More on Rashid Khalidi and the Risks for Obama
By Larry Johnson on February 18, 2008 at 10:48 AM in Current Affairs
I have received some interesting hate mail following my post on Rashid Khalidi. A writer for the New Republic, John Judis, wrote:
So Obama expressed “general sympathy for the Palestinians”? That’s really shocking. I don’t know what your religious or social background is, but I don’t appreciate people appealing to the prejudices of my people.
Judis seems to have a reading comprehension problem. My issue is not whether Senator Obama has sympathy for Palestinians. I am sympathetic toward Palestinians. I think they have had a raw deal and that Israel has treated them in an abominable fashion.
My point is on how Barack’s relationship with Rashid Khalidi will likely be used to tar him as someone not willing to defend Israel. Remember, we are talking US politics and no national level politician can afford to be perceived as someone who will abandon our special relationship with Israel. Why do you think Republicans and Democrats make an annual pilgrimage to the American Israeli Political Action Committee convention in Washington? Even Obama understands this. And please, I am not saying we should have (or not have) a special relationship with Israel. I am simply pointing out the reality.
Which brings me to Rashid Khalidi. Who is he?
I received the following defense of Dr. Khalidi from Joel Stern (not sure if student or faculty), who has a Columbia University email account. Mr. Stern writes:
1) Rashid Khalidi is not and never has been a PLO “activist.” He was an adviser to the Palestinian delegation in Madrid in 1991. In case you are unaware, Israel, at that time, refused to speak directly to the PLO. The way the conference proceeded was by the US and Israel selecting the Palestinian delegation (not from the PLO), and, in turn, the PLO would OK or object to the delegate. Khalidi was chosen because he is from a prominent Palestinian family from Jerusalem and is a renown scholar of the Middle East. Moreover, contrary to your assertion, Rashid Khalidi has been extremely critical of the PLO. You would know this if you bothered to do what a responsible person would do: namely, read his work before forming an opinion about it. In the concluding chapter of his latest book, The Iron Cage, he submits a scathing critique of the PLO and its handling of the Oslo Peace Process.
2) Rashid Khalidi did not “help broker” Ahmadinejad’s appearance at Columbia. (It was also not in the summer but in the Fall; classes had already commenced at Columbia). The professor who was responsible for that was Richard Bulliet, an expert on Iran, who had old contacts with Iran’s mission to the UN. Again, if you were responsible, you would have read Columbia’s newspaper that explained how it all occurred.
3) Again, Khalidi has never been a part of the PLO. Where you got this information is a mystery but you seem to have no real concern for the facts. As for “anti-Israel rhetoric” and “the destruction of Israel,” you seem to be either ill-informed or willfully ignorant. I understand you were making hypothetical hyperbolic statements that Republicans might likely use in a smear campaign. This may very well turn out to be true. However, to uncritically make these statements with a complete disregard of the facts is a shameless smear campaign on Khalidi. From reading what you wrote, it is obvious that you have not read a page of any of Khalidi’s books or articles. I suggest you do your homework before you turn it in next time, for the sake of intellectual honesty and journalistic integrity. I hope this message clarifies some of your factual shortcomings and I hope it encourages you to look deeper into topics you write about instead of just lazily writing irresponsible articles.
Mr. Stern is wrong in insisting Dr. Khalidi is not an “activist” and has never been part of the PLO. Dr. Khalidi was a director of the official PLO press agency WAFA in Beirut from 1976 to 1982. During this time the US State Department considered the PLO a terrorist organization and the PLO was involved with terrorist attacks. WAFA was not an independent, unaffiliated news organization. While it is true that the PLO has moderated over time and moved in the mainstream of Palestinian politics, that is not the point. What we are talking about is perception. Dr. Khalidi, notwithstanding his current work, cannot pretend he was some outsider with no ties to the policies and practices of the PLO in the late 70s. That point will be seized on by Republican strategists. I am not saying this is right or fair, but it is reality. So deal with it.
I am not questioning nor challenging Dr. Khalidi’s academic credentials. He is a real professor and has written real books. But he is not some neutral observer. He served on the PLO “guidance committee” at the
And Khalidi has direct ties to Obama. These are not imagined. Before getting his job at Columbia University Rashid Khalidi was a Middle East professor at the University of Chicago, where he befriended none other than US presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama. In 2000 Khalidi held a successful fundraiser for Barack. I am not saying or inferring or suggesting that Obama did anything wrong in letting Khalidi hold a fund raiser. But I am willing to bet that it will become an issue in the general election. Barack also played a role in getting funding for Khalidi’s Arab American Action Network during his tenure on the board of the Woods Fund. That is another unexplored black hole.
And here is a shocking development–Dr. Khalidi has some strong opinions. During an appearance on Al-Jazeera (note, I also have appeared on Al-Jazeera, so that does not mean one is a reflexive anti-Semite) Khalidi said the following about the Washington Institute:
By God, I say that the participation of the sons or daughters of the Arabs in the plans and affairs of this institute is a huge error, this Israeli institute in Washington, an institute founded by AIPAC, the Zionist lobby, and that hosts tens of Israelis every year. The presence of an Arab or two each year can’t disguise the nature of this institute as the most important center of Zionist interests in
Washington for at least a decade. I very much regret the participation of Arab officials and non-officials and academics in the activities of this institute, because in fact if you look at the output of this institute, it’s directed against the Palestinians, against the Arabs, and against the Muslims in general. Its products describe the Palestinians as terrorists, and in fact its basic function is to spread lies and falsehoods about the Arab world, of course under an academic, scholarly veneer. Basically, this is the most important Zionist propaganda tool in theUnited States .
You may agree with Dr. Khalidi’s point of view. You may disagree. I agree with his basic point but that has nothing to do with the reality of politics. While Obama has made efforts to cultivate support among Jewish Americans, the attention that will inevitably be focused on his relationship with Khalidi will create some uncomfortable moments to say the least.
Then there is the public record. Despite Mr. Stern’s insistence that Dr. Khalidi is a mere academic, a conservative academic site offers an alternative point of view. According to Campus Watch:
A glance at Khalidi’s work shows why this is a step in the wrong direction for Columbia University. His writings and statements routinely cross the line from education into a political advocacy that is not just extremist but often factually wrong. Four examples:
On American foreign policy. Following Saddam’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait, Khalidi called the widespread resistance to this act of aggression an “idiots’ consensus” and called on his colleagues to combat it.[i] . . . .
Khalidi asserts that the U.S. government has “yet to support the independence of Arab Palestine,”[iii] despite open endorsement by President George W. Bush of a Palestinian state[iv], and nearly $1 billion in direct U.S. aid to the West Bank and Gaza since 1993.[v]
And beware anyone who disagrees with Khalidi! He throws reckless accusations out against them, such as calling Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz “a fanatical, extreme right-wing Zionist.”[vi]
On Palestinian violence. Khalidi glorifies anti-Israel violence as contributing to “political enlightenment”[vii] and unsurprisingly admires those who carry it out. His loyalty to Palestinian terrorist groups run so deep that he actually dedicated his 1986 valentine to the PLO, Under Siege, to “those who gave their lives . . . in defense of the cause of Palestine and independence of Lebanon.”[viii] The book whitewashes PLO violence against Israelis and Lebanese, as well as the Syrian occupation.
On media coverage. When Palestinian violence garners unfavorable publicity, Khalidi’s response it to blame the messenger, not the murderers. Thus, in response to Palestinians lynched two off-duty Israeli officers on October 12, 2000, Khalidi did not critique the perpetrators of this crime, but railed against the “prostitute” and “cynical” media that dared to show Palestinians triumphantly displaying bloodied hands after the killings. In like spirit, he faults not those Palestinians who erupted in joyous street celebrations at the murders of 3,000 Americans on 9/11, but the media for having the temerity to report these occurrences.[ix]
On Israel as a U.S. ally. In Khalidi’s fevered imagination, Israel is not a democratic ally but an “apartheid system in creation” and a destructive “racist” state. In his efforts to indict the Jewish state, Khalidi is quite prepared to make up accusations, such as his claim that Israel’s army has “awful weapons of mass destruction (many supplied by the U.S.) that it has used in cities, villages and refugee camps.”[x] This is a plain lie. That so few Americans agree with his bizarre reading of Israel’s democracy as a menacing enemy state causes him to dismiss them as “brainwashed.”[xi]
Remember, the point is not what U.S. policy should be toward Israel or Palestine. Instead, the question is the nature of the relationship between Barack Obama and Rashid Khalidi and how that can be exploited to the disadvantage of Obama and the Democrats in the general election. Fully explore the relationship now. Get the comments out on the table. Defuse the bomb before it goes off.
I don’t know how much more clearly I can make this point. Nonetheless, I am sure I will be accused of fomenting hatred of Arabs, Palestinians, and Obama. C’est la vie.
(Release: November 13)
on sale for only $16.95.
has a spatula.)
8% Off at $11.95, with a rare five-star ranking by 294 customers: 
And check out these: 
("This crazy redhead is on to something. Her pink Rambler story alone is worth the price of the book," writes 
- “Richard Sale’s reportage on Washington, the CIA, the American armed forces, and foreign intrigue has created a perfect background for this account of the steady growth of President Clinton as a master of the game of nations.”--W. Patrick Lang, former head of Middle East Operations, DIA
"Anne C. Heller's stunning biography of Ayn Rand" uses a "plethora of newly unearthed research and fresh insight."
Larry,
I just going to accuse you again of being a flamethrower for Hillary.
I also believe that most people are beyond caring about this. They want change.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/953640.htm
They see the damage that the rightwing clowns like Wolfowitz and at Campus Watch (Daniel Pipes, right?) have done to this country.
These guys really don’t know whether to shit or shine their shoes right now. It’s too late to embrace Obama and really make a difference (he’s already won, per the theory). And if they follow Joe to McCain, they could get swamped in the fall…
http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/02/has-obama-trapp.html
Cee, the first link isn’t working for some reason.
Sometime,
How odd. I came up for me.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/953640.html
I won’t post entire article
Hoenlein: Obama’s spirit of change could harm Israel
By Anshel Pfeffer
The head of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Malcolm Hoenlein, expressed concern yesterday regarding the atmosphere that has surrounded Democratic Senator Barack Obama’s campaign for president, while making it clear he has no problem with Obama himself.
“All the talk about change, but without defining what that change should be, is an opening for all kind of mischief,” Hoenlein said at a press conference in Jerusalem. Obama has made change a central theme in his campaign.
Hoenlein was careful to stress, “It’s not the candidates themselves we are concerned about,” pointing out that Obama, like the other major candidates, has signed on to found a national committee to celebrate Israel’s 60th anniversary in the U.S.
“Of course Obama has plenty of Jewish supporters and there are many Jews around him,” Hoenlein said. “But there is a legitimate concern over the zeitgeist around the campaign.”
The U.S. Jewish leader warned the American presidential campaign could signal a shift toward declining U.S. support for Israel.
“Support for Israel is at an all-time high, [but] our polling suggests that as broad as the support is, it is also thin, and most Americans see Israel as a dark and militaristic place,” he said.
He termed the current election season “transitional” and said that it “could bring about a shift in the political life.”
Hoenlein said that Israel’s supporters should be worried by “the heightening of the bar and the greater tolerance of anti-Israel statements that wouldn’t have been allowed in the past.”
He singled out the book by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer on the Israel lobby, which “has become a bestseller and a college textbook,” and said that there “is a steady poisoning of the elites, mainly on campuses, that could trickle down.”
The l was missing from the end of the original. Thanks for reposting.
Sorry Cee, but you and Casper are just moths drawn to the light, who ultimately get burnt.
I care about the connections he is lying about. And that’s the thing, if people knew about is connections they could make a real decision on whether he really represents change or not.
Right now, he’s not being as transparent in his claims as HRC is, and that, by default, gets my vote.
Clinton’s weaknesses are knowns. And she doesn’t run from them. BO runs from his past ‘errors’ and jumps on you for even asking him to talk about them. That is the same tactic the pugs have used on anyone (D or R) who question them.
If Barack is speechifying about change, yet doing the same ol’ tricks in his career and campaign, how is that Change?
I’ve long said that I hated the R’s because of their hypocrisy. They say one thing and do another. I see BHO and his supporters doing the same thing. It simply doesn’t give me any confidence that he’ll live up to any promise he makes.
His campaign is built on personal stories and such. And yet, he treats his own stories like the plague. Why not tell stories about why he had relationships with guys like Rezko. Why hide?
‘Can’t touch that?” Oh YES WE CAN!
ps. besides, the critics of Larry still don’t get it. Read all he qualifiers in this latest post. He’s not saying he believes this stuff is bad, but that it will be used by the pugs as attack material if BO moved onto the GE. Tell the story NOW, before the pugs unlease holy terror on the Dem candidate later. I rhetorically wouldn’t send a sniper with a messed up scope eye into action just because he talks a good game over beers. Have it checked out and vetted for action, first.
pss. And if all these ‘connections’ aren’t issues, why the hell won’t he talk about them? It sounds all to familiar to the recent hearings since November….”I don’t recall.” Change that!
Sorry Cee, but you and Casper are just moths drawn to the light, who ultimately get burnt.
You’re boring me.
Gosh, next time, you shouldn’t leave your crayons at home.
you shouldn’t leave your crayons at home.
I’ll be praying for you.
Thanks. What a pal.
Yup. EVEN if it doesn’t get used “officially” by the GOP, they’ll spread this to every Jewish person in the U.S. and to millions of the evangelicals who’ve, it seems overnight, made Israel their cause (snort).
It’ll get “whispered” in the nastiest of e-mails and millions of them will go out.
As Larry said in another post, they did it to Max Cleland, a triple amputee and military hero (and seemingly lovely man). They did it to John McCain in South Carolina — black baby and all. It’s “swiftboating.” If Obama thinks his speeches will get him past all that, think again. If he defends, he’ll be defending endlessly, and then they’ll bring up more and more on Rezko, Ayres, et al. They WILL NOT STOP. And John McCain will be our president.
Besides, as Pat Buchanan said this a.m. on MSNBC, the GOP will hit Obama non-stop on NATIONAL SECURITY and global threats. Those alone can easily bring him down. They can’t do that to Hillary (like it or not, but they can’t — she knows her stuff on all of that, much, much better than when Bill began his presidency, and infinitely better than Carter did).
they’ll spread this to every Jewish person in the U.S. and to millions of the evangelicals who’ve, it seems overnight, made Israel their cause (snort).
Susan,
They are even fighting back against this SLANDER!!
DC heavyweights issue letter defending former Clinton advisor: “Anti-Israel” charges have to stop
Posted by Cecilie Surasky under Government
Yesterday, we told you about leading academics who have had enough of the casual and yet devastating use of the charges of anti-Semitism to silence debate and, in a few of the most egregious cases, destroy academic careers. Today, we return to the political realm where high-level supporters of Israel have come out in defense of their colleague, Robert Malley. Malley, Clinton’s former Special Assistant for Arab-Israeli affairs, is being used as a punching bag in the fight over Jewish votes and who would be president.
Robert Malley’s status as an unofficial advisor to Obama caused, what MJ Rosenberg called a firestorm. Why? Malley’s past articles in the NY Review of Books said Barak, and not just Arafat, was also to blame for the failure of peace talks. A point, Rosenberg points out, which was made by virtually everyone who was there including Clinton himself.
http://www.muzzlewatch.com/
Well then, Clinton’s Special Envoy to the Middle East, Dennis Ross, apparently disagrees with his boss.
Belated comment, sorry.
Dennis Ross is no one to be that excited about on your team … especially if you are a candidate who inserts in every one of your speeches the roar: “There’ll be no more Scooter Libby Style Justice!!”
Ross (formerly of the George HW Bush and Reagan admins)was one of the key fundraisers in the elite right wing Scooter Libby Legal Defense Fund, and it was a small tight knit group of “friends of Scooter”. You had Tucker Carlson’s father, Dick, Barbara Comstock, Mary Matalin, Steve Forbes, Jack Kemp, Fred Thompson, and the RNC’s best and brightest FOS (friends of Scooter) Together they raised the millions of dollars needed to assure Scooter would not get put in prison for his role in outing Valerie Plame.
How the friendship formed:
And oh those were some memorable foreign policy moments the esteemed team brought us in the Reagan years. The team is a regular PNAC picnic roster.
Ross has repeatedly publicly defended and praised his friend I Scooter to the media … (see US News & World Report 10-31-05, Steve Clemons, etc) And yet it never stopped Obama from assuring Americans that the days of Scooter Libby Justice are over if he’s president. Why does he retain Dennis Ross as an advisor if he truly believes that?
Or will this be yet one more in a string of endless retractions we are going to hear in the future? No there was no meeting in Canada…. Well, yeah- turns out there was. No I have never heard those sermons in that church. Well, yes, actually- I have. No I never took that money from Rezko. Well, oops- turns out I did. And so on…
Barack Obama at Howard University:
“It’s wrong that Scooter Libby gets no jail time for compromising our national security-”
ms in la
“It’s wrong that Barack Obama retains Scooter Libby fundraiser and defender Dennis Ross who helped Libby avoid jail time and COMPROMISE OUR NATIONAL SECURITY””
Sorry to shout. I hate hypocrisy.
None of the Rethug stuff will get through the Obama supporters shields, brain dead zombies that they are they will just vote for the dems anyhow and to hell with all that rethug WHITE noise.
The evanagelicals … that would be the people who want to create “improved jews?” I don’t suspect the jews living in america really want to be “improved” quite the way the dispensationalists wish, probably not really hot on seeing Israel improved quite that way either. And the utter terror of whispering emails to boot.
Picture ol brain dead McCain with his finger on the BIG NUKE BUTTON, all pissed off because the Chinese didn’t kowtow to him or because some dem pointed out what an egregious and obnoxious FLIP FLOPPer he is. Let’s Drop the big one now as Randy Newman once sang it. There is your horror scenario a brain dead hair trigger chump with his finger on the big nuke button.
But NOOOOOO If we can’t have our Mrs. Inevitability then let us have a McCain cause we be wetting the bed otherwise with fear of turbanned ones. That fear is wny 9ui11iani is doing so well in the primaries, why Mr. Biden did so well too. Our national security is poorer now than it was when Georgie boy took office. Elect McCain and it goes to 0 ( it is only a short drop ).
The global threats the USA faces are economic.
Bin Laden said he would allow us to bankrupt ourselves. He was correct. We have to repair the army the republicans broke, the marine corp the republicans broke and the state national guard units the republicans broke. Damn democrats always having to clean up the security snafus the republicans gift the country with. Why we may even be forced to choose between mandated health care and national security.
Intresting that you don’t see the damage inherent in Obama’s foreign policy and security advisors who are all from Carter regime. Zibigniew Brezyinsky has been Obama’s current point man on Palestine and Israel. Zbig, a known anti Israeli and pro Palestine former OLD WAHINGTON HACK is the sort of advisor Obama wants as CHANGE??
Susan Rice and other advisors are from OLD WASHINGTON and the failed Carter Administration. Are you too young to remember the mess made by Carter’s unwillingness to act, and Zbig’s incompetence? They couldn’t even free four hostages. This brought down the incompetent Born Again Carter’s administration as a one term president. Carters latest book created a firestorm in the Jewish community throughout the world, as it proposes anti Israeli and pro Palestine positions.
These are Obama’s advisors, and it’s sad that no matter what, you continue to support Obama without inquiry, introspection, and intellectual honesty.
Aside from slumlord Rezko who goes to trial March 5th, there is a great deal that has not been revealed nd discussed which is important and NOT coming from Hillary or the Right Wingnuts.
Obama has a lot to answer for. His long relationship with Reverend Jeremiah Wright of Chicago who is a supporter of Louis Farrakhan who has called Jews “bloodsuckers” and Judaism ” a gutter religion”.
When Rev. Wright had to distance himself from Obama at the start of his campaign, he told the New york Times, “I fear his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell.”
Rev. Wright’s sermon “The Audacity Of Hope” was taken by Obama for the title of his book. Wright bestowed an award on Farrakhan last year “as one who epitomizes greatness”.
Obviously none of this interests Obamatons. Nor even his 17 year friendship as senator in Illinois with Tony Rezko, slumlord extraordinaire who happened to be Obama’s major fundraiser and patron, responsible for his winning both senate runs. Rezko’s sweetheart real estate deal with Obama occurred as Patrick Fitgerald of the Libby trial was investigating Rezko for fraud,corruption,money laundering and kickbacks.
Obama knowing this investigation was ongoing went full steam ahead and enriched himself of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Rita Rezko bought the adjacent backyard property for $625,000.00 and
sold it to Obama for $104,500.00. Michelle Obama was on the City Planning Commission and knew this landmarked building was for sale at 1.6 million, and no bids went out as Obama bought this manse but ran out of money for backlot property, then supplied by Rita R. Obama & Rita R, closed same day.
The slumlord atrocities of Rezko include [among thousands of others] apartments in 11 buildings in Obama’s district the 3rd ward. After gaining approval through Obama’s law firm and the state legislature, Rezko received subsidized taxpayer taxfree millions to rehab low income housing in over 40 buildings throughout Chicago.
The 11 [and the others] all went into foreclosure after Rezko refused to supply heat or repairs, and then witholding mortgage payments. Thousands of apts
that were denied heat by Rezko for over 5 weeks
were cited by the city, and ultimately only fined $100.00 for this. Obama did nothing to save his constituents apartments. Many stand empty and many became crack houses. Rezko received tax free subsidy money. Obama got money for his senate runs in Illinois and US Senate.Plus his real estate deal.
I am not going into the letters on file written by Obama asking favors for Rezko having to do with his friend that absconded with money Rezko [now in jail awaiting trial]took to Iraq. Trial will deal with this.
Federally indicted in 2006, Rezko was to come to trial this February but was arrested when court found he had laundered money and sent it to Iraq and had evidence that Rezko had lied to the court. Trial is March 5.
When the Chicago Sun Times asked Obama about his real estate fiasco while Rezko was under investigation, he said, “It was a mistake. It was boneheaded.” Gee whiz.
There are those ties and taking of $227,000.00 from Exelon’s lobbyist after Obama tells us he takes no money from lobbyists. Exelon based in Illinois, is country’s largest Nuclear Power Plant providers.
No one has had the opportunity to see who the donors are in Obama’s “bundled” donations.
And while Obama’s internet fundraising is spectacular, he would have us believe this represents all of his donors. Please. George Soros, multibillionaire Hedge Fund meister is one of Obama’s main supporters. Soros is well known for his anti Israeli positions, and his vocal opinions that Israel has no reason for its existence. Interestingly, Soros is a self hating Jew.
Obamatons would have us believe this is all unimportant? We know there is much more that GOP will dig up, but Obama supporters remain hostile about any honest inquiry into Obama’s very questionable history and behavior.
I have developed a hatred for Obama and his supporters. It happened at the Huffingtonpost.com
I have been an ultra partisan Democrat my whole life. Racial issues have always been important to me.
After I’ve seen how both Clinton’s have been treated by many African Americans and the far left Dems that seem to be taking over the party, I think I’m done with partisan politics.
I can’t believe it happened to me. But it has.
Thses people are different than me. I care about economic justice first. The ObamaNation tpye is largely spoiled, college educated, violently anti-war, anti-Isreal, anti=free trade, and the list goes on.
The hypocracy of most of these people who worship at the Chruch of Starbucks, is ironic. They go to Costco because they treat employees better, but I doubt many would ever work there.
There is no doubt he has pulled in a lot of other people of all stripes, but I am trying to be overly simplistic to illustrate my point. They are just different than me, and I resent them.
I am college educated but chose blue collar work. I don’t like how they have divided our party. They have done that through sneaky caucass state victories with Republican outside agitators.
It’s like when Surgar Ray Leonard beat Marvin Haggler, he may have won, but he didn’t really beat him. That’s what this is. They have hijacked my party.
I want to thank Larry for writing that post on huffington post. That along with the revelation that Obama is not as authentic as what he appears, shows he can not really get anything done if elected at all.
I hope some more info can come out on Rezko and co. before it’s too late.
For the first time Michelle Obama is proud of her country, well for the first time, I’m ashamed of my party. What a dumb comment.
Security is important to many of us Democrats. It is sad that the part of the party who thinks it’s a joke, has taken control.
If Obama wins, we need a 3rd choice, maybe bloomberg, maybe Wesley Clark, maybe some other centrist who is as idealistic as me about pragmetisim!
What is so “changing” about Barack Obama? He voted for Cheney’s energy bill even though he and other dems KNEW it was a giveaway to the oil companies. Hillary voted against that 6 billion dollar giveaway to the oil companies.
He has voted to fund the war ever since he has been in the Senate.
His health care plan doesn’t cover all Americans.
Barack is not about change he is about compromise.
Real change is this:
1. covering all working Americans in health care.
2. putting a woman at the helm of the USA. As you must know we have had 276 years of male presidents. I have been voting for male presidents ALL of my life.
I am ready for change. And, Senator Clinton’s work with women and children around the world is outstanding. I am ready for change. Go Hillary!
Again, Larry: we now understand that you and Susan have a profound personal anger at Obama. We understand that you favor the Clintons’ candidacy. So much of what you put on this web site is simply about hatred of Obama, whether its his “ties to terrorists” or some other crazed claim.
The only real question is: If Obama gets the nomination, will you support him? Or Mccain?
Can you answer that question?
Is Obama as obtuse as you, with this absolute inability to critically reason, hanging on to an outdated faux PR system, a JOKE, unable to gauge it’s efficacy, or lack thereof, focused only on his own specious thought process, completely unable to see the big picture, just another Rovian PR hack wannabe with delusions of grandeur, but for Obama, this time, the black Bush?
You look like a tool.
Anyway, I won’t be voting for Obama, his ties to Auchi are reprehensible, and if that weren’t enough, he is simply unqualified to be the President of the US.
If I were in a firefight, I wouldnt’ trust Obama’s ability to watch my back. You, either.
I guess we will learn about McCain.
Ok, some you can say awful, angry things about me, if it makes you feel good. It won’t change the truth of anything I wrote, but it will make you feel better. That’s your priority.
Hope you get over your sour grapes and come to your senses in time to not vote for McCain. We don’t need Iran attacked with nuclear weapons, or 100 years of war in the Middle East.
Just be very clear that all the neoconservatives who plotted out the Iraq war have a new home in McCain’s campaign.
If you vote for McCain, you’re voting for 8 more years of George Bush’s foreign policy.
come to your senses in time…
No time like the present Banquo’s Ghost..I don’t understand the McCain thing, but those that ‘hate’ will come out of wood work in either case.
In all honesty, I don’t give a shit about you, you’re a bore, your posts are a bore, as is your mind.
Your attempts to flood the newsgroup with this crap, though, my, it works, doesn’t it, it worked so well for Rove, right? It’s not as if it can be countered, or you used against your candidate, right, MO?
Obama is a disingenuous piece of crap, IMO, who may have ties to middle east terrorism, corrupt, at the very least, IMO, of course.
That you would still MINDLESSLY support a man like this makes me question, WHY?
I thought you were a Democrat?
WHY don’t you want to know the truth, maybe your candidate will be exonerated, and then we can all move on.
But you’re obviously familiar with the basic dance step, so you’re either truly ignorant, or you’re trying to hide something.
You won’t even examine the issue, and your counter arguments are insipid.
I don’t really like masks, they’re not attractive, or even REMOTELY interesting, I can’t imagine WHY you would even think anyone would CARE about you, I see nothing special but a self important boy, with no perspective on his intellect, or lack thereof.
Yawn.
See Larry? See what you’re doing?
??? Leave Larrrryyy alooooneeee! :0
What is Larry doing? It seems to me to he’s asking questions and calling ‘em as he seems ‘em.
I hope (oops there’s that word) he is working on his handi-cap somewhere on the back nine.
Banquo’s Ghost:Hope does not put food on my table. If you have not noticed ‘change’ is a natural occurance and not exclusive to human beings.
Obama is one to talk about “the company he(McCain) keeps”….
I do wish we could leave the namecalling out (that is, of each other). It’s counterproductive most of the time.
Banquo, while I do think you’re bringing up a decent point (why don’t we ALL rally behind Obama to beat McCain?), you’re missing the other one. He can be beat by McCain. The excuses I hear from Obama supporters as to why this isn’t true are:
1) McCain is old. Anyone remember Reagan when he began his campaign. He was hunched over and shook. They promptly got him a brace and he was John Wayne reborn. He even opened up a debate by making a joke of his own age (and McCain will do the same) which totally defused it.
2) Unlike Reagan, McCain ACTUALLY IS a war hero. He didn’t play one in the movies. He is impregnable on this point (I know someone will say something like he got preferential treatment because of who his dad was… bull shit! Solitary confinement for years is enough to end that debate, whether or not it has any merit).
3) Because Obama supporters really, really like Obama. How does that help? Despite their disconnect with reality, come November, people will actually vote and all the wishing in the world isn’t going to alter what the rest of the country does.
4) Because Obama wants to ‘reach across the aisle and work with his opponents.’ Do you really think they’re going to give him a pass, and not attack him on all of these things that Larry and others are bringing up now? This is beyond naive, it’s just plain dumb.
5) Because conservatives hate McCain. Right. Come November we’ll be hearing, “I just couldn’t allow a {terrorist sympathizer, drug user, corrupt criminal, or fill-in-the-other-blank-here) to be elected.” It’s a pipe dream and one that will be smashed and wind us up in further turmoil for another frigging four years.
Now, let’s turn it around and assume it’s Hillary without Obama. I think there’s a decent chance he could beat her too. That’s why these two giants (if ego is a measure) need to band together and quickly. Otherwise we’re in for more war, more economic meltdown, more shredding of the Constitution, and another four years wondering why Kerry, Gephardt and Kennedy should be allowed to open their mouths about who the nominee should be.
Well said.
I think the question is, if either Clinton or Obama get the nomination, will they choose the other as VP? If not, it’s pretty irrevelevent, we’ll be seeing President McCain, practically without question.
I cannot support either Obama or McCain. Neither is competent to be President in my view.
Larry, I second that…neither Obama nor McCain should be president, or vice president. (I’m glad this site exists–it’s nice to meet up with clear-thinking realists.)
Quit the pseudo-psychoanalyzing. I can’t speak for Larry, but my own experience re Obama is that his speech in 2004 did not wow me. It was hopelessly vague, lots of platitudes. I tried watching him on C-Span during Senate hearings, and found him so dull I could have used a tape of him to lull myself to sleep.
I don’t have any personal anger towards him. I don’t get his appeal. I don’t find him exceptional. And I most certainly do not find him qualified to be president.
But we’re beating back against this overwhelming ga-ga-ness — the “hopium” — of his followers who rarely, if ever, speak rationally. They can rarely explain his qualifications. Even Bill Bradley yesterday on CNN — not a stupid man — didn’t have a single SPECIFIC, factual thing to say about Obama. So we fight back. Against this irrational tide of “momentum” with people who are not stopping to think hard about how the GOP will get him or how he’s not ready to be president.
Susan, your comment explains exactly how I’ve felt since Obama appeared on the scene. I find his “appeal” inexplicable and supremely resistable. There’s nothing much in what he says; and now, after seeing the video of his Wisconsin speech next to the almost identical Patrick Deval speech from several years ago, there’s no doubt in my mind that’s he an outsized ego with no original thoughts who’ve been shaped and molded by other ambitious men (Axelrod, Soros, Kennedy, etc).
I’m so glad you’re doing what you’re doing. Keep it up!
I can play that game – we know that you have profound personal anger against Senator Clinton…
Can you comment on how are you going to fight this Republican meme against Obama?
So, Banquo’s Ghost, you believe that Larry’s and Susan’s distrust of Senator Obama is more appropriately deemed “anger”, so as to justify your additional snarky reference to the campaign of Senator Clinton as “Clintons’ candidacy”. And then you wonder why you get flamed at this site ?
I’ll answer for myself. Finding out how really dirty Obama is, and what a serial liar he is, and how very, very corrupt he is, I wouldn’t vote for Obama to be ANYTHING. And this is based on my own research, not just the facts that Larry and Susan have shared.
Character matters, and I’d be nervous if Obama was my rubbish man at this point.
So what I will do is write in Hillary or Edwards name.
This country has been seriously and gravely wounded, and I for one will do nothing that would further devestate her. In fact, I have not felt this strongly since Nixon ran in 1972. And I know I am not the only one who feels this strongly.
So if you guys think you can ram a seriously flawed candidate down our throats with all your shenanigans – you are sadly mistaken! I have already written Howard Dean, and Jim Dean of DFA and sent them loads of documentation to back up my sentiments.
HELL NO!
I don’t think we should have Opera picking are Presidents like one of her books. She is the one that gave us Dr. Phil, look how that turned out!
I saw Jesse Jackon on his old CNN show tell a Latino man who basically asked what Latinos could do to advance their place in this society. Jesse told the man, wait your turn!
Well, that’s what I tell Obama, wait your f ing turn!
You promised you would not even run for President. All the Obama supporters are so hacked off over Hillary’s war vote, they can’t see straight.
If the Democrats did not give Bush benefit of the doubt at that point in time, we probably would be in Iran now, too. Social Security would have been run by EF Hutton. We would have lost too many seats to even fillabusta his agenda.
These kind of people don’t know how to live to fight another a day or chose their battles. Idealist always implode, I just wish it would happen a little faster!
PS – deriding all Obama’s supporters multiple times per day, in angry rants, as “cultists” or similar, is probably about as nasty and vindictive and divisive as it gets. Were Bill Clinton’s supporters in ‘92 “cultists”? Bill’s candidacy in ‘92 had huge similarities to Obama’s in 2008. Were Clinton’s supporters “cultists”? But I digress: if you identify anyone and everyone who eagerly supports Obama as a “cultist” or “brain dead” or “on crack” or whatever, you are pretty much ending the possibility of a relationship between many of your (cultist-like) readers who are frothing-at-the-mouth rapid Obama-haters now, and if Obama gets the nomination, you are going to need to answer for poisoning the well if Hillary’s supporters refuse to get behind the nominee.
“President McCain”. Like the ring of that? I don’t. And you might be helping to make that reality to come true. Think about that, Larry. There are bigger things at stake here than whether or not Hillary Clinton gets the nomination.
And Bill made a collossal mistake, attempting to reach across the aisle. Is Obama about to make the same one? Sounds like it. I wasn’t as active during the ‘92 campaign, so I don’t recall whether or not Clinton supporters were as blind to Bill’s foibles. I suspect they were not. They appreciated him because they knew he was a good politician. When the Lewinsky story broke, many said, “We aren’t surprised and we don’t really care. We knew he was a bit of a player. Congress, get back to work and leave it alone.” Contrast that with denial of reality and I think there’s a gulf of difference. But even if that’s not so, do we have to repeat the same mistakes?
Couple that with the fact that if he’s not fully vetted before March 4 (because the GOP attack machines will bring stuff up whether or not it’s true and make it stick) and, again, we’re possibly looking at President McCain.
The public responded to Bill Clinton’s candidacy basically the exact same way that the public is responding to Obama’s candidacy today. Clinton was younger, somewhat inexperienced, etc., but people were inspired by his eloquence and charisma. One of the most bizarre things about the way some Clinton supporters today just go after Obama for being a charismatic and inspiring figure is that their candidate, Hillary Clinton, would not exist in public life today, certainly not as a presidential candidate, if it was not for Bill Clinton being 1992’s Obama.
But isn’t it because he appears to ONLY be a charismatic speaker? In that regard, he’s a bit more like Bush, isn’t he? Though I give him credit for having a three-digit IQ (as opposed to our current executive walking-disaster), we aren’t quite sure how he’s going to use that intellect other than the generic buzzword “change”.
Banquo’s Ghost – look who Bill Clinton was running against in (the primaries)1992: Jerry Brown, Paul Tsongas, Robert Casey, Pat Schroeder (there were a few others, including Al Gore, but these were the top 4 persons competing for the nomination. The campaign that Bill Clinton ran for the 1992 nomination was a natural against the others running for the nomination, and he may have lost himself if there had been anybody else in the top tier of the hunt who could run on experience or competence.
Banquo,
NO, the public DID not respond in the same way to Bill Clinton as to Obama. I’m from NH, and there was serious vetting going on in the NH and Boston papers, within a day of Clinton opening his HQ in Manchester,
There absolutely was no ga ga and mesmerized crowds. In fact I was present when a 10 year old boy waking down a main street, challenged Bill Clinton as to how his economic plan would work. The look on Bill’s face was priceless, but he did answer the question.
Obma HID from people up on stages, DID NOT answer questions or leave himself open to Q& A sessions where ALL questions were answered.
Bill Clinton absolutely answered all questions, and would walk around shopping plaza’s and in the downtown areas of cities and respond to anyone and everyone who spoke to him.
Who is inventing these re-writes of history? There are those of us who LIVED it so we know.
Yup. i’m reading Sidney Blumenthal’s book on the Clinton years, which I finally bought last summer at a book sale, and finally picked up off the shelf — blown away by Blumenthal’s recent columns in The Guardian, and knowing I wanted to read more of his remarkable writing. (Whenever I finish that book, I want to get more of his books — i love the history he includes too — he gets back into FDR, Truman, Johnson, Carter, et al. in that book.) According to the book, Bill Clinton had put up with lots in Arkansas, but nothing prepared him once in the White House for how the GOP hit him, constantly, and how utterly uncooperative they were. Even lots of Democrats, cushy in their powerful Senate/House seats, liked their feifdoms and wouldn’t play ball. It is a BRUTAL job. And it takes years of experience dealing with the intricate ways of D.C. to know what to do, how to react, etc., etc.
I will have to check out his work.
David Halberstam is one of my favorite writers, next up on my list was Arthur Schlesinger’s Journals, but I’ve been waiting for the trade paper, not quite as expensive as the hardcover.
I know it’s been hopping here, lately, and you’ve been ill, but writing about Blumenthal, and his books, would be a great topic.
I’d be interested to know what you think of him, as a writer, and historian.
Obama is older now than Bill was in 1992.
Had the dems “vetted” Bill in 92, someone else would have been the nominee, and would have won the whitehouse thanks to H.Ross Perot.
Thanks to how much the country loved Bill, the GIngrich Contract with america took over congress in 94 and has held it until 2006.
If not Hillary, then McCain does appear to be the operative policy. Say any damn fool thing that can harm a dem but hush hush anything that harms McCain, because the rethugs get to play by special rules.
The Obamabots are actually a very predictable backlash to the I AM THE INEVITABLE candidate everyone was fed for so long.
Not that I think Obama can win in the fall, America has elected two black governors and two black senators since 1982. NYC has suffered 4 terms of white republicans rather than have another potential Dinkins.
I noticed the other day that Pat Buchanan was getting some shoutouts for his “independence” and “reasonableness” in regards to Hillary.
So let me point this out to the readers here, those of you immune to the attractions of statistics should avoid the link:
http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_02_11/article.htmlThe BOSWASH axis of editorial page editors, talking head show bookers, AIPAC savants, and small mag mugwumps are indeed married to the special relationship with Israel, the rest of the country may not be so enamoured; especially this fall when the USA is in the depths of a depression.
There are bigger things at stake here than whether or not Hillary Clinton gets the nomination. Or Senator Obama …don’t you think?
Thats the point!
Senator Obama might be, as he said “skinny but from the south side of Chicago” and under the illusion that will make him able to deal with the shit storm that that is coming his way.
With all due respect, Banquo’s Ghost, a “perfect storm” is brewing. It has nothing to do with “hate” or frothing at the mouth. It would be helpful, in my humble opinion, when you say “you are going to need to answer for poisoning the well” that Obama supporters will be held to the same accounting.
“Tragedy of the Commons”
“Hope and change” in the political context are finite.
If there is a President MCCain, you will have no one but yourselves to blame for opting for “Pretty Words”, most of which are stolen from someone else, when an intelligent person from the REALITY BASED Community would have done research and vetting.
Don’t try and lay guilt trips here for your swooning over a fake and fraud. The blame is yours and no one elses.
whoa Nellie! great response. absolutely right. It’s really silly how Obamabrats think asking fair questions based on Obama’s past is hate. Just how politically knowledgeable are some of his supporters? Have they any concept about the brutal, cruel reality of politics? Me thinks not. And wow, does that Deval Patrick revelation reveal how their emperor has no clothes. We can’t afford to have amateur hour come the general. Keep up the vetting Susan and Larry. This may just be only the beginning for all we know.
The very first sentence in his numbered diatribe is important.
IMO the Madrid train bombings was more than going after Aznar and Spain for his war involvement, as was the conventional consensus.
It was an indictment of the ‘91-’92 meetings that were supposed to have brokered some results for the Israel/Palestine conflict, on neutral soil.
The scary thing is that neutral soil can be drawn into the conflict on the burnback of failure to follow through upon policy.
So it’s pretty clear that you need people there who will speak in diplomatic terms.
What better way to bail yourself out, then appoint a plausible person from the other side to steer meetings.
It’s like asking Strom Thurmond to first draft a civil rights bill. The result and statements he says after will become bigger ammo, and he’ll essentially hedge true change by being attached to prior statements and the following rhetoric.
Question to Obama supporters is Will you support Hillary is she is the nominee? Apparently your hero Obama doesn’t think so..He has made statements that he is more likely to get backing of Hillary supporters than Hillary is likely to get from his supporters.
My position is that I, personally, promised myself that I will never support anyone who had a hand in starting the Iraq war. I will not break or bend that promise. However, if Hillary gets the nomination LEGITIMATELY, without chicanery with superdelegates or the MI/FL delegates, then I will encourage anyone who does not have the same focus on the Iraq war as me to vote for Hillary.
So if Edwards was the nominee, would you have voted for him?
Myself, personally, no, however it would have been easy for me to encourage others to do so, so long as they were not so focused as me on the Iraq war.
How ’bout those who voted to continue to fund the war? Do you have the same strong feeling about them?
Well then, my friend, you won’t have anybody to vote for come November.
Now, maybe you could answer my question, applied to you, instead of Susan or Larry, who will never answer that question.
I believe they did BG.
Larry answered you, BG. Up thread. He said nope to Mr. Audacity of Hope
Poll after poll recently has shown that more current Clinton supporters will “defect” to McCain than Obama supporters will, if their candidate is not the nominee. These numbers are going up on both sides, unfortunately.
Thanks Larry for another useful post. The points in your recent posts on Obama are clear and I think very important. We need to be thinking about how the general election will be conducted (by the Republican community) – which will likely be far different than in the democratic primaries. And in that light, Obama appears to have some substantial potential liabilities.
I find it hard to understand why so many commentors see these posts as attacking Obama – when they are just pointing out some painful facts relevant to the general election.
From my perspective, job one is a democratic candidate winning the general election. My biggest concern is that both Obama and Clinton have sufficient known or potential liabilities to leave me comfortable about the election.
Keep up the good, if sometimes unpleasant, work!
Campus Watch, that is Daniel Pipes little anti-arab screed site isn’t it?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Daniel_Pipes
that is Daniel Pipes
CK,
Yes. Also the son of Team B member.
Yoo hoo! Larry! Team B screwed over the CIA.
Please stop helping the son of a member screw over the CIA and entire nation again.
Thank you.
Citing Pipe’s worries about Obama is as relevant as citing David Duke’s worries about Obama I guess. They are both backbone republican stalwarts.
Neato! Here’s a couple of funny quote from that page:
Daniel Pipes was one of those reviewers who favorably received From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab–Jewish Conflict Over Palestine, a book which was so egregiously wrong that even the Zionist historian Yehoshua Porath had this to say about it:
“I am reluctant to bore the reader and myself with further examples of Mrs. Peters’s highly tendentious use—or neglect—of the available source material. … Everyone familiar with the writing of the extreme nationalists … would immediately recognize the tired and discredited arguments in Mrs. Peters’s book. I had mistakenly thought them long forgotten. It is a pity that they have been given new life.
(”Mrs. Peters’s Palestine”, New York Review of Books, January 16, 1986).
4 Here is what Robert Fisk had to say:
Daniel Pipes and Martin Kramer of the Middle East Forum now run a website in the United States to denounce academics who are deemed to have shown “hatred of Israel”. One of the eight professors already on this contemptible McCarthyite list — it is grotesquely called “Campus Watch” — committed the unpardonable sin of signing a petition in support of the Palestinian scholar Edward Said. Pipes wants students to inform on professors who are guilty of “campus anti-Semitism”.
(Robert Fisk, “How to shut up your critics”, The Independent, October 21, 2002).
Pipes and Woolsey ( Clinton’s CIA director ) both members of the old PNAC gang.
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/charts/pnac-chart.htm
The Podhoretz’s over at Commentary are the primary source of the Obama trash
http://tinyurl.com/3ars3k
You can scroll back for Noah Pollak entries and see that he has been at it for awhile
Of course, NRO cant be left out
http://tinyurl.com/2sn5q7
In the fall look for Ari Fleischer’s Freedom Watch with unlimited funding from Sheldon Adelson.
And, oh yea, I guess you fine folk here at NQ and join in and help
Jesus,
Thanks for the links. You’ll now be blamed for cutting and pasting.
They started out here talking about the NON STORY of Rezko and are moving on the latest tactic.
Don’t miss it.
OMG! Bloomberg printed it!
Obama Bought His Home With No Rezko `Discount,’ Seller Affirms
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a_9sOMpy91Js&refer=us
So now the evil Muslim angle is more mud on a wall that isn’t sticking.
Cee, if you are fool enough to call the Rezko thing a “non-story”, then you don’t have any opinions on Obama worth listening to. Obama was an attorney supposedly working on behalf of low income housing when he met Rezko. That relationship has developed over the years into what has turned out so far to be a highly embarrassing mistake.
Here’s the part you’re missing – Rezko was a slumlord, and as it turned out Rezko was the kind of slumlord who gives slumlords a bad name. Instead of being an adversary of this guy, Obama cultivated him as a supporter, and clung to that relationship long after Rezko was known to be under investigation.
That’s creepy even by the pathetic standards of today’s politics.
Calling this a “non-story” is like calling the fact we’ve found no signs WMD in Iraq a “non-story”. It’s denial in its purest form.
Cujo,
Carry on if that is all you have to hang on to.
Cee, it’s nowhere near all I have to “hang onto”. The fact is that I’m not fond of either candidate who’s left in the Democratic race. If they were all I had to “hang onto”, I’d have thrown myself off a bridge by now. I’d be profoundly shocked if even Clinton, the better of these two by far, managed to do anything more than not screw things up more horribly than they are already. She’s been largely uninvolved, at least publicly, in defending the Constitution and getting us out of Iraq. I take past behavior as the best indication of what somene will do in the future, and on that score, Clinton is none too promising.
But saying that Obama is somehow going to be working for anyone other than himself when we behaves like this is denial on a massive scale. In Obama’s case, past behavior tells me to expect nothing more.
You can go around calling people desperate idiots all you want for not drinking the KoolAid, but I’m still not drinking.
Cujo,
I don’t believe I have ever called anyone on this blog an idiot for disagreeing with me.
I also don’t demean anyone by saying they are drinking KoolAid.
I have called her campaign desperate.
I still think they are.
Wondisford has declined to talk directly about the matter.
Cee; All I saw there was an email the writer refers to but did not publish. Second, does it not bother you that the source for the artical is a “spokesman for Obama’s campaign.” ? (good grief Charlie Brown)
It sounds like someone at Obama’s campaign is trying to get on the same page. Nothing more.
And FYI: I seriously dought they approached Obama, rather the other way round.
Cee,
Sorry that just does not cover it.
1. Obama is caught in yet another LIE – He told the Sun-Times, I am paraphrasing “I may have mentioned it to Rezko because he knew the developer”.NOW we find out he actually toured the property with Rezko per Bloomberg’s article. HUGE difference. Like me saying to the guy behind the counter were I pick up small groceries items that “I am going to have my car fixed”, as opposed to actually taking the guy with me. Why lie about it in the first place?
2. He made 3 offers in January – However his wife told a reporter she was “surpised” in October, 2004″ that their condo had sold so quickly. Obama also said that the Property had been on the market 3 months, roughly around the time they sold their condo. What were they waiting for when their condo was sold? Had the advances for the book not arrived yet?
3. When or where were the hearings for the sub-division?
4. Michelle Obama was on the Landmark Board until March 2005. She would have been present at any hearings or approvals. Why did she wait until March 2005 to resign?
There are still many , many holes in this story. Further you can see the property is on the corner of Hyde Park Ave and 51st steet if you follow the comments in the diary below. Hyde Park Ave is a divided type highway with an island down the middle. The Property has a cement wall around it with no access to the sub divided lot except through the fence on Obama’s property. So how would the empty lot be viable since there would be no access from Hyde Park Ave?
As Simon pointed out in the Post at NQ, Rita Rezko sold the Property to Rezko’s Lawyer, and the neighborhood quickly made a stink when he tried to develop it for commercial use for a High Rise Condo. If there was nothing fishy, and the lot was the size required by zoning, the neighbors would not have had any argument as the lot faces a Jewish Synagogue, which is also commercial proerty even though the classfication would be religious for property tax reasons.
In the comments you will find Truthteller is a neighbor who lives in the same two blocks, as Obama. He concurs this is NOT a straight deal. Further down you will find a comment by Dale A, who also lived in the neighborhood, and gives quite an eyeopening comment about the Chicago Landmark Commission, and how they operate.
Here’s the link http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/4/20117/25087
One brief point, Larry. I don’t know if you snipped off the nasty bits, but what you excerpted didn’t read like “hate mail” at all, but someone calling your research irresponsible, and attempting to back it up with evidence. Now, we can have a discussion of that evidence–but surely it’s not necessary to call this hate mail. (Especially given the true hate found on all sides here…)
Quote (Noah Pollak): “Does Power actually believe that the NIE put to rest concerns about the Iranian nuclear program? If she actually thinks that — and it appears she does — she deserves voluminous ridicule from thinking people everywhere.”
And Mr. Pollak does not go on to explain why he thinks the Bush Administration (who WANTED to invade Iran and would have loved to have said it still had a nuclear program) would allow an NIE that stated otherwise. Why should I take this idiot seriously?
There was a very interesting article about the Oval Office bubble, and the need for a President to step out, and seek opinions contrary to his own, and his staff, opinions that would make him scream, if he were a lesser man, but necessary, so as not to become paranoid, with a incorrect, warped singular world vision. I can’t remember where I read it, but I’ll link as soon as I find it.
The writer said B Clinton would do this frequently, even yelling he would get so upset, but Clinton had a balanced realistic world view, taking on and considering an opposite POV that would grossly upset a lesser President. And the US, and the world, are better for it. But Clinton wasn’t insecure, he is brilliant.
Compare that to neocon Washington, where everything but Fox is disallowed, on the TV, and men like Doug Feith can spy for Israel, and not be dishonored.
But given the only other thing to listen to, there, at least, is Matthews, or CNN, maybe they’re right.
Of course, one can always READ, but, no, not that crew.
As a university professor who teaches critical thinking, I am always stunned when I present a case for analysis and when asked, my students respond by saying “I don’t like it” or “It’s not good” or “It’s too long and boring” or “The writer” (most often an expert in his/her field) “doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
Larry, your argument is clear and you’ve cited the evidence. People may make emotional arguments against your case, but unless they have counter evidence, it amounts to naught.
Please continue to report.
A dear lady who with 5 of her friends stayed on to clean up and close out the RFK campaign offices in Massachusetts after his assassination. One of the “Boiler Room Girls” as they were called.
It is good to see that her memory is not forgotten, especially in an election year, especially since the man she was riding with when she died has since endorsed Obama.
INDEED!!!
As a university professor who teaches critical thinking.
Thanks for what you do. I see very little emphasis on this in k-12. It must be a very challenging line of work to be in considering young people today are not inclined to question what is being represented as “fact”…
I look forward to your posts.
That’s pretty out of character though, for the name choice of the post.
I think Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones and Monica will be posting soon, for balance of course.
Well, at least they CAN still post.
Terrific and LOGICAL response!
Larry has in fact cited no evidence to support his claim that Khalidi was ever in the PLO, you can not just say “Khalidi worked in WAFA” and make it a fact. Just as I cannot just say “Larry worked for Al Qaeda,” site some dubious wikipedia article (which is really where he got it) and then claim it is an established fact. If he has any documentary evidence then that would be a different story but that’s just not the case. Tom Friedman said he was, Khalidi insists he wasn’t. I don’t see why Khalidi would go out of his way to lie about this and I’m pretty sure Khalidi knows a lot more about who he worked for than Friedman, making the claim altogether silly. If you can cite some independent documentary evidence to the contrary then you have a case.
The Campus Watch claims are ridiculous as well. That very first claim about the first Gulf War is an absolute fiction. I looked it up in the LA Times archives and it states that Khalidi opposed Iraqi aggression against Kuwait but he was skeptical of war. The second claim about the “open endorsement” is particularly stupid. In that same sentence that they quote, Khalidi goes on to mention Bush’s endorsement about a Palestinian state and then he makes a general critique of US policy. Considering the backwards quality of the first two claims, it is quite easy to dismiss the rest as sheer lies. Campus Watch specializes on hoping people won’t check their footnotes, hopefully not all of us are that stupid.
The notion that Larry has some firm grasp on logic and critical thinking is somewhat of a joke.
Notice how he never responded to Joel’s rebuttal that it was Richard Bulliet and not Khalidi that brought Ahmadinejad to Columbia. This is just proof that Larry pulled this straight from his ass. The fact that someone like this worked for the CIA and the State Department might explain why US foreign policy is incredibly clumsy at times.
Larry,
I read your blog regularly and am a big fan. I want to respond to a collateral point in this article. AIPAC is NOT a political action committee. Those words are not even part of its name. AIPAC stands for American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Although it is a pro-Israel lobby, it is not a PAC and does not contribute to political candidates. This is a common misconception that needs to be cleared up.
Thank you.
Cathy: I don’t know if you’re just ill-informed, or if you’re trying to be disingenuous, here, but the American Israel Public Affairs Committee is most definitely a PAC, and they do give money to candidates.
In the July 4, 2005 New Yorker, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
Robert H. Asher, a former AIPAC president, told me that the PACs are usually given euphemistic names. “I started a PAC called Citizens Concerned for the National Interest,” he said. Asher, who is from Chicago, is a retired manufacturer of lamps and shades, and a member of the so-called Gang of Four—former presidents of AIPAC, who steered the group’s policies for more than two decades. (The three others are Larry Weinberg, a California real-estate developer and a former owner of the Portland Trail Blazers; Edward Levy, a construction-materials executive from Detroit; and Mayer “Bubba” Mitchell, a retired builder based in Mobile, Alabama.) [8]
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=AIPAC
Juan Cole knows all about AIPAC:
http://www.antiwar.com/cole/?articleid=3467
Apologies if this appears twice, it didn’t appear the first time I posted it.
Who cares what the writer for the New Republic appreciates or does not appreciate. People who are crying, “We only want change,” need to note that not all change is for the better. Obama is not change for the good. He is a poser with a questionable background. If the media would do their job, the facts about Obama would come out. Keep up the fine writing and don’t let any of the Obama apostles silence you.
I interviewed Rashid Khalidi! Way back in October 2003 for my college paper. It was a really good interview and I thought it turned out to be far more accurate and prescient than anything else published that dumb year. Khalidi’s a good guy!
http://www.macalester.edu/weekly/101703/news01.html
So i guess this means the interview is destined to become a chip in the GOP smear vortex!
Arabs aren’t really allowed to be engaged with local politics, it seems to be implied here, on the other hand guys like Daniel Pipes are supposed to get a free pass for all their slanders and such. I certainly agree that’s a line that the GOP will try to sell; that and the notion that Obama was cool with the Nation of Islam. I did not expect to hear good ol Larry Johnson fuming about Khalidi at this late date, but then again it is reasonable to scope ahead for incoming smear tactics.
In any case if Johnson would care to explain how the CIA worked around various cocaine schemes in Mena Arkansas during Bill’s governorship (and the various awesome corporations chartered by Hillary/Hubbell et al @ Rose Law Firm) then perhaps we’ll be able to get to the nitty gritty texture of how politics really works in America. Anything else strikes me as cherrypicking. Have a good one
Agreed.
So bring your arguments in, don’t just drop a splat of birdshit, and think yourself, um, effective.
Really, let’s see what you’ve got, otherwise you’re just another lightweight Obama poser, and frankly, that song has been done to death.
Perhaps you could meet BG…
Brighid,
I am neither ill-informed nor disingenuous. A PAC is a political committee organized for the purpose of raising and spending money to elect and defeat candidates. PACs have limitations as to how much money they can give to any candidate per committee per election.
You quote two sources:
1) Sourcewatch -(itself quoting a New Yorker article), says, in the most generous inerpretation, that AIPAC’s members may use its information to decide who to contribute money to. That does not make the point you hope it does.
2) Juan Cole – I have read his article in its entirety, and it reflects not so much an erudite analysis of AIPAC, but an extreme bias against AIPAC.
As I said earlier, AIPAC is a pro-Israel lobby. You do not have to like what AIPAC does, but that does not make it a PAC.
Brighid,
I would also like to note, but forgot to, that although the $20 millions contributions over 14 years, referred to by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) in the excerpted article are not from organizations in any way affiliated with AIPAC, that is only a tiny part of the billions of dollars contributed by many organizations and individuals during those political cycles.
First, I will say, I voted for Obama – in Florida — which doesn’t count anyway. That aside, I want the man vetted. One of the things that caused me to step back and take another look at both Hillary and Barack before I drank the Kool-aid of Hope is this crazy little thing called reality.
To all the Obama supporters, I don’t think there’s anybody who posted here who DOESNT’ want change. I applaud senator Obama for bringing so many new voters into the fold, and I honestly believe he is a good guy. I don’t think there’s anyone on here who says, “I just love a good negative campaign,” or who even wants these stories to be true. We all wish the crap would end, but the harsh reality is, the Republicans will dig this stuff up, no matter how insignificant it may seem to you now. Remember, these are the same people who made people believe John Kerry was not a war hero. And the media, they bite, because it’s good for ratings.
Hope and optimism are wonderful things, but you’ve got to temper that with some healthy skepticism. Otherwise, it’s easy to get duped.
And why should you all care about it? These are some pretty scary connections. I mean even if they are just casual acquaintances: A cousin in Kenya who Obama keeps in touch with who is a genocidal maniac. A big contributor who is under grand jury investigation. A former PLO member and a known home-grown terrorist. He is the one saying he has “superior judgement.” People in places like New York and Miami who would vote for Obama are going to want to have their fears addressed about these connections, and if Barack wants to be the leader of the greatest country in the world, even though his wife isn’t really that proud of it– until now — then he needs to assure the American people that he’s the real deal. It takes a real leader to do just that and I’m waiting to see if Barack will step forward and assume that leadership role. Unfortunately, Hillary can’t bring this stuff up. The media won’t bring it up. Some think John McCain won’t but, the “Swiftboat” type groups will.
Look, as Obama supporters, you and I owe it to this country to demand him to talk about it now, so we still have time to decide if he’s the right guy for us Dems to put out there on the chopping block. If he talks about it and it’s nothing then fine. He can get the nomination and the Republicans won’t have enough to light those fires. (Although, I’m sure they’ll dig up something else). If not, we may have to run Hillary this time. At least she is vetted.
I urge you all to write to Barack and ask him to clear the air. Otherwise, the Republicans will have a field day — We risk losing the GE and the change we’re all hoping for will not happen anytime soon.
Rashid Khalidi’s Double Standard on Grammar for Jews
by Jonathan Schwartz
Anti-Racist Blog
February 22, 2008
http://antiracistblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/columbia-university-professor-rashid.html
According to a paper published this month in the Middle East Quarterly, Columbia University Professor Rashid Khalidi thinks different rules of grammar should apply to the Jews than to all the other nations. That’s right , grammar.
We know that in Khalidi’s opinion the Palestians and everybody else gets a state of their own, except the Jews.
But – grammar? Surely the Jews are as entitled as other peoples to use definite articles. Here’s the passage.
Khalidi is also guilty of inconsistent methodology in applying rules of grammar. He often uses “a people” in the ordinary manner, as a near-synonym for nation, writing: “The Palestinians are a people with national rights.”[1] Or: “This remarkable book recounts how the Palestinians came to be constituted as a people.”[2] He justified the terrorism of the second intifada by arguing that the “violence, which has broken out, has been the natural result of a people desiring its independence”[3] Khalidi misunderstands the phrase “a people” only when discussing the phrase “land without a people.”[4]
Khalidi does this in order to claim that those disingenuous early Zionists falsely claimed that Palestine was “empty.”
Rashid Khalidi… writes that, “In the early days of the Zionist movement, many of its European supporters—and others—believed that Palestine was empty and sparsely cultivated. This view was widely propagated by some of the movement’s leading thinkers and writers, such as Theodore Herzl, Chaim Nachman Bialik, and Max Mandelstamm, with Herzl never even mentioning the Arabs in his famous work, The Jewish State. It was summed up in the widely-propagated Zionist slogan, ‘A land without a people for a people without a land.’”[5]
Khalidi’s statement is factually wrong. Rather than check Der Judenstaat, he refers to an academic work that was inaccurate.[6] Herzl mentions the resident population of Palestine, albeit in the context of discussing possible locations for his projected Jewish state. He was prescient in his analysis of the political impact that the inhabitants were likely to have on the Zionist project. Immigration, he explained, “continues till the inevitable moment when the native population feels itself threatened and forces the government to stop a further influx of Jews. Immigration is consequently futile unless we have the sovereign right to continue such immigration.”[7] To say that Herzl at the time he wrote Der Judenstaat had little interest in the existing population beyond assessing their probable impact on Zionism is fair. To state that he “never even mentioned” the Arabs of Palestine is untrue. Nor did the phrase “land without a people” ever appear in Herzl’s books, letters, or diary.[8]
There is more. It turns out that the phrase “A land without a people for a people without a land” was not a Zionist slogan after all. Just another “fact” invented by Edward Said and the PLO.
Follow the money…see the ties—research–>>
Obama–>Rezko–>Nadhmi Auchi–>Saddam Hussein & Muammar
al-Gaddafi–>(Pastor Wright, Louis Farrakhan, and Raila
Odinga)–>Obama–>Bill Ayers & Bernadine Dorhn–>Obama–>Rashid
Khalidi–>Obama–>Rezko–>Jabir Herbert
Muhammad–>Farrakhan–>Obama–>
Follow the money…see the ties—>research–>>
Uh, okay. I’ll play.
Rendell must have committed some kind of crime.
Clinton’s big Pa. backer reached out to Farrakhan
By Ami Eden on Feb 27, 2008
During Tuesday’s debate in Ohio Hillary Clinton argued that Barack Obama had not gone far enough in speaking out against Louis Farrakhan. After the debate her pollster, Mark Penn, was in the spin room arguing that Obama may have rejected and denounced Farrakhan, but he failed to criticize his pastor’s praise of the Nation of Islam leader.
Well, if this race makes it to Pennsylvania, it will be interesting to find out what Clinton has to say on the issue of Farrakhan to her most important backer in the state, Governor Ed Rendell.
Then the mayor of Philadelphia, Rendell not only made a controversial decision to share the stage with Farrakhan in an effort to diffuse racial tensions in the city, but then praised the NOI for its emphasis on family values and self-sufficiency (this, after ripping what he described as “so-called Jewish leaders” for criticizing the decision to give Farrakhan a platform).
http://elections.jta.org/2008/02/27/clintons-big-pa-backer-shared-the-stage-with-farrakhan/
Geeze
zOMG! HALP US BAROK O’BOMBA– WE R STUCK HEAR N ALTOONA!!!!! SAV Uz!!!
[...] and former Professor of at Chicago University where he befriended Obama according to a report by Larry Johnson. Charles Lipsonwrote in his March 30, 2008 article, “……..Raschid sat on the same [...]
Larry wrote…
we are talking US politics and no national level politician can afford to be perceived as someone who will abandon our special relationship with Israel.
Perhaps it’d be more fruitful to discuss what’s actually the most practical, most helpful policy positions… rather than focussing on how they’re “perceived”?
None of knows how a politician’s stance would be perceived. At best, we can study some past results, draw speculative conclusions about why people voted the way they did, make guesses about how voters will respond in the future, and then pretend that those guesses are truth.
We don’t know which stance will be most successful in winning any particular election (let alone which political choices will lead to long-term success, beyond the current election). This strongly argues for less focus on how one’s stance will be perceived, and more focus on what’s right.
Stuart Resnick
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/
To the American public, perception….is everything.
First Rezko, then Auchi, then Wright, now Ayers and Khalidi…does anyone see a pattern here??? Do we really want these anti-American, anti-Semitic, terrorist, black separatists, racist, criminal types that Obama associates with running through the halls of the White House along with the New Black Panther Party, Hamas, et al??? Wake up, people, and smell the Obama machine’s catastrophic world plan!!!
Susan we can also add Jodi Evans and Hatem El-Hady according to reports two “other” interesting ties to Obama.
[...] paper softpedals that Khalidi was a director of the official PLO press agency when the US State Department considered the PLO a terrorist [...]
Unbelievable! The days of Reporters getting down to the nitty gritty of a story seem to be over. They’ve been so busy trying to push the girl out of the race that they’ve allowed a man to be on the brink of the Presidency without any vetting, whatsoever.
[...] independents, Republicans and skeptical Democrats think of Wright, Rezko, Ayers, Johnson, Auchi, Khalidi, [...]
[...] more information on Khalidi, see http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/18/more-on-rashid-khalidi-and-the-risks-for-obama/ [...]
THE PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO KNOW THE TRUTH!!!
Why is the media holding back the video of Obama
and Rashid Khadili ???
Whether it was the primaries against Hillary, or the General Election against McCain … the only way Obama can win is to either use gimmicks, out spend his opponents, use Acorn voter fraud, or for the corrupt media to censor information about Obama. The corrupt media should be prosecuted with jail time, just as someone who commits purgery is prosecuted.
Freedom of speech is just that, freedom. They have the right to not show videos just as much as McCain has the right to not admit his own affiliations.
I could careless to see the video in all honesty, as McCain has ties to Mr. Khadili himself so he is no better for not discussing that.
Just another person complaining because their race horse is way behind, grow up and get smart.
And no, I’m not for either candidate, just tired of people not reading all the facts.
Khalidi is accused of being a member of the PLO-
So were every Palestinian Israel has spoken to for decades.
Israel has said it is committed to a two state solution-who then would Israel speak to- it is through PLOers that Israels line of communication has been maintained and stability maintained.
Khalidi has always been a proponent of a two state policy- in that he is in full agreement with Israel.
These days, that is more indictment than exoneration!
[...] Activist Interesting article about this relationship in a blog dated February18, 2008. More on Rashid Khalidi and the Risks for Obama : NO QUARTER __________________ 2004 Titan Smoke LE CC Born 11/18/03 Bed Extender, Overhead Racks Hood [...]
Obama is the change the world needs. Zionists have controlled the US government for too long. Change will bring fairness to all oppressed peoples. With Gods help Obama is destined to bring freedom to Palestine.
Another example of the circle of people Sen. Obama finds himself in the company of and sympathetic towards. It is disquieting to think that the destruction of Israel and killing of innocents in that cause are subjects which Obama seems to be at least casually comfortable. Beware the Manchurian candidate. The more we find out about this man, the more disconcerting that knowledge is.
Another example of the circle of people Sen. Obama finds himself in the company of and sympathetic towards. It is disquieting to think that the destruction of Israel and killing of innocents in that cause are subjects with which Obama seems to be at least casually comfortable. Beware the Manchurian candidate. The more we find out about this man, the more disconcerting that knowledge is.
I think you’re overestimating how much Israel matters in this election, and at this moment in the campaign, which is frankly not all that much. It would be different if the US wasn’t in a rollcoaster of an economic crisis and if the public’s concerns hadn’t shifted back to domestic issues.
It would also be different if Jewish voters didn’t despise Palin as much as they do. Some who were unsure about Obama, might have voted for McCain. Then McCain picked Palin. She’s not the “type.” Her evangelicalism, anti-intellectualism, small town hunting caribou, anti-urban image has no appeal for Jewish voters who traditionally vote Democratic and also live in urban areas.
In addition, this “revelation” is probably too little too late. Frankly, it could backfire. Undecideds might associate McCain’s use of this with the negative campaigning that hurt rather than helped him.
I would worry about something more damaging than Rashid Khalidi at this point. The US and Israel both recognized the PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in the Oslo Accords. Tying Obama to a Hamas spokesperson might get some legs for McCain, but there really is no way to do that with Khalidi who is an utterly secular nationalist.
Beirut, 1976-1982? Do you really think Americans have a long enough memory to go that far? And Beirut is not Riyadh. The Saudis have a negative image in ways Lebanon doesn’t, likely due to how many Lebanese immigrants settled here and how long ago they did it.
The reason Stern is so adamant is that Columbia, where both he and Khalidi teach, has been hit by “pro-Israeli” invaders that have at moments turned the university into a political circus. And in front of the mass media. Columbia president, Lee Bollinger, has done some moronic things in an effort to placate the invaders. All that’s achieved is pissing off the faculty who don’t like infringements on academic freedom. It didn’t really placate anyone for him to scold the Iranian President, when the latter visited Columbia, and when the US intelligence report came out saying Iran didn’t have nuclear weapons and wasn’t an imminent threat, I think Bollinger had enough of playing to the crowd.
My guess is that if anything comes of the Khalidi story it will be Columbia’s faculty rallying to his defense, a bubbling up of real resentment toward Bollinger, for his past mistakes, and maybe even greater faculty organization to protect their own from external politics. As they’ve seen too much encroachment recently.
I’d pay money to watch Democratic hacks reminding the public that the PLO is today a US ally.
BTW, I’m with you that the Palestinians have gotten a very raw deal for a long time. I’m voting for Obama, but I think the way he and Biden have handled that issue is shameful.
[...] Obama and Khalidi – Another Chicago Connection: Former Spokesman for Yasser Arafat’s PLO More on Rashid Khalidi and the Risks for Obama : NO QUARTER Columbia U’s Radical Middle East Faculty – Campus Watch __________________ "People sleep [...]
So..when are you gonna ask for Khalidi to be fired from his university job.
Cause this man who is such a danger, should not teach the students, the future of America, anything crazy.When are you gonna ask for the columbia university’s whole board to be fired for hiring this dangerous PLO activist?When are you gonna ask all the professors at the university who had lunch with Khalidi to be fired, cause they might share some of his views or they were next to him while he said something about Israel.
Give me a break.Obama knows Khalidi, so what ?So do many many more professors and scholars and graduates. If you are not worried about the many other people Khalidi influences on daily bases at the university, stop throwing hissy fits over Khalid knowing Obama
McCain Funded Work Of Palestinian His Campaign Hopes To Tie To Obama
During the 1990s, while he served as chairman of the International Republican Institute (IRI), McCain distributed several grants to the Palestinian research center co-founded by Khalidi, including one worth half a million dollars.
A 1998 tax filing for the McCain-led group shows a $448,873 grant to Khalidi’s Center for Palestine Research and Studies for work in the West Bank. (See grant number 5180, “West Bank: CPRS” on page 14 of this PDF.)
The relationship extends back as far as 1993, when John McCain joined IRI as chairman in January. Foreign Affairs noted in September of that year that IRI had helped fund several extensive studies in Palestine run by Khalidi’s group, including over 30 public opinion polls and a study of “sociopolitical attitudes.”
Here is the link to the PDF:
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/IRIForm9901998.pdf
and the original article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/28/mccain-funded-work-of-pal_n_138606.html
We CAN get that tape but it will take us all. . .
I don’t know if there’s anything on that tape or not. I do know that we have a RIGHT to find out. Since the LA Times refuses to release it, we have little option but to force them to do so.
If you live in LA or subscribe to the LA Times, I strongly encourage you to:
a.) Cancel you subscription — TODAY!
b.) Make sure the newspaper knows why you cancelled.
c.) Grab a copy of the paper and make sure that their advertisers, especially the big ones, know that you’ve cancelled and why.
d.) Make sure the newspaper knows you’re talking to their advertisers.
e.) If you can spare some time, picket/protest the LA Times offices.
f.) Encourage your friends, neighbors, coworkers, family, etc. to do the same.
g.) Copy this message to every BLOG you visit.
If we hit them hard enough on their bottom line, they WILL release the tape.
Regardless of what Rashid Khalidi feelings are towards Israel, has no bearing on whether he personally is an anti-Semite. As a American Jew, people automatically ASSume I support all of Israeli gov’t actions. Which I don’t. My father was a practicing Orthodox Jew, and 4 of his pallbearers were Palestinians that he had close bonds with. They discussed politics all the time, but it never overshadowed their love for each other. When my dad was sick, he would always find the time to visit
his close friends, who sat him at the head of the table and would put a warm blanket around his shoulders. They would discuss the Koran and the Talmud, but with the utmost of respect. My dad learned Arabic late in life, so he could relate more closely with his Arab ‘half’ family. I’ve known these people for over 40 years, and they’ve always been real warm and gracious. Being a DAV Vietnam veteran, they’d always ask me questions about my experience. Since I don’t live where they are and outside New Orleans, they were sincerely interested in my post-Katrina recovery. I got many gifts and offers from them, to come and help us rebuild our home. We didn’t take a dime in gov’t money, so they knew from my Dad that we were struggling. My dad soon after died, but I still get calls and cards from them. I’ve found nothing related to Rashid Khalidi to indicate he’s a threat to me or my country, despite what FOX is trying to instill. Since Rashid Khalidi is a born and raised American, he’s free to practice whatever religion he wants and to write and say whatever he wants. To be quite honest with you from a lifetime of personal experiences, people like ‘Joe the Plumber’ tend to be more anti-Semitic then Arabs
of any national heritage.
[...] worth noting that these characterizations of Mr. Khalidi are false. A little digging reveals that he was an adviser to the Palestinian delegation in Madrid in 1991. The way the conference [...]