home

Reply To A Defense Of WaPo's Spreading Lies About Obama

Peter Baker of the Washington Post blogs in defense of WaPo's spreading lies about Obama:

Two furors stoked by the blogosphere over the last 24 hours neatly illustrate the changing political climate in the United States these days and underscore the depths of suspicion, anger and hostility out there as the country tries to pick a new leader. . . . [L]iberal bloggers ripped The Washington Post for publishing a story on untrue rumors that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is secretly a Muslim. . . . [A]ny legitimate criticism and sober-minded discussion of the issues raised get drowned out by the loudest, most vituperative voices. The net result is not dialogue, but a contest of outrage.

That, my friends, is a textbook red herring. And, last I looked, CJR was not a vituperative liberal blogger and the CJR writer stated that "In The Washington Post this morning, reporter Perry Bacon Jr. wrote what may be the single worst campaign ‘08 piece to appear in any American newspaper so far this election cycle." And indeed, Baker has little substantively to say in defense of the WaPo story. This seems his best shot:

The reporter wrote the story because a voter in Iowa told him that Obama is a Muslim and he was struck that people remain so ill informed. . . . But somehow a story intended to debunk the false claims, trace their origin and explore the challenge they present the campaign in trying to quash them spawned a furious eruption among liberal bloggers accusing the Post of spreading the rumors.

This is disingenuous to say the least. I feel confident that the Obama campaign wasnot pleased with the story. Does Mr. Baker wonder why? Perhaps Lyndon Johnson can explain it:

[O]ne of Johnson’s favorite jokes is about a popular Texas sheriff running for reelection whose opponents decide to spread a rumor that he f[***]ks pigs: “We know he doesn’t, but let’s make the son of a bitch deny it.”

< Secret Witnesses in Guantánamo Trials | Say Hello and Open Thread >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I read the whole story, too... (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by Jim Strain on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 02:05:38 PM EST
    and if this was really his intent:
    The reporter wrote the story because a voter in Iowa told him that Obama is a Muslim and he was struck that people remain so ill informed. . . . But somehow a story intended to debunk the false claims, trace their origin and explore the challenge they present the campaign in trying to quash them spawned a furious eruption among liberal bloggers accusing the Post of spreading the rumors.

    then Perry Bacon failed miserably.
    . . . jim

    Heh (1.00 / 1) (#2)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 10:01:05 AM EST
    Actually I have read the original article numerous times. And it does a reasonably good job of refuting the rumors, leaving out two factual charges, the no hand over the heart and the lapel pin, and failing to note that CAIR is a un-indicated co-conspirator in the Holy Land Fund investigation.

    The fact is that in today's world the MSM no longer sets the agenda, and this would not have gone away had the Post not published the article. That time left 20 years when the Internet and cable news hit.

    And as I noted in the last thread about this Left wing manufactured brush fire, if Hillary wants to play the woman card, and if Obama wants to play the "I understand the Moslem world card.." then he should expect some push back.

    Truth is that Hillary doesn't deserve the "woman" vote because she is a "woman" and Obama doesn't understand the third world and diplomacy. (See his ever shifting positions.)

    As for LBJ's infamous joke, in today's world his opponent would have a response on the 5 o'clock news that he had never had sex with any of the sherrif's supporters.

    An odd connection (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 06:13:50 PM EST
    Remember Ebonics? The notion of teaching English with a framework of "This is not how to speak... this is how to speak..." was mocked relentlessly.

    Oddly enough, it seems to be the same reasoning behind modern journalism. In the past, you'd simply write, "The sky is blue" regardless of whether some idiot claims the sky to be green. Whether this story would even be newsworthy is debatable, but apparently we live in unremarkable times (...) so anything goes. And we get front page stories like this:

    "The sky is green", said some idiot. Other idiots agree, and add that the sky always has been green, or that if it is not green it may be hiding its green nature.

    And then, on the jump to page A34, they add:

    However, the sky claims it is blue, and numerous investigations agree. Still, the controversy continues.

    Journalistic conventions no longer allow one to state unequivocally that the sky is blue. This didn't use to be a problem, because each market would have had multiple newspapers, and you could choose to read the "sky is blue" newspaper or the "sky is green" newspaper. But then media consolidation - not "cable and the internet" - came along, and we've been forced to endure retardo-journalism ever since.

    [ Parent ]

    hehe (1.00 / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 08:22:17 PM EST
    "The sky is green", said some idiot. Other idiots agree,

    And if you run your life based on what idiots think you are in a "heap of trouble."

    [ Parent ]

    um (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jgarza on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 12:29:20 PM EST
    The fact is that in today's world the MSM no longer sets the agenda, and this would not have gone away had the Post not published the article. That time left 20 years when the Internet and cable news hit.

    And now that a respected newspaper has delved into these rumors, and made Obama deny them, of course never pointing out that all the rumors have been independently verified as false, the rumor is going to be gone?  Of course not they legitimized them.

    And as I noted in the last thread about this Left wing manufactured brush fire, if Hillary wants to play the woman card, and if Obama wants to play the "I understand the Moslem world card.." then he should expect some push back.

    Truth is that Hillary doesn't deserve the "woman" vote because she is a "woman" and Obama doesn't understand the third world and diplomacy. (See his ever shifting positions.)

    By some analysis, Hillary has certainly played the gender card, though she has never done anything to make me believe that she thinks she should get the female vote because she is a woman.  

    Obama's statements aren't just supposed to apply to the Muslim world, he makes the point that he has an international background.  If someone wants to dispute that, that is fine.  I don't understand how making that claim makes it fair game to make up this horse crap rumor, just like Hillary working to get the female vote doesn't justify a lesbian lie.

    As for LBJ's infamous joke, in today's world his opponent would have a response on the 5 o'clock news that he had never had sex with any of the sherrif's supporters.

    Um riiiiight??? I don't know what you were trying to say here, but it didint work.

    [ Parent ]

    hehe (1.00 / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 07:48:19 PM EST
    And now that a respected newspaper has delved into these rumors, and made Obama deny them


    Uh best I can tell it didn't make him deny them, it reported on the fact that he had denied them.

    There is, and you probably don't understand this, a vast difference in those two statements.

    Nonsense. He doesn't have an international background, he spent some time overseas as a child. That, and $7.50, will get you a nice Kendall Jackson glass of cab.

    I don't know what you were trying to say here,

    I should have known you weren't capable of catching on....

    The point is s i m p l e.... In today's world the candidate has immediate access to a huge number of media outlets. If Obama can't stand a little criticism, even false criticism, how can he stand up to our enemies??

    You and him causes me to break out that old plea...

    Want some cheese with that whine??

    [ Parent ]

    Washington Post is not a rumor blog (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by Jgarza on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 02:22:22 PM EST
    The point is s i m p l e.... In today's world the candidate has immediate access to a huge number of media outlets. If Obama can't stand a little criticism, even false criticism, how can he stand up to our enemies??

    Where do you come up with this crap? The point is that a national newspaper is not a tabloid, and has a responsibility to report responsibly,and not partake in dirty political tricks against candidates. I have never been bothered by the false criticism being out there, my problem is a newspaper that is supposed to be above rumor and innuendo, devoting front page space to it.


    Nonsense. He doesn't have an international background, he spent some time overseas as a child. That, and $7.50, will get you a nice Kendall Jackson glass of cab.

    Um You mentioned internationalism.. so surprise you had to through in some wine cliche.  I bet you thought freedom fries were clever.

    Want some cheese with that whine??

    Seriously did some one tell your bad cliches, help mask poor arguments?  

    [ Parent ]

    Huh?? (1.00 / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 05:53:05 PM EST
    The fact is that the Post's article was about the rumors and the fact that Obama had denied them. Reporting on them was not an act of a tabloid, but of a paper reporting the facts about the campaign of a man who would run for Pres.

    If he, and you, can't stand that, God help you if the Right gets on you like the Left has Bush..

    Seriously did some one tell your bad cliches, help mask poor arguments?

    No, they didn't. You?? Anyway:

    The Devil made me do it. ;-)

    I note that you don't try and refute my point that Obama has zero experience in international affairs.

    [ Parent ]

    Rumors fly on the internet (none / 0) (#11)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 05:41:32 PM EST
    Some say that PPJ considers "We Built This City On Rock And Roll", by Jefferson Starship, to be the greatest song of all time.

    "His musical taste really is alarmingly bad, and if he doesn't get out in front of this, he's going to lose all credibility in the TalkLeft community", said one comment. "I've already decided I'm never going to vote for him if he runs for anything", said another.

    Others, however, say that this may not be true. One thing's for certain: if PPJ remains silent on this issue, the American people will be shocked and disappointed.

    [ Parent ]

    The best defense (1.00 / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 08:20:36 PM EST
    is always a good offense..

    Let me add this. I don't give a 7(6w35q165 what the TalkLeft whoevers think...

    ;-)

    Because as in Obama's case, you can never convince nutcases of anything but what they blindly believe.

    [ Parent ]

    The WaPo Pigs (none / 0) (#1)
    by koshembos on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 08:37:57 AM EST
    A substantive and honest discussion is built on top of an assumption of basic decency and acting responsibly. Publishing rumors is not new, does not serve honest discussion and lacks basic decency. In addition, publishing damaging rumors about Democrats only is even worse.

    This supposedly earnest demeanor of this guy Baker is nothing short of lipstick on pigs lips.

    your measured, polite, sensible (none / 0) (#5)
    by seabos84 on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 01:23:10 PM EST
    responses are part of the reason these lying #$%^ing pieces of #$it get away with their willie horton / swiftboat crud.

    until we got some dems who are willing to fight to completely ruin the repuation and career of those who spread lies (the roves, atewaters, ailes, this idiot reporter ...)

     fight fire with fire

    we're gonna keep getting blindsided and whomped by these liars, cuz

    they are their minions are liars.

    they've been lying about everything since ... they opposed child labor laws 100 years ago? they will ALWAYS lie. period.

    when are we gonna have some leaders who stop it?

    when we stop supporting wimps.

    rmm.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, we should be concerned about (none / 0) (#4)
    by Dark Avenger on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 01:07:44 PM EST
    folks who associate with CAIR:

    There's an incredible story brewing in Washington that is too hot for the networks to touch.

    Grover Norquist, whom most conservatives know as Executive Director of the College Republicans, boardmember of the NRA, and head of Americans for Tax Reform, has been exposed as helping Muslim groups and individuals who finance and support Islamic terrorism gain access to the Bush White House.

    Norquist has also been exposed as the founder of the Islamic Insitute, a group believed to be funded by foreign governments, Wahhab Islam elements in Saudi Arabia, and U.S. Muslim groups recently raided by a special Treasury Department task force for funding Al Qaeda and Palestinian terrorists. The Islamic Institute's website lists the following goals:

    1. Cultivate and expand Muslim activists and mobilize the community at the state and federal levels on issues affecting the American Muslim community.

    2. Provide a platform to promote an Islamic perspective on domestic issues (social and fiscal) to help enhance the Muslim community's input in the decision-making process.

    3. Run aggressive campaigns at the state and federal levels on issues affecting the American Muslim community.

    Wahhabi Islam funding from Saudi Arabia appears to have been instrumental is creating and and sustaining a large number of organizations involved in such troubling activities as:

    1. Recruiting felons into Islam in U.S. prisons

    2. Recruiting U.S. military personnel

    3. Proselytizing on more than 500 college campuses across the United States

    4. Covertly raising funds for terrorist groups through U.S.-based Muslim charities

    5. Providing financial support - and gaining control - of 70-80 percent of U.S. mosques, and

    6. Setting up private Muslim K-12 schools to indoctrinate U.S. Muslims into fundamentalist Islam (We ran an expose on one of these located just a few miles from our HQ which you can find at http://www.citizensoldier.org/madrassa.html.)

    Norquist's relationship with Muslim groups that support terrorism became public after Norquist launched an unexpected and inexplicably vitriolic attack against Frank Gaffney, the President of the Center for Security Policy.

    Thank Odin Grover isn't running for President.

    OTOH:

    Government officials in Washington said they were not aware of any criminal investigation of the group. More than one described the standards used by critics to link CAIR to terrorism as akin to McCarthyism, essentially guilt by association.

    "Of all the groups, there is probably more suspicion about CAIR, but when you ask people for cold hard facts, you get blank stares," said Michael Rolince, a retired F.B.I. official who directed
    counterterrorism in the Washington field office from 2002 to 2005.



    LOL (1.00 / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 08:23:35 PM EST
    CAIR us an un-indicted co-conspirator.

    I need say no more.

    [ Parent ]

    In a case that ended in a mistrial (none / 0) (#18)
    by Dark Avenger on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 02:05:56 AM EST
    but then you did want me to bring that up and help you by citing the truth, did you not?

    You did let Grover off too easily here, perhaps because you share his Sunni buddies real goal?

    The case in point:

    Jury refutes charges

    A jury in 2007 found these charges unconvincing, and the case ended in a mistrial, with indications that no one would be found guilty. On Nov. 4, 2007 the LA Times reported: "The nation's biggest terrorism finance case ended so badly for the government that it has thrown into question the Bush administration's original order to shut down the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development six years ago."

    Experts found the jury rejection of the governments allegations against the charity significant. The LA Times reported: "If the government can shut them down and then not convince a jury the group is guilty of any wrongdoing, then there is something wrong with the process," Georgetown University law professor David Cole said. [[7]]

    George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said the criminal trial derailed the government's long-publicized assertions about Holy Land.

    "From the beginning, the allegations were highly suspect and only got worse," said Turley, who has handled a number of national security cases.

    "Indeed, Turley said, if the government had begun with the troubled criminal case, it might never have succeeded in closing down the foundation administratively because its disputed evidence would have come to light years ago."

    Jurors were highly skeptical of the government's case. The LA Times reported: "The government's allegations not only proved unpersuasive but engendered skepticism among some jurors.

    "The whole case was based on assumptions that were based on suspicions," said juror Scroggins, who added: "If they had been a Christian or Jewish group, I don't think [prosecutors] would have brought charges against them."



    [ Parent ]
    So?? (1.00 / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 09:22:37 AM EST
    The government has indicated that it will re-try, as it has been known to do when other cases ended in a mistrial.

    Perhaps CAIR will insist that it be indicted and tried.

    In the meantime it remains an un-indicted co-conspirator.

    [ Parent ]

    And the check is in the mail, etc....... (none / 0) (#20)
    by Dark Avenger on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 09:49:49 AM EST
    The government has indicated that it will re-try, as it has been known to do when other cases ended in a mistrial.

    Don't forget, some of the defendants were found not guilty, and won't be present for the next trial.

    Perhaps CAIR will insist that it be indicted and tried.

    Perhaps they don't want to get their ol' buddy Mr. Norquist in trouble, so they can keep getting access to the White House, as I outlined above.

    Why are you so complacent about them, PPJ?

    In the meantime it remains an un-indicted co-conspirator.

    No, the mistrial means that all that went away, and it remains to be seen if they'll be included with that status in the upcoming retrial.

    About the trial

    Georgetown law professor David Cole, who specializes in First Amendment and terrorism cases, said he believed the outcome of the trial was a "huge defeat" for the government.

    "They spent almost 15 years investigating this group, seized all their records and had extensive wiretapping, and yet could not obtain a single conviction on charges of supporting a terrorist organization, " Cole told the Los Angeles Times.

    William Neal, one of the jurors on the Holy Land Foundation case, told WFAA News he believed the defendants were innocent based on the evidence presented at the trial.

    Neal, 33, whose father worked in military intelligence, also indicated that there were "too many holes" in the prosecution's case and that it seemed politically driven. "You have an anonymous witness from the Israeli government who told in open court that he is paid to be here. So when you have all these biases, it seems very political to me. I think the problem with this is it has to do with the First Amendment."

    Unlike other terrorism cases, the Justice Department never accused Holy Land Foundation or any of its members of plotting or directly funding any acts of violence. Instead, the prosecution contended the defendants contributed money to charities that allegedly were controlled by Hamas, but that were never designated as terrorist groups.

    "The zakat committees have not been designated to this day, and yet the government wants to hold these people criminally liable, put them in jail for supporting a group that the government never said you couldn't support. That's truly a scary proposition and will have a tremendous chilling effect throughout the charitable communities," Cole told Democracy Now, adding that the government's prosecution of the case was overstretched and relied heavily on secret evidence.

    .......................

    The Holy Land Foundation trial was the largest terror-financing case in U.S history and marks the Justice Department's third failed prosecution of individuals who provided humanitarian assistance in the Occupied Territories.

    Two years ago in Florida, a former university professor and two other defendants were found not guilty on charges of sending money to a terrorist group.

    More recently, a federal jury in Illinois also acquitted two men of harboring a terror cell and financing violent activities.

    Our taxpayer funds at work..................

    [ Parent ]

    So?? (1.00 / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 06:00:44 PM EST
    Again what is your point??

    CAIR remais an un-indicted co-conspirator.

    Something there you don't understand??

    hehe

    [ Parent ]

    In Your Mind Only (none / 0) (#26)
    by squeaky on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 06:09:08 PM EST
    Along with a whole lot of other GOP nonsense.

    [ Parent ]
    i believe jim was implying (none / 0) (#7)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 02:19:01 PM EST
    Um riiiiight??? I don't know what you were trying to say here, but it didint work.

    that he resembled a swine, but had never had sex with the sheriff's opponents.

    i could be wrong.

    "my opponent is a known, open and notorious heterosexual! is that the kind of person you want in a leadership position?"

    sadly, the majority of the electorate will never get this, and the opponent will spend millions attempting to educate them.

    I bow to your obvious (1.00 / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 08:25:26 PM EST
    expertise in sex with swines....

    [ Parent ]
    He's not from the South (none / 0) (#21)
    by Dark Avenger on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 09:53:00 AM EST
    if that's what you mean............

    [ Parent ]
    You mean Texas wasn't part of the (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 06:04:18 PM EST
    "south...."

    Who knew??

    But since you joined in I assume that you know something about the subject.

    [ Parent ]

    Texas is a place all it's own (none / 0) (#27)
    by Dark Avenger on Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 06:52:30 PM EST
    and they hunt pigs there, so I'm not surprised you'd have strong feelings about the state. :>)

    [ Parent ]
    So you also know about (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 08:52:32 AM EST
    hunting swine as well??

    You are truly a Renaissance man.

    hehe

    [ Parent ]

    I dodn't know that much about swine (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Dark Avenger on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 10:24:08 AM EST
    but I can recognize squealing when I hear or read it. :>)

    TTFN

    [ Parent ]

    Come on (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 06:22:34 PM EST
    So you now have made all these comments about something you know nothing about??

    Heck, that isn't unusual...

    [ Parent ]

    If I commented on subjects I know nothing about (none / 0) (#33)
    by Dark Avenger on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 01:46:33 AM EST
    then I'd be like you, PPJ.

    [ Parent ]
    If you commented?? (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 09:13:49 AM EST
     
    (I)dodn't know that much about swine (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Dark Avenger on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 09:2

    You just did.

    hehe

    [ Parent ]

    Not knowing much and not knowing (none / 0) (#37)
    by Dark Avenger on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 10:44:35 PM EST
    anything are two different states of mind, and you do better at demonstrating the latter than I could ever do.

    Tee-hee-hee.

    TTFN

    [ Parent ]

    I started learning a lot about swine (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Dark Avenger on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 10:42:51 AM EST
    after you began commenting here, PPJ.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, based on your (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 06:23:29 PM EST
    previous comment you learned nothing...

    Heck, that's not news.

    [ Parent ]

    I learned that you have an unhealthy obsession (none / 0) (#34)
    by Dark Avenger on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 01:48:21 AM EST
    with the reproductive activities of Sus domestica so I'm less ignorant than when this thread started.

    TTFN

    [ Parent ]

    Really??? (1.00 / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 09:18:53 AM EST
    If you would read the post... gasp!!! which I know is not your usual method of operating.... you will discover that it is Big Tent who brought the subject up...

    But don't take my word.... just go to the top of the page and READ.


    [ Parent ]

    BTD started it with the LBJ quote you took it (none / 0) (#38)
    by Dark Avenger on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 10:53:14 PM EST
    to the next level, telling us more than we needed to know about your dark twisted desires in this area.

    To quote Dick Tuck,
    you ran it into the ground.

    Tee-hee-hee.

    TTFN

    [ Parent ]

    The madrassa story is OLD NEWS (none / 0) (#8)
    by lilybart on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 03:33:45 PM EST
    so there was no reason for the Post to mention it now at all.

    Unless it served another purpose for someone.

    "O say can you seeeeeeeeee....!" (none / 0) (#9)
    by chemoelectric on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 04:42:34 PM EST
    I've got my fingers in my ears and it's your fault.

    I emailed P. Bacon (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jgarza on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 04:43:21 PM EST
    and at 12:40 am the next night i got this:

    The story clearly and repeatedly cites obama"s christian faith. Pb