"The focus on Wright and Obama has obscured the larger truth about the sermons he has presented: they resonated in the African-American community. Few of the self-righteous critics of Wright appear to care that they are also stamping a significant proportion of African-Americans as “appalling” (Cheney) or “anti-American” (Bill O’Reilly)."
read more | digg story
Erik Visits an American Grave, Part 1,782
-
This is the grave of Oscar DePriest, as well as his wife Jessie DePriest.
Born in 1871 in Florence, Alabama, DePriest grew up, like most Black kids
of th...
1 hour ago
.gif)
6 comments:
its not what the gist of his sermons was, it was where and how. you are using a dan rather argument and it won't work.
I'm sorry, Griper, but that's just not the case for the general public. A significant portion don't care either way, and even among those that do, it hasn't affected all that many votes.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the constant repetition by those who would never vote for Obama in the first place isn't making some folks wonder how desperate Republicans & reluctant McCain supporters really are, and turning voters AWAY from their camp.
Dan Rather was skunked by phony documents, but the larger point he was making--where Bush actually was during that period when he was supposed to be serving in the Air National Guard--was never determined.
Dan ran too soon with details he should've vetted better, and in the process, the underlying story got lost. If you ask me, this is a whole other situation, my friend.
"...the underlying story got lost."
that was the point of your post, my friend. that people were focusing on the words used instead of what he was trying to get across. and dan rather did use that excuse. so it is the same.
In that way, the stories are slightly similar, I guess, but in the "Was Bush AWOL?" story, Rather's whole point was determining where Bush was during that period, which got lost in the minutia of phony documents. The larger issue was let go in favor of one little piece of the puzzle.
In this story, the author is bringing in a whole different dimension that those pushing the Obama-Wright angle were never addressing in the first place. This story STARTED with the tiny piece of the puzzle, and this author is using that piece to address a larger point.
And, I don't recall Rather trying excuse anything... He copped to not vetting the documents properly... It was others--me included--who felt that the real story--where Bush was--never got addressed after the phony documents were exposed. To this day there is a $1000.00 reward being offered to anyone who can prove Bush was actually there & served in that unit, and no one has claimed it...
If you wish to dismiss the post, you're welcome to do so, but to do so based on any similarity to the Rather story just doesn't work for me...
it is not similar it is alike.
you are complaining that everyone is focusing on the words but ignoring the truth found in them. dan rather did the exact same thing.
"To this day there is a $1000.00 reward being offered to anyone who can prove Bush was actually there & served in that unit, and no one has claimed it..."
so what? that proves nothing. all you are saying is that "proof" was not provided yet. it says nothing of his whereabouts. and at least 90% of the people on that base couldn't provide proof even if they tried to collect. a person's word is not considered as proof. but knowing people i'll bet there has been some who have tried to with only their word to go on.
and remember another thing. if he was not there as it seems you are implying then he was somewhere else and there has been no one to claim that reward on that basis either, has there?
it is not similar it is alike.
In my previous post I explained why I disagree. I believe the two situations share one tiny thread--in both cases there is more story than the media or the majority of the public are discussing--but for the most part the two stories are quite dissimilar.
you are complaining that everyone is focusing on the words but ignoring the truth found in them.
First off, I don't believe I'm complaining at all... I posted an article that says the right is slandering a whole lot of people by association every time they discuss these tiny snippets of Reverend Wright and call them hate speech. The church held many, many people, and was frequently full... Obama was one of many folks who attended that church faithfully, and in questioning him or labeling him as a racist for staying with this church, those on the right in effect question and label all of them.
Rather than have you explain what you think I'm saying, let me say it myself: I believe that anyone who judges Reverend Wright's sermons based on the 15 second snippets they see on FoxNews, rather than seeing the whole sermon(s) in context, is being quite foolish. They do not understand that about which they claim to speak.
To judge Obama (or any/every other Trinity attendee) based on these snippets is even more foolish. Even if one listens to whole sermons & still comes to the conclusion that Reverend Wright is offensive, that's about Reverend Wright, not his congregation. Perhaps they disagree, or perhaps they don't but have more ability to forgive, but either way, this guilt by association tactic is a cheap & cheesy ploy. It catches too many people in its web. And politically, it's a bad idea to offend the very people you want voting for you. If the right persists in calling all those Trinity attendees un-American racists, it isn't going to help them get their message out to that segment of voters...
dan rather did the exact same thing.
As I said, I don't recall that. Dan said he made a mistake in not vetting the documents more thoroughly. It was primarily others who've continued to wonder about the underlying story he was trying to tell...
No one claims to have "the truth" in that story, but many do believe that the question is still open... The fact that those particular documents were fake does not mean that the questions are answered.
so what? that proves nothing.
I'm not claiming it does.
all you are saying is that "proof" was not provided yet. it says nothing of his whereabouts.
We agree... That is exactly what I am saying... If anyone knows anything about where he was, on that base or off, no one has come forward, despite several offers of hefty rewards for doing so...
and at least 90% of the people on that base couldn't provide proof even if they tried to collect. a person's word is not considered as proof. but knowing people i'll bet there has been some who have tried to with only their word to go on.
and remember another thing. if he was not there as it seems you are implying then he was somewhere else and there has been no one to claim that reward on that basis either, has there?
Some were looking for sworn testimony under oath, so yes, a person's word was worth something in this endevor, and yes, some did try (but I don't see any who took an oath before doing so), but nobody's been paid as yet. Not one photo. Not one eyewitness account of a stupid prank he & his buddies pulled while there. Not one copilot on a training mission...
Not only that, but Bush has never discussed any friends/aquantences/enemies from his time there... Nobody he got along with, nobody who stepped on his foot, shared his lunch, flew on a mission with him, went out drinkin' with him... Nothin'. He recalls no one, and no one recalls him.
This was the son of a U.S. Representative, and the grandson of a US Senator, not some unremarkable nobody... ...and yet no one in his unit has any first hand knowledge of his actually being there. He has no firsthand knowledge of anyone he served with while there. There's just nothin'.
To me, the fact that no one has any first hand knowledge of his being ANYWHERE during that period is even more strange, and brings up still more questions...
CNN.com - No winner yet in 'Doonesbury' Bush search - Feb. 27, 2004
CNN.com - Group offers $50,000�for proof of Bush service - Sep 14, 2004
Smoking Jet Campaign
I'm not claiming to know he did or did not serve. But I am claiming that it seems no one else knows, either, and I think someone should...
But my main point is, Bush's "Smoking Jet" controversy has little or less to do with the Reverend Wright story, as far as I'm concerned... The questions are different, the answers are different, the availability of facts are different... I just don't share your view that they have anything to do with each other...
Post a Comment