Obama's Pastor: U.S. to Blame for 9/11

[Cincinnatus]

There, I was responding to your point that there was an apparent contradiction between Obama saying that he wasn't present to hear Wright say those things, and saying that he'd heard him similar things. In the first case, he was talking about America-bashing statements connected with 9/11, in the second case he was talking about America-bashing statements not connected with 9/11.

I understood your point clearly. However, my point was whether it was wright's bashing of 9/11 or bashing of America is irrelevant. Because It's still bashing of america to which obama claims he does not agree. If obama's message is completely different from his pastors and is turely about unity of americans as he claims and he is not just running some public shill game to pull the wool over the eyes of the masses inorder to get elected to only then pull the rug out from underneath them. Then one would of expected obama to repudiate the man not only back then but rencently as well. Yet he didn't/doesn't. And that bothers me when it comes to giving a vote to someone for the highest position in the land. I'm too cynical to believe obama has never had these sort of talks or never heard these sort of sermons from his pastor over a span of 20 years. Chump is not written on my forehead, Suspicion perhaps.

I agree that he has not repudiated Wright as a man, though he has condemned his America-bashing statements in the strongest possible terms.

And I agree with the latter. However, the terms in which obama condemned his pastor weren't what I consider Strong. But I could see how you would come to that conclusion. However, I agree obama's words were a public denunciation of his pastors words nonetheless. Obama is politically savvy enough to know he had no other choice but to publically condemn his pastors words.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....

As for the part I bolded, I am sure the church you speak of, on the whole, taught a lot of good christian values. To equate the church as a whole, with a couple of hate filled sermons...well it is a strawman.

TAM

I am waiting for more evidence on this one. Right now the facts supports two different possible conclusions. Either the church did support a lot of racism against whites, or these were Wright's secret passions and something emboldened him more recently to start speaking about them publicly.

Obama's interview strongly suggests the latter. Wright's sermon as far back as just after 9/11 suggests the former. I tried to hear past sermons on the church's web site but the link is curiously non-functional.

Trinity United Church of Christ

WebCast OnDemand: See past sermons at any time right here!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... The ABC people who combed through the old sermons said that found much more anti-american rhetoric in his sermons.

So I wonder who it is at ABC that is a Clinton campaign worker?

This makes the fact the church's web page link to sermon archives is currently dead even more curious.

 

[corplinx]

I wouldn't expect them to keep the link up. Bandwidth costs money. Usage increases server load. The sermons are intended for the faithful, not for the press to investigate the church.

Give them a pass on taking it down.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....one would of expected obama to repudiate the man not only back then but rencently as well. Yet he didn't/doesn't. And that bothers me when it comes to giving a vote to someone for the highest position in the land. I'm too cynical to believe obama has never had these sort of talks or never heard these sort of sermons from his pastor over a span of 20 years. Chump is not written on my forehead, Suspicion perhaps.

I think Obama makes a good case for not condemning someone personally he has been close to for 20 years. I think the fact Obama quickly condemned Farrakhan also supports Obama's explanation. I actually find that a plus for Obama. Rather than caving instantly in to the pandering position of condemning Wright personally, I think Obama's position is actually admirable. But by the same criteria, Obama claiming he didn't know about Wright's radical side is harder to swallow given Obama claims to have known Wright for 20 years. That would be politics as usual.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I wouldn't expect them to keep the link up. Bandwidth costs money. Usage increases server load. The sermons are intended for the faithful, not for the press to investigate the church.

Give them a pass on taking it down.

That church appears to be large enough to be able to afford the bandwith. Again, you offer a second explanation. But the evidence could support either bandwith or damage control explanations. I withhold my conclusion in lieu of additional evidence.

 

[Cincinnatus]

I think Obama makes a good case for not condemning someone personally he has been close to for 20 years. I think the fact Obama quickly condemned Farrakhan also supports Obama's explanation. I actually find that a plus for Obama. Rather than caving instantly in to the pandering position of condemning Wright personally, I think Obama's position is actually admirable. But by the same criteria, Obama claiming he didn't know about Wright's radical side is harder to swallow given Obama claims to have known Wright for 20 years. That would be politics as usual.

I just can't agree with his case for not repudiating Wright.
Obama condemning wright's words you say is admirable I say it was actually more about political survival. And given the fact we agree on the Highlighted part you're not fully convinced it was that admirable. We are pretty much in full agreement.

 

[gtc]

If he knew or should have known about these issues then I have to question Obama's political sense. Surely he should have realised that the church would be a liability if he wanted to stand for higher office?

 

[marksman]

That's the crux of the issue here. I don't for a second believe Obama agrees with Wright's more hateful statements. But I also don't believe that Obama was unaware of them. Obama was not an occasional churchgoer. He and his family were committed and involved members of the church and personal friends to the pastor in question. Heck, I'm only tangentially involved in my own synogogue and I know within days when the rabbi says something inappropriate (and he's never come close to anything equivalent to what Rev. Wright has said) even if I wasn't at the service.

The problem is that Obama has such a short political history that he's mostly running on political credibility. He's running because he's not just another politician like McCain or Clinton. Which is why I'm willing to take a chance on a political tyro.

But now it seems to me that Obama joined this church because of its political connections in the black community in Chicago and he cozied up to this pastor despite his obvious radical opinions, simply for the political connections. And that makes him just another politician doing what he needs to do to get ahead.

Worse, his claims that he never heard about specific views of the Reverend are simply not credible to me. He is a friend of the pastor. He is an involved member of the church to which he has donated tens of thousands of dollars. His denials are just not credible.

So that's the problem. Obama is running on personal credibility because his record as a politician is so sparse. If he had been in the Senate for twelve years instead of three, I wouldn't have as much of an issue about his relationship with Reverend Wright because his actual record as a politician would let me know how to assess his credibility and his politics.

Again, I don't think Obama agrees with Wright that the government created AIDS or that America should be damned by God. But Obama's relationship with the pastor -- and his attempts to deny knowledge of the pastor -- are so at odds with Obama's image, that I now no longer have a firm idea of what Obama will be as a President.

I don't have an established record to work with. I can no longer rely on Obama's perceived credibility.

If I vote for Obama (assuming he's the Dmeocratic nominee), as I previously intended to do, it will be simply because I am voting against McCain, rather than for Obama. And I won't feel good about it because now I feel like I am essentially voting blind.

 

[marksman]

That's the crux of the issue here. I don't for a second believe Obama agrees with Wright's more hateful statements. But I also don't believe that Obama was unaware of them. Obama was not an occasional churchgoer. He and his family were committed and involved members of the church and personal friends to the pastor in question. Heck, I'm only tangentially involved in my own synogogue and I know within days when the rabbi says something inappropriate (and he's never come close to anything equivalent to what Rev. Wright has said) even if I wasn't at the service.

The problem is that Obama has such a short political history that he's mostly running on political credibility. He's running because he's not just another politician like McCain or Clinton. Which is why I'm willing to take a chance on a political tyro.

But now it seems to me that Obama joined this church because of its political connections in the black community in Chicago and he cozied up to this pastor despite his obvious radical opinions, simply for the political connections. And that makes him just another politician doing what he needs to do to get ahead.

Worse, his claims that he never heard about specific views of the Reverend are simply not credible to me. He is a friend of the pastor. He is an involved member of the church to which he has donated tens of thousands of dollars. His denials are just not credible.

So that's the problem. Obama is running on personal credibility because his record as a politician is so sparse. If he had been in the Senate for twelve years instead of three, I wouldn't have as much of an issue about his relationship with Reverend Wright because his actual record as a politician would let me know how to assess his credibility and his politics.

Again, I don't think Obama agrees with Wright that the government created AIDS or that America should be damned by God. But Obama's relationship with the pastor -- and his attempts to deny knowledge of the pastor -- are so at odds with Obama's image, that I now no longer have a firm idea of what Obama will be as a President.

I don't have an established record to work with. I can no longer rely on Obama's perceived credibility.

If I vote for Obama (assuming he's the Dmeocratic nominee), as I previously intended to do, it will be simply because I am voting against McCain, rather than for Obama. And I won't feel good about it because now I feel like I am essentially voting blind.

 

[Thorn]

But Thorn, suppose someone went to the church of Ann Coulter for 20 years, had her baptize their children and perform their wedding vows, then claimed they never heard Ms Coulter spew anything typical of Coulter speak? Would you find that a credible position?

Would I judge a person on cherry picked lines of their pastor even if their pastor were Ann Coulter? No. I would be wary at first, had I known nothing of the man. Honestly, if he's THAT good a faker, he deserves the presidency. If he's actually being straightforward, and, heaven forbid, disagrees with his pastor, which I'm sure he's not the only one in the church, then again, he deserves it.

I agree nothing Obama has said suggests he follows the positions of Pastor Wright. But what about Obama's claim to know nothing of Wright's positions?

Obama's Chicago Pastor No Longer Serving on Campaign (Update3)Are we to think this is the first time Obama has heard Wright speak of who he blames for 9/11 or HIV?

I suggest perhaps the honeymoon is over and we may be seeing the real Obama not yet revealed.

Absolutely. Is every one of Wright's sermons as fire and brimstone? I mean, this was the service after 9/11 that is most often quoted, and yet, nobody even states whether Obama was even at that service. This may sound like typical apologist BS, but seriously, is it so out of line to not know ugly things about the people you respect? What's worse, even if it were politics in denying knowing about it, it doesn't change the fact that I honestly don't care what his pastor thinks if it is shown that it ISN'T what Obama thinks.

Example, I enjoy the band Foo Fighters, have since I was but a wee one. Owned every album, read all about them, yet they associate with AIDs denial folk. I didn't know this until recently. Ugly facts tend to hide, and people tend not to define themselves by their negative sides.

 

[bigred]

oh cmon, I'm sure he just visited Gaddafi to ask him about converting to Christianity and to chastise him for not playing nice w/others.

lol - this is all so repulsive, and yet I ashamedly confess oddly amusing in a "comdey of the absurd" kind way.

 

[bigred]

Obama condemning wright's words you say is admirable I say it was actually more about political survival.

Exactly- IMO there's nothing particularly admirable or even savvy about it per se; it was no-brainer damage control/prevention.

Again, I wouldn't go nearly as far as to say he's dodging land mines, but his pastor has definitely made his candidacy at least a slightly rougher ride - potentially much rougher.

 

[marksman]

This may sound like typical apologist BS, but seriously, is it so out of line to not know ugly things about the people you respect?

Yes, it's utterly absurd that someone as intimately involved in his church as Obama would be unaware of the infalmmatory statements of its chief pastor in sermons.

I honestly don't care what his pastor thinks if it is shown that it ISN'T what Obama thinks.

The issue isn't what the pastor thinks or whether Obama agreed. Skeptigirl (and damn you for making me defend her) clearly said she doesn't think Obama agrees substantively with the pastor.

The question then becomes:
1) What does it say of Obama to so closely identify with a pastor whose views Obama finds abhorrent. To me, it reveals Obama to be a shameful politician who will get into bed with flea-ridden dogs to further political ambitions. This is particularly important since a great part of Obama's message has been the importance and power of words and speeches.

2) What does it say of Obama's credibility when he makes so obviously false statements like the fact that he didn't know what his pastor believed about 9/11 or the government's role in AIDS? This is particularly important since Obama has a relatively short record as a US Senator, and is thus asking us to judge his viability as a President based largely on his promises, which requires a lot of credibility.

Example, I enjoy the band Foo Fighters, have since I was but a wee one. Owned every album, read all about them, yet they associate with AIDs denial folk. I didn't know this until recently. Ugly facts tend to hide, and people tend not to define themselves by their negative sides.

Obama didn't call his pastor a spiritual leader because he liked Wright's aesthetic quality, but because of the substance of his spiritual message.

I like Billy Joel. It doesn't mean I support alcoholism. But nor could say "I bought Loose Change, not for the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but because I really like the soundtrack!" (Well, I could say it, but that statement would be utterly non-credible.)

 

[Drysdale]

Well, let me set your mind at rest with the word "no".

You're a psychic are you? Mindreader? If not how could you possibly know that?

The bottom line is Obama's just another politician saying whatever he thinks people want to hear in order to get elected. I dont think for a minute you go to a church for 20 years and not know full well the context and beliefs of that church,pastor and it's constituents. And that being the case how is the rhetoric of the sermon's defensible?

He keeps promising change but change is not always a change for the better.
If he believes in that rhetoric which he must or why would he keep attending the church he surely does'nt need to be president.

The world's full of people who can look you in the eye and say one thing and mean quite another. This makes it look like he's one of them to me.
A good old fashioned con man, or just another politician.

Take your pick.

 

[T.A.M.]

The more I read and hear about it, the more I am coming to the same position, that he may be, for the sake of his political career, playing a "hear no evil, see no evil" position.

TAM

 

[dudalb]

The more I read and hear about it, the more I am coming to the same position, that he may be, for the sake of his political career, playing a "hear no evil, see no evil" position.

TAM

He really cannot do much else,but it certainly makes him look like just another Politician dodging a dificult issue. The rub for Obama is his whole campaing has been about saying he is something different.

 

[IchabodPlain]

You are apparently not paying attention. The blowback from the atrocities the US was involved in in Latin America has been there off and on. Right now it is on with Venezuela. The difference is in the continent we are physically connected to, we have closer cultural ties and exchanges. And change has come gradually in Latin America so that a lot of resentment has been released more slowly over time. And prosperity makes a difference. When people are not in despair, resentment does not take on the same expression. That is probably the biggest difference. You need hate and despair, not just hate.

I am not talking about resentment, I am talking about detonating a bomb in a shopping mall, crashing a plane into a building. Interventions in S. America have not produced anywhere even near the same levels of outward violence towards America. The US supported Pinochet in the 70's and 80's but you don't see Chileans strapping bombs to themselves and attacking us for it.

The United States and the Overthrow of Sukarno, 1965-1967 The US was involved in what We topped ourselves however with the bloodbath that followed the assasination of Allende in Chile.

Did you read your source?

In this short paper on a huge and vexed subject, I discuss the U.S. involvement in the bloody overthrow of Indonesia's President Sukarno, 1965-67. The whole story of that ill-understood period would transcend even the fullest possible written analysis. Much of what happened can never be documented; and of the documentation that survives, much is both controversial and unverifiable. The slaughter of Sukarno's left-wing allies was a product of widespread paranoia as well as of conspiratorial policy[/B], and represents a tragedy beyond the intentions of any single group or coalition. Nor is it suggested that in 1965 the only provocations and violence came from the right-wing Indonesian military, their contacts in the United States, or (also important, but barely touched on here) their mutual contacts in British, German and Japanese intelligence

My emphasis in bold.

Then there was East Timor...

East Timor Revisited: FORD, KISSINGER AND THE INDONESIAN INVASION, 1975-76

Fair enough.

For SE Asia and Africa, the US has had a mixed role but more often than not we have supported corporate rights while human rights were ignored. The reputation of this country hasn't developed in isolation of the role we've played around the world in developing nations. We may have done some good things such as supporting the ending of Apartheid, but we've also been involved in human rights tragedies like the destruction of the land of the Ogoni tribe by the pollution of Shell Oil operations in Nigeria.

Shell Oil is not the issue, but instead it is the African governments that allow it to happen. What does Shell Oil have to do with 3 people being killed over a caricature of Muhammed? or a child being killed by a grenade tossed into a crowd watching a soccer match in Mogadishu? My point is that one can always rationalize and make excuses, but fundamentalists are killing people for the sake of their own violent ideology.

 

[T.A.M.]

He really cannot do much else,but it certainly makes him look like just another Politician dodging a dificult issue. The rub for Obama is his whole campaing has been about saying he is something different.

I bolded the key, the essential in your statement.

I can see no other option for the man to be honest, guilt by association seems to still run rampant in the world.

TAM

 

[bigred]

The bottom line is Obama's just another politician saying whatever he thinks people want to hear in order to get elected.

Oh cmon now, that's just plain crazy talk.

In fairness, I would add that that is different from other politicians how? .....however, the diff is his big angle is how he's not like those other corrupted scumbags, blah blah etc. Yknow this Mr Smith goes to Washington, "man of the people" bit.

A good old fashioned con man, or just another politician.

what's the diff?

In fact I suspect he is the scariest kind: the con man who is good at conning people into thinking he's anything but.