Barack Obama makes me sick.
Here he is, on my TV, condemning his former pastor for the allegedly “appalling” and “outrageous” remarks said pastor has made in public. According to Obama, “They offend me. They rightly offend all Americans.”
It’s bad enough that the US is the kind of place where a politician feels compelled to defend or distance himself from remarks made by someone only vaguely connected with him, but when that politician does succumb to the urge to prevent further damage to his image caused by such a vague association, he should not be so arrogant as to profess to have gauged the feelings of an entire nation, such that he may now speak on their behalf.
Sarah, for one, does not feel insulted by the Rev. Wright’s remarks. Nor, for what it’s worth, even though I’m not an American, do I.
Amongst other things, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright has said he believed the 11th September attacks were retribution for years of malevolent U.S. foreign policy that has caused huge numbers of deaths overseas.
Hmm, what is “outrageous” or “appalling” here? The only thing that’s outrageous about this remark is that it’s patently true. Obama’s dismissal of the remark is what I find appalling.
Obama goes on to say that the Rev. Wright’s remarks are “divisive and destructive” and that they “give comfort to those who prey on hate”. Clearly, Obama needs a better speech-writer to convey the pretence of eloquence, since “those who prey on hate” are presumably those who do good in the world; or so I would have thought.
Now, make no mistake, the Rev. Wright has said a few things that are, at best, hard to prove. More probably, they are simply untrue. Take, for example, the assertion that the US government has spread AIDS in order to wipe out black people. The spread of AIDS amongst certain groups of the American population may, at one time or another, have raised cheers behind closed doors in Washington, but that’s a far cry from their having deliberately propagated and spread the virus.
Nevertheless, Wright’s entitled to his views and Obama should be defending his right to make them, even if he doesn’t agree with the views themselves. Similarly, if he feels that guilt by association is damaging to him with the judgemental electorate, he should merely distance himself from Wright’s remarks, rather than condemn the man himself.
Let’s get one thing straight here. The attacks on American targets on 11th September 2001 were unquestionably the result of the US’s ruthless foreign policy over the last few decades. The terrorists have even said as much. Does Obama perhaps think the US was picked at random and that there’s no rationale behind the attacks? Why is the idea of looking inward to seek the motivation for the attacks anathema to him?
Another thing, Obama said that Wright was equating America’s “wartime efforts” with terrorism, but Wright referred explicitly to foreign policy, not wartime efforts. Of course, you could argue that American foreign policy effectively amounts to war in many territories, but one can’t help but think that Obama wasn’t acknowledging that. rather, he was twisting Wright’s words to be more worthy of the condemnation that was about to follow.
So long as the US continues to take no responsibility for its actions on distant shores, it shall surely know no peace. We all suffer as a result of America’s tragically myopic, unsustainable and pathologically self-serving foreign policy. In fact, I might even go so far as to call such policy “appalling” and “outrageous”, “divisive and destructive”.
I’m glad I can’t vote in American elections. What a responsibility to have to pick the next leader of the most powerful nation on Earth from the pitifully lamentable stable of wankers on offer at the moment.
Between Obama’s spineless and transparent attempts at voter salvage and Clinton’s sublimely ill-conceived decision to lie that she had been under sniper fire during a visit to the former Yugoslavia in the nineties (not to mention her camp’s distasteful negative campaigning against Obama), you could be forgiven for being driven into the arms of McCain. Well, almost.
As usual, it’s all about the public image. In America, sound-bite politics are served to a fast-food culture, and every serious candidate will say or do anything to get elected. Obama is not one iota different in this regard.
I vote for the FuckThePeopleA party, because the FuckThePeopleB party is just plain terrible!
Haven’t you heard? America is the world’s greatest democracy, anything in America is better than anywhere else. Every country wants to be like America, everyone wants to be an American. America is great, and any criticism can never be constructive, it is just plain wrong.
A couple of years ago, Newsweek had a great big article called “Dream on, America” on that subject. Obviously, this was only printed in the international edition.
My first introduction to the Fox News^H^H^H^H Opinion Network last year was this: John Kerry had said something like “maybe we should view American foreign policy through foreigner’s eyes.” The anchor introduced this bit as “He also made an anti-American statement”.
I give up.
Thanks, Geoff. Concise, funny and to the point. Good luck with the FuckThePeopleA party. What do they stand for again?
Bas, thanks to you, too. I’d forgotten that America is, indeed, utopian. I realise now that I’m just jealous of all that freedom, civilisation and social emancipation.
I found the article you mention on-line, but haven’t had a chance to read it yet. Funny that it didn’t go into the domestic edition, isn’t it?
The Fox News comment is very telling. Many Americans would dare to claim that their foreign policy is significantly altruistic and serves to spread freedom and democracy to oppressed peoples overseas.
It’s strange that suggesting that such policy be viewed through the eyes of the alleged beneficiary would be perceived as anti-American, because such beneficiaries are presumably extremely grateful for having the yoke lifted from their shoulders. Wouldn’t viewing foreign policy through their eyes make for some great PR?
Ian: Amongst other things, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright has said he believed the 11th September attacks were retribution for years of malevolent U.S. foreign policy that has caused huge numbers of deaths overseas.
Comment: Rev. Wright used the term “US terrorism” as the cause of the 9/11 attacks. It’s a stretch to equate “malevolent U.S. foreign policy” to suicide attacks.
Ian: …”give comfort to those who prey on hate”.[sic]
Comment: Agree that he couldn’t have reviewed the text of the speech very well. Sounds like something that was pulled from George Bush’s statements.
Ian: Now, make no mistake, the Rev. Wright has said a few things that are, at best, hard to prove. More probably, they are simply untrue. Take, for example, the assertion that the US government has spread AIDS in order to wipe out black people. The spread of AIDS amongst certain groups of the American population may, at one time or another, have raised cheers behind closed doors in Washington, but that’s a far cry from their having deliberately propagated and spread the virus.
Comment: Agree.
Ian: …he should merely distance himself from Wright’s remarks, rather than condemn the man himself.
Comment: Agree. Think he did that. He characterized Rev. Wright’s statements as deplorable, which isn’t to say that the man is deplorable.
Ian: The attacks on American targets on 11th September 2001 were unquestionably the result of the US’s ruthless foreign policy over the last few decades.
Comment: Don’t think a case can be made that the Al-Quaida attacks were about US foreign policy, but the response of Bin Laden, a fanatic, a true believer that his cause (radical Islamic fundamentalism) was the only way. His (any many other people’s) issue is with the US policy of promoting unfettered, US-style capitalism. His response was pretty much a declaration of war against the US as the principal promoter of free-reign capitalism.
Ian: So long as the US continues to take no responsibility for its actions on distant shores, it shall surely know no peace. We all suffer as a result of America’s tragically myopic, unsustainable and pathologically self-serving foreign policy. In fact, I might even go so far as to call such policy “appalling” and “outrageous”, “divisive and destructive”.
Comment: Agree.
Ian: As usual, it’s all about the public image. In America, sound-bite politics are served to a fast-food culture, and every serious candidate will say or do anything to get elected. Obama is not one iota different in this regard.
Comment: Agree that the basic objective of every candidate in an election is to be elected, since being out-of-office means one has little influence over executive decisions. On the other hand, one has to analyze beyond the sound-bites and try to determine the ability, intelligence, and integrity of the candidate and whether one agrees with the direction of the candidate and his/her proposed programs. I disagree with the idea that Obama will say or do anything to get elected. The real issue to me is that the media—especially television “news” reporting—is about entertainment, sensationalism, hooking the viewer, etc., not about educating or informing the viewers. I one wants to get a more comprehensive presentation of what politicians or other decision-makers/proposers say, there’s only PBS or C-SPAN.
Mike,
Thanks for taking the time to reply. I’ll now reply to your comments.
I don’t actually think that it is such a stretch to see the 11th September suicide attacks as the indirect result of decades of destructive US foreign policy.
Whilst the man allegedly behind the attacks is, indeed, a fanatic, there are many more who support him. If more people had the wherewithal to prepare and execute an attack, I believe we would see more of them occurring.
I don’t believe bin Laden’s gripe with the US is its unfettered capitalism per se, but more the implementation of that capitalism, namely imperialism.
I’m talking, for example, about US troops stationed on Islamic soil and interference in the Middle East. By extension, it’s about US support for the Israeli military machine, and how America brokers peace between Israel and the Arabs with the left hand, whilst slipping the Israelis billions in military aid with the right. America thus favours profits over peace.
People have the inclination to refer to acts of aggression by a sovereign state as war. The word terrorism, on the other hand, is usually reserved for the violent acts of loosely coordinated, non-governmental groupings. The net result, however, is the same: immeasurable human suffering. Whether or not a government sanctions the violence is neither here nor there.
To my mind, Al Qaeda and the US are both sponsors of terrorism across the globe and I personally see the US as the much greater threat to world stability in the long run. This is because it perpetrates terror on a much larger scale than Al Qaeda and has an economic goal that can never be achieved. Too much will never be enough for the US, because of the insatiable greed at the core of government, which is intrinsically linked to corporate America.
There’s much that is good in the US, but the foreign policy of successive governments, both Democratic and Republican, has historically been and continues to be utterly repugnant.
If Obama won’t acknowledge or can’t even recognise the human suffering that his country causes across the world, then he’s doomed to perpetuate it and, in so doing, incite further acts of violence against the West.
Most Americans simply do not understand why their country is so deeply reviled across the globe. It is hated by its enemies and feared by its allies. Yet, the average American still believes his country stands for freedom and is generally a force for good in the world.
Until Americans elect a government without the self-serving arrogance to believe the US has a right and duty to act as the world’s policeman, we’re unlikely to see attacks on the West diminish.
For all of his other foibles, Wright recognises this much, at least. Obama’s having condemned Wright (and he did condemn him: he explicitly distanced himself from the man, not just his words) for voicing this opinion demonstrates to me that a new Democratic government under Obama would simply be business as usual, with America as the grand consumer and the rest of the world a product to be used and discarded.