Blowback Mountain

Note: I wrote this post back on April 1 of this year. Initially, after thinking that the Jeremiah Wright situation would resolve itself (finally), I shelved it. I felt a harsh rebuff of Wright's unfair critics wasn't worth stirring the pot for. But after listening to Bill Moyers' recent journal on the subject, I wanted to share my original thoughts.

Pat Robertson has made dozens -- comments that make you cringe, recoil or just roll your eyes. The late Jerry Falwell publicly blamed gays, lesbians and feminists for the attacks of 9/11. Even the revered presidential pastor Billy Graham -- with unparalleled access and influence in the White House -- said outright anti-Semitic statements to the most powerful policy maker in the world at the time, President Nixon. Last I checked, nobody associated with these aforementioned men of God were questioned on their patriotism or presidential qualifications. In fact, having had them in your court is a right of passage for conservatives.

Taken to the extreme, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright's words, specifically the passage about the national mood after 9/11, sound as outrageous and ugly as Robertson's, Falwell's and Graham's utterances. Senator Obama at least had the courage and character to distance himself from the commentary and controversy. More importantly, as a black candidate courting white voters, he had no choice. Blasphemy is in the eye of the beholder and this is still a country built around Robertsons more than Wrights. Add to this Wright's persona, a gruff and spirited black man pointing his angry fingers right at mainstream America, and no wonder he's the new pariah slash boogieman.

But with all the condemnation of Wright's words, what I've yet to hear is whether there is any basis to his claims. What about Wright's "God damn America" sermon's declaration that 9/11 is a symptom of our foreign policy and our selective concern about human rights in the rest of the world? As hard as this is to swallow for flag pin-wearing Americans, this is not far from the "Blowback" argument made in national security circles for years now. And Wright was not the first or the last to utter such seemingly grandiose claims as a rebuttal to our national indignation following the attacks.

Here is former presidential candidate Ron Paul speaking during the debates on 9/11 blowback:

Ron Paul in response to a FOX News debate question on American war politics:

Paul: Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East. I think Reagan was right: we don't understand the irrationality of Middle-Eastern politics. So right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican, we're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us.

Interviewer: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attacks, sir?

Paul: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it. And they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, "I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier." They've already now since that time have killed 3400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.

Meanwhile, months later . . . The media discovered the words of Pastor Wright.

A section of the much vilified and much excerpted sermon of Jeremiah Wright on the hypocrisy of American opinion surrounding the 9/11 attacks given its geo-political actions over the past half century:

Rev. Wright: "We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki. And we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because of stuff we have done overseas is now brought back into our own backyard. America's chickens are coming home to roost."

One commentary is the fiery, if politically suicidal and socially offensive, oratory of a seemingly divisive and radical preacher. While the other is the more sober, researched, but equally as impassioned condemnation of American foreign policy by a major Republican presidential candidate. Neither view is mainstream. Both demand that Americans take an honest look at past and current acts--and how they have dire consequences in our current reality.

But only one has been endlessly vilified, mocked, dismissed as heresy and looped on cable news for weeks. It's fine to pick the reverend's words apart, but let's keep things in perspective.

Heck, maybe I should just let Bill Moyers speak:

Follow Raymond Leon Roker on Twitter: www.twitter.com/raymondroker

Comments

[jhNY]

Somehow it remains true that after 300 plus years as Americans, Black people only seem to have a kind of provisional status here. As if, were they to entertain the wrong notions, their presence here might be revoked.

Back to Africa! If you don't like it here why don't you go back to Africa? I've heard this all my life whenever, in the minds of the speakers, Black people get too pointed in their criticism of the government or society in general. Black people seem to have yet to earn the right to speak freely here, especially on matters that reflect badly on the white majority. And the white majority, with too few exceptions, is entirely too accepting of this status quo.

[BadCompany]

I think the difference is that Wright is connected to Obama (a man that's going somewhere).
wRong Paul is going NOwhere.

[Pyrum]

Obama is a flash in the pan. His supporters will abandon him when they open their eyes and see he has no intention of following the constitution or ending the Iraq war. The r3volutionists, however, are in this for the long term.

[Lon]

I think it is slightly inaccurate to equate Wright's argument with that of Paul. Wright's speeches are sermons, and they don't tend to make sense outside of the religious context in which they are given. (One of the points that Wright keeps making). The topic of the 9/11 sermon was the naturalness of the desire for revenge, but the importance to the christian of resisting that desire.

The point of his sermon then was not a political critique of why these particular arabs hate us, but a more general critique of the use of violence to solve problems. So while Paul was making the particular point that al qaeda's hatred of us stems from our involvement in the middle east. Wright's argument was that in a world in which we are too quick to justify the use of violence, it should not be surprising that other people can justify to themselves the use of violence against us. I doubt Wright was even alleging a direct causal role here, but rather suggesting we helped to create the background conditions under which such an attack makes sense.

If you look at the list of acts of aggression by the US only one of the four things mentioned is likely to have had any direct impact on al qaeda's attitude towards us. This is a Christian pacifist message rather than a geopolitical analysis of the roots of terrorism.

[Decipherer]

The "blowback" part is all about who is calling out the United States to address honestly the reasons why certain things happen, such as the attacks of Sept. 11. It seems that if you are white and a Christian right-winger it's OK to be critical, but if however you are a black "Wright"-winger, you are out of bounds. The associates of the former are immune from guilt by association, but it sticks like glue to the latter.

That's the race connection.

Now, if the U.S. kept its nose out of everyone else's business, didn't think it was ouf God-given right to take more than our share of the world's resources, and didn't think that the rules applied to every other country but not us, there is no question that the world would look to the U.S. for moral and other leadership it so desperately needs.

[tao53nyc]

Hate to tell you this, but Ron Paul is not a "former" Presidential candidate - he's still running and on the primary ballot. He got 16% in PA, despite McCain's so-called inevitability. He's going to give us a great entertaining time at the convention.

[Stirner]

I'm looking forward to Roker's next item, in which he will discuss Fred Thompson's chance to become the next President.

[Pyrum]

Ron Paul did better than both Rudy Giuiliani and Fred Thompson in the primaries, despite the fact the latter two were "top-tier" candidates who received tons of media attention.

[compassionone]

I can't believe I just heard Rudy Giuliani say that. Does he really believe that 9/11 was an attack because we are rich and free and not that it was antagonized?

Got to say Ron Paul is one of the few thinking Republicans out there.

[Pyrum]

Look what else Rudy Giuliani said: "Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."

If one accepts his definition of "freedom," I guess I CAN believe foreign terrorists "hate us for our freedom."

[MenopausalMick]

I agree that the famous and/or infamous religious "leaders" have said some things that make one BLINK....raise a hand and whisper, "Check please".

Dogma and Spirit Talking and Chasing Male Prostitutes, oh my.

I don't give a horse's hind end about the flavor of the sermonizing...hate speech is hate speech, no matter WHO is spewing it.

Hagee apologized to Catholics today. Too funny. Okay, Catholics really AREN'T alien beings from the planet Evil Incarnate (maybe a wee exagerration). Good timing on his attempt to clean up his act before McCain has to face one opponent. Of course, there's still that wee tiny matter of bringing Armegeddon to a theater near you.

Wright spoke some truth and then went to Wackaloon Land about AIDS being created in this country. Good timing on that one, too...if he intended to broadside Obama.

Pundits take turns calling Obama muslim with one breath and the follower of a Christian pastor who hates America in the next breath. Gosh...that Barry is a busy guy, ain't he?

And they ALL get around to hating gay/lesbians.

What a great big pile of steaming effluent.

Separation of church and state. Somebody look it up. I'm pretty sure Wiki has it.

Religious choice is ONLY guaranteed when that separation of church and state is firmly established in the law of the land.

Get your ding dang personal religious belief system OUT of my politics.

Bugger.

Menopausal Mick

[nsiah7]

Until Americans discuss and put the issue of race behind them, the end for America is not near.

[compassionone]

I'm not clear how "blowback" is a race issue. It is more about foreign policy and sticking US nose in everyone else's business.

[patmancando]

Unfortunately Obama has used the race issue to his advantage....."the urgency of now", 'we can transcend racial issues in this country" implied is that electing him will accomplish that. Michelle has used it constantly in her rallies, "In my adult life I have never been proud of my country, I am now." His surrogates have played the race card and blamed it on the Clintons, when anyone who really thinks about it knows that the Clintons have a history of embracing black people and causes. To win votes? The black vote has been loyal to the democratic party for decades; so why would he have to pander to them. It is unbelievable that the racial divide is bigger than ever, that the first viable black candidate would use that issue for his own gains. But as he won the loyalty of blacks with his black side, he has alienated the working class with his white side. When the history of this race is written in rectrospect, the Rev. Wrights, Jessie Jackson Jr's and so called neutral Rep. Clyburn's role in this campaign will be seen in a clear light. You can't transcend race when you are using it to win.