Reverend Wright and Barack

I am a Barack Obama supporter. I liked Senator John Edwards, think Hilary Clinton would make a super president, but have been persuaded ever since the start of the campaign that Barack offers the greatest chance for substantive, and greatly over needed, change.

I'm still in the Barack camp. But, as a vocal supporter, I'd like just a couple of answers about the flap over Reverend Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr, the former pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ, the Chicago megachurch where the Obamas have been members for 20 years.

Guilt by association is totally unwarranted. Barack is not responsible for Wright's views. However, how he responds to those views -- and whether he is being straight with us, the voters -- is critical as to whether he should lead our country.

The key issue for me, as both a supporter and as a reporter, revolves around what I view as Wright's most incendiary comments, those implying that America -- because of its own actions -- deserved the 9/11 terror attacks.

Wright made his comments on September 16, only 5 days after the deadly strikes in New York and Washington. He said, in part, "We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye....We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."

Barack was then serving in the Illinois senate. He had unsuccessfully run for Congress the previous year. Although the Trinity United Church is large (6,000 members), the Obamas were then, and have been since his 1997 election to the State Senate, some of the best known parishioners.

A church, synagogue, mosque, and other places of worship, are like extensions of the local communities they serve. Afro-centric churches like Trinity serve not only as houses of worship but as a backdrop for a wide range of social, personal, and often business, relationships. When a parishioner is away from their house of worship, if the preacher/priest/rabbi/imam says something particularly out of character -- or wildly controversial -- it is almost impossible that members aren't going to talk about it endlessly as gossip.

There was no more traumatic event in our recent history than 9/11. Reverend Wright's comments would have raised a ruckus at most places in America, coming so soon after the the attack itself. Political commentator Bill Maher lost his TV show when he seconded a guest's observation that the hijackers had courage to carry out their attack. The country was emotionally raw.

If the parishioners of Trinity United Church were not buzzing about Reverend Wright's post 9/11 comments, then it could only seem to be because those comments were not out of character with what he preached from the pulpit many times before. In that case, I have to wonder if it is really possible for the Obamas to have been parishioners there -- by 9/11 they were there more than a decade -- and not to have known very clearly how radical Wright's views were. If, on the other hand, parishioners were shocked by Wright's vitriol only days after more than 3,000 Americans had been killed by terrorists, they would have talked about it incessantly. Barack -- a sitting Illinois State Senator -- would have been one of the first to hear about it.

Can't you imagine the call or conversation? "Barack, you aren't going to believe what Revered Wright said yesterday at the church. You should be ready with a comment if someone from the press calls you up."

But Barack now claims he never heard about any of this until after he began his run for the presidency, in February, 20007.

And even if Barack is correct -- and I desperately want to believe him -- then it still does not explain why, when he learned in 2007 of Wright's fringe comments about 9/11 and other subjects, the campaign did not then disassociate itself from the Reverend. Wright was not removed from the campaign's Spiritual Advisory Committee until two days ago, and it appears likely that nothing would have been done had this story not broken nationally.

Come on, Barack. I'm backing you because you are not 'one of them.' You have inspired me and millions of others because you are not a typical politician. You tell it like it is, don't fudge the facts, and don't dodge and weave with clever words to avoid uncomfortable truths.

Tell it straight. Was Reverend Wright so radical that his post 9/11 comments did not cause a stir at the Church, and you never learned about them until 2007, nearly 6 years later? Why, when you did learn about them, did you not ask Revered Wright to step down from his role in your campaign?

Give us the plain truth. You won't lose us by being brutally honest. You only risk shaking our faith in you if you seem like so many other politicians that crowd the field.

Gerald Posner is the author of 10 books of investigative non-fiction, seven NYT bestsellers, and a finalist for the Pulitzer in History. His last book was Secrets of the Kingdom: The Inside Story of the Saudi US Connection

Comments

[OtayPanky]

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

I'm an independent - and as far as I'm concerned all three of them need to reject and denounce any of the nut jobs who would sully their campaigns - whether it's Rev McWhacko (the white one), Rev McWhacko (the black one), or Geraldine Ferracist.

A good old fashioned political enema never hurt anyone - and lets the rest of us know that our candidate of choice isn't entirely deaf.

[BetterAmerica]

All of the Obama lovers are so smitten in love with him that they can't even think rationally. Do you all really think he can win the general with this association with his pastor? He's been close to this man for 20 years, contributed large sums of $ to his church and had him as a mentor. How can he say he doesn't know his pastor said or felt these things? It's completely ridiculous. Obama is a brilliant man, he must have known about his pastor. And by staying at this church, he agreed on some level. Just watch, if Obama is nominee, the GOP will show him and Michelle sitting in the pews during one of these nutty sermons and he'll be toast. And then what will all the Obama lovers do?

What kind of "judgment" is that?

I'm a Dem and I'm very offended to hear his pastor say "God **** America". I'm proud to be an American and I don't think those statements he made are acceptable in any context.

[Marlyn]

"Do you all really think he can win the general?"

YES!!!!!!!!

[BlueAsh]

Rev. Wright's impassioned sermons make a lot of people uncomfortable. But that may have less to do with his words than the fact that most Americans don't want to, or don't know how to, deal with the raw emotions coming from African Americans. But until we learn how to deal with that, we should suspend judgment and stop being self righteous.

I certainly am unwilling to call a former Marine "un-American" or "unpatriotic" (as O'Reilly did) for condemning some awful things this country has done.

But most of all, I strongly feel that Wright, like all of us here, has the right to interpret historical events as he sees fit, as long as he draws reasonable inferences based on facts. Though we tend to think of facts as indisputable and historical events as unambiguous, facts, especially historical facts, are open to interpretations, and people can draw widely different inferences based on their own experiences and political views.

I feel uncomfortable when people refuse to allow others interpret 9/11 because the events were so horrific--isn't that how Bush led us to war, by holding 9/11 over our head and by categorically labeling all dissenters of his war plan unpatriotic?

We must really guard against our natural tendency to project guilt by association. We have barely gotten over the rumored "Muslim connection," ("as far as I know,") or the "Hussein" connection, now we are being goaded to look into the Wright connection.

Obama, as a church member, can't dictate what the pastor says in his sermons. Obama, the senator, SHOULD NOT dictator what a pastor says in a church. Senator Obama is not responsible for Rev. Wright's words. Rev. Wright may be a mentor to Senator Obama, but he hardly dictate the actual thinking or action of Senator Obama.

We may demand Senator Obama to make public his tax returns (which he did on his own); we may demand that he explain his stance on other issues, but we have no business to demand that he explain his relationship to his pastor.

If I may speculate, part of the author's problem is that he is "sort of" in the Obama camp and therefore gets easily swayed by things that make him uncomfortable.

If that is the case, you may want to read this article mentioned by someone in a different thread. I thought this may be a good tonic for those who may still harbor some misgivings for abandoning the Clintons:

http://www.counterpunch.org/wypijewski03082008.html

[WebForce1]

Stop with the bull. "Most americans do not want to or do not know how to deal with the raw emotions coming from African Americans"?
You're only right if you are speaking about the fact that white america pretends that reverse racism doesn't happen every day in this country, or the fact that we patronize black leaders who should be condemned for their behavior.
Reverand Wright's impassioned sermon makes people un-comfortable because it's a racist and anti american tyrade.
Do you suppose that David Duke's statements made people un-comfortable? They simply couldn't handle the raw emotion of David Duke?
You say that it's not Obama's place to dictate what his reverand says, or what is said in his church. But consider this, Obama is running on a platform of unity, and bringing people together. He should have spoke up about such divicive and hateful speach. Lacking the character to do that, he could have decided that his family probably didn't belong in that church and maybe his children shouldn't be exposed to such rhetoric.
You may think that you're doing a service to black people with your statement but in the long run you are hurting every one.
You use the term "African American". This is itself a divicive name. You can be a black person, or you can be white, or hispanic, or asian or whatever your geniological makeup. But if you are a citizen of this country, you are American. That's it. There's no such thing as an African American. It is a name created by black people who want to seperate, and distinguish themselves from the rest of America.

[unsolved999]

Actually, African-American is a term that was created to acknowledge a sense of pride in having a truly ethnic heritage. Black or Negro are racial terms. You can be Italian American. It means your ancestors came from Italy. If your a Black American, it means you came from Black land? Hispanic is another word that has no meaning. Most prefer to use the word Latino. More still consider themselves Mexican American or Cuban American. Latino itself only means from a Spanish or even Portugeuse speaking country of ancestral origin. Again there is no Hispanic land. There is an old humorous story about asking someone his nationality and they replied something like "Oh my grandmother was Irish, and my grandfather was part Indian but my other grandparents were this that and the other." Not all that many people say, "I'm American, that's it."

But to say that African American was created to make people more separate? I don't think there is anyway you can make that case...

[Nommo]

Well white people separated us for so long, you know, "separate but equal, that it just seemed so natural to continue. But as long as they's good folks like y'sef that wants to get us all as one and stuff, well, we's just gonna sit here and cheer...

[laurenc]

Does anybody look back at John Edwards and shake their head, realizing he knew how vulnerable as candidates Obama and Hillary would be, and that he was unselfish enough to put himself forward as someone who could win this election?

just tell me if anyone thinks about what if....?
it doesn't matter what you or me think of Rev Wright, it matters if the Democrats can win with a candidate whose spiritual adviser this is.
That's what you should be considering at this point.

I wish both of them would instruct their delegates to vote for John Edwards, and give us a unity candidate.

[WebForce1]

I can go with that. Although, to be completely honost, Edwards was my original choice. So it's not like it would be some big sacrifice for me.

[Trollstakeyourmeds]

I with you two on this one. Edwards is the only chance the Dems. have left. Or Al Gore. McBarelySane is going to mop up the floor with Obama, and Clinton barely stands a chance against him. Oh well...if Dems can extend their numbers in both houses maybe we can prevent further loading of the Supreme Court with rightwing nutjobs.

[dwmorris]

The only issue is - What did Obama know, and when did he know it!

If he lied about the facts, he shouldn't be the nominee. Plain and simple. Until then, he should be taken at his word and everyone should just chill. He's adequately responded ,and is trying to elevate the dialog. This is good. If he has a veracity problem, it will be exposed by the media in due course.

[chasgoose]

I cannot believe the lengths Obamaniacs will go to to defend their man. I am sorry, but there is no other way to interpret the 9/11 attacks as arguing that at the very least the attack was somehow justified. First of all, only one of his critiques of American foreign policy is at all relevant in why 9/11 happened. Al Qaeda definitely was influenced by our Israel policy but they don't care about World War II or apartheid. Regardless of that you can't deny that there is an implication that the attacks were justified. I am sorry, but nothing justifies an attack that kills 3,000 innocent people, even if you add up all atrocities committed by America, it does not warrant the deaths of people that had no say in American foreign policy. Even if that wasn't what he meant in this particular statement, there are many more racially toned/anti-American statements that would fit Posner's argument.

Regardless of what Rev. Wright actually said, this whole incident is bringing up some ugly realities about the Obama campaign. His campaign has put so much into the idea that he is a different sort of politician that does not get embroiled in the tawdry scandals and crooked politicking of the status quo politician like Hillary Clinton (I support her, but its hard to deny that she does not represent the standard order politician with all that implies good and bad). The problem with this is that when small scandals like this pop up, Obama can't admit that he was wrong because it would mean that he is like everyone else. He and his supporters have to bend over backwards to justify his behavior in a way that does not simply minimize his blame, but eradicates it all together.

The Obama excuse that he didn't know about Rev. Wright until Feb. 2007 simply doesn't fly. Posner is right, there is no way you could go to Wright's church regularly and not have some idea about his statements, even if you missed the days he gave his really offensive sermons. I mean one time at my Catholic Church a visiting priest only performed one of the five masses that Sunday, but when he said in his sermon that he thought priests should be allowed to marry, you could be sure that every regular church-goer heard about it somehow. Obama needs to admit that he either was not as active a member of that church as he would like to claim (and reveal that he was misconstruing his level of religious involvement, a move that smacks of classical politicking) or he needs to admit that he knew about Rev. Wright's statements and decided to keep him on anyways.

Even if Obama honestly didn't know about Rev. Wright until 2007, why was he only removed from his Spiritual Advisory Committee until a couple days ago? He was going to be a liability at some point (even if Clinton did not go negative, and there is no evidence she is responsible for this, the Republicans would have turned Reverend Wright into Swiftboat times 100), but Obama kept him on because he got him votes among his supporters. Obama needs to find a way to admit he is wrong and that as best he tries, he is a regular politician like everyone else or his campaign is going to fall apart at some point, and probably take the Democratic Party with it.

[Marlyn]

"Al Qaeda definitely was influenced by our Israel policy but they don't care about World War II or apartheid.­" ???

chasgoose, you are so wrong. Osama bin Laden's complaints go clear back to World War 1 and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

[ginnypoo]

He can denounce any comment he wants, the truth is the church has been selling videos of that post-9/11 speech for years to raise funds. How can Obama claim he doesn't know it, I saw it on the church website. He has been there 20 years , that is over 1000 sunday services, he had to see hundreds even if not a regular attender..­..so he wants us to believe these were just a few comments. They were said in his books, on videos the church sells, at community events and in church. They are not about religion, they are political. He talks about traveling against US sanctions to Lybia with Farrakhan. This isn't an isolated event, this is over decades, many sermons, many speeches, many events where these believes were expressed. Obama cannot explain this away, he cannot claim no knowledge.­..if that is true then he admits to being very stupid after the house boo-boo, and now he let's this man filled with hate be around his kids, even baptizing them. I do not believe he didn't know, Obama asked him to not do the prayer when he announced his candidacy, instead prayed privately, Obama knew this was controversial and gonna be a problem. He should not, and will not be President now. He needs to withdraw immediately for the good of the nation. He has caused too much division already with his pushing of racist stories everytime Hillary does well in a state. I'm sick of his backward racism where all white people that even question him are racists...­.I'm sick of it. He needs to resign from the race and the Senate....­NOW.

[shanghaislim]

I asked on another thread and got flamed....­..

do you think the Obama's own or possess one of the DVD's in their home?

[truthiness]

Concern troll. Millions dead in the Middle East, the glaciers melting, the economy collapsing, and you want to know if Obama believes what someone else believes? This is comical.

[tbone99]

Are you DENYING the U.S, bombed Hiroshima, bombed Nagasaki, and nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and never batted an eye....Are you denying the U.S. has supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans,( not to mention the overthrow of Guatemala, Iran etc etc.) and now people are indignant because the stuff the U.S, govn't has done has come back to haunt us?"

I have to say Rev Wright is Rev Right!

[WebForce1]

Reverand Wright is not Reverand Right. He was not speaking out about injustice. There was no "constructive" in his "criticism". His statements were born out of hate for this nation. Don't do that, don't sugar coat or try to spin what he was saying.
The jist of his sermon was "white people are evil, America is evil"
We all know America has it's faults, and that we as a nation make mistakes. We are an imperfect people who inhabit an imperfect world.
This is my country and I love it, and I have no problem discussing our various and sundry blunders, but don't ever try to sell me on a hate filled America bashing preacher with an axe to grind against white people, and his nation.

[HanSolomente]

Hey, I know people are not into common sense these days, but does anyone want to discuss that some of the issues he brought up have some truth to them?


Now let me start off by saying I love America and don't believe we 'deserved' the attacks of 9-11. With that said, there is a intelligence term called "blowback". Essentially blowback is the result of foreign policy we have made over the years coming back to haunt us. It's not about whether those policies were right or wrong, it's how they were perceived by the rest of the world.


For example, 9-11 is a case of blowback as Osama Bin Laden used our policy decisions in the first Gulf War to put bases in Saudi Arabia as a reason to rally his troops and Al Qaeda. It was his rational for 9-11. Now obviously I don't agree with him, but that doesn't change the fact that he believes it and so did many more radical Muslims. Now that doesn't mean we should back down to these people just because they see the world differently than us, but it does mean we need to take into account how they perceive our actions and what the possible ramifications of those actions might be. An easy example of this is the current Iraq War.


Many of us from day one knew Cheney was just waiting for an excuse to get Bush to go into Iraq. And many of us also knew that, like it or not, the Arab world would perceive this as the USA occupying an Arab country, and terrorist recruiting would sky rocket as a result. Well guess what? That's exactly what happened. They don't hate us for our freedom, they hate us for our foreign policy. They may be wrong, but that doesn't mean it isn't what they believe. We will be seeing blowback from the Iraq War for years to come, and when that happens you can say it's because they hate our freedom or you can deal with the problem like a rational adult.


The American people need to stop acting holier than thou and look at our foreign policy decisions over the past 100 years with more of a world view. You don't have to hate America to want to see it live up to it's full potential. We make mistakes, our country and it's people are not perfect. We need to address our national mistakes as a country in the same way many Democrats are asking Hillary to take responsibility for her Iraq vote in this election. Loving your country means recognizing it's faults, pointing them out, and trying to fix them. I say the Pastors comments were inflammatory and wrong, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't any truth hidden within his statements. It's time to be a Country of substance again and not a Country of sound bites, divisiveness and finger pointing. The freedom of speech allows the Pastor to say whatever he wants and as Americans can we please elevate ourselves to either agreeing with the man or not and not turn ourselves into the Patriotism Police. Thanks.

[WebForce1]

You're completely missing the issue. It's not about Wright. Regardless of what you do or don't think about him or his rights to free speach are beside the point.
His statements reflect upon a man who is running for President. Obama has very close personal ties to this minister, and if he is racist, and hates America, we need to know where Obama stands, and why, with his message of unity, he couldn't or didn't try to clean up his own church, or at least stop going there.
This is a real and legitimate issue. If we found out that Hillary's minister and close personal friend was David Duke she would have some very hard questions to answer.
And stop letting Wright off the hook by trying to justify his statements. For example: bombing Japan was an extremely hard decision to make. Truman wrang his hands for many sleepless nights. Those bombs saved at least half a million americans, and untold numbers of Japanese, and prevented the war from dragging on for another five years. And after the bombs we helped Japan rebuild its infrastructure and economy then left them in peace.
So to say we dropped atomic bombs on Japan and leave it as an open indictment is wrong. We have made many mistakes, and there is nothing wrong with speaking out against injustice. But the statements made by Reverand Wright were not made out of love of his country, they were meant to assasinate the character of his country. And if you make statements like that, people who don't know what was really going on at that time can be easily mis-led.

[firstdawg]

When the Rev. William Procanick put his hand on the Bible during his sex-abuse trial in Oneida County Court earlier this year, he swore to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

But as the former Clinton pastor was sentenced Friday to three years in prison for inappropriately touching a 7-year-old girl at his home last March, Judge Michael L. Dwyer said Procanick sacrificed his honesty the day he testified.

[HanSolomente]

You said "His statements reflect upon a man who is running for President. Obama has very close personal ties to this minister, and if he is racist, and hates America...­"

Actually the Pastor's statements reflect the Pastor's views and the Pastor's views alone. Who are you to say that it reflects Obama's views in any way. Do you have the slightlest bit of proof of this or do you believe in guilt by association?

"...we need to know where Obama stands, and why, with his message of unity, he couldn't or didn't try to clean up his own church, or at least stop going there."

We know where Obama stands and that's what is so frustrating with comments such as yours. Obama has made clear that he doesn't agree with the sentiments of the Pastor, it's just that people such as yourself don't believe him. Fine, that's your right not to take Obama at his word. But that doesn't mean he hasn't said EXACTLY where he stands on these issues.

Secondly, what is at the heart of these accusations is not about Wright's statements, it's an excuse to question Obama's patriotism. Well let me ask you, do you believe Obama hates America? Do you believe he hates white people? Do you believe Obama thinks America deserved to be hit on 9-11? If not then this is all just a distraction as it's moot. If yes then it doesn't matter what Obama says as he has already said where his beliefs lay, and you will never believe him. Personally I believe these are silly questions to be asking if you have been paying even the slightest attention to the campaign. But people never cease to amaze me. At least you can't claim he's a Muslim anymore :)

[Tumult]

Just out of curiosity do you believe Sept. 11 would have happend if we were still an Isolationist country as we were pre-WW2? If your answer is no, then you essentially agree with Wright, although you may still disagree with his means of delivery. If you believe that Sept. 11 was without any historical cause, then I have to ask what type of feeling do you tink is generated by: Support of the Taliban(during the Soviet occupation), support of Iraq vs Iran, supplying weapons to Iran in the same conflict (Iran-Contra), support of Israel, the suffering of the Palestinian people (see WHO figures), ect. Goodwill?

We have a big problem in this country about not being able to discuss things. Obama may like to change the climate, but to get there I don't see how he can give a straight honest answer on this issue, at least if her hasn't given one already in his post. This isn't a discussion a large portion of the eletcorate is capable of having. So in this case I think yes he has to be a typical politician, but I don't think it is his failure as much as ours.

My memory isn't the best, but as I recall reading once, Hitler enjoyed a quote from the facists.
"Everything is for the state and by the state. Nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."
Alot of times it seems that this describes the opinions of a large percentage of Americans also.

[WebForce1]

But if we were an isolationist country prior to WW2, then what precipitated the bombing of Pearl Harbor?
We actually were'nt isolationists, but many Americans were reluctant to go to war.

[TheOtherMaven]

Depends on which "we" you're talking about. There were a lot of Americans who WERE up-front, in-your-face isolationists, who insisted that the troubles in Europe were none of our business, that the British should be left to sink or swim on their own, etc.

Oh yes, and we shouldn't be selling any oil to those dirty little Japs. That one actually became official policy...a­nd we all know what the Japanese did about it.

[greenpagan]

Posner writes re Obama: because you are not 'one of them.'

Wrong. Which doesn't mean you shouldn't support him as a lesser evil.

http://greenpagan.newsvine.com/

====

[FogBelter]

There is enough evidence, for anyone who cares to research, that the fuse for the Al-Qaeda bomb that exploded in this county on September 11th, 2001 was lit by the US Policy of covert support for Reagan's Afghan "Freedom Fighter's" (the Mujahideen) war against the Soviet Union in the 1980's.

From that Afghan Battle Zone sprung numerous International Islamic Terrorist organizations including Abu Sayyaf, in the Philippines; the Taliban in Afghanistan; the Rebels of the Chechnya, Bosnia/Herzegovina, and Macedonia/Kosovo conflicts; and Al-Qaeda.

I can't tell you if Obama was in the pews when Reverend Wright discoursed on this subject, but the evidence that US Intel's efforts to constitute a radical islamic fighting force to battle the Soviets, which then morphed into Al Qaeda, which attacked the US on September 11th, 2001 is not an observation unique to the Reverend, although it is a line of thinking vigorously discouraged by the US Government.

Obama, being as intelligent as he is, has probably heard this line of thinking whether inside or out of his Church.

[JacktheBlogger]

If my preacher had said "God damn America" on the Sunday after 9/11, I am pretty certain that as a regular parishioner I would have heard about this blasphemy on my very next visit - even if I had missed the actual sermon on 9/16/01.

The Nixon and Clinton presidencies should have taught us all an indelible lesson - the truth will eventually get out, so any attempts to cover up the facts can only prolong the agony.

Senator Obama, the truth shall set you free!

[ropadopa]

If guilt by association is all that the "intrepid" press and the growingly desperate Clinton campaign can find to throw at Sen Obama at this late stage of the contest I can't help but feel more encouraged about his chances. If this is now the new standard lets raise all possible associations for all the candidates. Let's see if Hillary or John McCain could last a day. Would it be unfair to raise the Keaton 5 scandals, all the Clinton fund raisers who have been indicted and so on and so forth.