ChrisWeigant.com

How About A Press Conference, Mister President?

[ Posted Monday, August 30th, 2010 – 17:45 PDT ]

President Obama will give an Oval Office address tomorrow night in primetime, on the subject of Iraq. This is a good idea, because it's a good use of the famed bully pulpit of the presidency, to highlight some good news. Speaking to the nation on television is a perk of office which can be quite effective in getting a message out to the American people. But there's another way to do this as well, and one that President Obama has all but ignored in the past year -- the presidential press conference. And it's about time we had another one.

The Obama team strategy has been to favor one-on-one press interviews over the formal setting of a press conference. The president, just last night, appeared on a major network in such a sit-down interview. But it's a mistake to barricade the president from press conferences, because they can also be quite effective at getting your message out. Press conferences are more of a duty than a perk to presidents, and apparently Obama has decided to just ignore doing this particular duty. This is a mistake. Obama really needs to get over his fear of press conferences, and start holding them on a regular basis.

Obama's snubbing of press conferences has been going on for roughly a year, now (actually more like 13 months). The last time I pointed this out was at the beginning of February, when I wrote:

The last formal primetime press conference President Obama held was way back in July. Since that time, Obama has spoken directly to the press only (by my count, searching the White House website) six times -- four of which were joint press availabilities with foreign leaders, mostly on foreign soil. Obama met the press with the leaders of Canada, Japan, and South Korea on separate occasions in other countries. The most recent joint press availability was held in the White House a little over two months ago, with the Indian Prime Minister.

The other two times Obama spoke to the press were in Pittsburgh (at the G20 meeting), back in September, and then in December in Copenhagen. In Pittsburgh, Obama answered five questions during an event that took (including opening remarks) 26 minutes. In Copenhagen, Obama answered seven questions during an event that lasted 23 minutes -- again, including opening remarks. Meaning that since July of last year, Obama has spent less than an hour in front of the press, both times outside the White House.

His record hasn't improved much since then. From the end of January to the current time, President Obama has answered questions from the press a total of twelve times. This sounds like a lot, but eight of these Obama was kind of forced into doing, as they were joint appearances with foreign leaders, and often very short. Of the remaining four times, Obama spoke with reporters for six minutes in one instance, 11 minutes in another, and one which was so short beginning and end times weren't even provided on the White House site (where Obama spoke a total of 110 words).

Obama really has only given one press conference since February. This makes a grand total of three since last July. Even being generous, and counting informal press availabilities, Obama has spent less than two hours answering questions from the press in the past thirteen months.

That's not enough.

Now, it's understandable that Obama's team wants to craft his message in one-on-one interviews. It allows them to control the narrative more. And Obama has had some shaky moments in press conferences (the one last July was where the whole "beer summit" fiasco began). But that still doesn't excuse the president from his dismal record on speaking to the press corps.

Sure, the White House press is like one of those cliques you used to hate in high school. And sure, they couldn't (collectively or singly) ask an intelligent followup question to save their lives. And, yes, the questions asked in press conferences are noted for their banality, for the most part.

But, again, this doesn't excuse Obama from speaking to the press regularly. It doesn't have to be in primetime (George W. Bush famously hated primetime press conferences, and held them in more informal settings and at more informal times), but realistically some sort of contact with the press should happen on a monthly basis, at least.

Obama has a communications problem, which is ironic when you think about how he campaigned. He is not seen as a very "fierce advocate" of his agenda items, preferring instead to work in the background and not step forward to claim credit until hours before a bill is ready to sign. But doing so cedes a large part of the public debate on the issue to others.

If, instead, Obama were taking questions on a regular basis and forcefully standing up for his ideas and his perception of day-to-day issues, he would do a much better job of making his case to the American people. Instead of Robert Gibbs saying things like "this is where the president stands on this issue," in his press briefings, Obama should be out there saying it himself on a regular basis.

Oval Office addresses, like the one tomorrow night, are a good way to speak directly to the public, but they are reserved for momentous occasions. The success of the troop withdrawal from Iraq certainly qualifies in this regard, as did the oil spill in the Gulf. But in between momentous occasions, the president needs to regularly share his views with the public as well -- at least if he has any intention of achieving his objectives. Relying on surrogates and cabinet members is fine, but there needs to be a strong voice coming from the top, as well. And it's worth suffering through all the truly stupid questions ("Mr. President, what do you think of the fact that one-fifth of Americans think you're a Muslim?" for instance) to get your major points across in the few intelligent questions that come your way.

So, while I'll watch tomorrow's Oval Office address, I will be thinking about the question I'd like to ask Obama right now: "Mr. President, when are you going to hold your next press conference?"

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

-- Chris Weigant

 

88 Comments on “How About A Press Conference, Mister President?”

  1. [1] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    All good points, as usual.

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think that Obama doesn't like press conferences anymore because the press is becoming as hostile and demanding of answers as the majority of Americans.

    No more swooning, no more tickle down the leg, no more rock-star adulation..

    Of course Obama won't do press conferences anymore.

    Michale.....

  3. [3] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Breaking news: Did Glenn Beck rape and murder a girl in 1990?

    http://www.examiner.com/progressive-in-portland/breaking-glenn-beck-guilty-of-rape-and-murder

    Here's the facts:
    1) Some people are wondering about Glenn Beck raping and murdering this girl in 1990
    2) There's no evidence to show that Glenn didn't rape and murder a girl in 1990
    3) Glenn is silent on the matter and won't address it

    Why won't he come clean and address this? What's he got to hide?

    Cheers
    David

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    I am not sure the point you are trying to make???

    But it DOES illustrate how bad the Left is when it comes to smear campaigns..

    Add to this, the Huffington Post offerring $100,000 for a Beck "sex tape" and you really have to wonder why ANYONE could dispute the claim that the Left is as bad as the Right..

    Michale.....

  5. [5] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Michale-

    Watch this video ...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0DydBxorhc

    I'm not saying he did rape and murder this girl.

    But isn't it suspicious? Why won't Beck answer any questions about raping and murdering this girl?

    -David

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    I know you are being ridiculously facetious here to prove a point.

    I just can't figure out exactly what the point is you are trying to make..

    I assume it has something to do with the Cordoba Mosque and the statements of Feisel Rauf..

    But I don't want to go there unless it is there you are going...

    Michale.....

  7. [7] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Wow, is the Left threatened by Beck enough, y'think? ROFL. Holy smokes.

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yea....

    Once again, the difference between the hysterical Right and the hysterical Left is blurred to non-existence...

    Michale.....

  9. [9] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Don't you care at all about this poor young girl who some claim was raped and murdered by Beck.

    Wouldn't it be reasonable for him to answer some questions?

    What does Beck have to hide? Why won't he talk about this rape and murder of a young girl?

    And why do the two of you keep trying to change the subject away from this rape and murder of a young, innocent girl?

    -David

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, I'll play along..

    Don't you care at all about this poor young girl who some claim was raped and murdered by Beck.

    There isn't any..

    Wouldn't it be reasonable for him to answer some questions?

    About as reasonable as you answering to the same charges.. :D

    What does Beck have to hide? Why won't he talk about this rape and murder of a young girl?

    Because it's obvious to anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together that there is absolutely NOTHING to the accusation. Not one iota of supporting evidence, not one scintilla of fact in the entire accusation.

    And why do the two of you keep trying to change the subject away from this rape and murder of a young, innocent girl?

    Because it's a subject unworthy of even discussion and, quite frankly, it's WAY beneath you to bring it up...

    Michale.....

  11. [11] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Glenn Beck raped a girl?!?

    Wow, I gotta blog about that!!!

    Heh. OK, I just threw that in there to make Michale's blood boil. Heh heh.

    M, where'd you get that bit about Beck sex tape for $100K? Hadn't heard that.

    Why the heck are we talking about Beck? Well, OK, if that's the subject... I have to say, whenever someone says "Beck" I always think of the music guy first. He was kind of a flash-in-the-pan (wouldn't recognize one of his songs if my life depended on it), but he was also one of those "I only have one name" guys, like Cher or Madonna. So when I hear "Beck" rather than "Glenn Beck" that's what I think of first, personally. Always takes me a second to reorient my thinking.

    Getting back to the subject, Michale will be glad to hear that Obama is going to call George W. Bush today, before his Iraq speech. Maybe Michale will be pleasantly surprised at what Obama has to say...

    Stranger things have happened... I mean, Chris1962 liked todays article!

    :-)

    -CW

  12. [12] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Oh, hey, everyone -

    Heads up: I'm doing one of those "snap columns" (it's not really "liveblogging" more like "rightafterithappenedlogging" as it were), after Obama's speech tonight. So today's posting will be very late, just to warn everyone.

    -CW

  13. [13] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Don't you care at all about this poor young girl who some claim was raped and murdered by Beck.

    Wouldn't it be reasonable for him to answer some questions?

    Sure, if any evidence existed.

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW

    M, where'd you get that bit about Beck sex tape for $100K? Hadn't heard that.

    http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=%22Huffington+Post%22+Beck+Sex+Tape&aq=f&aqi=n1g10&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=C0PliBjt9TJrnO5XcygTEuqyGAQAAAKoEBU_Q0u7E&pbx=1&fp=3318d71742fc0392

    Getting back to the subject, Michale will be glad to hear that Obama is going to call George W. Bush today, before his Iraq speech. Maybe Michale will be pleasantly surprised at what Obama has to say...

    If so, I will be pleasantly surprised and, of course, give credit where credit is due..

    But, if Obama DOES do it, it's just one more piece of evidence that Obama DOES read CW.COM... :D

    Heads up: I'm doing one of those "snap columns" (it's not really "liveblogging" more like "rightafterithappenedlogging" as it were), after Obama's speech tonight. So today's posting will be very late, just to warn everyone.

    I'll hit it in the morning... :D

    Michale.....

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Getting back to the subject, Michale will be glad to hear that Obama is going to call George W. Bush today, before his Iraq speech. Maybe Michale will be pleasantly surprised at what Obama has to say...

    Got a cite for that??

    I don't doubt you, but I would love to read up on the details..

    Michale......

  16. [16] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    The HuffPo article was removed and the author, Beau Frielander, put this up:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/beau-friedlander/an-apology-to-glenn-beck_b_699504.html

  17. [17] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    ... today's posting will be very late, just to warn everyone.

    Could you hold off on that until after 10pm, eastern ... I don't want to miss anything! :)

  18. [18] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Beck has a sex tape too?

    I'm not saying this is true, but wouldn't we all feel better if he answered some basic questions about both the sex tape and the rape?

    Because it's obvious to anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together that there is absolutely NOTHING to the accusation. Not one iota of supporting evidence, not one scintilla of fact in the entire accusation.

    Oh, but there is.

    Glenn Beck said this:
    "I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. ... No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out."

    This is evidence that even Glenn believes he's capable of killing. And he has the desire.

    Now would you agree, Michale, that you're either FOR or AGAINST murder.

    If you're AGAINST murder, then wouldn't it make sense to ask Glenn some questions?

    I just don't see why he won't answer some questions about the rape and murder of this young liberal girl.

    -David

    p.s. The musician Beck is no innocent either. I hold him responsible for the 1996 song "Where It's At"

  19. [19] 
    Chris1962 wrote:
  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have to give credit where credit is due. Mr Frielander owned up to his mistake.

    His apology to Glenn Beck was classy.

    Not many on the Left would have taken the high road in that manner..

    Michale....

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    This one's for you.. :D

    Via Mediaite: A baseless rumor insinuating that Fox News pundit Glenn Beck may be guilty of rape and murder is spreading rapidly online thanks to a loose-knit gang of Internet pranksters whose stated mission is to skewer the bombastic talk show host using his own methods.

    Regardless whether or not Mr. Beck himself is guilty of using all these tactics, the website is a veritable textbook on how to construct Internet smear campaigns, from uploading spurious documents, to posting video propaganda on YouTube, to spamming Yahoo Answers with leading questions, to ranting disingenously on Craigslist.
    http://urbanlegends.about.com/b/2009/09/03/internet-hoax-says-glenn-beck-raped-murdered-young-girl-in-1990.htm

    I still would like to know what point you are trying to make??

    Michale.....

  22. [22] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Sure, if any evidence existed.

    CB- Now that you've seen the evidence that Glenn is capable of killing, shouldn't we ask him about the rape and murder of this young girl?

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    CB- Now that you've seen the evidence that Glenn is capable of killing

    What evidence would that be??

    Irregardless of that, just because a person is capable of killing doesn't mean anything..

    ANYONE, given the right provocation, is "capable" of killing.

    The only difference is the provocation itself...

    Michale.....

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Never mind, I found the article about Obama calling Bush....

    And, OH MY FRACKING GOD!!!!

    Gibbs said there was a “whole host of factors” that contributed to the increased security situation, and said Obama “always believed” security would improve by increasing the number of troops. Obama opposed the surge strategy as a senator.

    Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/obama_calls_former_president_george_mYeIfjqPJ4Z5E0jrnsZeVI?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=#ixzz0yDK13yoN

    So, let me see if I understand this...

    Obama "always knew" that an increase in troops would bring security to Iraq..

    Yet, "knowing" this, Obama STILL opposed the troop surge...

    And we are at war with Eurasia... We have always been at war with Eurasia...

    How can you tell that Obama is lying???

    His lips are moving..

    Jeeezus H Chreest!!!

    Michale......

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here is Obama commenting about the Surge...

    Obama Said The Surge Would Actually Worsen Sectarian Violence
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_igpyewuzQ

    The Audacity Of A Joke

    That's our President....

    Michale.....

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    "I AM FOR A SATANIC DEATH CULT CENTER AT FOX NEWS HQ AND OUTSIDE THE OFFICES ORDICK ARMEYAND NEWT GINGRICH-and all the GOP WELFARE FREAKS,"
    -John Cusack

    Using your reasoning, John Cusack is an insane devil-worshipper and should be killed on sight...

    Michale.....

  27. [27] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Breaking news: Did Glenn Beck rape and murder a girl in 1990?

    This is almost as old as the internet. OK, maybe not that old but it has been floating around for the last year or so.

    Contrary to the hysterical anti-left, this was the humorous left getting back at Beck. Glen Beck was using this silly logic to pimp a few of of his issues. It was long enough ago that I don't remember exactly what. Someone got sick of the routine and just flipped it around and it took off in typical internet fashion. I think Beck tried to sue someone over it, the hypocrite.

    I haven't seen it mentioned in a while and just assumed it had jumped the shark.

    Still it does beg the question...

  28. [28] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Contrary to the hysterical anti-left, this was the humorous left getting back at Beck.

    That worked out well for ya. Not the shrewdest strategists, you Lefties.

  29. [29] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    CB- Now that you've seen the evidence that Glenn is capable of killing

    Where is there evidence of that? Did he hem and haw and refuse to say "yes" when asked if he felt that killing a woman is a bad thing, or something? Did he say anything about female murder victims having more blood on their hands than their killers? Not following your "logic" here, D.

  30. [30] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Glenn Beck said this:
    "I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. ... No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out."

    This is evidence that even Glenn believes he's capable of killing. And he has the desire.

    This is such a perfect example of how deceitful MediaMatters is. Quick question: Where's the tape? How come there's only a written transcript?

    Answer: Because if you were to listen to the tape, you would recognize that Beck was doing one his typical, sarcastic routines, totally facetiously. You can't tell that from the transcript, though, can ya?

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Contrary to the hysterical anti-left, this was the humorous left getting back at Beck.

    Yea.....

    Brutal rape and murder..

    How humorous.... :^/

    Michale.....

  32. [32] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Stranger things have happened... I mean, Chris1962 liked todays article!

    ROFL. I like all your articles. You know that. 'D

  33. [33] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Brutal rape and murder..

    How humorous.... :^/

    Such kidders.

  34. [34] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    That worked out well for ya. Not the shrewdest strategists, you Lefties.

    How is that? It got seriously under his skin and he stopped doing that schtick. Seems like it was a complete victory for the anti- Glen Beckers. Or are you like Michale and lump anyone left of Atilla the Hun in to having the exact same political views?

    In any case this is such old news that it hardly has any relevance to the current.

    How humorous.... :^/

    Same thing makes you laugh, makes you cry. But then the joke was the juxtaposition and not the content...

  35. [35] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    I think Beck tried to sue someone over it, the hypocrite.

    You think or you know?

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    Call me conservative and old-fashioned, but I don't think that rape and murder is something to be joked about..

    Nor is it appropriate to accuse someone of that, AS a "joke"...

    The Left went overboard. Crossed a line..

    Quite trying to justify it as, "Well THEY do it too!!!"...

    Admit it was a moronic stunt and move on...

    Michale.....

  37. [37] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Know.

    As you will see from the date of the article, it was practically leaving the news cycle this time last year.

    Admit it was a moronic stunt and move on...

    I think you're a year late and a dollar short on this issue...Aside from this thread, the rest of the internet moved on a long time ago.

  38. [38] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Wow, Obama is not only using the "T" word, he's giving due credit to Bush. Good for him.

    His voice sounds really strange, though. Like he's really nervous. It's up an octave.

  39. [39] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Murkowski just conceded to Miller.

  40. [40] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Ok, Michale. I'll fess up. And I promise I wasn't trying to be sarcastic or accusatory towards Glenn Beck. That was why I used that example. Like you mentioned, it's too ridiculous to actually believe. It was to illustrate something.

    The point was to show how these conspiracy theories work and gain life on the Internet.

    The original site was a live textbook example of how to start and spread a rumor and make it seem like truth. Only the hoaxer on purpose didn't make it believable because he didn't want to smear Glenn, he just wanted to show how these hoaxes work.

    For example, (1) they start with something like Barack Obama's middle sounds Muslim.

    (2) Then they post to some websites some rumors about him being Muslim.

    (3) Then they get some media outlets to pick up the story as "Some People Are Saying Obama is Muslim"

    (4) This very quickly gets distorted to more shocking headlines like "Is Obama Muslim?"

    (5) Then they demand he prove he's American or answer some ridiculous questions.

    (6) Then if he does produce any evidence, they say things like why is he trying to prove he's not Muslim if he isn't Muslim.

    (7) And they question any evidence that is actually produced as not legitimate or from a "liberal" source.

    (8) The whole time the goal is to link him with someone or some group undesirable or foreign to most Americans.

    Does this pattern sounds familiar? It should. It's the same one used over and over again by some in the conservative media.

    - The Reverend Wright fakage
    - The ACORN "scandal"
    - The current Muslim scare
    - The phony Russian spy linkage they tried to start

    The author wasn't interested in slandering Glenn Beck. That's why he chose something preposterous and even posted on his website a disclaimer about it being satire. What he was trying to show was how Glenn and others use these tactics.

    One of the differences between what Glenn and others do and this website is that the conservative media have an extremely professional "news" organization. They understand the news, they understand how to make something that's not news look like news, and they have an extremely broad reach.

    Now I noticed, Michale, that you said a lot of the same things I was saying when we were going back and forth about the recent Muslim scandal.

    - There's no evidence
    - It's ridiculous
    - He shouldn't have to answer questions
    - Just because a person is capable of killing doesn't mean anything

    This is exactly my argument about accusing Rauf of associating with terrorists. A person saying something doesn't mean anything. There's no evidence. It's ridiculous. And, you should be innocent until proven guilty.

    Now I know this probably won't change your mind when it comes to terrorism.

    That's ok. I think we've both stated our strategies for combating terrorism. And, we actually have found some common ground though there's still areas where we have to agree to disagree.

    What I hope rather is that we can get past the conspiracy theories.

    And that maybe you'll start to wonder: who is benefiting from pitting conservatives vs. liberals in this uncivil civil war with all of these tactics?

    Who benefits from having us at each others throats instead of working together to solve problems?

    What keeps getting pushed through in the midst of all this political back and forth BS? As we've both stated, it seems to get pushed through regardless of who is in power - Republicans or Democrats.

    And is this good for our country?

    Cheers,
    David

  41. [41] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Does this pattern sounds familiar?

    Yeah, it's the one MediaMatters employs routinely. Both sides spin, D. You do know that, right?

  42. [42] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    How is that?

    Well, aside from it blowing up in your faces, you came out looking pretty bad.

  43. [43] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    In any case this is such old news

    No, actually, the HuffPo writer who had his "article" pulled yesterday and ended up apologizing to Beck (not part of the original plan, to be sure) made it new news.

  44. [44] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Well, aside from it blowing up in your faces, you came out looking pretty bad.

    Who is this "you" you speak of? It did not blow up in my face...

    Old stuff get regurgitated on the internet all the time, it's still old.

  45. [45] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Who is this "you" you speak of? It did not blow up in my face...

    That kinda thing makes everybody on the Left look bad. And not too particularly bright, either.

  46. [46] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    >>>This is exactly my argument about accusing Rauf of associating with terrorists.>>>

    Nobody's accused him of anything. People have questions they want answered from this self-defined "moderate" imam, whose anti-American statements are not the least bit "moderate." And if he can't bring himself to state that Hamas is terrorist organization, then anyone who wishes to conclude that he's got ulterior motives going on is perfectly welcome to. That's when people have the right to start calling upon their representatives to investigate him, given this country's history with fraudulent "moderates" who've turned out to be the enemy. Like so:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Rahman_al-Amoudi

    He founded the American Muslim Council, a lobbying group to advocate on behalf of Muslims in the United States, in 1990. The Council's aim was to inform and influence both Republicans and Democrats). Until 1998, Al-Amoudi was involved with the selection of Muslim chaplains for the U.S. military (through the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council, which he co-founded in 1991), and acted as a consultant to The Pentagon for over a decade.

    During this time Al-Amoudi served as an Islamic adviser to President Bill Clinton and a fundraiser for both the Republican and Democratic parties. More recently, Al-Amoudi worked with leading conservatives, such as Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. Al-Amoudi became a U.S. citizen in 1996.

    Al-Amoudi and other Muslim leaders met with then-presidential candidate George W. Bush in Austin in July 2000, offering to support his bid for the White House in exchange for Bush's commitment to repeal certain anti-terrorist laws.

    After the September 11, 2001 attacks, Al-Amoudi spoke at the Washington National Cathedral prayer service held to honor the memory of the victims.

    In 2004 he pled guilty to three charges of illegal financial transactions with the Libyan government, unlawful procurement of citizenship and impeding administration of the Internal Revenue Service, as well as a role in a Libyan conspiracy to assassinate then-Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah. He agreed to cooperate in ongoing investigations in return for prosecutors dropping 31 other counts and possible reduction in a pending 23-year sentence and $750,000 in fines. He was sentenced to 23 years in October 2004.

  47. [47] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    What I hope rather is that we can get past the conspiracy theories.

    And that maybe you'll start to wonder: who is benefiting from pitting conservatives vs. liberals in this uncivil civil war with all of these tactics?

    Who benefits from having us at each others throats instead of working together to solve problems?

    One beneficiary would be a radical Islamist terrorist posing as a moderate, with the goal of building a CORDOBA-like victory mosque at the foot of the holy warriors' attack site. That's the part you don't get: There's no "conspiracy theory" in question a moderate imam whose statements don't jive with moderates. We actually do have the enemy inside this country, posing as do-good moderates. And just because Lefties choose not to read newspapers doesn't mean it's not going on.

  48. [48] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Here's another rocket surgeon:

    Washington Post suspends columnist for Twitter hoax
    The Washington Post has suspended veteran sports columnist Mike Wise for publishing fabricated information on Twitter. He announced the one-month suspension on his radio show Tuesday.

    Wise claimed Monday that he wanted to prove a point about how reporters will run stories in today's fast-moving news environment without independently verifying the information. So Wise tweeted that Pittsburgh Steelers star Ben Roethlisberger, who has been accused of sexually assaulting a Georgia college student, would get a five-game suspension. Of course, since Wise is a respected sportswriter, other news outlets went with the apparent scoop and cited his reporting....
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100831/sp_yblog_upshot/washington-post-suspends-columnist-for-twitter-hoax

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    What was "fakage" about the Reverend Wright scandal??

    A person saying something doesn't mean anything.

    I am assuming you mean that if a person says something ABOUT someone else, that it doesn't mean anything..

    In that I would agree, conditionally..

    But, in the Rauf case, we are not talking about someone that says something about Rauf...

    We are talking about what Rauf HIMSELF has said...

    Several statements that have yet to be justified or explained...

    And, you should be innocent until proven guilty.

    Then have Rauf come out and explain the statements he made...

    Without this, Rauf is guilty of terrorist sympathies, claiming the US was an "accessory" to 9/11 and claiming that the US has killed more Muslims than Al Qaeda..

    Ironically enough, Hamas (the group that Rauf refuses to state is a terrorist organization) has killed more Muslims than the US and Al Qaeda COMBINED..

    These statements of Rauf are NOT the statements of a moderate..

    It's that simple...

    The case against Rauf is NOTHING like the Beck example you gave..

    In your Beck example, you have one or two morons saying something about Beck..

    In the case against Rauf, we have his OWN statements that he has made and now refuses to explain.

    You are comparing Apples and Eskimos..

    Michale.....

  50. [50] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Nobody's accused him of anything.

    If he's not being accused, why should he have to prove anything?

    The same way I asked about having Glenn Beck answer some questions to prove his innocence to raping and murdering a teenage girl. It's ridiculous, no?

    One beneficiary would be a radical Islamist terrorist posing as a moderate, with the goal of building a CORDOBA-like victory mosque at the foot of the holy warriors' attack site. That's the part you don't get: There's no "conspiracy theory" in question a moderate imam whose statements don't jive with moderates.

    *sigh*

    Straight back to the conspiracy theory, eh? NOTE TO THE AUDIENCE: This is part of the plan. The idea is to keep repeating the message over and over. Since CB is in marketing and I'm assuming is good at what she does, she knows this.

    It's not actually engaging in dialogue. Just using any opportunity to restate the conspiracy theory.

    Here's another question for you, CB. If conservatives have such a good plan for America, why do they spend so much time talking about conspiracy theories?

    To repeat my response to conspiracy theories:

    - There's no evidence
    - It's ridiculous
    - The right to due process: innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around

    As the Kinks said best: "Paranoia self destroyer."

    Cheers
    David

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    given this country's history with fraudulent "moderates" who've turned out to be the enemy.

    You can add Major Hasan to the list of this country's "moderate" Muslims that turned out to be not-so-moderate...

    With tragic results..

    I honestly don't know what it is going to take to get this administration to realize that we simply CAN'T assume that all Muslims in the US are "moderate" just because they say they are.

    What do ya'all expect?? That Muslim terrorists would be honest and tell you that they are NOT moderate, that they are hell bent on killing as many Americans as possible??

    That's ridiculous..

    Muslim terrorists are going to tell us EXACTLY what we WANT to hear...

    The only problem is, on the Left, they actually BELIEVE it... Worse, the Left wants to impose that belief on ALL Americans.. Even if it means that many Americans will have to die..

    One only has to look at the case of Major Hasan to see the end result of ignoring reality in favor of what we WANT to believe...

    Michale.....

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    OK, let's break it down so that NOTHING gets lost in the noise.

    PART ONE

    Do you think that the Nazis were an evil group??

    Do you think that Hamas is a terrorist group??

    What would you think of someone who DOESN'T think that the Nazis were an evil group?

    What would you think of someone who DOESN'T think that Hamas is a terrorist group.

    PART TWO

    Do you think that a woman who wears provocative clothing is an accessory to her own rape??

    Do you think that the US actions abroad makes the US an accessory to the 9/11 terrorist attacks??

    What would you think of someone who said that the woman wearing the short skirt and tight tank top was an accessory to her own rape? In effect, this person says that, no matter how minutely, she deserved it.

    What would you think of someone who said that the US was an accessory to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In effect, this person says that the US, no matter how minutely, deserved it.

    PART THREE

    Do you think that there is ANY comparison between the Muslims that the US has killed in wartime with the innocent Muslims that Al Qaeda has killed in terrorism??

    What would you think of someone who believes they are one and the same??

    Michale.....

  53. [53] 
    akadjian wrote:

    OK, let's break it down so that NOTHING gets lost in the noise.

    Michale, no matter what my answers are to your questions, it's still not proof that someone is a terrorist.

    It's like you said about Glenn Beck: "Irregardless of that, just because a person is capable of killing doesn't mean anything."

    Just because Glenn Beck talked about murdering someone doesn't mean anything. But that's the same type of suspicion being shown in this case. Twisting of quotes. Speculation. Ignoring anything to the contrary like his work for the United States.

    So even if I agreed with you on every point, none of this is actual evidence of crimes. It's all speculation and conspiracy.

    Are you saying that we should jail or arrest people on pure suspicion and speculation?

    -David

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    No one is CLAIMING that Rauf is a terrorist...

    But, based on Rauf's own statements, it is undeniable that Rauf DOES have terrorist sympathies..

    Twisting of quotes.

    Please explain HOW exactly any quotes were "twisted"?? These are Rauf's own words, in the exact context he made them..

    How are they being "twisted"??

    When one says that the US was an accessory to the 9/11 attacks, how is that being "twisted"??

    When one says that the US has more Muslim blood on it's hands than Al Qaeda, how is that being "twisted"??

    When one refuses to acknowledge that Hamas is a terrorist group (with more Muslim blood on it's hands than the US and Al Qaeda COMBINED) how is that being "twisted"??

    I realize that, to further your argument, you MUST ignore Rauf's own words...

    But by ignoring Rauf's words, you are dooming your entire argument.

    Are you saying that we should jail or arrest people on pure suspicion and speculation?

    No, but we should INVESTIGATE further..

    But you don't even want to INVESTIGATE Muslims, even if there is just cause and reasonable suspicion to do so.

    And THAT is the crux of our discussion here...

    Rauf's statements seem to indicate that he has terrorist sympathies. He has stated that they would accept funds from a terrorist state.

    So, let's investigate things further and see what that shows us...

    What's wrong with that???

    Michale....

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    The problem I see here is that you, apparently, do not believe Rauf's statements are all that bad.

    In fact, I am beginning to think that maybe you agree with them..

    If that's the case, then it sure does explain a lot about your argument..

    Michale....

  56. [56] 
    akadjian wrote:

    In fact, I am beginning to think that maybe you agree with them.
    If that's the case, then it sure does explain a lot about your argument.

    Yes, Michale. We know. Anyone who disagrees with you is a terrorist. (Now I am being sarcastic.)

    When one says that the US was an accessory to the 9/11 attacks, how is that being "twisted"?

    Well, you just twisted it by changing what he said.

    The exact quote was: "I wouldn't say the United States deserved what happened on 9-11, but the United States' policies were an accessory to the crime that happened."

    It's not the U.S., but U.S. policies. This may seem subtle, but it's a big difference. And as I said before, Glenn Beck said something very similar.

    When one says that the US has more Muslim blood on it's hands than Al Qaeda, how is that being "twisted"?

    Where did he actually say this? I can't find a reliable news source with this quote. It all seems to be speculation from someone who claims to have an audio tape but hasn't released it.

    Even if he did say it though, it proves nothing. In fact, I'm not sure how you'd argue against it if you compare civilian numbers from Iraq with civilian deaths from 9/11.

    But you don't even want to INVESTIGATE Muslims, even if there is just cause and reasonable suspicion to do so.

    Should we investigate the Bush administration because "some people" believe he was involved? No. Similarly, this is just paranoia and suspicion.

    I will quote someone I read recently who sums up my opinion:
    Unless you can prove that the people behind the Muslim community center have been engaged in an actual crime, I don't give a flying crap what else you think they've done or said.

    Cheers
    David

  57. [57] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Whups. Meant to say: Should we investigate the Bush administration because "some people" believe he was involved in 9/11?

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, Michale. We know. Anyone who disagrees with you is a terrorist. (Now I am being sarcastic.)

    I know.. :D

    But you agreeing with Rauf WOULD explain a lot of your argument..

    And, as I have made perfectly clear, no one is accusing Rauf of being a terrorist..

    But it IS clear that Rauf does have terrorist sympathies which would make him unsuitable to be the Imam of the Cordoba Mosque...

    The exact quote was: "I wouldn't say the United States deserved what happened on 9-11, but the United States' policies were an accessory to the crime that happened."

    It's not the U.S., but U.S. policies. This may seem subtle, but it's a big difference. And as I said before, Glenn Beck said something very similar.

    Could you explain the difference, because I honestly don't see it.

    What Rauf appears to be saying is that, in some very small way, the policies of the US made the terrorist attacks somehow justified...

    But that CAN'T be true because, as we ALL have agreed, NOTHING justifies terrorism..

    Which is why Rauf's statement is completely and 1000% false..

    Even if he did say it though, it proves nothing. In fact, I'm not sure how you'd argue against it if you compare civilian numbers from Iraq with civilian deaths from 9/11.

    That's the EASIEST argument to make..

    The civilian deaths in Iraq were the result of collateral damage during time of war.

    The civilian deaths caused by 9/11 were intentional and the civilians WERE the targets.

    Surely you can see the difference..

    Should we investigate the Bush administration because "some people" believe he was involved? No. Similarly, this is just paranoia and suspicion.

    And yet, Bush et al WERE investigated time and time again. And Democrats STILL want to investigate Bush, as evidenced by CW's recent poll...

    Unless you can prove that the people behind the Muslim community center have been engaged in an actual crime, I don't give a flying crap what else you think they've done or said.

    But we can't PROVE anything unless we investigate..

    It is YOUR position that there isn't enough evidence to investigate.

    And THAT is where you are wrong..

    There IS enough evidence to warrant an investigation.

    And if it was ANY other group besides a Muslim group then the Obama administration would be all over it like stink on shit...

    But, because it's a Muslim group, it's hands off..

    JUST like Hasan...

    Let's hope the Cordoba Mosque (if it ever gets built, which is unlikely at this point) doesn't cause the same tragedy a thousand-fold..

    Michale.....

  59. [59] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    REPEAT: "We are talking about what Rauf HIMSELF has said...
    Several statements that have yet to be justified or explained..."

    That's the part you keep glossing over, David, like it's totally inconsequential. Meanwhile, it's the most basic warning sign, which we've learned from our PAST experiences with exposing so-called "moderates" for the posers they actually were, all along. The idea is to LEARN from past mistakes, not to keep repeating them.

    Rauf's anything-but-moderate, America-bashing statements ought to at least raise ONE red flag with you. The fact that his business partner, the former waiter, paid $4.8M CASH for the one and only NYC building to have been hit by the holy warring jihadists landing gear ought to raise another. Only it's like you go out of your way, instead, to talk around those very legitimate questions that need to be asked of Rauf — whose presently hiding behind the Constitution ruse, with a ton of help from good little jump-on-the-bandwagon liberals — and his business partner, the former waiter with $1.8M cash, who's "not opposed to fund-raising in IRAN.

    We may very well have another Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi on our hands here, and you're fighting like hell against even considering that possibility. That's not exactly what responsible Americans need to be doing, when we know for a fact that posing as a moderate, do-gooder imam is one of the documented RUSES that work-from-the-inside radicals employ. Try learning the classic warning signs, starting with self-described "moderates" who refuse to go on record as recognizing terrorist organizations as terrorist organizations.

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    Apologies, David..

    With all the excessive capitalization, that above came across a LOT more harshly and aggressively than I intended it.

    Michale.....

  61. [61] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    No, but we should INVESTIGATE further..

    But you don't even want to INVESTIGATE Muslims, even if there is just cause and reasonable suspicion to do so.

    And this is exactly why "political correctness" has come to the point of compromising national security. The Left is so well-trained never to dare question a Muslim that they ends up HELPING embedded radical Islamists maintain their cover that much longer. "Sensitivity" to Muslims is one thing, but there's a limit; like, when classic warning signs start presenting themselves. That's the point at which the Left needs to put their "sensitivities" aside long enough to get answers from America-bashing imams who claim to be moderates.

  62. [62] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Michale, no matter what my answers are to your questions, it's still not proof that someone is a terrorist.

    No one needs "proof" to investigate evidence of a potential radical posing as a moderate. To follow your logic, nobody should have questioned the nineteen hijackers' desire to take flying lessons until after they had flown the planes into the WTTs, therein "proving" they were terrorists. No one in this country is obligated to sit around waiting for "proof" of terrorist intentions before investigating "evidence" thereof. When classic warning signs reveal themselves — like America-bashing statements, coupled with a refusal to call Hamas a terrorist organization — it's time to investigate, which begins with asking questions.

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me be clear, because it is apparent that this point has been lost in all the noise..

    NO ONE is advocating that Rauf be investigated because he is a Muslim.

    What is being advocated is that Rauf should be investigated because he has made several statements that indicate he is sympathetic to terrorists and has made several Anti-US statements.

    THAT is the factual basis for an investigation.

    Not because he is Muslim...

    Michale.....

  64. [64] 
    akadjian wrote:

    ... like America-bashing statements coupled with a refusal to call Hamas a terrorist organization.

    America bashing statements as evidence? You've got to be joking.

    Refusal to call Hamas a terrorist organization? Also no proof of anything.

    I'll repeat:

    Unless you can prove that the people behind the Muslim community center have been engaged in an actual crime, I don't give a flying crap what else you think they've done or said.

  65. [65] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    If he's not being accused, why should he have to prove anything?

    Nobody's asking him to "prove" anything. People want explanations for the non-moderate statements he's made. They have a right to know if this self-described moderate is, indeed, a moderate, because his words and actions aren't indicative of moderate attitudes and behaviors. Moderates, for instance, don't have trouble calling Hamas a terrorist organization while radical Islamists most definitely do, which is a pattern we've come to discover for the self-defined moderate POSERS we've busted for terrorism. Moderates also don't fund-raise in State-listed countries like Iran. That's where the radical Islamists go for their funding, David. Ergo, the reason this imam Rauf has some explaining to do. His words and actions are not jiving. And every American citizen has the right to know why.

  66. [66] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    I honestly don't know what it is going to take to get this administration to realize that we simply CAN'T assume that all Muslims in the US are "moderate" just because they say they are.

    You'd think Obama could figure that out, given this country's history with such well-respected, high-profile, well-intentioned presidential advisers as al-Amoudi, presently doing 23 years in the big house. But Obama seems to have about as much regard for national security as the average politically correct Leftie who instantly defends any Muslim who decides to call himself a moderate, including those whose statements and behavior all but scream the direct opposite.

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    Refusal to call Hamas a terrorist organization? Also no proof of anything.

    It's proof of sympathy for Hamas, which IS a terrorist organization.

    Proof of terrorist sympathies is sufficient evidence to investigate further..

    That, coupled with the ANTI-US statements made, IS sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation.

    Unless, of course, one happens to be a Muslim.. Then the administration can't kow-tow fast enough... :^/

    One has to wonder how the Administration would react to someone who has millions of dollars at their disposal, who says that Eric Rudolph, Tim McVeigh or Adolf Hitler weren't such bad guys and wants to build a "worship" center.....

    The administration would be all over that guy like stink on shit...

    But, because it's a Muslim, "it's no evidence of anything".

    Michale.....

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'll repeat:

    Unless you can prove that the people behind the Muslim community center have been engaged in an actual crime, I don't give a flying crap what else you think they've done or said.

    And I'll repeat...

    Nothing can't be proven unless the issue is investigated..

    Why are you so against investigating? Are you afraid of what the investigation will turn up??

    The difference of opinion here is the evidence..

    So, let's forget all of the other noise and concentrate on the evidence..

    You claim that sympathy towards Hamas is not proof of sympathy towards terrorists..

    These are two diametrically opposing arguments...

    FACT: Hamas IS a terrorist group

    FACT: Rauf is sympathetic to Hamas

    Conclusion: Rauf is sympathetic to terrorists

    Sympathy towards terrorist groups is grounds for an investigation.

    The logic is inescapable.

    Michale....

    **Lookie there!! Not one capital word!!! :D

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, one last point and them I'm done.. Seriously...

    You have a guy (or girl) who makes the following statements...

    "Adolf Hitler really wasn't a bad guy."

    "Jeffery Dahlmer really didn't kill anyone."

    "Al Qaeda?? They are just a group that tries to help Muslims."

    "Tim McVeigh?? Not really a bad person."

    "William Gacy?? How can a clown be bad?? He was a great guy!"

    Now, let me ask you David.. Honestly and truly..

    Should a person that makes any one of those statements be allowed to teach?? Or be allowed to be a priest?? A rabbi??? An imam??

    Honestly???

    Michale.....

  70. [70] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    That kinda thing makes everybody on the Left look bad. And not too particularly bright, either.

    Everybody? All of them? Gosh, that's completely...ridiculous.

    Nobody's asking him to "prove" anything. People want explanations for the non-moderate statements he's made.

    Well it's certainly enough for a witch hunt...

    So, what's the wet dream end game here? A government agency putting a stop to either the creation of a religious center or who can run it?

    Or is this just the usual election season, throw everything including the kitchen sink at the wall and hope something sticks?

  71. [71] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Should a person that makes any one of those statements be allowed to teach?? Or be allowed to be a priest?? A rabbi??? An imam??

    Prevented by who? Now there is a sticky wicket...

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    Prevented by who? Now there is a sticky wicket...

    Does the term "background checks" mean anything to you?? :D

    But hell, let's just keep things in this group..

    Would you want someone who made those kinds of statements teaching YOUR children???

    Michale.....

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    Or is this just the usual election season, throw everything including the kitchen sink at the wall and hope something sticks?

    Considering that 70% of the American people feel about Feisal Rauf and the Cordoba Mosque as CB and I do......

    I guess something is sticking quite well.. :D

    As Howard Dean said, "65% of the American people are NOT Right-wing bigots."

    Do you disagree with Dr Dean??

    Michale.....

  74. [74] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    michale,

    FACT: Rauf is sympathetic to Hamas

    i wouldn't call that an established fact just yet. it's very easy to write about what someone said, but much more useful to include the actual quote, so we know exactly to what we're referring. the statement in question, as transcribed from a radio show, was:

    "Look, I'm not a politician. The issue of terrorism is a very complex question... I am a peace builder. I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am seen by any party in the world as an adversary or as an enemy."

    that doesn't read like a radical terrorist sympathizer to me. just because he doesn't want to piss anyone off doesn't necessarily mean he sympathizes with the cause of destroying israel, much less the hamas tactics for attempting to do so. about all this statement makes him guilty of is hypocrisy, and that only because in one breath he claims he's not a politician, then in the next proceeds to squirm like one.

    as for the "accessory to the crime" comments, he clearly misused the term. an accessory has knowledge that the crime will happen or has happened, and intentionally aids the principal in committing or concealing the crime. i will speculate on the intended meaning that to some extent our prior actions or inactions (early reagan through early clinton) contributed to the rise of al-qaeda, and therefore indirectly to 9/11, but that's just speculation. not enough evidence even to suspect (much less indict or convict) faisal of being some sort of radical.

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    NYpoet,

    that doesn't read like a radical terrorist sympathizer to me

    OK, I can understand why you would say this...

    But there are two things wrong with your assessment..

    Feisel Rauf doesn't have a problem with condemning Al Qaeda as a terrorist organization.. So, logically, the issue isn't that Rauf won't go against Muslims at all... In other words, Rauf is clearly capable of distinguishing what is and is not a terrorist group...

    Therefore, this begs the question as to WHY Rauf won't condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization.

    The fact that he won't clearly indicates that Rauf does have some sympathy for Hamas.

    And, since we all know that Hamas is a terrorist organization, the only logical conclusion is that Rauf does have sympathies, radical or not, with some terrorist groups..

    This alone is sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation. As it would be with anyone who harbored such sympathies...

    as for the "accessory to the crime" comments, he clearly misused the term.

    If this is true, why is he standing by those statements and not trying to explain them more fully??

    This indicates to me that he didn't misuse the term, but meant it exactly as he stated...

    This is supported by his "US is worse than Al Qaeda" comment he gave in 2005, of which is documented...

    Why NOT investigate things more fully??? If you are right and I am wrong, then (AT WORST) some time and money are wasted...

    But if YOU are wrong and I am right???

    Clearly, current and recent events show that we should err on the side that saves lives, no???

    Especially in light of the Hasan fiasco???

    Michale.....

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    Can we all at least agree that HAMAS is a terrorist organization?

    Is THAT much agreement possible??

    Michale.....

  77. [77] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    that doesn't read like a radical terrorist sympathizer to me. just because he doesn't want to piss anyone off doesn't necessarily mean he sympathizes with the cause of destroying israel, much less the hamas tactics for attempting to do so.

    This illustrates the established pattern: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiLS2ksZSMc

  78. [78] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    And here's the established pattern of the Left, instantly mocking and smearing anyone who dares to question such a rock-solid organization as CAIR and it's moderate leaders — a number of whom went on to prison, much to the surprise of many a know-it-all TV host, I'm sure:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E271Es21vaM&feature=related

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    just because he doesn't want to piss anyone off

    Apparently, Rauf was more concerned about not hurting Hamas' feelings and less concerned about how his fellow Americans would feel about his reluctance to label a proven terrorist organization as such...

    I don't that that should be any points in his favor..

    Michale.....

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't that that should be any points in his favor..

    I don't think that that should be........ grrrrrrr

    Michale....

  81. [81] 
    akadjian wrote:

    OK, one last point and them I'm done.

    Michale, you just had to bring up Hitler .... :)

    Still ... neither you nor CB nor anyone else for that matter has presented any evidence that Rauf is guilty of any crime.

    You can talk about the Left that you hate and how once again you're victims. You can accuse me of being part of the Left. You can recite your conspiracy theories. You can associate me with terrorists. You can ask questions that have nothing to do with the subject. You can talk about how popular your opinions are. You can create new and interesting speculations and conspiracy theories. You can do all of this.

    But unless you can prove that the people behind the Muslim community center have been engaged in an actual crime, I don't give a flying crap what else you think they've done or said.

    This is due process. This is innocent until proven guilty. And that's what I think is part of what makes America great - that the government doesn't have the right to randomly investigate people based on speculation.

    Cheers
    David

    p.s. I thought you Tea Party types were anti-government. Now you're saying you want to give the government the right to investigate people based on heresay. What gives? Where are your Constitutions?

  82. [82] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Also CB- thank you for posting that Rachel Maddow clip!

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    NYpoet,

    just because he doesn't want to piss anyone off

    Why is it that it seems those on the Left bend over backwards, sideways and every which way imaginable so as not to offend the sensibilities of foreigners (in this case HAMAS) yet don't seem to give a royal rip how their comments and contortions play for John Q American Citizen????

    It's like ya'all are ashamed to be an American and have to show the world that ya'all too, hate American as much as terrorists do??

    Why is that???

    David,

    Michale, you just had to bring up Hitler .... :)

    Well, birds of a feather.. Hamas, Hitler.... They are all scumbags... :D

    Wouldn't you agree???

    Apparently Rauf doesn't....

    Still ... neither you nor CB nor anyone else for that matter has presented any evidence that Rauf is guilty of any crime.

    That's probably because neither CB, nor I nor anyone else has accused Rauf of committing a crime...

    What we are talking about are statements made by Rauf that are contrary to the "moderate" label he would like to wear and you would like to ascribe to him..

    This constant harping on non-issues that no one is bringing up seems to emphasize your lack of logical argument...

    p.s. I thought you Tea Party types were anti-government. Now you're saying you want to give the government the right to investigate people based on heresay.

    Another case of a totally false argument..

    It's not "heresay" when it is statements made by the person of interest..

    Once again, you make a non-argument on a non-issue to cover the fact that you have no argument on the issue in question.

    Michale.....

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    that the government doesn't have the right to randomly investigate people based on speculation.

    Yer kidding, right???

    Are you sure you want to throw THAT particular stone in THAT particular glass house?? :D

    {{{cough}}}{{{cough}}} Pelosi {{{cough}}} Investigate those that oppose the Cordoba Mosque {{{cough}} {{cough}}

    I could name dozens of more incidents where Democrats wanted to investigate the Right Wing for a LOT less than what Feisel Rauf has stated..

    Once again, we see how the Left applies different standards of "evidence" when dealing with foreign connections as they do when dealing with fellow Americans...

    Why is that??

    Michale.....

  85. [85] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, guys, I'm going to have to call "ATD" on this whole debate. Those letters stand for "Agree To Disagree" which is about the only thing left to agree on. But we're getting way off topic in a number of these comment threads, so I think we're just all going to have to agree that we're not going to convince each other, rather than tediously hashing it all out one more time. As with me and Michale and the torture debate, there comes a time when it outlives its usefulness. So I'm declaring a moratorium here unless I actually write about the issue again.

    Today's topic was "How About A Press Conference, Mister President?" or if you'd like, I have just posted the new monthly Obama Poll Watch article, which is always fun to interpret.

    Anyway, to put it in a football metaphor, ***TWEEEET!!!*** I am throwing the flag of ATD on the whole mosque debate. Let's move on, shall we?

    Hrmph.

    -CW

  86. [86] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Awwww, CW. We were just having fun. Ok, ok. As always you make a good point. The horse has not only been beaten to death but is probably no longer recognizable as anything other than a stain.

    Cheers
    David

  87. [87] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    *****BREAKING NEWS*****

    From an article in today's Washington Post:

    "Obama could roll out additional measures on the economy as soon as next week, the sources said, when he has scheduled to deliver remarks on the economy in Milwaukee and Cleveland. Obama has also scheduled a news conference for next Friday."

    Now, I'm going to be modest here and say that it's all mere coincidence...

    :-)

    -CW

  88. [88] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    I hear an awful lot of White House folks read the HuffPo. 'D

    Speaking of which... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/02/obama-to-hold-first-news-_n_704085.html

Comments for this article are closed.
[Powered by WordPress]