#1
LOL, Anonymoose! That was classic memery in action. After all the rooftop clamor, it was rendered moot in a few sentences - and minutes. Loved the Russkie General's droll style, LOL.
An Arab nation with ties to 9-11 has pledged a major endowment to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, even as the Washington-based nonprofit group insists it receives no foreign support.
The United Arab Emirates recently announced on its official government website that it has set up an endowment serving as a source of income for CAIR. The amount of the funding is undisclosed, but sources say it will be enough to help CAIR finance the construction of a new $24 million office building and a planned $50 million public-relations campaign aimed at repairing Islam's -- and the UAE's -- image in America.
A recent Washington Post-ABC poll found that a majority of Americans think Muslims are more prone to resort to violence, and more Americans now have a negative view of Islam than right after the 9-11 terror attacks.
Americans also have a lower opinion of the UAE now, thanks to its recent bid to take over U.S. port operations. The political storm over the deal drew increased attention to the Arab country's ties to terrorism.
CAIR -- Washington's biggest Muslim lobbying group -- is quoted in the UAE statement, but has not released its own statement. It is not commenting publicly about the size of the endowment or other details.
But the UAE, which formally recognized the Taliban and acted as a launching point for the 9-11 hijackers, has already taken a nearly $1 million stake in CAIR's existing headquarters near the U.S. Capitol. As first reported in the book, Infiltration, Dubai holds the deed to the building. The transaction took place in 2002, according to local property records.
The strengthened financial partnership comes at a critical time for both parties. Rest at link.
Posted by: ed ||
06/20/2006 08:56 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
A recent Washington Post-ABC poll found that a majority of Americans think Muslims are more prone to resort to violence, and more Americans now have a negative view of Islam than right after the 9-11 terror attacks.
So utterly profound, so perceptive. How can I survive another day without subscribing to the Washington Post?
If there is such a thing as definitive Moon-battery, the following Oxford spew gets the big Moon-Howler Award
Monthly Review
15/06/06
The Muslim Presence in the Racist Mind
by Arshin Adib-Moghaddam "Arse" for short
In one of her last essays published in the United Kingdom, the late Susan Sontag compared the pictures of tortured Iraqi inmates at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq with the photographs "of black victims of lynching taken between the 1880s and 1930s, which show smalltown Americans, no doubt most of them church-going, respectable citizens, grinning, beneath the naked mutilated body of a black man or woman hanging behind them from a tree." Sontag was amongst the few voices who opposed the collective transmutation of the transitory mood of anger after 11 September into hatred channeled primarily towards the Islamic worlds. She sensed the dangers of mobilising collective passions for political ends and the dichotomisation of the world into good and evil. It was that period, one remembers, that produced Anne Coulter's demand that "[w]e should invade [Muslim] countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" and suggestion that, since "[t]here's nothing like horrendous physical pain to quell angry fanatics," "a couple of well-aimed nuclear weapons" can transform "Islamic fanatics" into "gentle little lambs." Coulter was not the only one infusing public discourse with tightly packaged hate messages: Fred Ikle, for instance, alluded to a nuclear war that "might end up displacing Mecca and Medina with two large radioactive craters"; John Cooksey suggested that any airline passenger wearing a "diaper on his head" should be "pulled over"; and Jerry Falwell asserted on 60 Minutes that "Muhammad was a terrorist" and that he was "a violent man, a man of war," a statement for which he later apologised. It was that period, in short, which made the Muslim Vogelfrei culturally and, to a certain extent, legally as well. Re. "collective transmutation of the transitory mood of anger": gotta watch the "transmuter" denial.
One would have expected many analysts and critics to have understood that hostility to the Islamic worlds stems from the same source that had nourished anti-Semitic ideas; that racism is a grammar with interchangeable referents (Jews, African-Americans, Latinos, the Japanese after Pearl Harbor, the Vietnamese, Arabs, etc.) and interchangeable signifiers (kike, nigger, caffer, greaser, Jap, gook, hadji, etc.). Instead, alas, indiscriminate violence is normalised: in Kabul and Kunduz, Baghdad and Falluja, by organised armies; in Haditha and Abu Ghraib by sadistic individuals; and in New York, Bali, Madrid, and London by nihilistic terrorists. "War you wanted, war you want?" Fallaci writes. "Good. As far as I am concerned, war it is and war it will be. Until the last breath." Yeah, buy a gun
As a result of this massive upsurge of anti-Islamic sentiments, Muslims are simply not judged as individuals anymore. Their very presence calls for management strategies -- Islam in itself has been turned into a police matter. In other words, the state and its apologists put Islam under permanent surveillance, and we are placed in a state of perpetual alert, because of its alleged potencies to disrupt our everyday life. This obsession with everything Islamic, in turn, has also created a perverse desire for it -- the desire to control it, to liberate it, and, finally, to conquer it as the ultimate imperial prize. Why is this simplistic notion of the Muslim presence amongst us, abstracting as it does from the intrinsic plurality of Islam, so pervasive? In a networked society such as ours, where the "other" can be downloaded with a mouse-click, what explains the re-emergence of latent racism? How can we not differentiate between such disparate objects of analysis as the very real threat of a transnational terrorist sect, the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, and the Muslim next door? Why this tendency to subsume everything under one mnemonic? Muslims are unicultist - I caught the jargon contagion - in Dar-Islam, and pluralist in Dar-Harb. Like I wrote: buy a gun.
#2
Yeah, think I'll do the slip-n-slide with your daughter, dude. You're the racist bitch. We just be sportin, y'know? Great fun. The more pious and full of wanky shit the Daddy be, they more fun be da daughter, y'know? It's like the Catholic Grrlz Gone Wild like Mega-Sized. bro She's sweet fun, thanks Daddy. you putz.
#6
Problem is how many muslims are peace-loving? I know a few of them, and they have something in common:
-They work instead of living from welfare
-They don't wear beards (wearing a beard means the guy is an islamist not a mere Muslim)
-They don't have the mark on the forefront from people who don't miss a prayer.
-Their wives are not veiled.
Now are we allowed to hate non peace loving Muslims or Muslims who would side with those nion peace loving Muslims or would not report the terrorist who is trying to kill us or our children?
I can thank Rantburg for being able to quickly detect the context distortion in the above headline. Muslims are not a race, and playing the race card is one of their supreme "play-the-victim-to-get-special-dispensation" tricks in undermining a host culture. And so, thank you Rantburg!
Islam needs to go buy a huge dildo so it can f&ck itself properly.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice shocked Indonesia during a recent trip. Instead of focusing on familiar US-Indonesia issues -- terrorism, business, and military ties -- Rice promised funds for an Indonesian version of ``Sesame Street." The Muslim nation saw her unveil America's newest agent abroad -- a big red puppet named Elmo. A local blogger wrote, ``This is one export the US can be truly proud of."
The news from the Muslim world is not that anti-Americanism has grown -- that's old hat. The real news is that America's image in Muslim lands is starting to get better. Government and corporations are re tooling US public diplomacy in the Middle East, South Asia, and Southeast Asia, with encouraging results. Still, America's overseas communication efforts remain paltry compared with private-sector marketing campaigns. Puppet diplomacy can help, but restoring America's image will take much more.
Although Americans have seen numerous reports of growing anti-Americanism in Arab and Muslim lands since 2001, this is not the whole story. In focus groups conducted for the Council on Foreign Relations in Egypt, Morocco, and Indonesia, people still admired American education, science, economic strength, and law. Moreover, polls show that immediate local issues -- education, political change, corruption, and job opportunities -- concern most Muslims more than Iraq and the West Bank.
These findings suggest bases for a more effective public diplomacy. America's message in the Muslim world should be: partners in development and democracy. Since Karen Hughes became under secretary for public diplomacy and public affairs last year, she has begun to craft a message about reform and change.
Secretary Rice's speech to Jakarta intellectuals stressing partnership in education and healthcare was another notable change. The US Agency for International Development has launched a pilot program plugging its good works in Indonesia. The recent earthquake there was followed by widely-reported American relief efforts, too.
Together with America's generous, well-publicized relief after the devastating 2004 tsunami, these efforts have turned around perceptions of America among Indonesians. The latest poll shows 44 percent are favorable to America and 41 percent unfavorable. That's quite a shift from the 85 percent unfavorable -- 15 percent favorable ratio found in a 2003 poll.
Realizing that anti-Americanism is bad for business, the private sector is also getting involved. Hughes encouraged US business leaders to contribute $100 million to earthquake-stricken Pakistan, while ExxonMobil, M cDonald's, Microsoft, and other big firms formed Business for Diplomatic Action, which seeks to rebuild bridges overseas.
This good news is obviously welcome, but much remains to be done. The worldwide US public diplomacy budget is only $350 million -- one-fifth of Coke's global ad spending for its products.
Of course, a new American approach to communicating with Muslims faces obstacles. One cause of Muslim outrage is the gap between America's democratic rhetoric and the reality of Washington's support for authoritarian leaders in the Islamic world. Our talk of democracy and reform will not be credible if it is just spin; it must be reflected in deeds, too.
Moreover, there are limits to even the best communication effort. Policy differences over Iraq, and the war on terror (which, to many Muslims, looks like a war on Islam) affect how Egyptians, Pakistanis, and other Muslims see America.
Nevertheless, the evidence indicates that renewed US efforts have started to change Muslim minds about America. Greater success will take more public and private resources, along with tact and creativity. Reaching the Muslim world demands a more serious effort by America to put its best foot forward -- even if it is a red and furry one.
Craig Charney is president of Charney Research, a polling firm, and a consultant to the Council on Foreign Relations. Steven A. Cook is the Douglas Dillon fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
#4
Charney and Cook need to do more research. A later episode of the Indonesian Sesame Street featured Bert and Ernie crushed beneath a wall, Oscar the Grouch calling for "jihad against the apes, pigs, and fake-muppets-who-are-really-guys-in-suits" (which led to the lynching of Big Bird and Miss Piggy), and Cookie Monster blowing himself up in the middle of a pack of Fraggles -- apparently he was under the impression that martyrdom would land him in paradise with 72 eternally-regenerating oatmeal-raisin cookies.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
06/20/2006 7:34 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Whoa, that's mighty complicated, RC, you sure 'about all that? :) 72 oatmeal raisin cookies are a powerful incentive, though. I think I'm there, bro.
#6
You don't even want to know what happened to Sweetums.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
06/20/2006 8:51 Comments ||
Top||
#7
One aspect of the war on terror that is rarely mentioned is Arab imperialism. When Islam spread out of Arab nations it took Arab culture with it and tried to smother the native cultures.
We should be promoting those native cultures, even if it does not remove Islam, if it gives a Hindu/Islam blend a chance to dominate Indonesia instead of Wahhabism we all benefit.
Hat tip No Pasaran.
The Current Wave of Hostility Will Ebb. But This Is About More Than the Iraq War.
By Robert Kagan
I recently took part in a panel discussion in London about civil conflict and "failed states" around the world, centered on the interesting work of the British economist Paul Collier. The panelists included the son of a famous African liberation-leader-turned-dictator, the former leader of a South American guerrilla group, a Pakistani journalist, a U.N. official and the head of a nongovernmental humanitarian organization. Naturally, our reasoned and learned discussion quickly transmogrified into an extended round-robin denunciation of American foreign policy.
The interesting thing was that the Iraq war was far from the main topic. George W. Bush hardly came up. The panelists focused instead on a long list of grievances against the United States stretching back over six decades. There was much discussion of the "colonial legacy" and "neo-colonialism," especially in the Middle East and Africa. And even though the colonies in question had been ruled by Europeans, panelists insisted that this colonial past was the source of most of the world's resentment toward the United States. There was much criticism of American policy during the Cold War for imposing evil regimes, causing poverty and suffering throughout the world, and blocking national liberation movements as a service to oil companies and multinational corporations. When the moderator brought up nuclear weapons proliferation and Iran, the panelists talked about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
As for "failed states" and civil conflict, several panelists agreed that they were always and everywhere the fault of the United States. The African insisted that Bosnia and Kosovo were destroyed by American military interventions, not by Slobodan Milosevic, and that Somalia was a failed state because of American policy. The Pakistani insisted the United States was to blame for Afghanistan's descent into anarchy in the 1990s. The former guerrilla leader insisted that most if not all problems in the Western Hemisphere were the product of over a century of American imperialism.
Some of these charges had more merit than others, but even the moderator became exasperated by the general refusal to place any responsibility on the peoples and leaders of countries plagued by civil conflict. Yet the panelists held their ground. When someone pointed out that the young boys fighting in African tribal and ethnic wars could hardly be fighting against American "imperialism," the African dictator's son insisted they were indeed. When the head of the NGO paused from gnashing his teeth at American policy to suggest that perhaps the United States was not to blame for the genocide in Rwanda, the African dictator's son argued that it was, because it had failed to intervene. The United States was to blame both for the suffering it caused and the suffering it did not alleviate.
The discussion was illuminating. There is no question that the Iraq war has aroused hostility toward the United States around the world. And there are many legitimate criticisms to be made about America's conduct of the war. But it is worth keeping in mind that this anger against the United States also has deep roots.
The Iraq war has rekindled myriad old resentments toward the United States, a thousand different complaints, each one specific to a time and place far removed from the present conflict. It has united a diverse spectrum of anti-American views in common solidarity -- the Marxist Africans still angry over American policy in the 1960s and '70s, the Pakistanis still furious at America's (bipartisan) support for the dictator Gen. Mohammed Zia ul-Haq in the 1970s and '80s, the French theoreticians who started railing against the American "hyperpower" in the 1990s, That would be the socialist Hubert Védrine, in his eponymous book ("Against the hyperpower", IIRC), but the late socialist french president François Mitterrand used to say that the "real ennemy was the USA" back in the 80's, and JFM commented that Shiraq's biography sez he thinks alike.
the Latin ex-guerrillas still waging their decades-old struggle against North American imperialism, the Arab activists still angry about 1948. At a conference in the Middle East a few months ago, I heard a moderate Arab scholar complaining bitterly about how American policy had alienated the Arab peoples in recent years. A former Clinton official sitting next to him was nodding vigorously but then suddenly stopped when the Arab scholar made clear that by "recent years" he meant ever since 1967.
The Iraq war has also made anti-Americanism respectable again, as it was during the Cold War but had not been since the demise of the Soviet Union. People who a decade ago would not have been granted a platform to spout the kind of arguments I heard on this panel are now given star treatment in the Western and global media. Such people were always there, but no one was listening to them. Today they dominate the airwaves, and this in turn is helping produce an increasingly hostile global public opinion, as evidenced in a recent Pew poll.
There are two lessons to be drawn from all this. One is that in time the current tidal wave of anti-Americanism will ebb, just as in the past. Smarter American diplomacy can help, of course, as can success in places such as Iraq. But the other lesson is not to succumb to the illusion that America was beloved until the spring of 2003 and will be beloved again when George W. Bush leaves office. Some folks seem to believe that by returning to the policies of Harry Truman, Dean Acheson and John F. Kennedy, America will become popular around the world. I like those policies, too, but let's not kid ourselves. They also sparked enormous resentment among millions of peoples in many countries, resentments that are now returning to the fore. The fact is, because America is the dominant power in the world, it will always attract criticism and be blamed both for what it does and what it does not do.
No one should lightly dismiss the current hostility toward the United States. International legitimacy matters. It is important in itself, and it affects others' willingness to work with us. But neither should we be paralyzed by the unavoidable resentments that our power creates. If we refrained from action out of fear that others around the world would be angry with us, then we would never act. And count on it: They'd blame us for that, too.
Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund, writes a monthly column for The Post.
#1
Damnit, Kagan, stop repeating the BS. Big surprise. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Duh.
What's the point in caring what "they" think? The assertion that we need them, that "international legitimacy" matters, is grossly and obviously specious - Kagan should go soak his head for a month - it's a grand farce promoted by those who claim to be able to anoint and convey the spurious label of legitimacy. Self-appointed authorities who have no grounds for the claim. Bullshit alert.
Ignore them all, the UN, EU, et al, and do what is best for the US. Let's just see how far they get without us, without their "action arm" and "funding arm" to pay for their pony shows, to make shit happen, to put teeth into their drivel, to clean up the messes they allow to fester into crisis with their hand-wringing mewling and pointless debate, to save the lame from their own lack of foresight, to bolster them with aid in spite of their ineptitude and congenital corruption. How many "states" would literally have failed without US trade, foreign aid, political support, and the defensive umbrella we have provided for the last 60+ years, I wonder... It almost seems as though we are the ones who actually convey legitimacy, in our stumbling cowboyish unsophisticated way. This shit almost makes me want to become a pure isolationist for a decade or two to make the point.
What makes the most sense, in a world of ankle-biting insanity as we see here, is to set our course and make it clear that any who recognize benefit in joining us is welcome to do so. But this is where we're going, period. Choose and STFU about it.
In the end, no matter what any "expert" says, other countries will do what suits them and butters their bread. Period. If we have parallel win-win interests we can cooperate in the venture. If not, so be it.
The farce of pandering and trying to buy influence with lavish aid and by suborning our own interests has been thoroughly disproven over the last 40-50 years. This is the threadbare and failed State Department Free Money, Accommodation, and Concession Model. Those who we thought to be allies are not, except where it is in their interests, where the getting is good. They jettison us for momentary domestic political gain, then decry the "split" and blame it on us. Bullshit rising. If aid or compromise or accommodation or concession is needed to find middle ground, we are always expected to be the ones to do the aiding, compromising, accommodating, and conceding - and then they stab us in the back anyway. Bullshit rising. Nothing in the history of our foreign relations is clearer - so why drag up the same old tired shit, over and over again?
Bullshit flood. Pass out the snorkels.
This is repeating failed actions and expecting a different result.
#2
This is the losers resentment of the winners. It's the resentments of schoolyard rewritten as geopolitics. It's not fair the goodlooking people are also smart, succesful and people look up to them and try to copy what they do. All the nerds hate them, so they are not really popular. What's amazing is how widespread this view is. I know otherwise intelligent people who suscribe to this rubbish.
#4
A couple days ago I had the luck to find an interview of Pierre Closterman a Free French (1) ace pilot and he tells that at the end of the war his wingman (another Free French) advised him to leave France because people wouldn't like to owe something to someone. Closterman himself found that French people were uneasy in front of those who had not surrendered.
(1) A real Free French ie one who belonged to Free France proper (that is before July, 22, 1942 when Free France became France combattante) and thus joined before El Alamein, Stalingrad, Torch.
#5
The isolationistic approach (we don't care what the others think) adavocated by some people in this blmog has the drawback that it lets the enemy fight unopposed the propaganda war until one day America finds herself alone against the whole world.
But the article starts from the false premise than it is to America should alter its policy to reach for the others when it should be that America should make an effort for having the others shere her views. In blunt terms America sucks in the PR area.
Let's give a concrete example: After the embassy bombings in Africa the Clinton adminsitrations promised ito indemnify the African victims. When the indemnification proccess dragged for years, the people in the country became resentful not to Al Quaida but to America.
What should have been done: 1) Highligt that in order to kill a dozen Americans Al Quaida had not hesitated to kill two hundred Blacks and wound a thousand other (many of them mutilated and in danger of starving). Then continue by pointing of how little value were the lives of Blacks for wahabists/Al Quaidists even when they were Muslims 2) Point that the perpetrators were Saudis, that their acts were the consequence of the official Saudi religion ie wahabism and that thus it was to Saudi Arabia and the Bin Laden family to indemnify the victims not to America. But help the victims in the legal proccedings against Saudi Arabia and the Bin Laden family. 3) Unlike Clinton promising nothing but provide some limited and fast aid to victims as an urgency succour but present it as something given from America's humanity not as something it owed to the victims and that it was to the Saudis to pay the bill. And now we would have a country where wahabis would fear for their lives, where people at the very least would not be hostile to America and we would have planted the germs of discord between Black and Arab Muslims.
#6
PCism still controls the American dialog. Hell, we haven't yet called Islam the problem, though many get it, and many more are added every day. That we are losing the PR War, as you point out, is no surprise. The dialog is slowly transforming. From Extremists and Fundamentalists to Islamist terrorists to simply Islam takes time. We haven't but a handful of politicians willing to state the case correctly, yet. Thus it's no surprise that we lose the PR war with the Wahhabists for the time being. Eventually we will finally call a spade a spde and Islam will be on trial in far more venues than the few places like Rantburg.
Of course it's even worse in the MSM as they evolve in the opposite direction, ending with benign terms such as militants and gunmen. Clearly, they are attempting to prevent people from seeing the truth of the matter, but they are, slowly, losing the battle of ideas in the marketplace. The circulation figures and opinion polls regard Islam prove the point.
Indeed, we should be putting the equation differently to the world. We're getting there, just far more slowly than those who get it now prefer.
#7
There was much discussion of the "colonial legacy" and "neo-colonialism," especially in the Middle East and Africa
No comment about Soviet colonialism in Eastern Europe? No comment about various Middle Eastern, African, etc stooges and lackeys of Moscow who played their country and people for power? Like the moonbats unwillingness to face facts, these people, who Blame American[tm] will never be able to admit they themselves played the game and are responsible for their miserable failures far more than anything some haberdasher from Kansas City Missouri is responsible for.
#9
You know, there are still people in Israel who believe that if we just explained to the Europeans... I must admit, I find Americans falling into the same trap somewhat entertaining. Just look at the list of the panelists. Scum vermin doesn't start to describe them.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
06/20/2006 19:32 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Thanks for the link!
I'd like to say that I wrote the essay, but I didn't; it's by the great Norwegian blogger, Fjordman. He has chosen not to be a contributor at Gates of Vienna, which means that he sends his guest-posts to me, and I post them for him. That's why they have my byline, although I credit him at the top of the post.
I wish I could claim credit for such fine work, but I can't!
If you could change your post to attribute the piece to Fjordman, we'd both appreciate it.
#4
An excellent post, indeed! Thank you, Baron, for hosting it! And thank you, tipper, for bringing it to our attention!
Fjordman hits many important points - and weaves them together into a coherent warning. Many of us feel it, intuitively, and recognize America is at great risk. Immigration is an internal linchpin issue which will certainly dramatically alter, if not decide, our future. Islam is the bloody external threat that must be forced to reform or be destroyed.
We get it. When will our politicians catch on - and do our bidding?
The greatest dangers to our Republic come from within, and civil war comes from allowing those dangers to grow into a crisis that threatens the Republic. This confluence of true dangers - diversity, multiculturalism, Islam, socialism, etc. - is creating a "perfect storm" crisis, and civil war will, IMHO, in some form, be necessary.
Enough with the phoney civility about how we can't do this or that because, well, because it's not us, it's not nice, it's not that bad (yet), yadda yadda - history is full of such myopic hand-wringing just before the storm... wasted words which are merely a distraction from the hard work at hand.
We're just catching on to the fact that we're being hijacked - by various interests who seek either our outright destruction or such drastic changes that they will eventually have the same result. Some of the passengers get it, some don't.
Those who do get together and pool ideas about how to stop it, how to regain control - or die trying.
#6
The currents of this river of history are already in motion. Civil War is unavoidable. The interference in that war by outside powers and interests will in turn spark a true imperial period. Self fulfilling prophecy.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
06/20/2006 21:52 Comments ||
Top||
#9
1) Many of the new immigrants, legal and illegal, are more skilled than popularly imagined. I saw a study recently (can't find the link, however, sorry) that said that many new immigrants had better than a high school education. These folks are especially likely to settle in as new, loyal Americans.
2) They also tend to be more conservative, socially and politically, than popularly imagined. Why do you think Bush is working so hard to get them to vote Republican?
3) The English literacy rates for the children of Mexican illegal immigrants is higher than the rates for the children of comparable immigrants from 1850 to 1930. The children of Mexican illegals understand very well that if they want to make it in the U.S., they need to learn English, and they do.
4) Most of the Mexican immigrants, legal or not, are here precisely because they don't want to be Mexicans any more. If they did, they'd stay home -- after all, there's still 130 million Mexicans south of the Rio Grande. The people who come here today, from Mexico or elsewhere, are similar to the Irish, Italian, Serb, etc immigrants of before -- they have more courage to take risks, and more drive to succeed, than their counterparts who stay home. That's why they come here -- to succeed.
I appreciate Fjordman's post and I understand where he's coming from, but I disagree with a fair bit of his analysis, and most of this conclusions. I hope he keeps writing, the debate is very helpful.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/20/2006 22:04 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Steve, I'm sorry but I don't remember where you live. However, if it is in California, it surely is not San Diego. If the new immigrants have better than a high school education, then they are probably not illegals from Mexico. No one has a problem with legal immigrants, only with the illegal ones. The whole wink and a nod thing that our Government has been doing on immigration since Reagan is sickening. It was bad enough when Clinton did it, because after all Democrats only have to obey laws that advance their agenda and rules are for Republicans. But for the Bush administration to do it is a deeply wounding betrayal. I expected better of him.
#11
amen RWV. Steve, in the border regions the illegals barely speak passable spanish. High school education? What are you smoking? As far as the Aztlan crap - that's a power grab by hispanic American losers who want to set up a rump Mexican state. They are the same assholes we all noted in Ethnic Studies in college, mouthing off about the "homeland" but never dragging their ass back there. Underemployed because of their major, they agitate and teach on campus
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/20/2006 23:12 Comments ||
Top||
What will follow will be a rather frank discussion of our reporting of and involvement in the Rove indictment matter. If you like simple answers or quick resolutions, turn back now. This is our report to our readership. Our primary sources for this report are unnamed lying career federal law enforcement and federal government officials speaking on condition of anonymity. This report was developed under the supervision of all of Truthout's senior editors, which should be taken as an indication that we view this matter with the utmost seriousness.
For the record, we did reach Kimberly Nerheim, a spokesperson for Patrick Fitzgerald, and asked her these questions: Did a grand jury return an indictment of Karl Rove? Did Patrick Fitzgerald send a fax to Robert Luskin similar to that described in recent press reports? Is Patrick Fitzgerald's probe of the Plame matter still ongoing? Her response to each question was identical: "I have no comment." "are you stoopid? If it ain't true I'm not gonna confirm it....moonbats"
The Rove indictment story is way beyond - in terms of complexity - any other story we have ever covered mostly lost cats and the availability of PO Boxes. In essence, we found out something we were not supposed to find out, and things exploded from there. We were not prepared for the backlash. "we're not ready for 'the truth'"..flashbacks to some movie ..
On Tuesday, June 13, when the mainstream media broke their stories that Karl Rove had been exonerated, there were frank discussions amongst our senior editors about retracting our stories outright. The problem we wrestled with was what exactly do we retract? Should we say that Rove had not in fact been indicted? Should we say that our sources provided us with false or misleading information? Had Truthout been used? Without a public statement from Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald we felt that it was premature to retract our report. "We were suckers and DNA proves it's Karl Rove's illegitmate love child? Nooooooo.....!"
It's not like they could admit they were wrong. Just wouldn't be the right thing to do ...
After spending the past month retracing our steps and confirming facts, we've come full circle. Our sources continue to maintain that a grand jury has in fact returned an indictment. Our sources said that parts of the indictment were read to Karl Rove and his attorney on Friday, May 12, 2006. Last week, we pointed to a sealed federal indictment, case number "06 cr 128," which is still sealed and we are still pointing to it. During lengthy conversations with our sources over the past month, they reiterated that the substance of our report on May 13, 2006, was correct, and immediately following our report, Karl Rove's status in the CIA leak probe changed. In summary, as we press our investigation we find indicators that more of our key facts are correct, not less.
Not that they can tell us what those are.
That leaves the most important question: If our sources maintain that a grand jury has returned an indictment - and we have pointed to a criminal case number that we are told corresponds to it - then how is it possible that Patrick Fitzgerald is reported to have said that 'he does not anticipate seeking charges against Rove at this time?' That is a very troubling question, and the truth is, we do not yet have a definitive answer.
We also continue to be very troubled that no one has seen the reported communication from Fitzgerald to Rove's attorney Robert Luskin, and more importantly, how so much public judgment could be based on a communication that Luskin will not put on the table. Before we can assess the glaring contradiction between what our sources say and what Luskin says Fitzgerald faxed to him, we need to be able to consider what was faxed - and in its entirety.
What appears to have happened is that - and this is where Truthout blundered -
Blundered? Ya don't say!
- in our haste to report the indictment we never considered the possibility that Patrick Fitzgerald would not make an announcement. We simply assumed - and we should not have done so - that he would tell the press. He did not. Fitzgerald appears to have used the indictment, and more importantly, the fear that it would go public, to extract information about the Plame outing case from Rove.
Yes, it does appear that Truthout was used, but not lied to or misled. The facts appear to have been accurate. We reported them, and in so doing, apparently became an instrument. From all indications, our reports, first on May 13 that Rove had been indicted, and then on June 12 when we published case number "06 cr 128," forced Rove and Luskin back to the table with Fitzgerald, not once but twice. They apparently sought to avoid public disclosure and were prepared to do what they had to do to avoid it.
Or it's all a total crock, and you were used allright, but not the way you think.
The electronic communication from Fitzgerald to Luskin, coming immediately on the heels of our Monday morning, June 12 article "Sealed vs. Sealed" that became the basis for the mainstream media's de facto exoneration of Karl Rove was, our sources told us, negotiated quickly over the phone later that afternoon. Luskin contacted Fitzgerald, reportedly providing concessions that Fitzgerald considered to be of high value, and Fitzgerald reportedly reciprocated with the political cover Rove wanted in the form of a letter that was faxed to Luskin's office.
Our sources provided us with additional detail, saying that Fitzgerald is apparently examining closely Dick Cheney's role in the Valerie Plame matter, and apparently sought information and evidence from Karl Rove that would provide documentation of Cheney's involvement. Rove apparently was reluctant to cooperate and Fitzgerald, it appears, was pressuring him to do so, our sources told us. "Cheney...yeah ....that's the ticket!"
Karl Rove may be as devious and nasty as the liberals claim, but I don't see him rolling on Cheney, who can be, when necessary, even more devious and nasty.
Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation is a unique chapter in American history. The probe has managed to shed light into the inner recesses of perhaps the most secretive presidential administration in US history. His mission is not political, and he will not allow it to be.
However, we call upon the Special Counsel to consider the right of the American people to know what has happened. Nothing, we believe, is more important to the survival of democracy than the light of justice, and nothing more damaging than the curtain of secrecy that today surrounds the highest office in the land.
Joe Lauria and The Washington Post's Attacks on Jason Leopold
We are well aware of the Lauria article and the series of attacks The Washington Post has launched against Jason Leopold and Truthout. As always, we will carefully consider all information and then publish a thoughtful response. In this case, we will publish our response on Wednesday, June 21, at 5:00 p.m. Pacific time. boy howdy! I thought the clarifications were gonna be unveiled with fog machines, spotlights and laser light entertainment on Monday....Guess I believed the last lying gasp of credibility
They did use fog machines. See above.
"Truthout.org Press Release"
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/20/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#6
This lack of shame, the inability to just say, "Uh oh, we fucked up." or "Oops. we were scammed.", is so precious. That they lack even the simplest level of honesty forces them to dance momentarily like a droplet of water on a hot griddle - then *poof*. It solves nothing. It assuages nothing. It fools no one. It just highlights the depth of their BDS.
#7
This'll keep Truthout's BDS-afflicted followers happy for a few days, but this story's going to eventually unravel the way the previous story ("Rove was given 24hrs to put his affairs in order") did. Imagine the psychological crash that'll cause!
Either that, or Jason Leopold is one of Rove's paid operatives and this is all an elaborate plot to mentally torture the Angry Left.
Either that, or somewhere in a bar in DC, a Justice Departrment lawyer is bragging to his buddies over mixed drinks about going snipe-hunting with Jason Leopold: "And so I told him"-giggle-"I told him that Rove had rolled over and turned state's evidence . . . on Vice President Cheney! And, and, wait, it gets better--he believed me!"
Posted by: Mike ||
06/20/2006 7:45 Comments ||
Top||
#8
THIS is the fundmentla rpoblem withthe moonbat left: it is INCAPABLE of admitting that it is wrong, even when faced with facts and solid evidence.
Their behavior now borders on being a psychosis, a mental illness.
#9
Yes, it does appear that Truthout was used, but not lied to or misled.
Yes. When The Evil Karl Rove wants to setup a media outlet for a big fall, the bunch of half assed losers at Truthout is the first one that pops into his head.
He probably wet his pants laughing when he read this.
One of the great documents of our time was released yesterday. It's by the editor of the Truthout website, and it purports to explain how and why Truthout's Jason Leopold came to report that Karl Rove had been indicted on May 12, 2006 in light of the fact that Rove's lawyer announced last week the White House official would not be indicted for his role in the Plamegate scandal. Truthout's answer is that Rove has too been indicted, and that he has cut some kind of deal with special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that allowed him to say he had been cleared.
I don't know when I've read anything quite this crazy at least not for a decade or more, when far-Right versions of the far-Left Truthout maniacs were alleging that Bill Clinton had been a secret CIA agent during his time as governor of Arkansas profiting from small planes flying drugs in and out of Central America and ordering the murder of two teenage boys who saw too much at the Mena airstrip.
To be honest, I don't think Marc Ash, the editor of Truthout, actually believes what he wrote. I think he's got a marketing crisis on his hands. Truthout's website puts it this way: "The growth and success of TO can be linked directly to the support our readers have shown for the project. As many of you may know, TO is 100% reader supported. We have no corporate sponsors, no advertising, and no pop-ups. This news source depends upon its readers for its survival. Sure that can be annoying, and at times intrusive, but it's better, because we answer to you." I suspect that Truthout's aggressive "reporting" on Plamegate was a major moneymaker for Ash's operation, and Ash knows full well that a retraction of it would place the future of his website in jeopardy.
Fitzgerald won't be closing up shop for at least a year, and Ash can keep hope alive on a daily basis and keep the money flowing from the sorts of people who will swallow almost any kind of flim flam as long as it reinforces their ideological hatreds. A lot of people on the Right made money off the Mena stuff (and other anti-Clinton stuff) in the '90s from angry nuts with checkbooks, and it's easier today with a credit card and a website like Truthout.
Posted by: Mike ||
06/20/2006 10:59 Comments ||
Top||
#12
"Our sources provided us...."
Be carefull TruthOut, there is a much bigger investigation going on to find leakers and you all may have been the perfect patsies for a plant.
#13
Good point, TomAnon: this means Fitzgerald has a leaker or two on his staff. Maybe a leaker or two in the DoJ. Perhaps we should get subpoenas and get the TruthOut people to testify to a grand jury?
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/20/2006 16:08 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Naw, don't worry. It's yellow rain. Happens from time to time.
Posted by: Karl ||
06/20/2006 18:45 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
What will follow will be a rather frank discussion of our reporting of and involvement in the Rove indictment matter. If you like simple answers or quick resolutions, turn back now. This is our report to our readership. Our primary sources for this report are 
