What do they have in common?

Petraeus says:

"Images of the burning of a [Koran] would undoubtedly be used by extremists in Afghanistan -- and around the world -- to inflame public opinion and incite violence."

To be consistent the administration could say something like:

"The building of this mosque would undoubtedly be used by extremists to inflame public opinion and incite violence."

And Obama's pals in the media claim that's exactly what's happening - the building of the mosque is being used to inflame opinion and incite violence.

If that's sufficient reason for Obama to criticize Jones, why isn't it sufficient reason to criticize Rauf?

Or go the other way, Obama could say of Jones "He has a right to do that in America and I'm not going to comment on the wisdom of it" as he said of Rauf.

When the rights of muslims manifestly seem to be more important to Obama than the rights of christians, why should anyone be surprised that more people are doubting his claimed religious affiliation?