Sunday, January 08, 2006

My Comments To Professor Rosa Brooks

Professor Brooks appeared on Hugh Hewitt's radio program last week to discuss a recent editorial she had written for the LA Times. In the Editorial Professor Brooks raises the possibility of GWB being impeached if the Dems somehow gain control of the congress in 2006. She also suggests there is some merit to the Dems claims. She specifically and repeatedly mentions the recent NSA story.



The funny thing is as soon as the questions turn from small talk to Brook's editorial she admits almost immediately that the NSA story is a minor issue and in her words:

the NSA wiretapping scandal, is in some ways, the least of it.It seems to me that that looks more like a technicality than for instance, possibly deliberately misleading people about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq

Then why did she make that the focus of virtually her entire article?

She also admits pretty quickly that she is not an expert on the subject and can't really say with any authority if what the Bush admin did was any violation of the law at all. Read this telling exchange:

HH: So they specifically reserved the question to one side, and the foreign intelligence surveillance court appeals board, in In Re Sealed Case number 2, also said no, the president has the authority to do this. So given that the federal authority...

RB: Well, you know, Hugh, I mean, you've got the case law at your fingertips, and I'm not going to challenge you on it, because I don't. And this is actually why, as I said a few minutes ago, this seems like the least of it to me. I mean, this seems to me to be an open question. You know, I'm not an expert on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or the case law behind it. I don't know.

Ok so she admits she really doesn't know what she is talking about fine. Now this brings me to the part of the interview that I took exceptional issue with. I have a serious problem with people who make outlandish claims that have already been demonstrably and repeatedly proven false. Call me crazy but it just makes me see red when people do this and even more so when they get away with it. I am just funny that way. Here is where Professor Brooks repeats the tired meme of "there are no links between Iraq and Al Qaeda".


possibly deliberately misleading people about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, potential violation of federal law on interrogations and detentions policy, and speaking specifically of the torture statute in the war crimes statute.


now anyone who wants to know and anyone who has read the 9/11 report, anyone who has read The Connection by Stephen F. Hayes or any of his 2 dozen or so articles on this topic know that there is no dispute. Saddam Hussein gave money, and training, held meetings, publicly praised (including the 9/11 attacks) and gave safe harbor to numerous terrorists. There are mountains of documentary evidence, including photos, documents, and witnesses supporting this.

Again call me crazy but I just expect a College professor to know what she is talking about before making an outlandish claim like this in one of the largest newspapers in the country or on a national radio show.

So I felt compelled to call Hugh that day and point it out. I also felt compelled to comment on Professor Brooks' blog and gave her some reference material so she can no longer claim ignorance of the facts. Here are my Comments on Professor Brooks blog:



I actually called in that day to gloat about the Texas win over USC but also to comment on your apparent complete ignorance of the numerous documented ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda. as well as various other well known terrorist organizations.


Or are you one of the people who believe Abu Sayyaf leaders called Iraqi intelligence agents to discuss their night out bowling?

In case you have missed the over 2 dozen articles Stephen F. Hayes has written on the topic here are a few samples. Pay particular attention to the last one where he documents that Saddam trained THOUSANDS of terrorists in Iraq during the 4 years prior to the invasion. This particular claim has been confirmed by 11 government officials.


Mr. Hayes writes:

“The photographs and documents on Iraqi training camps come from a collection of some 2 million "exploitable items" captured in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan. They include handwritten notes, typed documents, audiotapes, videotapes, compact discs, floppy discs, and computer hard drives.”

Now you may have been ignorant before but that excuse is gone for you professor Brooks. I truly hope you are honest enough to leave this particular falsehood out of your repertoire in future articles or interviews on national radio programs.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/167gwjtp.asp

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp



Am I out of line?

Should't we expect serious people writing for major newspapers and appearing on national radio shows to know what they are talking about?

Hugh suggested he would have her back on the program. I hope he asks her specifically about the ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda. She seems like a nice lady, and she did not come across as a partisan hack or ideologue. I hope she has the intellectual honesty to admit she was wrong.


Hugh talks a little bit about that interview in the context of the impending doom of the MSM here. I don't know if Michael Hiltzik will ever appear on Hugh's show again. I am leaning towards no.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home