This is off topic in a way, but since it is your latest post, most beneficial to note it here. The blog Raw Story has two op-eds, one today (9/25/07) and one tomorrow, by Peter Lance re AG nominee Mukasey's role in burying the Al Mohamed story. RAW also had an excellent thread about the 9/11 cover-up about a week ago. While I realize that some of us are coming from differing political affiliations on this, I think the issue of 9/11 truth seeking cuts across these differences.
That should be Ali, not Al, of course.
Thank you for keeping up on this issue as you do. I have tried to write on the matter as I have thought of it or felt inclined to (the most recent posting I made on the matter can be read HERE) and I just wanted to make you both aware of it as well as thank you for being such a bulldog on this issue.
Even if there is nothing to the Able Danger situation, what bothers me is that these people will investigate anything they think can give them something to smack the current administration around with but this matter they want nothing to do with.
I for one only want to know what happened, if 9/11 could have been avoided, and learning from the past so we do not repeat ourselves with another even worse catastrophe because we did not learn what we should have done to prevent 9/11 to begin with (if we could have and I am strongly inclined to believe we could have).
Mike-
Lori Lowenthal Marcus is NOT one of Joe Sestak's constituents.
She lives in Montgomery County in the 6th Congressional District. Sestak is in Delaware County in the 7th Congressional District.
Of course, this is the level of IN-accuracy one expects from the Able Danger crowd.
Mike-
Lori Lowenthal Marcus is NOT one of Joe Sestak's constituents.
She lives in Montgomery County in the 6th Congressional District. Sestak is in Delaware County in the 7th Congressional District.
Do you have a source for this David??? Montgomery County is partly in the 7th Congressional District if I am not mistaken.
Of course, this is the level of IN-accuracy one expects from the Able Danger crowd.
Without some evidence on your part, I see no reason to take you at your word on this. Even if we were to concede you the point for the sake of argument, are you saying that you and your amigos (whomever they are) never make little mistakes like that???
This is such a minor mistake (even if it is one) that your mentioning of it is suspicious. It certainly does not disqualify the credibility of the arguments made against Rep. Sestak -surely if you want to do that you would be able to find something substantial to highlight if you could.
The bottom line is, you have not provided evidence to substantiate your assertion and even if you do, this has all the hallmarks of majoring in minors. But then again, straining at gnats and swallowing camels is something that political pundits have a long history of doing -particularly those with a D after their name. (Not to let those with an R after their completely off the hook of course.)
Well, if I'm truly wrong I'll update it to "Philadephia voter". Guess Joe made the same mistake telling her, "Go ahead and vote me out of office, you'd be doing me a favor."
Source: July PA State Voter File
Name: MARCUS, LORI LOWENTHAL
Registration: DEM
Voting Precinct: 1st Precinct of Lower Merion Ward 1
Congressional district: 6th (not 7th)
St. Senate District: 17th
St. Legislative District: 148th
Sorry, I don't have her blood-type for you.
Actually, it's a pretty critical "mistake" on your part to say she is one of Joe's constituents. It implies to readers that she is suffering under congressman that doesn't represent her. I know something about this, as a resident of the 7th that suffered under Weldon misrepresenting me in congress.
It's also ironic how the Able Danger crowd likes to site all these "connections", then questions my integrity when I "debunk" a straight-forward error in your assumed connection with Ms. Marcus and the 7th district.
You guys remind me of the Kennedy-Lincoln connection game from grade school, including they both had 7-letters in last name, and the coincidental (or conspiratorial) names of their secretaries.
As for the substance of Ms. Marcus's tirade about Joe, this is a total rehash of the neocon anti-Islamic rhetoric that I and many others de-constructed six months ago on blogs and letter to the editors. CAIR is NOT a terrorist front group. What is going on is that people are trying to stir up members of the Jewish community by falsely laying accusations of Antisemitism. The issue is so inflammatory that enough people will take the bait and spread the lies without any proof.
It has gotten to the point that ANY disagreement with Israel on any policy will bring an accusation of Antisemitism and the response that any/all actions by Israel are inarguably self-defense. However, Israel did drop US-made cluster bombs (in violation of their agreements with us on want is "defensive" use).
If Americans should be free to criticize their own government without being labeled unpatriotic and should certainly be free to criticize Israel once in a while.
CAIR is an Islamic equivalent to the Jewish Anti-Defamation league. If people are going to "connect" CAIR to money going to terrorists, then others are going to use the same logic to "connect" Jewish support organizations to killing Palestinian children. And the cycle of violence continues.
BTW, with regards to the March Sestak event at a Jewish Synagogue, there weren't any Islamic protesters from CAIR outside with signs. Looking purely at the rhetoric, which side behaved more civilized?
I hope I have addressed not only your inaccuracy, but my general disdain for the kind of inflammatory attacks made by Ms. Marcus that distract us from any real solutions.
Mike-
BTW, Joe did not make the "Vote me out of office" to her.
She was relating a statement from Joe during a gathering where he was peppered with questions. It's not even clear that Ms. Marcus was at the gathering (no use of first person). She is more clearly relaying anti-Joe talking points she gathered from local coverage of the event.
I have corrected my post. In the future Dave, you might want to start by criticizing the substance of a piece like Lori's as opposed to nit-picking those who link to it (it only encourages us).
Source: July PA State Voter File
Name: MARCUS, LORI LOWENTHAL
Registration: DEM
Voting Precinct: 1st Precinct of Lower Merion Ward 1
Congressional district: 6th (not 7th)
St. Senate District: 17th
St. Legislative District: 148th
Thank you David, that will suffice.
Sorry, I don't have her blood-type for you.
Putting up when challenged to substantiate an assertion is something you should have a lot less thin skin about David. You made an assertion, I asked you to substantiate it, and you did (to your credit).
It's also ironic how the Able Danger crowd likes to site all these "connections", then questions my integrity when I "debunk" a straight-forward error in your assumed connection with Ms. Marcus and the 7th district.
You debunked nothing David until you responded to my request. As far as your complaining of the Able Danger vsrious "connections", I remember twenty years ago when the whole Iran-Contra "scandal" was in the news and the Democrats in congress were calling for investigations. When it was pointed out that so many of the more ludicrous assertions made by the extremists in that crowd had no evidence to support them, the response of then-speaker of the house Thomas Foley was (paraphrased) "that is why we need to have investigations on the matter."
The difference between Iran Contra (IC) and Able Danger (AD) is twofold (i) there are a lot more credible allegations of connections with AD than with IC and (ii) the allegations of AD directly involve matters of national security and possible breaches that resulted in the worst terrorist attack in our nation's history. For that reason, calling for a legitimate investigation of these matters is not unseemly. However "conservative" or "Republican" the people running this site may be (if they even are), this is not a single-party issue here nor should it be. (There are people calling for Able Danger investigation who are hardly conservative at all Rory O'Connor comes to mind offhand) and that is how it should be with issues that potentially affect national security.
You guys remind me of the Kennedy-Lincoln connection game from grade school, including they both had 7-letters in last name, and the coincidental (or conspiratorial) names of their secretaries.
Now you are engaging in a fallacious form of ad hominem David. Come on, the right to free speech includes as all rights do a coordinative responsibility. You have all the right in the world to say whatever you want but if you put something forward as a fact, expect to see it challenged by people from time to time.
Actually, it's a pretty critical "mistake" on your part to say she is one of Joe's constituents. It implies to readers that she is suffering under congressman that doesn't represent her. I know something about this, as a resident of the 7th that suffered under Weldon misrepres
Actually, it's a pretty critical "mistake" on your part to say she is one of Joe's constituents. It implies to readers that she is suffering under congressman that doesn't represent her. I know something about this, as a resident of the 7th that suffered under Weldon misrepresenting me in congress.
I can see why this may be personal to you David but whether she is or is not a resident of the district, she has a right to be critical.
As for the substance of Ms. Marcus's tirade about Joe, this is a total rehash of the neocon anti-Islamic rhetoric that I and many others de-constructed six months ago on blogs and letter to the editors.
David, I really tire of seeing that old "neo-con" canard trotted out again and again. When I challenge those who bandy about the term to define it, I rarely get any takers. Let me know if you would be willing to take up the challenge and I will refer you to the guidelines I set down to procure a fixed meaning for that variably-applied (usually intended as a smear) label.
CAIR is NOT a terrorist front group.
They make a lot of excuses for terrorists David. Even if they are not a terrorist front the accusation of aiding and abetting terrorist organizations is one that can be reasonably substantiated by argument.
What is going on is that people are trying to stir up members of the Jewish community by falsely laying accusations of Antisemitism. The issue is so inflammatory that enough people will take the bait and spread the lies without any proof.
This is a viable concern you have. I am one who does not favour an indiscriminate application of the term "antisemitism" precisely because it is one of those labels that one it is applied is very hard to get removed. But I feel the same way about terms like "racist" too.
If I had a dollar for every time I have seen so-called "progressivists" tag people of a conservative frame of mind as "racists" as a way of trying to disqualify their positions from being given their due review and scrutiny, I could probably buy up Costa Rica and have money left over.
Let it suffice to say that there are people of all outlooks who are quick to try and dismiss the criticisms and concerns of others by labeling them with odious epithets without just cause. It is wrong no matter who does it -can we agree with each other on that much at least???
It has gotten to the point that ANY disagreement with Israel on any policy will bring an accusation of Antisemitism and the response that any/all actions by Israel are inarguably self-defense.
I agree with you that in some circles there is this tendency. But this applies in more ways than you think. For example, any disagreements with those who are scathingly critical (and often without any foundation in fact) with the Bush Administration are similarly derided by the "Bush is a Nazi" crowd.
Those who are wedded to a particular operative point of view have a reflexiv
...
Those who are wedded to a particular operative point of view have a reflexive tendency at times to dismiss as unworthy of consideration any criticism from someone who does not agree with them. Again, this is wrong no matter which side does it -can we agree on that as well???
However, Israel did drop US-made cluster bombs (in violation of their agreements with us on want is "defensive" use).
If the targets were munitions being shipped to Syria by Iran for use by Hezbollah (who has a trackrecord of terrorist strikes on Israel many miles long), then this was a legitimate pre-emptive strike. It is no different than when they struck the Iraqi Osirik nuclear reactor in 1981: destabilizing an up and coming nuclear program of a nation that had already threatened them multiple times with extermination in the past.
Survival is the fundamental right whereby all other rights depend. It is no different than if you had a neighbour who had threatened to kill you and your family numerous times and you found out that they had acquired some rifles and other weapons. The idea that you should leave well enough alone until said neighbour starts detonating bombs under your front porch and shooting his guns at your children is both illogical as well as suicidal. And if you were to act that way, then frankly you would deserve whatever you and your family got in that situation: natural selection having predetermined that your "genes" had a fundamental survival defect in them by demonstration.
If Americans should be free to criticize their own government without being labeled unpatriotic and should certainly be free to criticize Israel once in a while.
Agreed with a caveat: criticisms should be rationally based and of a constructive nature if not in actual fact than at the very least by manifested intention. (I say it that way because a lot of people do not know how to use reason and logic properly; ergo even if they intend to argue that way, they may well not succeed at it.)
CAIR is an Islamic equivalent to the Jewish Anti-Defamation league.
Which is another organization which has a tendency to see boogymen under every bed in the neighbourhood...
If people are going to "connect" CAIR to money going to terrorists, then others are going to use the same logic to "connect" Jewish support organizations to killing Palestinian children.
There is no "logic" in what you have just said. The Palestinians as a group are terrorists who deliberately target for murder non-combatants in Israel. Israel by contrast does not return the favour but sometimes when they put down a Palestinian uprising, Palestinian non-combatants are casualties. There is a world of difference between unintended collateral damage and deliberate premeditated murder.
It is not even deniable now (whereas twenty years ago it may have been able to have been credible hypothesized) that the Palestinians have no interest whatsoever in peacef
...
It is not even deniable now (whereas twenty years ago it may have been able to have been credible hypothesized) that the Palestinians have no interest whatsoever in peaceful co-existence with Israel. By stark contrast, Israel on multiple occasions has made concessions they did not want to make for the sake of trying to find a peaceful resolution but the Palestinians are not interested in it. The only way the Palestinians would be interested is if Israel agreed unilaterally to commit mass suicide and that is not going to happen.
And the cycle of violence continues.
Israel has a right to its own survival David: survival is a fundamental right we all have upon which no other even matters. That does not mean that everything Israel does is beyond scrutiny or that they may not at times exaggerate or overreact to a claimed threat. But it is highly disingenuous to claim that there is any kind of parallel situation here between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
BTW, with regards to the March Sestak event at a Jewish Synagogue, there weren't any Islamic protesters from CAIR outside with signs. Looking purely at the rhetoric, which side behaved more civilized?
Rhetoric is but one facet of the equation David. There are about two dozen armed conflicts in the world today and all but about three of them involve Muslims who cannot get along with non-Muslims or even fellow Muslims. Looking at it from that prism, which side is behaving more civilized and tolerant???
I hope I have addressed not only your inaccuracy, but my general disdain for the kind of inflammatory attacks made by Ms. Marcus that distract us from any real solutions.
You made a couple very salient points in your response this is true. You also substantiated your previous unsubstantiated assertion and that is most appreciated as well. Hopefully Mike's willingness to correct his gaffe can get things back on track.
Commenting by HaloScan
