Rev. Jeremiah Wright is in the news again, probably much to the dismay of the Obama campaign. The nation's uproar over Wright's comments strike me as predictably silly (see here for more of Wright's sermon following 9/11).
Oh, the pundits were so upset about Rev. Wright's 9/11-related comments. Wright suggests that American foreign policy precipitated the 9/11 attacks. President Bush said "America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world." Which do you think seems more reasonable?
Those who dismiss Rev. Wright as a crackpot fail to notice the size of his congregation. And choosing to ignore why there is so much anger in black America is exactly the same type of reflexive action many adopted following 9/11, when they ridiculed those who suggested we try to understand why we were attacked. Sorry, sticking our collective heads in the sand is how we arrived at this mess in the first place.
They say Wright is anti-American. He served his country in the military and now serves his Chicago community. Is he less a patriot than President Bush or VP Dick Cheney? Neither of those men served in the military (Bush's National Guard experience has been well documented, and Cheney applied for and received five draft deferments until we was too old for the draft), and the only community they seem to be serving these days are their oil buddies and military contractors. In a firefight with real anti-American forces, who would you rather have in a foxhole with you - Cheney or Wright?
They say Wright is offensive. What's more offensive: Wright's comments to his congregation or the government's exaggerations and fabrications to American citizens to build the case for a war that has exacted a tremendous cost in terms of our national wealth, American lives, and America's standing and influence in the world?
Americans, think for yourselves. Don't outsource your critical thinking to the politicians and the pundits.