hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Oct 30, 2008 13:04:47 GMT -5
I disagree Boz. I understand your point, but I think there are enough elements to indicate a pattern. But they aren't going to be effective with this jab and move strategy. They need to bring Wright back into the equation, as you say, but only to use him to help solidify exactly what you said and that's that Obama has a very undeniable pattern of associations with fringe or even lunatic level characters.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Oct 30, 2008 13:15:28 GMT -5
Khalidi is NOT fringe or a lunatic. It is ridiculous to even suggest it. I am disheartened by the fact that a scholar renowned for his moderation, keen insight and scholarship on a difficult issue is being labeled a fanatic just because of his last name. Look at his catalog of work. Read his books. The man is full of integrity and is respected by academics across the political aisles. The man was born in NY city. He is an American citizen. He has taught at several prestigious universities, including our own Georgetown. To even suggest he is a terrorist or a lunatic is to belie your own prejudices against anyone with a remotely ethnic last name.
As for the tape, the reason it hasn't been released is because of a source agreement. Basically, if the LAT releases or leaks the tape they are in violation of an obligation they made to a source and would not only risk not receiving information from that source in the future, but would potentially risk legal action. McCain is using this agreement to his advantage, to hint that something nefarious went on at the speech, but in reality, if the tape was released we would find a speech given by an academic on the situation in the Middle East.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 30, 2008 13:17:46 GMT -5
I don't think they're saying he's dangerous or fringe because of his last name. It's because of Khalidi's associations with dangerous individuals, such as a shady relationship with barack HUSSEIN obama.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Oct 30, 2008 13:17:55 GMT -5
I will freely admit to knowing nothing of the man's writings or views. I ask this question sincerely: Did he serve as a spokesman for the PLO under Arafat? If yes, I find that simple fact troubling. If not, I don't care.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Oct 30, 2008 13:22:14 GMT -5
I will freely admit to knowing nothing of the man's writings or views. I ask this question sincerely: Did he serve as a spokesman for the PLO under Arafat? If yes, I find that simple fact troubling. If not, I don't care. He served as an advisor to the Palestinian delegation, headed by Haydar Abd al-Shafi, during the Madrid Talks in 1991. This was not the PLO and it was not Arafat. Those talks, might I add, led to the doubling of the number of Arab stats that recognized and had diplomatic ties with Israel. So, you can't exactly call the Palestinian delegation's position radical going into the talks. [Edit: The Palestinian delegation was specifically made up of Palestinians who had no ties to the PLO, for example al-Shafi was a physician who helped to found the Red Crescent (Red Cross) in the region and had been physically attacked by radical Islamicists in the past for his efforts.]
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Oct 30, 2008 13:24:49 GMT -5
Thank you. Then for me Khalidi is a non-issue. I stand by my origianl post that the non-release is better for McCain.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 30, 2008 13:28:58 GMT -5
What if McCain had some seedy ties?
What if he knew one of those Keating 5 guys? What if he WAS one of them? What if he sat on the board of the the U.S. Council for World Freedom? What if he was an adulterer? What if he had issues with gambling?
I'm not saying that any of these things would mean anything if they were true, but I mean it does bring up some questions about the person's judgment...
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Oct 30, 2008 13:31:43 GMT -5
I really don't think these attempts at character attacks by association are working. They're all non-issues and I don't think anyone is buying them. They certainly won't win McCain this election.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Oct 30, 2008 13:32:49 GMT -5
Cambridge, you can be a "scholar" and a fringe figure at the same time. Think William Ayers. In any case, there are certainly two sides to most issues. While Khalidi admittedly has legitimate credentials in the are of the Middle East, he also has some baggage to go along. Denying that much is disingenuous.
As with Said before him, Khalidi's involvement with the Palestinian cause goes beyond mere support. News reports -- including a 1982 dispatch from Thomas Friedman of the New York Times -- suggest that he once served as Director of the Palestinian press agency, Wikalat al-Anba al-Filastinija. Khalidi's wife, Mona, was reportedly the agency's main English-language editor between 1976 and 1982. Khalidi so strongly identified with the aims of the PLO, which was designated as a terrorist group by the State Department during Khalidi's affiliation with it in the 1980s, that he repeatedly referred to himself as "we" when expounding on the PLO's agenda. Additional evidence of Khalidi's intimacy with the PLO can be seen in his involvement with the organization's so-called "guidance committee" in the early 1990s.
Khalidi's 1986 book, Under Siege: P.L.O. Decision-Making During the 1982 War, was dedicated to Yasser Arafat. Opening with a glowing tribute to anti-Israel fighters ("to those who gave their lives during the summer of 1982 … in defense of the cause of Palestine and the independence of Lebanon"), the book offered an airbrushed account of PLO-instigated violence against Israelis and Lebanese. By contrast, Syria's brutal occupation of Lebanon elicited no criticism from the author.
In any case, I don't criticize him because of his name. That much is just bogus.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Oct 30, 2008 13:41:08 GMT -5
I trust anyone more than Hifi. So i'm going to go with cambridge on this one. You never really had much credibility hifi and you lost what little youhad with all the ridiculosu you throw up on this board.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Oct 30, 2008 14:13:10 GMT -5
Cambridge, you can be a "scholar" and a fringe figure at the same time. Think William Ayers. In any case, there are certainly two sides to most issues. While Khalidi admittedly has legitimate credentials in the are of the Middle East, he also has some baggage to go along. Denying that much is disingenuous. As with Said before him, Khalidi's involvement with the Palestinian cause goes beyond mere support. News reports -- including a 1982 dispatch from Thomas Friedman of the New York Times -- suggest that he once served as Director of the Palestinian press agency, Wikalat al-Anba al-Filastinija. Khalidi's wife, Mona, was reportedly the agency's main English-language editor between 1976 and 1982. Khalidi so strongly identified with the aims of the PLO, which was designated as a terrorist group by the State Department during Khalidi's affiliation with it in the 1980s, that he repeatedly referred to himself as "we" when expounding on the PLO's agenda. Additional evidence of Khalidi's intimacy with the PLO can be seen in his involvement with the organization's so-called "guidance committee" in the early 1990s.
Khalidi's 1986 book, Under Siege: P.L.O. Decision-Making During the 1982 War, was dedicated to Yasser Arafat. Opening with a glowing tribute to anti-Israel fighters ("to those who gave their lives during the summer of 1982 … in defense of the cause of Palestine and the independence of Lebanon"), the book offered an airbrushed account of PLO-instigated violence against Israelis and Lebanese. By contrast, Syria's brutal occupation of Lebanon elicited no criticism from the author.
In any case, I don't criticize him because of his name. That much is just bogus. I won't even deign to respond to your uninformed attacks on the man's character. If you wish to pull more talking points off ignorant, borderline racist conservative websites, do so on your own time on another board, but as long as that's all you are offering you won't find any intelligent discussion with me on this subject. As soon as you've read any of his well-researched and well-regarded books, come back and we'll discuss Khalidi and his viewpoints on history.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Oct 30, 2008 14:36:12 GMT -5
sincebirth, I'm not exactly sure what "trusting" me has to do with it. But since you brought it up, what exactly did I say here that is factually inaccurate? As I have said all along, there are different opinions and that is fine. But don't intermingle facts with opinions. In that much, Wright, Rezka, Ayers and Khalidi are all alike. They have many views that don't represent the mainstream. Does that, in and of itself, mean that their views are meaningless? Of course not. Obviousy each association is entirely different. Personally, the Wright association is the most troubling. If there hadn't been a technical blunder in the Ayers case, then he would have been behind bars for quite a while and most likely wouldn't have evolved into a somewhat decorated professor. In which case, it's unlikely that Obama and Ayers' paths would have crossed in the manner in which they did. I honestly don't put much stock at all in the Ayers situation. But in the case of Wright, there was a 20 year history. I don't want to dredge through all of the details again. Suffice it to say that I have concerns with that association. You can elect not to and that is fine. But to act as if such concerns are not legitimate is just playing politics. Don't think you are somehow better than anyone else by denying that much.
Getting back to Khalidi, Cambridge, what part did I say that you disagree with?
I repeat:
As with Said before him, Khalidi's involvement with the Palestinian cause goes beyond mere support. News reports -- including a 1982 dispatch from Thomas Friedman of the New York Times -- suggest that he once served as Director of the Palestinian press agency, Wikalat al-Anba al-Filastinija. Khalidi's wife, Mona, was reportedly the agency's main English-language editor between 1976 and 1982. Khalidi so strongly identified with the aims of the PLO, which was designated as a terrorist group by the State Department during Khalidi's affiliation with it in the 1980s, that he repeatedly referred to himself as "we" when expounding on the PLO's agenda. Additional evidence of Khalidi's intimacy with the PLO can be seen in his involvement with the organization's so-called "guidance committee" in the early 1990s.
Khalidi's 1986 book, Under Siege: P.L.O. Decision-Making During the 1982 War, was dedicated to Yasser Arafat. Opening with a glowing tribute to anti-Israel fighters ("to those who gave their lives during the summer of 1982 … in defense of the cause of Palestine and the independence of Lebanon"), the book offered an airbrushed account of PLO-instigated violence against Israelis and Lebanese. By contrast, Syria's brutal occupation of Lebanon elicited no criticism from the author.
If there is a factual error there, I would be glad to hear it. If not, then do you at least acknoledge that there could be legitimate concerns with associations with such an individual?
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Oct 30, 2008 14:42:10 GMT -5
Read the Iron Cage. Last chapter. Afterwards, please return here and tell me he is a big fan of the PLO.
Rashid Khalidi is not and never has been a PLO activist or official. He was an adviser to the Palestinian delegation in Madrid in 1991. In case you are unaware, and it appears you are, Israel refused to speak directly to anyone in the PLO. The way the conference proceeded was by the US and Israel selecting the Palestinian delegation (not from the PLO), and, in turn, the PLO would OK or object to the delegate. Khalidi was chosen because he is from a prominent Palestinian family from Jerusalem and is a renown scholar of the Middle East. Moreover, contrary to your assertion, Rashid Khalidi had been extremely critical of the PLO, hence he was acceptable to the US and Israel.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Oct 30, 2008 14:51:08 GMT -5
From a Washington Post profile three years ago: "Khalidi's book is equally critical of corrupt Arab nationalist regimes and Israeli policies in the occupied territories. It is measured, perhaps even a bit safe in its main argument. It is footnoted, sourced to respectable books, journals and newspapers, and it is more a retelling than a work of new scholarship." www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22577-2004May12.html
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Oct 30, 2008 15:03:27 GMT -5
It's clear that there are varying opinions on Khalidi and his views. It's also clear that his exact associations with as well as his views of the PLO are NOT clear. www.campus-watch.org/article/id/1211Obviously, this particular article represents essentially one person's opinions. But links from there will take you to Thomas Friedman's articles, including one on an interview with Khalidi himself back in the 90's. This certainly isn't some sort of smoking gun on the guy, but to dismiss concerns others could have is just silly. Do you at least see that much?
|
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Oct 30, 2008 15:06:37 GMT -5
My very limited understanding of the scandal is that many of the other speakers who were present with Obama at the big Khalidi shindig made viciously and explicitly anti-American/anti-Jewish remarks. Obama's contribution, according to the LA Times account, was the usual "let's all believe in change and hope" we've come to know and love. So it's not anything that Obama or Khalidi did or said that would be the liability of releasing the tape, but Obama's apparent willingness to always turn a blind eye to all the bad things that Wright, Ayers, Rezko, Giannoulis, et al., say and do when no one's watching.
As for Khalidi, there were enough love fests for every shade of Palestinian terrorist throughout the 90s, just about everyone of importance in Washington would have to be run out of town for consorting with them if this standard were instituted for everyone.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Oct 30, 2008 15:10:37 GMT -5
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Oct 30, 2008 15:11:32 GMT -5
Another point, I just pulled my copy of the book, Under Seige.
While the preface acknowledges and thanks Yasser, the individuals working in his office, the PLO archives and the WAFA for allowing him access and assistance during three separate trips to Tunis while researching his book on the Palestinian movement (p. vii), it also thanks several other sources, such as American University in Beirut, Georgetown University, and various western, Palesinian, Lebanese and Israeli individuals.
Furthermore, unlike your claim, the book is dedicated to "those who died; to those in Beirut and South Lebanon who survived to face an uncertain future; and to those dispersed by the war." (p.ix)
So, as to your factual assertions that are false, I'd say all of them.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Oct 30, 2008 15:20:37 GMT -5
OK, so the book was actually "dedicated" to those that died, among others, rather than to Yasser, among others. Conversely, he was thanked.
So instead of being "dedicated" to Yasser and having a glowing "tribute" to those that died. It was Arafat who was "thanked" and those who died, among others, to which the book was dedicated. I apologize for such egregious errors.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Oct 30, 2008 15:32:12 GMT -5
OK, so the book was actually "dedicated" to those that died, among others, rather than to Yasser, among others. Conversely, he was thanked. So instead of being "dedicated" to Yasser and having a glowing "tribute" to those that died. It was Arafat who was "thanked" and those who died, among others, to which the book was dedicated. I apologize for such egregious errors. Yassar was thanked among others for giving him access to documents and interviews. That is pretty common practice. Dedicating a book to innocent people who died in a war is not radical or fanatical. This is also pretty common practice. To say otherwise is inhuman.
|
|