For those so quick to trash Rev. Jackson for the "quotes" attributed to him in a NY Post column

You might want to consider the fact that the columnist who cited those out-of-context sentence fragments - which not one other journalist attending the World Economic Forum seemed to hear or give enough credence to report on - is the same guy who just last month claimed that Barack Obama tried to get the Iraqis to postpone an agreement for a U.S. troop drawdown.

Maybe you all should consider the source before assuming that everything he writes is true, especially given how conveniently he chopped up the comments that he said Rev. Jackson gave.

I don't know whether Rev Jackson said these things or not. But I certainly wouldn't assume that he did - and then use it to trash him for it - based upon the word of this guy.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm?page=0

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hi9TDNHvuBZpFsO8ZbiFYsnbIl3A

Obama camp hits back at Iraq double-talk claim
Sep 15, 2008

PUEBLO, Colorado (AFP) — Barack Obama's White House campaign angrily denied Monday a report that he had secretly urged the Iraqis to postpone a deal to withdraw US troops until after November's election.

In the New York Post, conservative Iranian-born columnist Amir Taheri quoted Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari as saying the Democrat made the demand when he visited Baghdad in July, while publicly demanding an early withdrawal . . .

The Republican campaign of John McCain seized on the report to accuse Obama of double-speak on Iraq, calling it an "egregious act of political interference by a presidential candidate seeking political advantage overseas."

But Obama's national security spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said Taheri's article bore "as much resemblance to the truth as a McCain campaign commercial."

In fact, Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a "Strategic Framework Agreement" governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office, she said.

. . .
"These outright distortions will not changes the facts."

...was forcing Jews to wear yellow stars:

http://www.propeller.com/story/2008/09/16/iraq-scholar-amir-taheri-the-man-behind-the-latest-obama-smear-has-quotno-credibilityquot/

Could it be because no one but this one guy seemed to have heard him say it?

. . .I'm not saying not to hold him accountable for legitimate shit but this is really a stretch, as were his "hot mic" comments.

weren't a stretch. This is a guy who campaigned against Obama back when Obama first ran for Congress. Both Jesse Jackson and Bill Clinton sided with the incumbent guy in order to keep Obama down. And Jackson has always believed Obama isn't "black enough." Well I say fuck him. Obama is smarter and better at dealing with race relations than Jesse Jackson ever will be. Jackson is pretty much a racist in my book.

NY Post?

The person above me posted that the hot mic comments were a stretch. They weren't. He fucking said them and everyone's heard them. The NY Post comments, however, are a stretch at this point unless someone else corroborates them (not likely).

Letting them fade away.

there were dozens of empty responses to kick it up... all vacuous, "do say" and "oh really? I had no idea" kind of things.

THEN... I started looking at the names... MOST if not ALL of them had been in my ignore bin during the primaries for either repeating Right Wing slime about Obama or defending those that did, in a personal way.

This morning, I was amazed. I'm still on my first cup of coffee... I may be a little bit wrong here...

but my eyes opened up... there it is

NOW, what is the possible benefit? who profits? I can only guess.

The style of blitzing the board is similar to other waves of disruption we've experienced here on other issues. It's always inflammatory. It always goads people into extreme responses... gets us scrapping among ourselves.

They're lined up in those threads calling the Reverend everything but a person. Accusing those that defend him of not caring if Obama loses... of anti-semitism... the whole nine yards.

I had NO idea HOW infested this place is with socks, proxies, and little vandals.... wannabe 007's... playing "spy vs spy vs spy."

At THIS wonderful juncture after this marathon of a primary and general election season...

These fuckers wanna bring a lynching party to DU

They ain't worth talking to although some of the respondees are well meaning... hell yesterday, even I was up in there.

but now?

I won't even post about this again... anybody got somethin to say to me regarding my comments here can send me a private message.

I'm done... more coffee and an early morning shower... just to get it offa me.

From http://www.reddingnewsreview.com/newspages/2008newspages/jackson_denies_zionist_remarks_08_091000206.htm :

"Jackson denies 'Zionist' remarks, says report a 'Swift Boat' tactic

By Robert "Rob" Redding Jr. Publisher Oct. 15, 2008, 11:45 a.m. -

The Rev. Jesse Jackson this morning vehemently denied saying that Jews living in Israel will lose power under Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama. "That is not true," Jackson told XM radio talk show host Joe Madison. "That's a fabrication."

Amir Taheri, an Iranian columnist working at the New York Post, yesterday reported that Jackson told an audience at the World Policy Forum in France last week that the "Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades" will lose influence if Obama is elected.

Jackson said the author has no credibility - he pointed to inaccuracies in the writer's previous Obama-related reports. "My sense is that to drop this article the day before the debate, to be the news of the debate, is a Swift Boat tactic and we refute it, we reject it," he said. "The writer choose to distort and fabricate and we are now pursing vigorously the guy.""

.. and Jesse said the "quotes" were 'an outright lie'.

until someone has him on tape. But you gotta admit, the rev's actions in the past, make him prime fodder for the association with this kind of statement. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now. Especially, since the so called interviewer is suspect at best and the only news sources that seem to be reporting this story are hard rightwing newspapers and television.

Everybody deserves the benefit of a doubt. We'll see.

Geez, people are jumpy here.