How Ilhan Omar’s Attempt to Shame Elliott Abrams Backfired

[Wingnut]

Surprisingly accurate admonishment of her by the daily beast.

Things proceeded apace until the controversial new member of Congress from Minnesota, Ilhan Omar, appointed to the committee by Nancy Pelosi in an obvious attempt to give the Democratic Party’s far-left base something it sought, started asking “questions.” Coming right after the condemnation of her anti-Semitic tweets by most Democrats, all eyes were on her.

Omar’s performance clearly was in sync with the Code Pink demonstrators who interrupted the hearing at its start and had to be removed by security. The Code Pink crew yelled in defense of the Maduro government, and had posters attacking Abrams as a “war criminal.”

Omar opened up by calling Abrams “Mr. Adams,” which no one corrected, and reading a statement she did not appear to be familiar with, hesitating often and mispronouncing many words. She restated the old charges of the political left-wing in in the 1980s that have been revisited over and over throughout the years.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-ilhan-omars-attempt-to-shame-elliot-abrams-backfired

[TomSea]

Excerpt (skipping opening which basically states stuff most of us know)

How Ilhan Omar’s Attempt to Shame Elliott Abrams Backfired
The new committee member’s very rhetorical questions to ‘Mr. Adams’ suggested deep suspicion of America’s foreign affairs, and limited knowledge of them.
Ronald Radosh     02.14.19 5:29 AM ET

...

As for his conviction, for testimony given a few months before Omar was born, perhaps she should read Abrams’ own 1992 book, Undue Process: A Story of How Political Differences are Turned into Crimes. It was this book that convinced one of Abrams’ major human rights critics, Aryeh Neier, to change his mind. Neier had been seen as Abrams’ arch-enemy in the era of the Central American wars, one who like Omar today, expressed satisfaction when Abrams was found guilty of misdemeanors. He had written a column in The Nation expressing his satisfaction when Abrams had been convicted, “because it seemed the appropriate denouement to a career in public office in which deceit had been a hallmark.”

After reading Abrams’ book years later, Neier had second thoughts, and wrote in Dissent that he “found its central points persuasive.” Agreeing with Abrams, he wrote that political differences over policy should be “dealt with through the political process and not by means of criminal law.” The way he had been indicted, Neier argued, “suggest a political prosecution rather than the fair administration of justice.” He thought that “Abrams’ argument that he was chosen as a target because the special prosecutor needed a recognizable scalp following [Oliver] North’s victory on appeal,” and that this was “buttressed by the evidence of timing.” If one read Abrams’ book, Neier concluded, it “should persuade fair-minded readers that the prosecution wronged him.”

...

Omar’s comportment at the hearing, as well as her obvious belief that the United States is an imperialist and reactionary nation that by its very nature abuses human rights, should alone be reason enough to have her removed before she can do real damage. 

Read more at: https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-ilhan-omars-attempt-to-shame-elliot-abrams-backfired?ref=scroll

From the Daily Beast which has to be considered left of center. Good article, maybe the best yet.

[Wingnut]

Excerpt (skipping opening which basically states stuff most of us know)

From the Daily Beast which has to be considered left of center. Good article, maybe the best yet.

Shocking isn't it