Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Wright's "Blowback"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:20 AM
Original message
Wright's "Blowback"
Wright's "Blowback"
Submitted by pmcarpenter on Sat, 03/15/2008 - 6:40am. P.M. Carpenter

THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter



Here's what the New York Times had to say about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's causal assessment of 9/11: "A useful and timely alert."

Newsday had this to say: " is on to something." And from the Nation came this: "A straight-talking analysis."

Barack Obama, on the other hand, called it "inflammatory and appalling."

What gives?

Hold on. I got my notes mixed up.

Yes, Obama's fire was indeed centered on Wright's words, but what the New York Times, Newsday and the Nation were addressing was the first installment of Professor Chalmers Johnson's "Blowback" trilogy, which nevertheless said precisely the same as Wright:

What the daily press reports as the malign acts of "terrorists" ... often turn out to be blowback from earlier American operations.

... And what U.S. officials denounce as unprovoked terrorist attacks on its innocent citizens are often meant as retaliation for previous American imperial actions. Terrorists attack innocent and undefended American targets precisely because American soldiers and sailors firing cruise missiles from ships at sea or sitting in B-52 bombers at extremely high altitudes or supporting brutal and repressive regimes from Washington seem invulnerable. As members of the Defense Science Board wrote in a 1997 report to the undersecretary of defense for acquisition and technology, "Historical data show a strong correlation between U.S. involvement in international situations and an increase in terrorist attacks against the United States."

Useful, timely, insightful and straight-talking. Bravo.

Now let's put Johnson in the vernacular, and without mongrelizing his message. We'll permit Wright a whack at it: "We are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."

Perhaps a trifle academically indelicate, but that's also the stuff the multitudes can comprehend with dispatch. Yet rather than being evaluated as useful, timely, insightful and straight-talking, it gets trashed as inflammatory and appalling, and by far more observers than just Sen. Obama.

Again, what gives?

It seems the Rev. Wright is being asked to head to the back of some Straight-Talking Express bus. Quiet, boy, only distinguished white professors are permitted, with impunity, to gussy up the patently obvious in books that the great unwashed will never read, nor should they. That might crimp our imperial style.

more...

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/carpenter/013
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
LaurenG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:25 AM
Response to Original message
1. I love this stuff. Thank you for finding it.
K and R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frances Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:30 AM
Response to Original message
2. As someone who remembers how those who spoke
truth to Vietnam suffered politically (Swift Boaters & Kerry), I think Obama is right to distance himself from Wright.

This isn't about who is right and who is wrong.

It's about perceived "Are you with us OR are you against us?"

Voters aren't interested in historical analysis; they're interested in the bottom line.

Better for the Dems to say they do not support Wright's views anymore than they support Robertson's or Hagee's. Dems should turn the focus back on Repubs who made non PC statements.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. And so we are to ignore the truth once again?
Ignoring the truth is what got us, U.S. here in the first place.
How often do we have to ignore the truth before it becomes so in-your-face obvious it cannot be ignored?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frances Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Of course, Dems should focus on Bush's lies
but that's different than playing defense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. 9/11 is a bu$h lie. And it was Blowback and this administration
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 01:04 PM by RC
did know about it before hand and did use it for their agenda. These are all known facts. So why can't we talk about it? Why is it so controversial to bring up? Why does the messenger get pillared?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobthedrummer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
6. "Truth Time: Wright Is Right" posted at TPM Cafe by DF 3-15-2008 (repost via CommonDreams)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Thanks for that link; goes well in this thread. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 25th 2014, 12:24 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC