“Reid, assessing Barack Obama’s chances in 2008, cited the fact that the candidate was a ‘light-skinned‘ African-American ‘with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.‘ Those ill-advised comments, to Mark Halperin and John Heilemann for their new book, ‘Game Change,’ produced an immediate apology by Reid to the president. That was followed immediately by presidential forgiveness: ‘As far as I am concerned, the book is closed.’” — [ READ MORE ]

As Barack Obama quickly realized the book is not closed, Senator’s Reid’s inartful words have sparked hundreds of editorials, and now it’s my turn to vent.

First let’s consider the messenger, Reid isn’t a conservative with a racist streak, he’s a liberal Democrat who was an early supporter of Obama.

Let’s not forget that Reid has an apparently incurable case of “foot-in-mouth disease“, he’s made many bizarre statements. Remember Reid’s quip about the smelly tourists coming into the Capitol”?

Finally at 70-years-old the senator from Nevada isn’t as mentally agile as he was in his younger days.

In other words Reid is no Pat Buchanan, let’s cut the man some slack.

Now let’s consider the message: Obama is a light-skinned African-American with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one. As a writer and as a fan of the absurd, I think Reid’s statement is a masterpiece.

Reid may be the first person in recorded history to refer to a black man as an “African American” and as a “Negro” in the same sentence. Reid the consummate politician refers to Obama as an African American, but a second later Reid the doddering old fool uses the archaic word “Negro.”

Reid’s comments were honest and truthful, Obama is a light-skinned African American. The implication that a light-skinned black would have a better chance than a dark-skinned black of winning the presidency is also true. If Obama were as black-skinned as a typical African, he would still be community organizer in Chicago.

The claim that the Harvard Law School-educated Obama doesn’t sound like a homeboy from da hood is spot on. I love Reid’s qualifier that Obama doesn’t have a Negro dialect “unless he wanted to have one.” When Obama is interviewed on TV he sounds like a law school professor, but during the campaign when he was speaking to a predominantly black audience, Obama affected the cadences of a black Baptist preacher. It should be noted that Hillary Clinton the candidate did the same thing when addressing a black audience.

Bottom line: Reid has apologized for his truthful but clumsy statement, and the president has forgiven him. He doesn’t need to give up his leadership post or resign from the Senate. To borrow the words of Bill Clinton, it’s time to “move one.” There are many racists who daily utter vile and false statements about African Americans, they are the ones that we should be criticizing, and not Reid whose days in the Senate appeared to be numbered anyway.

Follow Robert Paul Reyes on Twitter: http://twitter.com/robertpaulreyes

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

By: MICHAEL ERIC DYSON
Professor, Georgetown University

Race Has Affected the 2008 Presidential Election

There is little question that race has affected the 2008 presidential election, though often through inference and innuendo.

Initially, Barack Obama’s historic quest for the highest political office in the land was rife with suspicion from white and black quarters.

Eventually, millions of black voters signed on to his campaign after relinquishing skepticism about his being black enough and after he proved in Iowa that he could win over white voters.

Educated white voters followed suit, though Obama has had a far more difficult time effectively wooing working class white voters.

That has to do in large part with the effective, if cynical, effort of conservative activists to falsely paint Obama as an unpatriotic figure who pals around with terrorists because he is secretly a Muslim.

The manipulation of the public image of Obama as a subversive presence who hates the nation rests on racially coded inferences about unreliable blackness as it tinges the face of American politics.

Few quarters in American life have been tolerant of the complex black identities that constitute African American communities.

Republicans — Backward, Bigoted, Racist and Nativist FILTH of America

As a result, a punishing and narrow range of stereotypes have obscured the fact that black struggle for social equality and racial justice was never antithetical to the best interests of the nation.

Because black people loved the nation so much, they fought hard to make sure that it lived up to the true meaning of its creed, as Martin Luther King said.

Barack Obama represents both the maturing of black American politics, and the increased willingness of significant portions of the white population to embrace a worthy black presidential candidate.

Whether that is sufficient to propel Obama to the presidency remains to be seen. Still I am cautiously hopeful that it is.

[Enlarge] About The Author: Michael Eric Dyson (born October 23, 1958, in Detroit, Michigan) is an American writer, radio host, and professor at Georgetown University. Dyson has a Ph.D. in religion from Princeton University. He is an ordained Baptist minister. Dyson taught at DePaul University, Chicago Theological Seminary, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Columbia University and Brown University, before going to the University of Pennsylvania in 2003. There he was the Avalon Professor of Humanities. Since 2007, Dyson has been University Professor of Sociology at Georgetown University, teaching courses in theology, English, and African American studies. A University Professorship is said to be the highest position that a faculty member can have at Georgetown. From January 2006 to February 2007 Dyson was the host of a daily syndicated talk radio program, The Michael Eric Dyson Show, which aired on weekdays from 10AM to 1PM (EST) on the Syndication One Radio Network (owned and operated by Radio One). He is also a regular commentator on National Public Radio, CNN, and the HBO TV program Real Time with Bill Maher. Dyson is best known for his commentary on American culture, particularly as it pertains to African Americans. Dyson uses the terms “Afristocracy” and “Ghettocracy” to describe a bifurcation in American black society. He is also a leading scholar on hip-hop music and the culture that surrounds it, as well as its roots in African and African-American cultures and influence on American popular culture. Dyson is well known to repeat his famous line, “Go Ahead. Axe me a question.”

McCain is a hopeless candidate — a sleazy, lying opportunist, worse than Bob Dole.

He is a tired, old and archaic relic of the bitter past of Jim Crow racism.

Teaming him up with an unqualified “moose hunter” is the biggest joke since Indiana’s Dan Quayle. The Palin pick clearly reflects McCain’s gambling tendencies a.k.a “Maverickism” — something he might resort to in a crisis, if elected president.

Selecting Sarah Palin, another opportunist “dimwit” and an anti-intellectual, who attended five colleges before graduating, is an alarming dis-regard for America — after eight years of another anti-intellectual idiot named Bush.

The job of president of the United States requires top-of-the-line smarts, and not “arrogant puppetry” propped up with “beauty queen” shallowness.

McCain is a grumpy old belligerent man who thinks he knows it all, and that America owes him something because the VietCong broke his arms, legs and nearly castrated him during the Vietnam War.

Yet, in a year when the ReTHUGlicans should be running for the hills, he is consistently polling even with Obama, and in some cases he leads.

Why?

The plain and simple answer is — RACISM. A huge chunk of white America still wallows in excruciating and hysterical racism — steeped in extreme ignorance, and far-right “Biblical Superstition.”

Mr. Cafferty posed this question to his viewers last night: Will Barack Obama’s race cost him the White House?

Some Replies:

Jack, I’m a 60 year old white guy who once was a racist. That was many years ago and I am now a supporter of Obama. Sad to say that there may very well be enough ignorant racists who will prevent this man of vision and inspiration, a true leader, out of the White House. — Terry, Chandler AZ

Probably. If he were white and Palin was a man (with the same resume) the democrats would be a shoe-in. My dad is the perfect litmus test of American politics; he’s always voted the candidate, not the party, but he now says he’d vote for a corpse before he’d vote for Obama, simply due to his race. He’s my dad, I love him, but there you go… — Kenny in Va.

No his race is not a factor but his color is, he’s as red as Joseph Stalin — Sarah, indiana

Yes, Jack- If Obama doesn’t win the “White” House, it’s because he’s a “Black” man. With the Economy falling apart and the American people are loosing jobs along with other crisis, and if the American people put their trust back in the Republicans hands again, yes, it will be because of race. Ask the people of VA. — Bit, Alabama

It grieves me deeply to say this, but I do believe it will cost him the White House. People too ashamed to say it to your face will vote their prejudices in the privacy of the voting booth. — Judi Goldsmith, Lenox, MA

Obama’s race won’t cost him the election if enough first-time voters, young people and newly registered voters come out to vote on November 4th. I believe it could effectively counter balance the racist voters (new demographic for pundits to punt around). But if these people stay home, or are denied their right to vote because of home forclosures – we’re in trouble. — Christie, Michigan

Hopefully not, but a definite maybe. The USA is NOW at a major ideological multicultural crossroad. Will we move forward to a new reinvigorated redefined America or live the glory and prejudices of the Past? The real choice, however, is who will structure itself to be the leader of the 21st Century…USA or China? Don’t answer too quickly….nothing is certain. — George Smith, Dallas, TX

Sad to say it is….younger people are not interested in a person’s skin color but many older people are stuck in racism..interesting that he is half white and we do not hear much about that influencing voters…dont you think that is strange? — Annie Kraft, Naples FL

With everything the “RepulsiveCan’ts” have done to working people and the middle class in this country the last 8 years, IF Obama was to lose I would think his race would be THE major factor. — Billy G in Las Vegas

There can be no doubt it. Unless a lot of voters are lying and vote different than they say they will. As much as they want change I believe a lot of whites will not vote rather than vote for a black man. America has a long way to go in actually accepting the fact that there are good, decent, smart, hard working Blacks in every community in America. I’m a white, southern live and let live redneck that cannot stand to see what Bush and Co. have done to our future generations. How anyone with half a brain could let race prevent getting change to DC is beyond me. By the way, Jack I agree with you. McCain looks like some fool just off the turnip truck. — Bill Howell, Jackson, TN

[Read More Comments Here]

Special Reads:

1. If Obama Loses – It will not be because of ‘NUT-JOB’ McCain but RACISM.

2. Closet Racists May Cost Obama The Race — AP-Yahoo Study — Analysts have long presumed that racism was underreported, as some who factor race into their vote would not be willing to admit that prejudice to pollsters. AP’s study, which tries to find these closet racists, as it were, by comparing more loosely associated racial attitudes to…[Read More]

As the country rapidly diversifies, Republicans are presenting a convention that is almost entirely white. To a large extent, the Republican Party still is — The White-Bigot Party.

As McCain’s 96 year old mother gazed listlessly into the rafters of the convention hall and with ReTHUGlicans and a sprinkling of ReTHUGliTOMS salivating like hungry, poisonous black mambas,…. and howling like a pack of hyenas, Sarah ‘Barracuda‘ Palin delivered a heavily choreographed speech, designed to rally the THUG/BIGOT base of the Republican party.

The speech was delivered right after MAFIA GOON — the former mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani had finished mocking, insulting and mis-representing Obama’s positions…. and topping it up with a dose of 9/11 fear-mongering.

Rudy Giuliani “The Goon” Rips Into Obama

At the beginning of her speech I sensed some tension in her, but the “Killer From Wasilla” unwinded and got more comfortable as the speech progressed.

She spoke of her family, including her eldest son, who is about to be deployed to Iraq in the US Army, and her younger son, who has Down’s Syndrome.

In the speech, she assailed Obama, Biden and the “Liberal” media: “I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a “community organizer,” except that you have actual responsibilities. I might add that in small towns, we don’t quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren’t listening.” “We tend to prefer candidates who don’t talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco.”

Read…..working people — how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns ……is a direct appeal to the White BIGOT VOTE.

The Barracuda (reading a speech prepared by McCain’s THUGS) went on to mis-represent and mock Obama’s record, lying about her own at the same time, and smothering everything with heavy doses of recycled Republican Fear-Mongering.

“And there is much to like and admire about our opponent.” But listening to him speak, it’s easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform – not even in the state senate.”

   This could be America’s next Vice-President

This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word “victory” except when he’s talking about his own campaign.”

“But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed … when the roar of the crowd fades away … when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot – what exactly is our opponent’s plan?”

“What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he’s done turning back the waters and healing the planet?” The answer is to make government bigger … take more of your money … give you more orders from Washington … and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world.”

“America needs more energy … our opponent is against producing it….,” said Sarah.

Towards the end of the speech, when she got more comfortable, “Dame Sarah” changed gears, dishing out “time-tested” Republican insults: “Taxes are too high!” . . . “Obama will raise your taxes!” . . . “Tax increases!” . . . “He will raise income taxes!” … “He will raise payroll taxes!” … “He will raise investment income taxes!” … “He will raise the death tax!” . . . “He will raise business taxes!” . . . ["Big Government!"] . . . ["Obama will KILL YOU!"] . . . ["Obama is a MUSLIM"] . . . ["Obama is a Kenyan Communist!"] . . . ["The Terrorists are here .. in this hall!"] . . . ["I'll create more jobs!"] . . . ["I'll cut the deficit!"] . . . ["I'll start the war!"] . . . ["I'll keep those Negroes in their place!"]……LOL!, pure PoliTRICKS!

Meanwhile — Overheard: Obama might pursue criminal charges against Bush

REFERENCES:

1. Rudy Giuliani — “America’s THUG”

They call him “America’s Mayor.” But to blacks that title sugarcoats Rudy Giuliani’s real reputation as one of the most racially divisive leaders in the nation. Peter Noel’s book puts Giuliani’s often-ignored record of oppressing the “other New York” front and center in the 2008 presidential race.

Noel was a witness to “Giuliani time” in New York. As the race beat journalist for “The Village Voice,” he reported exclusively on the police brutality that rained down on blacks, and the denigration of black leadership by Giuliani. In this collection of his exposs, Noel provides stunning insights into the most notorious events of Giuliani’s tenure, including the execution-style killing of Amadou Diallo and the sadistic torture of Abner Louima. Both men-like many black victims of Giuliani’s stop-and-frisk policing-were innocent of any wrongdoing.

This brutality sparked a new black activist movement. Scores, including Jesse Jackson, were arrested-and Peter Noel was there to cover it. No journalist was more insightful about the rise of Al Sharpton, Khallid Muhammad’s “Million Youth March,” and Giuliani’s demonization of David Dinkins, the city’s first black mayor. There are interviews with major political players, inside accounts of the shifting alliances and violent conflicts between ethnic groups, and a stinging critique of the white-dominated media. And then there is Peter Noel’s interview with Giuliani, which took the form of a street fight in Harlem.

In these eloquent, often searing pieces, written in an outraged and authentic voice, Peter Noel spoke truth to the power of an “Afriphobic” mayor. In this revealing book, he still does.

Sarah Palin’s Speech

1. Speech reactions
2. SATIRE – Palin: I’d Oppose Abortion Even if My Daughter’s Raped By a Moose

GOP Pundits Trash Palin

Bush’s Mideast Dishonor

Writes: Sami Moubayed, in Damascus, Syria

I don’t think Bush needs to strengthen his legacy. It has already been deeply engraved in the history of the Middle East. George W. Bush has in fact ruined the Middle East.

No words can describe my anger at what the United States has tolerated or promoted in the Middle East under the Bush White House. The list is long: the war on Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Haditha, Falluja, Mosul, the war on Lebanon, Qana, and not to forget, the circus in Palestine, the killing in Jenin, and the siege in Gaza, topped with the elimination of Yasser Arafat, a democratically elected leader. These images have always reminded me of Sept. 11, 2001. The blood of these children–in Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq–is no less valuable than that of Americans killed at the Twin Towers. Many Americans have been sending me “hate mail” recently, saying that the Bush Administration has been good to the Arabs and is trying to bring peace, security, and democracy to the Middle East. Sorry to tell them that this White House will be remembered for Abu Ghraib. It will be remembered for the atrocities in Gaza. It will be remembered for Qana.

Bush has perhaps single-handedly re-written the history of the Middle East–certainly against our will. This history has been very bloody and embarrassing for America, and it will affect America’s image for generations to come. Allow me to quote the former and legendary U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, who spoke to Congress on Dec. 1, 1862 saying: “Fellow citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves. The fiery trail through which we pass will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation.”

In our part of the world, Bush has marched into history in great dishonor.

Each country singled out by the White House as a haven for democracy and progress has been ruined, beyond imagination, by his policies in the Arab World. America’s image has been perverted, distorted, and tarnished beyond repair in the minds of the millions of Arabs and non-Arabs who are disgusted by all the bloodshed we are seeing in Iraq, Palestine, and Lebanon.

Everybody in the Arab World holds Bush responsible for all of this madness, along with prime ministers Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon, and Ehud Olmert. I always wanted to write to the U.S. President and tell him: “Think for a minute, Mr. President, about how history will refer to you 100 years from now. Will you be ranked among great men like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, or Franklin Roosevelt? What have they done for America and what have you achieved? Washington achieved independence for America. Lincoln fought the Civil War. Wilson won World War I and Roosevelt defeated Hitler in World War II. You ruined the image of your forefathers–the great men who founded and created the modern United States.”

To a mother whose child was killed in Qana, Washington, Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, and Bush, will all be viewed as criminals. A grief-stricken person will not differentiate between good and evil, or right and wrong. He or she will hold America responsible for the death of their loved ones. I personally have high admiration for the American presidents mentioned above. They were strong leaders with talent, principle, and character. Bush is responsible for ruining their image in the Arab World.

To prove my point, I repeat a phrase that I have used over and over again since 2004, quoting Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts who said: “To many people in the Middle East, the symbol of America is not the Statue of Liberty but a prisoner standing on a box wearing a dark cape, a dark hood on his head, afraid he is going to be electrocuted.”

Many discussions were held by American policymakers and intellectuals in the United States, after September 11, on one question: “Why do they hate us?” The answer can be summarized with one simple phrase: “Favoritism towards Israel.” What happened over the last eight years–in Palestine and Lebanon–was an unforgivable crime committed by Israel, under the watchful eye of the United States, thanks to Bush.

I received a very large amount of “hate mail” from Americans and pro-Israeli readers over the last few years in response to the series of articles I have written against the Israeli War on Lebanon, which coincides with July 12, 2008.

These readers were enraged by my condemnation of the United States and Israel, claiming that the “war on terror” was correct and justified. One reader wrote: “You are an ungrateful man and I am done reading your site” because of what I had just written about Israel and the United States.

At the same time, I received many, many e-mails from Arab readers who supported my arguments, saying that Bush’s bias against the Arabs was “an unforgivable crime”–in every sense of the world.

I happen to personally know many of the Arab readers with whom I have communicated. They are not turbaned and bearded fanatics who roam the world with guns, wanting to destroy Israel and the United States. Rather they are fine, Westernized, American-educated and highly cultured Arab men and women (many are actually not even Muslims) who have never carried a gun in their life. One addressed the Bush administration and cursed its policy-makers saying that they have “abused the names of the great men of American history.”

The colossal difference in views, and the accumulating anger on both sides, makes dialogue and understanding extremely difficult–especially in times of war; especially under George W. Bush.

One reader commented on my work, saying that he was “disgusted” because I was “demonizing the U.S. for trying to bring peace and democracy to the Middle East.” He added, “If you are too ignorant and too stupid to see that, then maybe you aren’t worth U.S. blood and gold.” Another reader added, and I quote him at length: “Go buddy up with Syria, go buddy up with Hizbullah, Hamas, Iran, and go live in a piece of â?¦ world that glorifies suicide bombing by children, glorifies naked anti-Semitism and ignorance of the Holocaust, ‘honor kills their women and forces them to wear burkhas. Go ahead and chose to keep your part of the world uneducated, unemployed, and hopeless. Go ahead and chose to keep the Middle East the gutter of the world while America has the compassion to try and help you by removing the cancer affecting your region.”

In response, I write: What blood and what gold were spilled and paid by the Americans for the Arab World? I am astonished that an educated American would think in such a manner. America did not come to this part of the world to tutor or to educate. This is the biggest falsification brought to the world by President Bush.

Iraq was destroyed and looted under the Americans. There are over 10 people dying per day in America’s Iraq–so much for democracy and education. At one point it was more than 35 people dying per day in Iraq, meaning that more than one death occurs per hour in the “new and democratic Iraq.”

At one point more than 1,500 died per month in America’s Iraq. Mass graves–all created after Saddam Hussein, have been found in America’s Iraq, dug up by the Iraqis themselves under America’s watchful eye. Death squads are free to roam the streets, killing Iraqis by night.

Five years after the US invasion of Iraq, one cannot but wonder how the Americans missed a golden opportunity to create a secure democracy in the country to replace the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.

Optimists in the Arab world, especially pro-Western and particularly pro-American Arabs, defended the United States until curtain fall, saying that it truly would root out terrorism from Iraq, and bring both stability and democracy to the Iraqi people.

Every one of those beliefs has been shattered – over and over again, since March 2003. As Iraq enters its sixth year since 2003, it is safe to ask: what has been achieved? What can I describe as American “compassion” towards the Arabs?

Apart from the downfall of Saddam, not a single achievement is noteworthy in Iraq. The country today is a “democracy” in civil war – a democracy where human life is being wasted, along with the dreams and security of the Iraqi people. Inasmuch as free elections are a great asset of which all oppressed people dream, they mean nothing if security is lacking.

History will not remember the free elections that took place in January and December 2005 as much as it will remember the notorious pictures of the torture at Abu Ghraib prison. The killings and the death squads that haunt the streets of Iraq will live much longer in the minds of Iraqi people than the image of Saddam’s statue falling in Baghdad.

American soldiers torturing (Lynching) Iraqis at Abu Ghraib prison
[Click on PICS to enlarge image]

———————————————————————————————————————
Special Read + More Abu Ghraib Pictures: Mr. President Bush — ‘You are a War Criminal who belongs in Guantanamo Prison’
———————————————————————————————————————

Bush’s America did not come to democratize the Iraqis. It came to expand its sphere of influence, replace that of the former USSR, control the rise of political Islam, rebuild the Iraq it had destroyed, make use of Iraq’s oil wealth, and safeguard the security of Israel. Must I remind my American reader of the scandals of Abu Ghraib? Those pictures alone show how much compassion the Americans have for the Arabs. Must I remind him of the killing of 24 Iraqis in cold blood by U.S. marines at Haditha in November 2005 or of the killing of 11 Iraqi civilians by U.S. troops in the village of Ishaqi in March 2006?

The Arabs remember too clearly that it was the Americans who initially supported Saddam Hussein’s rise to power in 1979, simply because he challenged Iran. It was the Americans who orchestrated the first coup d’etat in Syria in 1949, toppling the democratically elected president Shukri al-Quwatli and replacing him with General Husni al-Za’im, a stooge of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), because the latter promised to respond to U.S. needs in the Middle East. These were mainly a crackdown on communism, a ceasefire with Israel, and privileges to Tapline, a U.S. oil company.

The fact that Quwatli had been democratically elected by his people meant nothing to the CIA, the White House or the Pentagon in 1949. The fact that Yasser Arafat, another democratically elected president, was besieged to his office in 2001-2004 also meant nothing to the Americans who said that he was “irrelevant” and completely ignored him–along with the will and choice of the Palestinian people, because he refused to become an American stooge in the Middle East.

The Americans must give to win the trust of the Arabs.

Arabs will only begin to have faith in the U.S. and the Bush White House when peace is brought to the Palestinians, security is maintained in Iraq, and American statesmen show more interest in real Arab domestic issues and democracy.

The Americans have also failed to portray themselves as honest brokers in the Arab-Israeli conflict, which is the cornerstone of grievances to the Arab majority. The real problem that the Americans fail to understand is not Arafat, nor terrorism, nor Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, but land and freedom for the Palestinians. Once that is secured, a majority of Arabs will start to trust America.

The road to peace in the Middle East runs through Jerusalem, not Baghdad. On the issue of Palestine, there is consensus among the 200 million Arabs. Since September 2000, more than 50,000 people have been left homeless in Gaza alone. The Occupied Territories currently suffer from 40 percent unemployment, and in Gaza alone it is over 50 percent. When the intifada broke out in 2000, the poverty rate was 21 percent, and by December 2002 it had increased to 60 percent. In Gaza, poverty today is estimated at over 80 percent.

Due to terrible conditions, food consumption in the Occupied Territories has dropped by 25 percent, and half of the population currently lives off United Nations aid. Malnutrition among infants is 22 percent, the highest in the region, matched only in the Sahara Desert.

The Israeli Defense Army has generated losses in Palestinian infrastructure estimated at U.S.$1.7 billion in 2002 alone. And that number is likely to increase, given the U.S. alliance with Israel and its generous donation of arms and money. When former secretary of state Collin Powell announced his plan for “democracy in the Middle East” in late 2003, he promised $29 million to promote a democratic culture to the Arabs. Whereas at the start of 2004, the White House gave Israel $300 million in donations to “help combat terrorism.”

In an interview with the Israeli daily Yediot Aharanot, Bush’s Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice once said, “I first visited Israel in 2000. I felt I was returning home, despite the fact that this was a place I have never visited. I have a deep affinity with Israel. I have always admired the history of the state of Israel and the hardness and determination of the people that founded it.” — Read: The tragic futility of Condoleezza Rice

No remark could have a worse effect on the inhabitants of the Middle East. Rice wrote her doctoral dissertation on the Cold War era and the USSR, and although she has a prestigious background in academia, she sadly has not read her Middle East history correctly. To the Arab street she is trying to appeal to today, the “founders” that she admires in Israel are nothing but invaders who realized early on that in order to survive they must uproot, kill and terrorize the Arabs and Palestinians.

Joseph Weitz, head of the Jewish Agency’s colonial department, said in 1940, “We shall not achieve our goal if the Arabs are in this small country. There is no other way [other] than to transfer the Arabs from here to neighboring countries – all of them! Not one village, not one tribe should be left.”

In 1948, there were 475 villages in Palestine, 385 of which were bulldozed to the ground by Israel.

In 1938, the “founder” Ben Gurion told the World Council of Poale Zion, “The boundaries of Zionist aspirations include southern Lebanon, southern Syria, today’s trans-Jordan, all of the West Bank and Sinai.” Ten years later, as premier of Israel, he said, “Our aim is to smash Lebanon, trans-Jordan and Syria. We shall establish a Christian state [in Lebanon], and then we will smash the Arab Legion, eliminate trans-Jordan, then Syria will fall to us. We then bomb and move on and take Port Said, Alexandria and Sinai.” (Taken from “Ben Gurion: A Biography,” written in 1986 by Michael Bar Zohar). These words have had more of an impact on Arabs, even those who are moderate and Westernized, than the democratic promises of Rice.

As an African-American who grew up inspired by the American Revolution against colonialism, and as someone who has read, if not memorized the Bill of Rights of the U.S. constitution, how can Rice admire a people uprooting, terrorizing and “smashing” another people? — Read: Lynchings in America — A History Not Known By Many — An hereditary trait that fully explains Abu Ghraib

   1935 lynching of Rubin Stacy in Fort Lauderdale, Florida

   1919 lynching William Brown in Douglas County, Nebraska

   1936 lynching of Lint Shaw in Royston, Georgia

This is a question asked all over the Middle East, shedding a lot of doubt on Rice’s credibility when talking about democratizing the Arab World, and the support she has from her President. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are the trinity that holds the U.S. together and defines its democracy, yet it has not been applied by the U.S.–Bush’s America–when dealing with the Middle East.

To make things clear to readers: I am not opposed to peace with Israel nor am I anti-Semite. One of my closest friends during childhood and young adulthood had a Damascene Jewish mother. She was a remarkable lady. I am someone who sees no difference between Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, and Baha’is. All of them have the right to live in peace and security. When Arafat signed Oslo in 1993, I was one of those who strongly supported him. I still think it was the bravest decision he ever took in his life. Oslo was ruined not because of Arafat but because of the outbreak of the intifada on Sept. 28, 2000. The outbreak of violence started after Ariel Sharon’s provocation in visiting the al-Aqsa Mosque. A circle of violence started after that, and all hell broke loose in the Middle East after Sept. 11, 2001. Give me a peace-wanting government in the United States and I will support Syrian-Israeli, or Palestinian-Israeli peace talks. One of my favorite quotes was made by Yitzhak Rabin in 1993, during the signing of Oslo. He said, “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; A time to kill, and a time to heal; A time to weep, and a time to laugh; A time to love, and a time to hate; A time for war, and a time for peace.”

That was 15 years ago. These administrations, thanks to Bush, Olmert, and Rice, have spread nothing but destruction, setting Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine–and now possibly Iran–ablaze. That is their legacy. They have not surpassed “a time to hate, and a time for war.” They kept us at a “time to kill and a time to die” never bringing us a “time to heal, a time to laugh, a time to love, and a time for peace.”

Note: The picture illustrations, supporting links and anchor text to external resources are by PoliticalArticles.NET.

   [Enlarge Picture]
About The Author: Sami Moubayed is a Syrian political analyst and historian based in Damascus, Syria. Moubayed is the author of “Damascus Between Democracy and Dictatorship (2000)” and “Steel & Silk: Men and Women Who Shaped Syria 1900-2000 (2006).” He has also authored a biography of Syria’s former President Shukri al-Quwatli and currently serves as Associate Professor at the Faculty of International Relations at al-Kalamoun University in Syria. In 2004, he created Syrianhistory.com, the first and online museum of Syrian history. He is also co-founder and editor-in-chief of FORWARD, the leading English monthly in Syria, and Vice-President of Haykal Media.

   [Enlarge Image]