GA Jews Split Over McKinney Contender
The Hill reports,
Jewish donors are split over whom to back in the Democratic primary in Georgia’s 4th District, where former Rep. Cynthia McKinney, who has been hostile to Israel and taken money from groups with possible terrorist ties, is hoping to make a comeback.
Demonize a woman much what? Ampersand has a nice post here on “The Screwing of Cynthia McKinney.” Hell, the best Frontpage could do is point at her dad. When I point to the Nazi ties of Bush’s grandfathers I’m charged with holding sons accountable for the crimes of their fathers. Why is this okay when dealing with McKinney?
“Hell, the best Frontpage could do is point at her dad”
Mobi, did you read the whole article? it mentions several issues:
1)”her published apology to the Prince of Saudi Arabia for Rudolph Guiliani’s righteous and courageous act of refusing his millions because he said that American wrong-doing was the root cause for what happened on 9/11…a letter which even David Hilliard, the recently defeated pro-Palestinian congressman refused to sign.
2) her “charges that George Bush planned or knew about 9/11 before it happened and let it happen so he could profit from it.” (disscussed infra)
3) “McKinney’s financial backing from Islamic groups now under investigation for funding or backing terrorists groups in the Middle East”
4) Her stance on israel.
Your above quote is quite misleading. It makes it sound as if the article didnt have anything on McKinney other than her father.
I agree, that this isnt the best article, but its definitely better than the “nice post” by Ampersand.
Let me get this logic straight: Because one reporter who published the story (after it had been stated in many other publications and news programs) couldnt provide amperstand with the source of the quote, this means that McKinney never said it???
Im surprised that ampersand is surprised that no one has picked up this story. Im further surprised that you (mobi) think there is any credibility to this story, when McKinney herself has NEVER EVER denied making such statements. Dont you think that she would have denied these charges in every speech she made, and to every single news outlet? In fact, no media source has ever questioned this validity of her quotes because it was never and issue. McKinney, herself, never raised the claim that the quotes were fabricated.
Tell me Mobi, do you really proscribe to amperstand’s logic and believe that McKinney never made those statements? Do you not understand why no real media outlet has picked up on this story? “nice post” indeed.
I think even most hardened left wingers would agree with me on this one.
Perhaps you raise a fair point about Ampersand’s post. But none of those 4 things make her an antisemite, which is pretty much what Frontpage is aiming to establish, and which is sort of the basis for this call to arms against her.
I stand by my post. A basic requirement of good journalism is that if you attribute a statement to someone, you should be able to provide a source or documentation showing that the person actually made that statement, and specifying where and when they said it.
Jimbo wrote: Because one reporter who published the story (after it had been stated in many other publications and news programs) couldnt provide [BBC reporter Greg Palast] with the source of the quote, this means that McKinney never said it???
No. Because no one, anywhere, has been able to find an example of McKinney actually saying what the Times attributed to her, I doubt the quote exists.
Jimbo seems to be saying that journalists shouldn’t be required to provide sources to support the truth of their reporting; instead of actually showing that someone said something, all that’s needed to prove that a quote exists is for the person to fail to deny it often enough to please Jimbo. But logically, he’s making no sense. Here’s Jimbo’s logic:
1. Blogger X accuses Ampersand of saying that the KKK is jolly good fun, but can’t provide any evidnence that Ampersand ever actually said that.
2. Ampersand denies saying the statement, but refuses to dignify the accusation by responding to it constantly, instead focusing on issues that Ampersand thinks matters.
3. According to Jimbo, therefore Ampersand must have actually said that the KKK is jolly good fun.
I don’t know why McKinney didn’t devote every single speech to denying the charge. Maybe she made a (in retrospect, mistaken) stategic decision that the false charges would go away quicker if she didn’t focus on them. Maybe she just made a bad decision (she made plenty of bad decisions in that election, imo). Maybe she did deny it constantly, and the newspapers just didn’t report on it.
If Cynthia McKinney actually said something like “President Bush might have known about the September 11 attacks but did nothing so his supporters could make money in a war,†show me where she did. Since that one alleged quote sunk her career, I don’t think asking where she can be quoted actually saying it is out of line.
By the way, I’d also recommend reading Palast’s follow-up article, at http://tinylink.com/?glxQImWS3Z .
“Jimbo seems to be saying that journalists shouldn’t be required to provide sources to support the truth of their reporting”
Never said anything like this. I said that no source == never said. I wasnt condoning the practice of not having a source.
Your example demonstrating why McKinneys lack of denial doesnt mean she made those statements, makes it quite clear why you fail to understand the reason no one picked up this story.
If you fail to see the difference between some blogger making an accusation against another blogger, and the NYTIMES (along with every other news publication in the country) making highly damaging claims against a politician, then you indeed lack common sense.
Its funny how you never bothered asking Cynthia McKinney herself, or some assistant of hers if she really made those statements. If McKinney would have told you that those quotes were made up, i would be far more inclined to believe your story.
Also how much research did you actually do? It took me two minutes to find a speech by Cynthia McKinney to the black caucus, in which she made similar claims a year later. Here are some of her points:
1)”That in the weeks prior to September 11, 24-hour fighter cover was placed over the President’s ranch in Crawford, Texas”
2)”That in the weeks prior to September 11, Attorney General Ashcroft stopped flying commercial aircraft and instead flew Government aircraft”
3) “FBI had an informant living with two of the actual 9-1-1 hijackers.”
4)”That in the days prior to September 11, highly suspicious stock market activity in aviation and insurance stocks took place indicating that certain well-placed people had advance knowledge of the attacks.”
http://www.counterpunch.org.
Oh, and btw, McKinney made the original comments in question on a Berkeley radio station.
Next time, before you write such an article, you should do some real research. Try contacting the person who allegedly made the statements. See if she denies it herself, or is in fact, proud of such statements (which she is). Your accusations are quite reckless and absurd.
Even your friend mobi has jumped ship on this one (and if he hasnt, he should).
It shoud read “‘no source’ does NOT equale ‘never said'”
Having been a constituent of McKinney’s and having worked at Democratic Party HQ, it was never much of a secret that McKinney was both a virulent race-baiter and borderline anti-Semitic. My understanding is that she falls on the militant conspiratorialist side of things when it comes to the Black-Jewish relationship in America, and used that lens to view the Arab-Israeli conflict (and most other foreign policy issues). The views of her father are less polished, but no less different than her own.
So Mo, do you no longer believe that Bush, Gibson, and Shwartzenegger should be held accountable for the views of their fathers?
If not, do you hold McKinney accountable for Billy’s statements?
Mobi writes:
“But none of those 4 things make her an antisemite, which is pretty much what Frontpage is aiming to establish”
I thought the point of the article was to respond to Lerner’s claim- how it was the “pro sharonists” that caused the downfall of Mckinney. The article tried to refute lerners claim by pointing out the many different groups that have problems with mckinney, not just the jews and pro sharon camp (i.e. india, blacks, her own party, etc.). Thats why he labeled her “whacko equal-opportunity hater.”
So while the article did mention anti-Semitism, i dont think it was the point.
Jimbo, any chance you could tone down your rhetoric level a few notches? Maybe you prefer a debate style where you treat people who disagree with you with barely-hidden contempt; but I don’t. Just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t make me less intelligent than you, or less worthy of respectful treatment.
Jimbo wrote: If you fail to see the difference between some blogger making an accusation against another blogger, and the NYTIMES (along with every other news publication in the country) making highly damaging claims against a politician, then you indeed lack common sense.
I see the difference, but – as a matter of logic – it’s not a difference that matters to my argument. You claimed (or at least strongly implied) that McKinney’s lack of denials proved that she had indeed said that “President Bush might have known about the September 11 attacks but did nothing so his supporters could make money in a war.” That’s a logical fallacy, and it’s just as much a logical fallacy whether we’re talking about two bloggers or the New York Times.
Its funny how you never bothered asking Cynthia McKinney herself, or some assistant of hers if she really made those statements. If McKinney would have told you that those quotes were made up, i would be far more inclined to believe your story.
With all due respect, Jimbo, do you understand that I didn’t write the article in question? It was written by a BBC reporter; my post linked to, quoted from and commented on the BBC reporter’s article.
Second, that BBC reporter did indeed ask McKinney. And McKinney denied having said that. From his follow-up article (which I posted a link to earlier this thread):
I spoke with McKinney by phone and via e-mail. “What did you mean?†She absolutely denied the wild interpretation put on her words.
And from McKinney’s denial of the quote attributed to her, quoted in the Congressional Record: “George Bush had no prior knowledge of the plan to attack the World Trade Center on September 11.”
I had already read the speech you refer to. None of the allegedly “similar claims” you cite are say that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance and deliberately allowed it to happen. Either you can direclty quote McKinley saying that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance and allowed it to happen, or you can’t. So far, it appears that you can’t.
Regarding your claim that McKinney made the statement on a Berkeley radio station, I don’t think that’s a meaningful citation unless you provide what station (or what program, if it’s a syndicated program) and what date. You don’t even quote the MacKinney statement you claim was in the interview. By not being specific, you make it impossible for me to research your claim or verify it.
My guess is that you’re talking about her interview on Flashpoints radio (which, far from ignoring, I quoted from extensively on my blog). In that interview,McKinney said things like “What did this Administration know, and when did it know it about the events of September 11?” But asking questions is a long way away from saying Bush had advance knowlege of 9/11 and let it happen so his buddies could profit. And that – not just asking questions – is what McKinney is accused of saying.
Personally, I don’t think the Times should have claimed she said it, unless they could provide a direct quote of her saying it. At the very least, the Times (and other mainstream news outlets) should have acknowleged that McKinney’s they were just giving an interpretation of McKinney’s meaning – and that McKinney herself has denied the “Bush knew about 9/11 ahead of time and covered it up” interpretation. These are important elements of the story, and by not publishing them the Times gave a deceptive impression to its readers.
Bradford wrote: Having been a constituent of McKinney’s and having worked at Democratic Party HQ, it was never much of a secret that McKinney was both a virulent race-baiter and borderline anti-Semitic.
Wonderful. Since it’s such common knowlege, it should be no trouble at all for you to provide direct, verifiable quotes from McKinley, in which she says anti-semitic things and in which she “race-baits” (whatever that means).
Until you do provide such quotes, however, forgive me if I continue judging McKinley by what she’s actually said and done, rather than by what others have said about her – or by what her father has said.
I did miss the fact that it wasnt your story. However, I just read the source of your story (bbc reporter), and even he admits that no one actually claimed the Mckinney made those remarks. He writes:
“According to NPR, “McKinney IMPLIED (emphasis added) that the [Bush] Administration knew in advance about September 11 and deliberately held back the information.â€
“The New York Times’ Lynette Clemetson revealed her comments went even further over the edge: “Ms. McKinney SUGGESTED (emphasis added) that President Bush might have known about the September 11 attacks but did nothing ..â€
So i am unsure why you are telling me “Either you can DIRECTLY QUOTE (emphasis added) McKinley saying that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance and allowed it to happen, or you can’t.” The BBC reporter, in his own article never charged that that NYTIMES or NPR claimed she actually said this, but rather “suggested”, and “implied.”
Even you can agree that she did imply that bush knew of the attacks, by saying:
1)”That in the weeks prior to September 11, 24-hour fighter cover was placed over the President’s ranch in Crawford, Texas”
2)”That in the weeks prior to September 11, Attorney General Ashcroft stopped flying commercial aircraft and instead flew Government aircraft”
3) “FBI had an informant living with two of the actual 9-1-1 hijackers.”
4)”That in the days prior to September 11, highly suspicious stock market activity in aviation and insurance stocks took place indicating that certain well-placed people had advance knowledge of the attacks.”
Is this not an implication (or suggestion) that bush may have known about 9/11 in advance? Sure sounds like one.
Sigh. I just lost a looong reply when my browser crashed.
Okay. Shorter version.
1) Jimbo, you’re being inconsistant. First you say that the writer hadn’t done the basic research of calling and asking McKinney – which implies that you think this makes a difference. Then you say “If McKinney would have told you that those quotes were made up, i would be far more inclined to believe your story.”
Well, the reporter did do the research you asked him to do, and McKinney did deny the interpretation the Times put on her words. (Well, maybe – the Times reporter in fact never gave the radio station as a source).
So as soon as it turns out you were mistaken about both these things, suddenly they no longer matter to your interpretation. That’s nonsense. If those things mattered to you when you thought they cut against McKinney, then they should still matter to you now that they work in McKinney’s favor. Otherwise, you’re just saying “evidence only counts to me when it hurts McKinney.”
2) You can’t use something published a year later to support the Times article. Either she “suggested” it before the Times printed her article, or the Times article was unjustified.
3) Even ignoring the fact that they’re from a year later, the quotes you provide don’t justify the Times reporting. They show that McKinney believed that the Bush administration knew enough to be on high alert levels for months ahead of time – which is very different from suggesting they knew about 9/11 specifically.
NOTHING you quote justifies saying McKinney “suggested” that Bush warned wealthy buddies ahead of time so they could profit in a war. The connection you imply – that she ever said the “well-placed” people had been informed by Bush – exists entirely in your imagination, and isn’t in the material you quote.
Furthermore, the Times has her specifically “suggesting” profits from a war, not profits from dumping insurance stocks (well-timed stock dumps would have been equally profitable even if there was no war). So what you quote is pretty irrelevant to what the Times claimed.
4) This is the most important point: at best, what you have is a dubious interpretation of McKinney’s words. I don’t object to the Times reporting that – but they should have reported that it was one interpretation, they should have reported that other interpretations existed, and they should have reported that McKinney denied the interpretation you favor.
Here’s what they could have printed:
“McKinney’s critics, pointing to a radio interview, say McKinney suggested President Bush might have known about the September 11 attacks but did nothing so his supporters could make money in a war. McKinney says this is an unfair interpretation of her words, and has said on the floor of congress that President Bush did not have advance knowlege of the September eleventh attacks.”
That acknowleges both sides of the debate, and the essential fact that McKinney denied thinking that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance. Printing that would have been far more fair and objective than what they did print. Do you disagree?
In essence, the Times printed only one side of a subjective question – they printed the anti-McKinney interpretation, didn’t make it clear that this was just one interpretation, and didn’t give McKinney’s side of the issue. Can you seriously claim that this is fair, objective reporting?
This is astonishing. McKinney has a big mouth and she’s pissed off lots and lots of people. People don’t have to support her and can even work against her. It doesn’t matter if these comments are ambiguous in some ways or if we can parse them and cast doubt on whether she truly is a race baiter or not.
This is not how we treat people in the real world. She has said many things that make many people uncomfortable and that is undeniable and she isn’t entitled to a seat in Congress or support. Let those who support her support her and vote for her. You can’t “prove” by contorting arguments that she isn’t disturbing.