It is fitting that these days in 2009 Schlussel sees enemies and threats everywhere!

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.

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).

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.]

[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.]