Tangled Terror Tale (Two Liberal Reporters BACKPEDALING On USF Professor Al-Arian)

Washington Post ^ | March 3, 2003 | Howard Kurtz

[PJ-Comix]

The indictment of a former Florida professor on charges of being a Palestinian terrorist has cast a very different light on some past punditry.

After flying to Tampa to interview him, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote last year that the University of South Florida's attempt to fire Sami Al-Arian shed light on "what kind of universities we desire, how much dissent we dare tolerate and how we treat minorities in times of national stress." He noted that the proceedings began after "Bill O'Reilly invited Mr. Al-Arian on his Fox News show and virtually accused him of being a terrorist."

[PJ-Comix]

There are a couple of other stories in this article so scroll down towards the bottom to get this story.

"I can't help having some second thoughts," Kristof says now. Based on the available evidence, "I was basically dealing with the question of whether the university was justified in firing him. . . . If I'd thought there was some compelling evidence he was a terrorist, it would have changed things. At this point the presumption of innocence has to stand."

There was a lot of evidence out there long ago as we saw on O'Reilly but it is only now that Kristof begins his backpedaling.

Boehlert says most of the information in the indictment was not previously available. "I felt too many people were trying to make this story fit the way they wanted in trying to connect the dots and use guilt by association," he says. "The spin now is that all this information was out there and only someone with liberal blinders would have been duped by it. And that's just not true."

Maybe not ALL the information was out there but ENOUGH was out there to see that Al-Arian was helping the terrorists.

O'Reilly says that "we took a lot of heat. And when it comes our way, no fruit basket. We had this guy dead. . . . The game being played now in the media, if you're in a minority group, is that if you can't win the debate, you demonize the person reporting the story by calling them anti-whatever. I'm not playing that game."

BINGO! Another score for O'Reilly!

[backhoe]

The game being played now in the media, if you're in a minority group, is that if you can't win the debate, you demonize the person reporting the story by calling them anti-whatever. I'm not playing that game.

While it's nice that someone of national stature is pointing this out, I've been aware of it- and complaining about it- for years & years. Better late, than never, but it's been Standard Operating Proceedure for far too long.

[GOPJ]

O'Reilly rules. Lamestream Media drools.

BINGO! Another score for O'Reilly!

[GOPJ]

O'Reilly rules. Lamestream Media drools.

BINGO! Another score for O'Reilly!

[PJ-Comix]

I wonder if O'Reilly will discuss the backpedalling by these two reporters on his show tonight.

[aristeides]

Black author John McWhorter was interviewed on C-SPAN's Booknotes last night. He says most blacks are privately conservative, but espouse the victimology ideology in public largely because they are under social pressure from other blacks to do so. If you "let whites off the hook," you're considered not authentically black.

Bad enough that blacks practice this dishonest scam for themselves. Far worse that, to keep the scam going, they support other groups that try to join in in the scam, even when at least one of those groups represents a positive danger even to the lives of all Americans, including blacks.

I remember polls right after 9/11 showed a greater percentage of blacks supported interning and deporting Moslems than of white Americans. Those polls are no longer mentioned. Instead, we have black leaders insisting vociferously that profiling not be applied even to the dangerous group. Victimology appears to trump self-preservation.

[randita]

Kristof and Boehlert are going to have to do a lot of scrubbing to get the egg off their faces.

They were out to prove an ideological point and they ignored clear and convincing evidence in order to press their point.

That's not "presumption of innocence" as they claim. That's blindness and ignorance.

[PJ-Comix]

They were out to prove an ideological point and they ignored clear and convincing evidence in order to press their point.

And in the meantime they slimed O'Reilly for exposing Al-Arian.

[syriacus]

Boehlert says ..."The spin now is that all this information was out there and only someone with liberal blinders would have been duped by it.

"The spin now is that all this information was out there and
only someone with liberal blinders would have been duped by it.

Now this reads correctly.

[syriacus]

Victimology appears to trump self-preservation.

Liberal brainwashing certainly is powerful. It's even able to overcome the instinct for self-preservation.

[Ole Okie]

......if you can't win the debate, you demonize the person reporting the story by calling them anti-whatever.

Begala and Car-Vile have joint patents on this, along with Sub Commander Edward M. Kennedy and some of his senatorial bottom feeding ilk.

[uncbob]

Black author John McWhorter was interviewed on C-SPAN's Booknotes last night. He says most blacks are privately conservative, but espouse the victimology ideology in public largely because they are under social pressure from other blacks to do so. If you "let whites off the hook," you're considered not authentically black.

Yeah so how come in the privacy of the voting booth they vote LIBERAL Democrat

[IncPen]

Yeah so how come in the privacy of the voting booth they vote LIBERAL Democrat

At least they have the integrity to hold up their end of the bribe, no?

[Allan]

"I can't help having some second thoughts,"
Kristof says now.

I am sure
however
that Kristoff has no second thoughts
about Hatfill
whom he named
in two separate columns
as the anthrax culprit.

I am sure John H K
has no second thoughts
either.