A couple of stipulations up front before we cut to the chase:
- I’m not going to say Michele Bachmann hasn’t occasionally observed a “Ready! Fire! Aim!” approach to some of the things she’s commented on over the years. She’s tightened up her messaging a lot, of course, since deciding to run for President – but whenever I see a chorus of leftybloggers bleating “did you see what teh crazee Mishele Bachmannn said?”, I still occasionally take a deep breath and brace myself. Of course, it’s more and more an automatic rather than a reasoned thing. But we’ll come back to that.
- I do think many American conservatives are way too exercised about the Muslim Brotherhood. They are a big, loosely-knit movement with a lot of different histories in a lot of different nations. Some parts were radicalized by being pushed underground – think the IRA. Other parts, in other nations, less so, or at least in different ways. It remains to be seen what their majority in Egypt will turn out like – and they are far from the only force in Egypt that could drag that mess into the toilet – but they’ve been a broadly good influence in Libya, and neutral at worst in Tunisia.
- Some decry the fact that some Muslim Brotherhood national parties would re-institute Sharia law if they get their way in their various nations. So don’t move there! They’re sovereign countries and making – for the moment – democratic decisions. They get to do that. At best, the Brotherhood will bring Islam, and Sharia, out into the open, where it can bump up against the 21st century and, with a little luck, the motives and desires and political demands of people with more exposure to the modern world than, say, Afghans. Am I being a pollyanna? Perhaps. Or maybe just tired of fighting unneeded battles.
With that out of the way, it’s hard to miss the cascade of caterwauling that’s greeted Michele Bachmann’s statements (along with those of four other House Republicans – Louie Gohmert (TX), Trent Franks (AZ), Tom Rooney (FL), and Lynn Westmorland (GA). “Why, even John McCain is bagging on her!”, the liberals, and not a few Republicans, phumpher – as if that were news. McCain even throws out the dreaded “M” word, “McCarthy”, which Democrats have turned into a rhetorical nuclear option over the decades (ignorant of the irony; McCarthy was right, there were communist infiltrators, although as his hunt went on it became both too broad and way too easily caricatured.
Speaking of McCarthy, the National Review’s Andrew McCarthy – presumably no relation – unloads on McCain, and Bachmann’s critics, with an excellent, moderately lengthy piece that documents both Huma Abedin’s real, honest-to-pete links to the Muslim Brotherhood (read the article), and shreds the notion that Bachmann et al were “witchhunting”, but rather…:
The five House conservatives, instead, are asking questions that adults responsible for national security should feel obliged to ask: In light of Ms. Abedin’s family history, is she someone who ought to have a security clearance, particularly one that would give her access to top-secret information about the Brotherhood? Is she, furthermore, someone who may be sympathetic to aspects of the Brotherhood’s agenda, such that Americans ought to be concerned that she is helping shape American foreign policy?
Now, Senator McCain is no stranger to smear. No need to confirm that with Mr. ElBaradei; we’ve watched for years as he has slandered, for example, critics of his advocacy for illegal aliens as “nativists” seeking to reprise Jim Crow laws. Nevertheless, since McCain purports to be a tireless guardian of our security, one would think he’d appreciate the distinction between a smear, on the one hand, and a routine application of security-clearance standards, on the other
…as well as illuminates some of McCain’s own flip-floppery on the issue:
So, the reporter asked him, does Obama’s tolerance of the Muslim Brotherhood “concern you”?
Senator Maverick shot back without hesitation: “It concerns me so much that I am unalterably opposed to it. I think it would be a mistake of historic proportions.”
Senator McCain elaborated that he was “deeply, deeply concerned that this whole movement [toward democracy] could be hijacked by radical Islamic extremists.” And what, he was specifically asked, “is your assessment of the Muslim Brotherhood”? McCain pulled no punches:
“I think they are a radical group that, first of all, supports sharia law; that in itself is anti-democratic — at least as far as women are concerned. They have been involved with other terrorist organizations and I believe that they should be specifically excluded from any transition government”
In fact, so apprehensive was he over the Brotherhood and its sharia agenda that McCain was quick to brand Mohamed ElBaradei, the Nobel laureate, as a Brotherhood tool.
By the way, Rep. Bachmann has claimed – with some considerable justification – that her words have been distorted and wrenched out of context, and she’s released all her communications on the subject to prove it. You be the judge.
So the flap isn’t about “witchhunting” Muslims in government. It’s about transparency and honesty about influence at the highest levels (as Rep. Bachmann’s letter to Rep. Ellison, whose has denied any knowledge of the Muslim Brotherhood, although his 2008 trip to Mecca was largely bankrolled by a group that, court documents indicate, is affiliated with the Brotherhood) makes clear. It’s about transparency.
Lessons from this incident? Simple: When the media sounds off on conservatives, distrust, verify, and almost always distrust some more.
Personally? I’m not sure that the Brotherhood is the suffocating danger that some conservatives claim, and even if it were, those are sovereign nations. And I suspect Huma Abedin’s connections to the Georgetown Political Science Elite and Keith Ellison’s membership in the DFL are of more immediate danger to this nation and state, to be honest.
But since the subject is honesty – the flap about Bachmann seems to be little more than Dems trying to draw attention away from the real issue; Hillary Clinton and Keith Ellison’s disingenuity.
The VENONA transcripts showed the Soviets were actively spying on the US and inserting agents into government and academia, exactly as Sen. McCarthy claimed. Will we wait 50 years to get similar vindication for Rep. Bachmann? And what will we do about the possibility of Muslim terrorist organizations infiltrating the US in the meantime?
The problem is that defending Bachmann is a mug’s game. Andy McCarthy can do it but it takes him, what, 2000 words to do it? All Bachmann’s critics have to do is say some variation on “Bachmann is teh CRAZEE” and it’s probative as far as Eric Black and Esme Murphy are concerned.
“I can’t claim that I was the most observant Catholic at the time. I had begun to really look around and ask myself about the social circumstances of the country, issues of justice, issues of change. When I looked at my spiritual life, and I looked at what might inform social change, justice in society… I found Islam.”
That’s Keith Ellison: http://news.ebonybay.com/news/81643-changing-the-game-u-s-representative-keith-ellison.html
Lopping off the hands of thieves, rape victims executed as prostitutes, killing apostates . . . Bachmann has never said anything as stupid or crazy as the thoughts that run through Ellison’s head every minute of every hour of every day.
Apparently Sensennbrenner is another RINO
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/07/23/562831/jim-sensenbrenner-huma-abedin/
The best response I’ve seen so far.
“The problem is not simply that Bachmann is wrong. The problem is that–even if by default–she has been empowered as a mouthpiece by the conservatives, and, as such, some people actually believe the things she says.
Mrs. Bachmann has allowed her craven self-obsessive narcissism to not only cloud her judgement, but to completely replace it. Were her suspicions about something negligible, a proper reaction by the public would simply be to chastise her for her ignorance.
The ramifications in the case of Bachmann’s accusations against Huma Abedin, however, prove to be much more serious. Bachmann has laid forth and reiterated an unfounded accusation of ostensibly treasonable offense against a government figure. What Bachmann has done is not properly called “crazy,” or “wrong,” or “ignorant,” or “uninformed.” It is called “sedition.” It is illegal, and Bachmann should be roundly denounced by everyone–both within and without her party–and indicted for her crime.”
Once again, “Sanity” has demonstrated that he has no idea what he is talking about (including the words “craven” and “ostensibly”). Most likely that’s because he “stays misinformed” by getting his news from some Soros crib or The Daily Show.
From the McCarthy piece:
For pointing this out and merely asking the State Department’s inspector general to look into it and report back to Congress — which is part of the IG’s duties under the statute that created his position — McCain & Co. (i.e., his fans in the left-wing media and his admirers in the Republican establishment) are screaming “smear” and “McCarthyism.” McCain’s antipathy toward conservatives (except during election years) is an old story. And it is no secret that he has long been smitten by Mrs. Clinton, whose transnational-progressive leanings mirror his own.
FYI. McCarthy successfully prosecuted the 1993 WTC bombers. He is more than a pundit.
McCarthy comes down hard on McCain. Justifiably so, and I voted McCain/Palin in 2008.
Paulsen weighs in , against Bachmann
http://www.startribune.com/politics/163494796.html
So, Sanity; what are you going to do or who are you going to blame if Huma ends up compromising security and getting your Dear Leader or his lapdog Hillary killed?
Your arguments are your typical libturd spin to dispute facts. You utopians and your double standards continue to prove PT Barnum’s old adage that “there is a sucker born every minute.”
And speaking of narcissistic; the day that you acknowledge that your Dear Leader Obumble is the narcissist in chief, you just might have some credibility.
Paulsen weighing in against isn’t surprising. My reaction is simple: The facts are on Michele’s side.
I’ll always support the truth. I’ll always scoff at people who don’t fight for the truth.
If people make political decisions, that’s their business. I just won’t speak highly of those types of decisions.
“what are you going to do or who are you going to blame if Huma ends up compromising security and getting your Dear Leader or his lapdog Hillary killed?”
Well, one thing’s for sure: Bachmann’s blabber has compromised Huma Abedin’s personal security. She’s received threats and the feds had to add a security detail for her personal safety.
Huma has worked for Hilary for 20 years — since Clinton was first lady. If she’d planned to kill Hillary she would have done it by now. Heck, she could have taken out a President back then too (Clinton). She’s one deep-under-cover terrorist if she’s waited this long to attack, not to mention she married a pro-Israel Jew (Weiner) and had his baby.
There’s another possibility — that Huma Abedin is simply a US patriot and loyal public servant . . . but of course that would never be considered by Bachmann, even with all the evidence and high level security screening Human went through to get her jobs . . .
Nope. Easier to smear an innocent, make baseless accusations.
It’s Bachmann’s modus operandi . . . Mitch got it right when he said, “ready, fire, aim”. That’s Bachmann, in a nutshell.
Let me count the ways that Sanity was wrong in his latest comment . . .
“Well, one thing’s for sure: Bachmann’s blabber has compromised Huma Abedin’s personal security. She’s received threats and the feds had to add a security detail for her personal safety.”
It not known “for sure” that the threat (singular) to Abedin has anything at all to do with Bachmann. Police know who made the threat, have spoken with him. No one has been arrested.
“Huma has worked for Hilary for 20 years — since Clinton was first lady.”
Abedin began working for the Clinton’s in 1996, 16 years ago, not twenty years ago.
“If she’d planned to kill Hillary she would have done it by now. Heck, she could have taken out a President back then too (Clinton).”
Bosshoss did not say that Abedin would kill anyone. Sheesh. Reading comprehension issues on top of Bachmann Derangement Syndrome is not pretty.
“but of course that would never be considered by Bachmann, even with all the evidence and high level security screening Human went through to get her jobs . . .”
She went through evidence? This statement is foolish. Getting through a security screening is not dispositive.
A shorter Sanity: “I don’t like Representative Bachmann and will smear her no matter what she does. Oh, and here are some links containing the opinions of politicians and my own worthless opinions as well. Yay me!”.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/how-michele-bachmann-finally-jumped-the-shark/2012/07/24/gJQAhSik6W_blog.html
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/163561536.html
You can defend her all you want, but her own party and the media have turned against her. Bachmann is always short on facts and long on innuendo. Her 15 minutes are up.
Mrs. Bachmann has allowed her craven self-obsessive narcissism…
To quote Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Bachmann is making accusations re: Keith Ellison. Other people have done the legwork needed to back up her accusations since no one in Washington or the MSM will. She needs to hold a press conference and present this paper trail of evidence. As the title of this post states, there IS a ‘there’, there.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/07/21/rep-keith-ellison-rewrites-history-on-his-muslim-brotherhood-cair-ties/
Here is a typical attack on Bachmann by the Left:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/40648_Michele_Bachmanns_Hateful_Religious_Ideology
Note the post title. I can tell you that there is not one chance in a thousand that the writer of the post knows anything about Bachmann’s religious affiliation. The post’s author quotes approvingly from an NYT opinion piece by Frank Bruni: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/opinion/bruni-the-divine-miss-m.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
There is not one chance in a thousand that Bruni knows anything about Bachmann’s religious affiliation, either.
Bruni prints the following Bachmann quote without sourcing it:
“This may be an opportunity for her now to be open to some spiritual things, now that she is suffering with that physical disease. She is a lesbian.”
This quote appears on a number of Left Wing sites (Kos, Democraticunderground). None of them source it, either.
I finally found the actual quote. It’s from a speech + Q&A Bachmann gave to a conservative education reform group in Minnesota, edwatch (now defunct). The nearly hour long session can be heard here: http://dumpmichelebachmann.com/audio/MB_Edwatch_Nov2004.mp3
It’s about 28 minutes in. The words about Etheredge are in spoken in a long bit about how Hollywood and the entertainment industry is trying to normalize sexual promiscuity and homosexuality. The entire quote, in context, is:
So the quote is removed from its social context (a speech to potential supporters who are, definition, concerned about what popular culture is teaching their children), you remove the quote from its rhetorical context (how popular culture, especially popular singers, are attempting to normalize homosexuality), and you remove it from the surrounding words (changing the final phrase, “she is a lesbian”, into a complete sentence.
Not a single Lefty source — none — bothered to even look at the context of the remarks. Dumpbachmann stripped it of its context, and the Lefties have been just handing back and forth for eight years.
“Nope. Easier to smear an innocent, make baseless accusations.”
Geez, Sanity; you make this just too easy! This strategy was invented and used by libturd DemocRATs for decades!
Since you live in that glass house, you might want to quit throwing bricks!
“Sanity” said:
“You can defend her all you want, but her own party and”
Or “some people in her party” rather than “her own party”, but I can see why you can’t tell the difference because you think…
“the media have turned against her.”
Yeah, because that _just_ happened. When you typed out those words, did you realize how stupid they would make you appear?
I’m guessing no because “short on facts and long on innuendo” fits you better than most, “Sanity”.
“Sanity” wrote:
“Bachmann is always short on facts and long on innuendo.”
McCain? Criticize a Republican?! Oh my Heavens!
I have demonstrated in my comments above that it is you, “Sanity”, that is short on facts and long on innuendo. “Worked for the Clintons for 20 years” Abedin was sixteen years old in 1992. Accusing a sitting member of the House of “sedition”, when you clearly do not know what the word “sedition” means.
Perhaps next you’ll link to a Daily Show monolog or a story in the Onion to prove your point
This seems like a good time to remember the respect congressman Obama gave to appointed government officials back in 2002: