JournoList on Islamic Terrorism and Rush Limbaugh

The Daily Caller tells us not all those on the JournoList want to see Rush Limbaugh dead and believe there is no Islamic extremism in the U.S. After Army Major Nidal Hasan massacred 14 at Fort Hood Texas, yelling “Allahu Akbar” as he gunned down American soldiers, civilians and an unborn child, the JournoList groupies had a conversation about the media’s responsibility to show the obvious ties to Islamic jihad, and someone actually defended Rush Limbaugh.


James Surowiecki, The New Yorker:

Luke Mitchell, then of Harper’s magazine, said doing so “points the way to things that are actually alarmingly dangerous, such as the idea that there is a large conspiracy of Islamists at work in the United States, that we need to ‘do something’ about this conspiracy.”

[James] Surowiecki replied to Mitchell and others that the truth was worth pursuing.

“I find it bizarre that anyone would argue that an accurate description of what happened is somehow pointless,” Surowiecki said. “That is, that it’s not useful to offer up an accurate picture of Hasan’s actions because nothing obvious follows from it. We want, as much as possible, to have a clear picture of what’s actually going on in the world. Describing Hasan as a violent Islamist terrorist is much closer to the truth than describing him as a disturbed individual.” ~ James Surowiecki, The New Yorker

Jeffrey Toobin, The New Yorker, CNN after Sarah Spitz said she would like to watch Rush Limbaugh die from a massive heart attack and see his “eyes bug out:”

Rush cannot be replaced. What people miss about Rush is that he is just astonishingly good as a broadcaster. He is compelling, funny, entertaining….But Rush is the man.” ~ Jeffrey Toobin The New Yorker

There’s a few more. Read about General David Petraeus and the MoveOn General BetrayUs ad, and the deeply annoying Al Gore at The Daily Caller.