Um...OK. Let's see what she did:
"The powerful lobbying outfit [AIPAC], known for its disciplined non-partisan advocacy for Israel, recently issued an action alert about the Florida congresswoman's waffling on Iran sanctions legislation. The letter urged members to contact Wasserman Schultz and cited a disparaging article about her in a conservative website founded by a prominent Republican political operative."The controversy, according to the article, is not that AIPAC is lobbying for a new Iran sanctions bill, but that it cited "a conservative website" to make the case that Wasserman Schultz is waffling on the issue. Presumably, if AIPAC had cited a liberal website to make its case, that would have been all right, I guess.
"That AIPAC was driving hard for new Iran sanctions legislation surprised no one. But its use of a right-wing blog to target a well-connected Jewish Democrat with a long history of support for Israel raised eyebrows among some current and former AIPAC officials. It also raised concerns that AIPAC's open revolt against the White House's Iran diplomacy could fray its relations with liberal Democrats on the Hill."In the 40 years I've been involved with AIPAC, this is the first time I've seen such a blatant departure from bipartisanship," said Doug Bloomfield, AIPAC's former chief lobbyist. Bloomfield was referring to an AIPAC letter scrutinizing Wasserman Schultz's silence on sanctions. "It seems clear that the "use of the right wing blog" is the real story in this article. This makes one wonder who chose the article's headline which attacks Wasserman Schultz's pro-Israel standing rather than AIPAC choice of sources. That article was pretty dishonest, but this isn't the Cable Monitor. This is Huffington Post Monitor, and so we look at how the Huffington Post covered the story (which it basically copied the first paragraph from and linked to the Cable for the rest):
AIPAC is "going after" Wasserman Schultz (or as the Huffington Post referred to her, a 'Jewish Dem leader') but not for "fighting against a war bill!" Fighting against an Iran sanctions bill, of which dozens have been passed over the decades from both the US and UN.
Referring to the Iran sanctions bill as a "war bill" is amazingly dishonest. But the Huffington Post does it anyway with no apology or attempts to disguise its dishonesty. They should be almost congratulated for their willingness to lie so blatantly.
Thanks to the Huffington Post's dishonest headline, the comments section came out in relative spades in favor of ZOG conspiracy theories and attacking Israel.
All in a day's work for the dishonest editors at the Huffington Post.