Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Could someone please explain to me why Wright's speech will sink Obama?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-29-08 09:42 AM
Original message
Could someone please explain to me why Wright's speech will sink Obama?
Was it the thing about the brains?
The bad Mass Accent?
Did he say "Kill Whitey" and I missed that part?

Was it the fact he addressed the NAACP?
Or the fact that they expressed their support of him?

Or was it just because of who he is, and the fact that he spoke publicly?

And why is the reaction so different now than it was the first time we saw Wright? Or the second, third and brazillionth?

Why was that night different from all other nights?

I'm truly perplexed at the reactions and foregone conclusions of most media people and folks around here, so please explain it to me as if I just stepped off the little bus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-29-08 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
1. No, no one can, but plenty will try. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-29-08 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. It's the self-fulfilling prophecy part that scares me. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democrattotheend Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-29-08 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Exactly
Take a look at Rasmussen today. Obama's favorability is up from yesterday, he has a 2-point lead over McCain, he continues to lead Clinton by 8, but Rasmussen Markets has his chance of winning the nomination down 4 points, to 77. This whole electability meme is a vicious cycle...the more people panic about electability, the more support he loses, the worse he looks in the polls, and thus the more unelectable he looks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluzmann57 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-29-08 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
4. I would, but I can't
I can't because there appears to be no reason why Rev. Wright's speech will do anything at all to Obama. But maybe I'm not as smart as the media people who are always trying to tell us what to think and who to support. Or maybe I am. And maybe you are too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HereSince1628 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-29-08 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
5. HIllary beats Obama among anxious white guys...
Edited on Tue Apr-29-08 09:50 AM by HereSince1628
McCain beats Hillary among anxious white guys...

The media claims that like PA the election will be decided by anxious white guys.

Wright makes plain ordinary white guys into anxious white guys.

The more anxious white guys there are, the fewer ordinary rational white guys are available for Obama.


That's the basic postion. I'm not saying I buy it, but then I'm not an anxious sort of white guy.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-29-08 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Thank you!
So the Anxious White Guy is the new Soccer Mom.

Where's Flip Wilson when you need him?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas Hill Country Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-29-08 09:51 AM
Response to Original message
6. how many explanations do you all need... there are like 100 threads explaning it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-29-08 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. And yet, Obama persists. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-29-08 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. Watch his poll numbers drop on polls taken after 4/28/08.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mooney Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-29-08 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. The is the 800th time we've been told watch his numbers drop.
They dip temporarily and then go back up.

Do you think that just repeating this over and over again will magically make it true this time?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-29-08 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #14
26. Well... they do have the M$M backing them up on it... so... they can hope?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #14
39. And they've dropped AGAIN.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-29-08 10:02 AM
Original message
I've heard this one before.
It didn't happen then either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democrattotheend Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-29-08 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #11
21. So far he's holding steady in Rasmussen tracking
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #21
40. Gallup Tracking 's looking better for HRC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-29-08 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. Actually, I looked through about that many threads...
Edited on Tue Apr-29-08 09:53 AM by rucky
and I never saw an explanation - at least not one that would lead to such a definitive conclusion. It's just being treated as a fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mooney Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-29-08 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #9
18. That's because they can't substantiate what they're saying.
If it looks like shit, it sounds like shit, and it smells like shit, then it's shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-29-08 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
10. Because the Rethugs who wouldn't vote for Dem anyway, won't vote for a Dem.
Get with the program.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mooney Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-29-08 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
12. It won't.
This is about the 50th thing that rabid Hillary partisans have claimed will do Obama in. And two of those 50 things are the last 2 times Wright came up, and yet somehow failed to derail him.

The naysayers are full of shit. They think that if they repeat "he's unelectable" enough, people will believe it.

"He's unelectable" is just the HRC campaign's equivalent of "The surge is working."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-29-08 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. The electable meme helped Kerry secure the nomination.
Having seen those results, people are less likely to fall for it this time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-29-08 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
13. Wright and the elitism, out -of -touch negatives will drag him down.
Edited on Tue Apr-29-08 09:59 AM by barb162
Yours: "Did he say "Kill Whitey" and I missed that part?"

No, but he screams whitey is responsible for almost all that is evil in the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mooney Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-29-08 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. You mean the manufactured controversies that have failed to derail him so far?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #16
41. "manufactured" LOL
And it does look like he's getting derailed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-29-08 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #13
17. Why was Sunday night the coup de grace?
what's new that happened?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #17
42. If nothing new happened why did Obama do a press conference yesterday
on a certain preacher
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-29-08 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #13
29. Why not yet?? just wrong is what you are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #29
43. yeah, right
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DefenseLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-29-08 10:04 AM
Response to Original message
19. I have been saying that for two days
What did he say? It's been Oh no! Rev. Wright is back! Trouble for Obama! Really? Okay, what did he say that is trouble? I'm still waiting. The problem is, there doesn't seem to be a new sound bite that the media can grab here. The only story seems to be that Rev. Wright gave a speech and apparently didn't beg for forgiveness and shuffle. But still, no soundbite. Where's the beef?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
On the Road Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-29-08 10:20 AM
Response to Original message
20. Unfortunately,
he is known primarily as the "God damn America" preacher who Obama listened to for years. Rightly or wrongly, many independent voters are proud of their country and bristle at that quote, which suggests an anti-American attitude that repels many voters.

It reflects on Obama because he remained part of that congregation for years, which can be interpreted as approval. People are NOT going to elect a candidate perceived to have a "God damn America" attitude.

Obama did a masterful job of defusing that issue with his speech on race. Americans have a short memory, and it appeared there was going to be no long-term political damage. All Wright needed to do was nothing and stay out of the public eye.

Now Wright comes back on the national stage reviving the same issues and compounding them by questioning Obama's sincerity, which is one of his most attractive political attributes. Nothing could be more damaging. Wright appears to be completely clueless about the impact of his comments or his image. It reminds me of Nader's
"don't worry" comment during the 2000 campaign.

The Swiftboat veterans, IMO, cost Kerry the election because they helped to create a negative image of Kerry in a lot of voters' minds. Wright is in great danger of doing the same thing to Obama. He's not likely to cost Obama the nomination, but will create a pool of voters who will not trust Obama enough to vote for him. In a close election, that can be fatal.

The merits of what Wright says are irrelevant. It is the political effect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-29-08 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. So it's the fact that he's him, and he spoke.
correct?

then why are people so accepting of that?

as I said upthread, it just sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me. it's not Wright that sinking the campaign - it's the fear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
On the Road Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-29-08 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #22
31. Doesn't Matter Whether You or I Understand It
or whether it's justified.

Many of the things that sink campaigns are unjustified. Gore's "I invented the internet", Kerry's supposed lies about Vietnam, McGovern's choice of Eagleton. All were either fabricated or overblown. It did not change the results.

By only paying attention to what he thinks people should believe (or else not caring), Wright was being extraordinarily irresponsible. He was in a position of enormous influence over the results of the next election and he chose personal publicity over public benefit.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-29-08 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. If it's as ridiculous as you describe, we should say as much.
Dontcha think? Otherwise we'll just keep being victims. Nobody's safe, really. and what i think is happening is that there are more people worried about people being buying into it then there are people who are actually buying into it. Now's the time to say that what Wright says or does shouldn't affect Obama's candidacy - no matter how much certain people want that to happen.

Folks are too eager to accept this tactic as reality. Ironically enough, this is the exact same thing Wright was railing against in his "campaign-killing" speech.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
On the Road Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-29-08 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #32
37. It Was Unjustified (in My Eyes), Not Ridiculous
On The Daily Show, Newt Gingrich gave a pretty clear account of how it makes Obama appear to the average voter.

This isn't about some made up quote or false witness. It is about attending a church whose pastor believes AIDS was created by the US government to attack black people. A Republican candidate who attended a church where that was taught from the pulpit would have a difficult time getting elected. That is how Obama is now being depicted.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doc03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-29-08 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
23. It is useless to try and explain anything to an Obama
supporter. I suggest you talk to some blue collar workers that as a rule vote Democratic and will not vote for Obama. You know (regular) people as Obama's wife calls us. I don't mean political activists, just the average Joe that worries more about the NFL draft than politics. I know exactly what you'll say, well they wouldn't vote for Obama anyway, you are wrong. If a women can get the blue collar vote even after her husband passed NAFTA they certainly would have been able to vote for Obama if not for the Rev. Wright thing. I hear it every day it's either he is a Muslim (and many still believe that) or they bring up Rev. Wright.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-29-08 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. Go ahead,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doc03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-29-08 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #24
36. Let me explain why I don't think Obama will win the
Edited on Tue Apr-29-08 05:29 PM by doc03
GE. We are in the primary season now and what percentage of the traditional Democratic vote is black probably 25% or more I would guess? Now if Obama carries that one large constituency by 90% he can win the Democratic primary. But in the GE he needs the white middle class blue collar vote and I just don't think he will get it. I am just judging that on my everyday conversations with my fellow workers and friends. I can't see him carrying Ohio, PA and definitely not WV in the GE. Yes he won red states (among Democrats) in the primaries but I doubt if any of them switch in the GE. Those southern red states just don't have enough of Obama's constituents to outweigh the white racist vote in the south.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-29-08 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #23
27. Well, I did ask you to explain
like I just stepped off the little bus. You got that part right.

I still don't understand what's changed since Sunday, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doc03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-29-08 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #27
35. Nothing has changed for me since Sunday
Obama lost my vote months ago after I visited the TUCC before Rev. Wright ever became public.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-29-08 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #23
30. Oh yearh, one more question...
Have you any Grey Poupon?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-29-08 10:58 AM
Response to Original message
25. Cause the M$M said so. The M$M is hyperventilaiting about it...
so there MUST be some "there" there.

All good progressives know this, and react and respond accordingly to every M$M scare tactic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bettie Donating Member (774 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-29-08 11:00 AM
Response to Original message
28. Maybe its that he's not great at doing impressions?
I don't get how this is so terrible.

I watched what I could of the speeches and didn't see anything wrong with them.

And I'm a white, middle class, Midwestern, stay-at-home mom. I think I'm one of the people who's supposed to be afraid of Rev. Wright because he's a black man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frickaline Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-29-08 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
33. because his statements were intentionally inflammatory and widen the racial divide
Do you honestly believe AIDS is an invention of government? That the US is full of nothing but terrorists? Whether you put these statements in context or not is not the question in a sound bite driven world.

However, I don't think this will sink Obama, not remotely, but I think your post greatly understates the reality of the damage his voice deals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-29-08 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. I honestly do not feel threatened by someone with that belief.
sorry if I can't relate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #33
44. oh boy....

Blowback
excerpted from the book
Blowback The Costs and Consequences of American Empire
by Chalmers Johnson
Henry Holt, 2000
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blowback_CJohnson/Blowback_BCJ.html

p8
The term "blowback," which officials of the Central Intelligence Agency first invented for their own internal use, is starting to circulate among students of international relations. It refers to the unintended consequences of policies that were kept secret from the American people. What the daily press reports as the malign acts of "terrorists" or "drug lords" or "rogue states" or "illegal arms merchants" often turn out to be blowback from earlier American operations.

p9
One man's terrorist is, of course, another man's freedom fighter, and what U.S. officials denounce as unprovoked terrorist attacks on its innocent citizens are often meant as retaliation for previous American imperial actions. Terrorists attack innocent and undefended American targets precisely because American soldiers and sailors firing cruise missiles from ships at sea or sitting in B-52 bombers at extremely high altitudes or supporting brutal and repressive regimes from Washington seem invulnerable. As members of the Defense Science Board wrote in a 1997 report to the undersecretary of defense for acquisition and technology, "Historical data show a strong correlation between U.S. involvement in international situations and an increase in terrorist attacks against the United States. In addition, the military asymmetry that denies nation states the ability to engage in overt attacks against the United States drives the use of transnational actors that is, terrorists from one country attacking in another."
The most direct and obvious form of blowback often occurs when the victims fight back after a secret American bombing, or a U.S.-sponsored campaign of state terrorism, or a CIA-engineered overthrow of a foreign political leader. All around the world today, it is possible to see the groundwork being laid for future forms of blowback.
------------------------------------------
Terrorism(by definition)strikes at the innocent in order to draw attention to the sins of the invulnerable. The innocent of the twenty-first century are going to harvest unexpected blowback disasters from the imperialist escapades of recent decades. Although most Americans may be largely ignorant of what was, and still is, being done in their names, all are likely to pay a steep price-individually and collectively-for their nation's continued efforts to dominate the global scene. Before the damage of heedless triumphalist acts and the triumphalist rhetoric and propaganda that goes with them becomes irreversible, it is important to open a new discussion of our global role during and after the Cold War...
------------------------
"Blowback" is shorthand for saying that a nation reaps what it sows, even if it does not fully know or understand what it has sown. Given its wealth and power, the United States will be a prime recipient in the foreseeable future of all of the more expectable forms of blowback, particularly terrorist attacks against Americans in and out of the armed forces anywhere on earth, including within the United States. But it is blowback in its larger aspect-the tangible costs of empire-that truly threatens it. Empires are costly operations, and they become more costly by the year. The hollowing out of American industry, for instance, is a form of blowback-an unintended negative consequence of American policy- even though it is seldom recognized as such. The growth of militarism in a once democratic society is another example of blowback. Empire is the problem. Even though the United States has a strong sense of invulnerability and substantial military and economic tools to make such a feeling credible, the fact of its imperial pretensions means that a crisis is inevitable. More imperialist projects simply generate more blowback. If we do not begin to solve problems in more prudent and modest ways, blowback will only become more intense.


The American Empire: 1992 to present
from the book
Killing Hope
by William Blum
2004 edition
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/American_Empire_KH2004.html

Following its bombing of Iraq in 1991, the United States wound up with military bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates.
Following its bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, the United States wound up with military bases in Kosovo, Albania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Hungary, Bosnia and Croatia.
Following its bombing of Afghanistan in 2001-2, the United States wound up with military bases in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, Yemen and Djibouti.
Following its bombing and invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States wound up with Iraq.
This is not very subtle foreign policy. Certainly not covert. The men who run the American Empire are not easily embarrassed

And that is the way the empire grows-a base in every neighborhood, ready to be mobilized to put down any threat to imperial rule, real or imagined. Fifty-eight years after world War II ended, the United States still has major bases in Germany and Japan; fifty ears after the end of the Korean War, tens of thousands of American armed forces continue to be stationed in South Korea.
"America will have a continuing interest and presence in Central Asia of a kind that we could not have dreamed of before," US Secretary of State Colin Powell declared in February 2002. Later that year, the US Defense Department announced: "The United States Military is currently deployed to more locations then it has been throughout history."


A Brief History of U.S. Interventions: 1945 to the Present
by William Blum
Z magazine , June 1999
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html
The United States carried out extremely serious interventions into more than 70 nations in this period.


1931 - Dr. Cornelius Rhoads, under the auspices of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Investigations, infects human subjects with cancer cells. He later goes on to establish the U.S. Army Biological Warfare facilities in Maryland, Utah, and Panama, and is named to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. While there, he begins a series of radiation exposure experiments on American soldiers and civilian hospital patients.

1932 - The Tuskegee Syphilis Study begins. 200 black men diagnosed with syphilis are never told of their illness, are denied treatment, and instead are used as human guinea pigs in order to follow the progression and symptoms of the disease. They all subsequently die from syphilis, their families never told that they could have been treated.

1935 - The Pellagra Incident. After millions of individuals die from Pellagra over a span of two decades, the U.S. Public Health Service finally acts to stem the disease. The director of the agency admits it had known for at least 20 years that Pellagra is caused by a niacin deficiency but failed to act since most of the deaths occurred within poverty-stricken black populations.

1940 - Four hundred prisoners in Chicago are infected with Malaria in order to study the effects of new and experimental drugs to combat the disease. Nazi doctors later on trial at Nuremberg cite this American study to defend their own actions during the Holocaust.

1942 - Chemical Warfare Services begins mustard gas experiments on approximately 4,000 servicemen. The experiments continue until 1945 and made use of Seventh Day Adventists who chose to become human guinea pigs rather than serve on active duty.

1943 - In response to Japan's full-scale germ warfare program, the U.S. begins research on biological weapons at Fort Detrick, MD.

1944 - U.S. Navy uses human subjects to test gas masks and clothing. Individuals were locked in a gas chamber and exposed to mustard gas and lewisite.

1945 - Project Paperclip is initiated. The U.S. State Department, Army intelligence, and the CIA recruit Nazi scientists and offer them immunity and secret identities in exchange for work on top secret government projects in the United States.

1945 - "Program F" is implemented by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). This is the most extensive U.S. study of the health effects of fluoride, which was the key chemical component in atomic bomb production. One of the most toxic chemicals known to man, fluoride, it is found, causes marked adverse effects to the central nervous system but much of the information is squelched in the name of national security because of fear that lawsuits would undermine full-scale production of atomic bombs.

1946 - Patients in VA hospitals are used as guinea pigs for medical experiments. In order to allay suspicions, the order is given to change the word "experiments" to "investigations" or "observations" whenever reporting a medical study performed in one of the nation's veteran's hospitals.

1947 - Colonel E.E. Kirkpatrick of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission issues a secret document (Document 07075001, January 8, 1947) stating that the agency will begin administering intravenous doses of radioactive substances to human subjects.

1947 - The CIA begins its study of LSD as a potential weapon for use by American intelligence. Human subjects (both civilian and military) are used with and without their knowledge.

1950 - Department of Defense begins plans to detonate nuclear weapons in desert areas and monitor downwind residents for medical problems and mortality rates.

1950 - In an experiment to determine how susceptible an American city would be to biological attack, the U.S. Navy sprays a cloud of bacteria from ships over San Francisco. Monitoring devices are situated throughout the city in order to test the extent of infection. Many residents become ill with pneumonia-like symptoms.

1951 - Department of Defense begins open air tests using disease-producing bacteria and viruses. Tests last through 1969 and there is concern that people in the surrounding areas have been exposed.

1953 - U.S. military releases clouds of zinc cadmium sulfide gas over Winnipeg, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Fort Wayne, the Monocacy River Valley in Maryland, and Leesburg, Virginia. Their intent is to determine how efficiently they could disperse chemical agents.

1953 - Joint Army-Navy-CIA experiments are conducted in which tens of thousands of people in New York and San Francisco are exposed to the airborne germs Serratia marcescens and Bacillus glogigii.

1953 - CIA initiates Project MKULTRA. This is an eleven year research program designed to produce and test drugs and biological agents that would be used for mind control and behavior modification. Six of the subprojects involved testing the agents on unwitting human beings.

1955 - The CIA, in an experiment to test its ability to infect human populations with biological agents, releases a bacteria withdrawn from the Army's biological warfare arsenal over Tampa Bay, Fl.

1956 - U.S. military releases mosquitoes infected with Yellow Fever over Savannah, Ga and Avon Park, Fl. Following each test, Army agents posing as public health officials test victims for effects.

1960 - The Army Assistant Chief-of-Staff for Intelligence (ACSI) authorizes field testing of LSD in Europe and the Far East. Testing of the European population is code named Project THIRD CHANCE; testing of the Asian population is code named Project DERBY HAT.

1965 - Project CIA and Department of Defense begin Project MKSEARCH, a program to develop a capability to manipulate human behavior through the use of mind-altering drugs.

1965 - Prisoners at the Holmesburg State Prison in Philadelphia are subjected to dioxin, the highly toxic chemical component of Agent Orange used in Viet Nam. The men are later studied for development of cancer, which indicates that Agent Orange had been a suspected carcinogen all along.

1966 - CIA initiates Project MKOFTEN, a program to test the toxicological effects of certain drugs on humans and animals.

1966 - U.S. Army dispenses Bacillus subtilis variant niger throughout the New York City subway system. More than a million civilians are exposed when army scientists drop lightbulbs filled with the bacteria onto ventilation grates.

1967 - CIA and Department of Defense implement Project MKNAOMI, successor to MKULTRA and designed to maintain, stockpile and test biological and chemical weapons.

1968 - CIA experiments with the possibility of poisoning drinking water by injecting chemicals into the water supply of the FDA in Washington, D.C.

1969 - Dr. Robert MacMahan of the Department of Defense requests from congress $10 million to develop, within 5 to 10 years, a synthetic biological agent to which no natural immunity exists.

1970 - Funding for the synthetic biological agent is obtained under H.R. 15090. The project, under the supervision of the CIA, is carried out by the Special Operations Division at Fort Detrick, the army's top secret biological weapons facility. Speculation is raised that molecular biology techniques are used to produce AIDS-like retroviruses.

1970 - United States intensifies its development of "ethnic weapons" (Military Review, Nov., 1970), designed to selectively target and eliminate specific ethnic groups who are susceptible due to genetic differences and variations in DNA.

1975 - The virus section of Fort Detrick's Center for Biological Warfare Research is renamed the Fredrick Cancer Research Facilities and placed under the supervision of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) . It is here that a special virus cancer program is initiated by the U.S. Navy, purportedly to develop cancer-causing viruses. It is also here that retrovirologists isolate a virus to which no immunity exists. It is later named HTLV (Human T-cell Leukemia Virus).

1977 - Senate hearings on Health and Scientific Research confirm that 239 populated areas had been contaminated with biological agents between 1949 and 1969. Some of the areas included San Francisco, Washington, D.C., Key West, Panama City, Minneapolis, and St. Louis.

1978 - Experimental Hepatitis B vaccine trials, conducted by the CDC, begin in New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco. Ads for research subjects specifically ask for promiscuous homosexual men.

1981 - First cases of AIDS are confirmed in homosexual men in New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco, triggering speculation that AIDS may have been introduced via the Hepatitis B vaccine.

1985 - According to the journal Science (227:173-177), HTLV and VISNA, a fatal sheep virus, are very similar, indicating a close taxonomic and evolutionary relationship.

1986 - According to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (83:4007-4011), HIV and VISNA are highly similar and share all structural elements, except for a small segment which is nearly identical to HTLV. This leads to speculation that HTLV and VISNA may have been linked to produce a new retrovirus to which no natural immunity exists.

1986 - A report to Congress reveals that the U.S. Government's current generation of biological agents includes: modified viruses, naturally occurring toxins, and agents that are altered through genetic engineering to change immunological character and prevent treatment by all existing vaccines.

1987 - Department of Defense admits that, despite a treaty banning research and development of biological agents, it continues to operate research facilities at 127 facilities and universities around the nation.

1990 - More than 1500 six-month old black and Hispanic babies in Los Angeles are given an "experimental" measles vaccine that had never been licensed for use in the United States. CDC later admits that parents were never informed that the vaccine being injected to their children was experimental.

1994 - With a technique called "gene tracking," Dr. Garth Nicolson at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, TX discovers that many returning Desert Storm veterans are infected with an altered strain of Mycoplasma incognitus, a microbe commonly used in the production of biological weapons. Incorporated into its molecular structure is 40 percent of the HIV protein coat, indicating that it had been man-made.

1994 - Senator John D. Rockefeller issues a report revealing that for at least 50 years the Department of Defense has used hundreds of thousands of military personnel in human experiments and for intentional exposure to dangerous substances. Materials included mustard and nerve gas, ionizing radiation, psychochemicals, hallucinogens, and drugs used during the Gulf War.

1995 - U.S. Government admits that it had offered Japanese war criminals and scientists who had performed human medical experiments salaries and immunity from prosecution in exchange for data on biological warfare research.

1995 - Dr. Garth Nicolson, uncovers evidence that the biological agents used during the Gulf War had been manufactured in Houston, TX and Boca Raton, Fl and tested on prisoners in the Texas Department of Corrections.

1996 - Department of Defense admits that Desert Storm soldiers were exposed to chemical agents.

1997 - Eighty-eight members of Congress sign a letter demanding an investigation into bioweapons use & Gulf War Syndrome.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
and-justice-for-all Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 12:22 AM
Response to Original message
38. This is all they have to work with...
so they will milk it for all its worth, even thought it isn't worth shit. This is absurd nonsense and pathetic!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CatsDogsBabies Donating Member (652 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 03:13 PM
Response to Original message
45. It is not going to sink Obama
People who do not support upon are clinging to this as their last hope.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smalll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 03:28 PM
Response to Original message
46. I think it was more about the fact he repeated his gov't-created-AIDS belief,
Edited on Wed Apr-30-08 03:31 PM by smalll
said that basically black brains are different from white brains in the NAACP speech, plus more.

And you ask, "And why is the reaction so different now than it was the first time we saw Wright? Or the second, third and brzillionth?" Well, you'll have to take that up with Obama himself: his reaction was certainly different now: rather than avoid, ignore or dismiss the Wright questions, or even try to deliver some Obama-patented "higher triangulation" to get beyond the issue as he did in Philadelphia, this time, Obama took Wright out to the woodshed, publicly.

And so your question is EXACTLY the reason this is such a big deal -- why "Wright's speech will sink Obama" --

After twenty years in the pews of Wright's church, where Barack was brought to Jesus and baptized, where he married, where his children were baptized, (and where those children sat in the pews alongside Daddy, absorbing Wrightism in their young and tender years) After all those twenty years, your question is The Question:

"And why is the reaction so different now than it was the first time you saw Wright? Or the second, third and brazillionth?"



Does your strange new god have an answer to that one, hmmm?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 12:06 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

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


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

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

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

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC