COMMENTARY
IS OBAMA THE DREAM COME TRUE?
By Mariah Keyrouz
Nov. 16, 2008 - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. made
a great speech one day in Washington. Today, you
can go to YouTube and listen to the great man
making that speech. He was a marvelous speaker
and he gave a memorable presentation. It was a
speech that needed to be made and heeded.
Among many other things, Dr. King said, "I have a
dream that my four little children will one day live in
a nation where they will not be judged by the color
of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Wow! The Content of Their Character, instead of the color of their skin. This is a thing to be
wished by all of us. The content of our character, instead of our belongings, instead of our degree
of intelligence, our standing in the community, our style, our sense of humor, or our ability to
influence people.
Now we've elected America's first black president, and the question to ask ourselves is, "Why?" What
were we voting for? Did we vote for a black man, or for a good man? Did we ask ourselves that question
before we went into the voting booth? Did we think about what makes a good man -- and then research
each man's life up till now, to learn about the content of his character?
What do we know about the content of our next president's character?
For that matter, have we, as a people, looked closely at the content of our own character? How many of
us voted for Barack Obama because he promised relief for problems we brought on ourselves? How many
of us voted for him, not regardless of his skin color, as Dr. King wished, but precisely because of it? Either
because of guilt we feel for things done by people of our skin color, or because of a feeling of victimization
that we harbor because of things done to us or others of our color, by those of another color?
Did we vote for him because of the character of the man he hoped to replace?
Did we vote for him because of the economy? And if so, did we ask ourselves how much of that problem
was brought on by the content of our character as a nation? By the desire to have things we can't afford,
haven't earned.
Mr. Obama has spent a lot of time congratulating America for making Dr. King's Dream come true, by
electing him President. And that makes us feel good.
Did America make Dr. King's dream come true on November fourth, or have we judged a man by the
color of his skin and his rousing words (for he also is a great speaker), and completely overlooked the
content of his character?
You may think it's a little late to be asking that question, and that's true. But how late it is makes it even
more important that we ask it. Now that we've given the man the job, it's extremely important that we
watch him carefully, because we've put someone in there that we don't know if we can trust, because we
don't know him.
Because we judged him by the wrong things, instead of the things Dr. King dreamed of.
SEN. OBAMA: WE WERE GREETED AS LIBERATORS
By Dr. Paul Kengor
Oct. 11, 2008 - A casualty of the left's hatred for President George W. Bush has been a
destructive inability to separate fact from fiction in the ongoing history of the war in Iraq. The
latest case, which, sadly, has dug its way into the head of the Democratic presidential nominee, is
the allegation that American troops, when they liberated Baghdad in April 2003, were not
welcome as liberators.
This inaccurate appraisal, shocking given that it's made by people who watched the liberation on
TV, was leveled again on Tuesday evening by Barack Obama for the second time in consecutive
presidential debates. Both times, Obama criticized John McCain for predicting that Americans
would be greeted as liberators in Iraq. I cannot confirm whether McCain said that. Either way,
though, the undeniable truth is that we were welcomed as liberators. I know this very well,
because I, like everyone over the age of five, lived through it.
I recall a June 27, 2003, piece by Nicholas Kristof in The New York Times, titled, "The Man
With No Ear." A few weeks after the apparent cessation of war, Kristof visited Iraq. Like The
Times, he adamantly opposed the war. Now, he had to come to grips with the undeniable
freedom wrought by the liberation, and the gratitude that Iraqis felt for George W. Bush. One
Iraqi told Kristof: "A thousand thanks to Bush! A thousand thanks to Bush's mother for giving
birth to him!"
Kristof admitted he did not expect that reaction. He tracked down a man named Mathem Abid
Ali. For deserting the Army, Ali's ear was amputated. "Children looked at me, and turned away in
horror," he told Kristof. But now, at last, Ali was free. He told Kristof: "I'd like to make a statue
in gold of President Bush."
Kristof admitted that such facts "got in the way" of his plans for his column. He conceded that it
was important that doves like himself encounter Saddam's victims and their joy at being liberated
by American troops. Doves "need to grapple with the giddy new freedom that—in spite of
us—pullulates from Baghdad to Basra," wrote Kristof.
When Iraqis weren't talking of forging gold statues to George W. Bush, they were running around
the streets literally praising God for him. Here, too, I could give example after example, but I will
stick with another from the popular press, this from the London Telegraph, May 21, 2003:
Juad Amir Sayed, an Iraqi Shiite Muslim, lived in the village of Karada, 90 miles southeast of
Baghdad. At age 24, he had buried all of his books in a flour sack, burned his identity card, and
constructed a tunnel and three-by-five-foot concrete cell under the family kitchen. He entered that
cell on December 2, 1981, and lived there for the next 22 years.
Juad dug a tiny three-inch diameter hole deep into the ground from which he sucked water. This
was his well. A smaller peep hole provided a ray of sunlight during the day. His only company
was a Koran and a radio with headphones that he kept tuned to the Arabic Service of the BBC.
His bright moment came near the 20th anniversary of his confinement when he heard a speech by
President Bush on the September 11 attacks. "Mr. Bush gave a speech in which he said the
terrorists of the world would be hunted down," recalled Juad. "The next time my mother brought
me food I told her of my conviction that [Saddam] would not last."
Juad assumed that any hunt for terrorists would naturally include Saddam Hussein. Fortunately
for him, the American president agreed.
Once American troops arrived, Juad entered the light of freedom for the first time in over two
decades. "I believe that Allah worked through Mr. Bush to make this happen," said Juad. "If I
met Mr. Bush, I would say, 'thank you, thank you, you are a good human, you returned me from
the dead.'"
Those are simply a couple of anecdotes from newspapers. Has everyone forgotten about the
images they saw on their television sets?
I spent two hours with about 50 students on the morning of April 9, 2003, watching CNN
coverage of Iraqis and U.S. Marines in Firdos Square tearing down a statue of Saddam Hussein,
which was then desecrated, spat upon, smacked with shoes, and ridden like a donkey through the
streets of Baghdad. As Howard Fineman wrote in Newsweek, affirming what no one doubted, it
was George W. Bush "who toppled that statue."
Doesn't anyone remember this? Are the biases of liberals so personally crippling that they purge
their own memory banks?
Every president has a "finest hour." For JFK, it was the Cuban Missile Crisis. For Jimmy Carter,
it was Camp David. For George W. Bush, it was April 9, 2003.
Of course, shame on President Bush and his administration for not constantly reminding us of
this. Certainly, the press hasn't bothered. And now, yet again, because of the Bush
administration's failure to communicate to the larger public, the president's enraged opponents
have been able to inaccurately portray another highlight from the Iraq war. The left has been so
successful in eviscerating George W. Bush that even this amazing day of freedom in his
presidency has been somehow turned upside down.
The fall of that statue in Baghdad on that day should be the visual equivalent of the fall of the
Berlin Wall for this president and his presidency. It is not. It is now a negative used by the
Democratic presidential nominee!
Now, all that said, here's a critical rest-of-the-story: George W. Bush eventually became
unpopular in Iraq, as did the occupation/reconstruction, especially in the 2005-6 timeframe. No
question. The situation deteriorated. But that's a different argument. The fact is that we were
indeed greeted as liberators.
Here again, we have another exhibit in the Hall of Hatred erected to George W. Bush. The left
has become so anti-Bush that it can't make simple distinctions between fact and fiction. And
now, worse of all, this latest false charge has become a talking point for the left's presidential
nominee, where, yet again, it is uncontested.
Paul Kengor is professor of political science and executive director of the Center for Vision &
Values at Grove City College.
By Mariah Keyrouz
Nov. 16, 2008 - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. made
a great speech one day in Washington. Today, you
can go to YouTube and listen to the great man
making that speech. He was a marvelous speaker
and he gave a memorable presentation. It was a
speech that needed to be made and heeded.
Among many other things, Dr. King said, "I have a
dream that my four little children will one day live in
a nation where they will not be judged by the color
of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Wow! The Content of Their Character, instead of the color of their skin. This is a thing to be
wished by all of us. The content of our character, instead of our belongings, instead of our degree
of intelligence, our standing in the community, our style, our sense of humor, or our ability to
influence people.
Now we've elected America's first black president, and the question to ask ourselves is, "Why?" What
were we voting for? Did we vote for a black man, or for a good man? Did we ask ourselves that question
before we went into the voting booth? Did we think about what makes a good man -- and then research
each man's life up till now, to learn about the content of his character?
What do we know about the content of our next president's character?
For that matter, have we, as a people, looked closely at the content of our own character? How many of
us voted for Barack Obama because he promised relief for problems we brought on ourselves? How many
of us voted for him, not regardless of his skin color, as Dr. King wished, but precisely because of it? Either
because of guilt we feel for things done by people of our skin color, or because of a feeling of victimization
that we harbor because of things done to us or others of our color, by those of another color?
Did we vote for him because of the character of the man he hoped to replace?
Did we vote for him because of the economy? And if so, did we ask ourselves how much of that problem
was brought on by the content of our character as a nation? By the desire to have things we can't afford,
haven't earned.
Mr. Obama has spent a lot of time congratulating America for making Dr. King's Dream come true, by
electing him President. And that makes us feel good.
Did America make Dr. King's dream come true on November fourth, or have we judged a man by the
color of his skin and his rousing words (for he also is a great speaker), and completely overlooked the
content of his character?
You may think it's a little late to be asking that question, and that's true. But how late it is makes it even
more important that we ask it. Now that we've given the man the job, it's extremely important that we
watch him carefully, because we've put someone in there that we don't know if we can trust, because we
don't know him.
Because we judged him by the wrong things, instead of the things Dr. King dreamed of.
SEN. OBAMA: WE WERE GREETED AS LIBERATORS
By Dr. Paul Kengor
Oct. 11, 2008 - A casualty of the left's hatred for President George W. Bush has been a
destructive inability to separate fact from fiction in the ongoing history of the war in Iraq. The
latest case, which, sadly, has dug its way into the head of the Democratic presidential nominee, is
the allegation that American troops, when they liberated Baghdad in April 2003, were not
welcome as liberators.
This inaccurate appraisal, shocking given that it's made by people who watched the liberation on
TV, was leveled again on Tuesday evening by Barack Obama for the second time in consecutive
presidential debates. Both times, Obama criticized John McCain for predicting that Americans
would be greeted as liberators in Iraq. I cannot confirm whether McCain said that. Either way,
though, the undeniable truth is that we were welcomed as liberators. I know this very well,
because I, like everyone over the age of five, lived through it.
I recall a June 27, 2003, piece by Nicholas Kristof in The New York Times, titled, "The Man
With No Ear." A few weeks after the apparent cessation of war, Kristof visited Iraq. Like The
Times, he adamantly opposed the war. Now, he had to come to grips with the undeniable
freedom wrought by the liberation, and the gratitude that Iraqis felt for George W. Bush. One
Iraqi told Kristof: "A thousand thanks to Bush! A thousand thanks to Bush's mother for giving
birth to him!"
Kristof admitted he did not expect that reaction. He tracked down a man named Mathem Abid
Ali. For deserting the Army, Ali's ear was amputated. "Children looked at me, and turned away in
horror," he told Kristof. But now, at last, Ali was free. He told Kristof: "I'd like to make a statue
in gold of President Bush."
Kristof admitted that such facts "got in the way" of his plans for his column. He conceded that it
was important that doves like himself encounter Saddam's victims and their joy at being liberated
by American troops. Doves "need to grapple with the giddy new freedom that—in spite of
us—pullulates from Baghdad to Basra," wrote Kristof.
When Iraqis weren't talking of forging gold statues to George W. Bush, they were running around
the streets literally praising God for him. Here, too, I could give example after example, but I will
stick with another from the popular press, this from the London Telegraph, May 21, 2003:
Juad Amir Sayed, an Iraqi Shiite Muslim, lived in the village of Karada, 90 miles southeast of
Baghdad. At age 24, he had buried all of his books in a flour sack, burned his identity card, and
constructed a tunnel and three-by-five-foot concrete cell under the family kitchen. He entered that
cell on December 2, 1981, and lived there for the next 22 years.
Juad dug a tiny three-inch diameter hole deep into the ground from which he sucked water. This
was his well. A smaller peep hole provided a ray of sunlight during the day. His only company
was a Koran and a radio with headphones that he kept tuned to the Arabic Service of the BBC.
His bright moment came near the 20th anniversary of his confinement when he heard a speech by
President Bush on the September 11 attacks. "Mr. Bush gave a speech in which he said the
terrorists of the world would be hunted down," recalled Juad. "The next time my mother brought
me food I told her of my conviction that [Saddam] would not last."
Juad assumed that any hunt for terrorists would naturally include Saddam Hussein. Fortunately
for him, the American president agreed.
Once American troops arrived, Juad entered the light of freedom for the first time in over two
decades. "I believe that Allah worked through Mr. Bush to make this happen," said Juad. "If I
met Mr. Bush, I would say, 'thank you, thank you, you are a good human, you returned me from
the dead.'"
Those are simply a couple of anecdotes from newspapers. Has everyone forgotten about the
images they saw on their television sets?
I spent two hours with about 50 students on the morning of April 9, 2003, watching CNN
coverage of Iraqis and U.S. Marines in Firdos Square tearing down a statue of Saddam Hussein,
which was then desecrated, spat upon, smacked with shoes, and ridden like a donkey through the
streets of Baghdad. As Howard Fineman wrote in Newsweek, affirming what no one doubted, it
was George W. Bush "who toppled that statue."
Doesn't anyone remember this? Are the biases of liberals so personally crippling that they purge
their own memory banks?
Every president has a "finest hour." For JFK, it was the Cuban Missile Crisis. For Jimmy Carter,
it was Camp David. For George W. Bush, it was April 9, 2003.
Of course, shame on President Bush and his administration for not constantly reminding us of
this. Certainly, the press hasn't bothered. And now, yet again, because of the Bush
administration's failure to communicate to the larger public, the president's enraged opponents
have been able to inaccurately portray another highlight from the Iraq war. The left has been so
successful in eviscerating George W. Bush that even this amazing day of freedom in his
presidency has been somehow turned upside down.
The fall of that statue in Baghdad on that day should be the visual equivalent of the fall of the
Berlin Wall for this president and his presidency. It is not. It is now a negative used by the
Democratic presidential nominee!
Now, all that said, here's a critical rest-of-the-story: George W. Bush eventually became
unpopular in Iraq, as did the occupation/reconstruction, especially in the 2005-6 timeframe. No
question. The situation deteriorated. But that's a different argument. The fact is that we were
indeed greeted as liberators.
Here again, we have another exhibit in the Hall of Hatred erected to George W. Bush. The left
has become so anti-Bush that it can't make simple distinctions between fact and fiction. And
now, worse of all, this latest false charge has become a talking point for the left's presidential
nominee, where, yet again, it is uncontested.
Paul Kengor is professor of political science and executive director of the Center for Vision &
Values at Grove City College.
