Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Greenwald proves some suckers will believe anything! [View all]wandy
(3,539 posts)40. Well if you wont believe Greenwald You might believe Andrew C. Mcarthy............
Using some of the exact wording and defiantly reading from the same script the Andrew C. Mcarthy {1}piece in the The National Review{2} should convince you.
There is a reason that no one had heard of such a group until a nanosecond ago, when the Khorosan Group suddenly went from anonymity to the imminent threat that became the rationale for an emergency air war there was supposedly no time to ask Congress to authorize.
You havent heard of the Khorosan Group because there isnt one. It is a name the administration came up with, calculating that Khorosan the IranianAfghan border region had sufficient connection to jihadist lore that no one would call the president on it.
The Khorosan Group is al-Qaeda. It is simply a faction within the global terror networks Syrian franchise, Jabhat al-Nusra. Its leader, Mushin al-Fadhli (believed to have been killed in this weeks U.S.-led air strikes), was an intimate of Ayman al-Zawahiri, the emir of al-Qaeda who dispatched him to the jihad in Syria. Except that if you listen to administration officials long enough, you come away thinking that Zawahiri is not really al-Qaeda, either. Instead, hes something the administration is at pains to call core al-Qaeda.
Core al-Qaeda, you are to understand, is different from Jabhat al-Nusra, which in turn is distinct from al-Qaeda in Iraq (formerly al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, now the Islamic State al-Qaeda spin-off that is, itself, formerly al-Qaeda in Iraq and al-Sham or al-Qaeda in Iraq and the Levant). That al-Qaeda, dont you know, is a different outfit from al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula . . . which, of course, should never be mistaken for al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, Boko Haram, Ansar al-Sharia, or the latest entry, al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent.
You havent heard of the Khorosan Group because there isnt one. It is a name the administration came up with, calculating that Khorosan the IranianAfghan border region had sufficient connection to jihadist lore that no one would call the president on it.
The Khorosan Group is al-Qaeda. It is simply a faction within the global terror networks Syrian franchise, Jabhat al-Nusra. Its leader, Mushin al-Fadhli (believed to have been killed in this weeks U.S.-led air strikes), was an intimate of Ayman al-Zawahiri, the emir of al-Qaeda who dispatched him to the jihad in Syria. Except that if you listen to administration officials long enough, you come away thinking that Zawahiri is not really al-Qaeda, either. Instead, hes something the administration is at pains to call core al-Qaeda.
Core al-Qaeda, you are to understand, is different from Jabhat al-Nusra, which in turn is distinct from al-Qaeda in Iraq (formerly al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, now the Islamic State al-Qaeda spin-off that is, itself, formerly al-Qaeda in Iraq and al-Sham or al-Qaeda in Iraq and the Levant). That al-Qaeda, dont you know, is a different outfit from al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula . . . which, of course, should never be mistaken for al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, Boko Haram, Ansar al-Sharia, or the latest entry, al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/388990/khorosan-group-does-not-exist-andrew-c-mccarthy
Still not convinced
Rush Limbaugh {3} exposed parts of the new administration lie on his radio show as early as 09/24/2014.
http://www.mrctv.org/audio/limbaugh-sees-through-obama-admin-ruse-khorasan-group-distinct-al-qaeda
{1}National Review (N.R.) is a semimonthly magazine founded by author William F. Buckley, Jr., in 1955 and based in New York City. It describes itself as "America's most widely read and influential magazine and web site for conservative news, commentary, and opinion."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Review
{2}Andrew C. Mcarthy
During the 2008 presidential election campaign, Andrew McCarthy wrote a number of posts on the National Review's Corner blog stating that he thought that Democratic Presidential candidate, Barack Obama, was not serious about protecting US national security against threats from radical Islam and elsewhere, and that Obama had a number of troubling ties and associations with leftist radicals.
In an opinion posted on the blog 'the Corner' on 10/22/08, Mr. McCarthy wrote "I believe that the issue of Obama's personal radicalism, including his collaboration with radical, America-hating Leftists, should have been disqualifying."
In May 2009, Mr. McCarthy provided details of a letter declining an invitation from Attorney General Eric Holder for a round-table meeting with President Barack Obama concerning the status of people detained in the War on Terror. Mr. McCarthy noted his dissension with the administration in their policies regarding the detainees. On December 5, 2009 he came out publicly against prosecuting Islamic terrorists in civil courts rather than military tribunals, saying "A war is a war. A war is not a crime, and you dont bring your enemies to a courthouse."
In an opinion posted on the blog 'the Corner' on 10/22/08, Mr. McCarthy wrote "I believe that the issue of Obama's personal radicalism, including his collaboration with radical, America-hating Leftists, should have been disqualifying."
In May 2009, Mr. McCarthy provided details of a letter declining an invitation from Attorney General Eric Holder for a round-table meeting with President Barack Obama concerning the status of people detained in the War on Terror. Mr. McCarthy noted his dissension with the administration in their policies regarding the detainees. On December 5, 2009 he came out publicly against prosecuting Islamic terrorists in civil courts rather than military tribunals, saying "A war is a war. A war is not a crime, and you dont bring your enemies to a courthouse."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_C._McCarthy
{3}Rush Limbaugh Highly acclaimed Right Wing propagandist and GOP Bull Shit artist. Historical references Axis Sally, Tokyo Rose.
So, we have to ask the question.
Is our gubbernment and Obama lying to us again or is this just another Right Wing story of the day?
Hay, its out on them 'dar internets so it has to be true.
For my part, I'll just wait for Josie (the teller of Ferguson, Mo truth) to tell about it on some intertube radio program.
Damn, no one reads a script like Josie.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
138 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
You need to look up "ad hominem". This was a direct annhilation of Greenwald's credibility by the OP
phleshdef
Sep 2014
#26
Knowledge is: Tomatoes are fruits. Wisdom is: Don't put tomatoes in your fruit salad. nt
Electric Monk
Sep 2014
#71
Imminent threat is the legal standard, both domestically and internationally, for
Luminous Animal
Sep 2014
#55
Um...just because you didn't hear of them doesn't mean I didn't....a decade ago.
msanthrope
Sep 2014
#44
Based upon his DU following, I would estimate between 3 and 5% of DU will be...
MohRokTah
Sep 2014
#48
Well if you wont believe Greenwald You might believe Andrew C. Mcarthy............
wandy
Sep 2014
#40
Sean Hannity used to send out an e-mail every morning regarding GOP talking points
Major Hogwash
Sep 2014
#122
We may not be the only ones who have noticed. Thom Hartman has his view of this.....
wandy
Sep 2014
#123
Wasn't he supposed to reveal something extraordinary? Name names, or something.
LawDeeDah
Sep 2014
#46
Actually, when Bush was bombing Al Qaeda instead of Iraq he had wide support
geek tragedy
Sep 2014
#98
Actually, when I started reading this forum in 2003 there was widespread criticism of the wars.
Threedifferentones
Sep 2014
#111
The only brains Greenwald is spanking.....are of the people that pay attention to his nonsense....
VanillaRhapsody
Sep 2014
#69
You seem to imply that you agree with Greenwald that Obama's attacks on ISIS are illegal.
Vattel
Sep 2014
#63
It's not debatable. It's a legal war. States are allowed to petition other states to...
stevenleser
Sep 2014
#120
Syria has been notified and they have not complained to the UN or any international agency.
stevenleser
Sep 2014
#127
I see your point and you might be right. Still, not saying no doesn't mean yes.
Vattel
Sep 2014
#128
Greenwald is blatantly lying about the admin's justifications. What he says their justification for
geek tragedy
Sep 2014
#99
Lol. I didn't even read the OP. Just checked the recs -yup, the usual tribe.
riderinthestorm
Sep 2014
#113
What Greenwald said matches the quotes you provided...not seeing the "lie" here...
Chathamization
Sep 2014
#77
I absolutely detest lying pieces of shit. Let's get to the bottom of this.
DisgustipatedinCA
Sep 2014
#78
Let's not forget that they did a decent feigned maneuver by saying they're going after Isis
flamingdem
Sep 2014
#94
The one problem is that nothing that you write in your post shows that Greenwald and Hussein
Maedhros
Sep 2014
#126
Greenwald blatantly lied about Obama needing Khorosan to justify bombing ISIL.
geek tragedy
Sep 2014
#133
Totally unsurprising that right wing lies are used to prop up Greenwald. nt
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#138
I think #2 is why some BOG members have been so ultra-defensive on this issue.
Electric Monk
Oct 2014
#135