Unfair and Unbalanced: Fox goes after Sestak
A FOX News watchgroup (NewsHounds) posted the clip and well as a description of last night's attack of Sestak on Hannity and Colmes. See: "Congressman Joe Sestak smeared on FOX News"
Question: Why is it that Joe is receiving the Hannity treatment?
Answer: Because Joe is a point-man for the Democrats on Iraq. Joe's performance on Meet the Press must have rattled the neocons at FOX, so they needed an unbalanced segment with one anti-CAIR (anti-Joe, pro-Hannity) guest. The implication is that CAIR is radical/un-American, so by extension Joe must not be a "good" American. To help sell this, they bring in a Canadian author, and high-school drop-out, Mark Steyn.
To his credit, Colmes ably defended Joe's right and obligation to address his constitutents and to express his point of view.
Hannity, complained that CAIR was defending the Imams. Since Hannity clearly feels that innocent Muslims have no rights in the post-9/11 America, CAIR is taking a radical position. He also complained that CAIR tried to pressure advertisers to drop some of his fellow (i.e. right-wing) talk show brethren. He views that as an "attempt to silence people they don't agree with". (I guess screening for callers that agree with you and cutting off ones that manage to make a point doesn't fall into this category?)
This is all a transparent attempt to undermine Joe's stance on the Iraq War. By implying that he likes to meet with terrorists (or at least sympathizers), they are doubling-down on their (false) argument that bringing home the troops helps the "enemy".
Being smeared by Hannity is a badge of honor, because it shows you are making progress and they are getting desparate.
If we had wanted Islamaphobes in office, we'd still have Weldon and Santorum. Anyone swayed by these hollow arguments to drop their support of Joe forgets why we elected him.
They (the vast-right-wing conspiracy, neocons, etc. :-) ) are testing your threshold for backing down and they keep raising the ante (as well as the anti). Hang tough Joe.
Question: Why is it that Joe is receiving the Hannity treatment?
Answer: Because Joe is a point-man for the Democrats on Iraq. Joe's performance on Meet the Press must have rattled the neocons at FOX, so they needed an unbalanced segment with one anti-CAIR (anti-Joe, pro-Hannity) guest. The implication is that CAIR is radical/un-American, so by extension Joe must not be a "good" American. To help sell this, they bring in a Canadian author, and high-school drop-out, Mark Steyn.
To his credit, Colmes ably defended Joe's right and obligation to address his constitutents and to express his point of view.
Hannity, complained that CAIR was defending the Imams. Since Hannity clearly feels that innocent Muslims have no rights in the post-9/11 America, CAIR is taking a radical position. He also complained that CAIR tried to pressure advertisers to drop some of his fellow (i.e. right-wing) talk show brethren. He views that as an "attempt to silence people they don't agree with". (I guess screening for callers that agree with you and cutting off ones that manage to make a point doesn't fall into this category?)
This is all a transparent attempt to undermine Joe's stance on the Iraq War. By implying that he likes to meet with terrorists (or at least sympathizers), they are doubling-down on their (false) argument that bringing home the troops helps the "enemy".
Being smeared by Hannity is a badge of honor, because it shows you are making progress and they are getting desparate.
If we had wanted Islamaphobes in office, we'd still have Weldon and Santorum. Anyone swayed by these hollow arguments to drop their support of Joe forgets why we elected him.
They (the vast-right-wing conspiracy, neocons, etc. :-) ) are testing your threshold for backing down and they keep raising the ante (as well as the anti). Hang tough Joe.
posted by David Diano at 10:48 AM
11 Comments:
It was amusing to watch Steyn’s audacity to question Congressman Sestak’s judgment. For 31 years while Steyn and likes were blabbing on Fox, Admiral Sestak was on the sea covering their backs from real terrorism.
Other Democrats (Boxer, Schumer, Durbin) know CAIR is Filthy from their outright support for terrorists (Hamas), founding by terrorists (Marzook of Hamas), and desire to erode our freedoms to allow for sharia law. (CAIR's words)
The above Democrats know CAIR is dirty to the core.
Sestak may as well appear at a KKK rally, or a neo-Nazi BBQ if his criteria to accept a invite to speak at an islamic supremacist sponsored function is: "They do some good" or "My constituents will be there"
This has NOTHING to do with Muslims or Islam- this is about a US Congressman rubbing shoulders with a pro-terror group founded by Hamas that had convicted Terrorists on it's staff, a group that lies, cheats, and steals to support Terror (HLF)
Sestak is a DUPE.
Somebody point to a verifiable, independent (NON-PARTISAN) news report on the supposed offenses of CAIR, or else zip it. No Fox opinionists or WSJ editorial page pundits. Hard news.
If you've got it, deliver.
Otherwise, you're just another xenophobic racist who is using the fear of Islam to discriminate and silence an ethnic minority of U.S. citizens just because they're easy targets. This is a pluralistic society, and law abiding people are entitled to assemble, speak, and participate in the political process.
Every day I talk to people with whom I seriously disagree. Right now I'm talking to you.
Anonymous-
Boxer and the others took the coward's approach when faced with the controversy.
Sharia Law? EVERY religious extremist wants to establish a theocracy with their own brand. Don't you realize the far-right evangelicals that put Bush in the White House are looking to impose their beliefs/morality on everyone else? CAIR got no more chance of imposing sharia law than Bin Laden has of becoming Pope.
However, you (parroting the anti-Muslim rhetoric) are assuming that everyone in CAIR is plotting the destruction of America. You fail to recognize that there are American Muslim citizens fighting stigma, bigotry and intolerance. CAIR is a bona fide anti-Defamation league. You paint everyone in the organization with a broad brush and blame them for the alleged actions or opinions of a few. Do you actually think that all the CAIR members attending the banquet want to be terrorists or support terrorism?
Ann Coulter wants to bomb all the Islamic countries and convert the survivors to Christianity. If you want a fake anti-Defamation organization, check out Bill Donohue's Catholic League. What are the big stories on their front page?
1) They are complaining that Hillary Clinton is anti-Catholic for not marching in a St. Patrick's Day parade.
2) They are fighting emergency contraception for rape victims.
3) They are complaining about a musical "Stairway to Hell" being performed in a NYC bar.
You also fail to acknowledge the example Sestak can set and solutions he can offer. You make it sound like he is going to go there and say something against Israel. Though Sestak will undoubtedly make some strong statements in favor of Israel and peace, I doubt he will be "boo-ed" by this supposedly radical organization.
Check out their site http://www.cair.com/
After Sestak speaks at the CAIR event, it will be so anti-climatic that a month later you'll be hard pressed to find anyone talking about it. In particular, when Sestak posts the transcript of his CAIR speech to his website, the sheer reasonableness of it will contrast with inflamatory rhetoric that opposed it.
I'm tempted to go to the event myself to view the end of this tempest in a teapot. Does anybody know what is on the menu (besides crow for Joe's detractors)?
Daddy:
From Salon:
Islam's Flawed Spokesmen
http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/26/muslims/index.html?x
Also from Salon:
Were we unfair to CAIR?:
http://archive.salon.com/news/letters/2001/10/01/cair/print.html
There is TONS more, please find the courage to read it ALL.
This is not a Dem/Rep issue, so resist the temptation to make it one - that's what CAIR does to fool you. Don't be a fool.
Anonymous-
That's some nice cherry-picking of two articles from over 5 years ago. Still, a fair reader of the articles should realize that there were still many unanswered questions in the first few weeks after 9/11.
While the articles hardly praises CAIR's Ibrahim Hooper (who clearly does not like "Israel's occupation"), Hooper does make the following point:
Hooper says that his attitude about whoever is behind the attacks is "go get 'em," but his job is to preserve the rights of Muslims in this country and be vigilant in that task. He criticizes the investigation into the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that when law enforcement refers to "associates" of the terrorists, they're stretching the term. Law enforcement is using the term "associates" too loosely, he says, in a way to target Muslims. "It's like the 'Six degrees of Kevin Bacon' game," he says. "No Muslim is more than six degrees away from Osama bin Laden."
We now know that the US rounded up and detained thousands of Muslims. Many were deported on minor immigration violations (some of which were due to delays by the US in processing their legitimate student or work visas). The use of WWII style internment camps was advocated in some quarters. I don't recall massive round-ups of Irish immigrants when the IRA was making news.
CAIR has denounced terrorism. Period. Why do they have to play the "denouncing" game and list each individual organization as a litmus test?
I was at dinner last week with two (Jewish) friends of mine to get their take on the issue. The husband thought that CAIR should explicitly condemn Hamas, while the wife felt that the blanket denouncement of all terrorism was better. (Readers will be pleased to know that the husband did NOT accuse his wife of supporting Hamas or seek a divorce.)
The other reality is that recently Hamas was democratically elected (an election we touted, until we failed to get our hand-picked choices elected). One does not have to be a "fan" of Hamas to accept the election and try to move forward. Israel has engaged in actions (like cluster bombing Lebanese civilian targets, or destroying an apartment building with suspected terrorists and killing women/children in the process) that those on the receiving end perceive as beyond mere self-defense. The "right to exist" for Israel (or the US) is based upon killing in self-defense and minimizing civilian casualties. Violations of that tenant (real or imagined) must be confronted, investigated, debated, resolved and, in the future, prevented.
The world-wide consenus that invading Iraq was not a legitimate act of self-defense by the US has lead to anti-US criticism and increased terrorism recruitment. This does not mean that every critic is supporting terrorism. CAIR can criticize Israel all day long, but that does not make them supporters of terrorism.
I question the actions of my own government every day (torture, false imprisonment, "disappearing people", suspension of rights to trial, illegal wiretapping, etc.) all in the name of self-defense. It is hardly a leap to believe that Israel, in a far more dangerous situation, engages in similar and even more extreme measures. It is perfectly legitimate for groups to question Israel, but such questioning does NOT give aid to Hamas anymore than Americans questioning the Bush adminstration aids Al Quada. (Though many neocons would disagree with this analogy because they erroneously believe that the exercise of critical free speech hurts our Democracy.)
The anti-free-speech crowd is trying to stifle Sestak, a high-ranking 31-year Veteran, on the notion that he is somehow supporting terrorism by speaking to an anti-Defamation league. Accepting Muslims as individuals and NOT lumping them all with the terrorists requires our government officials to meet with groups like CAIR and find solutions to reducing the stereo-typing of Muslims in America.
Going to events like this is part of Sestak's job.
If I remember correctly Hitler was a German. Does it mean all Germans are Hitler?
Actually, the "crowd" is trying to protect a good man (Sestak)from being manipulated by a Terrorist Supporting Front Group for Hamas (CAIR).
You can equivocate and dodge the facts all day long.
Some facts are:
1) CAIR was created by TERRORIST Musa Marzook.
Senior Hamas member Marzook conspired with Omar Ahmad, Nihad Awad, and others to establish what the United States government has termed “front organizations” to support and advance the interests of Hamas and radical Islam in the United States. IAP provided CAIR with employees, funding, operational expertise, and ideological guidance. IAP was found Liable for aiding and abetting Hamas in the murder of a 17-year-old American
2) Omar Ahmad (CAIR FOUNDER) was captured on FBI surveillance tapes at Hamas meetings in the United States during 1993 explaining that the IAP could not, for political reasons, admit its support for Hamas, and then discussing how the Hamas agenda could be cloaked and advanced. They "created" CAIR to reach these goals.
3) Randall "Ismail" Royer was CAIR-National Civil Rights Coordinator & Communications Specialist and was CONVICTED and PLEAD GULITY to Committing Terrorist Crimes while working for CAIR. (He was NOT a former CAIR Officer, he was getting CAIR paychecks while aiding Al Qaeda to kill Americans in Afghanistan, an offence of which he PLEAD GUILTY)
4) Ghassan Elashi was the Founder Of CAIR-Texas and was CONVICTED for Committing Terrorist Crimes while working for CAIR. NOT a former CAIR Officer, but a current CAIR officer while committing his crimes for the CAIR affiliated Holy Land Foundation.
There is much, much more on CAIR.
These are just 4 undisputable facts.
Hide from FACTS if you must, but you are flushing Joe Sestak, a good man, down the toilet to protect a terrorist front group.
Anonymous (still)-
Oh, so now, Sestak is a good man that you are trying to protect? Gee, what a difference a few months make. Last fall, the anti-Sestak crowd was portraying Sestak as a manipulative, machiavellian opportunist. Suddenly, he's a poor dupe needed your help. Gee, with friends like you, Joe hardly needs enemies.
1) From what I can find, Musa Marzook funded Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP) in the early 1990's.
CAIR branched off from the IAP, with members leaving for the new organization. (Hey, maybe it was the anti-violence crowd that didn't agree with radical elements in IAP.) You list actions of IAP aiding Hamas, not CAIR, which was a separate entity.
2) Again, refering to IAP support for Hamas. I haven't seen anything on CAIR's site supporting Hamas.
3) Okay, so Royer worked for CAIR. Besides a paycheck, was CAIR using ITS funds or official capacity to support terrorism?
The indictment against Royer make NO mention of CAIR. (Link to Text of Indictment)
4) Same point for Ghassan Elashi.
Okay, so terrorists have managed to infiltrate or find employment with CAIR. Does these mean that every member is a terrorist? The Black Panthers almost certainly had overlap with the NAACP, but no rational person would equate the two organizations based upon a few common members.
Timothy McVeigh (the Oklahoma City bomber) had been a registered member of the Republican Party in New York and was a member of the National Rifle Association (NRA) while in the military. Does this make the NRA a terrorist organization? (Or the Republican Party, or the military?)
CAIR is a Muslim organization. Some percentage of Muslims are going support Hamas over Israel and find their way into CAIR. There are American terrorists (KKK and white-supremist militias) that are big NRA supporters so they can legally purchase assault weapons under the guise of "hunting" animals (translation: non-whites, for the race-war they see coming).
Whether or not CAIR was intended to be a terrorist front group, it is not that NOW. In the wake of the anti-Muslim sentiment that followed 9/11, America Muslims sought out an anti-Defamation advocate. Rational elements promoting peace and condemning terrorism control CAIR and its message. Considering all the anti-Islamic sentiment they need to address, I think anti-Defamation is occupying all their time.
BTW, I am getting tired of posters hiding behind "Anonymous". Try taking off your hoods, extinguishing your crosses, and posting under your real names (if you dare). I suspect the authors are either local GOP taking the opportunity to hit Joe or members of the group anti-CAIR, rather than ordinary concerned citizens. The talking points seem to have a common source.
You admit:
- "CAIR branched off from the IAP, with members leaving for the new organization" (Thanks for admitting this)
- "I haven't seen anything on CAIR's site supporting Hamas" (Why would you, Hamas is a Terrorist Org - however CAIR admits this publically at rallies and interviews)
- "Okay, so Royer worked for CAIR" (You admit a fact CAIR obscured for years. Thanks.)
- "Okay, so terrorists have managed to infiltrate or find employment with CAIR" (Not only "infiltrate" - They Founded CAIR. Thanks for admitting this though)
- "Whether or not CAIR was intended to be a terrorist front group, it is not that NOW" (An assumption only an hopeful idiot would make. CAIR's true purpose hasn't changed since day one)
Your admissions should wake you up to the fact that clearly, CAIR is bad news.
You seem like a nice person, just easily misled. Good luck.
My point, which you failed to get, was that you are engaging in guilt by association. You conveniently ignored my point about Timothy McVeigh and the NRA. For that matter, should we shut down an entire police force when a few cops engage in a bad or racially biased shooting? Violent types that like guns and killing are attracted to the NRA and police forces, though the organizations are not seeking out killers. By the same token, a pro-Islamic group is going to attract some anti-Israeli radicals.
I do not accept your premise that CAIR was intended to be a terrorist group, but rather was pointing out that there is no evidence (but lots of innuendo) that they are currently supporting terrorism, which is the only relevant point. You spin around these links to terrorists and draw unsupported conclusions based on so-called "facts". My "admission" of your facts was merely a means to show they were non-germain to the discussion since they did not lead to the conclusions you attempted to draw.
Neither Randall Royer nor Ghassan Elashi founded CAIR. You also failed to acknowledge the point that Royer's indictment made absolutely no mention of CAIR. Had he been operating with their funding/support/encouragement, that little point may have come up.
You just don't seem to get that an organization is not directly responsible for the actions of a few of its members, when those actions are directly opposite to the organization's actual behavior. Oh, and how shocking that CAIR obscured that one of it's members got convicted of terrorism. Did you expect them to brag about it anymore than the NRA would have bragged about Timothy McVeigh?
The concepts of "innocent until proven guilty" or "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" have eluded you, though you have a handle on "guilt by association". Not a single point you think you made would hold up in court.
Here is an example of some other idiot that I don't agree with connecting the ADL (Jewish Anti-Defamation League) with the JDL (Jewish Defense league) with the inflamatory title: ADL/JDL: BEDFELLOWS IN TERROR by a Rev. Ted Pike of the National Prayer Network. The false arguments and accusations are summed up by the following statement: "The JDL is the clandestine terrorist arm of ADL/Mossad. While ADL poses as the “civil liberties” branch of B’nai B’rith International, ostensibly disapproving of JDL and thus 'moderate' in comparison, JDL is radical Zionism's down-and-dirty gestapo."
Now, if you can get past the hate-speech, try substituting Hamas for JDL, CAIR for ADL and Islam for Zionism. With these substitutions, I'm hard pressed to distinguish your arguments from those of Rev. Ted.
Maybe I should call you Rev. Anonymous?
The anti-CAIR forces are no more capable of believing the good intentions of a Muslim organization, than the White Supremists are believing the NAACP is not after their jobs and women, or anti-Semites accepting that Jews are not secretly running the world.
The anti-CAIR crowds need a dose of tolerance and common sense. They are not going to receive it from Anonymous posters on a blog.
You are pretending to be a nice person (looking out for Sestak), but are in fact, trying to mislead the easily misled.
Posting Anonymously does not enhance your argument.
Since the inception of this blog, I've gone toe-to-toe (or rather keystroke-to-keystroke) with hundreds of cowards hiding behind anonimity (or maybe just one or two, Anonymous is so hard to count accurately). I've yet to find one Anonymous poster willing to put his name and reputation behind the rhetoric, especially ones that believe the "facts" are on their side. "Courage of your convictions" vs "Cowardice of your disingenuous-ness".
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home