The Martin Luther King that Obama does not want you to remember

[Catherina]

The Martin Luther King that Obama does not want you to remember

11 August 2013
Glenn Greenwald
USA and the War on Terror

"We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy." -- Martin Luther King 1967

...

That extraordinary speech was devoted to answering his critics who had been complaining that his anti-war activism was distracting from his civil rights work ("Peace and civil rights don't mix, they say. Aren't you hurting the cause of your people, they ask?&quot .

...

In that speech, King called the US government "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today", as well as the leading exponent of "the deadly Western arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long" (is there any surprise this has been whitewashed from his legacy?).

...

Working against US imperialism was, he said, "the privilege and the burden of all of us who deem ourselves bound by allegiances and loyalties which are broader and deeper than nationalism and which go beyond our nation's self-defined goals and positions." For King, opposing US violence in the world was not optional but obligatory: "We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy . . . ." The entire speech is indescribably compelling and its applicability to contemporary US behavior obvious. I urge everyone who hasn't already done so to take the time to read it.

...

What I always found most impressive, most powerful, about King's April 4 speech is the connection he repeatedly made between American violence in the world and its national character. Endless war wasn't just destructive in its own right, but is something that ensures that America's "soul becomes totally poisoned", fosters "spiritual death", perpetuates the "malady within the American spirit", and elevates "the Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them." In sum, to pursue endless war is "to worship the god of hate" and "bow before the altar of retaliation".

This is the overarching point that drives our current debates about war and militarism through today. The debasement of the national psyche, the callousness toward continuous killing, the belief that the US has not only the right but the duty to bring violence anywhere in the world that it wants: that is what lies at the heart of America's ongoing embrace of endless war. A rotted national soul does indeed enable leaders to wage endless war, but endless war also rots the national soul, exactly as King warned. At times this seems to be an inescapable, self-perpetuating cycle of degradation.

...

MORE: http://stopwar.org.uk/index.php/usa-war-on-terror/2196-the-martin-luther-king-that-barack-obama-doesnt-want-you-to-remember

[forestpath]

1. K&R

[mazzarro]

98. K&R x 1000

[G_j]

2. Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence

EVERY American should LISTEN to this speech!

http://archive.org/details/MartinLutherKing-BeyondVietnam-1967

Obama really doesn't have a lot in common with MLK Jr. I've always felt it disingenuous when he uses MLK quotes.

[Summer Hathaway]

3. In what way has Obama demonstrated

that there is any aspect of MLK that he "doesn't want people to remember"?

If you keep grasping at straws like this, there won't be any left for the next strawman you will undoubtedly be building within the next twenty-four hours - as is your pattern.

[G_j]

9. Listen to the speech, then

then take a moment to contemplate drones.

[Summer Hathaway]

18. Nice deflection.

But can you answer the question: In what way has Obama ever demonstrated that there is any aspect of MLK that he "doesn't want people to remember"?

That is what is being stated in the OP. I'd like to hear some examples of Obama doing that - or even one.

[G_j]

23. let's put it this way

you will not hear Obama address the issues which are the heart of this speech, and King's world view.

Think of it more like the "medical study tobacco companies don't want you to know about"

[Summer Hathaway]

38. Oh, I see.

So if Obama doesn't address every issue MLK ever spoke about, that means he "wants people to forget" what MLK stood for.

I haven't heard Obama address every issue that Washington, Lincoln, FDR - and many other great Americans spoke about. He's obviously trying to get people to "forget" all of them.

[LWolf]

55. Talk about deflection.

The point made is not what Obama is, or isn't, talking about.

It's about the stark contrast between what MLK was talking about and the policies of the Obama administration.

Here he talks about the need to speak up when your government is doing the wrong thing; in this case, an unnecessary war. He recognizes how difficult it is to step beyond the conformist thought that keeps some from self-reflection and dissent.

The recent statement of your executive committee are the sentiments of my own heart and I found myself in full accord when I read its opening lines: "A time comes when silence is betrayal." That time has come for us in relation to Vietnam.

The truth of these words is beyond doubt but the mission to which they call us is a most difficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government's policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one's own bosom and in the surrounding world.

You seem to be more concerned with putting down any dissent within the Democratic ranks when it comes to our POTUS than with acknowledging the reasons for that dissent.

He connects the war agenda, the war culture, with increasing economic and opportunity gaps.

Since I am a preacher by trade, I suppose it is not surprising that I have seven major reasons for bringing Vietnam into the field of my moral vision. There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I, and others, have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor -- both black and white -- through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam and I watched the program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.

And he's right. We see it happening now. We see the economic gaps widening, not closing, in a state of perpetual war. We see that, under GWB and Obama, the poor are getting poorer and some of the work accomplished when MLK was leading is eroding. We are regressing.

We see our POTUS continuing the perpetual war. Drones are a tool for that effort, as G_J pointed out.

Our real crisis is not one of "terror," but one of poverty. We need to be pouring our attention and resources, not into war, not into military action, but into eradicating poverty. The Obama administration is keeping our MIC busy with "terror," while opportunity at home dwindles and prosperity for the 99% is more and more endangered. This is the point you are deflecting.

Not that I expect you to acknowledge it; I don't think your spirit will move against the conformist thought within your own bosom. On the contrary, I predict that you will increase the frequency and intensity of your efforts to deny the point.

[Summer Hathaway]

71. The OP clearly states

that there is an "MLK that Obama wants people to forget".

I have asked, repeatedly, how Obama has demonstrated that this is in fact the case.

All I'm hearing back in response is a continual change of subject. It would seem obvious that I am not the one who is "denying the point".

Again, the point made in the OP is that there is "an MLK that Obama wants people to forget". So far, no one has been able to explain how Obama is attempting to make people forget anything.

[LWolf]

78. .

[Summer Hathaway]

84. Great pic

You have, albeit inadvertently, described the "there's an MLK Obama wants people to forget" crowd.

They are very selective about the reality they choose to accept - especially when that reality is nothing more than another strawman erected by the OP to be rallied around.

[LWolf]

187. And three.

[grasswire]

205. REALITY is the high proportion of our hungry children...

...and the number of displaced families, and the number of homeless GIs and all the other brutal situations resulting from policies that a White House could more properly address were the occupant a true progressive and not a compromising centrist.

[G_j]

94. ok agreed, the headline could have been better

now can we move on to the actual subject matter?

[arely staircase]

100. obamacare and redistribution

Where does the money for the subsidies come from? Partly by reducing corporate welfare: reducing overpayments for Medicare Advantage, reducing tax breaks for very generous insurance plans; partly with new taxes on the wealthy.

And while a few people will be hurt — young, healthy individuals too affluent to qualify for subsidies, wealthy taxpayers, etc. — a much larger number of people will be helped, some of them enormously.

Does this amount to “redistribution”? Well, yes — not as an end in itself, but yes, a lot of people will be made better off at the expense of an affluent few.

Paul Krugman

[G_j]

115. I thought the gist of the subject was

war and militarism..

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

199. People blame the president for so much that they cannot even

keep up with the outrage of the day. I guess today it's something else. Tomorrow they'll find something else. The next day will be something else. And so on.

It'll never be good enough.

One thing I'm sure MLK, Jr. would agree with Obama on is that "The Black Tax" is in full effect.

[bhikkhu]

112. If inequality is the actual subject matter...

Obama has raised taxes on the top 2% (where so much of the income is) and raised the capital gains tax.

The ACA, the program that has worked hardest for, has been called a massive redistribution of wealth, almost unprecedented in our time (by the repugs, of course). It may be as significant a step as Social Security in its impact on inequality.

Pretty much all the legislation that Obama advocates for, if you really look at it, is centered around decreasing our income and wealth inequality problem.

[Summer Hathaway]

119. The "actual subject matter"

is the fact that the OP stated that there is "an MLK that Obama wants people to forget".

A bullshit notion if ever there was one - and one that the OP, nor anyone else, is able to explain.

[G_j]

127. I'm sorry to disappoint you but

that is your subject matter, and obsession it would seem.

[Summer Hathaway]

129. I wouldn't call it an obsession.

I think that if someone makes a statement, they should be able to back it up. In this case, and in many others where this OP is concerned, no supporting facts are ever available.

[G_j]

133. you might complain about this then

What Some Dog Food Companies Don’t Want You to Know About Added Fats

http://www.dogfoodadvisor.com/choosing-dog-food/dog-food-fats/

Or this,

Alberta's Underground Tar Sands 'Oil Blowout' Industry and Government Don't Want You to Know About

http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/3543481

there are hundreds of such titles out there, and I doubt If you will find quotes of officials actually saying they don't want you know something.

Greenwalds piece originally had a better title. I liked that one better, but a suggestion, listen to the damn speech at least.

[Summer Hathaway]

135. Promoting the idea

that people who don't agree with this OP have never heard MLK's speeches is yet another epic fail.

[G_j]

139. reading comprehension class is over for the day

[Summer Hathaway]

145. I'm afraid that reading comprehension

left the DU building along time ago.

"At least listen to the speech" presupposes that myself, and others here, have never heard it before, have never read it, have never pondered it, have never grasped its meaning.

"Still a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest." That's DU in a nutshell.

[G_j]

147. well good then

are you ready to discuss it?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

198. You know what's interesting? White conservatives insists that MLK, Jr.

would've supported the Republican Party had he still been alive. In fact, they KNOW for a fact that he indeed supported Republicans. And in fact, they know for sure that all of our civil rights icons that have gone before--including Malcolm X--were really Republicans and had they lived, would've condemned the Democratic Party.

Now we have liberals who insist that they know what Martin Luther, Jr. felt and how he would've responded to Barack Obama and how he would've had disdain for Obama and yadda, yadda, yadda.

But like I said, it is disgusting when white conservatives exploit the memory of Martin Luther King, Jr. for their own ideological ends. It is ALSO disgusting when our side does it.

I agree with everything you've written here.

And those who hate this president can't seem to give you a straight answer in this ridiculous thread. All they know is keep building strawmen. They have nothing!!!

[rury]

92. Now, you are deflecting, big time

Income inequality has been getting worse for decades, LONG before President Obama took office!
Are you laying that at his feet?
The anti-Obama diatribes here are beyond ridiculous!!

[LWolf]

124. I have no need to deflect.

I understand, and acknowledge, the point of the OP. Which is the point.

That makes twice now.

[maddiemom]

214. You really nailed it here. So right!

[woo me with science]

240. Beautiful post.

Thank you.

[WinkyDink]

63. You have opened the Social Security can of worms here.

[Summer Hathaway]

125. Yeah, fer sure

Asking the OP to explain how there is "an MLK that Obama wants people to forget" is all about Social Security.

[dennis4868]

103. Seriously, this is the craziest

OP of all time. This place is nuts. I hardly come here anymore.

[SunSeeker]

185. Yup, and as sane people like you stop coming, the place gets worse.

Such a ridiculous, lying, anti-Obama OP should be alerted on and hidden, but with fewer sane people coming to DU, the juries lately have been skewing in favor of DUers who are crazy with hate for Obama. They hide a post that calls someone a Snowdenbot, but refuse to hide a post that calls a long time DUer a troll for supporting the President. DU has become a place where it seems the majority of posts on the home page bash Obama and the Dems. The site name is becoming more and more ironic as the days go by.

[sabrina 1]

104. I would say the killing of innocents is a pretty glaring 'issue' which MLK spoke about.

When you boast about having 'secret kill lists' that can hardly be viewed as something that is in tune with the message of MLK.

He doesn't have to address anything, but we can make note of what our leaders choose to address and choose not to address. That is OUR right, is it not?

[Summer Hathaway]

120. You're free to make note

of anything you choose.

The OP didn't say "Obama is not in tune with the message of MLK". She said that there is "an MLK that Obama wants people to forget".

Words have meaning. If the OP can't back up those words, she shouldn't have posted them.

[sabrina 1]

159. I didn't say the OP said anything. I said it. Anyone who has kill lists is not in tune with the

message of MLK.

If people want to know what the OP said, I'm smart enough to know they can read it for themselves without my help.

[JDPriestly]

118. Obama has continued to bomb and kill many people including women and children

and including innocent people. He uses his discretion as commander in chief to fight wars and intervene in domestic affairs of other countries.

Interestingly, as with Bush, the countries in which Obama has killed the most people are neighbors with Saudi Arabia or Iran (which is a neighbor of Saudi Arabia). Yemen and Pakistan. If you notice, Syria and Libya are on the path North from Saudi Arabia to the Mediterranean Sea as is Egypt. And we appear to be intervening in some way although the extent is unclear in Libya, Egypt and Syria. It's puzzling.

To what extent is Obama like Bush before him placing access to Saudi oil before human life.

[Summer Hathaway]

122. The question, yet again, goes unanswered:

In what way has Obama demonstrated that there is "an MLK that he wants people to forget"?

Apparently no one here can answer that question.

[kelliekat44]

190. Uh, it is useless to enter into debate with the anti-Obama folks. They put words into his mouth and

thoughts into his brain. But nice try.

[Summer Hathaway]

237. Not only do they put words and thoughts into

Obama's mouth and head, which is bad enough.

But they also dig up dead civil rights icons, insert their hands up their asses, and attempt to work them like Muppets:

"Hi, I'm MLK, and if I were alive today, I would find Barack Obama to be reprehensible!"

Some people truly have no shame - and unfortunately, a lot of them post on DU.

[KarKar]

222. It's kind of a core issue.

*ZOOM* And I'm made the "over your head" gesture with my hand as I typed "ZOOM".

[Summer Hathaway]

226. The "core issue" I have raised

is that the OP states that there is an MLK that "Obama doesn't want people to remember".

And as you can plainly see, I have asked several times what evidence there is that Obama wants people to forget a certain aspect of MLK.

No one has been able to answer that question, which is clear and incredibly simple.

Maybe it's the question that went "zoom" over everyone's head - or, more likely, no one has any evidence to show that Obama has done any such thing, because he hasn't - and wouldn't.

[KarKar]

227. Ye shall know them by their fruits.

Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

Matthew 7:16

[Maedhros]

51. "In what way has Obama ever demonstrated that there is any aspect of MLK

that he "doesn't want people to remember"?

By asserting the right to execute American citizens, who are noncombatants, without due process and far from any battlefield.

By redefining "militants" as "any military-aged male" so that after action reports show that only "militants," and no civilians, were killed.

By defying a specific Congressional order not to do so and bombing Libya anyway.

I could go on.

[Summer Hathaway]

67. Oh, I'm sure you could go on

and undoubtedly will.

You still haven't answered the question, though. That's because this entire premise that there is an "MLK that Obama wants people to forget" is as ludicrous as it gets.

But I've come to count on Catherina's strawmen to keep me laughing.

[Maedhros]

69. I'm sure you know this, but I'll post it anyway.

When the OP writes that there is an "MLK that Obama wants people to forget," it doesn't mean that the OP thinks that Obama literally wants people to wipe the memory of MLK's speech from their minds.

What it means is this:

Obama's actions with regard to projecting military force against the populations of small countries that can't fight back are picture-perfect examples of what MLK was discussing in his speech. And while Obama may praise MLK from time-to-time, he clearly has not taken to heart the message that Dr. King was putting forth with this speech.

[ConcernedCanuk]

176. You got it!

.
.
.



CC

[Enthusiast]

181. Thank you.

You got at the heart of the matter.

[G_j]

72. it's sad you would rather find humor

on her post, than open your eyes and partake in the discussion of what King tried to convey to his country.

[Summer Hathaway]

128. I find it incredibly humorous

that someone would post that there is "an MLK that Obama wants people to forget" and expect to be taken seriously.

[Maedhros]

209. Go read my post #68

and try to take it seriously.

You may find that if you reply to a post with a reasoned, civil response then people will in turn reply to your posts with reasoned, civil responses. That's the heart of a functioning discussion forum.

Or you can sneer at people.

[cheapdate]

70. I agree with you, Summer Hathaway.

I don't have any objection to criticizing US national defense policies under the Obama administration. But the claim in the OP that Barack Obama would personally prefer to foster a dishonest view of MLK's life and legacy is irresponsible, tawdry, and spurious.

There can be no serious doubt that if MLK were alive today, he would be strongly opposed to many of the president's policies, and that he would remain a powerful voice for peace, justice, and reconciliation.

But the claim that Barack Obama "doesn't want people to remember" what MLK stood for is just irresponsible as hell.

[Summer Hathaway]

76. And I agree with you, cheapdate

"There can be no serious doubt that if MLK were alive today, he would be strongly opposed to many of the president's policies, and that he would remain a powerful voice for peace, justice, and reconciliation."

However, I am not surprised reading this kind of "OBAMA WANTS PEOPLE TO FORGET" BS being posted here. There's nothing like a flimsily-crafted strawman to rally the usual suspects.

[1awake]

195. So your problem isn't whether we have a president

that MLK would find shocking or reprehensible... it's the poster's wording choices that matter?

[cheapdate]

229. If you can't recognize the difference between a questionable "wording choice"

Last edited Tue Aug 13, 2013, 02:49 PM - Edit history (4)

and a fallacious and irresponsible claim, then I doubt that any further explanation from me will help to clarify the matter. However, to restate and possibly to clarify the point I made earlier; absent a strong and clear basis you don't get to make unequivocal assertions of the kind, "my opponent wants you to believe...." -- not in honest debate. I don't get to speculate about your motives or private opinions and claim it as unequivocal fact, and you don't get to do the same with me, not in an honest debate.

Judging from your question it would seem to me, rightly or wrongly, that you gave little consideration to my complete post.

I said that, "I don't have any objection to criticizing US national defense policies under the Obama administration." I also said "There can be no serious doubt that if MLK were alive today, he would be strongly opposed to many of the president's policies, and that he would remain a powerful voice for peace, justice, and reconciliation."

I would think it would be reasonably clear from those statements that I would agree that US militarism under president Obama is problematic. But to satisfy your curiosity in hopefully clearer terms, I have serious concerns over US national defense and foreign policy under this president. I have serious concerns and questions about our goals, objectives and long term strategy in the Middle East, North Africa, and elsewhere in the world. I have grave concerns over the means by which we would achieve those goals.

You may fit that answer to your awkward question however you like.

[Maedhros]

211. I posted this for Summer Hathaway, but it appears nobody has read it.

So here it is again:

When the OP writes that there is an "MLK that Obama wants people to forget," it doesn't mean that the OP thinks that Obama literally wants people to wipe the memory of MLK's speech from their minds.

What it means is this:

Obama's actions with regard to projecting military force against the populations of small countries that can't fight back are picture-perfect examples of what MLK was discussing in his speech. And while Obama may praise MLK from time-to-time, he clearly has not taken to heart the message that Dr. King was putting forth with this speech.

So yes, the headline is poorly-worded. But the essence of the post is worth discussing: how does one reconcile Kings April 1967 speech with the current Administration's warmaking behavior?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

196. You see what they're doing: using a black man's words to smite

another black man! They, meaning some white liberals, do it when it's Cornel West or Harry Belafonte or misrepresenting what John Lewis said, or any black person who is at odds with Barack Obama. They exploit that person to attack Obama. I guess to shield them from any charges of racial bias. It goes a little something like this:

See, Martin Luther King, Jr. would've hated what Obama did, too!

See how that works? I hate it when white conservatives do this--inviting black conservatives on to condemn other black people. I too hate it when liberals do it. It's disgusting! They should stop this!!

If they want to argue the merits of a point, then argue the point on its own merits!

[truedelphi]

215. Show me a single instance in th last two years when

Obama mentions the plight of the poor.

We went through an election cycle just ten months ago, and the middle class was barely acknowledged.

While execs from JP Morgan, AIG, Citi, Wells Fargo, etc all got seats at the 30,000 buck a place mat tables.

And I have yet to hear Obama mention how the wars in this nation are fought for the benefit of the One Percent, as Martin Luther King Jr dares to mention in this speech.

How successful is the One Percent? We now have a guy in the WH who is to the RIGHT of Richard M Nixon, and yet people view him as some kind of Che Guevarra.

[Summer Hathaway]

228. So sorry Obama

hasn't mentioned the plight of the poor often enough to suit you.

But here's what he has actually done[/n]:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110212904

As they say, actions speak louder than words - except where Obama is concerned, of course.

[CakeGrrl]

232. OP just went for a cheap demonization of the President

It's easy - just make it up and it sounds good. The pro-Snowden crowd seems to love certain "pretty words".

[woo me with science]

31. Thank you. nt

[ProSense]

11. Not only

"If you keep grasping at straws like this, there won't be any left for the next strawman you will undoubtedly be building within the next twenty-four hours - as is your pattern. "

...is Greenwald grasping at straws, but he's attempting to lecture the President about war when Obama was the one who spoke out against a war that Greenwald initially supported.

I mean, did Greenwald remember the MLK he cites when he supported the Iraq war?

This is Greenwald's debunk of his support for the Iraq war?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023134060

[Summer Hathaway]

15. Sorry, ProSense

But you're talking about the Greenwald that the GG fans don't want you to remember.

[arely staircase]

36. Touché

That's gonna leave a mark

[bravenak]

68. Uh oh.

Stop being reasonable.
It's unfair to others.

[cheapdate]

74. Ipso facto.

[Number23]

88. NAILED IT.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

95. HA! N/T

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

201. Whoop, there it is!! The Greenwald defenders-ODSers don't want us

to remember that Greenwald totally supported the invasion of an UNARMED nation that never attacked us. Never did anything to us. Didn't possess weapons. And has now devolved into chaos.

Oh, they LOVE Glenn Greenwald now!!

What a bunch of hypocrites these people are! They have absolutely no credibility. NONE!!

[uponit7771]

238. +1

[G_j]

16. I didn't expect you to actually address

MLK Jr.'s views on American foreign policy.

[KG]

22. they haven't figured out how to throw him under the bus yet.

[woo me with science]

30. Not publicly, anyway. +1

[George II]

25. MKL Jr.'s views on American foreign policy were based on world conditions....

...in 1967, not 2013. I won't speak for him, but I seriously doubt he'd have exactly the same opinion about American foreign policy if he were here today.

[G_j]

34. I knew somebody would say that, since he is not around

to speak for himself. One may speculate that he would have changed his views. I do know one thing, MLK jr. was more committed to the principals of nonviolence than most any other historical figure.

As for changed conditions, the MIC has grown substantially since then, and we have developed far more efficient ways of killing people.

[midnight]

35. After listening to this speech I thought how relevant it is to our world conditions today....

[WinkyDink]

65. Are you KIDDING?! TWO illegal invasions (Iraq; Afghanistan)?! Gitmo? Drones? The NSA?!

No, it's true; his words would be MUCH HARSHER.

[Enthusiast]

182. Afghanistan = America's longest war.

And not one of accomplishment.

MLK would have led marches against Iraq and Afghanistan. Because, like millions of his fellow citizens, he would have recognized the inherent dishonesty of the "war on terra".

[sabrina 1]

111. And I seriously doubt he would approve of the droning of children. I can't speak for him

either, but he did speak very clearly for himself, so I feel confident in stating that he would be horrified at how much worse this country's foreign policies have become since he spoke so eloquently about them.

[Savannahmann]

39. So what is the case?

Did Greenwald's view of the war evolve? Or did it change with the political times? I've met many people who's opinion on the war more closely resembles mine, a change on their part. Am I to accuse them of being Anti-Obama? Or perhaps the thing that is closer to the truth is that they have come to see what I saw, and it took some time, and now oppose the war?

The question is this. Can your views never change? Can your views never evolve? In the 1950's most people were comfortable with the segregation of America. In the 1960's many of those same people opposed the forced desegregation. In the 1970's, public opinion began to change, and by the 1980s the idea of segregation was viewed with IMO proper disdain.

During that time, members of the KKK walked away, and apologized for their behavior. During that time people learned that they were wrong, and sought to atone for their actions. Are we to never forgive them? Times change, opinions change, and judging from Public Opinion polling, which continues to show diminished support for the wars, there is a continuing trend of change in public opinion.

So why should I hold this one reporter to a standard I do not hold others to? Why would I cheer the evolving opinions of people who are not in a position to influence public opinion, but deride those who are?

In order to maintain some sort of balance, must I now become rabidly in favor of the war?

[sabrina 1]

109. Congress doesn't agree with you, nor do the governments around the world who

are not too happy to have their populations under surveillance by the US who have zero right to do so.

But keep trying to deflect from the issue, it won't work, but I give you credit for trying.

[RFKHumphreyObama]

126. Good one ProSense

I would trust President Obama any day of the week to represent the true values and beliefs of MLK than wishy-washy emoprogs like Glenn Greenwald.

[TiberiusB]

170. And again with the whole "let's jump on Greenwald" thing...

Glenn Greenwald wasn't actively blogging during the time when he mistakenly supported the Bush Administration's run up to the Iraq War. By the time he started speaking out, it was in opposition, not support. The article, which you, for some reason, keep bringing up as though it proves something, speaks to his disillusionment with the U.S. government over the Iraq invasion and his realization that being a patriot means much more than simply blindly following your chosen leader.

But enough with the Greenwald strawman...

A better title for the article might be "Obama's actions conflict with the words of MLK" or "Obama's use of military force worlds apart from the words of MLK". Regardless, I would say that the title is a case of hyperbole more than being an actual strawman, and either way, it's a distraction from the real discussion.

[chervilant]

20. Defensive, thinly-veiled

derision does not diminish the stark contrast between this administration and the Reverend Martin Luther King.

[rury]

66. Unbridled, unveiled derision leads me to believe

That some on DU think that Dr. Martin Luther King and President Barack Obama should be just alike even though their capacities and responsibilities were/are entirely different.
Ridiculous!!
Is it because they are both black men?
Can you not distinguish between the roles of an inspirational civil rights leader and the president of the United States when both are black men??

[chervilant]

82. Where is this

"unbridled, unveiled derision" of which you speak? Who said anything about thinking Dr. Martin Luther King and President Barack Obama should be "just alike"? Why is their race relevant to my comment?

And, your last sentence is completely bizarre. If you think the OP is wrong, take it up with the author.

[rury]

89. I am responding to YOU

You said pointed out the difference between the Obama Administration's policies and Dr. King's teachings and I am saying that the two men have/ had different responsibilities so why even compare the two??
Read my other posts regarding the OP.
I have addressed the OP and it seems bizarre to from start to finish.

[chervilant]

149. Actually, I find it presumptuous

and condescending that you would assert that I cannot discern the differences between a civil rights activist -- and pacifist -- and the President of the United States!

Why even compare the two?!? Why not? Have their experiences as black men in a racist society produced relevant commonalities? Has President Obama seen enough police brutality to recognize the merit of advocating for those of us who participate in non-violent protests? Have the real PTB restricted Mr. Obama's options as POTUS, or is he actually a corporate shill?

JHCOAC! Not everyone who questions or criticizes Mr. Obama's performance is a racist, nor do ALL of his critics hate him!

[Enthusiast]

183. I detected no unbridled, unveiled derision in your post.

Just so you know.

[chervilant]

225. I appreciate your post.

I wonder if you've noticed an increase in derisive, divisive posts on this website; or is it just me?

[Enthusiast]

235. Oh, yes.

As posters try to defend the indefensible their posts will grow ever more strident.

[TreasonousBastard]

79. It might be noted that king was never a President, and...

thusly had a lot more leeway to talk when he was never required to act on much of that talk.

[chervilant]

152. It might be noted

that Reverend King knew his days were numbered, and I have to wonder if our POTUS feels threatened by the fear-mongering and hate-mongering racists who cannot STAND to have a black man (particularly a good-looking, fit, smart, funny, articulate, and CAPABLE black man) in the White House.

[Egalitarian Thug]

210. It might also be noted that any President's actions speak far more than anyone's speech.

This President has repeatedly and consistently taken actions that indicate direct opposition to what MLK spent and lost his life fighting for.

*The preceding does not in any way state or endorse the idea that this President is the worst we've had, but the standard has fallen so far that a Presidential houseplant would place above to bottom quarter.

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. Listen to the speech

Then think f the totality of US Imperial foreign policy, and Drones in particular.

My only difference with the OP...is that this is not Obama...it is a power elite invested in myth making, forgetting or creatively changing certain events, such as this one. Obama just happens to be part of that power elite.

Americans are not used in openly talking in terms of elites...and it is high time Americans learn the language.

[kath]

83. Pay attention - this was NOT the title to Greenwald's piece when it was 1st published during the

Week of the inauguration in January. That title is "MLK's vehement condemnations of US militarism are more relevant than ever"' with the subtitle
"His vital April 4, 1967 speech is a direct repudiation of the sophistry now used to defend US violence and aggression".

The title in the OP is the one given to the article when it was posted today on the website of the Stop the War Coalition (stop war.org.uk).
So - not Greenwald's words.
but the whole piece is well worth reading, and MLK's April4speech well worth listening to or reading.

[Summer Hathaway]

131. What on earth are you rambling about?

I didn't say anything about whether the title was Greenwald's or not - nor do I care.

My only mention of Greenwald at all in this thread was in response to the post about GG having been a supporter of the war in Iraq.

Maybe YOU should try paying attention before you post.

[MADem]

132. Further, the videotape is all about George Bush. That's what makes it double-bullshit.

Who is deploying to Iraq these days? Anyone? Beuehler?

Why are we in the midst of a military drawdown, if Obama "doesn't want people to remember" how terrible war is?

There's an "overtone" to this argument that I find disturbing.

[Summer Hathaway]

134. There is an 'overtone' to many of these types of arguments

But I suppose today was MLK's turn to be held out as a champion for anti-Obama rhetoric - in view of the fact that the "John Lewis supports Snowden" meme didn't exactly pan out as hoped.

[MADem]

136. Yep, there it is. nt

[Doctor_J]

138. We already know that all of Obama's critics are racist. Including

Cornell West. Why does every discussion of his republican policies end up with anti-murder dems being called racist?

[Summer Hathaway]

141. I never said that Obama's critics are racists.

But you just did.

That speaks for itself.

[TiberiusB]

171. That wasn't pulled out of thin air.

I think you missed the back and forth between rury and chervilant. I may be missing something myself, but I would bet that was what was being referred to.

[morningfog]

189. You should ease it on the personal attacks.

It helps make DU suck.

[Egalitarian Thug]

207. OMFFSM

[tblue]

4. There's not much they have in common.

IMHO Martin would not hesitate to tell Pres. Obama, to his face or in a speech, what he thinks about US policies whether O wanted to hear it or not. And I don't think it would have much sway over our POTUS.

[arely staircase]

37. It is so good that he has you here to speak for him and explain to us

his opinions on events decades after his death.

[G_j]

41. perhaps that is because

you have not taken the time to study those events and opinions yourself?

[arely staircase]

47. no

I'm just not clairvoyant.

[G_j]

54. you don't have to be clairvoyant

since King left a wealth of writing and speeches.

http://history1900s.about.com/cs/mlkspeeches/

[arely staircase]

56. not regarding current events post 1968 nt

[G_j]

59. you attempt to devalue King 's clearly stated

convictions by asserting he may not have kept them to the present day.

[arely staircase]

114. nah, you trying to speak for him is silly nt

[snappyturtle]

5. So timely....hope all will take the little time to listen to the video. nt

[xchrom]

6. du rec.

[liberal_at_heart]

7. K&R

[SidDithers]

8. Greenwald. LOL...nt

Sid

[totodeinhere]

177. Instead of laughing about Greenwald why don't you read what MLK said? n/t

[Egalitarian Thug]

223. He may well have, but substance is the very last thing conservatives want to talk about.

As long as the conversation can be diverted to personalities, political parties, who posted it, who wrote about it, what else was happening, whether words were misspelled or incorrect punctuation was used, the point is lost and the mission accomplished.

[KG]

10. a speech MUCH more important than 'I have a Dream.'

and just as relevant today.

[Catherina]

14. It never loses its freshness n/t

[zeemike]

49. That is because it speaks to fundamental principles

that we have shit canned as a national policy.

[Enthusiast]

184. PLUS ONE!

Beautifully said.

[Number23]

151. Curious. Why do you consider this speech "MUCH more important" than I have a Dream?

[CakeGrrl]

160. Interested to see if you get a response

My guess is because it suits the purpose of trying to shame the President - with another groundbreaking Black leader's words, no less. Greenwald doesn't seem to mind co-opting to suit his asinine purpose.

[Number23]

163. Not only that but "I have a Dream" held lots of white people complicit

in their roles as helping to deny black people their rights. And in IHAD, because he was specifically talking about racism and the plight of black Americans (which was King's passion, which is the reason anyone knows his name, and which was the reason he was killed), to a certain subset of people, that automatically makes other speeches where this might not have been the singular point of focus of course, "more important."

When King talked about being judged by the content of his character, he wasn't talking to other people of color.

[JI7]

169. there is some strange attempt to try to make him

into something he was not. and to dismiss or take away from why he was so important. why he did what he did.

i guess they have to do that so them using him to attack Obama doesn't come off so gross . but it actually comes off even worse. to dismiss what he stood for when it comes to racial equality ?

[Number23]

173. Yes, we talk alot about this in the AA forum. The "white washing" of MLK and other civil rights

heroes.

It's so bad around here that when I posted the famous quote from Malcolm re: white liberals a while back, some folks accused me of making it up. Malcolm was about as hard core "Black Pride" as you can get. And you know who else was? MLK. But that gets whitewashed in order to make him more palatable to some.

[G_j]

168. because

he greatly upset a different group of people when he challenged the powers on American foreign policy.

[Number23]

172. Here's a thought...

why don't you let the person to whom my question was asked actually answer why they think this speech was "MUCH more important"?

Judging by your number of posts in this thread, it's obvious that you have alot invested in it for some reason. But my post was a direct question to someone and I'd like for them to answer it.

[uponit7771]

12. Greenwald = damn joke. His ODS shark jump happened long ago

[ProSense]

13. The piece is dated 21 January

Where did the 11 August 2013 date come from?

[kath]

86. see post 83, above.

I would think that your research skills are developed enough that you would have been able to figure this out on your own...

[alp227]

17. Mike Malloy covered this topic, referencing the Greenwald article.

Back around the time of inauguration day.

[George II]

19. Did I miss the memo?

Is this the official "Beat up on Obama" weekend?

[babylonsister]

21. Every day with this poster...same as it ever was. nt

[Scurrilous]

53. You'd better believe it!

[MADem]

248. +1 nt

[Number23]

91. And not the first time they've tried to use MLK to do it too.

This poster and GG are just thick as thieves. Tells me ALL I need to know. About both.

[G_j]

107. Did you listen to, or read the speech?

tell the truth now...

[Number23]

110. There is probably little that anyone on this site can tell or show me about MLK

that I don't already know (and sure as HELL not anyone in GD). I've heard that speech before, thanks for your interest.

[G_j]

113. that's good then

as those who are most upset about the OP, have carefully avoided discussing it at all.

[Maedhros]

212. They're only here to defend the President from what they consider to be a slight.

It's the same with every issue: drone warfare, chained CPI, NSA surveillance, Trans Pacific Partnership, etc. They are here to denigrate, sneer and mock. Reasoned, civil discussion is not on their agenda because, apparently, what we all say upsets them so much that we aren't worthy of a civil response.

It's difficult not to respond in kind.

[Doctor_J]

46. Are there specific times when Dems are allowed to criticize the president's Republican policies?

I didn't see it in the FAQ.

[arely staircase]

48. 24/7 around here nt

[George II]

81. Sure, when the President DOES have "Republican policies". Haven't seen any yet though!

[Autumn]

24. I heard that speech in 67. It sent chills through my body and tears to my eyes. It still does today.

My God, what we lost.

[KittyWampus]

27. At least both Obama and MLK understood civil disobedience.

[Scootaloo]

28. Obama? Now now, man... Let's not be forgetful...

There was Bush, Clinton, the other Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon and Johnson, too. Let's not go pretending that Obama is special on this score - hell, that collection isn't special, either, except they're the ones who ran the show during or after this speech. Go on down through the rolls of presidential history, you're not going to find one that did not wash the feet of the military.

Obama's not going to change this. I harbor a sad doubt that any president will, no matter how "perfect" they might be when elected. Policy is bigger than the president, made abundantly clear that no matter who runs the show, policy continues the same. If you expect this one to wave his hands and change things, just like that... I don't know what to tell you.

[Maedhros]

52. You are, of course, correct.

But the error committed by many is in thinking that Obama represents some kind of movement AWAY from the crimes of his predecessors.

[Civilization2]

101. exactly,. the president is the PR face of the corporate-military who actually control the policy.

getting all caught up in who is the PR face truly misses the point. The table is tilted the game is rigged,. .

[midnight]

29. K&R For this timeless speech....

[arely staircase]

32. Why would Obama not want me to remember that?

are there any sharks left for Greenwald to jump?

[BainsBane]

64. Just another way for people to show how much they hate the president

Last edited Tue Aug 13, 2013, 11:17 PM - Edit history (1)

Imagining they know more about civil rights than a black man is particularly rich. It's becoming increasingly difficult to tell so-called leftists from the right.

[blue neen]

80. You know,

if it's 1963 or 2013, the scope and breadth of hatred does not change.

It's a shame that both MLK and President Obama experience(d) so much of it.

[G_j]

121. this has absolutely nothing to do with race

its about war and militarism.

what a feeble and offensive attempt to smear people by comparing them to the racists who hated King.

[blue neen]

148. That's weird.

I didn't make any mention of race whatsoever, but you just did.

Those parapraxes...they'll get you every time.

[TiberiusB]

178. What?

What sort of hatred directed at King were you referring to, if not of his race? And when you join his name with Obama and directly link present day with the '60s, you are not talking about race? What then, are you talking about? Their height? Weight? Taste in fashion?

[BainsBane]

242. Invoking a Civil Rights icon against a black president has nothing to do with race?

Hardly convincing.

[G_j]

243. have you ever heard of human beings?

for Christ's sake, I should have alerted on that post, which oh so subtlety implied that those pointing out a major difference in these two human being's views on America's militariy role in the world were akin to southern cracker, white robes. I consider that to be over the line. You guys are race baiting, so why don't you take a deep breath.

[BainsBane]

247. Yes, I've heard of human beings. I've heard of back human beings too.

And just how is it you figure that race detracts from a person's humanity? Black and human being are not diametrically opposed.

If people were not deliberately invoking race (the good black man, King, vs. the bad black man, Obama), then they need to think more carefully about how they make their arguments. This article and OP are in very bad taste, to say the least.

As for alerting, it generally doesn't work well to alert on your imagination. Juries tend to rule based on what people actually write. Observing someone's race and questioning racial subtext is not race baiting. That you want to pretend race doesn't matter doesn't make it so.

[bhikkhu]

33. Which is why he ended the Iraq war, and is following through on ending the Afghanistan war?

And presiding over the largest cuts in the DOD since the end of WWII? [on edit; ok, the largest cuts in unadjusted dollars, but not in adjusted dollars).



Note that the graph is based on the DOD budget, but does include the two off-budget wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The cuts are significant. I appreciate the anti-war message, but I think credit should be given where it is due, and that where one is at any moment is less important in the long term than the direction one is heading.

[DeSwiss]

40. Catherina, that's why they killed him.

[center]They. Still. Run. Everything.[/center]

The shadow government that Sens. Frank Church and Daniel Inouye exposed in the 70's never left. They didn't flinch. They sacrificed a few virgins, said how sorry they were and promised never to get caught doing anything like that again (which was a lie, turns out), and then they called it a day.

[center]They. Still. Run. Everything.[/center]

When MLK began talking about the MIC's then-cash cow: Vietnam, many didn't realize what he'd done. He did, but not many others at the time. In June 1963 JFK said to Walter Cronkite of Vietnam: "in the end it's their war. They have to fight it.'' Before November was gone, he was. Robert sought to pick up the mantle of his brother and MLK -- and not 2 months passed before another convenient death was completed and the NWO is maintained.

[center]They. Still. Run. Everything.[/center]

- Once you can understand these truths, it becomes easier to understand how people voted for one Obama, but ended up with the one we have now.....

[center]

They. Still. Run. Everything.[/center]

[AnotherMcIntosh]

45. 4/4/67 speech. 4/4/68 assignation. Either (a) just a coincidence or (b) someone was sending

a message. Your choice.

[blue neen]

42. Why does Glenn Greenwald think he has the authority to say what is on President Obama's mind?

I usually don't comment much on the Greenwald-speak that goes on here at DU, but this article is dated January 21. All that does is prove that Greenwald and many DU'ers take every opportunity they can to complain about and deride this President. January 21, February, March, on into August.

Greenwald has made another ridiculous assertion, and his posse is driven to post it here on DU---all in the name of division. Now, what would MLK think about that?

[babylonsister]

62. "all in the name of division."

Funny how that's working so successfully, too.


Now, what would MLK think about that?

[kath]

90. Pay attention - the title of the OP was not Greenwald's title. see post 83 above .

[blue neen]

99. Excuse me?

This is what "paying attention" tells me: There are far too many posters now explaining the meaning of the thread and/or the title. It doesn't need translation; the intent is quite clear.

It is, indeed, a Fonzie moment for Greenwald and crew.

[zeemike]

43. We are beyond approaching spiritual death

We arrived there about 2001 when we accepted torture as normal.

And many did not seem to notice it or care.

[arely staircase]

50. What would MLK think about Obama ending torture?

[zeemike]

57. When did he do that?

They are still force feeding prisoners at Gitmo...and sense it is a secret we don't know if there is a secret law that allows it

But If I see the congress pass a law that forbids it, and Obama signs it, I will believe it is over...but not until then.

[Maedhros]

73. Not to mention the black site in Somalia

that is still in use:

http://www.thenation.com/article/161936/cias-secret-sites-somalia

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/21/997081/-INTERVIEW-Jeremy-Scahill-On-Uncovering-CIA-Black-Sites-In-Somalia

http://harpers.org/blog/2011/07/the-cias-secret-prison-in-somalia/

"Ending torture" is a bit of a stretch with respect to the Obama Administration.

[zeemike]

85. Thanks for that.

I did not know all of that, but it does not surprise me at all...I assumed the same sociopaths were still ruining it and the government contracts are lucrative.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

44. MLK gave his anti-war speech on 4/4/67 and (apparently only by coincidence) was killed on 4/4/68.

[PowerToThePeople]

58. Just beautiful. What a great man. I had never heard that speech before.

Bookmarked.

[G_j]

123. and a lot of people pontificating in this thread

still haven't.

[Summer Hathaway]

180. Why do you find it necessary

to keep insisting that people on this thread have never heard that speech?

Do you have some deep-seated need to believe that anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint is obviously not as informed as you are?

I doubt there are more than a handful of people on this thread who aren't as familiar with MLK's speeches as you are - and probably most of them more so.

[msanthrope]

192. No...I think you are assuming that other posters are as

ill-educated as those who are who waited until this thread to expose themselves to this speech. Nothing is more amusing on DU then reading the exhortations of the Farthest Left to read about things I lived through or educated myself about without the benefit of YouTube.

You're a little late to the party.

[PowerToThePeople]

244. Rude.

Star Member msanthrope (18,134 posts)
192. No...I think you are assuming that other posters are as

ill-educated as those who are who waited until this thread to expose themselves to this speech. Nothing is more amusing on DU then reading the exhortations of the Farthest Left to read about things I lived through or educated myself about without the benefit of YouTube.

You're a little late to the party.

I am assuming, since your comment is down-thread of my original reply, that you are trying to call me "ill-educated" for not having exposure to this speech prior to this thread. You know nothing whatsoever of my history, what I have or have not read, and how I may have missed hearing this speech along my path. You have a lot of gall to insinuate something such as you did.

[msanthrope]

245. Well, you assume incorrectly. I was replying to G_j, as you would note

had you looked at the upper right hand of my post, which clearly indicates to whom I am replying.


I fail to see why what I wrote would offend you, since you don't seem to be the type who would presume that other people had not read the speech.

[PowerToThePeople]

246. if so

then I apologize. I read the thread through more than once. Your statement couldn't have applied to him/her (G_j), as s/he never stated they had not heard the speech. But, I digress...

[rury]

60. WTF...Please show me an instance of President Obama

Encouraging people to not remember that or any other statement or philosophy put forth by Dr. King.
And I am appalled by the level of ignorance by some posters here on DU in comparing Dr. King and President Obama as if their roles were identical.
Dr. King was a civil rights leader, President Obama is president of the United States with all the attendant responsibilities thereof, INCLUDING GATHERING INTELLIGENCE AND AS COMMANDER-in-CHIEF OF THE ARMED FORCES DEFENDING THE U.S AND IT'S ALLIES AGAINST THOSE WHO WOULD DO US HARM.
I am nowhere near being a warmonger or sabre rattler, but I certainly do not think the president should be derelict in his duty in that regard.
There is no logic to thinking that every black American who assumes a position of power or leadership at the national level should be constrained by what would MLK do.
Comparing the two is the height of naïveté.

[ProSense]

61. Greenwald/Snowden fans are in an alternate reality. That's why the Guardian mangled John Lewis'

statements.

[Maedhros]

75. I'm sure you know this, but I'll post it (again) anyway.

Since you may not have seen it up-thread.

When the OP writes that there is an "MLK that Obama wants people to forget," it doesn't mean that the OP thinks that Obama literally wants people to wipe the memory of MLK's speech from their minds.

What it means is this:

Obama's actions with regard to projecting military force against the populations of small countries that can't fight back are picture-perfect examples of what MLK was discussing in his speech. And while Obama may praise MLK from time-to-time, he clearly has not taken to heart the message that Dr. King was putting forth with this speech.

[rury]

97. It's astoundingly comical that you think you know

What President Obama has "clearly not taken to heart."
That kind of heart-gazing and mind-reading is richly entertaining!
Quick - what will the stock market do next week?
What will the winning lottery numbers be?

[ProSense]

102. This thread needs a dose of reality

Pic of Christine King Faris as PBO is sworn in on her brother's Bible..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022248146

[blue neen]

105. What a beautiful picture.

Thank you.

[Turborama]

162. .

[Divernan]

108. It's not mind-reading; it's drone-counting

[Maedhros]

156. I judge the President by his actions.

And his actions have had horrific consequences for hundreds of innocent Yemenis and Pakistanis.

And you think that's funny.

[Doctor_J]

143. did you copy this verbatim from freeperville post during the Bush years?

Your post could have come right from a Limpballs transcript while Stupid was in office. Some of us actually have principles that transcend the party and race of the president. We didn't like murder when Bush was doing it, and we don't like it now.

[madrchsod]

165. +1.......

[MotherPetrie]

77. K&R!!!!!

[bbgrunt]

87. k and r and kudos to those who maintain their souls in the face of unrelenting propaganda

[woo me with science]

241. [phone]

[Number23]

93. Posting ignorant, dated flamebait knowing that you won't be able to see 92% of the responses?

So brave. Ever so brave.

[CakeGrrl]

161. Right? Life's so much nicer when you put

people who disagree on ignore.

Someone please feel free to relay my response.

[SunSeeker]

186. LOL! nt

[Benton D Struckcheon]

96. If the point of this is the drone war,

you have to come up with something to replace it with. Some of us here aren't total amnesiacs, and do remember just who hit those buildings in lower Manhattan. The drone war is favored by Obama for the simple reason it results in the least collateral damage of all the horrible alternatives out there.
The NLF, the VC, and North Vietnam never attacked the US, and we had no reason whatsoever to attack them. The current case is very very different. The drone war is horrible, but all wars are. In terms of noncombatant casualties, I can't think of a way that could reduce them to less than this one does.
Unless of course you advocate not doing anything at all militarily against Al Qaeda. Allow me to very bluntly inform you that that will never happen, under this or any other President. Bin Laden declared war on us all the way back in the nineties. The few people who paid attention to that declaration were roundly ignored until the big one happened. That will not be repeated.
This is an appeal to authority that does not engage the actual facts of the actual situation we face, which is very different from Vietnam. In Yemen, which has been the latest hotspot, Al Qaeda has its most active military wing. That's a fact.
Engaging with the facts would be legitimate. This is not.

[TiberiusB]

175. Really, pulling "I remember 9/11" out is such a very Rudy Giuliani thing to do...

Saying drone strikes are better than the alternative excludes a lot of potential choices and, worst of all, assumes the decision to bomb a foreign sovereign power should be entirely up to us. See, Yemen, we could totally invade you and kill you all if we wanted, but we're awesome, so we'll only kill some of you. Awesome, right! How about focused police and military investigation and restricting strikes to legitimate targets, not "signature" profiles, teenage boys, and funerals. Isn't that supposedly how we got bin Laden? I've advocated for a "drain the swamp" approach before, so I'll just say "Google it" on that subject.

As for the nonsensical "war" on terror, that's the joke. Define terrorism. Really, try. You can't fight a tactic, particularly one with a definition so broad, it could encompass virtually any act of violence. Remember the Tiller murder by a right wing nut case? Was that terrorism? The U.S. used a virus to screw with the Iranian nuclear program. Isn't that practically the U.S. definition of cyber terrorism? Bin Laden rose to power thanks to terrorism..wait, I mean heroic resistance...wait, no, I mean freedom fighting...whatever terrorism is when we fund it. Remind me, who was it that funded and supported him and the mujaheddin? Who undermined democracy in Iran and installed the Shah? Who supported Saddam until he suddenly became a liability and then transformed over night into a WMD mastermind and al_Qaeda kingpin? Who has absolutely no problem bombing civilian populations despite no recognized authority to do so? Shall we get into the Israeli/Palestinian conflict?

Help me out here, 'cause there just might be a connection between 9/11 and U.S. policy in the Middle East...or it's all just a big bag of coincidence...or whatever.

Talk about strawmen. Nobody is saying that military action is never on the table. Only that it should be reserved for the rarest of circumstances and only when it is clear other options have either failed or are not available. Keeping everything hidden away from the American people is certainly not a good place to start.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

193. It's war on Al Qaeda, not terror.

Do try to keep up. President of Yemen visits US.
The idea was for Obama to get rid of all the Bush ballast and focus on the guys who actually targeted us. Now that he's doing that, you guys object? Sorry, but he's doing precisely what he was elected and expected to do in this case.

[KoKo]

200. Who and What is Al Qaeda? Who decides if a 12 year old goatherder or

a "sinister looking" man in a cafe or members of a wedding party or a group of people on the side of a road fixing a tire is Al Qaeda?

Our Government can take out anyone, anywhere...just by declaring they are Al Qaeda.

It's a New Form of War.. Where the enemy doesn't wear a uniform where just having a relative that the US Government declares is "Al Qaeda" can mean your whole family is droned just to get you.

Al Qaeda are never given a chance to defend themselves in a Court of Law..Al Qaeda could be anyone anywhere.

There are no RULES of WARFARE...when it comes to Al Quaeda...because "it is different."

This might be okay with you....but many of us don't approve of a "Shadow Government" that we fund with our tax dollars ..deciding who is and who is not a terrorist belonging to "Al Qaeda."

[Benton D Struckcheon]

204. There's only three countries where drones operate,

and in all cases it's done (this should be obvious) with the permission of the gov'ts who actually rule over those territories. It's not a generalized "war on terror", and drones aren't being sent to every corner of the planet or anything like that.
Obama is doing what he was elected to do.

In Cambodia, during the carpet bombing of that country, a lot more than just a wedding party wound up blown up. That was how they ended up with the Khmer Rouge.
Drones are the least bad way of carrying out this war. All methods are going to result in horrible things happening. All other methods are going to be far worse for all involved. No President is simply going to do nothing.

[KoKo]

233. What if their Countries are Corrupt...and don't mind getting Money from

US Taxpayers to pay families of Slain GoatHerders..(boys) or Families at Weddings or folks snagging a coffee or refreshment at the local Starbucks in the Third World Countries...who have some "Military Kid DRONEZING IN ...because they are PAID TO "HUNT TERRORISTS" and this is the GAME ZONE of the MOMENT?

[TiberiusB]

239. As I've said, it's not a war...

Just because we label it one, doesn't make it so. We never even went through the proper steps here to declare war via Congress, we just created the AUMF and called it a day. Framing something as a war is the shortest path to unlimited funding and massive expansion of executive power. And even the U.N. has suggested that drone strikes violate international law and may be criminal. Just because the regime in Yemen has no problem giving the U.S. carte blanche to bomb its citizens doesn't make it okay.

Al Qaeda isn't even a nation state with a formal military force. It numbers may be only in the hundreds. There's no way dumping billions down the drain is worth the return. There are better, far less intrusive and expensive ways of doing this.

[zappaman]

106. I miss UNREC.

A lot.

[EVDebs]

116. 111th Military Intelligence Group spied on MLK...NSA would do same I suppose if MLK were around now

...just sayin'

[G_j]

137. That is a good guess

as today's OWS, Greenpeace and others have good reasons to be concerned.

[WillyT]

117. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[MADem]

130. That's a pretty dispicable thread title. It's divisive flame bait and makes DU suck, IMO.

MLK is one of Obama's role models. To suggest that Obama has a nefarious "plan" to obscure his legacy is petty, childish, and really silly.

I thought silly was a better word to use than shitty, but either one will do.

[pnwmom]

140. I'll listen to John Lewis about Martin Luther King. Not Snowden, Greenwald, Assange,

or any of their fan club.

Martin Luther King never leaked classified documents about US spying on foreign countries. And he stayed in the US to fight for justice; he didn't defect to Russia.

[G_j]

142. facepalm

so now you are asserting that people are comparing MLK to Snowden? Guess I missed it, probably because it didn't happen.

[pnwmom]

157. facepalm. You DID miss it. John Lewis was misleadingly quoted as comparing Snowden

to MLK and to Gandhi, and John Lewis corrected the record the next day.

All of this drew quite a reaction here on DU.

For example:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023427908

Rep. John Lewis: No Praise for Snowden
Aug 8, 2013

“News reports about my interview with The Guardian are misleading, and they do not reflect my complete opinion. Let me be clear. I do not agree with what Mr. Snowden did. He has damaged American international relations and compromised our national security. He leaked classified information and may have jeopardized human lives. That must be condemned.

“ I never praised Mr. Snowden or said his actions rise to those of Mohandas Gandhi or other civil rights leaders. In fact, The Guardian itself agreed to retract the word “praise” from its headline.

“At the end of an interview about the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, I was asked what I thought about Mr. Snowden’s actions. I said he has a right as an individual to act according to the dictates of his conscience, but he must be prepared to pay the price for taking that action. In the movement, we were arrested, we went to jail, we were prepared to pay the price, even lose our lives if necessary. I cannot say and I did not say that what Mr. Snowden did is right. Others will be the judge of that.”

http://johnlewis.house.gov/press-release/rep-john-lewis-no-praise-snowden

[JI7]

174. i guess the only thing some learned from that was to make sure they use

someone who is dead when they try it again.

[joelz]

144. non stop

King called the US government "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today" this was true in 1967 when Dr. kings gave the speech and every single day since right up till Aug 08,2013 I can't think of 2 noble peace prize winners that are more different,hard to see Dr. king giving war criminals a pass. oh I just remembered Kissinger a war criminal who also won the prize.

[locks]

146. Dr. King, Obama and war

Thank you for this post. I think we need to thank Greenwald and others who remind us of "America's ongoing embrace of endless war" and the nation's drift into militarism as Rachel Maddow has written about in her book. We do not need to like the messengers or hate Obama because he is not fighting the good fight as we so fervently hoped. What we need to do is call on our President to stand up, as Dr. King did, for the powerless and against war, violence and the spiritual death they bring. Money and power are in the hands of a few and they are strangling us as a nation and causing us to be hated around the world.

I was in Chicago protesting the Vietnam War when Dr. King gave what I believed then and do today to be one of the greatest speeches in the history of our nation. It took the same kind of courage he showed us during the civil rights marches and from the Birmingham jail. He was bitterly condemned for focusing on what the Vietnam war was doing to our country, to Vietnam and to the world. Even many liberals and Democrats who finally stood behind LBJ and civil rights believed in continuing the disastrous war which was killing thousands of our children, hundreds of thousands of Asians, and our nation's moral spirit, and it went on another eight sad years.

Many Americans worked hard to stop Bush and our leaders from taking us into Iraq and another endless war, not the great liberation they wanted the Iraqis and Afghanistanis to believe. The result, as we know, was more suffering, wasted lives and money and more spiritual death Dr. King talked about. We really thought our leaders, especially Obama, would not listen to the proponents of war who are now re-writing history to tell us they did the right thing. We are more than disappointed.

[G_j]

155. *please read this /\

thank you.

I am from the same generation. Indeed, history has been rewritten. I registered as a conscientious objector during the Vietnam war and have been involved in advocating peace ever since. People are dangerously rationalizing American foreign policy and militarism. I suppose it's the fear of terrorism, but then, in Vietnam and across the globe, it was communism. The militarism has gone unabated and done nothing but increase my entire life. I've said many times, that there is no way that I hate Obama. I would say MLK is a fine example of not hating, period.
King did not foster hate and fought against it within himself as well as others. The Beyond Vietnam speech in particular, is harsh and desperately critical of American policy.

All in the spirit of love. People forget..

[locks]

158. Does my heart good to know

that there are DUers and many others who still believe that love can conquer hate and, like Dr. King, are trying to break the cycle of violence.

[G_j]

164. that was his compass

and his conscience would not let him stand aside in the face of Vietnam and militarism.
He was a very smart man, and once he determined for himself how morally corrupt and violent our foreign policy was, he felt he had no choice but to face it head on, and upset all kinds of people.

[Catherina]

188. Thank you for this wonderful post

What an honor that you were there in person supporting Dr King's fight and are still doing so now. I have nothing to respond except agreement and my hope that someday we'll change things and force the kind of government we deserve. Thanks again and pleased to meet you.

[Deny and Shred]

208. Nicely put.

The difference between the two men as it refers to this one point, war/militartism, should have been more clearly stated in the OP.

MLK was 18 years younger than Reagan. Consider the differences he could have continued to make ... mind-boggling and saddening. I'm reminded of Stevie Wonder's Big Brother, we do indeed cause our own country to fall.

[bvar22]

150. DURec for MLK, a great leader!

Nobody here can speak for MLK,
but since everybody else is guessing,
my guess is that Dr. King would agree with his good friend and fellow activist Harry Belafonte in his opinion of the Obama Administration.

These men were ACTIVISTS and LEADERS,
NOT seekers of Bipartisan Consensus.

[font size=3]"A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus."[/font]
-Rev Martin Luther King Jr.

I also believe that Dr King would applaud Snowden for his courage to do The Right Thing.



You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS,[/font]
not by their promises or excuses.

[truedelphi]

216. I have a dream -

And in that dream, Obama resigns saying he wants to spend more time with his family.

And Harry Belafonte takes his place.

"What a wonderful world it would be."

[bvar22]

217. I LOVE that dream.

[idwiyo]

153. K&R

[giftedgirl77]

154. Glenn Greenwald's opinion of Obama should

Last edited Mon Aug 12, 2013, 08:58 AM - Edit history (1)

hold about as much water as any of the pundits on Fox News. He has said publicallyduring the last election cycle that his goals politically are to pull as many folks from the dem party over to the Libertarian side (not just on drug legalization). So if supporting Citizens United, the Iraq War, & working with the Kochi Brothers to further their agenda is considered liberal, you are sadly mistaken. To think anything he has to say is based on good faith is naive.

http://blog.reidreport.com/2011/04/re-rise-of-the-naderites-glenn-greenwalds-third-party-dreamin/

[TiberiusB]

179. Re-read the link

Greenwald was quoted as calling for a third party comprised of people looking to break the stranglehold of the current two party system. That party would potentially be composed of liberal libertarians and progressives. He acknowledged that such a strategy would likely lead initially to some Republican victories, but that the price was necessary to bend the Democratic Party to the will of the people and not the corporate elite. His contention was that without the fear that they would lose the support of their base in some real, effectual way, Democrats would continue their rightward shift and the public would continue to suffer. Now, given the GOP's slide into complete lunacy and vicious extremism, it can be argued that such a position is no longer tenable, but to say Greenwald advocated for liberals to go libertarian or vote for the GOP is simply false (at least in the linked article).

[Sheepshank]

166. Why hasn't the title to the OP been corrected yet???

...oh wait I see the author now, never mind.

[alcibiades_mystery]

167. This post tells you everything you need to know

About the OP, and her future posts.

[bigtree]

191. King as President? Who knows. He had a working relationship w/ Kennedy and Johnson

*1, he likely couldn't get elected today

#2, if he did achieve the presidency, he likely couldn't do most of the things he believed in by fiat; making his ideals as dead on arrival with this Congress as Obama.

This kind of comparison isn't fair, or, particularly relevant to much more than ruminating on DU.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

194. Trashing thread. I wish white liberals would stop using civil rights

icons to bash blacks. Exploiting MLK, Jr. for one's own selfish ideological ends is absolutely despicable!!

It's disgusting when white conservatives do it. And it's MORE disgusting and white liberals do it!!! I expect it from wingnuts. I do not expect it from liberals.

Stop it!

We don't need to use MLK, Jr. to prove a point. We can demonstrate how wrong spying on Americans is without exploitation of this great man!!!

[KoKo]

202. I don't think that MLK would want his words to be heard and heeded

so narrowly as you are suggesting. Do you? If you think about it further?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

213. And I don't think Dr. King would have wanted to have his words

twisting in ANY kind of way, narrowly or otherwise, to bolster someone's narrow or broad way of thinking.

You're not Dr. King and you're not in his mind, so you don't get to say what he thought and what he didn't think.

Let's not use his words and exploit his language to suit our own needs AT ALL.

Really, it's quite offensive!

[KoKo]

231. There's nothing in MLK's Speech that was "Twisted!" Millions of People

here and all over the world took his words and did Actions based on his Principles and the Character of the Man.

He was a PROPHET...and his words rang true to the Opressed and the Disenfranchised All Over the Planet!

Do you feel his Speeches and Actions belong only to the FEW and not ALL the SUFFERING and OPPRESSED all over America and the World?

That's what I got from your reply....that said that those Who Use MLK's Speeches for INSPIRATION to do GOOD in this World are somehow in "your words" using it to Exploit his words and that is "Offensive" to YOU?

You GOTTA' BE KIDDING?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

234. I'm nowhere NEAR kidding. Stop exploiting this man's words and thoughts for your own purposes.

It's disgusting when white Republicans do it. It's disgusting when liberals--white or black--do it!

That's all I have to say.

[G_j]

236. I have listened to, and read that speech countless times

over my life time. It has opened my eyes and changed my life!
Nobody owns it. He gave his words to all of us.

[JoePhilly]

197. MLK would have been a great Libertarian.

That will probably be one of the chapters in Glenn's book next spring.

At least I hope so ... because when I'm looking for some one to take the words of a historic figure, and then use them in a divisive manner 50 or more years later, I , like so many, look to Glenn Greenwald.

[NeonDog]

203. A ridiculous lead....from a ridiculous source...

Follow this line of ill-reasoning and we'll have infinite generations of Bush-Chaney regimes...

[timweidman]

206. the only problrm with this op

Is the title. Very poor title that led to people missing the point. Eliminate the title and you see the point. Right or wrong

[pnwmom]

218. What a joke. Greenwald presuming to care more about MLK than Obama does.n/t

[Scurrilous]

219. Deadbeat scuzzy lawyer/pornographer on his high and mighty lecturing others. n/t

[mstinamotorcity2]

220. He wants us to remember.

He didn't start the over reach. And he just can't stop it with the stroke of a pen. Dr. King was loved by quite a few Americans. We take in all of his teachings. we live by some. It is no secret how he felt about wartime. Glad you found something you think was hidden.

[Cali_Democrat]

221. Greenwald, the same guy who defended a white supremacist

is now trying to use MLK against Obama.

Greenwald is completely and utterly deranged.

Also, when has Obama tried to make Americans forget about MLK?

What a stupid fucking article.

[Enrique]

224. consider MLK and LBJ

if there were a DU at the time, a lot of loyal Democrats would be mighty pissed at MLK for breaking with Johnson over the war.

[wtmusic]

230. Catherina, you rock.

[heaven05]

249. this speech

is one of the reasons he was killed. Once he started including all the poor and international issues of amerikan malfeasance around the world in his speeches, he was doomed. And I think Obama knows how good a man and leader Dr. King was. Obama is a classic american system politician. He will/has to compromise to get things done. And given the fact that he is a black man leading the free world has the amerikkkan racist, for the last five years, in a rabid lather. Some of those racist have threatened his family. Oh I remember some POS RWer putting out on the web where Obama's children were vacationing. Had never happened in any other POTUS reign. Obama knows who and what Dr. King meant to a lot of black people. He forgot nothing.