EDITORIAL (Got Some Dissonance? Read it anyway)

For quite some time I have battled against the “blogospheric obsession” with Obama’s middle name. I’ve known that those who focused on his name and heritage did more harm than good, and that they were actually playing into the hands of the jihadists by amplifying the expected anti-Muslim sentiment. Yes, each and every one who insists on (falsely) highlighting Obama’s middle name, claiming that he is really a Muslim, or other shameless assertions, is helping the terrorist cause…(by the way, it is easy enough in my opinion to fight an Obama candidacy without resorting to racial and religious innuendo and falsehood).

In today’s Counterterrorism Blog entry by Evan Kohlmann (and yes “Virginia” he is an expert), makes it clear how much damage those people who insist on falsely accusing Barak Obama of being a Muslim or worse (as one blog post earlier today asserted - was the Manchurian Candidate) are actually doing (thank you Evan Kohlmann for your clarity).

Thus, the real terrorism-related problem here is how to deal with the long-term political fallout stemming from the ignorant and highly-polarized American portrayals of Islam unleashed during the context of the U.S. election, which are now inevitably being manipulated by Al-Qaida as propaganda fodder to recruit new sympathizers and terrorists. Even setting aside its obvious partisan bias, this form of reckless and irresponsible “scholarship” has no rightful place in the Christian Science Monitor nor, as Clark Hoyt rightly noted, on the New York Times Op-Ed page.

Kohlmann focuses his attention (actually ire if I may characterize his feelings) on two articles, President Apostate? from the NY Times Op-Ed page and Barack Obama – Muslim apostate? For Al Qaeda, the answer – and the implication – is clear. from the Christian Science Monitor

The problem, as Mr. Kohlmann points out, is that neither article is substantiated. A third articlecited by Kohlmann, also from the NY Times, makes it very clear that in referring to Obama (as President) as the “Apostate” is very, very wrong (headed). Clark Hoyt, the author of the third article (”Entitled to their Opinions, Yes. But Their Facts?”) spent the time to interview Muslim scholars (I am certain here, that those who have spent their blogging time making it clear that their opinion was that Obama was a Muslim, will now choose to dismiss these Muslim scholars)…and found that they all disagreed with Luttwak’s “opinion.”

So Hoyt’s conclusion is this: When writers purport to educate readers about complex matters, and they are arguably wrong, I think The Times cannot label it opinion and let it go at that.

UPDATES:
NYT has second thoughts about “Sharia smear” on Obama

“The Times Op-Ed page, quite properly, is home to a lot of provocative opinions,” Hoyt wrote. “But all are supposed to be grounded on the bedrock of fact. Op-Ed writers are entitled to emphasize facts that support their arguments and minimize others that don’t. But they are not entitled to get the facts wrong or to so mangle them that they present a false picture.”

Where Facts are Made-Up

As a blogger, I’m hardly in a position to dispute Luttwak’s right to opine on matters about which he knows nothing. But if I were the editor of an op-ed page and I were interested in publishing a provocative opinion piece grounded in an interpretation of Islamic law, I would try to get a scholar of Islamic jurisprudence to write it.

Dear readers…if some of you have consistently harped on the unsubstantiated rumor that Barak Obama is a Muslim in hiding, and that he is somehow the “Manchurian Candidate,” I urge you to re-think your views (if that is within your capability and mental capacity). As far as I am concerned, Evan Kohlmann is an acknowledged expert in things relating to counterterrorism and the jihad. I read his material, and the material of others, as often as my time permits. Kohlmann has written in words far better and more pointed than I have been able to muster til now: “…the ignorant and highly-polarized American portrayals of Islam unleashed during the context of the U.S. election, which are now inevitably being manipulated by Al-Qaida as propaganda fodder to recruit new sympathizers and terrorists.” Yes, ignorant.

You are all, and have been, playing into the hands of the jihadists who want to prove just how anti-Muslim the United States is…so, all of you have been aiding and abetting the enemy. Expecting that Obama will declare himself the presumptive winner of the Democratic nomination for the Presidency (confirming my long held conviction that Hillary would not be the nominee - unless something major occurs to change the Obama-Clinton nomination race), it is now time to focus on defeating Obama on the policies and on the capabilities of leadership. Can you do that? Frankly, I doubt it very much.

Technorati , , , ,
Powered by Gregarious (42)
Share This Sphere: Related Content