Friday, November 17, 2006

Hyman Repeats Terrorists' Nonsense

Apparently, Mark Hyman takes terrorists at their word, but ignores the consensus opinions of U.S. intelligence agents.

In a recent harangue about the incoming Democratic Congress, Hyman cites several comments alleged to have been made by terrorist organizations he says show that they are happy Democrats are in charge.

That’s funny . . . I always thought terrorists basically said whatever they thought would infuriate or insult their enemies, not what they actually felt. I kind of doubt many members of al-Qaeda actually know anything about the difference between Republicans and Democrats, so I’m not sure why one would take anything a terrorist says about them as being authoritative, sincere, or even coherent.

But apparently Hyman does. Or at least he takes WorldNetDaily, the ultra-right wing website, as authoritative, since
that’s where he cribbed the majority of his commentary, including all of the quotations from terrorists.

The WND article, penned by Aaron Klein, has been
thoroughly dealt with by Terry Krepel at ConWebWatch. As Krepel points out, at least one of the alleged “terrorists” is living in exile in Ireland. Moreover, Klein is simply repeating terrorist propaganda (something that Hyman is participating in as well).

Thanks for defending freedom, Aaron and Mark.

Moreover, Krepel points out that Klein has long history of trying to tie terrorists as fans of the Democrats, including the suggestion that the late PLO leader Yasser Arafat wanted John Kerry to win in 2004.
So Klein and Hyman are repeating terrorist propaganda for their own political purposes. That’s immoral, but what makes it stupid is that it’s probably counterproductive. In fact, the CIA noted that when Osama bin Laden made statements on the eve of the 2004 presidential election, they were almost certainly intended to support the election of George W. Bush.

As Krepel notes, it’s difficult to know if the handful of terrorists Klein has developed relationships with are intentionally giving him disinformation, or if they’re just happy to be quoted spouting off in a way that will get them some ink from their right-wing buddy.

The more important question is “who cares?”

What we *do* know is that a recent National Intelligence Estimate has said that the invasion and occupation of Iraq had made the terrorist threat worse, not better. Not that this should surprise us: in issuing his fatwa in 1998 to kill Americans, bin Laden used the occupation of Muslim land by American forces and hostility toward Iraq to motivate terrorists.

The Bush administration and the neo-cons have played right into bin Laden’s hands, giving him the perfect propaganda victory he needs to motivate still more terrorists, regardless of how well or poorly things go on the ground in Iraq.

But cutting and running in Afghanistan in order to fulfill the neo-con fantasies of invading Iraq (fantasies that long predated 9/11), the Bush administration has destabilized the Middle East and, according to our own intelligence, put us at greater risk from terrorism.

Perhaps that’s why Americans ignored the propaganda of both the terrorists and shills like Klein and Hyman and voted overwhelmingly for a new course last week.

And that’s The Counterpoint.

Hyman Index: 6.60


At 1:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


It's simple:
Hyman hates America.
Hyman hates the troops.

(Hey, think I'd qualify for Hyman's replacement?)


Post a Comment

<< Home

Cost of the War in Iraq
(JavaScript Error)
To see more details, click here.