Rev. Jeremiah Wright at the National Press Club

Rev. Jeremiah Wright spoke forthrightly this morning at the National Press Club about his position on many topics related to politics and religion.

While many people may not like his tone or his answers it was very clear that this is a highly educated man that is not apologizing for his forceful views. I will be the first to admit that I don't agree with all of Wright's positions such as his view about the United States creating the AIDs virus or causing the 911 attacks. These view are too extreme for my taste. Wright mixed humor with pointed wit and revealed a personality that is charismatic and at times "eyebrow raising."

For example, when the moderator asked him if Barack Obama was not a regular church goer, the Rev. shot back, "What did the Pastor at your church preach on this past Sunday?" No answer, but a little smile from the reporter and a generally free wheeling exchange in good humor characterized this morning's conference.

Two things stood out for me:

1. Anyone can be taken out of context, and if you have ever attended a black church whether Baptist or other denomination you know that the sermons can be firey and full of vim and vigor to make points that if only taken in one or two sentences would certainly be controversial, but taken as a whole during the length of 20, 40 or even 60 minutes or more are not that controversial.
2. The Rev. said this morning, "if you get two people in a room there will be 3 opinions."

The laughter from the audience of a truth being spoken erupted. Rev. Wright made it clear that others may not agree with him on his views, but he is not running for office, he is a religous leader not a political one. Even though he joked about being willing to accept a nod for the Vice Presidency that I can only believe caused groans from Obama strategists.

Finally, I did think the Rev's comparison of the Roman Empire to the U.S. bears some validity. Although, the U.S. is not trying to conquer the world, there is real evidence that we try to run it when things are not going the way we think they should. This extends to issues that are not always a national security threat.

There is a hubris in the United States that we have the best of everything, the best government, the best quality of life, the best "way of living." And as the Rev. pointed out, we also have troops stationed around the world. Just as the Roman Empire sent their armies throughout their known world. We have enough money and power to try to force our will on people and countries stretched over the entire globe, and yet...our own economy, job-losses to outsourcing, dependence on foreign oil, and trillion dollar borrowing from countries like China reveal some huge chinks in our armor!

I am not saying we should be isolationist, but clearly the way we have been approaching both domestic and foreign policies has caused us major problems. Does anyone really believe that peoples that have been ruled by tribal and religious laws for centuries want to be Democratic? I will grant you that Saddam Hussein was not a tribal/religious leader, but think about the power and influence of the Sunni and Shia under his control. Was that not the real culture simmering beneath an iron fist? And is it really our business to try to force Democracy in Iraq?

Is there any reason other than our own economic interests that we would try to impose our system of government in Iraq? Think about no bid Halaburton* contracts that coincidentally is the same company who's roots are in the oil field business. The same company our own Dick Cheney has an association. The same Dick Cheney that held "secret energy meetings" at the beginning of Mr. Bush's administration at which no one, but the participants (large energy companies were present). Mighty handy having your company right there to "help develop oil reserves."

And please don't bring up Al Queda in Iraq because until we invaded Iraq it really didn't exist there and Iraq had zero to do with our 911 attacks. Of course, there are human rights issues, but if that is really our reason for unilaterally* invading a country like Iraq, then why are we not invading Darfur where real genocide is happening now?

** "Total first-quarter revenue for Haliburton climbed 18% to $4.03 billion from $3.42 billion" Source: MarketWatch, April 21, 2008

* Note: by unilaterally I mean that the U.S. has and continues to supply the overwhelming number of troops and money, and many countries have at this writing either pulled out or substantially drawn down their forces which were never more than a small fraction of our own forces.