Almost censored journalist damages ability to fully credit him
The Daily Caller ran an interview with Sam Husseini, a journalist who'd asked a hard question to a Saudi prince at the National Press Club and was almost thrown out until outcry got him reinstated:
Unfortunately, here's where this guy - and the site's staff to boot - jaw-droppingly dampen the impact of his whole discussion:
Next, I have to present a challenging question of my own: if he's signaling support for Paul, how can he possibly support a politician who advocates turning a deaf ear and blind eye at Iran's nuclear weapon development? Even now, after the explosion that took place circa their uranium development in Isfahan, that doesn't mean the danger is over, nor should we turn our backs to the kind of oppression they happen to lead upon their own public. But that's what Paul is doing, and how Husseini can ignore that - not to mention the fact that many conservatives, Breitbart included, happen to dislike him because of his Chomskyite tactics - is beyond me.
However, this is indicative of a problem I happen to have with the Daily Caller - they seem strangely supportive or at least blandly tolerant of Paul's moonbat mindset and even hostility to Israel, not to mention they ignored how quite a few kooks have supported him. That last topic also mentions how Paul gave a speech of his own against the killing of al-Awlaki at the very National Press Club Husseini goes to, which makes me wonder if something odd isn't going on here.
On their own terms, the questions the reporter asked of the Saudi prince are important ones. Yet it's shocking and very sad that he was willing to whitewash a moonbat like Paul, and pretty much contradicted his own argument considering Iran's a horrific lot themselves.
Writer and activist Sam Husseini asked Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal a tough question at a National Press Club news conference earlier this month. As a result, and much to the chagrin of his colleagues, his membership in the organization was suspended.Some noteworthy parts of the main interview:
“There’s been a lot of talk about the legitimacy of the Syrian regime,” Husseini asked Prince Turki, the kingdom’s former ambassador to the United States. “I want to know what legitimacy your regime has, sir.”
“You come before us, representative of one of the most autocratic, misogynistic regimes on the face of the earth,” Husseini continued. “Human Rights Watch and others report of torture, detention of activists, you squelched the democratic uprising in Bahrain, you tried to overturn the democratic uprising in Egypt, and indeed you continue to oppress your own people. What legitimacy does your regime have — other than billions of dollars and weapons?”
Husseini’s blunt tone and line of questioning, both unusual for the club, did not escape notice. He was quickly reprimanded, and within hours, his membership in the club had been suspended.
“Raising eyebrows is good,” Husseini told The Daily Caller in an interview, “a lot better than lowering eyelids.”
He offered no apologies for his manner of questioning, saying that “there is an objective reality. Real people are suffering. It should be said. I think my questions come off like fingernails on chalkboard to certain people because they question the established order and certain facts are so inconvenient.”
The uproar following Husseini’s interview was bad publicity for the National Press Club, and by Monday morning they had reversed their decision. “I welcome this decision and aim to ask ever tougher and sharper questions,” Husseini wrote on his blog. “I hope others will as well.”
2) Where does the situation with the National Press Club stand? Are you still suspended? Do expect to ever become a member in good standing again? And what has the reaction been from your colleagues — are people standing with you, or are people telling you you were out of bounds that day?Now this is definitely important stuff, and challenging the prince about the vicious regime he lords over along with a number of other demonic fiends was definitely a bold step to take.
I’ve gotten a lot of support from people, some at the Press Club and a lot online, and I’m very grateful for that. After I wrote an open letter to the Press Club Ethics Committee, they lifted the suspension. I sincerely hope I won’t be singled out in any way after this point — or more properly, I hope the Press Club will actually encourage, not just me, but others to be asking the critical “let’s talk about the elephant in the room” type questions.
3) Your question was blunt, and I can see why it would raise eyebrows. Were you surprised at the reaction you got from the Press Club staff? Would you perhaps rephrase it if you could do it again? Why was it important for you to say the Saudi regime is one of the most “autocratic, misogynistic regimes” on earth, and not just ask how Turki justifies the legitimacy of the regime?
Raising eyebrows is good, a lot better than lowering eyelids. I would do it fundamentally the same. There was a bit of crosstalk as I added at the end of my question — what is your legitimacy, “other than billions of dollars and weapons” and I wish I’d gotten that out more clearly. I wish it were tougher, sharper. My actual question was 37 seconds, before the “Prince” attempted to have a folksy back and forth asking me if I’d been to Saudi Arabia, like you had to go to Stalin’s Soviet Union to know that was oppressive. I believe it’s good to have succinct factual information setting up a question, especially given how ill informed the U.S. public has been. Some things are true. It is an “autocratic, misogynistic regime.” There is an objective reality. Real people are suffering. It should be said. I think my questions come off like fingernails on chalkboard to certain people because they question the established order and certain facts are so inconvenient.
Unfortunately, here's where this guy - and the site's staff to boot - jaw-droppingly dampen the impact of his whole discussion:
5) Conservatives often charge that the media has a liberal bias, and liberals are now starting to say there’s actually a conservative bias. Would you say one is more correct than the other, and do you think it’s possible to have a truly objective media? Would you say that you come at the issues from either a left or right perspective, and if so, does that matter?If you think his saying "pro-war/corporate" is bewildering, it is. So too is any support he and the DC are giving to a demagogue moonbat like Paul. Huh?!? Let me now see if I can counter his claim the MSM don't care about Paul, by providing a couple of items from source like the Associated Press, Houston Chronicle, Detroit Metro Times, US News & World Report, MSNBC, and just about whatever else you can find on Google's news. (Also see this earlier topic.) That's not wide coverage, especially from the AP?
I think quite often the issues are not left or right — there is a pro-corporate, pro-war bias. So, for example, much of the establishment media clearly have it in for Ron Paul, either ignoring or attempting to belittle his candidacy. Left-right is breaking down in many ways. That was the idea behind another project of mine: VotePact.org — which advocates conscientious conservatives (who are trapped by establishment Republican operatives) pairing up with principled progressives (who have been trapped by establishment Democratic apparatchiks). So you’d siphon off votes in pairs to third or independent candidates, thus solving the “spoiler” problem. One could vote for the Green or Socialist candidates while the other for the Libertarian or Constitution Party candidates — or you could have the emergence of a Ron Paul-Denis Kucinich type ticket. The two of them agree with each other on war, Wall Street bailouts, corporate trade deals and a host of other issues. They have majority support, but they don’t win because the Bush-Clinton axis and much of the corporate establishment is on the other side.
Next, I have to present a challenging question of my own: if he's signaling support for Paul, how can he possibly support a politician who advocates turning a deaf ear and blind eye at Iran's nuclear weapon development? Even now, after the explosion that took place circa their uranium development in Isfahan, that doesn't mean the danger is over, nor should we turn our backs to the kind of oppression they happen to lead upon their own public. But that's what Paul is doing, and how Husseini can ignore that - not to mention the fact that many conservatives, Breitbart included, happen to dislike him because of his Chomskyite tactics - is beyond me.
However, this is indicative of a problem I happen to have with the Daily Caller - they seem strangely supportive or at least blandly tolerant of Paul's moonbat mindset and even hostility to Israel, not to mention they ignored how quite a few kooks have supported him. That last topic also mentions how Paul gave a speech of his own against the killing of al-Awlaki at the very National Press Club Husseini goes to, which makes me wonder if something odd isn't going on here.
On their own terms, the questions the reporter asked of the Saudi prince are important ones. Yet it's shocking and very sad that he was willing to whitewash a moonbat like Paul, and pretty much contradicted his own argument considering Iran's a horrific lot themselves.
Labels: anti-americanism, dhimmitude, House of Saud, islam, jihad, misogyny, Moonbattery, msm foulness, RINOs, terrorism, United States
