This conversation is over… nice talking to you though.

What stories have I “made up?”

John L.

JL: In fact, “should have” is worse than “needed.”

John L.

Thanks for your input.

Tucker can be so right on with some of her commentaries, but with others… well, let me point out a few things:

who, in a pointed allusion to modern-day government eavesdropping, noted that Dr. King was a victim of FBI surveillance

What she does not explain is that the eavesdropping done to the King’s about 40 or so years ago was partially fueled by racism. ANY negro who had any kind of juice in those days was tapped. The surveillance of today is primarily focused on those with affiliations with terrorist organizaions overseas. There was also mention of other extreme activist groups such as the ELF. To lump the King’s situation with all of that is very inaccurate. The Kings were part of a NON-VIOLENT movement unlike the organizations today that are being targeted.

Here’s something else she said in this piece:

and the Rev. Joseph Lowery, whose bad verse made valid points about an unjustified war and neglect of the poor.

An unjustified war based on WHAT? Her opinion?

What gets me here is that the same people who yell and scream about the voting rights of all people will conveniently overlook all of the horrors of oppression the Iraqi people had been through all of those years in addition to a corrupt voting system. While the Iraqi people were celebrating (and still are) for being rid of Saddam and given a new chance, anti-war folks play down this victory for mankind as a “whatever”. Many non-military black folks here in the US have this “We got ours, and to hell with everyone else–WHO AIN’T BLACK” attitude when it comes to signifficant events such as what is taking place in Iraq. “Weapons of Mass destruction”, “where are they?” you ask? If you follow the news, you will find that there are some more clues currently being unearthed that will give us that information. Bush “justified” this war with many substanciated facts–facts that are backed by UN findings–but they were too intimidated to do anything about it. The world body wanted the US to take the heat for doing the job while countries like France and Russia rushed in after the fact to collect on past Iraqi debts. You won’t here that coming from the “the US is in it just for the oil” crowd.

Question: Was Kosovo an “unjustified” war?

You have to be able to recall the UN, other European nations, and the anti-war movement’s attitude towards the US just right before, during, and after Clinton gave the order for us to move in. I could provide for you links and such, but I’ll just leave it up to you to find that information if you are really interested.

As far as the “neglecting the poor”, I have provided numerous facts and data on this site that shows how this administration is outspending both past Democratic and Republican presidents on entitlement programs. I even provided a link to the 2007 budget that shows even more spending (a move that I disagree with).

Although I have a respect for Tucker on a professional level, I do not respect the fact that she will not tell the whole story and pick and choose facts just to make a point.

Although I may not agree with Bush on other areas (like the management of the war, some domestic issues), I find it offensive when critics will not take the time and consider all of the facts before arriving at a conclusion.

There are other parts to her commentary that I could address, but I will just leave off here for now.

The controversy surrounding the funeral of Coretta Scott King is a fitting coda to the final chapter of her story. After all, her husband, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., spent his life generating controversy, something we conveniently forget when we commemorate a sepia-toned and softly lighted version of their lives.

Since the funeral, conservative commentators have been fueling the fires of partisan outrage over remarks made by former President Jimmy Carter — who, in a pointed allusion to modern-day government eavesdropping, noted that Dr. King was a victim of FBI surveillance — and the Rev. Joseph Lowery, whose bad verse made valid points about an unjustified war and neglect of the poor. In fact, those professing outrage at Carter and Lowery are using the same tactics of feigned anger that Muslim imams and autocrats are using to gin up fury over images of the prophet Muhammad, and they do so with equally slim justification.

It’s hard to understand what Carter and Lowery did to deserve such attacks. Criticizing President Bush in his presence? He is the president of the world’s leading democracy, not the emperor of Rome. Americans have a constitutional right to criticize their elected representatives without fear of imprisonment or death.

For his part, the president was cordial, even gracious, playfully hugging Lowery later on. He acted like a man who understood his role as the leader of a politically diverse nation. (Bush’s aides ought to allow him out of the protective bubble of partisan adoration more often; it serves him well to hear from people who disagree with his policies.)

But isn’t it inappropriate to inject politics at a funeral? King didn’t think so. Delivering the eulogy at the September 1963 funeral of four little girls killed when their Birmingham church was firebombed, the civil rights leader was blatantly political, using the occasion to spread blame well beyond the small circle of white supremacists who planted the explosives.

“They are …. martyred heroines,” King said. “They have something to say to every minister of the Gospel who has remained silent behind the safe security of stained-glass windows. They have something to say to every politician who has fed his constituents with the stale bread of hatred and the spoiled meat of racism.

“They have something to say to a federal government that has compromised with the undemocratic practices of southern Dixiecrats and the blatant hypocrisy of right-wing northern Republicans. They have something to say to every Negro who has passively accepted the evil system of segregation and who has stood on the sidelines in a mighty struggle for justice.”

King understood only too well that his cause would offend the powerful, annoy the comfortable and frustrate moderates who believed he was moving too fast, pushing too hard, provoking too much controversy.

Responding to critics in “Letter From Birmingham Jail,” King wrote: “I must confess I am not afraid of the word ‘tension.’ I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth.” In other words, he knew that he would have to force Americans out of their comfort zone, which had accommodated segregation.

King also stirred enormous controversy when he decided to denounce the war in Vietnam. According to Taylor Branch, who recently published his latest chronicle of that era, “At Canaan’s Edge: America in the King Years, 1965-68,” King agonized over his decision to oppose the war. He not only understood the dangers of communism; he knew his opposition to the war could cost the civil rights movement its most powerful ally, Lyndon Johnson. Some respected civil rights leaders urged him to keep his mouth shut.

But his conscience wouldn’t let him. In a pivotal speech at New York’s Riverside Church in April 1967, King said: “I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart. … I knew I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today — my own government.”

If you’ve never heard those words before, it’s no surprise. At the time, the speech was roundly denounced by enemies and allies alike; annual celebrations of King’s life rarely recall it. But King stood by his opposition to the war despite controversy and broken alliances. It hardly seems likely, then, that he or his widow would be troubled by a bit of pointed rhetoric at her funeral.

——————————————————————————–

Cynthia Tucker is editorial page editor for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. She can be reached by e-mail: cynthia@ajc.com.

Response to John L.

Once again John you have proven the point that when we don’t read and quote the facts, we make a mockery of the truth. The title of this thread is “Something else should have been buried…” It did not say NEEDED to be buried as you said. And as far as it is concerned if someone has died they indeed NEED to be buried, don’t you agree? How you came to the conclusion that Duane has a death wish for Mrs. King from that statement, I do not know, but then you seem to always enjoy making up stories.

JL: I was addressing *your” comments, not Lowery’s.

Not only are programs being cut to benefit the wealthy, but the war is for the wealthy: oil interests.

Since Coretta Scott King was working to transform the economic reality of the US.

Two, the title of this thread is very disrespectful to Coretta Scott King et al….as if “two things *needed* to be buried,” meaning you’re glad she’s dead.

John L.

In the “Land of a thousand lakes.”

Chat with you another day.

Have a great evening.

I gotta go too.

Yes, you did. However, you provide no analysis of that document relative to his overall spending!! That is what Lowery did, he said Bush spend billions on war and cut poverty, healthcare, etc.

Now, what analysis of Bush’s budget have you provided that challenges that?

Lowery made no remarks about what other Presidents spent. That was YOUR TANGENT..and a very PARTISAN tangent..surely you admit that?

So, who cares if you provide FACTS about what Bush has spend relative to another President..that is NOT the ISSUE.

What you need to do is provide an analysis of how BUSH is prioritizing spending in HIS budget.

“I thought you were “non-partisan”? Why should them being Conservative matter here?”

I am non-partisan, which is why I can identify partisan SPINNING of the issues. The Heritage foundatio is funded by the right wing to promulgate their right wing perspective…and SPIN on any situations with FACTS.

Just as you are doing here. You are not addressing the ISSUE Lowery has raised you are SPINNING it into some partisan comparison of other administration spending. Which is PRECISELY what the Heritage foundation WANTS you to do.

You are not thinking for yourself because you are too busy defending the PARTISAN point of view with FACTS that have nothing to do with the ISSUE and everything to do with being correct from a PARTISAN perspective.

Do you see how the media is manipulating your thinking? FACTS in and of themselves are not substantative..it is the analysis of those facts relative to the ISSUES and those facts being PERTINENT to the issue that generate honest discourse and deductive reasoning through critical thinking.

You are simply spewing the ‘right partisan view’…and insisting because it is a FACT that you are somehow engaged in honest discourse and you are NOT!!

If you were you could discus the substance of the issue raised on it’s own merit and not constantly mislead yourself with the ‘rightwing” SPIN from some think tank that does nothing but provide facts for the conservative spin.

Start THINKING not REGURGITATING.

Would you believe that I have yet to put away our Christmas tree?

Shameful!

I am doing that right now, so I have to break off for real this time.

Take care!

PS: Are you in Colorado? Just thought I’d ask.

data spewed from the right wing HERITAGE foundation think tank

I thought you were “non-partisan”? Why should them being Conservative matter here? You mention no criticism about the left-wing politics that was present at the funeral.

LOL!

Yeah, whatever!

You can only put Lowery’s remarks in context and/or “challenge” them by looking SOLELY at Bush’s budget ALONE and how he has PRIORITIZED spending in HIS budget. 

Which I provided for you and still you will not look at it. The comparison to other presidents was made to show you the difference with other presidents. Yet to you that is being partisan.

When you get off your non-partisan mountain, please show the rest of us pions how achieve “non-partisanship”.

I challenged his statement by providing for you what Bush actually did spend. I brought up past presidents only to better put it in context.

Yes, you did challenge this statement by providing what Bush spend RELATIVE to other Presidents.

That however does not put Lowery’s remark ” better in context’ RATHER it takes it OUT of CONTEXT and makes an entirely separate and whole OTHER issue.

You can only put Lowery’s remarks in context and/or “challenge” them by looking SOLELY at Bush’s budget ALONE and how he has PRIORITIZED spending in HIS budget.

Not what others did.

Lowery only commented on BUSHES spending priorities no one elses.

Which is why I gave you the link.

See, the GOP talking points do not help you here. You must THINK for yourself and not just lap up the data spewed from the right wing HERITAGE foundation think tank.

They want you to let their ‘think tank’ THINK for you. They want to misconstrue what Lowery said and they want you to beleive this has something to do with Carter and CLinton..and it DOESN’t!!

This is all about BUSHES budget and how he has priortized spending..NOT what other Presidents spent.

So if you have some facts which REFUTE Lowery based on BUSHES budget SOLELY..then you will be ON TOPIC..and creating a FACTUAL discussion we can engage in.

Hmmm. Clinton’s name is only mentioned once in the report. And they didn’t have to do that because it is a given that He was president during studied years of the report.

In short, bring on the FACTS but FACTS ON TOPIC.

Yeah, facts that you want to accept as ON TOPIC.

And you still fail to prove it FACTUALLY!

I have proved that you are off target by continually stating what the ISSUE and SUBSTANCE of the remarks are. You are failing to understand that.

Instead you use the tired accusation of me being “partisan” while you pick and choose the facts you want to accept.

Do you deny that you are partisan? How else do you account for the Heritage Foundation remarks about what this Presidents spending was vs. another?

Lowery CERTAINLY did not address what Bushes spending was vs. Clinton or CARTER.

So why are YOU?

I am not picking and choosing the facts to respond to. I am merely focusing you on what the SUBSTANCE of the comments were by Lowery and Carter.

Lowery did not bring up former presidents budgets and Carter did not bring up FISA nor AL-Q…

so the question is WHY are you??

Stick to the FACTS about the ISSUES raised by Lowery and Carter and then we can have a discussion.

Your attempts to make this into a partisan conversation on tangents that were NOT ADDRESSED are are FUTILE, rather than not factual.

In short, bring on the FACTS but FACTS ON TOPIC.

“LOWERY: We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there. But Coretta knew and we knew that there were weapons of misdirection right down here. Millions without health insurance, poverty abound, for war billions more, but no more for the poor.”

I challenged his statement by providing for you what Bush actually did spend. I brought up past presidents only to better put it in context.

Now, tell me again where I am off topic?

NO. I did not dismiss it as misleading I said it was a TANGENT. Surely, you understand the difference? I am refusing to address an issue you are raising that does not address the SUBSTANCE of the ISSUE that you CLAIM to be remarking about. I did not say it was not factual.

Simply stating a fact that is off-topic merely creates another separate issue. If you are criticizing a person’s statements, your facts should address the issue they raised. You are not doing that. Stay focused and discuss the merits of what was SAID not whole other tangent is all I am saying.

Lowery did not talk about what this President spent vs. another President. YOU ARE. That you are speaking FACTUALLY does not alter the FACT that you are on a TANGENT and failing to address the ISSUE Lowery DID raise which was the budget PRIORTIES and not what one President spent vs. another. The only thing misleading here is you, misleading yourself as to what the ISSUE was that was raised by Lowery.

Did you listen to what Lowery said? He did not compare this President to any other. Lowery simply compared Dubya’s SPENDING PRIORTIES based on HIS budget. No other Presidents budget was mentioned.

And I showed you what THIS president has spent and you dismissed it as misleading again without factually proving otherwise.

This has been going on the whole conversation.

The facts you have raised are not on target.

And you still fail to prove it FACTUALLY! Instead you use the tired accusation of me being “partisan” while you pick and choose the facts you want to accept.

Hmmm, you still do not get it. I have not failed to acknowledge your facts I simply am not allowing you to frame the argument in the context of left or right..liberal or conservative.

The facts you have raised are not on target. You want to talk about spending on anti-poverty programs when Lowery clearly stated that the administration is spending billions on the war but cutting anti-poverty programs. A FACT, reasonable ppl can agree on. His remarks were a comparative statement about the BUDGET PRIORITY’s not former presidents anti-poverty spending!!!.

Except you want to make it about what this President spent vs. that President and that is NOT what Lowery said or meant.

You simply are trying to frame the argument that way. Which is why I gave you the link that goes to the PRIORITIES of the Bush budget, his spending and tax cuts. THAT is the issue Lowery raised.

So far you have not addressed that ..instead you are going on and on about conservative vs. liberal and who spent more which is NOT the point Lowery made.

and automatically concluding that they are missleading and irreleavant.

It is not about being misleading or irrelevant so much as your comments do not focus on the ISSUE the speakers raised. I have not reached a conclusion other than you are off on tangents IGNORING the SUBSTANCE of what was stated so you can conflate everything into some PARTISAN issue.

Dare I ask you to show me where I was being “partisan”?

See above..you are not addressing content or substance you are framing everything from a partisan perspective..and find it shocking that I consider that meaningless..but then that is how a partisan mind thinks.

This is coming from the same person who will not acknowledge any of the facts I have brought up all of this time WITHOUT FACTUALLY DISPUTING THEM and automatically concluding that they are missleading and irreleavant.

This is just too funny. Please stop!

Dare I ask you to show me where I was being “partisan”?