Tag Archives: ground zero mosque

Pelley’s Pathetic Puffball: Mosque Developer Didn’t Have Choice Of Where To Put It

Could Scott Pelley possibly be this naive, or was he willingly playing the role of MSM cheerleader for the developer of the Ground Zero Mosque? In the course of a chummy interview of GZM developer Sharif El-Gamal aired on Sunday’s 60 Minutes, Pelley produced a pearl.  Instead of asking a probing question, the CBS “reporter” served as an advocate for El-Gamal’s position when it came to the siting of the mosque. Pelley, on his own initiative, asserted: “You don’t have your choice of putting this anywhere you want to. There aren’t many spots.” Right.  Not many.  Only tens of thousands of commercial sites in Manhattan.  The mosque men didn’t want to put it near Ground Zero.  Pure coincidence, I tell ya.  They were virtually forced to site it there by the vicissitudes of the merciless real estate market. Hard-hitting stuff, Scott.  Mike Wallace is surely proud.

Read the original post:
Pelley’s Pathetic Puffball: Mosque Developer Didn’t Have Choice Of Where To Put It

Obama Defends His Support For Ground Zero Mosque

President Barack Obama sat down recently with NBC’s Brian Williams to reinforce his support for the Ground Zero mosque. He also took the time to blame the media for the initial misunderstanding of his comments when he first weighed in on the issue. Yet in the interview broadcast on August 29, there was no mention by the “Nightly News” anchor of how Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) is at odds with Obama over the proposed location. For more information, check out this post on the Eyeblast.tv blog .

Go here to read the rest:
Obama Defends His Support For Ground Zero Mosque

A Revealing AP Slip? A Strange Stray Question Mark Appears in Report on Ground Zero Mosque Imam

An interesting character made an appearance in a Saturday evening Associated Press report by Cristian Salazar on Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf: It’s not a one-time accident. The same paragraph carried at Google’s version of the story has the same extra character: The question mark is actually well-placed, as the following paragraphs from Salazar’s report demonstrate (bolds are mine throughout this post): … With Rauf largely absent from the debate, opponents have scoured past statements and critics portray the imam as tone-deaf to the sensitivities of families who lost relatives on Sept. 11. They argue he should forthrightly condemn Arab political movements such as Hamas that the U.S. government has designated as terrorist organizations. Asked in June by WABC-AM whether he believed the State Department was correct in designating Hamas as a terrorist organization, Rauf gave a winding response: “I am not a politician. … The issue of terrorism is a very complex question. … I do not want to be placed … in a position of … where I am the target of one side or another.” … After the Sept. 11 attacks, Rauf was called on repeatedly by news organizations to help explain to Americans why the U.S. was so hated by some factions in the Muslim world. Some of his comments then have now been seized on by critics as evidence of anti-American views. “We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al Qaida has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims,” he said in a 2005 lecture in Australia. “You may remember that the U.S.-led sanction against Iraq led to the death of over half a million Iraqi children. This has been documented by the United Nations.” Salazar and the other AP contributors to the report (Religion Writer Rachel Zoll, AP writer David B. Caruso, and AP Investigative Researcher Randy Herschaft) “somehow” missed this item from just three weeks after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, in a 60 Minutes interview: BRADLEY: Are — are — are you in any way suggesting that we in the United States deserved what happened? Imam ABDUL RAUF: I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened. BRADLEY: OK. You say that we’re an accessory? Imam ABDUL RAUF: Yes. BRADLEY: How? Imam ABDUL RAUF: Because we have been an accessory to a lot of — of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, it — in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA. As to the stray question mark, I’d like to think that an AP gremlin– or perhaps one of the report’s three other contributors — is asking Salazar, “Who do you think you’re fooling?” The story as carried at both sites has been saved at my web host ( here and here ) for fair use, discussion, and future heckling purposes. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Originally posted here:
A Revealing AP Slip? A Strange Stray Question Mark Appears in Report on Ground Zero Mosque Imam

Columnist Mark Shields Despairs George W. Bush Too Honorable to Use as Bogeyman

It will be “very difficult for Democrats to demonize” George W. Bush “again” during this campaign season, liberal nationally syndicated columnist Mark Shields despaired on Friday’s Inside Washington, because he’s “a circumspect and discreet former President.” Quite unlike, he didn’t say, the often boorish Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. Reacting to Vice President Joe Biden’s indictment of the supposed disastrous results from the Bush administration’s economic policies, Shields fretted: The problem for the Democrats is this, that the energizer bunny for the 2006, 2008 campaigns has disappeared because of George W. Bush’s being a circumspect and discreet former President it makes it very difficult for Democrats to demonize him again. He’s become a non-person. He shows up at a ball game once in a while, he greets soldiers coming back. He hasn’t said anything controversial and that makes it a tougher fight for Joe Biden to make. Charles Krauthammer is a regular on the weekly program, so I’ll use that as a hook to highlight his latest column, “ The last refuge of a liberal ,” which includes this well-framed observation: Promiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking. Krauthammer elaborated: — Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the Tea Party movement? Why, racist resentment toward a black president. — Disgust and alarm with the federal government’s unwillingness to curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law? Nativism. — Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia. — Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero? Islamophobia. Another great formulation, about how those tricky Tea Party activists weren’t clever enough to fool the liberal media: When the Tea Party arose, a spontaneous, leaderless and perfectly natural (and traditionally American) reaction to the vast expansion of government intrinsic to the president’s proudly proclaimed transformational agenda, the liberal commentariat cast it as a mob of angry white yahoos disguising their antipathy to a black president by cleverly speaking in economic terms.   ( Inside Washington is a weekly show produced by ABC’s Washington, DC affiliate, which airs it Sunday morning after it runs Friday night on DC’s PBS affiliate, WETA-TV channel 26, and Saturday on local cable’s TBD TV .)

See original here:
Columnist Mark Shields Despairs George W. Bush Too Honorable to Use as Bogeyman

Olbermann Ties Stabbing to Ground Zero Mosque Opposition, GOP Strategy is ‘Hate’

On Thursday’s Countdown show, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann tied together Republican opposition to same-sex marriage, the Ground Zero mosque, and illegal immigration, as he charged that “the Republican method” for electoral success is “hate.” The MSNBC host opened the show: “The Republican method for winning elections is hate. Hate somebody. Anybody will do. We have seen it this year with immigrants and now, Muslims. And now, in our fifth story tonight: for the first time, we have a former head of the Republican party confirming that, yes, his party does it. They do it to win and did it in 2004 and 2006 against gay Americans. He said this even though he himself is no longer denying that he, too, is gay.” Without evidence, Olbermann also blamed the stabbing of New York City cab driver Ahmed Sharif on those who oppose construction of a mosque near Ground Zero. Although he later admitted that the mosque was not mentioned by the suspect, the MSNBC suggested a link as he teased the show: KEITH OLBERMANN: Karl Rove and the GOP targeted a minority group with fear and hate and legislation in 2004 and 2006 – gays, like Ken Mehlman. And now, the GOP is doing it again – same tactics, different group. CLIP OF AD: For centuries, Muslims built mosques where they won military victories. Now, they want to build a mosque at Ground Zero. OLBERMANN: An ad by Larry McCarthy, who was behind the Willie Horton commercial. And the newest ads’ metaphorical newest victim. AHMED SHARIF, STABBING VICTIM: I see his face. There`s so much anger and mad at me, and hate. I asked him, “Please, don`t kill me. Why do you have to kill me? What I did?” Unlike Olbermann, on the same day’s World News on ABC, correspondent Jeremy Hubbard noted that the suspect, Michael Enright, was involved with a peace group that supports building a mosque near Ground Zero. As he discussed with columnist Dan Savage former RNC chairman Ken Mehlman’s recent admission that he is gay, Olbermann and Savage both dismissed Mehlman’s contention that Republicans should get credit from homosexuals for opposing radical Islam because of the movement’s anti-gay nature: OLBERMANN: Mr. Mehlman`s suggestion that gay voters ought to vote Republican to oppose the greatest anti-gay force in the world, he`s not out of several other closets of self-delusion, is he? DAN SAVAGE, COLUMNIST: No. The Bush administration did nothing in the wake of the fall of Baghdad and toppling the Saddam Hussein regime to stop the anti-gay death squads that were roaming Iraq in the first five or six years of the war, murdering gays and lesbians, mostly gay men, with impunity all over Iraq. So, no, and Mehlman didn`t speak out, didn`t say anything about that at the time either. No credibility there either. Later in the same segment, Olbermann also erroneously showed a clip of the Willie Horton ad from the 1988 campaign which showed Horton’s mugshot, suggesting that the ad was a product of the George H.W. Bush presidential campaign when, in reality, the Bush ad that referenced Horton never used his image. Olbermann: The same party that gave us the Mehlman strategy, that gave us the Southern strategy of race-baiting that lived on in campaigns like the Willie Horton ad the first President Bush ran against Mike Dukakis, is today using the same tactic against Muslims, using anti- Muslim hysteria to drum up votes. Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Thursday, August 26 Countdown show on MSNBC, with critical portions in bold : KEITH OLBERMANN, IN OPENING TEASER: Which of these stories will you be talking about tomorrow? The other revelation of the former chairman of the Republican National Committee: Karl Rove and the GOP targeted a minority group with fear and hate and legislation in 2004 and 2006 – gays, like Ken Mehlman. And now, the GOP is doing it again – same tactics, different group. CLIP OF AD: For centuries, Muslims built mosques where they won military victories. Now, they want to build a mosque at Ground Zero. OLBERMANN: An ad by Larry McCarthy, who was behind the Willie Horton commercial. And the newest ads’ metaphorical newest victim. AHMED SHARIF, STABBING VICTIM: I see his face. There`s so much anger and mad at me, and hate. I asked him, “Please, don`t kill me. Why do you have to kill me? What I did?” OLBERMANN: Our guest, Congressman Keith Ellison of Minnesota. The GOP`s next targeted group: JOHN BOEHNER, HOUSE MINORITY LEADER: It`s just nonsense to think that taxpayers are subsidizing the fattened salaries and pensions of federal bureaucrats who are out there making it harder to create public sector jobs. OLBERMANN: Federal bureaucrats like his staff and himself, and “John of Orange” himself. … OLBERMANN: Good evening from New York . The Republican method for winning elections is hate. Hate somebody. Anybody will do. We have seen it this year with immigrants and now, Muslims. And now, in our fifth story tonight: for the first time, we have a former head of the Republican party confirming that, yes, his party does it. They do it to win and did it in 2004 and 2006 against gay Americans. He said this even though he himself is no longer denying that he, too, is gay. Ken Mehlman, former chairman of the Republican National Committee, is the most powerful Republican confirmed to be gay, Mehlman outing himself. In an interview with the Atlantic magazine`s Web site, Mehlman also confirming years of accusations that the Republican party, when he was the Bush/Cheney campaign manager in 2004 and again as RNC chief in 2006, used a strategy of putting anti-gay measures, specifically limiting the right to marry, on state ballots around the country. Mehlman, the Atlantic reports, quote, “was aware that Karl Rove, President Bush`s chief strategic advisor, had been working with Republicans to make sure that anti-gay initiatives and referenda would appear on November ballots in 2004 and 2006 to help Republicans. Mehlman telling Advocate.com, quote, “There were a lot of people, including people that supported the federal marriage amendments, for example, that worried about this being divisive.” Mehlman today told the Advocate, quote, “I think if you look at the 11 states where there were marriage amendments on the ballot in terms of numbers, Bush`s relative improvement versus the 2000 campaign was less than in the other states. I think President Bush won, in my judgment, because of, most importantly, national security.” Of course, marriage amendments only got on the ballot in states that were primarily Bush country anyway. But one state can tip an election – like Ohio did – Ohio, which had one of those 11 marriage initiatives on the ballot, a fact political analysts said in 2004 was essential to Mr. Bush`s victory there. Mr. Bush only won Ohio by 136,000. It gave him the presidency. Family Research Council president, Tony Perkins, telling the Washington Post in 2004 that gay marriage was, quote, “the hood ornament on the family values wagon that carried the President to a second term.” Rove had famously predicted that Mr. Bush, having lost the popular vote in 2000, would need four million more evangelical Christian votes in 2004. Prior to the election, Rove and Mehlman held weekly conference calls with leaders from the religious right. By Election Day, they had anti-gay marriage initiatives on the ballots in 11 states, most of the states Bush would have won anyway, but also in states like Ohio and in Kentucky, where Republican Senator Jim Bunning was in jeopardy, and, without Mr. Bush campaigning heavily in the state considered safe Bush territory, an anti-gay marriage initiative helped turn out evangelical voters who also propelled Bunning to victory. Mr. Mehlman today is an investment executive. He`s now an advocate for gay marriage but remains a Republican, telling the Atlantic that gay people should support Republicans because Republicans oppose Islamic jihad, which is, quote, “the greatest anti-gay force in the world.” Let`s turn to syndicated columnist, Dan Savage, editorial director for the Seattle newspaper, the Stranger, and author of “The Commitment: Love, Sex, Marriage, and My Family.” Dan, good evening. DAN SAVAGE, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Good evening, Keith. OLBERMANN: How does the history of 2004 look now that we have this admission from Mr. Mehlman? Both admissions, I should say. SAVAGE: Well, this admission doesn`t shock anybody in the gay community. This is really on the par with Ricky Martin coming out if Ricky Martin had had a hand in the insanely homophobic Bush campaign in 2004, which of course, he did not. Wake me when Levi Johnston comes out. OLBERMANN: Mr. Mehlman says about critics of his role in that, what is bluntly an anti-gay strategy: “If they can`t offer support, at least offer understanding.” Over to you. SAVAGE: We understand. We understand that Ken Mehlman had a chance to come out when he could have made a difference. And now, he`s only out and needs to make amends and has a great deal of amends to make. We understand that he rose quickly through the ranks in the Republican party and wound up at the top. And, like a lot of gay people, perhaps was closeted and suppressing his desires and channeling all of his energies into work. That doesn`t excuse his role in fomenting anti-gay bigotry in this country and putting off the day when gay and lesbian people in America enjoy our full civil equality. He has a lot of amends to make. And one fund-raiser for a marriage equality organization isn`t going to do it. OLBERMANN: Mr. Mehlman`s suggestion that gay voters ought to vote Republican to oppose the greatest anti-gay force in the world, he`s not out of several other closets of self-delusion, is he? SAVAGE: No. The Bush administration did nothing in the wake of the fall of Baghdad and toppling the Saddam Hussein regime to stop the anti-gay death squads that were roaming Iraq in the first five or six years of the war, murdering gays and lesbians, mostly gay men, with impunity all over Iraq. So, no, and Mehlman didn`t speak out, didn`t say anything about that at the time either. No credibility there either. OLBERMANN: He was widely praised for acknowledging and regretting the Republican Southern strategy, which, of course, stoked white racial hatred and particularly fear against blacks to turn out the white vote, ‘60s, ‘70s to some degree, maybe the ‘80s, maybe the ‘90s. We now know he was saying this at the same time that he has executing the same strategy, just a different target group: gays. And now, he wants Americans to vote for the party that is currently doing the same exact thing, using the same exact strategy, with a new fill in the blank, only it`s, you know, earlier this year, immigrants, now, more Muslims. We may come back to immigrants. It`s hard to tell. How does this cycle end if it does, Dan? SAVAGE: I think it ends six years ago from now in 2016 when then-former RNC chair, Michael Steele, comes out as a Muslim. I don`t know when it ends. Will they ever run out of people to hate and to campaign against and to vilify? They can`t run on their economic record. Whenever the Republicans are in charge, they drive the car into the ditch, as President Obama is running around saying. So they have to hate and they have to stoke hate to drive voters and to scare voters, to scare their evangelical white Southern shrinking base to the polls. It`s disgusting and it needs to stop. And I`m in despair of really it ever stopping. OLBERMANN: And I shouldn`t diminish the importance of this particular nature, this particular example of this strategy because it also involves people directing hatred towards a group to which they belong but cannot or will not say they belong. There`s an extra dimension that really is tragic to it, is it not? SAVAGE: It is tragic. And it`s a particularly gay tragedy, because we have the option of coming out or not coming out. Living with integrity or not living with integrity. Selling our souls as Ken Mehlman did, or not selling our souls. And it`s Ken Mehlman`s personal tragedy, but it`s also, the damage he inflicted, the role he played, it`s inexcusable. And, again, as I said earlier, he has a lot of amends to make, more than one fund-raiser. And, hopefully, he is confronting not just his own conscience but people in his political party, his so-called political allies, about their homophobia, about the Republican party`s homophobia. OLBERMANN: Columnist Dan Savage, also of Seattle`s newspaper, the Stranger, author of “The Commitment,” thanks as always for your time, Dan. SAVAGE: Thank you, Keith. OLBERMANN: The same party that gave us the Mehlman strategy, that gave us the Southern strategy of race-baiting that lived on in campaigns like the Willie Horton ad the first President Bush ran against Mike Dukakis, is today using the same tactic against Muslims, using anti- Muslim hysteria to drum up votes. In this case, a new ad you`re looking at now, false and misleading, about the proposed Islamic center, Park 51, near Ground Zero, targeting Iowa Democrat Bruce Braley, introduced by, literally, the same GOP firm that made the Willie Horton ad. Intentionally divisive? Openly divisive? Listen to Republican Congressman John Fleming talk about his Democratic opponent, an opponent who is literally a Methodist pastor. REP. JOHN FLEMING (R-LA), AUDIO: He`s going to say, you know, we need to get along better. We need to work and we need to stretch across the aisle. We have two competing world views here, and there is no way that we`re going to reach across the aisle. One is going to have to win. We`re either going to have to go down the socialist road and become like Western Europe and create, I guess, really a godless society, an atheist society, or we`re going to continue down the other pathway where we believe in freedom of speech, individual liberties, and we remain a Christian nation. So we`re going to have to win that battle- OLBERMANN: So, there you have it, Christian or atheist. In New York today, we learned that the man who attacked a Muslim cab driver here did not mention the Islamic center proposed for just over two blocks from Ground Zero. But the religion that has been vilified by mosque opponents, vilified by Republican politicians heading into this year`s election, that religion, the knife-wielding attacker certainly did mention that religion. SHARIF: He asked me where I`m from. I answer him, Bangladesh. Then question, am I Muslim? Yes, I am Muslim. Then he told me, Assalamu Alaikum, I return, Wa Alaikum Assalam. And said this month of Ramadan, how I`m doing. I said, I`m doing good today. And he started making fun of the month of Ramadan. Then I decided to keep my mouth shout. He started yelling and screaming, “This is the check post, this is the check post, you mother (BLEEP). I have to put you down.” This is the time. I have to take King Abdullah to the check point. I said, “What are you talking about? What check point? What are you talking about?” In this time, I saw the knife coming to my neck. OLBERMANN: Let`s turn to Democratic Congressman Keith Ellison of Minnesota, the first Muslim to serve in the U.S. Congress. Congressman, thank you for your time tonight. REP. KEITH ELLISON (D-MN): Pleased to be here, Keith. How are you? OLBERMANN: Oh, disturbed, I guess that`s a good word for it. ELLISON: Yeah. OLBERMANN: Mr. Fleming of the House says our choice is between a society that is officially godless, or being a Christian nation. Isn`t that a choice that we made already a couple of hundred years ago, or am I misreading documents? ELLISON: Yeah, well, I`ll tell you, I think that Thomas Jefferson would be shocked to hear that`s the choice in front of us. I think we have a choice between religious freedom or religious intolerance. And unfortunately, Mr. Fleming is choosing intolerance. You know, it`s so important, I mean, look, they have created a social, political cultural environment where somebody thinks it`s a good idea to attack a person with a knife because they`re Muslim . You know, political rhetoric has consequences. And I believe that we are, they are lighting a match on a very dangerous set of circumstances, one of which we just heard about. OLBERMANN: The Southern strategy that we talked about, the Mehlman strategy, the anti-immigrant strategy, anti-Hispanic strategy from earlier this year, now, anti-Muslim. What, what is this? ELLISON: Well, this is distraction and diversion. I mean, it`s true, it`s true agitation of people`s hatreds, but really, it`s because, you know, they have a failed economic program and they don`t want people to look at it. So what they do is they appeal to people`s worse most base instincts, which is to hate the other. And this is something that, as you correctly point out, is tried and unfortunately true. But, you know, you remember, Reagan was talking about welfare queens. And now, and then we went on to Willie Horton. And then we went on to, I mean, just the, just the divisive thing that they come up with a new one every single election. And when the vast majority of Americans wake up to this and reach out to each other and not on each other, then they will not be able to pull it. OLBERMANN: Is that the only solution of this? Because it does seem that this pattern is repeating, just with a different “fill in the blank” here. I mean, if Republicans swap out a different group to target every year, why haven`t Democrats figured out a way to beat it every year? ELLISON: Well, because I think that we have too many Democrats who operate on a basis of fear. You know, if we would just stand up and say, look, you know, we have a First Amendment and a heritage of religious tolerance that we are proud of and we are not going to back off of that, we would win. That would be winning election strategy. It would be good policy, it would be good politics. But so often, they catch us by surprise, and we end up trying to triangulate and capitulating. And it`s just a sad thing. I ask Democrats, progressives, liberals, to stand up and be proud of our Constitution and be proud of our heritage of equality, liberty. And because if we don`t stand up for these ideals, the people who want to divide us and whip up hate and division, they will be active, and, unfortunately, they may be successful. OLBERMANN: Where we started this segment, Congressman, with Ken Mehlman, not so much his personal revelations but his revelations about what was strategitized in terms of putting these anti-gay measures on the ballots in `04 and `06 to bring out the Republican base and a little more. Do you have any response to what he also said in this, which, where he said gay people should vote for Republicans because Republicans oppose Islamic jihad, which he called the greatest anti-gay force in the world? ELLISON: You know, that just says to me that Mr. Mehlman still has not woken up. He still is stuck on trying to vilify and scapegoat people. I mean, I would hope that he would make a real change and really turn over a new leaf and say, you know what, scapegoating gays is wrong, scapegoating Muslims is wrong, Catholics, let`s just get out of that and really get a public ethic where we try to get Americans to come together around these basic issues of identity and respect. So, you know, he still hasn`t gotten it. And, unfortunately, you know, he`s still suffering some similar delusion that kept him being dishonest for so long. OLBERMANN: Congressman Keith Ellison of Minnesota, it`s always a pleasure. Thanks for your time. ELLISON: Thank you. OLBERMANN: Think the GOP has run out of minority groups to target and smear? No. Next, John Boehner attacks those federal bureaucrats with fattened salaries and pensions. Federal bureaucrats, like John Boehner.

Continued here:
Olbermann Ties Stabbing to Ground Zero Mosque Opposition, GOP Strategy is ‘Hate’

ABC Confounded Stabber Not Right-Winger, Still Exploits ‘Knife Attack That’s Cut Deep Into National Debate Over Faith and Fear’

ABC News sure wanted to paint Michael Enright, the 21-year-old charged with stabbing Muslim cab driver Ahmed Sharif in Manhattan, as a bigoted hate crime perpetrator who is the inevitable result of Islamophobic opposition to the mosque near Ground Zero. And the network didn’t let the facts get in the way of their agenda – though they were confounded by how he “has a baffling profile” since “he volunteers with a church group that promotes peace and understanding” which “actually support[s] putting that Islamic center down here near Ground Zero.” Sighed Diane Sawyer: “Really confounding, the story of that suspect.” Sawyer, who made the incident her top story (CBS ran a short item, Katrina-obsessed NBC skipped it and most other news), led the Thursday World News by imparting great meaning: “This might have been a small story in another time, but it’s touched on a deeper wave of concern because of all the tension over that mosque and cultural center planned near Ground Zero. At the center of the story, a Muslim cab driver, stabbed two days ago.” Reporter Jeremy Hubbard also saw a larger significance as he played off the weapon used: “It is the knife attack that’s cut deep into a national debate over faith and fear.” Hubbard, who at least did acknowledge very few criminal acts are targeted at Muslims, soon relayed the spin of those who see anti-Muslim hate: “The attack, some Muslims are certain, was fueled by what they call fearmongering over the Islamic cultural center and mosque planned for this site near Ground Zero. There are three flash points cited by Muslims across the country where the rage is evident…” Earlier Thursday, on Good Morning America, Hubbard wondered if the stabbing was “proof the rhetoric surrounding the proposed Islamic cultural center and mosque near Ground Zero has created a heightened fear and prejudice against Muslims.?” More on Thursday morning coverage in this post by Scott Whitlock: “ ABC, CBS: Did ‘Heightened Fear and Prejudice’ of Ground Zero Mosque Prompt NYC Violence? ” Monday night: “ ABC Works to Rehabilitate Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s Reputation After Pining for George W. Bush ” From the ABC World News of Thursday August 26, transcript provided by the MRC’s Brad Wilmouth: DIANE SAWYER: Good evening. It was a remarkable moment today in the season of headlines about religious tolerance, and what it is to be Muslim in America. This might have been a small story in another time, but it’s touched on a deeper wave of concern because of all the tension over that mosque and cultural center planned near Ground Zero. At the center of the story, a Muslim cab driver, stabbed two days ago. And by his side today, the Mayor of New York. Why? Jeremy Hubbard on the attack and fallout. JEREMY HUBBARD: It is the knife attack that’s cut deep into a national debate over faith and fear. AHMED SHARIF, STABBING VICTIM: I said, “Please, do not kill me, I am very hard worker. I work very hard.” HUBBARD: Ahmed Sharif – who’s driven a cab for 15 years – slashed across the head, neck and shoulders. MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, NEW YORK CITY MAYOR: This should never have happened. Violence and being disrespectful to each other is not part of why America was formed. HUBBARD: The suspect, 21-year-old Michael Enright has a baffling profile. An honors film school student, he volunteers with a church group that promotes peace and understanding. The only clue to possible bias, war journals on him at the time of his arrest. Diaries he filled out during a recent trip to Afghanistan, where he made a college film about U.S. troops serving there. Those journals, police say, talked about Afghans who were ungrateful for the American military presence in their country. Still, the attack, some Muslims are certain, was fueled by what they call fearmongering over the Islamic cultural center and mosque planned for this site near Ground Zero. There are three flash points cited by Muslims across the country where the rage is evident. A radical church in Gainesville, Florida, gaining worldwide attention for its plan to mark September 11 by burning hundreds of copies of the Koran. Then, there’s the mosque in Madera, California, vandalized three times in a week. And Murfreesboro, Tennessee, where hundreds filled city hall, openly hostile over plans for a mega-mosque that some locals  fear will breed terrorists. An ABC news poll last year showed that nearly half of Americans held an unfavorable opinion of Islam, many of them believing the religion encouraged violence. On the other hand, the most recent FBI crime stats show in 2008, there were 123 anti-Islam bias crimes nationwide a number that paled in comparison to at least one other religion [1,055 against Jews]. And even in New York, police say crimes against Muslims are not on the rise, despite what happened to the cabbie who made an appeal for us all to get along. SHARIF: This is the city of all color, races, all religion, everyone will live here side by side peacefully. HUBBARD: There is one other note about that suspected stabber that muddies the water even further. That peace group he volunteered with, they actually support putting that Islamic center down here near Ground Zero where we are tonight. The suspected stabber, by the way, is charged with attempted murder as a hate crime, Diane. SAWYER: Really confounding, the story of that suspect. Thank you, Jeremy Hubbard, reporting from New York tonight.

Read more:
ABC Confounded Stabber Not Right-Winger, Still Exploits ‘Knife Attack That’s Cut Deep Into National Debate Over Faith and Fear’

Wednesday Night Fights: Laura Ingraham vs. Ground Zero Mosque Supporter

As the summer of 2010 comes to a close, American tempers are dramatically rising over the Ground Zero mosque. A fine example of the heat this issue is generating occurred on Wednesday’s “O’Reilly Factor” on Fox News. In the left corner was Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer. On the right filling in for the usual host was Laura Ingraham. What ensued was an ideological battle that likely pleased folks on both sides of this contentious debate (video follows with transcript and commentary, h/t our friends at the Right Scoop ):  LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: Scott, let’s talk about this controversy in New York that’s made some people say a slow news month of August, quite chaotic. Mayor Bloomberg has now staked his ground. He’s doubled down. He made that comment about it’s un-American. Just to throw the word un-American out seems to be a little odd. I don’t know anyone who’s conflating law abiding Muslims in the United states with al Qaeda. It’s about the sensitivity of the place at Ground Zero. SCOTT STRINGER, MANHATTAN BOROUGH PRESIDENT: There’s no doubt about it. As someone who was in Manhattan on that terrible day when the terrorists attacked, we will never forget that. And we will always honor the families and the people in that community, who didn’t walk away from New York. They actually stayed and rebuilt the community. Having said that, a few very well orchestrated agitators have created a situation where we have now seen Tea Party people going after Jewish American elected officials, Mayor Bloomberg, myself, the speaker of our state assembly Shelly Silver. They’re using this as a national political wedge issue. And I have to tell you something, today we now have a report that a cab driver was stabbed when he told a passenger that he was Muslim. INGRAHAM: Right, well, we don’t know the details. STRINGER: But– INGRAHAM: I mean, throwing out examples like that, we don’t know the details of that, Scott. STRINGER: –I have to tell you something. It’s building– INGRAHAM: Well, let me tell you– STRINGER: –and we should tone this down. INGRAHAM: You want to do an anecdote like that? STRINGER: Let’s tone it down. INGRAHAM: I’m going to throw down to doing anecdote. No, I’m going to keep the temperature up because I think this is important. STRINGER: Well, you’re keeping the temperature up because you’re just– INGRAHAM: No, no, no– STRINGER: –you’re creating something that doesn’t exist. INGRAHAM: I’m not creating anything. STRINGER: Well, of course you are. INGRAHAM: You know what happened down at Ground Zero? STRINGER: And the reason I’m on the show is because we have to fight back to let America know that we’re not like this. INGRAHAM: Do you know what happened at Ground Zero? America disagrees with you vehemently. STRINGER: America does not disagree. INGRAHAM: 77 percent of the country disagrees with you. STRINGER: They do not disagree– INGRAHAM: They’re not Islamophobic. STRINGER: –that we should use anti-Semitic slurs– INGRAHAM: They’re not nasty people. They’re good people. STRINGER: –that we should go after Muslim– INGRAHAM: Do you want to know what anti-Semitic was? Let me get in here. STRINGER: This is your Tea Party friends– INGRAHAM: –what happened at Ground Zero. STRINGER: –trying to create an election (INAUDIBLE) when we all know it. INGRAHAM: And I mean, you dismissed the Tea Parties, but they’re obviously having huge and positive influence in the United States. What happened at Ground Zero– STRINGER: You don’t believe that. INGRAHAM: –in these dueling protests, and I think the more protests the better on both sides. STRINGER: Well, constructive debate is good. INGRAHAM: I think people should have their — well, it’s not up to you to determine what’s constructive. That’s the elite’s little trick. STRINGER: No, but I have– INGRAHAM: That’s the elites trick here. STRINGER: –an opinion, too. You can call me– INGRAHAM: You have an opinion, but let me just tell you what else happened, because you raised the issue– STRINGER: Sure. INGRAHAM: –of Judaism in this debate. There was also an exchange. And Andrew Breitbart has this posted on his website. You should see it because a pro-mosque protester got in the face of an 83-year-old man, who said he was a Holocaust survivor. He got in his face and he said you don’t know what you’re talking about. You don’t know what the con — I mean, he’s in the face of this old man, who survived the Holocaust who doesn’t want this mosque there. STRINGER: That is terrible. But I have to tell you something. I’m talking about– INGRAHAM: How’s that for an example? STRINGER: –Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, people trying to divide this country and divide this city of New York. INGRAHAM: Trying to divide this country? STRINGER: It’s not going to work because– INGRAHAM: Do you agree with this imam that America has more blood on its hands than al Qaeda? Do you agree with the imam? STRINGER: I believe that we should have an opportunity for everybody to come together. INGRAHAM: How about an opportunity to hear from him? STRINGER: We don’t go and take away people’s property. We don’t raid people. INGRAHAM: I’m not saying we have a right to do any of that, no, no, no. STRINGER: Of course you are. You’re doing that every day. INGRAHAM: No, no, no, no, no. STRINGER: You’re doing that every day. INGRAHAM: They have a right to build this mosque. We have a right– STRINGER: You– INGRAHAM: –to raise questions about funding. And you as an elected official– STRINGER: You started this. INGRAHAM: You as an elected official should have an obligation to ask this imam– STRINGER: You told Daisy Khan, you told them on this show in December of 2009, you said you’re doing the right thing. INGRAHAM: Assimilating, absolutely. STRINGER: You’re doing great work. INGRAHAM: Assimilating. STRINGER: Rabbis support it. You actually– INGRAHAM: Blood — do you believe America has blood on her hands? STRINGER: You supported this and then you– INGRAHAM: You won’t answer the question, will you? STRINGER: that you left the studio. Well, let me just make point and– INGRAHAM: No, no, you want — blood on her hands? STRINGER: You (INAUDIBLE). What did I do? INGRAHAM: Why don’t you want these questions? STRINGER: What did I do? I didn’t stick to the talking points. I have to now go back and reverse myself because I need ratings. INGRAHAM: No, no, no. That’s what I heard. I heard what you don’t want to hear. STRINGER: You agreed with them. INGRAHAM: Pipe down. You know what I heard? STRINGER: Yes. INGRAHAM: I heard– STRINGER: I saw you on the show. INGRAHAM: –blood on our hands. I heard Americans are mean and they’re Islamophobic and they hate Muslims if they disagree. Is that building bridges? STRINGER: But why did you support the cultural center in December 2009? INGRAHAM: I absolutely support assimilation. STRINGER: Okay. So that’s great. INGRAHAM: I don’t support founders of an organization– STRINGER: So that’s great. INGRAHAM: –who actually believe that America is the equivalent of al Qaeda when destroying Muslim lives.. STRINGER: Then you know what? Let’s go to the FBI and Homeland Security. If you have information I don’t know, we should hear. But in the meantime– INGRAHAM: Read the 2005– STRINGER: –December 2009– INGRAHAM: You apparently don’t care what he says. You just don’t care. STRINGER: You supported this before Michael Bloomberg, before anybody else. INGRAHAM: I supported assimilation. You better believe it. STRINGER: You said what they were doing was the right thing. INGRAHAM: And professor, you got short shrift here. Do what you need to do and ask the questions. Ask questions. STRINGER: I’m just endorsing what you said what should happen. INGRAHAM: That’s so weak. Do you actually get elected with that kind of line? Ask questions. Yikes. Someone throw some water on the contestants. That said, Stringer like so many on his side of this debate greatly misrepresented Ingraham’s interview with Daisy Khan last December. It’s been characterized by most liberal media members that Ingraham on that occasion agreed with the location of this mosque. Here’s the video of that segment along with a full transcript. You decide if that’s what actually happened:  INGRAHAM: In the “Impact” segment tonight, some controversy surrounding Islamic mosque and cultural center in the works at Ground Zero. The imam responsible for this project, Feisal Abdul Rauf, has conducted some post-9/11 sensitivity training for the FBI, but he’s also made some questionable remarks about America’s behavior towards Muslims. Joining us now from New York, the imam’s wife, Daisy Khan, the executive director of the American Society for Muslim Advancement. And Daisy, before we get into this, I know you were listening to our previous segment about the culture war with the — the war against Christmas and these ads, and you wanted to comment. DAISY KHAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR MUSLIM ADVANCEMENTS: Yes. I was most intrigued, because I don’t think that there is a war between people who are believers. I think our real issue is bringing people who disbelieve and, you know, have absolutely no notion of what God is and believe in the existence of God. And this is what our faith community should be doing together to work on a common platform to remove this kind of ignorance against God. INGRAHAM: All right. I like the — I like the backup you’re giving me on that. Let’s talk about the Islamic center at Ground Zero. Questions, I can’t find many people who really have a problem with it. Bloomberg for it. Rabbis in New York saying they don’t have a problem with it. Why near Ground Zero? Why did you choose that space? KHAN: Well, I think the closeness of the center to Ground Zero, first and foremost, is a blow to the extremists. And you know, we Muslims are really fed up, Laura, of having to be defined by the actions of the extremists. You know, we are law-abiding citizens. We are faithful people. We are very good Americans. And we need to project a different message of Islam, one of tolerance, love and the kind of commonalities we have with different faith communities. And the center will be dedicated to promoting what it needs to be Muslim and what it also means to be Americans, and that is the real message that needs to get out. INGRAHAM: When you see surveys, and I know your group takes a moderate approach to Americanizing people, assimilating people, which I applaud. I think that’s fantastic. But when you see — when you see Pew’s survey, the global survey that came out — what is that, 18 months ago or so — global opinions of Muslims, especially younger male Muslims on a number of issues, including whether jihad is morally justifiable, the figures are disturbing to me. And I was wondering what your thoughts were. KHAN: Well, once again, our faith has been defined by people who have political agendas. And what they do is they use religion as a veneer to mobilize people. And what we have to do is talk about what is the central core of all faiths, which is the love of God. And this is a message, and this is why we want to create a center so close to Ground Zero: to promote a different message, one that most majority of Muslims live. I mean, the extremists are a fraction of a fraction of a fraction. And they don’t represent the majority view. And what we are afraid of is that they become the center and the majority. And we have to stop that. INGRAHAM: The problem is — we’re going to get to your husband’s comment from back in 2004 in a minute. But Pope Benedict has asked for parity, kind of a reciprocity. Look, we’ll have a mosque in Rome. Absolutely, a mosque in Rome, freedom of religion. But let’s have a cathedral or a Catholic church in Saudi Arabia. How far do you think he got with that? I mean, or Lebanon today. Try to build a new church in Lebanon. You know, previously a hot bed of Christianity. And you don’t get anywhere. So that’s what kind of upsets Christians, especially with what’s happening to Christians in Iraq and Iran and places like that. KHAN: Well, I completely agree with you. Because if you look at the history of Muslims and you look at, you know, the pluralism that existed within Islamic history over the last 1,400 years, there used to be great mosques and great cathedrals and churches and synagogues in every place. What has happened is there is a new interpretation that has crept in: one of intolerance and one of non-acceptance. And this, we have to push back against that and bring back what, you know, our religion says: there is no compulsion in religion. Which means you can disbelieve and believe, and believe in other faith communities, because… INGRAHAM: Daisy… KHAN: Yes. INGRAHAM: … let’s get into what your husband said in 2004, because this is a sticking point with a lot of people. Sydney Morning Herald interview, he was quoted as saying it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets. He placed some blame on Christians for starting mass attacks on civilians. That disturbs a lot of people. A lot of American soldiers died liberating Muslims around the world in Kuwait and Bosnia, and they didn’t appreciate that. KHAN: Well, I don’t think he meant it that way. I think what was trying to say is that, you know, when we take — when we have a small crime, and then there is such a huge response to that, where there’s a calamity on such a large scale, that, you know, we have to look at what the law says. And Christians — Christianity is defined by love. When things are done in the name of Christianity like, you know… INGRAHAM: Well, we didn’t — we didn’t wage World War II in the name of Christianity. KHAN: No, I’m not… INGRAHAM: That’s a difference. I mean, our fighter pilots weren’t screaming, “Allah Akbar,” you know, or the equivalent in English, “Praise be to God.” KHAN: Yes. INGRAHAM: I think — I’d amend that if I were he. I’d kind of go back and re-do that statement. But I like what you’re trying to do, and Ms. Khan, we appreciate it. And come on my radio show sometime. KHAN: Yes. We need the support of people like you, seriously. So we… INGRAHAM: OK, take care. All right, Daisy. Take care.

Continue reading here:
Wednesday Night Fights: Laura Ingraham vs. Ground Zero Mosque Supporter

Ground Zero Mosque Imam In 2006: U.S. ‘Terrorism’ Fostered Islamic Terrorism

Newly uncovered audio recorded at a forum in 2006 shows Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man behind the Ground Zero mosque, reaffirming his belief that U.S. ‘terrorism’ fostered Islamic terrorism. (h/t Ace ) For more information on the clip, check out the Eyeblast.tv blog here .

Read the original:
Ground Zero Mosque Imam In 2006: U.S. ‘Terrorism’ Fostered Islamic Terrorism

NY Times Frank Rich: Fox News Trying to Portray Obama as a ‘Closet Terrorist’

Never mind the personal feelings of people, which they’re entitled to have, over the notion of a mosque being built in close proximity to Ground Zero in Lower Manhattan. Those sensitivities have nothing to do with what’s really going on. It’s really all about President Barack Obama and his political opponents according to New York Times columnist Frank Rich.  On MSNBC’s Aug. 26 broadcast of “The Rachel Maddow Show,” host Rachel Maddow admitted she was befuddle that anti-Islam sentiment has seemingly peaked in the past few weeks and wondered why it has suddenly been brought to boil, with the mosque in question at the forefront. “For all the bad decisions made post-9/11, we really didn’t see a national, like, open partisan two-minutes hate toward Muslims the way we are seeing now about this mosque debate,” Maddow said. “Why is it happening now?” This could be one of the rare moments Rich actually had something positive to say about former President George W. Bush. According to Rich, you didn’t see a hostile response toward Islam in America because Bush managed to tread lightly around the issue. “I think it’s happening now because of Obama,” Rich said. “I mean, go back to right after 9/11. Bush for whatever reason did the right thing. Very quickly he went to an Islamic center in Washington. He said Islam is a religion of peace, we’re not out to get Islam.” So if this is an occasion where the American left isn’t pointing fingers at Bush – where should they be pointed? Another go-to target loathed by liberals – the Fox News Channel. According to Rich, this was a conspiracy which FNC was in cahoots with the “right-wing” to make Obama out not only to be a Muslim, but also a “closet terrorist.” “Why is it starting up now?” Rich continued. “Well, I think it fits into, if I may say so, the Fox/right-wing strategy of trying to portray Obama as a closest terrorist basically, and a practitioner of Islam . So it has a synergy in a campaign year and this whole thing has been ginned up and it’s depressing. It’s undermining the war. It’s – it’s doing nothing but spreading bad feeling.” The debate over Obama’s religion and what certain segments of society think about the President’s faith has been a fascination of the mainstream media in recent weeks. Several polls have cast a large amount of attention to the subject, which has begged the question – if it’s silly to debate Obama’s faith, why have the media dedicated so much attention to the topic ?

View original post here:
NY Times Frank Rich: Fox News Trying to Portray Obama as a ‘Closet Terrorist’

CBS Uses Opposition to Ground Zero Mosque to Lecture About ‘America Becoming Islamophobic’

“A CBS News poll out tonight finds that seven of ten [71%] Americans oppose building a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero,” fill-in CBS Evening News anchor Jeff Glor announced Wednesday night, but instead of exploring why most think it’s inappropriate to build there, Glor pivoted to how that and “controversies over new mosques in Wisconsin and Kentucky have led some to question is America becoming Islamophobic, a prejudice against Muslims?” Those “some” started with the wife of the iman behind the Ground Zero mosque, Daisy Khan, who charged on ABC’s This Week, in what is becoming TV’s favorite soundbite of the week: “It’s not even Islamophobia, it’s beyond Islamophobia, it’s hate of Muslims. And we are deeply concerned.” Glor first went to how “police say anti-Islamic sentiment turned violent,” proven by a single New York City incident, as a “21-year-old man is in police custody tonight charged with attempted murder. Police say he attacked a cab driver after asking if he was a Muslim.” Glor warned “that alleged hate crime took place in the shadow of a heated and divisive debate over whether a mosque should be built near Ground Zero.” Highlighting a Time magazine poll which found “46 percent believe the Islamic religion is more likely than other religions to encourage violence against nonbelievers,” Glor wondered: “Why?” Maybe it has something to do with how the terrorists who committed the 9/11 atrocities and others since are Muslim. A university professor answered Glor’s set-up with the obvious: “Incidents like the Times Square Bomber or the Fort Hood gunman certainly should be expected to amplify people’s anxieties.” Monday night: “ ABC Works to Rehabilitate Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s Reputation After Pining for George W. Bush .” Sunday: “ Amanpour on One-Sided This Week: ‘Profound Questions About Religious Tolerance and Prejudice in the U.S .’” From the Wednesday, August 25 CBS Evening News, transcript provided by the MRC’s Brad Wilmouth: JEFF GLOR: In this country, it’s become the subject of a red-hot national debate, those plans to build an Islamic center, including a mosque, two blocks from Ground Zero. A CBS News poll out tonight finds that seven of ten Americans oppose building a mosque there. Our poll also found only 24 percent of Americans have a favorable impression of Islam, 39 percent unfavorable. Supporters of the Islamic center gathered near Ground Zero again today, but, in a different part of Manhattan last night, police say anti-Islamic sentiment turned violent. In New York City, this 21-year-old man is in police custody tonight charged with attempted murder. Police say he attacked a cab driver after asking if he was a Muslim. RAYMOND KELLY, NYPD COMMISSIONER: He said, “Asalaam Alaikum,” and then began to stab the driver. GLOR: That alleged hate crime took place in the shadow of a heated and divisive debate over whether a mosque should be built near Ground Zero. It’s not just protesting near Ground Zero –  the sentiment against building new mosques has reached from New York’s Staten Island 15 miles away to Tennessee where a debate over a proposed mosque near Nashville has raged all summer. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: It’s not about religion, it’s about stopping Tennessee homegrown terrorists. GLOR: Other controversies over new mosques in Wisconsin and Kentucky have led some to question is America becoming Islamophobic, a prejudice against Muslims? DAISY KHAN, ON ABC’S THIS WEEK: It’s not even Islamophobia, it’s beyond Islamophobia, it’s hate of Muslims. And we are deeply concerned. GLOR: A recent Time magazine poll found that 43 percent of Americans hold unfavorable views of Muslims, and 46 percent believe the Islamic religion is more likely than other religions to encourage violence against nonbelievers. Why? RICHARD LLOYD, VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY: Incidents like the Times Square Bomber or the Fort Hood gunman certainly should be expected to amplify people’s anxieties. GLOR: In this election season, politics is driving the argument as well. NEWT GINGRICH, FORMER HOUSE SPEAKER: Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum. GLOR: It’s become a wedge issue in campaigns from North Carolina to New York. RICK LAZIO, NEW YORK REPUBLICAN GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE, IN AD: We don’t need silence now, we need leadership. GLOR: But with nearly seven million Muslims and more than 1,200 mosques already in America, Muslim leaders say that fear is unnecessary. MOHAMMAD SHAMSI ALI, ISLAMIC CULTURAL CENTER: I’m very sad because we know that America is the most tolerant country in the world. GLOR: In New York, many 9/11 families insist their opposition doesn’t make them Islamophobic, they’re just trying to heal. KEN FAIRBEN, FATHER OF 9/11 VICTIM: I feel strongly about it. The mosque, I understand their religious beliefs, I understand they should have a place to pray, an educational center. I have no problems with that whatsoever. But not there. Definitely not there. GLOR: A city commission gave final approval to the Islamic center and mosque earlier this month. Opponents vow to continue their fight in court.

Read more:
CBS Uses Opposition to Ground Zero Mosque to Lecture About ‘America Becoming Islamophobic’