Site Presented By
Saturday, Nov 7, 2009
we are profoundly disturbed by your continuing efforts to smear ADL as being "extremely reluctant" to condemn Nazi/Hitler attacks emanating from the political right.
If they are so “profoundly disturbed” by the accusation, then why do they remain “extremely reluctant” to condemn these attacks?
Although this really goes without saying, I’m going to say it: it would be extremely easy for them to end this controversy by simply coming out and condemning O’Reilly for his repeated Nazi/Hitler attacks.
It would be much simpler, in fact, than responding the way they did to Glenn, which only serves to keep the controversy alive while simultaneously underscoring and reinforcing Glenn’s point.
That they go to such lengths to avoid a single criticism of Mr. O’Reilly while being extremely quick to condemn Move On (for a comparison not sanctioned by them and immediately removed) speaks volumes on this issue.
O’Reilly is perfectly safe from criticism from ADL for his continued use of Nazi/Hitler comparisons – and he knows it. That is the underlying (if not intentional) message that their response to Glenn gives him and others on the right who support a war against Iran.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The Maine fight was supposed to be the dress rehearsal for repealing California's Prop. 8 -- but gay marriage lost
Once one obtains Seriousness credentials in the Washington media, they are irrevocable no matter one's conduct.
Salon headlines in your mailbox
