Moral Coward Obama Refuses To Support Decision To A-Bomb Japan

The decision to drop nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki – as much as the Japanese might disagree – is one of the great no-brainers of history.

Here’s a couple of quick reasons why:

TOKYO – Japanese Second World War leader Hideki Tojo wanted to keep fighting even after U.S. atomic bombs destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, accusing surrender proponents of being “frightened,” a newly released diary reveals.  Excerpts from the approximately 20 pages written by Tojo in the final days of the war and held by the National Archives of Japan were published for the first time in several newspapers Tuesday.

“The notes show Tojo kept his died-in-the-wool militarist mentality until the very end,” said Kazufumi Takayama, the archives curator, who confirmed the accuracy of the published excerpts. “They are extremely valuable.”

Tojo, executed in 1948 after being convicted of war crimes by the Allies, was prime minister during much of the war. The notes buttress other evidence that Tojo was fiercely opposed to surrender despite the hopelessness of Japan’s war effort.

An invasion of Japan would have consumed the lives of as many as 4 million American causalities.

Japan refused to surrender even after the first bomb was dropped, thereby welcoming the second.

Students of World War II history also know that Japan was only a couple of weeks away from launching their own nuclear attack against the United States by means of German uranium sent via U-boat.

Of course, when I say the decision was a “no-brainer,” I exclude moral cowards, who will always find a way to dither, to question, to hide, to demagogue.  What is obvious to anyone else becomes an endless quagmire of indecision to such as these.

The Pentagon was fed up with Obama’s dithering moral cowardice regarding Afghanistan 2 full months ago, for what it’s worth.

Obama Declines To Defend U.S. Bombing Of Hiroshima, Nagasaki

Defending the decision of the United States to drop nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WWII is not a comfortable thing to do when you’re in Japan.  But if you’re President of the United States, you must do it. Diplomatically, yes.  With sympathy for the civilian victims, yes.  But you must do it.

But when it came time today for Barack Obama to fulfill that fundamental duty, he failed. The very first reporter [from Fuji TV] called on at the joint press conference with PBO and Japanese PM Hatoyama in Tokyo today put the question to Pres. Obama in blunt and explicit terms:

JAPANESE REPORTER: What is your understanding of the historical meaning of the A-bombing in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?  Do you think it was the right decision?

Obama took a deep breath, paused . . . and punted.

PBO gave a halting response that utterly failed to answer the question.  The closest he came was to observe that Japan “has a unique perspective on the issue of nuclear weapons as a consequence of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and I’m sure it helps to motivate the Prime Minister’s deep interest in this issue.”

The reporter tried again: “do you believe the US dropping of nuclear weapons on –“

Obama cut him off, choosing to answer an unrelated question on the situation in North Korea.

President Reagan – who famously shared his vision regarding the Cold War as “We win, they lose” – was very different indeed from a dithering and morally weak President who recently said:

OBAMA: I’m always worried about using the word “victory” because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur.

And, of course, Obama is doing everything he can to ensure that the United States doesn’t have to bear the burden of a “victory” in Afghanistan, or suffer the indignity of a “victory” against an Iran that is determined to develop nuclear weapons of their own on Obama’s watch.

The Jerusalem Post reports:

Iran rejected nuclear deal, Obama postponing announcement

Iran has completely rejected a UN-brokered nuclear deal, but US President Barack Obama has postponed the official announcement on Teheran’s refusal due to internal political reasons, Israel Radio quoted a senior western official as saying Saturday.

The deal would see most of the Islamic Republic’s uranium shipped to Russia and France for further processing.

The official reportedly told journalists in Paris that Iran has also refused to resume nuclear talks with the six world powers.

What we desperately need is a president who actually has the courage and common sense to prefer victory over chaos, and to recognize obvious historical facts supporting the use of American force with clarity, rather than with postmodern, blame-America-first political correctness.

Obama The War Criminal

The man who has exposed CIA interrogators and Bush officials for condemnation due to their support for “enhanced interrogations” is himself a murderer of innocent women and children.

Red Cross: Many Afghans dead after US bombings

By RAHIM FAIEZ, Associated Press Writer Rahim Faiez

KABUL – The international Red Cross said Wednesday that its officials saw women and children among dozens of dead bodies in two villages in western Afghanistan targeted in U.S. bombing runs.

The Afghan president said he would raise the issue with President Barack Obama when the two meet later Wednesday.

A team from the International Committee of the Red Cross traveled to two villages in Farah province Tuesday, where the team saw “dozens of bodies in each of the two locations that we went to,” said spokeswoman Jessica Barry.

“There were bodies, there were graves, and there were people burying bodies when we were there,” she said. “We do confirm women and children. There were women and children.”

Afghan President Hamid Karzai ordered a probe Wednesday into the killings, and the U.S. military sent a brigadier general to Farah to head a U.S. investigation, said Col. Greg Julian, a U.S. spokesman. Afghan military and police officials were also part of the investigative team.

Karzai, currently in the United States, will raise the issue of civilian deaths with Obama, a statement from Karzai’s office said. The two presidents were scheduled to hold their first face-to-face meeting later Wednesday.

Karzai called civilian casualties “unacceptable.”

Civilian deaths have caused increasing friction between the Afghan and U.S. governments, and Karzai has long pleaded with American officials to reduce the number of civilian casualties in their operations. U.S. and NATO officials accuse the Taliban militants of fighting from within civilian homes, thus putting them in danger.

Local officials said Tuesday that bombing runs called by U.S. forces killed dozens of civilians in Gerani village in Farah province’s Bala Buluk district.

Barack Obama, who personally ordered drone bombings in Pakistan, also has the blood of innocent Pakastani civilians on his hands.

Let’s see: aggressively interrogating terrorist murders to prevent further attacks and save lives, bad; bombing women and children to kill those same terrorists, good.

Let’s treat Obama by his own standard and bring him up on war crimes charges.  Or, at the very least, let’s demand that Barack Obama climb off his moral high horse and recognize that choices have to be made in war, and maybe he shouldn’t judge other presidents for their choices when he has his own share of them to be held accountable for.

Recently, the moral stupidity, hypocrisy, and cowardice of the left was revealed when leftwing funny man Jon Stewart first agreed that Harry Truman, like the hated Bush, was a war criminal for incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.    And then he apologized for calling Harry Truman – a Democrat – a war criminal.  Mind you, nothing was mentioned of the war crimes of FDR, who killed over a hundred thousand civilians during the firebombing of Tokyo alone.  Even the left recognize the blatant dishonesty and hypocrisy endemic to the mainstream leftwing-dominated media.  Antiwar.com calls Stewart a “Wimp, Wuss, and Moral Coward.”  This Week excoriates Stewart for his “pathetic ass-covering,” and points out that “Surely ‘mass incineration’ of civilians ranks ‘as a far worse crime than the very serious crime of torturing prisoners.'”

While I believe that the antiwar left is utterly wrong for arguing that either Bush or Truman (or FDR) were “war criminals,” I can at least applaud the consistency of their logic.  Not so the mainstream left, who hypocritically and dishonestly prefer to subjectively demonize their targets based on politics rather than actual deeds.

So I say this to liberals of all stripes: by all means, attack Bush as a war criminal as you will.  But you damn well better be just as shrill demanding that Barack Obama, a murderer of women and children, be prosecuted for his war crimes.  And you’d better demand that the memos documenting Nancy Pelosi’s role in participating in “Bush war crimes” become public.

Obama: Don’t Forget To Prosecute Nancy Pelosi For Waterboarding

The Obama administration completely reversed itself within the span of a day over its decision to throw the Bush administration officials to the dogs over their decisions in trying to keep this country safe following 9/11.

He went from:

April 20: (AP) President Barack Obama does not intend to prosecute Bush administration officials who devised the policies that led to the harsh interrogation of suspected terrorists, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said Sunday.

To:

April 21: President Obama left open the door Tuesday for charges to be brought against Bush administration lawyers who justified harsh interrogation techniques, though he continued to argue that CIA agents who used those tactics should not be prosecuted.

And that is clearly the result of George Soros, Moveon.org, and the radical left.

Which fully qualifies this as a political witch hunt.  Obama had previously indicated he wanted to “look forward rather than backward.”  His mind was changed for him by leftwing ideologues.

The left have always been cowards who said one thing when it was convenient or expedient, only to denounce the very positions they once held the moment it became convenient or expedient to do so.  For instance, prominent Democrats fell all over themselves to appear tough on Iraq, on Saddam Hussein, and on their demand that the United States eliminate the WMD threat his regime posed.  Fortunately, a number of these statements have been preserved and collected (see Snopes.com; Truthorfiction.com; and Freedomagenda.com for a few examples).  And then THESE VERY SAME DEMOCRATS proceeded to attack President Bush for making the very same statements and pursuing the very same policies they themselves had made and demanded.  They claimed that Bush was a liar when THEY themselves were the liars.  And the mainstream media allowed them to get away with their cowardice, betrayal, and hypocrisy.

And now they are at it again.

Nancy Pelosi says she was never informed about the harsh interrogation techniques that she and her fellow Democrats are now demonizing:

Pelosi says she was briefed by Bush administration officials on the legal justification for using waterboarding — but that they never followed through on promises to inform her when they actually began using “enhanced” interrogation techniques

“In that or any other briefing…we were not, and I repeat, we’re not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation techniques were used. What they did tell us is that they had some legislative counsel … opinions that they could be used,” she told reporters today.

The problem is that she is a flat-out liar.  From a 2007 Washington post story entitled, “Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002: In Meetings, Spy Panels’ Chiefs Did Not Protest, Officials Say“:

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA’s overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

“The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough,” said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.

Congressional leaders from both parties would later seize on waterboarding as a symbol of the worst excesses of the Bush administration’s counterterrorism effort. The CIA last week admitted that videotape of an interrogation of one of the waterboarded detainees was destroyed in 2005 against the advice of Justice Department and White House officials, provoking allegations that its actions were illegal and the destruction was a coverup.

Yet long before “waterboarding” entered the public discourse, the CIA gave key legislative overseers about 30 private briefings, some of which included descriptions of that technique and other harsh interrogation methods, according to interviews with multiple U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge.

With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).

Individual lawmakers’ recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. “Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing,” said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. “And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement.”

And, just as before, Democrats changed their spots the moment it became convenient for them to do so:

Only after information about the practice began to leak in news accounts in 2005 — by which time the CIA had already abandoned waterboarding — did doubts about its legality among individual lawmakers evolve into more widespread dissent. The opposition reached a boiling point this past October, when Democratic lawmakers condemned the practice during Michael B. Mukasey’s confirmation hearings for attorney general.

And Nancy Pelosi is a leader in the field of supporting something until she opposed it.  Following 9/11, there was a real fear that we would be hit again, and thousands – perhaps millions – more Americans could die.  Democrats like Nancy Pelosi supported these necessary measures.  And now she’s demagoguing the people who put the protective measures she supported in place.

Let me provide a few specific examples, using the examples of Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi – who have placed themselves at the forefront of the attempt to demonize the Bush administration’s war on terror.

Hillary Clinton: who mockingly said that she didn’t find Dick Cheney “a reliable source of information,” and who “came closer than any of her colleagues to calling the commander of the multinational forces in Iraq a liar” in saying that accepting General David Petraeus’ report required “a willing suspension of disbelief.”

We will also stand united behind our President as he and his advisers plan the necessary actions to demonstrate America’s resolve and commitment.  Not only to seek out an exact punishment on the perpetrators, but to make very clear that not only those who harbor terrorists, but those who in any way aid or comfort them whatsoever will now face the wrath of our country.  And I hope that that message has gotten through to everywhere it needs to be heard.  You are either with America in our time of need or you are not. — Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York) Addressing the US Senate, September 12, 2001

“Every nation has to either be with us, or against us.  Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price.” — Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York During an interview on CBS Evening News with Dan Rather, September 13, 2001

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members…

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.  Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security.” — Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York) Addressing the US Senate October 10, 2002

Hillary Clinton was for that war before she was against it.

Nancy Pelosi:

“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations.  Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq
December 16, 1998

“Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons.  There’s no question about that.”

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
During an interview on “Meet The Press”
November 17, 2002

“I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities.  I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein.  …  Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein.  Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons.”

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Addressing the US House of Representatives
October 10, 2002
Congressional Record, p. H7777

Allow me to introduce one more official, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, for the sake of displaying naked Democratic chutzpah:

“We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction.  It has refused to take those steps.  That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict.”

Senator Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada)
Addressing the US Senate
October 9, 2002
Congressional Record, p. S10145

“Now I believe myself … that this war is lost, and that the surge is not accomplishing anything, as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday.” — Sen. Harry Reid, April 18, 2007

And, of course, the surge strategy was the VERY THING that brought us success in Iraq.

Harry Reid was in favor of winning that war before he was in favor of surrendering.  And then he blamed Bush.

Cowards.

Hypocrites.

Demoagogues.

Incoming President Eisenhower didn’t prosecute FDR officials for war crimes.  He didn’t prosecute FDR for interring Japanese-Americans in camps.  He didn’t prosecute FDR for firebombing Dresden.  Nor did he prosecute Truman for firebombing Tokyo or for dropping two atomic bombs on civilian-populated targets.

Nixon didn’t prosecute Kennedy for the Bay of Pigs or for his role in getting the United States into Vietnam.  Nor did he prosecute Lyndon Baines Johnson for his own massive role in perpetuating the Vietnam War.

Right now Obama has released more photographs of events that occurred at Abu Ghraib to further incriminate and attack Bush.  But Bush is no more responsible for Abu Ghraib than Lyndon Johnson was responsible for the Mai Lai Massacre on March 16, 1968.

President George W. Bush – whose administration is now being criminalized for being Republican – did not criminally prosecute Bill Clinton or Clinton officials for their massive expansion of the “extraordinary rendition” program.  If Democrats want to prosecute people for writing memos, how about prosecuting the people who wrote this one?  And let’s not forget that Bill Clinton should likewise be prosecuted for his decision to launch missiles at what turned out to be an aspirin factory while attempting to distract the country in “wag the dog” manner during the growing Monica Lewinsky scandal.

This is a naked political hit job.  And prosecuting the opposition power after an election – besides having never before been done in American history – will guarantee that this country ends up as just another banana republic.

If anyone is going to prosecute any Bush Administration officials for crimes, just make sure that Bill Clinton and his officials along with Nancy Pelosi are standing in the dock with them.

The last thing that needs to be said is this: If Barack Obama goes ahead with this political attack, and prosecutes Bush officials while ignoring the CIA personnel who actually COMMITTED the acts of (so-called) “torture,” then let him also write a letter of apology to every SS Nazi who was prosecuted for HIS role in war crimes in spite of the fact that “they were just following orders.”  Let him state that the Nuremburg defense is alive and well under his administration.  And let him categorically state that he will allow millions of Americans to die in a terrorist attack rather than cause a single terrorist any physical discomfort.

Hey, Obama: Here’s Why “Talking” To Evil Tyrants Won’t Work

I hope our nation’s leaders read about Tojo and learn from him.

Diary shows Japan’s wartime leader Hideki Tojo resisted surrender till end

August 12, 2008 By: Mari Yamaguchi, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

TOKYO – Japanese Second World War leader Hideki Tojo wanted to keep fighting even after U.S. atomic bombs destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, accusing surrender proponents of being “frightened,” a newly released diary reveals.Excerpts from the approximately 20 pages written by Tojo in the final days of the war and held by the National Archives of Japan were published for the first time in several newspapers Tuesday.

“The notes show Tojo kept his died-in-the-wool militarist mentality until the very end,” said Kazufumi Takayama, the archives curator, who confirmed the accuracy of the published excerpts. “They are extremely valuable.”

Tojo, executed in 1948 after being convicted of war crimes by the Allies, was prime minister during much of the war. The notes buttress other evidence that Tojo was fiercely opposed to surrender despite the hopelessness of Japan’s war effort.

Can you imagine Barack Obama flying to Imperial Japan to “dialog” with Prime Minister Hideki Tojo? Can you imagine Obama convincing Tojo to get in line with American policy when a pair of nuclear bombs couldn’t?

I mean, understand something. This Barack Obama who says that as President he would talk with rogue leaders such as Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejab “without preconditions,” yet is somehow so afraid to talk with any conservative hosts (such as Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity) – or any real conservative media at all – that you’ve got to wonder how effective even Obama thinks he’d be.

But all that aside, why on earth would anybody but a genuine fool think that a leader like a Saddam Hussein, a Kim Jung Il, a Mahmoud Ahmadinejab, a Osama bin Laden, a Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, etc. etc. – who would let millions of their people starve, who would send out thousands of suicide bombers to murder women and children, who would inflict hell on earth if given half a chance – would turn from their evil ways if only Barack Obama talked with them? And if he really has the kind of persuasive powers he thinks he does, then why doesn’t he go on Hannity’s America and turn Sean into an abortion-loving liberal to prove it to the rest of us?

And yet this utterly stupid idea of “Barack Obama will talk to our enemies!” somehow holds sway over so many liberals.

You could paint string yellow and sell it to these people as gold.

Many tyrants respect only power, and fear only leaders who are willing to use it. But increasingly, there are more and more leaders arising in the world today who – like Tojo – won’t even restrain their evil in the face of catastrophic death and defeat. The only option, save bearing your throat to their knives, is to kill such people before they do more far more damage.

Had British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain recognized that Adolf Hitler was such a man, rather than trying to “talk” with him, millions who died would likely have been saved.

The reason Chamberlain (who was actually ruthless in domestic politics) is considered one of the greatest weaklings and appeasers in history is because he continued to try talking when he should have been fighting.

It was with that thought in mind that Robert Heinlein wrote:

“Anyone who clings to the historically untrue — and thoroughly immoral — doctrine that violence never solves anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler would referee. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor; and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms.”

Furthermore, there is a strange ignorance among liberals regarding the fact that the United States government under President Bush, like every President before him, is in constant communication with both friends and enemies alike. President Bush doesn’t personally give Mahmoud Whatanutjob the time of day, but the State Department, the CIA, and the U.S. military are in contact with intermediaries who are in contact with Iran. The same is true with every other rogue regime.

Another thing to consider is the size, power, wealth, and influence of the United States relative to other countries. In terms of size, if you overlay the United States over Europe, the U.S. literally either covers or overlaps Spain, France, Germany, Poland, Czech Republic, Italy, Greece, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia Herze-govina, Serbia and Montenegro, Ukraine, Romania, Moldova, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Albania, Turkey, Russia, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Sweden, Libya, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and Syria. To say that we should allow France or Germany to tell us what we should do in a given crisis is akin to letting Oklahoma run our nation’s affairs.

And given Obama’s documented penchant for arrogance as a mere presidential nominee, it’s frankly very hard to imagine that he would be any better or more humble of a listener than George Bush would he to win the office of President and become the leader of the most powerful nation on the face of the earth.

If that isn’t enough, then let me say one last thing: Obama really isn’t all that good of a talker. If he isn’t reading it off a teleprompter, chances are he isn’t making much sense:

I mean, yeah, maybe Ahmadinejab would say, “All right! Enough! Whatever you want! We’ll give up our nuclear weapons program! Anything! Just get this clown away from me before I lose my mind!” But you have to figure Ahmadinejab is tougher than that, and Obama’s ramblings would barely faze him.

However you want to slice it, the thinking that Barack Obama is somehow going to solve all the world’s problems by talking to the rogue leaders of the world is beyond irrational.

Jeremiah Wright Sermons Transcripts: Context Doesn’t Help

I found a partial transcript of several of Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s controversial remarks in fuller context in the Chicago Tribune. I probably don’t need to say that the Chicago Tribune would tend to be as friendly toward Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright as any paper in the country.

By and large, reading the context pretty much reads just like the “out of context” sound bites.

They have his “chickens coming home to roost” bit from 16 September 2001; his July 2003 “God damn America” tirade; and his “Bill did us just like he did Monica Lewinski. He was riding dirty.”

Too bad they didn’t have his sermon that blamed white Americans for creating the AIDS virus as a genocide against black people. I would have really liked to have heard that one in context.

From the interview with PBS’ uber-lib Bill Moyers, I understand that Rev. Wright believes he was taken out of context and that everyone in the media should feel very, very bad.

Let’s try to get past the blatant fact that Bill Moyers is – and always has been – a liberal hack with a taxpayer-funded power-base which he uses to rip at Republicans and conservatives (check out this link and then this one for speeches in his own far-leftist words [but WARNING: they are long, boring, and dripping with sanctimonious self-righteousness!]). Yes, Moyers does his liberal, Obama-loving best to help Wright whitewash his comments without raising the type of objections fair-minded journalists would be inclined to raise. In spite of all that, it was still interesting to hear Wright’s “woe is me for I have been wronged” remarks regarding his racist, anti-American rants.

Jeremiah Wright is a man who believes America is a terrible place, but – to his credit – at least he’s consistent: he believes America has ALWAYS been a terrible place. Reading these transcripts from the Chicago Tribune, and listening to several other remarks that have become public, Wright pretty much rips America upside-down from day one. Our founders were immoral slave-owning hypocrites, we have always been a racist country from day one, that sort of thing.

That’s the context, folks. There is simply no getting away from it. More context simply reveals more anti-Americanism and racism. Does the fact that he finds a quote from some former ambassador named Edward Peck in any way distance himself from the message he is presenting on 16 September 2001? Absolutely not. It is a fool’s argument. Wright simply found a quote to use as a leaping-off point – and believes me, he LEAPS OFF.

Let’s agree that America is not a perfect place (and keep in mind that if it is, you’d better leave, because YOU WOULD RUIN IT!). We’ve done bad things. And black people have been the victims of a number of those bad things that America has done. Just in case some of you didn’t know that, okay?

But this is a man who does not say ANYTHING good about America. Not a (to put it terms that Wright likes to use, “Not a G-D thing”). Listening to Wright – in context – you learn that the United States of AmeriKKKa is vile, it is hateful, it is racist, it is immoral, it is corrupt, and on and on and on.

More context only serves to reveal more of his blatant hostility to America.

It is because of the tutelage of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright that Barack Obama’s wife Michelle has never been proud of this country in her adult life, and believes “America in 2008 is a mean place.”

I read more of his sermon from FIVE DAYS AFTER INNOCENT CIVILIANS WERE ATTACKED BY MURDEROUS TERRORIST COWARDS, on 16 September 2001, and I frankly want to puke all the more. He goes back to World War II to prove how we bombed Japan and killed women and children to drive his point home. He omits the fact that the United States was simultaneously fighting the two most despicable regimes in the history of the planet, and had to go to the bloody mat to defeat enemies who were far too full of hate to ever surrender. World War II was our greatest hour: but for Jeremiah Wright and his followers, it is our greatest shame.

Read about the Holocaust, where 6 million Jews perished, the slave labor, the rape of Nanking, the Korean women forced into prostitution, the despicable medical experiments performed on human beings, and so many other ugly, ugly facts about these enemies, and draw your own conclusion. We live in a dark and terrible world, and we have often been called upon to stand up and fight; to fight for freedom, for what is ours, for what is right.

As for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Japanese would not surrender.  Period.  American intelligence estimated that an invasion of Japan would consume four million lives – and that fully one million would be ours.  After we destroyed one city, we gave Japan an opportunity to surrender; they refused.  It took a second city to shake them out of their confidence that they could never be defeated.

Allow me now to respond to Jeremiah Wright’s self-serving exegesis of Psalm 137:9 and put IT into context. Remember, this is the Bible. It’s the story of God and His people. You don’t just read one verse and think you understand the whole story. So let’s look at the greater story:

In Genesis 13, God promises the land of Israel to Abraham’s descendants [Interestingly, Israel is the ONLY land that God ever gave to a people as an “everlasting possession” (Gen 17:1-8); and yet it is the land whose possession by that people is most reviled and most doubted. Just a little food for thought]. In Genesis 15:13-16, God tells Abraham that his descendants will one day inherit the land – but not for another four generations, because “the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete.” After those four generations had passed (and the iniquity of the Amorite WAS complete), God commanded Moses and Joshua to take the land. He commanded them to conquer it, to drive out the inhabitants and kill them.

Missionaries talk about “power encounters.” In the time of the Old Testament, every people had their own gods. And if one people defeated another, it was because their god/gods were stronger. When the Amorite was as depraved and wicked as they could get, God sent His people into the land, and God played the game of “power encounter” with those people, and the God of the Bible demonstrated that He and He alone was the God of gods. These people were evil beyond persuasion. They could and would only understand violence. And so, in Exodus, Joshua, and in other sections of the Old Testament, God revealed Himself to all the peoples around through violence and war. And these wicked people got Jehovah’s message the only way they could understand it.

So when I read Rev. Wright’s exposition of Psalm 137:9, I see a man who is quite literally characterizing the VERY GOD HE CLAIMS TO WORSHIP AS BEING AS TERRIBLE AS HE SAYS THE UNITED STATES IS. There’s no such thing as a “just war” for Wright. America CAN’T be “just” for Wright. America is just – to again quote Michelle Obama – “a mean place.”

For Jeremiah Wright, there is no good in America. None whatsoever. There is no coming to the defense of his country. Even World War II was an example of an immoral United States of America for him. He is simply too bitter and too full of hate to see the good in this country.

Jeremiah Wright wants us to see how – in context – he’s really not such a bad guy. But he won’t give the United States that same basic privilege. He won’t allow any “context” to color his anger and bitterness against America, or against the white people who live in it.