More D.S. on J.C.
Apparently, Debbie Schlussel has never heard the saying “when you find yourself stuck in a hole, stop digging.” Rather than apologizing for her dishonest, politically tone-deaf verbal assaults on a woman she doesn’t even know, or at least having the good sense to let the matter drop, the MENSA bimbo cum Coulter wannabe is forging ahead with even more ignorant bile, as if to suggest that compouding her original libel with more libel would make the original libel OK.
The links are there if you’re interested, but if you’ve read any of Schlussel’s unhinged rants you are aware it can be rather difficult to wade through. Not to worry, I’ve read her crap so you don’t have to. While Schlussel has not actually accused Carroll of being a terrorist (yet?), she has stated repeatedly that Carroll hates America and Israel. Here are the “facts” upon which these conclusions appear to have been based (this list originally appeared in a comment to Dean’s World):
- Jill Carroll opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
- Jill Carroll learned Arabic, and has even evidenced an affinity for Arab culture.
- Jill Carroll once wrote for an Arab newspaper.
- Jill Carroll signed a lame statement for the Iraqi Islamic Party immediately after she had been “freed” by her captors, but before she was convinced that she really had been freed.
- Jill Carroll has never recanted that statement. [This "fact" is well-documented as a lie, but that doesn't prevent the queen of D.S. from asserting it anyway, even after a commenter to her blog pointed out that it was not true.*]
- Some people who really do hate Israel, and who aren’t necessarily America’s best friends either, also opposed Jill Carroll being taken as a hostage.
- Anyone who can’t connect these obvious dots and jump to the conclusion that Jill Carroll is America’s answer to Guiliana Sgrena must be a “blind, deaf, and dumb Jill Carroll worshipper” who needs “LASIK.”
Since then, Schlussel has found a commenter who supposedly corroborates (you’re asked to trust Schlussel’s conclusions about this - she provides no direct evidence) that Carroll, like almost everyone else in that industry, held some left of center views a couple of years ago. Moroever, Schlussel’s human sock puppet / commenter also expresses shock at the fact that Carroll apparently liked being mistaken for a Canadian. If Schlussel really thinks there’s anything unusual about that, I have to wonder if, her claims of polyglot-hood nothwithstanding, she’s ever actually set foot outside the U.S. Even in relatively U.S.-friendly Europe, where Americans are usually just berated rather than kidnapped or murdered, Americans trying to pass themselves off as Canadians to avoid trouble are a dime a dozen. Schlussel has also beaten to a pulp the straw men who pray to the altar of Jill Carroll or believe she is a saint (don’t you have to be dead for that anyway?), while jealously guarding her own equally inane, but apparently non-straw view that anyone who isn’t a saint must deserve to be kidnapped and murdered, or, failiing that, at least skewered by wannabe journalists cum bloggers with nothing better to do.
Meanwhile, Jeff Jacoby and Jim Geraghty offer much more sober takes on the issue, resulting in more D.S. being spewed in their direction, as well. Why doesn’t Schlussel cut to the chase, and just come out and say (in all caps, of course) that everyone in the world is an evil, America-hating, anti-Semitic (unless you count Arabs as Semites), terror-sympathizing rube except her?
*Her response to that commenter (which she did in fact type in all caps just in case the words were not shrill enough to stand on their own) speaks volumes:
OOPS! THOUGHT WE WARDED OFF THE NON-READERS. BUT GUESS NOT. THE FACT IS THE FOCUS OF MY WORK WAS HER VIEWS AS DESCRIBED BY HER FORMER EMPLOYER, HER CHOICE OF FORMER EMPLOYER, HER CHOICE OF CLOSE FRIEND, AND HER CHOICE OF ALLIES IN THE U.S. (AS WELL AS THEIR CHOICE OF HER AS A CAUSE AMONG ALL OTHER HOSTAGES).
Note how D.S. conveniently ignores the fact that she had also made hay over the interview the commenter was referring to - which she now conveniently ignores but nevertheless does not correct.
WHEN DID SHE RECANT OR DISAVOW THOSE? NEVER.
That’s right, Carroll has never disavowed the fact that she has (or at least had, prior to being taken hostage) an affinity for Arab culture. Nor has she recanted the fact that she once wrote for an Arab-owned newspaper, or that many people, including some Arabs, pressed for her release while she was in captivity. All this begs the question of WTF she should recant or disavow any of this stuff, let alone what any of it has to do with Schlussel’s libel of her.
SO LOOK IN THE MIRROR, BUDDY. I OWE AN APOLOGY TO NO-ONE. BUT YOU DO . . . TO ME.
OK, let’s recap: Debbie Schlussel mounts a sleazy, factually-challenged, innuendo-laden jihad against Jill Carroll, and flat-out lies about Carroll not having recanted her statements to the Islamic Party in Iraq, and for that she owed an apology to no one. OTOH, a commenter accurately points out that Schlussel has mischaracterized Carroll, and for that the commenter is supposed to apologize to her. O-kay.
April 10th, 2006 at 6:49 pm
Not that I care about this issue one way or the other, but out of boredom I followed some of your links, and I think this post is at least as dishonest as the stuff by Schussel.
[Well, fuck you, too.]
Your list includes 3: “Jill Caroll once wrote for an Arab newspaper”. In fact Schussel claims that the newpaper was not merely Arab but Islamist and that the editor of the paper thought that Caroll shared his views.
[Well gee whiz. Apparently, I was not as clear as I might have been about what this list was and was not intended to be. It was intended to be a list of all the FACTS Schlussel relied on to support her otherwise unfounded assertions about Carroll. It was NOT intended to be a comprehensive list of all the other, equally unfounded crap that Schlussel has spewed over the years. To compile a list that long, I'd have to devote an entire blog just to dealing with Schlussel, an endeavor I have neither the time nor the energy to engage in. Thus far, neither you nor Schlussel has produced one iota of evidence that the Jordan Times is any more "Islamist," whatever the hell that word is supposed to mean, than any other newspaper in any other Arab country. Barring any such evidence, the only established FACT we have to go on is that she wrote for a newspaper in an Arab country - and a relatively U.S. friendly one, at that.]
Your number 6 is so misleading as to be close to a lie.
[Not nearly as close as your smarmy shit about my "dishonesty" is to getting you banned. If you think I've got a fact wrong, feel free to provide all the evidence in the world to rebut it. But don't you dare question my honesty or my integrity, as you did repeatedly in this comment. Go there again, and you're gone for good. Do I make myself clear?]
The issue isn’t just some anti-Israel groups that “aren’t necessarily America’s best friends”.
[Nor did I say it was. "Some anti-Israel groups" could include just about any left of center outfits in America or Western Europe, which is why I didn't use such an innocuous phrase to describe them. Go back and read the phrase you conveniently - or, were I to stoop to your level, I might say "dishonestly" - elided.]
It is groups with terrorist ties that apparently used those ties to get Carroll released even though they have not raised a finger for anyone else.
["Apparently" based on what, exactly? No, Schlussel's innuendos don't count. If you have any hard evidence to show that CAIR or anyone else with ties to any terrorist group used those ties to get Carroll released, let's see it. While you're at it, maybe you can also explain why it took them three fucking months - three times the length of Giuliana Sgrena's captivity - to pull it off.]
This fact does raise legitimate suspicions about Carroll’s relationship with terrorists.
[Like Schlussel, you seem to have trouble distinguishing facts from made-up, uncorroborated assertions. Just because you arbitrarily choose to believe something is true does not make it a "fact." Either you can corroborate it or you can't. So far, neither you nor Schlussel has even tried.]
And as to number 2, I’m sorry, but that an American woman who approves of the sexual revolution (as Carroll implied in an interview quoted by Schussel) should idolize Arab culture is also deeply suspicious.
[If you actually believe something that stupid, you should be sorry indeed. The fact of the matter is, naive, liberal people tend to be supporters of the sexual revolution, and also tend to be eager to soak up other cultures. That's not necessarily a bad thing, and it's certainly not evidence that they harbor ill-will toward America or anyone else.]
What could there possibly be in Arab culture to attract an admirer of the Sixties other than the America hatred?
[The same thing there could be about Latino culture, which tends to be much more "retro" than ours in many ways. That doesn't mean that all Americans who interest themselves in that culture, or any other, are doing so out of spite for their own country.]
Schussel is exaggerating her case but she does have a case. And you are exaggerating her exaggerations.
[I've exaggerated nothing. Her "case," once you cut out all the hand-waving and innuendos, boils down to the seven "facts" I listed above - and one of those is a demostrable lie. If you think the remaining six amount to her having a case, then just like anyone else, you're entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts, and simply parrotting her "facts," which neither you nor she has been able or willing to corroborate, does not make them so.]
April 11th, 2006 at 10:12 pm
[...] Anyone who dislikes Ann Coulter should really, really, really hate Debbie Schlussel. While Coulter jerks people’s chains by makes outrageous statements with a gleam in her eye, Schlussel just spews her hate with no trace of humor at all. Case in point: while every American with an ounce of decency celebrated Jill Carroll’s release, Schlussel pulled a Fred Phelps and piled on with a series of increasingly shrill posts implying Carroll was a terrorist sympathizer. When called on her tone-deaf behavior, Schlussel turns around and plays the victim, arguing that she owes Carroll no apologies for her smears, yet for some oddball reason every blogger who got a minor detail about Schlussel’s propaganda wrong must owe her an apology. A brief summary of Schlussel’s, smears, innuendos, guilt-by-association-with-an-association-with-an-association arguments and outright lies is here. [...]
April 12th, 2006 at 8:36 am
Geeze, maybe we should have a Debbie Schlussel is a Cupid Stunt carnival! [Excellent idea! - X.]
The fact that any sane person would leave comments in her defense would be frightening, only it’s obvious that the commentor is not sane.
[He's left saner comments before. Not sure what got into him this time.]
April 12th, 2006 at 11:45 am
That’s a rockin idea there! I’ll be glad to share hosting duties!
April 12th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
[...] XRLQ takes on Debbie Schussel. [...]
April 12th, 2006 at 9:01 pm
X writes: “Apparently, I was not as clear as I might have been about what this list was and was not intended to be. It was intended to be a list of all the FACTS Schlussel relied on to support her otherwise unfounded assertions about Carroll.”
No, you weren’t as clear as you might have been. The sneer quotes you put around “facts” make it appear that this was a list of mere claims that Schussel had made. As a list of claims, I stand my my criticisms: you left out important components of her claims, and I think that when read in that way, my claims of dishonesty are well-founded.
I’m glad to read that it wasn’t dishonesty but just a misunderstanding. Also, on re-reading, I see that I could have been more diplomatic, but I still think you over-reacted.
You also seem to have misunderstood my intent. I did not intend to defend Schussel. Nor did I intend to endorse any of her claims; I don’t know whether that newspaper is Islamist or not. All I intended to do was to point out what I viewed as your dishonesty so that you could respond. The alternative would have been for me to just quietly assume that you were being dishonest and not give you a chance to defend yourself.
Finally, I stand by my claim that it is suspicious when someone who disdains 50’s America for a particular set of features, loves another culture that has all of those features to a greater degree than 50’s America did. It makes you doubt their honesty about why they disdain 50’s America.
Post-finally, I don’t claim that the above paragraph applies to Jill Carrol, but if it does then this would be a legitimate point for Schussel to make.
April 12th, 2006 at 9:46 pm
OK, I can see how that caused some confusion. The point of the sneer quotes was to clarify that the factual assertions themselves were not necessarily true - particularly given that one of them, #5, is not. It was not my intent to blur the distinction between factual assertions (e.g., that Carroll wrote for the Jordan Times) from unverifiable, unfalsifiable statements of opinion (e.g, that the Jordan Times is “Islamist,” an undefined term).
That was my point; you can read every assertion of Schlussel’s and follow every link, and you STILL won’t know that, if indeed “Islamist” even has a coherent enough definition to make such an endeavor possible. The only hard, verifiable facts Schlussel gave us about the paper is that it is owned and operated by the government of Jordan, a state that can scarcely be described as “Islamist” by anyone (unless, of course, “Islamist” is just a synonym for “Islamic,” which all Arab nations are).
I’m not sure who the intended “you” is in that last sentence, but it certainly doesn’t make me doubt anyone’s honesty. Consistency, yes, honesty, no. Liberalism is full of silly contradictions like that. Indeed, I’d venture to guess that most liberals disdain 1950s America, while also holding cartoonishly naive, romanticized concepts of societies far less progressive than ours. It goes with the territory of being a liberal. Yes, it makes the liberals wrong, laughably so, even. But it doesn’t make them liars.
That was one alternative, yes, but hardly the only one. Another, far better option would have been to have raised whatever factual issues you had, argued why you thought I was wrong, and given me a chance to respond to that without insuating that I was not only wrong, but dishonest about it. Oh well, life goes on.