You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Michael Tomasky’ tag.
H/T Elder of Ziyon
Of course, those who believe, with an almost religious intensity, that the United States is a hotbed of anti-Muslim bigotry won’t be moved by this study.
However, anyone with even the faintest interest in an empirical analysis of this issue might be interested in a new 40 page report by the Center For Security Policy which not only debunks the claim that Muslim Americans are disproportionately victimized by religiously inspired bias crimes, but clearly demonstrates Jewish victims are, in fact, far more likely to be the target of such crimes.
As such figures don’t affirm (CiF America blogger) Michael Tomasky‘s preconceived conclusions, we can expect him to ignore these findings.
One of the defining characteristics of the hard/Guardian-style Left is their moral vanity, as well as an unwillingness to engage in the same level of self-reflection that they’re often demanding of others.
By moral vanity I’m referring the desire to not just pursue justice in the world, but be seen as pursuing justice in the world – as influenced by the desire to maintain the mantle of righteousness as they are by the wish to engage in the just act itself.
The second dynamic – the absence of self-reflection – allows those who have become accustomed to believing that they possess this political advantage from engaging in serious thought about their own moral imperfections or blind spots.
Thusly, many who see themselves – and those they view as their political allies – as upholding progressive values of anti-racism, have become so accustomed to the social benefits this halo effect affords them that they don’t respond well when their moral edifice is challenged.
These dynamics seem quite evident in Michael Tomasky’s post regarding revelations that Nir Rosen found humor in the brutal sexual assault of CBS News Reporter Lara Logan. (CiF, Feb. 17)
While Tomasky correctly points out that another commentator, Debbie Schlussel, also engaged in horribly insensitive remarks about Logan’s horrific ordeal, its in his gross mischaracterization of Rosen’s political views – describing them as merely “controversial” – where the intellectual tick described above is most glaring.
Indeed, Tomasky’s blog posts at the Guardian often show him quite uncomfortable with the notion that those on the political far-left can be as hateful and intolerant as those on the far-right. He, like many on his end of the political spectrum, seem desperate to hold on to the illusion that progressive thought is inherently resistant to the hatred and bigotry they are so fond of exposing on the right. Thus, Rosen’s long and well-documented flirtations with political extremism, and rank bigotry, can be whitewashed as merely “controversial”.
Indeed, looking at Rosen’s Tweets, and commentary, suggests the fundamental truth of the axiom that left-wing and right-wing hate are merely flip sides of the same coin.
As we noted in our post yesterday, Rosen’s political leanings demonstrate a palpable animosity towards progressive democracies (like the United States and Israel) and, inversely, an appalling empathy for reactionary terrorist movements.
Just a few of Rosen’s comments along this vein should have long disqualified him as a “progressive” in good standing. (You can find his Tweets here.)
He Tweeted, on the anniversary of 9/11, that:
“[It's] hard to disagree with much of the Islamic Emirate Of Afghanistan [Taliban] Statement Regarding The Anniversary Of The 9/11 Event.”
He then linked back to the Taliban statement.
Many of his Tweets are given over to expressions of hatred of Israel, and the desire for its destruction. One, which we posted yesterday, refers to Israel’s very existence as a “blight upon the nations”, and in another Tweet he hoped for Israel’s “speedy demise”.
He also openly advocates for violence against Israel, Tweeting:
“Yes to a 3rd Intifada. This time hopefully with the support of the Palestinians citizens of ‘Israel.”
And, there was this Tweet, from December 3rd, 2010:
“On Hannuka, Just think, if only the Greeks had been better at counterinsurgency we wouldn’t have these problems today. Where was Petraeus?”.
As Jeffrey Goldberg noted, “Hanukkah marks the defeat of a Syrian-Greek empire by a Jewish insurgency. If the Greeks had won, the Jews would have been slaughtered.”
In an essay he wrote in 2002, for the radical site Dissident Voice, he said the following:
“I find myself in the unique and painful position of calling for international sanctions against Israel and wondering if a punitive bombing of Tel Aviv, the city I love, until it complies with international law, might be a good (albeit quixotic) idea.”
I don’t know how much clearer the case needs to be. Those who express sympathy towards Hezbollah and the Taliban and openly wish for the destruction of Israel – even if they’re self-styled “progressives” - aren’t merely “controversial”.
They’re vile racists.
What about that doesn’t Michael Tomasky understand?
(Update: Here are some snapshots of Rosen’s Tweets and Facebook comments quoted above)
One of the more telling aspects of the way the Guardian covered the shooting in Arizona – which targeted congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and left six dead – was the way in which they used the deadly attack to demonize their political opponents. Like much of the American hard left, the Guardian concluded that the attack was motivated by “inflammatory right-wing rhetoric”, without the slightest evidence that the shooter, Jared Loughner, was a fan of the conservative talk show hosts and politicians being mentioned. Of course the mere death of evidence wouldn’t stop CiF’s Michael Tomasky from assigning such blame, acknowledging that “it can’t really and truly be proved”, before insisting, “but everyone knows.”
Those who read this blog regularly are fully aware of the time we spend documenting the hate and vitriol directed against Jews and Israel in the comment section of CiF which is unleashed by Guardian stories even tangentially related to Israel. As we’ve noted previously, the Community Security Trust has named the Guardian as a major purveyor of antisemitic rhetoric in the British mainstream media in their 2007 and 2008 reports.
As CiF Watch actually takes empirical evidence seriously, we’ve taken the time to document “what everyone knows”: that the Guardian’s recent PaliLeaks reports have unleashed a wave of hate – towards Jews and Israel – below the the line that reaches new depths.
As you read the comments below, elicited from the Jan. 24 Guardian piece “Papers reveal how Palestinian leaders gave up fight over refugees,” please also note how many fellow Guardian readers recommend the remarks.
We posted previously on this comment about Israel’s unique evil, which still hasn’t been deleted, and has now garnered 870 Recommends:
Accusation that Israel is engaged in Ethnic Cleansing (506 Recommends)
Israel and the U.S. are the true rogue states in the world (484 Recommends). Also, see our posts (here, here, and here) on John Whitbeck’s CiF piece, “On Palestine, the U.S. is a rogue state.”
Pro-Hamas comment (261 Recommends):
Richard Holbrooke, top-ranking American diplomat, magazine editor, author, and professor died today at the age of sixty-nine. Holbrooke, in his most recent capacity as Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan under the Obama Administration, was an ardent proponent of a continued U.S. presence in Afghanistan, arguing that:
“A continued U.S. presence in Afghanistan is necessary because of 9/11. That is the core difference between Afghanistan and Vietnam. We’re not in Afghanistan to build a perfect democracy. We know these were not perfect elections. But we must go ahead, we must help the Afghans strengthen their own capabilities. We’re not there to take over the country, we’re there to help the Afghans build their own capacity so that their security forces can replace the international forces over an acceptable period of time.”
Yet, CiF’s America blogger, Michael Tomasky, wasted no time attempting to score political points over Holbrooke’s death. Tomasky noted a report of Holbrooke’s last words, uttered while under sedation prior to surgery. Holbrooke allegedly said:
“You’ve got to stop this war in Afghanistan.”
Tomasky continued:
“If Holbrooke knew he might be dying and chose these as his last words, then they’re words the rest of us should take to heart. But it seems unlikely to end in a clean negotiated peace, the way Bosnia did, and that outcome is probably that much less likely with him gone. A very sad loss.”
Tomasky – the far left ideologue that he is – simply couldn’t avoid attempting to score political points as a result of Holbrooke’s untimely death – even if it meant attributing a quote to him (the significance of which we’ll never know) uttered at the very last moment he was conscious.
Though I didn’t know Holbrooke personally, I am familiar enough with his career that I’m certain, whatever his last words, he wouldn’t have advocated the cut and run strategy promoted by Tomasky and political fellow travelers at the Guardian.
Even the most cursory review of Holbrooke’s career shows a man without illusions, and someone whose foreign policy decisions weren’t based on juvenile platitudes about the dangers of American “imperialism” and “arrogance.”
Holbrooke’s career was a testament to a view which was idealistic – as someone who wanted desperately to end conflicts and promote democratic values – as well as quite realistic about the real, and quite imperfect, choices that the U.S. had to make. He knew that the perfect was indeed the enemy of the good.
Holbrooke was a seasoned, moderate, and sober voice in a quite ideological age. He will be sorely missed.
H/T Mere Rhetoric
With the liberal lobbying group, J Street, still reeling from revelations that their director, Jeremy Ben-Ami, wasn’t truthful about funding the group received from George Soros, a video has surfaced of J Street’s co-founder, Daniel Levy (who’s been fawned over by the Guardian’s Michael Tomasky and Chris McGreal) which again reveal the group’s true colors.
At a Q+A of “Palestinian Politics and Obama’s Peace Plans,” an event held in October 2009 by Levy’s The Century Foundation (cached event page here, PDF of quotes here, full video here and here), Levy – who recently caused problems for J Street when he referred to Israel’s entire creation as “an act that was wrong” – accused Israel of doing everything in their power “to try to turn the Palestinians violent.” Here’s the exchange:
DANIEL LEVY: So Fatah is irretrievably bought into a negotiations-only strategy. What if the negotiations don’t deliver? And Hamas into an illegitimate strategy that includes use of violence against civilians.
BASSIM KHOURY: We Palestinians have part of the blame with where we are now because of our homicide bombings in Israel.
DANIEL LEVY: The Palestinian side has failed to produce a third alternative. The third alternative inside the territories is about nonviolent resistance which is why Israel does everything to try and turn nonviolent resistance into violence.
Of course, CiF Watch is not unfamiliar with tropes – by Israel haters both above and below the line at the Guardian – suggesting Israeli culpability for Palestinian terrorism and extremism. But, when the leader of a large, well-funded, lobbying group, which claims to be pro-Israel, advances such a narrative it is especially troubling.
Michael Tomasky on American Racism
The Guardian columnist Michael Tomasky doesn’t think too highly of Americans. Let me restate that. He doesn’t think too highly of Republicans, conservatives, Tea Party activists, or opponents of the Mosque at Ground Zero. This last group represents up to 70% of all Americans (and includes a good percentage of Democrats).
As we’ve come to the 9th anniversary of the series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States on September 11, 2001, such contempt for his fellow Americans strikes me as especially relevant. Allow me to explain.
On “Islamophobia” in America, Tomasky said:
“I did not expect to see this much hatred, this depth of conviction that the president of the United States is an enemy of his own country, this intensity of bigotry directed at American Muslims, this degree of belief in obvious and poisonous lies.”
On the threat by ONE pastor to burn a Koran, Tomasky said:
“I’ll say it again. This stuff is definitely on the rise, and it has to be correlated in some psychic way to the rise of extremism in this country.”
On the stabbing of one Muslim cab driver in NYC, Tomasky said:
“Anyone surprised that a Muslim cab driver was stabbed in New York? If you are surprised, you’ve been sleepwalking the last two weeks….The man, Ahmed Sharif, will survive. But from reports it seems clear that he was stabbed because of his religion.”
Later, Tomasky Updates his original post: “
“[The] initial reporting is that Enright doesn’t fit the profile at all of an angry “Foxer”. He’s a film student who recently went to Afghanistan and who’s been working with a project that supports the building of the Cordoba House.”
Indeed, a law enforcement source told journalist Ben Smith that Enright made “nonsensical statements” to police after his arrest, but that investigators do not see an evident connection to the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” project.
On opposition, by 9/11 victims’ families, to the Cordoba Mosque at Ground Zero, he said
“Victims are entitled to their irrational hatreds. What they’re not entitled to is for those hatreds to become the basis of policy and to override the principles in the Constitution and the law.”
Yet, he offers no evidence that such incidents are anything but lone acts, nor does he even suggest that there’s data available indicating a rise in (Islamic or any other) extremism. Indeed, Mr. Tomasky’s chimera of an Islamophobic America doesn’t fit the “profile”. According to the most recent (2008) released FBI Hate Crime Statistics Jews are nearly 10 times more likely than Muslims to be victims of Hate Crimes in the U.S.
Like this:
I have been wondering for a while how antisemitism flourishes in the Guardian. Is it intentional?
Is it at all pervasive or merely subconscious and circumstantial? Or is it rooted in the false interpretation of Marxism attributed to the great Jean Baptiste Lamarck, that is, if the will can be shaped, so will evolution.
Of course they read Lamarck backwards as Lamarck’s theory was one based on the individual rather than the collective. The Guardian, like the Marxists before them, does however posses an idea of what a Jew, and also what an American should be like. Though theirs is about shaping and exemplifying rather than a nihilistic hatred of destroy and rebuild later.
What we have seen during the last few weeks on the pages of the Guardian would, if looked upon a hundred years from now in some journalism history class (assuming that Bat Ye’or wasn’t right and such classes will still exist), hand over the perfect snapshot of what questions everybody must have (or should have) asked themselves when reading this publication.
Starting with the Forth Hood terror attack; the first successful terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. Not an insignificant milestone if one asked me. One probably not lost on Obama who is fighting so hard not to have this attack defined as terrorism.
The Guardian went on an offensive against America almost the same day the blood of its sons and daughters was mopped up from the floors of the rooms this creep sprayed with his bullets while crying out “Allah’u Akbar”.
How does that relate to antisemitism? Well directly it doesn’t. But the process in which the story was dealt with on CiF showed the neuron firing sequence all too similar to the sequences dictating the oldest hatred in which it was automatically assumed that the victim is the real perpetrator and the perpetrator is the victim.
Now of course the Guardian is much more crass with Americans than Jews, America hatred is fashionable. In fact, it supposedly displays a sense of sophistication required to enter some high circles of European or British thought.
I made this last distinction on purpose especially since Channel 4 aired their masterpiece of investigative work and since I read an excerpt from Dennis McShane’s brilliant book “The New Antisemitism”. The piece I read was called The Bigots of Westminster. As someone born in what became the EU, I can testify that just as in the UK a Jew’s loyalty is questioned, in the EU, or Europe as a whole, the loyalty of the British is also questioned. Probably even more often than not. And every time Americans are lambasted by British columnists, a disdain much worse is expressed toward the British on the “Continent”.
Fish & Chips score no higher than cheeseburgers friends, especially among wine drinkers.
Just like with Jews, Israel and Zionists, the Guardian has its coterie of American contributors who spared no effort in attacking the US Army, American society and of course policies right after the deed of Nidal Hasan Malik. And just like the Guardian’s ”dissident” Jewish contributors fighting against the so-called “Islamophobia” (as opposed to anti-Muslim racism), these American writers shamefully demonstrated why the American Left is incapable of ever fighting a war or beating an enemy for it sees more of an enemy in America than among those who really want to destroy it.
First and foremost, we had Michael Tomasky who in American for better or worse argued before the facts were in, that Hasan should not be “hated” for who he is but what he did. Well, he turned out to be an Al Queda recruit and overall hating incompetent hypocritical nut.
Can I hate him now Michael?
Then we had Dan Kennedy who in Finding the truth at Fort Hood wrote the following:
“Nidal Malik Hasan’s dangerous mental state is a legitimate subject for investigation, not an excuse for fear-mongering”
Fear mongering of what? Al Queda attacking the homeland? Of course, notice how terrorism becomes a psychological problem in the mind of the liberal.
“A state of mind”. A breakdown I suppose. And as the case with psychosis, there is a victim here. Like with cancer, the victim is now a patient. So Hasan is no more guilty than a cancer patient. Probably less guilty than a smoking cancer patient but I’ll let that slide for now.
The fact that the “patient” was a psychiatrist himself is negated to the wayside. A practicing psychiatrist MD shoots his patients and colleagues but he is “suffering” from a mental state. Well so was Hitler and probably Stalin and everybody in history commmitting great atrocities. By this reasoning Hitler was probably even sicker than Bin Laden and Bin Laden sicker than Hasan.
All this suffering all around us. I must say, we need to reform health care in America. Some terrorist families may go bankrupt fighting this disease, so what about them?
Not one CiF piece has been published since the revelations demolishing all the silly and dangerous excuses the CiF writers have pored over Nidal Hasan. Not one.
They have moved on since.
The American contributors have now consecrated their efforts at the pursuit of the “real danger”, Sarah Palin. Probably wishing she would be paralyzed not Hasan who has now awoken from his slumber but remains in his bed, probably never capable to stand up to be shot. Then again, he never was a soldier for real. Only a parasite and traitor.
The rest of the CiF team was handed the greatest of gifts. A documentary on Channel 4 about the secret Jewish lobbies and conspiracies shaping Britain toward the ugly abyss of Zionism. And just like Tomasky and Kennedy attacked America on the pages of the Guardian, Antony Lerman defended Channel 4 while attacking those who criticized it.
Notice the similarities?
In the mind of the hater there are always some made-up conditions upon which the hater may graciously remove his hatred.
“If all Jews were like you, I would not have these opinions”. If all Americans were like so and so, or will speak A,B or C, there will not be all this scorn.
This is what was illustrated at the Guardian, especially in the last few weeks. They do not hate like radical haters do. They do have an idea what their hated should be like and what they should say in order that the sanction of hatred can be lifted.
There is the chance of some conditional love here. And if you follow the examples, you will be rewarded.
“Follow the examples comrades… These are your heroes…These are your models and if you follow, you will get our smug sophisticated love and respect for we only respect the image of you we made…That image is just and fair to all of us…
We have shown you the path so follow…
…or else.”
Oftentimes the title of a ‘Comment is Free’ article tells you everything you need to know about the kind of pond life that will be attracted to the comment thread. No more was this true when CiF ran a piece last week by Jonathan Freedland entitled “I knew the day the Holocaust ‘debate’ would come. Just not in my lifetime” that resulted in a comment thread rife with Holocaust denial.
In the same week, Michael Tomasky, the American editor-at-large of ‘Comment is Free’, ran a video blog entitled “New York senators turn down Jewish lobby’s invitation“, a piece which was used to promote the Guardian’s pet Jewish organization, J-Street, and bash AIPAC which Tomasky insidiously characterized over and over as a very “powerful” organization.
Predictably the Guardianista commentariat were out in force using the comment thread to propagate Jewish conspiracy theory. The most egregious yet undeleted examples of this can be found in the selection of comments below:
AjayVee
21 Oct 09, 2:59am
I will probably not see it in my lifetime because I am already an old geezer but I firmly believe that within the next 25 to 50 years the Oath of Office for the President of the US will be amended (through a constitutional amendment) to include allegiance to Israel. As God is my judge I just cannot understand how the American dog allows itself to be so humiliatingly wagged by the tail. Was Ariel Sharon right in his bragging perhaps?
qualquan
20 Oct 09, 3:25pm
Unfortunately America’s economy has suffered grievously fighting AIPAC supported wars for Israel.
As long as AIPAC rules the US economy will continue to worsen with rising deficits, unemployment and homelessness.
When the pain becomes sufficient the US citizenry will demand a solution.Not till then.
PhilipD
20 Oct 09, 9:09am
Interesting. I’m trying to think of another precedent in history for a small country managing so well to hijack a much larger and more powerful country to its own ends, you usually only get these things in biology (where they are called parasites). Future historians will have their work cut out trying to explain it. Its astonishing that loyalty to another country is seen as vital to ones political career.
But having had long experience of working within NGO’s, I’ve always found that when NGO’s start to compete with each other rather than cooperate, everyone loses. I would have thought the best strategy AIPAC would have towards J-Street would be a sort of condescending tolerance. But if they have decided to go for all out attack then it could backfire very badly on them.
rhysapgruff
20 Oct 09, 11:20am
Well if it is true that AIPAC have put pressure on these Senators then it’s definitley very sad, and indeed disturbing. As much as I support Israel’s right to exist, I’ve always found AIPAC’s influence to be insidious and an affront to democracy.
gipsylad
20 Oct 09, 1:49pm
If that is truth, then there is only one explanation, they are all sick of bumping into so many member of the Jewish lobby in the White House and Capital Hill [most of them are employed there by the Obama administration this days] that they find it boring and excessive to have to socialize with them as well.
kodicek
20 Oct 09, 1:55pm
AIPACS paranoia reflect Israel’s concience. Most of congress belongs to AIPAC and will not say the meekest thing against Israel or the US policy towards them.
Whoopsydoo
20 Oct 09, 3:34pm
There is not a single politician here in the US that needs reminding that even the slightest criticism of Israel is political suicide. AIPAC whistles and they come smartly to attention.
yard80197
20 Oct 09, 7:32pm
Is that surprising? AIPAC has most of the US government and many state governments in their pockets. So the officials go to where the big bribes are not where the little bribes are!
Now compare the above comments with some of the comments that appear here and here which have been taken from cached copies of Stormfront threads [warning do not click on any links in the Stormfront cached pages as they contain neo-Nazi hate material]. For those not familiar with Stormfront, it is perhaps the most prominent of all neo-Nazi white supremacist hate sites. Here’s one example:
“Friend of Stormfront”
Sustaining MemberJoin Date: Dec 2004Location: Anchorage, Alaska.Posts: 1,397Re: Hillary Clinton Speaks at AIPAC Dinner Thursday Night
Hey, where else can you buy a 3 billion dollar foreign aid package and an entire goyim military to fight your wars for a few million dollars in political campaign contributions. Oy vey, Moishe, American politicians are such a bargain.
And what would a Jew-bashing thread be without Apartheid and Nazi analogies:
IRFANRAINY
20 Oct 09, 3:49pm
TO Missmarmelstein etc and other so called Liberal supporters of Israel and Zionism. Dear folks let’s not mix up Jews with Zionists, although the cross section is huge throughout the Jewish Diaspora ( I speak in support of jewish anti-zionists ). It’s identity based so one can understand it from a migrant and historical perspective as other ethnics groups do have similar issues.
Now as far as influence goes America is a business, run by the very few at the top, who dominate all aspects of political life and the legislature. A significant number are Americans jews, who are also happen to be massive entrepreneurs, are fully aware of how influence is manifested in this system.
Yes America didn’t really support Israel on a huge scale until 1967 but WIlson etc decades before WW2 did, so there has always been US support of Israel unlike British anti-semite Balfour and his chums. It realised that Israel was the perfect strategic attack dog in the Middle East, helping to keep Arab nationalists in check, keep the cheap oil flowing the and puppet regimes in Saudi and Egypt under control.
But understand, supporters of Israel, PEOPLE CANNOT MONOPOLISE SUFFERING FOR PERSONAL GAIN, the current system for Palestinians is far for worse than Apartheid, ask Desmond Tutu. The blockade in Gaza, where even school books are not allowed, is shockingly disgusting.
AIPAC is a huge part of the hawkish American elite, Obama’s chief of Staff is a Rahm Emanuel !! This whole question of lobbying is like asking Hitler to take sides between Mussolini and Stalin !
How can you be a left winger and be a prominent member of AIPAC, left in America is very centrist/right wing in reality !!acme
20 Oct 09, 4:17pm
Dear Miss marmelstein
Jews and Israel are, and can be separate, not all Jews are israeli or Zionsit and indeed not all Israelis are jewish.
I have Israeli relatives who are older than the state of Israel and who are furious at the hijacking of their generous and open Zionist vision by an Arab-hating land-stealing olive-tree chopping (and sadly mostly American -educated) murderous bunch of thuggish settlers who are looking to get revenge for Schindlers List on mostly innocent Palestinians who have the illfortune to be the victims of their projected hatred
Then we have the Israelis are a bunch of racists, a CiF favorite.
IRFANRAINY
20 Oct 09, 4:59pm
Well Pastrami sandwich eater you do not take issue with any the points raised because you simply cannot, you can divert the attention away to the language used but not the hellish truth of Israel and it’s unique American support !
Bigfacedog again as above you are delusional in your statement ” AIPAC have a bit more influence than others..” lol. Again you perpetuate the idea of victimhood instead of being brave and looking at the horror of what the US and Israel does to Palestinians. The rest of the world is fully aware of wwho the racists truly are !
And we have TheGreatGigInTheSky rejoicing in the Jew-hatred on the Tomasky thread.
TheGreatGigInTheSky
20 Oct 09, 1:27pm
Thanks MT
Very refreshing to see someone dare to mention “Israel” on CiF in anything but glowing adoration, and not be censored.
There doesn’t seem to be a way of being critical of Israel’s actions, BTL, and keeping the posting up.
Interestingly, TheGreatGigInTheSky’s picture on CiF is “CiF Junky”, reproduced below. Big surprise there.
Even more interestingly, the Tomasky video blog was preceded by an HSBC bank advertisement. Now I’m sure HSBC bank cares deeply about its reputation and would never advertise on a site like Stormfront so I wonder what management at HSBC would do if they were to see who their “target audience” really is.
Hawkeye
Omar2
WellofSense
Medusa
The Alchemist
Louise
Tosca
Maimon
Telling the Truth
Israelinurse
Adam Levick
Margie in Tel Aviv
Guest/Cross Post
Hadar Sela
Michael Tomasky Egregious Double-Standard Watch
January 11, 2011 in Uncategorized | Tags: anti-Zionism, Antisemitism, Comment is Free, Gabrielle Giffords, Glenn Beck, Guardian, Michael Tomasky, William Jacobson | by Adam Levick | 17 comments
Back in November 2009, after Malik Hasan murdered 13 U.S. soldiers at Ft. Hood in cold blood, while shouting “Allahu Akbar”, CiF’s America correspondent Michael Tomasky was quite careful when mediating upon Hasan’s motives.
He said:
In Sunday’s column, however, on Jared Lee Loughner – the man arrested for the brutal shooting spree in Arizona on Saturday which killed six and severely injured Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords – Tomasky wasn’t quite as circumspect.
Tomasky said:
However, as blogger William A. Jacobson noted about Loughner:
Jacobson concluded:
Read the rest of this entry »
Share this:
Like this: