American conservative Magazine

The Shameless Pro-MEK Lobbying Continues

Just because the MEK is no longer listed as a terrorist organization by the U.S., that doesn’t mean that the shameless shilling and lying on their behalf has stopped. Here is Hugh Shelton:

For years, freedom-loving people around the world worked together under the courageous leadership of Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, using every tool at their disposal, to get the wrongful designation of the Iranian opposition group, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) as a terrorist group removed.

Finally, the “good guys” won, empowering the most powerful group outside Iran in favor of disposing of the current Iranian leadership and providing the freedom-loving people of Iran a chance for democracy.

When the MEK was originally designated as a terrorist organization, that wasn’t wrongful. It was an acknowledgment that the group had employed and continued to employ terrorist tactics to pursue their political goals. The current pro-MEK line is that the group has renounced those tactics, which is debatable, but it’s the purest revisionism to say that the group never deserved to be labeled as a terrorist group. Given that the MEK is a totalitarian cult, it is crazy to think that their leaders have anything in common with “freedom-loving people.” In the extremely unlikely and horrifying event that the MEK obtained real power, they would not preside over anything resembling a democratic government, but would establish their own deranged brand of authoritarianism. If not because they are being paid to say it, why would otherwise sane and intelligent people repeat such obvious propaganda again and again?

I don’t accept it, but I understand the warped logic that says that Americans should support the MEK because it hates the current Iranian government. But even obsessive Iran hawks have to recognize that siding with a group reviled in Iran for its role in the Iran-Iraq war is doomed to fail, and every high-profile American that praises and lobbies on behalf of this group is another propaganda victory for the Iranian government. How better to confirm the Iranian government’s most self-serving claims about the U.S. than to have so many former U.S. officials and politicians romanticize the MEK into a group of democratic freedom fighters?

By Daniel Larison

July 17, 2013 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

The “Rehabilitation” of the MEK

The Christian Science Monitor reported on the opening of the MEK’s office in Washington last week:

An Iranian dissident group that languished on the US list of terrorist organizations for more than a decade under both Democratic and Republican administrations marked its full rehabilitation Thursday when it opened sleek new offices – complete with floors covered by plush Persian carpets – within sight of the White House.

The article doesn’t explain that the de-listing of the MEK was mostly a quid pro quo to get most of the group’s members in Iraq to relocate from its old base at Camp Ashraf. It also fails to mention that many of the people at Camp Ashraf were being held there against their will. Taken together with the many disgraceful displays of support by members of Congress and various former officials, all of this creates the impression that the group’s “rehabilitation” is much more meaningful than it is.

The group remains hated in Iran for its long period of collusion with Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war and afterwards, and it remains in its own organization a totalitarian quasi-Marxist cult, so the idea that it represents the aspirations of most Iranians is absurd on its face. If reports on the assassinations of Iranian scientists are to be believed, the group continues to engage in acts of terrorism inside Iran, but as far as some Iran hawks are concerned this is “useful” terrorism and therefore not something that needs to worry us. Few things better express the hostility that some Iran hawks have for the country and people of Iran than the warm embrace they have given the MEK.

The MEK is an awful group all on its own, but what makes it potentially so dangerous is that it has been embraced by so many prominent foolish Americans that want to treat it as a leading opposition group. Of course, the de-listing campaign was always just the beginning of a lobbying effort to try to get U.S. support for the MEK in the future. One passage from the Monitor article reveals just how deluded the group’s American supporters can be:

Senator Torricelli compared the NCRI in 2013 to when the “Free French” opened an office in London in 1940. “Maybe a lot of people didn’t notice,” he said, but the French resistance would go on to play a crucial role in France’s liberation.

The NCRI, with a new office in Washington, can start down that same path, he said, adding, “I’m proud to be a soldier in that struggle.”

There’s something especially perverse about likening the MEK to the Free French. The MEK was a group that collaborated with the invader of their own country, and they wanted to impose themselves on Iran with the backing of that invader. If the MEK had succeeded in its goals in the 1980s, it would have been the puppet leadership installed by Hussein to replace the Iranian leadership of the time.

By Daniel Larison

April 17, 2013 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

The next pro-MEK lobbying effort is about to begin

‎The completely false claim that the MEK represents the legitimate Iranian opposition was one of the ‎principal reasons many of these advocates gave for removing the group from the list of The next pro-MEK lobbying effort is about to begin foreign ‎terrorist organizations.

No one could have ever seen this coming:‎

Members of Congress and supporters of the People’s Mujahedin of Iran (MEK) are to press the ‎Obama administration to recognise it as the “legitimate opposition” to the Iranian government after ‎the group is removed from the US list of banned terrorist organisations in the coming days. ‎

Of course, this has been what many of the MEK’s American advocates have been calling for all along. ‎The completely false claim that the MEK represents the legitimate Iranian opposition was one of the ‎principal reasons many of these advocates gave for removing the group from the list of foreign ‎terrorist organizations. It’s absurd that any informed person could seriously believe an Islamo-Marxist ‎totalitarian cult represents a legitimate, much less democratic, alternative to the current Iranian ‎regime. This is the falsehood that many of the group’s advocates promote.‎

The reinvention of the MEK as a “democratic” political organization just demonstrates how ‎meaningless that label can be. It’s a reminder of how willing some Iran hawks are to work with any ‎group, no matter how disreputable, if it shares their hostility to the Iranian government. Anyone who ‎supports aligning the U.S. with this group is admitting that he isn’t interested in a more democratic Iran ‎or the success of the Iranian opposition. Now that the group will be removed from the list, the ‎supporters it has cultivated in Congress and elsewhere will be able to agitate on its behalf much more ‎freely, and its lobbying efforts will presumably increase. The coordinated campaign to remove the ‎MEK from the FTO list was a disgrace, and the sequel promises to be even more obnoxious.‎

By Daniel Larison

October 4, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

The Mistaken Decision to De-List the MEK

Paul Pillar’s response to the de-listing of the MEK is exactly right:

No good will come out of this subversion of the terrorist group list with regard to conditions in Iran, the behavior or standing of the Iranian regime, the values with which the United States is associated, or anything else. The regime in Tehran will tacitly welcome this move (while publicly denouncing it) because it helps to discredit the political opposition in Iran—a fact not lost on members of the Green Movement, who want nothing to do with the MEK. The MEK certainly is not a credible vehicle for regime change in Iran because it has almost no public support there. Meanwhile, the Iranian regime will read the move as another indication that the United States intends only to use subversion and violence against it rather than reaching any deals with it.

What may make this decision even more damaging over the long term for U.S.-Iranian relations The Mistaken Decision to De-List the MEK is that most Iranians loathe the MEK. De-listing the group is a mistake in its own right, but it is especially foolish because it does nothing but generate ill will from Iranians regardless of their views of the regime. Iranians will understandably consider the decision to remove the terrorist designation from the group as an insult, and many will take it as further proof of enduring American hostility towards Iran and Iranians and not just towards the current government.

It’s important to note that the decision by itself does not mean that the U.S. is supporting the MEK or aligning our government with the group, but it will likely be perceived that way. We shouldn’t discount the possibility that the decision to remove them from the FTO list will be exploited by the same pro-MEK advocates in the U.S. that lobbied for them until now. If they are removed from the FTO list now, it will probably be just a matter of time before Iran hawks begin agitating for funding, training, and eventually arming them to use against the Iranian government.

One of the standard, completely false talking points these advocates repeated was that the MEK was a democratic movement and the “main” Iranian opposition group. Many ex-officials, retired officers, and has-been politicians disgraced themselves with their fawning expressions of admiration for Maryam Rajavi. Leaving aside the de-listing decision for a moment, the conduct of these Americans and the absurd claims they made on behalf of a horrible political cult reflect just how corrupting and deluding anti-Iranian hawkishness can be. It shouldn’t be forgotten that these people went far beyond advocating on behalf of people at Camp Ashraf or arguing for de-listing. They were actively shilling for a monstrous, fanatical movement as if it were the legitimate representative of the Iranian people. That is something that shouldn’t be forgotten, nor should it be forgotten that several of the people speaking in support of this group serve in some capacity as advisers to the Republican presidential nominee.

By Daniel Larison

September 25, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

The Greed, Cluelessness, and Poor Judgment of the MEK’s American Advocates

U.S. News recently published a long article on the pro-MEK lobbying effort and the terrorist group’s American advocates. Here Karim Sadjadpour offers an explanation for why so many Americans have embraced the group:

Sadjadpour, the Carnegie analyst, finds it remarkable that so many politicians have supported a group with so much baggage. “In some cases it’s greed, in some cases it’s cluelessness, in some cases it’s remarkably poor judgment, and often it’s all of the above,” he said of the political support.

What I still don’t quite understand is how so many high-ranking and prominent people could be genuinely clueless about a group that they are supporting on a regular basis. It would be more understandable if they were simply motivated by anti-Iranian animus and chose to align themselves with the most distasteful allies possible. That wouldn’t make their cavorting with terrorists any less disgraceful, but it would make sense in a very cynical way. What doesn’t make any sense is how so many prominent figures could be so thoroughly ignorant about the background of an organization whose cause they are promoting. At some point, the ignorance defense isn’t credible. Since the MEK’s American advocates obviously know so little about the group’s history, why should anyone else trust their judgment when they say that the group shouldn’t remain on the FTO list?

The Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page would have to be included in the poor judgment category, and unlike the others his involvement has been a one-time event. Here was an interesting part of his recent column that addressed his attendance at the MEK gathering last month:

“Why are they picking on you?” asked one of many outraged emails from supportive readers in a similar vein. “Why aren’t reporters going after the other big names who are raking in big money for speeches like this?” The quick answer: They don’t work for newspapers.

In fact, some reporters, including Justin Elliott, have been publicizing the pro-MEK activism of former officials, politicians, and retired military officers for many months. These reporters have been “going after” pro-MEK advocates for quite a while, so it’s absurd to think that Page received more scrutiny than anyone else. The reason that these other individuals haven’t been censured by anyone is that they are generally no longer answerable to any employer or organization. In that sense, they are free to lend their support to a terrorist group in a way that someone in Page’s position isn’t. Even though they would all seem to be offering “material support” to a terrorist group, there is no real danger that any of them would face charges.

The new report also digs a bit more into the lobbying effort’s finances:

Much of M.E.K.’s support, Gobadi says, comes from the Iranian diaspora. While he doesn’t name the group’s U.S. supporters, the Senate disclosure database reveals the Iranian American Community of North Texas and Iranian American Community of Northern California have been most active. Dozens of similar community groups came into existence after the U.S. government shut down a partner office of the M.E.K. in D.C. in 2003, but many have since disappeared. Requests for comments from both community groups were not returned, but it’s clear that they have had enormous fundraising and sway.

IACNT and IANCC paid the lobbying firms in Washington thousands of dollars to get signatures for the congressional resolution. They paid the speakers lobby thousands of dollars to get Rendell, Giuliani and Crowley, participants said.

P.S. The Post reported late last week that MEK advocates may be in violation of lobbying regulations (via Andrew):

In recent weeks, new questions have been raised about whether private meetings, conference calls and other contact with officials at the State Department and elsewhere in the administration over the past year require the advocates’ registration as lobbyists or agents of a foreign entity.

Under federal law, advocates for foreign organizations are required to register as lobbyists and provide details about their clients and income. But the MEK supporters have not registered, which would require disclosing the amounts they are paid and the identities of officials with whom they meet.

Update: The Post article includes another good quote from Sadjadpour:

“I see them as a cross between Hezbollah and the Branch Davidians,” [bold mine-DL] said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “It is legitimate to debate whether the MEK meets the Justice Department’s legal definition of a terrorist organization. But it is outright false to claim that they are a legitimate, democracy-minded opposition group with a wide base inside Iran.”

This false claim that they represent Iran’s democratic opposition is exactly what pro-MEK advocates say about the group all the time.

By Daniel Larison

July 9, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

The MEK Still Has Not Changed

Nicole Gibson notices that the columnist Clarence Page also spoke at the recent MEK gathering in Paris. Page’s defense is worth quoting again:

“I thought they were simply a group of Iranian exiles who were opposed to the regime in Tehran,” Page said. “I later found out they can be construed as a MEK front group, and I don’t think it’s worth it to my reputation to be perceived as a paid spokesman for any political cause.”

I love that “they can be construed as a MEK front group” line. That’s rather like saying that Sinn Fein could be “construed” as the IRA’s political wing, as if it were something up for debate or interpretation. It could be “construed” that way because that was the truth. Just look at the website of the organizing group. “Delist MEK” and “Camp Ashraf” are two tabs prominently displayed on the site. Who else would be so focused on these issues other than a front group for the MEK? How does someone agree to speak at an event sponsored by this group and not know that? Page deserves some credit for deciding to return the group’s money right away, but what was he doing at the event in the first place?

One of Page’s defenders isn’t helping him by highlighting what Page said in Paris. According to Achy Obejas, Page said the following:

* “Thanks for inviting me to speak up for values I believe we share: Freedom, democracy and respect for human rights for men and women across racial, ethnic and religious lines.
* “I believe we share a desire for regime change in Iran to a more fair and democratic society.
* “The historical record shows – and a variety of experts have told me – how the MEK has been America’s ally in our war against terrorists [bold mine-DL], but as former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card has said, the State Department appears to have been left behind with outdated information. Now a federal court has said the State Department should check its relevance.
* “You have allies to whom you should reach out in common cause as long as you advocate the values all decent human beings share. As long as you work for freedom, equality, human rights and democracy, you are not working alone.”

It is obvious from these remarks that Page was badly misinformed. Whoever offered him the “expertise” he cites here did him a disservice. These views are “pretty mainstream” in the sense that a lot of prominent former officials and politicians have made similar claims. One small problem with these views is that they are based on misinformation.

The MEK has been trying to reinvent itself over the last decade by claiming that it has embraced all of the principles Page mentions, but the reality is that the group’s beliefs are antithetical to liberal and democratic principles. The MEK’s reinvention as a “democratic” opposition group is a classic example of a revolutionary organization adopting the rhetoric of its would-be Western patron. Suffice it to say that a group that relied on the patronage and protection of Saddam Hussein for over two decades is not one interested in creating a “fair and democratic society.” The MEK has not been an “ally” in a war against terrorists, and any “experts” that told Page this were not telling him the truth.

Ray Takeyh testified about the MEK’s ideology last year:

As the organization has lost its Iraqi patron and finds itself without any reliable allies, it has somehow modulated its language and sought to moderate its anti-American tone. Such convenient posturing should not distract attention from its well-honed ideological animus to the United States.

Terror has always been a hallmark of MEK’s strategy for assuming power. Through much of its past, the party exulted violence as a heroic expression of legitimate dissent. One of the central precepts of the party is that a highly-dedicated group of militants could spark a mass revolution by bravely confronting superior power of the state and assaulting its authority. Once, the masses observe that the state is vulnerable to violence, than they will shed their inhibitions and join the protest, thus sparking the larger revolution. Thus, the most suitable means of affecting political change is necessarily violence. Although in its advocacy in Western capitals, the MEK emphasizes its commitment to democracy and free expression, in neither deed nor word has it forsworn it violent pedigree.

P.S. The point here isn’t that Page’s remarks are unusual, but rather that they are unfortunately entirely too “mainstream” nowadays. This episode reflects how extensive the pro-MEK lobbying effort has become, and it underscores the need to show that the lobbying effort is based on falsehoods and misrepresentations.

By Daniel Larison

July 7, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Backing the MEK confirms Romney’s hostility to Iranian nation

Ivan Sascha Sheehan takes to the pages of Haaretz to offer the worst campaign advice anyone could give Mitt Romney:

The Romney camp’s recent expressions of support for the organized resistance challenging Syrian President Bashar Assad should now be followed with a similar approach to the Iranian opposition’s Mujahideen-e-Khalq or MEK, the largest movement in the National Council of Resistance of Iran.
Backing the MEK confirms Romney’s hostility to Iranian nation
The rest of the op-ed is the usual pro-MEK song and dance, and it is misleadingly titled “Romney should embrace the Iranian opposition.” Of course, the actual Iranian opposition in Iran loathes the MEK, and it rejects the idea that the MEK speaks for opponents of the current Iranian leadership. The MEK is still listed as a foreign terrorist organization, but that hasn’t stopped its American cheerleaders from spending the last several years to get that designation removed. Romney would be out of his mind to take Sheehan’s advice, but the possibility isn’t as far-fetched as it seems.

It’s true that one of Romney’s advisers reportedly lost influence inside the campaign because of his shilling for the MEK, but that reflected Romney’s displeasure with the adviser’s lack of discipline and not an objection to the substance of what Reiss was doing. One of Romney’s more prominent supporters and possible future appointees, John Bolton, has repeatedly spoken in support of the MEK and has attended MEK rallies. It’s not out of the question that Romney might just be foolish enough to lend some support to the group.

Thanks to the American lobbying effort on behalf of the MEK, Romney would not be on his own. He could point to all of the former government officials and retired military officers that have been advocating for the terrorist group, and he could correctly claim that the lobbying effort for the MEK has been a bipartisan one. Backing the MEK would be disgraceful and unwise, and it would confirm for almost all Iranians that Romney is hostile to Iran as a nation and not just to its current government. Considering Romney’s other foreign policy positions, it sounds like just the sort of thing he would do.

By Daniel Larison

June 24, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Of Terrorists and Freedom Fighters

Conor Friedersdorf passes along a bit of “insight” from Jonah Goldberg’s The Tyranny of Cliches. Goldberg wrote:

It is simply absurd to contend that because people may argue over who is or is not a terrorist that it is therefore impossible to make meaningful distinctions between terrorists and freedom fighters.

As usual, Goldberg has missed the point. The phrase “one’s man terrorist is another man’s Of Terrorists and Freedom Fighters freedom fighter” is a cliche because the truth it conveys is so banal and obvious that it often seems redundant to mention it. A group can employ terrorist tactics while also seeking to achieve self-determination for the people it claims to represent. While the phrase may sometimes be used to justify terrorist attacks, it expresses a truth about the nature of political violence that partly explains but does not excuse the atrocious acts carried out by “liberation” groups.

The LTTE (Tamil Tigers) really were terrorists (they pioneered suicide bombing), and for the Tamils in Sri Lanka and southern India they were also freedom fighters. The IRA really were terrorists, and Irish republicans and more than a few Irish-Americans saw them as fighting the good fight against the remnants of the British Empire. The KLA really were terrorists, but many Albanians in Kosovo and elsewhere perceived them as the “liberation” army they claimed to be. The point is that terrorists can be perceived by many people in their own community as freedom fighters in spite of their atrocious tactics. Their status as terrorists is determined by the civilian targets they attack or the indiscriminate tactics they use to attack them. Their political reasons for targeting civilians or killing indiscriminately don’t change anything.

Some governments refuse to tolerate the use of terrorist tactics under any circumstances, but some tacitly or openly endorse the use of such tactics when the targets happen to be the “right” ones. Unfortunately, when it comes to dealing with Iran, the U.S. has adopted the second approach. The U.S. attitude towards the MEK over the decades is a good example of how very changeable governments can be. At one point, the MEK was obviously an anti-American terrorist organization responsible for the deaths of American citizens. Later, Hussein’s support for the MEK was unimportant, because Hussein was perceived as the lesser of two evils in the conflict between Iran and Iraq. Once Hussein’s Iraq became the main regional enemy, his support for the MEK was suddenly turned into part of the indictment against him. Once Hussein was overthrown, not only was the MEK no longer to be considered a terrorist group, but in some circles it was seen as a valuable ally in opposing the Iranian regime. According to some reports, the Obama administration is on the verge of capitulating to the disgraceful campaign to have this terrorist group removed from the FTO list. It is somewhat fitting that the MEK is a terrorist group that is not recognized by the vast majority of Iranians in Iran or in the diaspora as “freedom fighters.” The only people foolish enough to believe that the MEK is interested in anyone’s freedom are those paid to say so and those so hostile to Iran that they will ally with anyone with the same goal of regime change.

By Daniel Larison

May 19, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

The Folly of American Pro-MEK Advocates

Josh Rogin reports on the latest development in the MEK story:

However, according to an Obama administration official who works on the issue, it’s actually the MEK that is trashing Camp Liberty — literally. According to this official, the U.N. has reported that MEK members at Camp Liberty have been sabotaging the camp, littering garbage and manipulating the utilities to make things look worse than they really are. While there are some legitimate problems at the camp, the official admitted, the U.N. has been monitoring Camp Liberty’s water, sewage, and food systems on a daily basis and the conditions are better than the MEK is portraying.

It doesn’t exactly come as a shock that the MEK is misrepresenting the facts about the conditions at Camp Liberty, since the group misrepresents itself on a regular basis. Pro-MEK advocates in the U.S. and Europe worked diligently for years to blur the differences between the welfare of the civilians at Camp Ashraf and the issue of the MEK’s listing as a foreign terrorist organization. The goal of this was to exploit the plight of Ashraf residents (or, more accurately, prisoners of the group’s leadership) to build support for removing the group from the FTO list. Now that the legitimate humanitarian concerns about conditions at Ashraf are being addressed, these same advocates are portraying Camp Liberty as a prison or “concentration camp.” The reason for this is not to improve conditions for the people at Camp Liberty, but to continue using humanitarian appeals to make itself seem more sympathetic as an organization that it is.

The pro-MEK advocates are complicating a difficult situation, and they are actually undermining the prospects for a peaceful resolution to the MEK’s presence in Iraq. Then again, this is what one would expect from paid stooges:

“The Americans who ought to know better and claim to be on the side of good solutions are really damaging it. Either they are too lazy or too arrogant to actually do their homework. They don’t spend the time to learn facts, they just pop off. They accept the MEK line without question and then they posture,” the official said. “We have a plan that has a chance to work and the Iraqis want it to work. The MEK … it’s not clear. And in this situation they are being badly advised by the people whose names appear in these ads.”

“Whether the MEK wants a resolution or wants a confrontation is something we’re still debating. It’s that bad,” the official said.

By Daniel Larison

March 13, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

The MEK and the Warped Nature of the Iran Debate

Edward Luce wrote this a few days ago in a column on Iran:

On Wednesday they hold the first presidential debate in three weeks. As in previous ones, commercial breaks are likely to air a spot calling on Mr Obama to remove the MEK – the Mujahideen e-Khalq, the armed Iranian opposition group – from the US list of foreign terrorist organisations.

The MEK is believed to have carried out the recent assassinations of Iranian scientists on Israel’s behalf. Its US front organisations have paid hefty speaking fees to dozens of prominent figures, from Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, to Howard Dean, the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Many of the Republican candidates also support lifting the ban.

Michael Auslin overreacts:

Yet even more incomprehensibly, Luce then notes that at the upcoming Republican presidential debate, there likely will be televised commercials calling for the delisting of Iran’s armed opposition group from lists of terrorist groups. Not only does this have nothing to do with the issue at hand, does Mr. Luce think the commercials are being paid for by the GOP? If not, then what’s his beef with the free market — whoever can afford a commerical can buy it. Just ask SEIU, which kept up a constant barrage in favor of Obamacare last year.

As the quote from Luce shows, the MEK issue is perfectly relevant to a discussion of Israel and the Iranian nuclear program because Israel has allegedly used MEK operatives to kill Iranian nuclear scientists. I assume Luce’s point is to draw attention to the fact that there is televised advocacy for de-listing a terrorist group that has recently been implicated in acts of terrorism against Iran, and these attacks form one part of the covert war being waged against Iran because of its nuclear program. Some of Romney’s advisers have publicly supported de-listing the MEK, and Gingrich and Santorum are on record endorsing the assassinations the MEK has reportedly carried out. One problem is that the MEK’s American advocates are often paid for their advocacy, and the other is that three of the Republican presidential candidates apparently have no objection to acts of terrorism so long as they are committed against the right people.

If this were any other terrorist group, it would be unthinkable that its advocates could run television commercials calling for the group’s removal from the FTO list during presidential debates or at any other time, but because it is a group dedicated to overthrowing the Iranian government it is somehow considered acceptable and unobjectionable. I am guessing Luce’s inclusion of the MEK material in his column was intended to highlight how biased in favor of confrontation the Iran debate in the United States is. That Auslin thinks it is plausible or appropriate to compare advertisements on behalf of a recognized foreign terrorist group with legislative advocacy by an American union confirms it.

By Daniel Larison

February 23, 2012 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts