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
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Both White and Black died in the 9/11 attacks, innocent people that did not deserve to die!
Was the Rev Wright saying they deserved to die, no, I don't believe so!
What I believe he was trying to say, was, the attacks were inevitable because of American foreign policy.
Regardless of the pigmentation of their skins, Americans died that day, that fact should be something that unites the nation, rather than divide!
Listen to another one of Rev Wright's sermons and maybe you will understand why Sen OBama feels the way he does about his church and this pastor. Only those few 30 second clips are being shown. Just listen to it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFZROa0rlMU
Thanks for the link. Here is a very good article about the church and pastor, published last year in the NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/us/politics/30obama.html?_r=2&pagewanted=3&sq=a%20candidate&oref=slogin
Incredible. The author cannot accept Obama as a liar?
The author is trying to defend a liar. Imagine, 20 years with this pastor and he never knew that he was a racist!
Obama supporters are beyond being reasoned with when they accept such a bold face lie!
Obama had the neve to call Hillary Clinton a liar in one of the debates. Shame on the author. Shame on the Huffington Post! Shame on all Obama supporters!
"Obama supporters are beyond being reasoned with when they accept such a bold face lie!"
I guess we often see what we want to see--isn't that right, Alfred?
You Obamanuts can keep trying to justify the minister's words until the election is over, but even Obama knows that this is a political disaster.
Im gad you an Obama supporter,brought this up. I was expecting the hordes of Obama supporters to somehow tie this to Hillary. Mainstream reporters are finally doing their jobs. Expect more of this.
Ok time to get a clue.The real issue here is that the American people, black and white, are repelled by the notion that the 3,000 Americans who died on 9)11 got what was coming to them, which of course what Dr. Wright was saying..If you believe Obama's assertion that he was''nt aware of what his pastor-mentor said then let me tell you about this swampland in Chicage you can pick up really cheap! You can rest assured that the media and the RNC's opposition research unit will leave no stone unturned
to see if Obama was present during any of Wright's screeds , If he was Obama's campaign for the presidency is over!
I for one know people that perished in 9-11 and I felt immediately that it was our foreign policy that got them killed. I still do. So many of us wrote to congress to protest the war. Reverend Wright was speaking the truth. Can someone actually say that what he said never happened. Do you want to continue to be sheep heading for slaughter or do you want to use your mind and start thinking for your self. I commend the reverend for saying what he said. He was speaking to his children. If you cannot learn from your mistakes than you will continue to repeat them. I don't see McCain or Hillary running away from their people (supporters) when they make indignant statements. Heck even Bush stands by his ignorant cohorts. Why does Obama need to separate himself from his family?
The truth hurts but we must face them. Not every white person believed in slavery. Many fought against it. However, there were those who lynched innocent people for their pleasure. Remember Emmett Till? He was killed because he looked at a white woman. He was 14 years old a baby. How can we not understand that as Americans we have struggled just to be heard. These are wounds that will never heal unless WE TAKE A LONG HARD LOOK!
It was against the law for them to go to school. Some were killed if they were caught reading a book. "If you want to keep something away from a nigger put it in a book." I wonder if the story would have been reversed. How would have white people handled this injustice? Let's talk about it. Let's look at it. We carry those genes in us. Some of us become teachers, Doctors, Politicians because of the links to our past. It is important for our youths to hear these crimes because many today do not value what they have. They don't know what it is to not be able to sit down and have a meal at a restaurant because of the color of their skin. They cannot comprehend the value of an education. That is why they willing give themselves up to slavery by trying to get fast money and giving their lives away to the system in the process. Slavery still exists today it is just on a mental level and the news media such as what we have now, owned by Rupert Murdock and the like that continue to dictate how we think, how we feel and how we act.
Faux News by way of Hannity have been putting this man out (Reverend Wright) using 30 second clips out of 200,000 plus sermons. Because they know how gullible the majority of this country is. If you honestly believe that a man who fought for this country who personifies love, a lot of love is a racist than you must be one too.
http://www.emmetttillstory.com/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/till/
The only people who are up in arms over what Rev. Wright said, are nationalistic right-wingers. People who weren't going to vote for Obama anyways. The 29% dead-enders that still think Bush is doing a great job. So spare us this will kill Obama's chances at becoming president. Rev. Wright spoke some truth about America and that drives nationalistic (not patriotic) types crazy. They can't handle the truth, that America isn't perfect and our gov't doesn't always do the right thing. They are infants that only want to hear America the perfect. America the land where everyone is equal and racism doesn't exist. Well the only way America is ever going to get better is if we acknowledge the problems facing our country. By coming to terms with the racist elements in our society, instead of sticking our heads in the sand. So it's time we ignore the infants that can't handle the truth. We have to build a better country despite their cries and phony indignation. I for one will not allow them to silence true patriots that want to build a better country. Will you?
"The only people who are up in arms over what Rev. Wright said, are nationalistic right-wingers."
How wrong you are. It's people like you who are "dead-enders." The public's response to Obama's message of change are most assuredly not looking for a message of radical anti-Americanism.
But the deadly problem for Obama here is not Wright's views. Most people would have to assume Wright does not speak for Obama. However, Obama screwed up by claiming never to have heard Wright talk this way before. It's not a credible claim, and the relentless campaigns he's facing on his way to the White House will surely prove he lied sooner rather than later. Then, as Posner says, he becomes just one of the crowd of ambitious politicians. And, at that point, he becomes totally ordinary, and his lack of experience suddenly looms as his signal characteristic.
Remove the Obama-girl goggles, folks. This is a crisis.
Anyone who understand politics realizes that this is a big problem for Barack Obama. The real problem is not his association with the Reverend Wright, it's the response. Obama realized the association could damage him, and he responded quickly, but not completely candidly. He has a lot to lose, and he chose to fudge, he attempted to nuance, in the hope that people would suspend credulity. In doing so, he painted himself into a corner by going against his most appealing strength--that he isn't a typical politician. He would have been better off acknowledging that he knew or had heard about the sermon, expressed his disagreement with those specific sentiments, and explained his continued affiliation with Reverend Wright because of the positive things he had learned from him regarding his faith, his commitment to family and community, etc. He knew that the press was gunning for him and he should have been more ready. Ambition, it seems, got the best of him.
Why is it only ok to scrutinize Obama's religion when Huckabee's faith and Romney's Morman faith were off limits? But ok, if we are now crossing over into analysis of the candidate's religions, then it would be fair to scrutinize Clinton's long time association with the very secretive Fellowship Foundation. A group largely Republican that believes only a small group of elites should be in national power. I would like to know more about this organization and how Clinton feels about it. What ever happened to seperation of church and state?
LuluDoll,
Excellent points!
"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."
At the time he said this Rev Wright probably didn't know that 9/11 was an inside job. So it makes perfect sense. Unless you believe that the United States is innocent of all wrong doing for all time. If you believe that you are a fool and should vote Republican.
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 to us, but ti 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 in this country 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.
I don't condone Reverend Wright's harsh rhetoric or the views expressed in the aired TV segments .
But as I listen to his 911 remarks, I don't hear him saying the US deserved such a vicious attack , what I hear him addressing are what he sees as associated root causes - Reverend Wright is hardly alone in speculating beyond, "they hate us because of our freedoms" , fire and brimstone delivery -noted .
Moreover , the last I checked this country is ruled by neither the poor or the non white . That is fact , as defenders of Gerry Ferraro blunt style might say .
Some of the examples Reverend Wright cites are clearly debatable and understandably offensive and are not comments I find useful or acceptable . That said , don't let a style of rhetoric get in the way of honest analysis . At the end of the day ,Reverend Wright's comments are his and his alone and I'd hope that the more learned among us would look beyond
Why did Martin Luther King associate with Malcolm X? Malcolm X wanted a violent secession from the whites, and Martin Luther King wanted a peaceful integration. Why would King tolerate him? Maybe it's because they just go together. Every Booker T. Washington must have a W.E.B. DuBois. Maybe the same thing holds true for Barack Obama.
Yes, and notice how America couldn't tolerate Malcolm X -OR- Dr. King.
Are we going to argue and squabble over the sermon of a reverend when we have young men and women dying in an UNJUST war...again, America is diverted from reality because MSM loves sensation and American's have the attention span of a puppy. While I found the sermon not to my liking or taste, I will not hold the words of a pastor against any parishner. For instance, should I hold all the men and women who attended white churches in the south responsible for the hatred and rhetroic of white superiority that was espoused during the era of Jim Crow? There are plenty of white American's alive today who, as children, heard their pastors degrade the 'negro'...dare I say, some of them are even in elected office. God gave us a mind, reason, and free-will and I would hope that every person who attends church use these things wisely, and certainly, anyone who has read Senator Obama's books would understand his faith, beliefs, and religion.
I will continue to support Senator Obama, the ONLY candidate now in this election who DENOUNCED and REJECTED the Iraq war.
Sir, you've been around the block. You should know better. The Saudi-US connection that your book is about is a mild, docile case of US corporate interests trumping foreign relations morality. The activities of our government on behalf of corporations with empire interest are legion and include more than an isolated "regime change" - certainly far more than isolated "terrorism." The Reverend is dead right. It's fine to be outraged at what the Saudis did on 911. But it's NOT fine to be blind to the immoral conduct of our own government just because the victims are not in the US.
I presume your inquiry is an attempt to elicit an honest response from Obama in directly addressing the fact that our foreign policy cannot be driven by corporations... based on your bio, that's what I'd expect.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
