Steven Emerson Lies Again, Plays Dumb
What would you call a supposed "counter-terrorism analyst's" shrill attack on a mainstream Muslim organization for speaking out against Muslim fringe extremists? "Shockingly misguided"? "Suspicious"? "Disingenuous"?
A "shrill attack" maybe?
Well guess what that "counter-terror analyst" would call your objections?
You guessed it: "a shrill attack" of course.
Such was Steven Emerson's alarming characterization of CAIR-Chicago's response for daring to take issue with with his puff piece which attacked us for speaking out against RevolutionMuslim.com and its veiled death threat against Comedy Central's South Park.
Rather than take issue with RevolutionMuslim's words and actions, the amazing contortionist Mr. Emerson sought to present CAIR's words and actions as the problem, once again staying true to the IPT's disturbing track record where real extremists are often given a pass, and where Mr. Emerson goes after the moderate American Muslim establishment in their stead.
We call that "anti-Muslim hysterics." Mr. Emerson quips back, "name some."
Ok. We just named one, but here's more:
Take a look at the IPT's main page right now. That is as random a sampling of the site as anyone one can expect to find.
There are four main pieces on the front page as of 8:00cst, April 30, 2010.
Whom are they about? (Keep in mind, this is a site that claims to be "An Investigative Project on Terrorism")
Al Qaeda? Osama Bin Laden? Ayman Al Zawahiri? Abu Musab Al Zarqawi? An underground terror cell in New York or Bali?
Nope, ALL FOUR pieces are about the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), and the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), two of the largest and most mainstream American Muslim organizations in this country.
Ok, when you are done reading Mr. Emerson's non-terrorism "investigative project on terrorism" features, shift your eyes over to the right column where you will find articles about more "terrorists" of the sort that preoccupy Mr. Emerson:
Democratically-elected US Congressman Keith Ellison, US presidential advisor Dalia Mogahed, British Member of Parliament George Galloway, Muslim reformer and peace activist Professor Tariq Ramadan, and world-renowned Muslim scholar Yusuf Al Qaradawi.
What do CAIR, ICNA, ISNA, MPAC, MSA, MSU and the horrible "terrorists" named in the above paragraph all have in common?
Well, for one they have never held a gun nor hurt a human being in their lives.
Oh and this: they have all at one point spoken out convincingly against the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories and Israel's ongoing displacement and dispossession of the Palestinians.
This is empirical evidence of the widespread charge against Mr. Emerson: that his pretending to be a terrorism analyst concerned about US national security is but a front for a less noble stealth mission and that is to attack, discredit and smear perceived critics of the illegal Israeli occupation in an attempt to muffle and marginalize their voices.
Often, Mr. Emerson finds it hard to suppress his true advocacy. In one piece, Mr. Emerson rips on the Muslim Student Union for "plotting to silence Israel's ambassador." Apparently, Mr. Emerson believes that this is an allegation that requires a "counter-terrorism" analyst's swift intervention.
Back to Mr. Emerson's complaint about CAIR-Chicago's "shrill attack":
Mr. Emerson calls CAIR-Chicago's carefully documented response "hastily assembled" presumably because it was swiftly produced. So, is his response to our response then also "hastily assembled" since it was put together in similarly swift fashion?
More projection anyone?
Mr. Emerson Lies Again
Well, as it so happens, there is ample evidence Mr. Emerson's response was indeed hastily assembled:
Mr. Emerson publicly charges that CAIR responded to the IPT only once in the last two and a half years. That's yet another blatant lie from Mr. Emerson. In fact, CAIR-Chicago's Anti-Hate Center whose "shrill attack" Mr. Emerson is now complaining about, deployed a previous "shrill attack" on Mr. Emerson and the IPT less than a year ago: May 5 of 2009 to be exact. (By the way, that was the only other time besides this one we were made aware of a dedicated IPT piece smearing CAIR-Chicago).
To make matters worse for the lying Mr. Emerson, our older "shrill attack" is clearly referenced right there in paragraph 12 of our more recent "shrill attack" which he must have read in order to respond to word for word. Our reference comes complete with a link so Mr. Emerson does not even have to exert any effort by calling up that "proprietary investigative tool" of his, the Google search box.
So how could he still make a claim to the contrary?
One option is that he is a sloppy reader (great quality for an investigative reporter). Well, we knew he was fairly incompetent, but even we never thought he could be that much of a dud.
Of course, Mr. Emerson could just be lying to your face, once again hoping you may not care enough to double-check his claims. (That should be a little red flag to anyone left out there who still gives an ounce of credence to the IPT's concocted reports.)
That being said, it is generally true that most CAIR chapters do not think that Mr. Emerson's internet tabloid is worth their ink (or rather digital bytes). While we cannot blame them in the least, we are truly sorry that this seems to hurt the feelings of the attention-craving Mr. Emerson. That is why we gift him responses every now and then, especially when it gets slow around the office. Too bad our responses also hurt his feelings.
Mr. Emerson, you are a tough man to please.
Mr. Emerson Plays Dumb
Now to the comical part of Mr. Emerson's response.
The egg-faced Mr. Emerson was caught red-handed lying about Mr. Rehab's statement. Mr. Emerson falsely stated that Mr. Rehab claimed that RevolutionMuslim is a fraudulent group. After being exposed as a cut-and-paste bandit and a less than honest paraphraser, Mr. Emerson rushed to try to weasel his way out.
Realizing he has little room to wiggle, Mr. Emerson began with a shy admission of guilt: "It's true, Rehab never says 'I think they are a fraud.'"
That-a-boy Mr. Emerson, so far so good.
But now for the funny part, Mr. Emerson then says:
"Our reference paraphrased his message. "Most suspect the group is fraudulent," he wrote. Most what? It's a wholly unsubstantiated claim, unless he means most CAIR officials."
Really? Is that what is most logically concluded? Let us look at Mr. Rehab's full quote again so we can assess Mr. Emerson's comprehensive and analytical skills:
"The “Muslims” in this case are a group of literally 5-10 people who are widely reviled by the mainstream community for their radical and confrontational style including harassing Muslims outside mosques (where they tend to be banned) with outlandishly provocative anti-American rhetoric. Most suspect the group is fraudulent.”
Ok, you don't have to have scored a 36 on your ACT's to figure out that the "Most" refers to "the mainstream community" which is clearly inferred from reading the sentence before it, and not "most CAIR officials" as Mr. Emerson strangely claims but for which there is no reference.
Mr. Emerson, your defense is even more embarrasing than your crime. You should have quit while you were ahead.
Mr. Emerson complains that we think he is devoid of credentials.
Perhaps he has worked to blackout the time he asserted with confidence and jubilation that the 1994 Oklahoma City bombing "showed a Middle Eastern trait" and that the city was "probably considered one of the largest centers of radical Islamic activity outside the United States."
Of course, it turned out that he was way off yet again, and that Timothy McVeigh was to blame. After Mr. Emerson's incompetence was duly exposed, CBS decided not to renew his contract and blacklisted him for five years.
Funny he did not mention that honor when boasting some award he won.
He can pretend to have forgotten, but the world won't play along.
Lastly, Mr. Emerson shows his true colors in the last paragraph of his response. Being unable to list any evidence to substantiate his false claims against CAIR, he references the claims of "government prosecutors" from the Bush administration, claims that have never been tested in a US court of law, let alone found to withstand testing. Clearly Mr. Emerson does not understand our justice system in this great country and thinks that an untested allegation is synonymous with a conviction. Again, Mr. Emerson plays his readers for dumb but ends up looking the dumb one.