Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Breaking: Hamas sides with Obama, endorses mosque!

In case you were wondering where the right is headed today...

hamasmosque.JPG

The angle here is that one of the criticisms of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man behind the Islamic center, is that he refused to call Hamas a terrorist organiztion. And here's Hamas standing up for the Imam's mosque, in firm agreement with Obama. Hamas, Rauf, and Obama all agree: Build the mosque!

In reality, of course, Obama did not "endorse" the Islamic center. Rauf is widely seen as a moderate, and he has condemned terrorism. And here's what Rauf actually said about Hamas:

"I'm not a politician. I try to avoid the issues. The issue of terrorism is a very complex question...I'm a bridge builder. I define my work as a bridge builder. I do not want to be placed, nor do I accept to be placed in a position of being put in a position where I am the target of one side or another...

"The targeting of civilians is wrong. It is a sin in our religion. Whoever does it, targeting civilians is wrong. I am a supporter of the state of Israel. ... I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am seen by any party in the world as an adversary."

Of course, this debate is all about symbolism, not about reality. It's about insinuating, or indeed stating outright, that Obama is on their side, and not on ours. How long until Liz Cheney or Sarah Palin proclaims that "Hamas has now come out in support of Obama's 9/11 mosque"?

UPDATE, 10:13 a.m.: Right on cue, the NRSC just blasted out a release attacking Chuck Schumer thusly:

As Hamas Weighs In On Ground Zero Mosque, New York's Senior Senator Remains Silent

Schumer's office has actually said he is "not opposed" to the center, but he hasn't said anything beyond that. What we're seeing here is that it does Dems no good to try to duck this issue. Republicans will attack them anyway.

By Greg Sargent  |  August 16, 2010; 9:45 AM ET
Categories:  Foreign policy and national security  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Will "Ground Zero mosque" be key issue in midterms?
Next: How many commentators will denounce GOP mosque strategy?

Comments

The only controversy in this story is what the media creates out of thin air.

@Greg

"Of course, this debate is all about symbolism, not about reality."

You're giving people too much credit if you believe that this has anything to do with "sybolism". It's about fear and stoking anti-Islamic bigotry.

It's nothing but another move in the same vain as the outrage over Shirly Sherrod, the New Black Panthers, ACORN, and undocumented imigrants.

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | August 16, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Look on the bright side, Libs: When Sharia comes to the USA, as Feisal Abdul Rauf has promoted many times, they will finally put women in their place and start executing homosexuals.

Posted by: pgr88 | August 16, 2010 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Sorry, but Republicans are retarded.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 16, 2010 10:09 AM | Report abuse

agreed re bigotry, BBQ, and have said so many times...

Posted by: Greg Sargent | August 16, 2010 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Greg, I can't get the New York Post site to load. (maybe it's overwhelmed..) What is the content of the headline article? Anything there worth knowing about?

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 16, 2010 10:11 AM | Report abuse

American politics is pathetic.

It's amazing how fired up over absolutely nothing they can get.

For the first time in my adult life, I'm embarrassed for a majority of my country.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 16, 2010 10:12 AM | Report abuse

Here is a just a little word of warning to any non-lunatic readers of the WashPost who stumble across this article.

Greg Sargent and his JOURNO_LIST friends have already admitted that they are NOT in the business of reporting facts or news but are in the industry to hide, obstruct, distract and spin facts which might be damaging to their leftist idols in the Democrat Party.

And Greg's close associate and fellow Journo-Lister, Matt Yglesias, has admitted that lying and dishonesty on the part of journalists is entirely acceptable in "winning" the agenda.

So if you are truly looking for real news this is NOT THE PLACE for you.

But if you are interested in reading the rantings of a barely literate juvenile nutcase then this is the place for you.


Greg Sargeant lulls himself to sleep every night raving....MUST PROTECT OBAMA, MUST SAVE MY MESSIAH, BARRY WE WILL SAAAAVE YOU.

Posted by: LogicalSC | August 16, 2010 10:12 AM | Report abuse

"When Sharia comes to the USA, as Feisal Abdul Rauf has promoted many times, they will finally put women in their place and start executing homosexuals."

Meh....it'll never come to that. Obama will have everyone in FEMA camps long before that.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | August 16, 2010 10:13 AM | Report abuse

"What is the content of the headline article? Anything there worth knowing about?"

I think it's safe to say no

Posted by: SDJeff | August 16, 2010 10:16 AM | Report abuse

Pro First Amendment = Pro Jihad

Our country's founders "palled around" with terrorists.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 16, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Republicans will never stop using 9/11 for political gain. Talk about spitting on their graves. They don't give the slightest sh¡t about anyone who died there.

Posted by: SDJeff | August 16, 2010 10:19 AM | Report abuse

And now it is time for the right wing and the media to fall for this and proclaim that this is terrible and Hamas supports President Obama. Because our media and the political right in this country are fairly predictable and can be manipulated by every foregn government out there into doing exactly what they want from a propoganda standpoint. Note this headline is out of the Ruport Murdoch New York Post. Fox News will follow. Then the rest. And a PR victory for the actual terrorists will be handed to them by the American right. USA USA USA. Can we please have a better media. Any chance that the Post will remark that the same thing that gives them the right to publish that stupid headline is the same thing that gives Miuslims the right to build a community center and mosque 2 blocks from Ground Zero?

I wonder if the hotel I'll be staying at in a couple of weeks that is also within 2 blocks of ground zero and opened after 9/11 had this kind of problem after getting zoning approval. I mean it's a hotel within 2 blocks of ground zero. people will be using the bathroom at this hotel. By the standards being invoked here they will literally be peeing upon ground zero. And worse. Where does this end?

And why no stories about the new building at actual ground zero. Where is the public focus on why that isn't completed yet. Shouldn't that story now be a matter of national focus since we are turning the national spoltlight on construction in the neighborhood of ground zero?

Posted by: zattarra | August 16, 2010 10:19 AM | Report abuse

@mikeinarlington

"Sorry, but Republicans are retarded."

You're giving them too much credit.

To be ignorant is unfortunate, but manipulating others' ignorance for political gain when you know better...that's just unconscionable.

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | August 16, 2010 10:20 AM | Report abuse

@mikeinarlington

"Sorry, but Republicans are retarded."

You're giving them too much credit.

To be ignorant is unfortunate, but manipulating others' ignorance for political gain when you know better...that's just unconscionable.

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | August 16, 2010 10:21 AM | Report abuse

There's a mosque in the Pentagon!

OH NOEZ!!!

Don't hear the teatards complaining about that do ya?

Anyways, Hamas won majorities after the Bush encouraged elections, remember?

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 16, 2010 10:23 AM | Report abuse

Very well put by Josh Marshall:

"We're in a midst of a spasm of nativist panic and raw and raucous appeals to race and religious hatred. What effects this will have on the November election strikes me as not particularly relevant. What's important is compiling some record of what's afoot, some catalog for understanding in the future who was responsible and who was so willing to disgrace their country and their principles for cheap advantage. "

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/08/talking_to_the_void.php?ref=fpblg

Posted by: schrodingerscat | August 16, 2010 10:23 AM | Report abuse

Denying otherwise legal use of property solely because of their religion is not illegal how?


And it's not discrimination and bigotry?

Interesting watching people lie and distort their way out of that.

Posted by: JkR- | August 16, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

from HuffPost, context to the headline:

NEW YORK — A Hamas leader says Muslims "have to build" a mosque near ground zero.

Mahmoud al-Zahar said Muslims "have to build everywhere" so that followers can pray, just like Christians and Jews build their places of worship.

Al-Zahar spoke Sunday on "Aaron Klein Investigative Radio" on WABC-AM. He is a co-founder of Hamas and its chief on the Gaza Strip.


Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 16, 2010 10:26 AM | Report abuse

What sad is in the end this will no doubt help Democrats as Republicans and right wing nut jobs can't help themselves to say completely outrageous things and insult anyone with a conscience.

They are like the loudmouth idiots in public places that everyone tries to distance themselves from.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 16, 2010 10:26 AM | Report abuse

OH no Sharia Law is coming to the US? WTF?!? Can anyone even explain what that statement means? Is this like how a Catholic president was going to then run the country under Catholic law and the instructions of the pope? Do people remember that. What is the difference between a Muslim fundamentalist preaching their beliefs and a Christian Evangelical preaching theirs? Both would condemn me as a heretic and ostracize me - why should one group be allowed in this country an another not?

Posted by: zattarra | August 16, 2010 10:29 AM | Report abuse

@mike, BBQ: "Sorry, but Republicans are retarded." - "You're giving them too much credit."

Good gravy. Well, it's good to be reminded that there's not a dimes worth of difference in the attitudes towards the scary Political Other on either side of the ideological or partisan spectrum. Evil, stupid Republicans! Evil, stupid Democrats! Well, I had better start patting myself on the back for not being one of *those* kinds of people . . .

Of course, I guess I'm implicitly patting myself on the back by saying "at least I don't engage in this partisan hyperbole", so I'm not any different, either, I guess. Sigh. Well, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

People who disagree with me are stupid and evil! Yeah!

Sigh. That's just not satisfying.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 16, 2010 10:35 AM | Report abuse

"OH no Sharia Law is coming to the US? WTF?!? Can anyone even explain what that statement means?"

It apparently means the US is some sort of paper tiger. Muslims say "Boo!" and we immediately crawl under the bed, get in the fetal position, and start sucking our thumbs.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | August 16, 2010 10:35 AM | Report abuse

The Elephant In The Prayer Room,

That neither the Politicians or The Media, has drawn any attention to:


Al-Qaeda has slaughtered many thousands of Muslims, and continues to do so..

I guess no Muslim centers can be opened in any of those Muslim countries, where Al Qaeda terrorists have killed fellow Muslims, because that would be Insensitive to the relatives of those Muslims who were slaughtered by Al-Qaeda.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 16, 2010 10:39 AM | Report abuse

Dave Weigel at Slate has a great post about the man behind the "Hamas endorsement." Apparently this guy has also elicited "Hamas endorsements" before and has published an anti-Obama book revealing the "Bill Ayres-ghostwriter connection." The U.S. press corps is abysmal.

Posted by: nancycadet | August 16, 2010 10:41 AM | Report abuse

I have to agree with Mike.

This whole issue has had a real "tabloid" kinda feel to it already. But the Post headline cinched it for me. I literally laughed when I saw it.

The headline might as well have been:

Muslim Spider Overlords From Mars (Without Birth Certificates) Seek to Implant Sharia Micro-Chips Into Christian America's Brains

Then maybe a paragraph or two about Hussein Obama being an illegal alien commiefascist userper and hey, you can't prove that he isn't from Mars (which is where some aliens are from).

The Republican Tea Party sheep are so totally brainwashed (let's face it, that's what is going on here) that they cannot even recognize the First Amendment anymore and have replaced it with vicious, un-American bigotry.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 16, 2010 10:42 AM | Report abuse

I say this story is at best another 1 or 2 day story in MSM.

One thing about the 24h news cycle is that stories last just a couple of days until it is stale and on to the next shiny object.

The NEXT shiny object is that Gates will be leaving in 2011 so the media wil discuss who should replace Gates. Politico is pushing for Hillary Clinton as the next Secretary of the Defense. When ever there is a story about Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin, the media focuses on it.

Expect the next MSM talking point once they tire about the mosques is Hillary Clinton for Secretary of the Defense in 2011.

Posted by: maritza1 | August 16, 2010 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Why do the bad guys, such as Hamas, always side with the American Left? And why does the American Left always pick the wrong side?

Posted by: bobbo2 | August 16, 2010 10:44 AM | Report abuse

It becomes more and more obvious every day how completely chickensh¡t these republicans are. This is simply a result of their paranoia toward minorities.

Posted by: SDJeff | August 16, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

@first read:

***A risk for the GOP?***

The apparent walk-back turned the mosque story into a second-day story; it made president look indecisive; and it ended up putting him in the position where he pleases no one. But above all, it made the White House seem reactive to the Drudge/FOX/Politico chatter and criticism -- the same kind of chatter and criticism the White House says it loathes. As for Republicans, they reportedly want to make political hay out of President Obama’s mosque comments. But such a move for the GOP -- especially after its embrace of Arizona’s controversial immigration law -- carries some real risks. Our observation: There is now more anti-Muslim rhetoric in legitimate political circles than there was immediately after 9/11. As Ben Smith and Maggie Haberman write, “Republican leaders have largely abandoned former President George W. Bush's post-Sept. 11 rhetorical embrace of American Muslims and his insistence — always controversial inside the party — that Islam is a religion of peace.”

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/08/16/4902132-first-thoughts-team-obama-and-dc-drama

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 16, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Hey, wait . . . the Craig's List Killer is dead? There's your big headline.

@zattarra: "OH no Sharia Law is coming to the US? WTF?"

Well, while there are many in Islam who would say that will happen at some point (as there will eventually a global caliphate, given that Islam is the one true religion), I don't think there's much of a chance of Sharia becoming the basis for U.S. law. If there's all this sort of brouhaha about building a Muslim community center near Ground Zero, I don't think death by stoning for marital infidelity with get a warm reception here in the US. No effort to supplant US law with Sharia will get anywhere in the US, anytime soon. In Great Britain, it's a different story . . . but we don't live there.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 16, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

I grew up in Brooklyn in the 70s and 80s. This has too much the feeling of bussing and integration in my neighborhood back then. With the protests and the arguments but thank God we don't have the beatings and the firebombs (yet?) from those opposed to the minority or other. But it's the same view in my opinion.

I spent a good deal of my high school years hanging out in lower Manhattan. From two blocks away from the world trade center in that area you couldn't find the world trade center if you looked up. You'd get lost looking up by just the 20 story buildings in the area. There are more people living and working in that 2 block radius than most cities and towns in most parts of this country. 2 blocks is a lot in downtown New York. This isn't about reality, it's about Republicans winning elections and then... There is no then so they mix things up.

I've seen a lot of articles from left leaning sites praising President Bush for talking the same way as President Obama. Praising him for reminding people at the time that we were not at war with Islam we were at war with Al Queda. I agree with that sentiment and I never thought I would say this but maybe it is time for President Bush to step out into the public and issue a statement about this issue. I'll never be accused of being a Bush supporter but if ever there was a time for A Republican President and a Democratic President to come together and agree on an issue maybe it is here, where publicly they are already both on record as agreeing.

Posted by: zattarra | August 16, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse

"And why does the American Left always pick the wrong side?"

Civil Rights? Terrible. Women's suffrage? Awful. Child Labor Laws? An abomination. Food safety? Grotesque. FMLA? Repellent. Abolition of slavery? Disturbing.

Screw it....let's just go back to the 12th century before all those "leftists" began screwing it up with the Magna Carta.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | August 16, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse

maritza: "I say this story is at best another 1 or 2 day story in MSM."

Oh, I'd love to think so, but somehow doubt it. This has been in the news cycle for a couple of weeks already. I don't see it going away anytime soon.

The part of all of this that really truly disturbs me is the fact that this is not just national news, it's international. Does anyone think this is not being covered in the Middle East? In Afghanistan? We have troops there, on a mission to (in part) build hearts and minds among young Muslims. What possible good can come from all the frenzied and over-the-top rhetoric?

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 16, 2010 10:56 AM | Report abuse

@Kevin...Good morning...while I agree with your sentiments about name calling being counterproductive and surrendering the intellectual high ground...you may be getting close to a bit of false equivalency here...

While I agree with Mike emotionally, intellectually I am more in line with BBQ.

Certainly Kevin we can agree both sides call names and both sides can play political hardball. But only ONE side has consistently milked the very worst of our human nature, fear, xenophobia, homophobia,Islamophobia, racism, nativism.

One can criticize the Dems and even question if we progressives really believe immigration is good for the country or provides another 50 million blue voters...
but seriously Kevin...I respect that you believe progressive ideas will fail...but what is our worst flaw...sticking up too much for the poor and downtrodden in our society, viewed from the right as enabling lazy people to goof off.

And so Kevin I'm afraid I agree with BBQ's observation...the R's have become unconscionable...again if it was just Palin, Bachmann and the assorted crackpots from the Old South then I could cut your side some slack...but the sleeze factor, the demagoguery launched under Lee Atwater and continued under Karl Rove is UNCONSCIONABLE. They are using over 3,000 deaths to fan the flames.

Be honest Kevin if you look at objectively it's hard not to see the R's as the party of hate...hate the Muslims (Many R's are still not bright enough to figure that while Al Qaeda were all Muslims not all Muslims are Al Qaeda. Hate the immigrants...hate the Gays...hate the blacks..especially if they're uppity enough to run for President...and hate the Constitution.

This is very upsetting to me Kevin because I love my country and as others have posted I've become embarrassed!

For the thick headed..not you Kevin...again the analogy..the Bush doctrine on a personal level. If my neighbor runs around his yard cursing me...telling me he's going to impose his will on me (sharia) and waves an assault rifle...but violates NO LAW...well of course as a good righty I should feel free to invade his home...gun him down before he can gun me down...and if some of his children die in the crossfire it's just collateral damage. Really what is the difference?

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 16, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Exactly Kevin...and if nothing else, Americans are armed. The thought of Muslims taking over is laughable.

Posted by: SDJeff | August 16, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Kevin_Willis:

You seem to be a reasonable person. But it is the present Republican Party that is debasing the country and exploiting fear for political purposes. While it hasn't always been so, it is now. The GOP is a national disgrace and until it moves beyond demagoguery the country is essentially paralyzed. McCain had the chance to be a great statesman while the Republicans paid the inevitable price for the Bush Dark Age. Instead he chose Sarah Palin and the country descended into madness. McCain, whom I used to admire, is a disgrace to the nation. And the GOP is a cancer that will metasticize until some brave new leaders emerge to move it beyond the failed antigovernment and plutocratic ideology it now subscribes to. Unfortunately, this doesn't appear likely to happen until the Republicans suffer another cycle of electoral defeats. Even more unfortunately, the inept leaders of the Democratic Party appear unable to exact any political price for the GOP's demagoguery and obstructionism.

Posted by: wbgonne | August 16, 2010 10:58 AM | Report abuse

The Repubs held a focus group. Same sex marriage failed to rile the base. Mosque in NYC DID rile the base, so voila, every Repub is marching to Karl Rove's BS. There is NO government money or anything else in the mosque issue. Republicans want to stick their nose in, while claiming to be the party of small government (stick their nose in like they did w/ same sex marriage). In reality, Republicans shouldn't be saying anything. Focus on the Republican Senators who voted NO to every initiative aimed to help middle class Americans.

Posted by: kevten | August 16, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

"I never thought I would say this but maybe it is time for President Bush to step out into the public and issue a statement about this issue."

I totally agree with you. While I'm not sure it would do much good at this point, I actually think BOTH President Bushes need to step up to the plate - if for no other reason than to just do the right thing for the history books.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | August 16, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

@Ethan2010:

"Muslim Spider Overlords From Mars (Without Birth Certificates) Seek to Implant Sharia Micro-Chips Into Christian America's Brains"

Laugh if you like, but this is a very real threat. Already our Muslim Spider Overlords run the One World Shadow Government from their secret Bunker in the Hague. This is common knowledge.

@Liam-still: "I guess no Muslim centers can be opened in any of those Muslim countries, where Al Qaeda terrorists have killed fellow Muslims, because that would be Insensitive to the relatives of those Muslims who were slaughtered by Al-Qaeda."

A good point. And, if I'm not mistaken, more Muslims are killed by Radical Islam "purging the ranks of apostates" than of all other groups targeted by radical Islamic elements put together.

Fortunately for Republicans, smart liberals everywhere will never stop calling Republicans and conservatives (using the most general, all-encompassing language possible) retarded bigots, or some variation thereof, so some of us will keep voting for them, even with their on the completely wrong side of an issue, like this one. Most of their arguments don't even really make sense--Al Qaeda is to Cordoba House as David Koresh is to your average Baptist church. Yes, there are some superficial similarities, but important differences, like the giant cash of explosive and weapons, and the multiple child brides.

Interesting that the response to Republicans and some conservatives generalizing and guilt-by-associating of Islam is to essentially call every Republican retarded, or a bigot, or a xenophobe, are act like they are even all on the same side of this issue, which they are not, especially in the pundit and think tank classes. Republican politicians (a simple modifier, almost never applied, so I can only assume folks are referring to all Republicans when they call them retarded bigots, otherwise they would surely specify) are mostly on the side of whatever way they think the wind is blowing to their political victory in November. Which is unfortunate, I think, but . . . ah well.

The main point is, I'm agreeing with Liam. And I've always kind of thought our war on terror ought to have been called what it is, for the most part: the war on Al Qaeda. What goes with that is understanding that Al Qaeda has murdered more innocent Muslims than anybody else and trying to abridge the first amendment rights of Muslims (no matter what one thinks of their "nefarious" motivations) does nothing to limit, constrain or defeat Al Qaeda, or any other radical terrorist group that hides itself under the cover of Islam (or any other religion).

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 16, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse


Why do the bad guys, such as Hamas, always side with the American Left? And why does the American Left always pick the wrong side?

Posted by: bobbo2 | August 16, 2010 10:44 AM |

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

You mean to tell me that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are Leftists?


After all they sided with Saddam, for many years, and send him the seed stock for his chemical weapons.

Bush One, also stood by and let him use those same chemical weapons on the Kurds, and let him slaugher the Shiites, at the time of Gulf War One.

Republicans also sided with Pinochet in Chile, when he rounded up people in soccer stadiums, and mowed them down.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 16, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Kevin is NOT reasonable and frankly I'm sick of hearing about how Kevin is reasonable.

NOBODY who votes for Republicans can be considered reasonable at this point in time. A) There is no reason to support Republicans because they haven't laid out an agenda yet and B) every issue is distorted and demagogued in the most heinous, anti-American fashion.

You either support the Republican Party or you don't. If you DO, then you support EVERYTHING that the GOP stands for, and in today's reality that means racism against African-Americans, racism against Hispanics, xenophobia, fearmongering, subterfuge, and distortion.

ANYONE who supports the GOP explicitly or implicitly *SUPPORTS THOSE THINGS*.

It is undeniable at this point how insane the Right has become. You might be the most reasonable-sounding person on Earth, but if you express support for, or vote for, a Republican, you might as well be a Rush Limbaugh-loving, bomb-throwing homegrown terrorist. Kevin has thrown himself in with this lot, so he has to either OWN IT or step back from it. So far he has done neither, and that to me is not only NOT reasonable, it is COWARDLY.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 16, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

All, new thread: Which commentators will denounce GOP's mosque strategy?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/08/how_many_commentators_will_den.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | August 16, 2010 11:12 AM | Report abuse

@rukidding: "...you may be getting close to a bit of false equivalency here..."

While the equivalency may be false (I am not omniscient, after all) I cannot convey in words how unshakably true it seems to me, and how beneficial it would be to dialog if both sides (granted, no more likely to happen on my side of the fence than yours) would stop thinking the worse, taking everything to the most absurd possible extreme, and stop insisting on framing every argument as completely unreasonable evil idiots against the good, wholesome and pure Practically Perfect in Every Way people.

"I respect that you believe progressive ideas will fail..."

Not always, actually. I think the debate (the more rational, the better, but even if irrational I think it's better than unitary power vested in one all-powerful ideological viewpoint) . . .

"Be honest Kevin if you look at objectively it's hard not to see the R's as the party of hate..."

I see where you're coming from, I just disagree. I don't think that's an objective analysis, I think it's freighted with judgement calls about who is right and wrong. If you granted that the Republicans were right in their positions, what you call "hate" might just turn into a "hardline on a difficult issue" or "taking it a little too far, maybe, but they are right on the fundamentals". When you think somebody is wrong, and you can find no rational reason (or don't look for one) for their incorrect position, we attend to assume the worst. Then we move on from their, and we're convinced that our "prejudiced" view of the Scary Other is, in fact, and completely objective analysis. Even though it just isn't.

"..sticking up too much for the poor and downtrodden in our society"

I don't have time to get into the nuance of my opinions there, but sufficed to say, I think that's like saying conservatives or Republicans flaws consist of "loving America too much". It's a purely self-serving assessment, like when given a self-evaluation and you fill in the blank for your biggest weakness as "working too hard, and being a little too enthusiastic about how well I perform my job". If you can find no weaknesses in your own position and no strengths in your oppositions, in my opinion, your nowhere near objective, no matter how many times you use that particular adjective in describing your opinion.

"telling me he's going to impose his will on me (sharia) and waves an assault rifle...but violates NO LAW...well of course as a good righty I should feel free to invade his home...gun him down before he can gun me down...and if some of his children die in the crossfire it's just collateral damage. Really what is the difference?"

I'm not sure where you're going with that. I'm 100% onboard with rule of law, and I don't believe in pre-emptive wars. I do support the Obama's administrations drone program, which does, occasionally, include civilians in the collateral damage.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 16, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse

All, new thread: Which commentators will denounce GOP's mosque strategy?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/08/how_many_commentators_will_den.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | August 16, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse

@Kevin

"Good gravy. Well, it's good to be reminded that there's not a dimes worth of difference in the attitudes towards the scary Political Other on either side of the ideological or partisan spectrum."

Yet again Kevin, you prove yourself adverse to dealing with I actually said. Before you attempt to lump me in with the nutters on the right (or left), maybe you should take the extra few seconds to read my entire comment before responding.

Otherwise, you'll just continue to look like a dishonest, hypocritical, troll.

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | August 16, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

@Ethan2010: "Kevin is NOT reasonable and frankly I'm sick of hearing about how Kevin is reasonable."

I love you, too, Ethan. ;)

"You either support the Republican Party or you don't."

You're either with us or against us, eh?

"If you DO, then you support EVERYTHING that the GOP stands for, and in today's reality that means racism against African-Americans, racism against Hispanics, xenophobia, fearmongering, subterfuge, and distortion."

Well, first of all, that's not what the GOP stands for. Find that in their platform. Frankly, I think it just makes them really evil, which, in turns, makes you really, really super-extra good for opposing them. I think you're just wrong about that. But the whole idea that if I vote for a Republican, then I support for everything the GOP stands for . . . that's kind of absolutist, isn't it? If you voted for Obama, does that means you supported getting rid of the public option with healthcare? Does that mean you supported dropping Cap and Trade legislation? Does that mean you support a more aggressive use of drone attacks to disrupt Al Qaeda than happened under Bush? Does that mean you support Obama walking back his Gitmo commitment? Etc., etc.?

Finally, I don't support the Republican party. I vote against Democrats. More generally, I vote against liberals. Gimme the William F. Buckley party, then, sure I'd vote for that. Until there is a better option, though, I've only got one party to vote for when voting against Democrats.

Also, I think you a hug, Ethan. If you were here, I'd give you one right now. :)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 16, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

@TheBBQChickenMadness: I read all of what you said. I didn't quote it all, but how in the world does the context make it sound any better?

----------------------------
@mikeinarlington

"Sorry, but Republicans are retarded."

You're giving them too much credit.

To be ignorant is unfortunate, but manipulating others' ignorance for political gain when you know better...that's just unconscionable.

------------------------------

I read the whole thing. I don't find the "manipulating other's ignorance" (who are the ignorant others who are being manipulated in this scenario?) for political gain when you "know better" and "that's just unconscionable" . . . that was elevating and conciliatory dialog? That I was somehow misrepresenting?

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 16, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Kevin:

"Finally, I don't support the Republican party. I vote against Democrats. More generally, I vote against liberals. Gimme the William F. Buckley party, then, sure I'd vote for that. Until there is a better option, though, I've only got one party to vote for when voting against Democrats."

Well said.

Posted by: ScottC3 | August 16, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

"""Well, first of all, that's not what the GOP stands for."""

You are obviously brainwashed into thinking that. There are too many instances of racism and bigotry in the GOP to ignore. And yet you continue to ignore those things and pass them off with a flippant suggestion that racism isn't codified into the GOP platform. Obviously there is a well-established pattern of racism and xenophobic behavior in the GOP. To ignore that is to ignore reality, and is -- as I have said -- TOTALLY unreasonable and disingenuous. You either explicitly or implicitly defend all of the Republican Party's debunked attacks or you don't. Simple as that. You DON'T. You are happy to vote for them despite the long long list of absurd accusations. YOU are voting for the party, not me. YOU made the choice to defend those actions, not me. Trying to deflect your support for the Republican Party by saying that you are just voting against the Dems is total bullsh*t and another sign that you are totally unreasonable and not in the least bit concerned with the truth nor what is good for our country.

"""If you voted for Obama, does that means you supported getting rid of the public option with healthcare? Does that mean you supported dropping Cap and Trade legislation?"""

Nice false choice, fool.

Obama obviously supports both the PO and C/T.

And so it goes with you liars.

"I don't support the Republican party"

Liar.

Do you contribute money to the GOP?

Do you vote for the GOP?

If you do either than you SUPPORT THE GOP!

As I said, you are a liar and you are totally unreasonable. The fact that you don't use inflammatory rhetoric doesn't make you any more reasonable than the person who thinks that Barack Obama wants to institute Sharia Law.

You and that insane lunatic?

One and the SAME.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 16, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Hey, I'm not a bigot...Just because I make bigoted statements doesn't mean I'm a bigot.

Hey, I'm not a racist... Just because I have no respect for other cultures and people doesn't mean I'm racist.

Hey I'm a patriot.... Just because I want to change some constituional amendments, deny other citizens their rights or treat 'other' citizens like criminals in their own country, it doesn't mean that I don't stand behind the founding principles of this country.

Right, right, right........

Posted by: priceisright | August 16, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Hamas playing games and Obama innocently (to be kind) set himself up for it.

When so many, even the Clintons, tried to tell Americans Obama might one day have the experience he lacked ... they ignored it ... now the proof is there, day after day.

Posted by: sally62 | August 16, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

I would never of believed that someone so smart could be so stupid if I wasn't seeing it for myself.

He probably needs a vacation.

Posted by: eriksorenson | August 16, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Excuse me, but was it not the Bush administration and the GOP who demanded a "democratically" initiated election...that in turn...elected Hamas?

Posted by: luckyoldson | August 16, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

This entire uproar is nothing more than yet another tea bagger effort to turn our country upside down. I've never see or heard so many uninformed, uneducated fools in years of following politics. Between Palin,Newt and Beck the entire world must think we've lost our collective minds.

Posted by: luckyoldson | August 16, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

While we americans argue over what is clearly spelled out in constitution and make huge issue out of nothing... China became world's second largest economy.

I wonder what will be fighting over in future when China claim as largest economy.

Posted by: rajeshpoints | August 16, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

First of all, lucky, anyone who teabags is likely a Democrat, based on gay voting proclivities. So stop the name calling.

Second, its not just Republicans who find Obama's position abhorrent. Independents like me (who, by the way, now really control the outcome of most elections) think Obama is way off of the page on this one.

Obama's strenght and weakness is that he doesn't seem to care what Middle America thinks. He has his agenda, and he has very effectively enacted a bunch of unpopular legislation. He will wind up dragging down a lot of Democrats in the 2010 election, but Bush did the same thing to the GOP in 2008. Comes with the territory.

What Obama doesn't know how to do is negotiate or compromise. He didn't have to when he had the super majority in the Senate. That ain't gonna last, so either nothing will get done for two years, or Obama will have to start trying to find common ground. I'd bet on the former.

Posted by: rlmdirect | August 16, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

People should be upset about the mosque because the purpose of the mosque is to upset them. The builders would have moved its location by now if they had other intentions. Muslims are smart people and are exploiting a weakness. They have essentially put us in checkmate on this one. If you get angry you will be demonized as a bigot, if you don't get angry you look weak and stupid. Obama getting tangled up in it was gravy.

Posted by: peterg73 | August 16, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

No wonder the reich wing got so enraged by the DHS report (ordered by Bush) about potential rise of right wing terrorism in the US.

They got enraged because they got exposed; we now have the proof they'll do anything to stoke it.

Posted by: grosmec | August 16, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Isn't the Republican Party the party that voted down aid to the 9/11 responders?

Posted by: slayer_2369 | August 16, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Hamas and Obama - both regularly attend religious ceremonies that preach "God D@mn America!"

Posted by: pgr88 | August 16, 2010 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Americans wake up! Here we have the president, like him or not, fulfilling his oath to defend and uphold the constitution and the sheople of America are led by the nose by a group of opportunistic propagandists to believe he has done something disloyal. Can all Americans be so ignorant? I surely hope not. If anything it should awake us to the fact that these same propagandists will be coming after our rights next if we are so easily hoodwinked. We should be wary of these opportunists who would love to take away our freedoms one at a time or in one fell swoop. Maybe when we start to lose our right to read what we want to, associate with whom we like and think what we want we will snap out of our trance of television, Xbox and MTV and stand up for the principle this country was founded on. Freedom!!

Posted by: rocknwroll | August 16, 2010 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Is there a better example of pavlovian reaction than the Republican Party? Hamas makes a statement and Republicans take the bait. Just like they did after 9/11. Al Qaeda and Hamas are playing us like a fiddle and, every time, we just sing to their tune. It's the reason we're fighting two losing wars and dumping our entire economy into these military misadventures. Unfortunately, Obama seems no smarter.

Posted by: halifax1 | August 16, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Terror is the use of fear or violence for political gain, and Hamas certainly doesn't have a monopoly on Terrorist Tactics..

Posted by: BornAgainAmerican | August 16, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Kevin's right to a point. It annoys me to no end when the conservative media and commentors get all up in a tizzy when some allegedly liberal professor somewhere says something bonkers. We should be careful when we discuss these issues that we don't conflate the people we really disagree with with everyone in that group. I like the Democratic Party generally, and I have a lot of respect for Charlie Rangel, but he did some dodgey taxes (and I'm going to wait until there's been a full hearing of those issues) then I'm not going to expect people to ascribe a tendency to complete dodgey taxes to me.

Random outbursts of name calling and other similar insults just remind me of when I was younger (I'm not old! I'm 30! - Python fans?) and really really angry about the things I thought were wrong in the world. I know, this is just a little bit condescending, but when I see somebody intent on internet-screaming at somebody I just tune them out because I don't think they have much to add to the discussion. If you can't afford people the courtesy of engaging with their arguments then you probably don't have much in the way of arguments yourself.

That said, I do think that the most elected Republican leadership, its most vocal members, and the leading commentators, are substantively different in kind than their Democratic or left-leaning counterparts. On a number of issues they've criticized Democrats without providing any substance in either the critique or by way of alternative proposals. They've used some pretty ugly rhetoric and arguments along the way too. And that's not to say I can't get my hair mussed in a debate about serious issues. But it's one thing to make slightly unfair or inflamatory arguments in support of a position you genuinely believe to be superior. The only position, as far as I can tell, that the Republican legislators believe in is that things would be better if they were in charge. While I'm all for wanting to win, it does shock me how unserious the party seems to be about governance.

Posted by: MosBen | August 16, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Newt and Sarah don't really care about the mosque. It is simply the latest wedge issue to get the base fired up and make the Dems look like they are against America. Whatever the later even means, I'm not sure. But since they brought it up and the media is hyping it - this is a test for America. Are we truely "exceptional" i.e. not just in favor of the first ammendment during easy times, but in trying times like this. We already lost some of soul on the torture issue, lets not screw this one up. Because if we do, it verfies the terrorists story-line that the US is anti-muslim. Which it is not (or should not be), it is anti-Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations like the IRA, Tamil Tigers, KKK etc.

Posted by: johnnyd2 | August 16, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

So here's how it goes: an imam, who at one timed worked the Bush Administration, a Republican president, and Hamas, a terrorist organization who gained political legitimacy through elections endorsed by President Bush, supports the building of an Islamic center, outraging Republicans because its location is a short distance from Ground Zero, aka "hallowed ground", where many died and many others were saved by heroic individuals who are now ill but can't get aid from our government mostly because of the Republicans voting against it. So they rip Obama for his position on the matter, which is to say Muslims have a right to build a mosque (though not a full endorsement), calling him anti-American among other things, because I guess it is now fine to not support the president because unlike before if you didn't you supported the terrorists. I guess the reasoning is that Obama is a terrorist sympathizer or something. The reality is Republicans are hypocritical, racist, xenophobic, fear mongering jerks who are like the kid that takes the ball and goes home when he doesn't get his way.

Posted by: slayer_2369 | August 16, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

The Prez invited this attack by failing to resist his apparently compulsive urge to always "teach" us children a lesson. Sometimes he just needs to keep his mouth shut and let the local officials deal with it, that's their job not his. Doesn't he have enough other things to do? These Harvard grads think they are the masters of the universe.

Posted by: droberts57 | August 16, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Correction: Imam Rauf worked with Karen Hughes as part of the Bush Administration's "Partner For Mideast Peace" initiative. He didn't work for the administration. My bad.

Posted by: slayer_2369 | August 16, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

How discouraging to see so many attacking the source of this not so unexpected news and Republicans. Perhaps, a comment, or two, on the total insensitivity of those who wish to place the mosque at this sacred sight, so close to where 3,000 Americans were slaughtered would be more appropriate.

Posted by: Neils60 | August 16, 2010 1:43 PM | Report abuse

I am appauled by what I am seeing in most of these posts! I cam only hope that most people are not of like mind as many of these comments.
Let the muslims build their mosque-its notreally hurting anyone. Also, let the silly right-wingers build their islamic gay center next to it (there is acltually a proposal for this). If our countrymen in lower Manhattan are muslim and need a center this massive I'd sure not want to prevent it being built, after all we have massive church buildings for us whose towns are majority christian.

What I pick a bone with however is that you ibs are saying that the Republicans stand for bigotry and hatred toward minorities and equal rights. However, if you look into history and do a bit uf unbiased research you will find:
Abraham lincoln was the first Republican president and he finally abolished slavery in this country!
The republican party was founded by anti-slavery activists in the north (1854). The "grand old party" is actually the youngest of the two, democrat party was founded in the 1790s.
During the civil war the democrats pushed for a public vote on slavery to preserve it in the southern states!
After the civil war the democrats came back into power under Grover Cleveland and focused on promoting capitalism, ignoring the fact that minoritis needed their assistance in getting rid of the "Jim Crow" laws of the south which were largely propagated by wealthy, white southern democrats!

I will not ignore civil rights champions who happended to be democrats either who included Colorado's Davis Waite who was the first to allow women to vote in his state (1890s)and of course President John F Kennedy.

Also, the supreme court that finally signed the Brown Vs Board of Education was also made up of repubicans (including the Chief Justice)and democrats.

Logically, minorities and civil rights supportes should be stading with the true republican party and what their original beleifs of freedom and equality are.

So get your facts straight...If you are going to accuse a party of being inherently bigoted, back it up in history!
Or at least slam them all equally.

Posted by: doyourresearch | August 16, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

@Ethan2010: "Nice false choice, fool."

Is this how you talk to people you disagree with face to face? I'm honestly curious. How does that go over?

"And so it goes with you liars."

Okay. I'm really not lying about what I think. Sorry if you think I am.

"I don't support the Republican party"

Liar.

"Do you contribute money to the GOP?"

Again, no. And believe me, they ask for it.

"Do you vote for the GOP?"

Frequently.

"If you do either than you SUPPORT THE GOP!"

All right, if this semantic point is this important to you--and apparently has such a negative effect on your blood pressure--then I technically, with many caveats, support the GOP. Over the Democrats. Because those are my choices.

"As I said, you are a liar and you are totally unreasonable."

Well, I certainly can't argue with that.

"The fact that you don't use inflammatory rhetoric doesn't make you any more reasonable than the person who thinks that Barack Obama wants to institute Sharia Law."

Um, isn't that a false equivalency? Kind of?

"You and that insane lunatic? One and the SAME."

Okay, I can see we're going to disagree on some things. However, I'm still curious--do you talk to people like that when you are talking with them face-to-face?

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 16, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

droberts57, unfortunately, these types of local issues, like the Harvard Professor/Cop issue, have a way of attracting the national interest. They really really shouldn't, but I think we can agree to blame a lazy and bored media that loves a controversy. Once it gets to a certain point the President almost has to comment or that itself becomes the story. Also, President Obama was right on this. It doesn't matter what any of us thinks about the community center; they have a right to build on that location subject to local rules and regulations.

Neils60, would you be objecting if they were building a Gap or a Verizon store there? I'm honestly asking, not trying to be snide. Would it be ok if they were building a Caltholic community center? If the objection is really that muslim extremists attacked the US on 9/11 and therefore no muslim organizations should operate near Ground Zero, what is the radius after which they can operate? I understand there's a mosque 3 blocks away from Ground Zero that predates the World Trade Center. Should that be closed down and moved? What harm will the community center do to New Yorkers? What harm will the community center do to people who object to it being built but don't themselves live in New York? What rules should govern zoning in or around the site of Tim McVeigh's attack in Oklahoma City?

If it's not about them being Muslims (and I hope it is), what should the site be used for? What is an appropriate use of the property within a few blocks of Ground Zero, and should we be reclaiming other properties through eminent domain to put that property to a use more appropriate given the proximity to Ground Zero?

Posted by: MosBen | August 16, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Kevin, I should point out that if you really wanted to you could vote for a libertarian candidate, write a name in, or simply not vote for a particular office if you oppose the specific candidate. I myself refused to vote for Rob Andrews the last time I lived in his district, so I voted for Steve "Captain America" Rogers.

I know it's not exactly the same as voting for the only other viable party, but it's not you *only* choice.

Posted by: MosBen | August 16, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Let them build the damn thing. Then watch what the New Yorkers do.

Posted by: adrienne_najjar | August 16, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

How many times is this right wing ploy going to be promoted? Bush&Co. released their "October surprise" tape of bin Laden in 2004, supposedly endorsing Kerry. So therefore, Kerry was a terrorist lover. I think in 2000 Castro endorsed Gore, therefore evidently proving Gore was a communist. Hamas' leader, knowing this is aspect of our asinine political discourse, was perhaps being perverse, knowing his support of Obama would be jumped on hard - after all, Hamas would love to defeat Obama because a right wing warmonger like Bush, Palin, Newt, or Romney works much better for their cause. Obama did the right thing - supporting religious freedom and tolerance (Uh, Constitution, anyone? Bill of Rights?). As Freud might say, sometimes a mosque is just a mosque -a place of worship - not a victory monument, not a jihadist training ground. Hamas' leader's statement may have been sincere; but nevertheless a lovely right wing propaganda gift - as evidenced by this very column in Washington Post (for shame).

Posted by: bobbygoode | August 16, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

@MosBen: "I know it's not exactly the same as voting for the only other viable party, but it's not you *only* choice"

I've thought about the protest vote. Really have. But, in the end, if you want to really vote against somebody . . . you gotta vote for the next best person to win.

Does work both ways. I've voted against Republican governor Don Sundquist, for example. And I voted for the Democrat.

"If it's not about them being Muslims (and I hope it is), what should the site be used for?"

A Burlington Coat Factory! Oh, except Burlington is in Vermont. And Vermont is full of French people. So, boycott the Burlington Coat Factory! Freedom Fries!

Really, after this, who wants to be the follow up act?

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 16, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

"do you talk to people like that when you are talking with them face-to-face? "

I do when they lie to me, yes.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 16, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

@Ethan2010: "I do when they lie to me, yes."

You mean, when you assume they are lying to you, even when they aren't. Cuz, dude, I'm really not lying to you about what I think. It's a little weird to me that you think I am.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 16, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

This is all crap. I work in the vicinity. There are 2 strip clubs in the area and an XXX video store. There is no such thing a sacred ground when there is construction going on at the site. I would love to see an actual tribute but because U.S. commmerce (banks) must thrive, 2 new buildings must go up. When the anniversary happens this year, the "so called families" that are up in arms about this, have to pay their tributes two blocks away, because getting new towers built is more important.

When the second terrorist attack occurred in Oklahoma (the first being the 1st bombing at WTC), a memorial was immediately built. Here in New York, there only thing that can get built in 9 years is a mosque. Let it happen.

Everyone in the other 49 states, don't know the complete truth. And does anyone know the exact parameters of the supposely "sacred ground"? Because it's being trampled upon with construction equipment.

If this is actually "sacred ground" as politicians in other states are calling it. Then they should "cry foul" because there isn't anything on the "actual site" there to symbolize it. Not because a 3rd mosque is being built in the area.

Posted by: THROWTHEBUMSOUT | August 16, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

I do not like Harry Reid or Barak Obama. No matter what they or the politically correct elites think, Islam is not just a religion as we know it. Islam is also a militant, tyrannical political and legal system. Therefore it should not be covered under freedom of religion. Would we allow a religion that believes in human sacrifice to practice that in America? I think not. Most Islamic countries have Sharia law. Some of the reasons they give the death penalty to fellow Muslims are: a girl that speaks to a boy who is not a family member, adultery, homosexuality, being an apostate (leaving the Islamic religion), and many more. It takes four male witnesses before a woman can prove rape. In most Islamic countries the penalty for preaching Christianity is death. We should never cover Islam under freedom of religion. It is a primitive, cruel, barbaric belief and those that call themselves moderate are really practicing the religion. Just ask the highest ranked Islamic clerics on earth if they condemn Sharia law and the answer will be total silence. Even our closet Muslim president will not openly condemn Islamic terrorists nor even say those words. Neither will Eric Holder. No mosque or Muslims should be in the USA. Again, Islam is no more a religion than the Nazi movement was. Both believe their two chief missions to be world domination and the destruction of Jews.

Posted by: good_angel | August 16, 2010 7:37 PM | Report abuse

Saw on television a comment that in contrast, allowing the Mosque near Ground Zero is like having a Nazi Swastika next to the Jewish Holocaust museum.

It is not believed by me that Republicans are like Nazi, which did not allow religious freedoms to the Jewish or Muslim people, as written in the US Constitution.

If it is "religious freedoms", then what is next the "right to be bear arms"?

Posted by: melliottnm | August 16, 2010 8:00 PM | Report abuse

"Rauf is widely seen as a moderate.."

" • The New York Times, Oct. 19, 2001: "Imam Anwar Al-Awlaki, spiritual leader at the Dar al-Hijra mosque in Virginia, one of the nation's largest. . . . is held up as a new generation of Muslim leader capable of merging East and West."

Where is Al-Awlaki now? On a death warrant signed by Obama.

• NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams, Dec. 9, 2004: "It's the TV industry's newest experiment, 'Bridges TV,' billing itself the 'American-Muslim lifestyle network,' featuring movies, documentaries, cartoons. . . . It's the brainchild of Aasiya Hassan, an architect, and her husband, Muzzamil Hassan.."

The man who cut off his wifes head in a supposed "honor killing".

Pundits like Greg have a history of portraying lunatics as "moderates".
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704868604575433214247852860.html

Maybe not condemning Hamas terrorism is "moderate" in Raufs hometown Kuwait, in America it is not Greg.

Posted by: pn27 | August 16, 2010 9:05 PM | Report abuse


“GROUND ZERO MOSQUE” song / video.

The concept for this particular song is derived solely in point of the location of this building. It is my opinion that “this location” of a mosque will give our “islamic terrorists” enemy a morale boost. This is aiding and giving comfort to our enemies and strengthens their resolve. Protect our troops do not aid our enemy in any way. All men are created equal all men's actions are not.
Thank you.
Chris McCune. chrismccune.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odLPx7mebzs&feature=watch_response

Posted by: cmcpikin | August 16, 2010 10:48 PM | Report abuse

"GROUND ZERO MOSQUE" song / video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odLPx7mebzs&feature=watch_response

Posted by: cmcpikin | August 16, 2010 10:51 PM | Report abuse

What on earth was President Obama thinking? Did his advisors actually tell him to go “Pro Ground Zero mosque” with 90 days until the midterms when Democrats are about to get sliced up like a Hibachi Steak at Benihana?

Did someone on his team point to Iran and said, “Don’t worry Mr. President, we can win with 32% of the vote, Ahmadinejad did it, so let’s go pro Ground Zero mosque today?”

Read this article which satirizes the whole mess.

VERY FUNNY stuff.

http://www.dailygoat.com/?p=2653

Posted by: eye95 | August 17, 2010 12:00 AM | Report abuse

YOU SHOULD HEAR WHAT EX-MUSLIMS HAVE TO SAY THE MOSQUE REPRESENTS!

WHO DO YOU THINK TOLD EVERYBODY?!

Posted by: fortitude | August 17, 2010 12:00 AM | Report abuse

1993 Bill Clinton gives Janet Reno the green light to use lethal force for a siege on private property killing 54 adults 21 children and one David Koresh. Bill as well demonstrated great respect for the institute of marriage. Don't get giddy, I don't care for Bush either.
“GROUND ZERO MOSQUE” song / video.

The concept for this particular song is derived solely in point of the location of this building. It is my opinion that “this location” of a mosque will give our “islamic terrorists” enemy a morale boost. This is aiding and giving comfort to our enemies and strengthens their resolve. Protect our troops do not aid our enemy in any way. All men are created equal all men's actions are not.
Thank you.
Chris McCune. chrismccune.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odLPx7mebzs&feature=watch_response

Posted by: cmcpikin | August 22, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company