Cynical Nation

Well said, Barry.

oh my god, hell has frozen over, i think: Barry is the voice of reason on this one. Not toeing the stupid line being espoused by the Rushes, National Review bloggers, et al....I need a drink, I'm in shock.

While it is a fact that only a few people misused the event for politicking, Jimmy Carter's effort was especially egregious.

He likened the FBI wiretapping of MLK, which occured at the insistance of Robert Kennedy (I've always liked RFK's rabid hatred cor "commies," and King was surrounded by the likes of Hunter Pitts Odell, an avowed communist) to the current NSA program that only conducts clandestine and warrantless wiretaps on communications TO/FROM suspect portals overseas during an actual war with a geurilla/jihadist army.

I'm sorry, are there any "Civil Rights" activists among the suspected terrorists here in the U.S.? We also warrantlessly tapped communications between various U.S. citizens and the nazis (suspect portals in Germany) during WW II, should that too now be disparaged? Was that a tragedy?

No more a "tragedy" than our current tracking of modern communications between various suspect foreign portals and various nefarious Americans.

The irony was that as Carter slammed the RFK sponsored wiretapping of MLK, RFK's younger brother Ted (a fellow Dem) was a mere twenty-five feet away.

Yes, Carter is an "imbecile," but that status alone doesn't make politicking in a Church and at a Funeral Mass any less repugnant.

I think the reason the right is so cranky about the funeral is seemingly unending paranoia and mischaracterization of current Bush policies as the same thing as the Anti-commie cold war inquisition in the US in the 60's. Everything Bush implements or proposes is viewed through the prism of the 60's when there are so many differences between now and then. Every serious argument about national security vs gov. overreach is framed in ludicrous comparisons instead of a serious discussion.

The problem is that the left is not seriously engaged in the situation.

According to Tammy Bruce.. this is the offensive political statement that was said by Jimmy Carter.

"It was difficult for them then personally with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated as they became the target of secret government wiretaps."

Well, the government did violate Dr. King and his wife because the wiretaps did not just stop with exploring his associate's links to communism; the FBI also recorded the personal affairs of MLK and actually sent a tape of his cheating with other women to his wife.

While RFK did authorize wiretaps, the obsession with King was really Hoover's, as he went far beyond exploring the possible links between King and communism and this led to perhaps the FBI’s worst moment when they mailed King a tape recording made from microphones hidden in hotel rooms where they had recorded his affairs. It was sent on the eve of his accepting the Nobel Prize and it was sent to their home so his wife would hear the tapes. The tape was accompanied by a note suggesting that the recording would be released to the public unless King committed suicide.

I don’t believe that there is any evidence that RFK authorized this. Indeed, the Southern Leadership Council drew closer to RFK as a result of his support of King to the point that they were greatly supportive of RFK’s run for the presidency in 1968.

In any case, Carter’s remarks did touch upon an open wound among King’s followers, as well as a terrible reminder to anyone who cherishes liberty in this great country. The FBI went far beyond exploring whether the SLC had communist support or influences – which is directly the problem with a blank authorization of electronic surveillance, now and then.

Hoover was indeed a breed apart and certainly held far too much unaccountable and unelected power, but BOTH Robert and John Kennedy's hatred of communism and their obsession with ridding the nation of that scourge was, in my view one of the few admirable traits those two possessed. OK, RFK also went after the Mob's influence over Labor Unions.

Still those initial wiretaps of King were not only approved by RFK, but at his insistance, as he knew that King had become surrounded by a number of communist influences. RFK and Roy Cohn were Joe McCarthy's two major cohorts during the 1950s.

The egregious THING Carter said wasn't his mere mentioning the FBI wiretpas of King's personal life, but his comparing them to the NSA's current program "gathering foreign intelligence" without warrants when some nefarious "American citizens" contact or are contacted by suspected foreign nationals overseas DURING WARTIME.

We did the same thing in WW II.

In fact, a young JFK dated a German woman (Inga Arvad) believed to be a German spy, and like many Americans any communications that might take place between an American citizen here in the U.S. and a German national IN Germany were subject to warrantless intercepts at that time.

The current NSA wiretaps can be compared to the tracking of communications between some Americans here in the States and various German nationals abroad during WW II (a very wise and reasonable ploicy at the time), BUT NOT to the FBI's monitoring of MLK, as the latter involved wiretapping American citizens (on both ends of the calls) within the confines of the U.S. and thus DID NOT fall under the purview of "gathering foreign intelligence."

That's why Carter's an imbecile - his trying to make that specious comparison and use it to score political points at a Funeral.

The following statement of Carter's is simply the truth.

"It was difficult for them then personally with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated as they became the target of secret government wiretaps."

Carter is not being an "imbecile" for referencing what the Kings had to endure during that period because the fact is that Coretta's support of her husband's leadership, even while the FBI throwing her husband's infidelity into her face, is just one more great example of her strength.

Jimmy Carter was making a relevant observation to understanding the greatness of this woman during that crucial time in our nation's history so I feel that those words deserved a place at her funeral.

This is the other quote of Carter's that conservatives are complaining about.

"“The struggle for equality is not over,” Carter said. “We only have to recall the color of the faces in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi — those most devastated by Katrina — to know there are not yet equal opportunities for all Americans.”

Oh, how horribly political to even mention that Hurricane Katrina affected people of color at a funeral of the wife of the nation's greatest civil rights leader.

I guess these days we can't even mention the word "wiretap" or "hurricane Katrina" because just the mention of those words (oh my gosh.. he said "Katrina") could be perceived as a attack on the President.

His statement is indeed factual, it is ALSO a gross distortion by ommission (failing to mention that it occured during a Democratic administration and at the insistance of a Democrat AG), as well as a vile and invidious comparison to contemporary events.

The entire purpose of that reference was to compare the wiretapping of MLK to the NSA controversy going on today. Of that, there is no question.

Only there is NO comparison.

The warrantless wiretaps for "gathering foreign intelligence," half of which (those Communications coming INTO the U.S. from suspect foreign portals) have been apporved by FOUR federal courts, along with the FISA Court and the other half (those communications FROM American citizens TO suspect foreign portals) haven't been ruled upon, though BOTH should fall under the umbrella of "gathering foreign intelligence," in my view.

Again, that is not only an invidious (yes, even imbecilic) comparison, but it masks a vile accusation directed at the current administration as well as all the Democrats in Congress who were apprised of the program, as not a one of them voiced any disagreement or concern over the program.

The current NSA program can be compared to our intercepting communications between some Americans and various German/nazi agents in Germany during WW II...it CANNOT be compared to the FBI wiretaps of MLK since the latter involved communications exclusively between Americans with BOTH parties ON American soil, thus not fitting the purview of "gathering foreign intelligence."

In response to:

"His statement is indeed factual, it is ALSO a gross distortion by ommission (failing to mention that it occured during a Democratic administration and at the insistance of a Democrat AG), as well as a vile and invidious comparison to contemporary events."

So JMK.. Jimmy Carter can not reference the fact that the Kings were wiretapped without going into who exactly was behind the wiretaps. Who is being political here? Who wants to make wiretapping a Democrat/Republican issue rather than a tool that could be abused in the hand of a Democrat or a Republican? You solely want to lay the blame on the Democrat Attorney General while leaving out the power and passion of Hoover who served under both Democrats and Republicans and who some say was spying on JFK as well.

You say..

"The entire purpose of that reference was to compare the wiretapping of MLK to the NSA controversy going on today. Of that, there is no question."

Did you ever watch "Eye on the Prize" or the PBS biography of King? In BOTH documentaries, a large portion is dedicated to the FBI surveillance, especially focusing on the incident right before King accepted the Nobel Prize when the FBI mailed tapes of King with women other than his wife to be heard by Coretta (tapes that had nothing to do with any communism influence.)

Did these documentaries include these sections solely to attack the current President? (Hint: they were made before Bush took office.)

I read exerpts of President Bush's remarks and they were fine but they were also banal with little details regarding what this woman had to overcome in her life. Carter's statement actually had something to do with the reality of her life and for this he is attacked.

you can't be so glib as to say that both of carter's remarks were not 'political', i.e. jabs at bush. the whoops of applause only confirm it.

I think much of the loathesome surveillance and discrediting of MLK that the FBI engaged in had less to do with his earlier civil rights cause and more to do with his anti-Vietnam stance and association with a number of communists. Both JFK and RFK were actually friends with MLK and supposedly personally asked him to tone it down. Subsequently they may also have decided that he could have been a threat to the country. Things can be complicated that way.

I am ticked off at JC and JLowery because I support the war on terror and NSA surveillance, and i don't think the bush admin 'let Katrina happen' to hurt black people. Some people have suggested that bush marred the evnt by just showing up. It's this thought of "you can't share this moment"....even though i really do love Coretta.

..and i am not fighting against her. this behavior did NOT honor her and it was just undignified....this lady knew when to be cool and forthright, unlike those clowns who claim that they would be remiss for NOT throwing shit pies at the MAN at such a huge event ...which advanced absolutely zero for humanity. Coretta did speak with bush personally on many occasions before her death and she did NOT spit in the man's face i promise you.

King didn't publicly come out against the Vietnam War until 1967 and was harshly criticized for doing so, even by the New York Times and Time Magazine because many saw him as stepping outside his mission as civil rights leader. It also effectively ended his association with LBJ who at least publicly associated with King in enacting the civil rights bill.

Hoover's interest in King began well before that and was officially a reaction to the fact that King had some former communists in leadership positions -- although the fact that Hoover called MLK at one point the "most notorious liar in America" shows to me a hatred that extends beyond the mere question of his communism especially since the investigation started to delve into King's personal relationships with women.

But the real question before us is why it is so offensive to conservatives to just bringing up the fact that King did have to deal with constant FBI surveillance.

Why is just mentioning this fact so threatening? So it got some notice in the crowd. Such remarks would've gotten notice regardless of the current debate, because the FBI surveillance of the most celebrated African American figure in our nation's history is something that is very much remembered by many of those in attendance in that funeral.

So now the fact is that there is a current debate regarding surveillance going on now? Again, so what? Are we to blind our eye to what has happened in our history just because it might offend the President? Maybe the President should hear about instances in our nation's past when the power to wiretap was abused.

I do not see the harm by the simple reference that former Presiden Carter made. If anything, it has allowed us to properly remember that time as a time of controversy and struggle and hatred and division.. in addition to the non-violent marches that brought forward great racial progress for this nation.

Conservatives always seem to want to lecture liberals on what honors and what is dignified. Well, Coretta is not here to speak for herself, but her son is and many of those who marched with him still are with us. Why don't we listen to them first regarding what honors her memory?

It's absolutely naive to even suggest that Carter wasn't trying to draw and direct, albeit innane comparison to the current NSA wiretapping controversy. That was the real gist of his statement, NOT lauding Mrs King for "overcoming" the Hoover/Kennedy wiretapping of her husband.

With no offense meant to the memory of Mrs King, what was there to "overcome?" You go through a situation like that and you move on. There is no other option.

Hell, is Hillary Clinton a heroine or a fool for standing by Bill Clinton despite his well documented whoremongering ways?

Again, there seems little to "overcome." You either move on together, or apart.

But back to the purpose of Carter's remarks, they weren't just banal platitudes, they directly misled those who listened, into an invidious comparison between the MLK wiretaps and the current NSA wiretaps used to "gather foreign intelligence," which ironically and inanely compares modern-day Islamo-cultist terorists to MLK and the Civil Rights activists of that day!

Most of that ceremony was handled well. The two speeches that really stood out for their inappropriateness were Carter's and Lowery's.

The problem with the NSA wiretapping controversy t date has been the deliberately misleading reportage on it. The NY Times initial story intimated that the NSA was "spying on Americans within the borders of the U.S., when their own source made clear that was NOT the case.

The NSA has always been cleared to intercept communications FROM suspect foreign portalss INTO the U.S., the ONLY change that's occurred since 9/11/01 is the adding of communications FROM American "citizens" TO suspect foreign portals abroad.

THAT is the entire issue and now that that's been made clear, most Democrats are running away from the issue, claiming they too support the NSA wiretapping, but want "more Congressional oversight." Now Carter tries to muddy those waters once again by making an adle-brained comparison between the MLK wiretaps and those conducted by today's NSA for the purposes of "gathering foreign intelligence."

Posted by PE:

Conservatives always seem to want to lecture liberals on what honors and what is dignified. Well, Coretta is not here to speak for herself, but her son is and many of those who marched with him still are with us. Why don't we listen to them first regarding what honors her memory?

Actually, PE, it is merely something called class, a quality that Democrats seem to be lacking these days.

A memorial is supposed to celebrate an individual's life, not to fight old (and, by allusion) new grievances. As we have seen with Wellstone and now here, the Democrats cannot seem to control themselves when they have a captive audience and cameras rolling.

In point of fact, Jimmy Carter (whom I voted for twice), is a truly embittered man trying futilely to resurrect his performance by the cheapest of debating tricks: knock down everyone who follows you in the job which you mishandled so badly.

Not just Republicans, mind you but also Bill Clinton with who he shares a mutual detestation.

Carter is a sad, angry man who has found that no matter how hard he tries, he cannot run away from one of the most pathetic administrations in our history.

Yet, he will continue.

And by doing so, he will remind me yet again why they were two of the worst votes I ever made.

Well, Mal. I voted for Carter once and then I voted (and worked for) John Anderson in 1980 precisely because I viewed the Carter Presidency as a failure. I also never looked back, because, despite my philosophical disagreements with Reagan, I did respect his Presidency and defended my vote to liberals throughout the 1980s.

I wasn't an apologist for Carter so I feel no need to become an apologist for Bush.

As far as "class" goes, mentioning the FBI surveillance that was brought into the lives of both Coretta and Martin is again something that was part of their lives. I do not think it is classy to forget and yes I believe it would've and should have been mentioned irregardless of the current debate.

Again, you can read "sad and angry" into Carter's words, but the words as they are stand on their own and they were appropriate in my view for this great woman at the time of her passing. Again, why don't you ask some of the people who were there instead of consulting with the numerous conservative blogs who are manufacturing outrage but were not even part of the civil rights struggle. Jimmy Carter, for all his failures as President, had a small positive role in that struggle. His careful words hit the right note in my view.

Well, Mal. I voted for Carter once and then I voted (and worked for) John Anderson in 1980 precisely because I viewed the Carter Presidency as a failure. I also never looked back, because, despite my philosophical disagreements with Reagan, I did respect his Presidency and defended my vote to liberals throughout the 1980s.

I wasn't an apologist for Carter so I feel no need to become an apologist for Bush.

As far as "class" goes, mentioning the FBI surveillance that was brought into the lives of both Coretta and Martin is again something that was part of their lives. I do not think it is classy to forget and yes I believe it would've and should have been mentioned irregardless of the current debate.

Again, you can read "sad and angry" into Carter's words, but the words as they are stand on their own and they were appropriate in my view for this great woman at the time of her passing. Again, why don't you ask some of the people who were there instead of consulting with the numerous conservative blogs who are manufacturing outrage but were not even part of the civil rights struggle. Jimmy Carter, for all his failures as President, had a small positive role in that struggle. His careful words hit the right note in my view.

I love the way conservatives think they have a patent on dictating how people should behave at a funeral when one of their own pundits is speaking at conservative events talking about shooting a former president.

That the Kings were wiretapped is a FACT. It doesn't matter that it was a Democratic administration at the time, because the point of the story is to illustrate the danger of warrantless wiretaps. That most of the people left behind and left homeless in New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina were black is a FACT. That the White House, whether it was Bush himself or aides who kept him out of the loop, KNEW what was going on and did NOTHING is a FACT. And so it's fair game.

Everyone who attended that funeral, with the exception of George and Laura Bush, for whom this was probably their first experience with an audience not hand-picked, applauded everything that was said. They are just as American as this idiot of a president is, and they are entitled to honor her in the way they see fit. It's not for you or any other right-wing pundit to dictate how this funeral should have been run.

It seems to me that Margaret Thatcher made some pretty inflammatory remarks about people who opposed Ronald Reagan at HIS funeral too.