Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
G-man posted this in the religion forum but since it's Obama spiritual advisor it deserves a post here as well...
 Quote:
ABC: Is former Reverend a liability for Obama?
David Edwards and Nick Juliano
Published: Thursday March 13, 2008

Sen. Barack Obama's former preacher has delivered some controversial sermons in which he said the US invited the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and he has said African Americans should sing "God damn America" instead of God bless America.

ABC News has reviewed dozens of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's sermons, and the network aired some of his most inflammatory rhetoric in a segment Thursday on Good Morning America. Wright was Obama's pastor at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago for the last two decades, until his retirement earlier this year.

The Democratic presidential candidate credited Wright for the title of his book, "The Audacity of Hope," and Wright performed Obama's marriage and baptized his two daughters. But Obama has described the preacher as "like an old uncle who says things I don't always agree with."

The latest statements unearthed by ABC, which reviewed videos of the sermons the church offers for sale, could cause more headaches for Obama during a campaign in which supporters' comments have increasingly drawn scrutiny.

"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," Wright said in a 2003 sermon. "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

It's unclear whether Obama was in the audience when Wright gave that sermon, but he has previously told the New York Times that he did not attend a service in which Wright implied that the US invited the 9/11 attacks.

"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," Rev. Wright said in a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001.

"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans," Wright said, "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."

Obama religious adviser Shaun Casey appeared on Good Morning America to defend Obama saying he had already repudiated Wright's controversial remarks. Casey said other candidates were not getting the same scrutiny.

"I mean, it's interesting to me you haven't vetted Hillary Clinton's pastor's sermons, you haven't vetted President Bush's pastor's sermons," he said. "You haven't vetted John McCain's pastor's sermons. So, you're not holding them to that standard, which I think is very interesting."

RAW
This isn't something you just quietly dissagree with & expect to win a general election.


It appears Matter-eater Man was onto something when he questioned Barrack Hussein's character and his questionable association with a know anti-semite preacher:

Israel recoils as US backs nuclear move

 Quote:
Washington's unprecedented backing for a UN resolution for a nuclear-free Middle East that singles out Israel has both angered and deeply worried the Jewish state although officials are cagey about openly criticising their biggest ally.

The resolution adopted by the United Nations on Friday calls on Israel to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and urges it to open its facilities to inspection.

It also calls for a regional conference in 2012 to advance the goal of a nuclear-free Middle East.

Israel is widely believed to be the only nuclear power in the Middle East, with around 200 warheads, but has maintained a policy of deliberate ambiguity about its capabilities since the mid-1960s.

The document, which singles out Israel but makes no mention of Iran's controversial nuclear programme, drew a furious reaction from the Jewish state who decried it as "deeply flawed and hypocritical."

But it was US backing for the resolution which has caused the most consternation among Israeli officials and commentators, who interpreted the move as "a resounding slap around the face" which has dealt a very public blow to Israel's long-accepted policy of nuclear ambiguity.

Publicly, the Israel government has not criticised the US position but privately, officials expressed deep disappointment over the resolution, which Washington backed despite intensive Israeli efforts to block it.

According to the top-selling Yediot Aharonot daily, the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was "furious with the Obama administration for having failed to prevent the resolution from passing... and for choosing to support it."

"The American support for the resolution, after decades in which it supported Israel on this issue, came as a complete surprise," the paper said.

"In the secret talks that Netanyahu held with Obama's men... Israel was promised that the resolution would not focus on Israel and that if it did, the Americans would vote against."

The left-leaning Haaretz daily said Israel had been "sacrificed by the US on the altar of a successful conference" in what constituted "a diplomatic victory for Egypt" which has campaigned against Israel's nuclear arsenal.

Five years ago, the paper recalled, Obama's predecessor George W. Bush, refused to accept parts of a draft document calling on Israel to join the NPT and dismissed the idea of holding talks to create a nuclear-free Middle East -- even at the cost of the conference's failure.

The controversial resolution was passed just days ahead of a key meeting between Obama and Netanyahu aimed at restoring friendly ties between the two allies which had been soured over a dispute about Jewish settlements.

But the Maariv daily said that Obama's 'last minute' invitation for Netanyahu to visit the White House had clearly been planned with the NPT review conference in mind.

"It is reasonable to assume that the Americans knew they were going to deliver a blow to Israel's policy of nuclear ambiguity and that Obama wanted to try to minimize the damage," the paper said.

The move draws a line under a long-held "agreement" between Israel and Washington dating back to 1969 under which the Jewish state was permitted to keep silent on its country's nuclear potential while holding back from any nuclear test.

In return, Washington agreed not to exert or allow any pressure on Israel over its nuclear capabilities.

"It is an undeniably negative change to US policy" with regards to Israel's nuclear programme, said Eitan Gilboa, an analyst from Bar Ilan University near Tel Aviv.

Pointing to contradiction between Obama both applauding the resolution and criticising it for singling out Israel, Gilboa said Washington was "losing its leadership role because of the naive and unrealistic" outlook of its president.