Monday, October 28, 2013

The HuffPost's Adelson Circus

I commented briefly upon the Huffington Post's spun Sheldon Adelson comment coverage last week and I shouldn't have been surprised to return from the weekend to find that they had milked the story for all they were worth. The Huffington Post blog published not one, not two, but three articles about it, but at least one was defending him. The other two were by professional Iranian apologists and naturally contained much pearl clutching and little honesty. 

We'll start with Trita Parsi, president of the Iranian American council and known shill of the Iranian regime. Right from the very start of the article Parsi has trouble with the truth:
"I write to call on you to categorically reject the deplorable comments made by Sheldon Adelson in which he said, at an event you convened, that the U.S. should nuke Iran. I was shocked that, instead of denouncing these comments, you embraced them, led a public defense of them, and even labeled his words as "innocuous.""
If this were coming from anyone else this spin of Adelson's comments would be disingenuous.  After all, Adelson did not say that the U.S. should nuke Iran. When people say that phase you hear using nuclear weapons to utterly annihilate the country in question. What Adelson said was that the U.S. should fire a nuclear weapon into Iran's desert so that no one would be hurt but the Iranian regime would see that we "mean business."

Adelson's comments were stupid enough on their own, they don't need to be spun. Yet that is exactly what Parsi did.

The reason why this is especially hypocritical coming from Parsi and other defenders of the Iranian regime is that parsing quotations is practically what they do for a living. Untold numbers of Iranian-loving Huffington Post readers have whined that Ahmadinejad didn't say Israel will be "wiped off the map" (even though he did) but rather that he said they will be "wiped from the pages of time" as if the two comments are completely different. Yet here is Parsi mischaracterizing the words of another just so his argument can look better. Can you handle the hypocrisy?

After making some personal attacks on Rabbi Boteach for not criticizing Adelson enough as he did, Parsi brings up Ahmadinejad but in another disingenuous manner (emphasis mine):
"Former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's hate-filled rhetoric against Israel was also far from innocuous, and it was rightly condemned by many -- including myself and many influential members of the Iranian-American community. Thankfully, his disastrous presidency is over and nobody is more pleased than Iranians and Iranian Americans who have borne the brunt of the Iranian government's repression."
Only shills like Parsi sincerely think that a change in President means a change in government. Not even people in the American government or the Huffington Post readership are willing to go that far. Iran's ruling regime has not changed, only put on a different face and they are certainly no less repressive than they were four years ago. Just today they closed down a paper for printing an "anti-Islamic" article. Parsi's attempts to claim that Iran is now an innocent just because one puppet of the regime was replaced by another isn't going to work. He then declares Adelson's comments "hate speech" and calls upon Israel's leaders to work to make peace with Iran...even though Iran is the one who doesn't even accept Israel's existence. Pretty typical for the Huffington Post. At least the comments weren't too bad.

We'll get to the next article at 10:30.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Hey guys we've started to employ a slight comment policy. We used to have completely open comments but then people abused it. So our comment policy is such: No obvious trolling or spamming. And be warned: unlike the Huffington Post we actually enforce our comment policy.