March 21, 2008

Obama (Shhh) Blasts Hamas Op-Ed in Church Bulletin, Silent on Other Bulletin Items (See Contradictory Updates)

Filed under: News from Other Sites,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 9:33 pm

The following story reports on a condemnation that was apparently sent by Barack Obama or his campaign to “JTA, Jewish and Israel News” early Friday:

A pro-Hamas op-ed printed in his church’s bulletin is “outrageously wrong,” Barack Obama said.

In an issue dated July 22, 2007, in a section titled “Pastor’s Page,” the church reprinted an article by Hamas official Mousa Abu Marzook in which he justifies Hamas’ withholding of recognition of Israel’s right to exist. The article originally appeared as an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times.

The church’s pastor, Jeremiah Wright, who retired this year, has already stirred controversy for the U.S. senator campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination with earlier statements likening Israel to colonialists and blaming attacks on the United States in part on its support for Israel.

“I have already condemned my former pastor’s views on Israel in the strongest possible terms, and I certainly wasn’t in church when that outrageously wrong Los Angeles Times piece was re-printed in the bulletin,” Obama said in a statement emailed to JTA late Thursday, and referring to critics who noted that Obama had been in church when Wright had made controversial statements. “Hamas is a terrorist organization, responsible for the deaths of many innocents, and dedicated to Israel’s destruction, as evidenced by their bombarding of Sderot in recent months. I support requiring Hamas to meet the international community’s conditions of recognizing Israel, renouncing violence, and abiding by past agreements before they are treated as a legitimate actor.”

Jeremiah Wright, who in Obama’s Huffington Post entry just a week ago was described as “in the process of retiring,” completed the process of being “retired” pretty darned quickly, didn’t he?

Also, for what it’s worth, Obama appears to be admitting that he HAS read the church bulletin when he HAS attended TUCC.

It’s quite the interesting choice of communication outlet, don’t you think? Especially because, as far as I can tell, the statement is nowhere to be found in the Newsroom section of the candidate’s campaign web site, even though the Obama family’s Purim statement JTA refers to later in the post linked above is there.

Well, IF the above condemnation explains away July 22nd, 2007, that still leaves the rest of the month unexplained, and heaven knows what else in 20 years’ worth of Trinity United Church bulletins, roughly 100 of which yours truly possesses.

These would be the same bulletins containing blank “Sermon Notes” pages (examples here, here, and here) that attendees who wish to take notes would ordinarily use during the service. Obama was reported to be taking notes during a sermon by a New Republic journalist in a March 2007 TNR article (Google search link here; alternative link here), and would reasonably be expected to have been taking those referred-to notes in that week’s church bulletin.

If I didn’t know better (actually, I believe I do), the campaign wants to be able to claim that it issued a denunciation, while making sure as few people as possible know about what gave rise to the need for it.

Clever? Yes.

Effective? We’ll see.

_______________________________________

UPDATE, March 22: The condemnation above won’t be effective without an explanation of this (“How Barack Obama learned to love Israel,” in the Pali-sympathetic Electronic Intifada; HT LGF via Gateway Pundit):

The last time I spoke to Obama was in the winter of 2004 at a gathering in Chicago’s Hyde Park neighborhood. He was in the midst of a primary campaign to secure the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate seat he now occupies. But at that time polls showed him trailing.

As he came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, “Hey, I’m sorry I haven’t said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I’m hoping when things calm down I can be more up front.” He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy, “Keep up the good work!”

(sarc alert) But why should we question his pro-Israel position now? After all, he’s been soooooo forthright with us about everything else. How could we eeeeeeever question his sincerity? (/sarc)

UPDATE 2, March 22: Debbie Schlussel has exclusive info from a former Obama campaign insider — “Obama’s Nation of Islam Staffers, Edward Said & “Inflexible Jews” Causing Mid-East Conflict: An Obama Insider Reveals the Real Barack”:

Obama employed and continues to employ several Farrakhan acolytes in high positions on his Illinois and U.S. Senate campaign and office staffs. I have verified that this person–who agreed to talk on the condition of anonymity–held a key position in the Obama campaign. The insider was so close to Senator Obama that they frequently personally discussed and exchanged direct e-mail messages on campaign and policy matters. This person is not connected with the Clintons and is not a disgruntled employee.

….. But it’s not just that he employed these individuals in positions of power in his office, it’s that when the former associate raised objections, he says Mr. Obama’s position was that he saw nothing wrong with the Nation of Islam and didn’t think it was a problem. If true ….. Obama’s condemnation of Farrakhan, this month, is phony.

Read the whole thing.

UPDATE 3, March 22: Thanks to others noting this post — Gateway Pundit, Clarice Feldman at American Thinker and Jillosophy,

Share

8 Comments

  1. Tom, with all due respect, this Obama quote from your linked JTA Breaking News item seems to make everything you’ve posted on church bulletins and Hamas seem “irrelevant.”

    “I have already condemned my former pastor’s views on Israel in the strongest possible terms, and I certainly wasn’t in church when that outrageously wrong Los Angeles Times piece was re-printed in the bulletin,” Obama said in a statement emailed to JTA late Thursday, and referring to critics who noted that Obama had been in church when Wright had made controversial statements. “Hamas is a terrorist organization, responsible for the deaths of many innocents, and dedicated to Israel’s destruction, as evidenced by their bombarding of Sderot in recent months. I support requiring Hamas to meet the international community’s conditions of recognizing Israel, renouncing violence, and abiding by past agreements before they are treated as a legitimate actor.”

    Thanks for the link.

    Comment by Tony B. — March 22, 2008 @ 1:42 am

  2. #1, it’s anything but irrelevant. Why that’s the case has been asked and answered in the post and elsewhere. It all goes to the “20 years” and “what does he really believe” questions.

    Even the MSM is starting to get it:
    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html

    Surely you can.

    Comment by TBlumer — March 22, 2008 @ 6:57 am

  3. #1 More double talk from the candidate of “Change.”

    Does that mean “Change” from supporting an ally that offers its Arab citizens more freedom than Arab countries offer their own Arab citizens? Do the Palestinians protect the rights of religious minorities? Dhimmis!!

    The publisher of Electronic Intifida has published that Obama told him that the Obama campaign only pays lip service to Israel because of the election.

    http://www.electronicintifada.net/v2/article6619.shtml

    “As he (Obama) came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, “Hey, I’m sorry I haven’t said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I’m hoping when things calm down I can be more up front.” He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy, “Keep up the good work!”"

    Hey, supporting terror, blowing up school children on public busses, why would America care about that? Maybe that is why the Senator wants to surrender to the terrorists in Iraq.

    Anti-Semitism fits right in with the rest of Rev. Wright’s preaching. This public scrutiny is providing a clearer look at Obama’s core values. That may explain that Obama only apologizes after eight months. He agrees until he is forced to apologize. Do you really believe his denials?

    Do you support the extermination of the nation of Israel?

    Comment by JoeS — March 22, 2008 @ 8:23 am

  4. JoeS,

    Tom Blumer linked to a McClatchey article today, and in it, I found a paragraph that might help you to breathe a sigh of relief. “On Middle East policy, Obama is strongly pro-Israel. He’s rejected an argument voiced by Wright that U.S. support of Israeli mistreatment of Palestinians helped fuel the 9-11 attacks.”

    Comment by Tony B. — March 22, 2008 @ 3:31 pm

  5. #3 and #4, too bad Obama was indisputably pro-Palestinian until at least 2004. His is a Romneyesque epiphany at best, breathtaking deception at worst.

    There is evidence that he was posing on Israel not long ago (2004?), and admitted as much. I’ll attempt to find it again. But if I don’t, I’ve seen it.

    Aha. See the update.

    That would represent a bit less than 16 years of Pali support.

    Some “relief.”

    Comment by TBlumer — March 22, 2008 @ 4:46 pm

  6. How can a person so in the dark, that he didn’t know (so he says)that the church he’s been a member of for that many years published an article in support of pro-terrorism, be fit for President? Let’s remember also that he’s a Senator, is he even fit for that.

    Comment by Liv — March 22, 2008 @ 8:49 pm

  7. Obama loses my vote for President of Israel!
    As for President of the United States, I’ll vote for him if he gets the nomination.

    Remember back when The U.S. was so strong (sa y 2003), they didn’t care what other nations thought of them?

    Comment by Robert in BA — March 23, 2008 @ 12:10 am

  8. Well, that does it for me! If , after all of this, the super delegates still try to push this guy through as the nominee, which they obviously have the power and the desire to do, since they “fear alienating their African American base”, then I say we all vote for McCain in November. The super delegates cannot control that! And if it means the destruction of their chances and of their party in November, then they have only themselves to blame. What I want to know is , since the African Americans only comprise 13 to 18% of the population, why aren’t they concerned about the other 82 to 87% of us? What more is there here that doesn’t meet the eye???

    Comment by susan — March 24, 2008 @ 8:00 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.