of association with this pastor and his developed anti-white American and "White Christian" viewpoint, and after these days of bad poll results, how can we trust we know Sen. Obama's view of the "Europeans" of America? Could he really be the president of ALL THE PEOPLE? And that is a serious question that Andy needs to keep before us.

Anonymous said...

10:43 Why didn't you do something before Bush engaged us in a war based on lies. Surely you knew then what you know now? Wasn't it your duty at the time to present your facts to someone who could stop those Democrats from voting for Bush to go to war? Couldn't you find someone in power to review your facts and make it known to all of us who ignorantly believed our president and the CIA. All it would have taken is your voice and your facts to have prevented the war.

Why didn't you organize a march on Washington?

Your lack of action is as bad as Hillary's vote.

Anonymous said...


If I missed your point, I apologize.

What I reacted to was the contention you made that if a candidate is a Catholic then he or she is anti-abortion. I know literally dozens of Catholics who do not want Roe v. Wade overturned and there are Catholics currently in office who are not interested in overturning that decision.

I have no problem vetting candidates on public policy or political philosophy. What I do have a problem with is "Christians" trying to determine for other "Christians" what Christianity is and/or branding one man with another man's beliefs simply because they go to the same church.

Do you or anyone else think that all members of Trinity United Church of Christ think exactly the same on every issue as Reverend Wright or that all members of the congregation at Thomas Road Baptist Church agreed with Revered Falwell on everything? I hope you are not that naive.

I suggest you read, if you have not already, Senator Obama's books. They are a far more accurate representation of who he is, what his faith is and what he stands for than is Reverend Wright or anyone else for that matter.

BTW, I am not an atheist and, again, you should not presume.

Anonymous said...


How can black people or white people or brown people or yellow people or red people be sure any President of another color will be for them?

It's called the Constitution.

Anonymous said...


Don't be so disingenuous.

How do you know what I did or did not do prior to the Congress giving Bush authorization to go to war?

Would it make you feel better to know that I did, in fact, contact my congressman and Senators to express my doubts? Will it make you feel better to know that I did attend rallies and speak to the folly of this war?

I do not claim to have such power as you may think. I'm not even sure I want such power. I am not perfect and do not claim to be. However, I was right on this issue and Senator Clinton was flat-out wrong in both her moral and political judgment in this case.

She can try to spin it however she likes, but the fact is she knew damn well and good that her vote was a vote to go to war with Iraq.

Now she's threatening to obliterate Iran. Sorry, but these kinds of words are not reassuring that she has passed any sort of commander in chief test. They're lunacy.

Anonymous said...

12:47 I do know that whatever you did it was not effective. I, myself, was against the invasion and I was furious at Hillary for voting "for the war" and swore I would never forgive her. So I would have noticed and applauded any evidence to support my point of view. If you did something it didn't help because I was watching everything closely and actually longed that some "proof" which would stop the way things were going. Actually, I told others that "I knew Bush was lying." I no more "knew" for sure than did you or anybody else because none of us had access to proof. Or, again, if you did you should have effectively done something to save all the lives that have been lost.

It is only after a calmer look at the responsibility Hillary and the others had; and, the mountain of pressure and lies that were used to twist their arms. So I have forgiven her. I tried to empathize and successfully imagained what she/they were up against. I can also imagine how she and the others must feel to have been so fooled at such a horrible cost of lives.

I am still amazed that you say "the fact is", without your having ESP abilities.

Anonymous said...

12:30 I owe you an apology. In my haste I misread read "If an atheist ... " and thought it said "I'm an atheist ... " It's a warning to me to be more careful. And I have no problem with atheists or actually with anybody's beliefs. I just want to know what motivates a person who can affect my life.

I appreciate your kind response. Things sometimes get, at the least, impolite, during some exchanges. And thank you for the suggesion. I will read Obama's books.

Anonymous said...


Are you trying to make me feel bad because I was unable to justify your intuition for you? Sorry. I don't feel bad.

However, if you really had been paying attention you would have read the headlines of most major dailies and major websites or heard on NPR or your local radio that the authorization was clearly understood to be a vote for war. Again, if you had been paying attention, you would likely remember all the media build up and puffing of chests by the administration in calls to go to war. Not coincidentally the President demanded from Congress this vote just before the elections so as to exert maximum political pressure on Democrats.

It was a test of Hillary's political courage and fortitude. She failed that test. Does that mean she should forever be branded a traitor and hated? Of course not. But for someone who is touting her "experience" as a leader and is "ready" to be commander in chief, she failed this huge test.

It's a fact and I don't need ESP to see what is blatantly obvious.

Anonymous said...

7:02 I'm not the one who has been writing you about this I am now curious after reading your last entry how you knew more than the 80 percent or more of the country who believed the president? Are all of just dumb? Are you an elitist? I listened carefully and only heard one former weapons inspector say there were no WMDs. I've forgotten his name. Even the NY Times that I've always trusted was supporting theinvasion of Iraq. I was aware of what was going on in a lot of the media. You don't explain how you were so sure. Was it your intuition?

Anonymous said...

Give it up, Andy.
Barack Obama wins.