Obama's ex-pastor slams 'devious,' 'unfair' attacks
WASHINGTON —
Barack Obama’s former pastor condemned the furor set off by his fiery sermons, which became a political crisis for the Democratic White House hopeful, as “devious” and “unfair,” in an interview released Thursday.
Pastor Jeremiah Wright said in the interview that excerpts of his sermons now posted on YouTube were ripped out of context by critics who had no idea of the good works done by the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, where Obama worships and where Wright was a pastor until recently.
“I felt it was unfair. I felt it was unjust. I felt it was untrue, I felt for those who were doing that, were doing it for some very devious reasons,” Wright told PBS television in an interview to be broadcast on Friday.
Video clips of Wright’s sermons at the mostly African-American church played repeatedly on news shows prompted Obama to deliver a landmark speech on racial reconciliation last month.
Wright was shown in the clips assailing US and Israeli “terrorism,” calling on blacks to sing “God damn America,” and alleging that AIDS was spread by the U.S. government.
But he said in the interview with the Bill Moyers show that the use of soundbites from sermons he gave six years ago and more, made him the target of hatred and were “something very new and something very, very unsettling.”
Conservatives have focused on Obama’s refusal to disown Wright, despite his rejection of the remarks, suggesting the racially sensitive issue could feature in the general election campaign if he becomes Democratic nominee.
But Wright said he and Obama never discussed politics, and was not surprised when the Illinois senator criticized his comments during his Philadelphia race speech.
“He’s a politician. I’m a pastor. We speak to two different audiences ... so what happened in Philadelphia where he had to respond to the sound bytes, he responded as a politician.”
AFP
Order by Time Order by Popularity
54 Comments
Login to comment
0
RomeoRamenII
Heh, why would any American voter dare raise questions about a person wanting to control the most powerful nation on the planet who has for more than two decades attended a church and developed a close personal relationship with its "preacher" of hate who said:
AIDS was created by my government as a genocidal tool to be used against people of color,
who declared America’s chickens came home to roost on 9/11,
and wants God to damn America?
No wag the dog here. No one put those words in "Rev." Wright's mouth - he made these statements himself. Nuff Said!
RR
0
skipthesong
Rev. White needs to understand this is what happens when you become a political mouth piece, and he was acting as that. When people have talked about the power shift, this criticism is part of it too.. Yes, REv, the chickens are coming home to roost.
AIDS was created by my government as a genocidal tool to be used against people of color" With the amount of contempt for gang warfare, which has claimed more black lives than the KKK in 1.3 the time, he is more guilty of genocide against blacks than the government.
0
redacted
"Obama's ex-pastor slams 'devious,' 'unfair' attacks"
The attacks are so bad that the reverend has had to move into a gated community.
0
sabiwabi
Seems the pastor speaks the truth!
0
RomeoRamenII
"the reverend has had to move into a gated community."
Into a mansion inside a gated community no less. Plus, he's surrounded by neighbors who supported a government that, according to him, lodged genocidal warfare against people of color.
If "Rev." Wright practiced what he preaches, he'd move to his beloved Africa and take "grasshopper" barack with him. They wouldn't be missed.
RR
0
redacted
"Wright was shown in the clips assailing US and Israeli terrorism
Seems the pastor speaks the truth!"
Yeah well, for him and Obama and most Lefties hating Israel is the next best thing to hating America.
0
SezWho2
redacted,
There may be some "Lefties" and some of them may hate America. But I suspect that most of the people that you call "Lefties" are people who are critical of American actions, particularly those actions undertaken in the last 7 or so years. And most of those do not "hate" America. They may be disappointed in America and they may feel let down by it, but they do not hate it.
And that is one of the things that Wright is trying to get at in his comments here. It is easy to isolate on words out of context and choose to ignore the meaning of those words in context. By that standard, Bush never stops looking for ways to hurt America. He said so himself.
A lot of people think that what Bush said is ironically true and a lot of other people know that is not what he meant but are driven by such a visceral hatred of him that they are quite willing to ignore the context and Bush's clear intent. Similarly for, example, Wright calling for blacks to sing "God Damn America" is not synonymous with calling for blacks to hate America. Nor is Obama's wife talking about the first time she has ever been truly proud of America synonymous with saying that she has previously been anti-American.
Willfully taking things out of context hurts everyone. And in the case of American politics it reduces our political activity to whether or not people wear flags on their lapels. People ultimately get the kind of leadership they deserve. Good people, honest people, tend to make mistakes--some serious and some not.
Magnifying insignificant slips of the tongue or over-interpreting unfortunate word choices (unfortunate not because untrue in themselves but because they lend themselves to misinterpretation) ensures that we will not select our leaders on the basis of what matters most. Of course I would rather have a leader whose actions are always true and are always consonant with their politically correct speech. However, if I had to choose one or the other, I would choose the one whose actions are true.
I think that is why Bush has found so many supporters during his term. Despite his inability to speak without mangling the language--and sometimes even his meaning--his supporters regard his actions as true. That is why I support Obama. I think he is more in touch with who he is and slightly less prone to pandering to this group and that. There is, for me at least, no choice between Clinton and McCain.
0
sabiwabi
I just had a listen to the pastor's words: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hZ38N8OUg3Q
And I kinda like the guy now. He does speak the truth, whether you like it or not.
0
USNinJapan2
SezWho2
Out of context? Slips of the toungue? You obviously haven't seen the clips...
0
skipthesong
And I kinda like the guy now. He does speak the truth, whether you like it or not."
First of all, I have met Rev Write while I lived in Chicago, and he is a nice guy when not under the spot light. However, we all know that controversy sells very well for religions and his is no exception. That's not letting him off the hook, there have been people like Jerry Farwell and the other guy who publically denounced Jews and they stay on support every president until now.
whether you like it or not, there is not truth to truth, its a different shade of a color to you and to me. You are filled with hate.
0
redacted
By gum, that was an odd post, sezwho.
Why the need to bring Bush into this?
He is irrelevant to the thread.
"Magnifying insignificant slips of the tongue"?
It's not just what Wright has said about Americans.
He has plenty of hate to go around.
He is an equal-opportunity racist from what I can tell.
(CNSNews.com) - "Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., pastor emeritus of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago where Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has been a member for two decades, slurred Italians in a piece published in the most recent issue of Trumpet Newsmagazine.
"(Jesus') enemies had their opinion about Him," Wright wrote in a eulogy of the late scholar Asa Hilliard in the November/December 2007 issue. "The Italians for the most part looked down their garlic noses at the Galileans.
"From the circumstances surrounding Jesus' birth (in a barn in a township that was under the Apartheid Roman government that said his daddy had to be in), up to and including the circumstances surrounding Jesus' death on a cross, a Roman cross, public lynching Italian style [Italy didn't even exist...] ..." Wright wrote. "He refused to be defined by others and Dr. Asa Hilliard also refused to be defined by others.
"The government runs everything from the White House to the schoolhouse, from the Capitol to the Klan, white supremacy is clearly in charge, but Asa, like Jesus, refused to be defined by an oppressive government because Asa got his identity from an Omnipotent God," said Wright. http://www.crosswalk.com/news/11571660/
This guy is filled with hate.
Pure and simple.
Obama's fans claim he knew in 2002 that there were no WMDs in Iraq.
But he sat in this guy's church, donated money to his ministry, was married by him and had his kids baptized by him and yet somehow remained clueless about the reverend's issues (as "liberals" like to say) with pretty much every race other than his own?
Can't have it both ways.
Why do you exonerate such people?
He says "G*d damn America" and his entire congregation goes wild.
They cheer and holler.
It's on film for all to see.
0
skipthesong
redacted: I would say, if he had been anything other than black though, he would have been fried. Even if a white guy does speak the "truth" (i.e, CNN on China) they get slammed.
0
sabiwabi
skip
What is it that he said in that clip I linked to that is false or hateful. He is simply denouncing the hate in the US government. He also denounces the abuse the Palestinians have endured, that is not the same as denouncing Jews. If you feel the American and Israeli governments do no wrong, then you are the one who is filled with hate!
0
sabiwabi
skip
What is it that he said in that clip I linked to that is false or hateful. He is simply denouncing the hate in the US government. He also denounces the abuse the Palestinians have endured, that is not the same as denouncing Jews. If you feel the American and Israeli governments do no wrong, then you are the one who is filled with hate!
0
Sarge
( sung to the tune of Jeremiah was a Bullfrog )
Jeremiah was a preacher - he was a good friend of mine. I never understood a single word he said, but I helped him drink his whine.
0
skipthesong
If you feel the American and Israeli governments do no wrong" I never ever said they can do not wrong. I and many other posters on this board will agree, you have stated more that your tribe has done no wrong..
Again, it depends on how you look at it.. even if you tell the truth, it doesn't mean people have to be happy about, which is why I included yesterday's debate in regards to CNN)
0
SezWho2
USNinJapan2,
You said:
The italics, however, are mine. And that is exactly what I'm talking about. You've seen the clips. Congratulations.
0
skipthesong
I really don't think there should be any further debate about this. He said things people don't like but where he made the mistake was 1 throwing god into, 2. throwing race into - he was cheering for Obama who is going to be or maybe a present of the most multi-ethnic country in the world and 3. his opinions, in a church at the same time politicking for a candidate. Had it been any other day, this wouldn't have even made a dinner conversation. I have been to black churches in his area and the rhetoric is basically the same but they were not trying to pump up a candidate.
0
skipthesong
Here is a similar issue but the response is much different.
http://www.wbtv.com/home/18059374.html
0
USNinJapan2
Sezwho2
Yes clips, as in YouTube clips. You can view more than snippets of his sermons, some in their entirety. Transcripts are available online if you look.
0
SezWho2
redacted,
You're right that there was no need to bring Bush into the post. I could just as easily have used Kerry. I think the Bush example hits home to more people who are inclined to excoriate Wright. And, contrary to what you say, examples of a point are quite relevant to the point.
I don't think you know what Wright is "filled with". Of course, I could be wrong about that, but I doubt it. You may be blessed with omniscience. However, I think it is a basic error to believe isolated comments can be summed up into a psychological profile.
When Wright curses America, I think he is cursing it for a specific reason, not in its entirety. Of course, I too could be wrong. I think he is cursing America for its history of slavery, for its years of unequal opportunity and for its continuing racism. These are things for which cursing America is justified.
What you see on film is what has been selected for you to see. It is nothing like the experience of actually being a member of Wright's church. Obama is better proof that Wright's message is not one that is essentially racist and hateful than Wright would be proof that Obama is nursing secret racist tendencies.
0
SezWho2
USNinJapan2,
Yes, there's a lot of stuff on line. For example, there's this:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzkeoyQ&NR=1
Aside from his comment about the US government lying about AIDS--because it is not clear what he thinks the lie really was--I don't see anything here that can be quibbled with. I understand that there is plenty for people not to like. But my question is why they dislike it. Because it's untrue? because it's only partially true? or because it's true?
I don't think anyone who looks at this clip from beginning to end and listens to what Wright's message is can possibly say that Wright is filled with hate or that he is anti-American. In order to do that, I think they would have had to already made up their minds that he is so and already resolved not to change their minds. If you have some specific examples of hatred or anti-Americanism that have not been ripped from their context, I'd certainly be willing to take a look.
My point again is that the truth is not to be found in clips. It is to be found in dialogue, in examination of the ideas of others and in consideration of these ideas. But that's not what we tend to do. We see part of a thing and confuse it with the whole. And we do it because it suits our ulterior purposes. If Obama had not attended Wright's church, this would never be an issue.
0
RomeoRamenII
Who's a person to believe? "Rev." Wright or their own eyes and ears?
barack attended the church for 20 years and "Rev." Wright wasn't a shrinking violet in his condemnations of the country. barack's personal pastor, setter of his prioroties and calibrator of his moral compass was a hateful, anti-American conspiracy believing wacko.
If barack was so stupid that he didn't get the message over a 20-year period, he is too stupid to be a dog catcher let alone be President of the United States.
RR
0
redacted
"Obama is better proof that Wright's message is not one that is essentially racist and hateful than Wright would be proof that Obama is nursing secret racist tendencies."
Have you read "Dreams From My Father"?
" I think he is cursing America for its history of slavery, for its years of unequal opportunity and for its continuing racism."
Yes, dressed in his African "Ashanti" robes as he preaches Black Liberation theology he really understands slavery.
It's not like the present day Ghana region was basically a clearing house for African slaves sold by their fellow Africans to European slavers setting up in the New World or anything:
http://www.antislavery.org/breakingthesilence/slaveroutes/slaveroutes_ghana.shtml
"These are things for which cursing America is justified."
I don't know about you but I was taught that our civil war, bloodiest conflict we have ever been in, helped end slavery.
"What you see on film is what has been selected for you to see."
Yes, by my fellow Americans, as guaranteed by our Constitution.
You would have it otherwise?
"Jesus was a poor black man..."
"America is controlled by rich white people..."
"Giuliani fits the mold..."
"Hillary ain't never been called a n - - - - - "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAYe7MT5BxM
0
skipthesong
"These are things for which cursing America is justified." Hmm.. then why doesn't here celebrate the down fall of Africa, which was in the slave trading business for a long time before the appearance of the white man. Known fact was that the European slave traders basically never stepped foot beyond the beaches. And why America? They weren't even a country when the slave trade started and they were one of the first countries to end it. Mexico was all the way up till the 20th century as were most Latin American countries.
Why don't the Moors/Muslims get hit by people like him for their ways and even historical events such as being the top of the slave trade, their conquering of Europe?
Why doesn't he scream out against gangs and drug runners in Ghetto cities? Why doesn't he get hot about people calling for the extermination of whites in America (Dr. Kamau Kambon) which hasn't really put the greatest number of voters at ease.
"America is controlled by rich white people..." but yet he allows and protects those who beat up poor white kids living amongst them (XX HS, 1998)?
0
sabiwabi
The pastor criticizes American leaders who, while committing crimes against humanity, ask God to bless America. In that context, his comments about God damning America very quite fitting.
0
adaydream
He needs to just keep his mouth shut. No matter what he says, his words will be used against him.
0
WhiteHawk
Hey Rev. Wright, the "attacks" are not devious, nor are they unfair. In fact, they're not even attacks. It's properly called CRITICISM, and obviously you cannot take it like you dish it out. You've simply been exposed for your own words, that's all. And they weren't taken out of context, they were considered - by your own church - as the "best of" your career.
0
SezWho2
redacted,
If you have a point about Dreams From My Father, I think you would be better to state it instead of asking whether I have read it. Here's your chance. What is your point?
Yes, Africans sold Africans to venal white men. But so what? This does not excuse white men from buying and then often cruelly exploiting other human beings.
And, yes, the the institution of slavery was ended during the Civil War, but it did not end the discrimination, the prejudice, unequal treatment, disenfranchisement or lack of opportunity. Furthermore, the Civil War was not undertaken for the purpose of ending slavery. It was undertaken to settle the dispute as to whether States were really states. If might makes right, it turns out they weren't. So, again, what's your point?
And yes, your fellow Americans have every right to selectively present pernicious representations for your viewing pleasure. I wouldn't have it otherwise. What I would have otherwise is that my fellow Americans would learn to think a little more critically. That was my point. If your point is that you are free to subscribe to any prejudice you wish, I can't dispute that.
And your final 4 sound bites? Was there a point?
0
SezWho2
skipthesong,
Would any of your questions about the slave trade in Africa and the Moors and Muslims be answered by the fact that Wright lives in America in the 21st century and not in Africa when the slave trade "started"?
And may I ask what makes you think that Wright does not speak out against gangs and drug runners?
And, as an observation, just as there is no way to prove a negative, there is a virtually unlimited list of criticisms that may be levied against anyone for things they do not do.
0
SezWho2
WhiteHawk,
There has been some criticism. And there has been some attack. I believe that most of what you see here will not pass for criticism.
0
WhiteHawk
SezWho2,
You and I may differ on the definitions. I don't see "anybody who says stuff like that (Wright's inflammatory 'sermons') is an a--hole/racist/hate-monger" as an attack. And that's typical of commentary about Wright, is it not?
0
SezWho2
WhiteHawk,
We may indeed differ. I don't see that phrase as criticism. I see it as name-calling. Combine that with a lack of demonstration of critical thinking and inattentiveness to exculpatory evidence and it is almost certainly an attack.
0
WhiteHawk
SezWho2,
Nah, if someone makes racist remarks, that makes them a racist. It's not name-calling so much as categorizing.
0
SezWho2
WhiteHawk,
Not true.
Your response might cover the "racist" part of your statement. It does not cover the "a--hole" or "hate--monger" part.
To prove statements are racist or anything else, you must first show that what you heard is what the speaker intended to convey. For example, the whole point of the chickens-coming-home-to-roost talk was that hatred gets you nothing. In other words, it means the exact opposite of what people are accusing Wright of.
0
redacted
sezwho wrote:
"If you have a point about Dreams From My Father, I think you would be better to state it instead of asking whether I have read it. Here's your chance. What is your point?"
You just made it, ol chum.
You have not read the book but are apparently quite happy to defend the pathetically racist sentiments within it:
"I found solice in nursing a pervasive sense of grievancee and animosity against my mother's race"
"That hate hadn't gone away"...."white people — some cruel, some ignorant, sometimes a single face, sometimes just a faceless image of a system claiming power over our lives."
I found this one especially ironic, coming as it does from the pen of the media-annointed "uniter" -
"The emotion between the races could never be pure..... the other race would always remain just that: menacing, alien, and apart."
all of the above from Barack Hussein Obama, Dreams From My Father
Sezwho: "Yes, Africans sold Africans to venal white men. But so what? This does not excuse white men from buying and then often cruelly exploiting other human beings."
I noticed you coldn't quite bring yorself to write white European men there...
And in your rather selective view you omitted the much larger and older slave trade between Africans and Arabs - which many insist continues to this day.
Can you find Rev. Wright's thoughts on that? Anything I present would of course be "taken out of context" so I'll let you do his talking for him.
Happy hunting.
0
SezWho2
redacted,
As Bob Dylan wrote,
The point that I made is that you didn't have a point. As far as I can see, you still don't. If I have not read the book, I can hardly defend its sentiments.
You will notice that all of the sentences that you quoted are past tense. You tell me and kindly quote chapter and page: what time period is it when he found solace in nursing grievances. If you are trying to tell me that Obama is a racist, I think you are at least wrong, if not a little perverse.
Well you should notice that I mentioned white men and not Europeans. I'm not talking about Europeans. I don't see how the slave trade between Africans and Arabs and Europeans has anything to do with the American experience.
What would be the point in mentioning it? Why exactly do you think this is relevant? That someone else did it first does not excuse us and it certainly does not excuse the 100 years of Jim Crow, strange fruit hanging on the poplar trees and voter disenfranchisement that followed emancipation.
0
Betzee
The thing is, Jeremiah Wright volunteered to serve in Vietnam in defense of a country he has also criticized. While I personally find his criticisms lacking in intellectual substance, it sure beats the hell out of some of his flag waving critics who had "other priorities" which enabled them to dodge the draft. In my book, there are few more reprehensible traits evident in contemporary American society than the steady exploitation of the glories of "sacrifice for freedom" by war cheerleaders who are never found on the front lines themselves.
0
Everton2
This is all insane, why don't we just blame black people for slavery and any profits that were derived from their unpaid efforts were ordained by Christianity, and if they ever speak out against it or recount their experiences in modern America lets just brand them as anti American and ungrateful. Lets just exonerate white people completely because they had nothing to do with promoting slavery. Blacks like Mr Wright who speak out against the black condition in America is obviously misguided and unpatriotic.
0
skipthesong
Yo, I ain't saying that. What I am saying is looking at these issue he speaks of from a fence - litterally, I find it annoying when I hear these things when the real issues out there are not being tended to. Rev, Wright, as I have said is a down to earth man; I know because I have met him more than once. My point was once you start yelling what he was yelling, how can one be surprised to hear any criticism? He has entered politics by supporting a candidate. No, I am not letting off other preachers either - but they have been dogged out so why can't Rev Wright? Yes, I do believe the issue of slavery in America has been taught wrongly and he is one of the reasons it has been. He points out America's faults yet warms up to some of the people who are not only responsible to the HIGHEST degree, but has basically let them off the hook.
just blame black people for slavery" Here you go again. how about this, just blame white people for slavery around the world.. This is what I like , no love about myself - being able to look at things from more than one angle because I am more than one. Rev. Wright should take a history course in Miami, learn more about slavery. He would be shocked.
0
Badsey
true: attacks by their very nature should be devious and unfair. =it would actually be somewhat of an insult if they were not. You should appreciate the challenge of a good attack.
Does this really have anything to do with Obama's character? -not much.
Clintonian democracy at it's finest. Government sold you out long ago, a good example is 40% inflation. -if that isn't slavery then what is?
0
WhiteHawk
SezWho2:
It most certainly does cover the "racist" question, as such statements cannot be described as anything other than racist. I'll concede the "a--hole" point, as that would be a matter of opinion, but the "hate-monger" description does apply to Wright.
I'm not talking about that speech. I'm referring to the 'U.S.-government-created-AIDS-to-kill-black-people' speech. If that isn't hate-mongering, especially based on race, what is it?
0
Everton2
WhiteHawk the US Government is capable of anything. You have obviously forgotten that the US government has confessed to experimenting on black men with the syphilis virus. If that is the case then why is the AIDS virus comment from the Reverent so bad or even racist? It is simply a fair comment given the history of the US Government and its relationship with black people .
0
WhiteHawk
Everton2, when did the U.S. do that expermient? How does that have anything to do with AIDS? What is the connection? What about the fact that Wright has absolutely no evidence or facts to back up his accusation? (Neither does anyone else.)
I suppose you don't consider Wright's claim that America is controlled by "rich white people" to be racist or hate-mongering either.
And what did you think of his speech to the National Press Club today?
0
Everton2
WhiteHawk The syphilis experiment is common knowledge you look it up. America being controlled by rich white people is indeed a statement fact. It has nothing to do with hate but more a reality of the status quo in America. I do think the Reverent appearance at the press club did little for his image. I thought it was more comical than anything else. He came across as a deeply arrogant person with clear signs of having a "small man" syndrome. He is being given more attention than he deserve and is loving every minute. Again what whites in general need to understand is that this guy does not speak for the black community many of who considers Wright to be well past it.
0
adaydream
Everton2, whitehawk's just jamming ya.
he's not stupid.
but play on.
0
SezWho2
No, WhiteHawk,
Your argument might cover the racist point. You realize, don't you, that it was not until your last response that you even bothered to mention what kind of "stuff" you thought was racist. Now you say that it was the "U.S.-government-created-AIDS-to-kill-black-people" speech.
If that was a separate speech from the one I have mentioned, would you be so kind as to provide a link to that speech in its entirety? You know, a version of that statement appears in the speech I was talking about and I wonder if you have listened to that in its entirety. As I listen to it, I don't find it either racist or hate-mongering.
Wright certainly does not pretend that America people are uni-color or that there are not serious causes for anger. But racism and hate-mongering? I think not.
0
redacted
Let Reverend Wright defend himself.
He went before the Nat'l Press Club the other day.
Ya almost feel sorry for Obama. He was supposedly clever enough to know that Iraq had no WMDs, but he sat in Rev Wright's church for 20 years oblivious to how hate-filled and radical his preacher was? He brought his daughters to hear this guy shriek at the gov't and "white people" week in and week out?
"Speaking [ Apr 27 ] before an audience that included Marion Barry, Cornel West, Malik Zulu Shabazz of the New Black Panther Party and Nation of Islam official Jamil Muhammad, Wright praised Louis Farrakhan, defended the view that Zionism is racism, accused the United States of terrorism, repeated his view that the government created the AIDS virus to cause the genocide of racial minorities, stood by other past remarks ("God damn America") and held himself out as a spokesman for the black church in America.
In front of 30 television cameras, Wright's audience cheered him on as the minister mocked the media and, at one point, did a little victory dance on the podium. It seemed as if Wright, jokingly offering himself as Obama's vice president, was actually trying to doom Obama; a member of the head table, American Urban Radio's April Ryan, confirmed that Wright's security was provided by bodyguards from Farrakhan's Nation of Islam."
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/roughsketch/2008/04/obamaspastorreignitesracec.html
0
WhiteHawk
Everton2:
So you don't remember it either. It's okay, I'm told that's one of the first things that happens when we get older. I don't remember what the other ones were...
So you're saying that there are no councilmen, congressmen, senators, secretaries-of-state, ambassadors, city administrators, school board officials, mayors, police, judges, military officers, governors, lobbyists, corporate executives, attorneys, district attorneys, business owners, property owners, and voters who are not white? Fascinating.
SezWho2:
I was thinking of his U.S./AIDS statement when I posted that, not whatever speech or part of a speech you were referring to. My apologies for not clarifying that up front. If Wright is not a racist, bigot, and hate-monger, what is he then? A unifier? A peacemaker? A diplomat?
0
Badsey
politician or pastor: whatever puts money in plate I guess. Hopefully his actions speak louder than his hateful rants. Really just a sad story.
A Preacher should unify, not divide and conquer. I wonder how much the Clintons stuffed into his pockets for this crap?
0
DanManjt
Sez Who
I have read through your posts. Two things:
Wright's comments are indefensible. Its a mistake to defend them.
Wright, as a man, need not be defended against the Republican slime machine's attacks. The Right is not interested in a good faith exchange. They will, no matter what, run against Wright because it is, they believe, their only hope in staving off tremendous defeat this Fall.
When you play defensively against the Right, you loose. America looses.
Now is not the time and the media/blogesphere is not the place to delve into the complexities of race and race politics in America.
0
DanManjt
Betzee
Well done. Unlike the Chiken Hawks Rummy, Bush, and Cheyney, (and I;m sure a few here at JT) Wright fought to defend the Liberty they cynically abuse and foolishly squander. But the Right will never, can never, understand that.
Because they are partisans before patriots.
BTW
I responded a little late to your post from last month. Here is the link in asnwer to your question.
http://www.japantoday.com/category/world/view/sadr-orders-militia-to-reject-pms-call-to-surrender-arms#comment_5811
0
jwills79
It was called "The Tuskegee Experiment!!!"
0
sabiwabi
I wonder why the American media has chosen to cover the Pastor Wright issue in such a manner. Its as if "they" have chosen to back Hillary, who happens to be doing quite well recently, ever since she spoke of obliterating Iran. Seems like "they" were very pleased to hear her words.
Back to top