Talk-show host fired for linking Islam, terror

[igloo]

Posted: August 22, 2005

1:00 a.m. Eastern

Editor's note: The following commentary is what led to talk-show host Michael Graham recently being fired from ABC Radio station WMAL in Washington, D.C., after pressure was applied by the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

By Michael Graham

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

I take no pleasure in saying it. It pains me to think it. I could very well lose my job in talk radio over admitting it. But it is the plain truth: Islam is a terror organization.

For years, I've been trying to give the world's Muslim community the benefit of the doubt, along with the benefit of my typical-American's complete disinterest in their faith. Before 9-11, I knew nothing about Islam except the greeting "asalaam alaikum," taught to me by a Pakistani friend in Chicago.

Immediately after 9-11, I nodded in ignorant agreement as President Bush assured me that "Islam is a religion of peace."

But nearly four years later, nobody can defend that statement. And I mean "nobody."

Certainly not the group of "moderate" Muslim clerics and imams who gathered in London last week to issue a statement on terrorism and their faith. When asked the question "Are suicide bombings always a violation of Islam," they could not answer "Yes. Always." Instead, these "moderate British Muslims" had to answer "It depends."

Precisely what it depends on, news reports did not say. Sadly, given our new knowledge of Islam from the past four years, it probably depends on whether or not you're killing Jews.

That is part of the state of modern Islam.

Another fact about the state of Islam is that a majority of Muslims in countries like Jordan continue to believe that suicide bombings are legitimate. Still another is the poll reported by a left-leaning British paper than only 73 percent of British Muslims would tell police if they knew about a planned terrorist attack.

The other 27 percent? They are a part of modern Islam, too.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations is outraged that I would dare to connect the worldwide epidemic of terrorism with Islam. They put it down to bigotry, asserting that a lifetime of disinterest in Islam has suddenly become blind hatred. They couldn't be more wrong.

Not to be mean to the folks at CAIR, but I don't – care, that is. I simply don't care about Islam, its theology, its history – I have no interest in it at all. All I care about is not getting blown to smithereens when I board a bus or ride a plane. I care about living in a world where terrorism and murder-suicide bombings are rejected by all.

And the reason Islam has itself become a terrorist organization is that it cannot address its own role in this violence. It cannot cast out the murderers from its members. I know it can't, because "moderate" Muslim imams keep telling me they can't. "We have no control over these radical young men," one London imam moaned to the local papers.

Can't kick 'em out of your faith? Can't excommunicate them? Apparently Islam does not allow it.

Islam cannot say that terrorism is forbidden to Muslims. I know this because when the world's Muslim nations gathered after 9-11 to state their position on terrorism, they couldn't even agree on what it was. How could they, when the world's largest terror sponsors at the time were Iran and Saudi Arabia – both governed by Islamic law?

If the Boy Scouts of America had 1,000 scout troops, and 10 of them practiced suicide bombings, then the BSA would be considered a terrorist organization. If the BSA refused to kick out those 10 troops, that would make the case even stronger. If people defending terror repeatedly turned to the "Boy Scout Handbook" and found language that justified and defended murder – and the scoutmasters in charge simply said "Could be" – the Boy Scouts would have driven out of America long ago.

Today, Islam has entire sects and grand mosques that preach terror. Its theology is used as a source of inspiration by terrorist murderers. Millions of Islam's members give these killers support and comfort.

The question isn't how dare I call Islam a terrorist organization, but rather why more people do not.

As I've said many times, I have great sympathy for those Muslims of good will who want their faith to be a true "religion of peace." I believe that terrorism and murder do violate the sensibilities and inherent decency of the vast majority of the world's Muslims. I believe they want peace.

Sadly, the organization and fundamental theology of Islam as it is constituted today allows for hatreds most Muslims do not share to thrive, and for criminals they oppose to operate in the name of their faith.

Many Muslims, I believe, know this to be true and some are acting on it. Not the members of CAIR, unfortunately: As Middle East analyst and expert Daniel Pipes has reported, "two of CAIR's associates (Ghassan Elashi, Randall Royer) have been convicted on terrorism-related charges, one (Bassem Khafegi) convicted on fraud charges, two (Rabih Haddad, Bassem Khafegi) have been deported, and one (Siraj Wahhaj) remains at large."

But Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf admits what CAIR will not. He's called for a jihad against the jihadists. He's putting his life on the line (Islamists have tried to assassinate him three times) in the battle to reclaim Islam and its fundamental decency.

He remembers, I'm sure, that at a time when Western, Christian civilization was on the verge of collapse, the Muslim world was a bastion of rationalism and tolerance. That was a great moment in the history of Islam, a moment that helped save the West.

Let's hope Islam can now find the strength to save itself.

[igloo]

Talk-show host fired

for linking Islam, terror

Michael Graham refused retract demand by CAIR, ABC's WMAL in Washington

Posted: August 21, 2005

9:21 p.m. Eastern

By Joseph Farah

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON – Michael Graham, the Washington, D.C., talk-show host suspended for linking Islam and terrorism, has been fired by ABC Radio following weeks of pressure applied by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a group with its own well-documented connections to terrorism.

Graham was the popular mid-morning host on WMAL in the nation's capital until three weeks ago when CAIR demanded he be punished for his on-air statements about Islam. After initially backing the host, WMAL suspended him without pay July 28.

"CAIR immediately announced that my punishment was insufficient and demanded I be fired," Graham said in a statement to WND. "ABC Radio and 630 WMAL have now complied. I have now been fired for making the specific comments CAIR deemed 'offensive,' and for refusing to retract those statements in a management-mandated, on-air apology. ABC Radio further demanded that I agree to perform what they described as 'additional outreach efforts' to those people or groups who felt offended. I refused. And for that refusal, I have been fired."

CAIR is a spin-off of a group described by two former FBI counterterrorism chiefs as a "front group" for the terrorist group Hamas in the U.S. Several CAIR leaders have been convicted on terror-related charges.

Graham's suspension stems come from characterizing Islam a "terrorist organization." Graham explained that when a significant minority of a group conducts terrorism and the general population of that group does not denounce it, it is safe to conclude that the group promotes it.

He drew an analogy between Islam and the Boy Scouts.

"If the Boy Scouts of America had 1,000 scout troops, and 10 of them practiced suicide bombings, then the BSA would be considered a terrorist organization," he said. "If the BSA refused to kick out those 10 troops, that would make the case even stronger. If people defending terror repeatedly turned to the Boy Scout handbook and found language that justified and defended murder – and the scoutmasters in charge simply said 'Could be' – the Boy Scouts would have driven out of America long ago."

Graham is furious that CAIR is now able to exert this kind of influence in the U.S. media.

"It appears that ABC Radio has caved to an organization that condemns talk radio hosts like me, but has never condemned Hamas, Hezbollah, and one that wouldn't specifically condemn al-Qaida for three months after 9-11," he said. "As a fan of talk radio, I find it absolutely outrageous that pressure from a special interest group like CAIR can result in the abandonment of free speech and open discourse on a talk radio show. As a conservative talk host whose job is to have an open, honest conversation each day with my listeners, I believe caving to this pressure is a disaster."

Graham said he couldn't accept the idea of apologizing "for the truth and I cannot agree to some community-service style 'outreach effort' to appease the opponents of free speech."

"If I had made a racist or bigoted comment – which my regular listeners know goes against everything I believe in – I would apologize immediately, and without coercion," he said. "When I have made inadvertent fact errors in the past, I apologized promptly and without hesitation. But we have now gone far beyond that, with demands that I apologize for the ideas my listeners and I believe in."

Though Graham's characterization of Islam was blunt, it was also tactful.

"I have great sympathy for those Muslims of good will who want their faith to be a true 'religion of peace,'" he said and wrote at the time of the controversy. "I believe that terrorism and murder do violate the sensibilities and inherent decency of the vast majority of the world's Muslims. I believe they want peace."

Graham was backed by supporters from coast to coast after his suspension.

"It is not a coincidence that, after my suspension July 28, WMAL received more than 15,000 phone calls and emails protesting my removal from the airwaves," he said. "Why such a huge response? It wasn't about me. The listeners I spoke to said they felt betrayed by my suspension because the vast majority of them agree with me on the subject of Islam. By labeling my statements as unacceptable, these listeners felt that WMAL management was insulting them, too."

Graham said he could not dishonors his listeners and other Americans who agree with him by apologizing or retracting the truth.

"The whole point of the Michael Graham show is what my listeners and I call the 'natural truth,' those obvious facts about modern life that the PC police and mainstream media believe should never be discussed," he said. "That includes the tragic, but undeniable relationship between terrorism and Islam as it is constituted today."

Graham reiterated that the conversations of the controversial subject matter on his program were not designed to be offensive or bigoted.

"In fact, Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR (who has appeared on my show several times) credited 'criticism from talk radio' in part for the recent fatwa against terrorism issued by a group of U.S. Muslim scholars. Ironically, it was issued the day before I was suspended. That's the real tragedy here. The people who most need free speech and open dialogue on the issues facing Islam today are America's moderate Muslims. These are people of good will who have the difficult job ahead of reforming and rescuing their religion. They need all the help they can get."

But it is the capitulation to what he perceives to be an extremist group by ABC that bothers Graham most.

"The decision to give CAIR what it wants – a group with well-publicized ties to terrorists and terror-related organizations -- will make it harder for the reformers to successfully face Islam's challenges," said Graham. "Still worse, silencing people like me will make it easier for Islamist extremists to dismiss all sincere calls for reform as mere 'bigotry.'"

In April, the founder of the Texas chapter of CAIR, Ghassan Elashi was found guilty of supporting terrorism. Elashi, along with two brothers, was convicted in Dallas of channeling funds to a high-ranking official of the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, Mousa Abu Marzook. Elashi was the third CAIR figure to be convicted on federal terrorism charges since 9-11.

CAIR is a spin-off of the Richardson, Texas-based Islamic Association For Palestine, or IAP, which was founded by Marzook. Former FBI counterterrorism chief Oliver Revell has called the IAF "a front organization for Hamas that engages in propaganda for Islamic militants."

Marzook, deputy chief of Hamas' political bureau in Syria, founded the IAP in 1991. At its conferences in the U.S., the IAP hosted leaders of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. Marzook was deported in 1997.

It was not the first conviction for Elashi. As chairman of the Holy Land Foundation charity in Dallas, Elashi was convicted last year of making illegal technology shipments to two countries on the U.S. list of terrorist-sponsoring states, Libya and Syria. Four brothers, including Bayan and Basman, also were convicted.

Other CAIR figures convicted since 9-11 are Randall Todd "Ismail" Royer, a former communications specialist and civil rights coordinator, and Bassem Khafagi, former director of community relations.

Royer was sentenced to 20 years in prison on charges he trained in Virginia for holy war against the United States and sent several members to Pakistan to join Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Kashmiri terrorist group with reported ties to al-Qaida.

In a plea bargain, Royer claimed he never intended to hurt anyone but admitted he organized the holy warriors after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S.

After his arrest, Royer sought legal counsel from Hamas lawyer Stanley Cohen, who said after 9-11 he would consider serving as a defense lawyer for Osama bin Laden if the al-Qaida leader were captured.

Khafagi, was arrested in January 2003 while serving with CAIR and convicted on fraud and terrorism charges.

Current CAIR leaders also have made statements in support of Hamas and the domination of the U.S. by Islam.

As WorldNetDaily reported, CAIR's chairman of the board, Omar Ahmad, was cited by a California newspaper in 1998 declaring the Quran should be America's highest authority. He also was reported to have said Islam is not in America to be equal to any other religion but to be dominant.

"When CAIR is able to quell dissent and label every critic a 'bigot,' the chilling effect is felt far beyond ABC Radio and 630 WMAL," said Graham. "If anyone is owed an apology, it is the moderate, Muslim community who have been failed once again by the mainstream media."

[destruction]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, PWN3D!! The religio-fascist deserves it.

Privately owned + Policy of the station = THEY CAN DO ANYTHING THEY WANT! In other words, it's the "a man's home is a man's castle" thing that comes in play, in presidence.

And he got fired from a AM right wing staton! An ABC affiliate (seeing I know people in the broadcast industry) HA!! Someone upstairs gained the sense to fire him. Good!

http://www.wmal.com/

They're not going to.

1. Compromise their ratings and lose listeners because of his islamophobic ignorance. Ratings = money.

2. They're not going to take the risk of losing advertising revenue due to advertisers pulling their ads from the station because of his islamophobic attacks. Advertisers = money.

3. The last thing they need is flamage from listeners and islamic organizations because of his islamophobic attacks. Listeners = ratings.

4. They're not going to risk getting fined or face loss of license by the FCC because of his islamophobic shit.

And of course you use a far right wing psudo-source to parlay your anti american information. World News Daily labeling CAIR as a terrorist organization with no backup to save themselves.... What a joke.

It only serves your testimony that even you believe that all islamics are terrorists.

You only added more gasoline to my fire.

[siceone]

This is bullshit he didn't say one untrue thing.

destruction you're a moron

[kramadas]

Read just the first part of the transcript and I can say just from that he definitely deserved to get fired.

Good move on the station's part.

[igloo]

Read just the first part of the transcript and I can say just from that he definitely deserved to get fired.

Good move on the station's part.

Not saying I agree or disagree with what he was saying, but boy, then those on the left should be losing their jobs in droves for the stuff they say...

[igloo]

Cowed by CAIR: DC talk station fires host

Joel Mowbray (archive)

August 23, 2005 | printer friendly version Print | email to a friend Recommend to a friend

Washington, D.C. talk radio station WMAL, 630 AM, has caved to pressure from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a group that has savaged journalists, critics of radical Islam, even the Fox TV show “24â€â€”but which just as steadfastly has refused to specifically condemn various Islamic terrorist organizations.

After a three-week suspension, mid-morning host Michael Graham was fired over the weekend for his comment on July 21 that “Islam has, sadly, become a terrorist organization.†According to a formal statement issued by the host last night, Disney-owned WMAL terminated him for the original remarks and his refusal to apologize for them.

The latest development in the month-long saga is surprising given that there was barely a stir for the first few days after Graham’s original remarks—and he wasn’t suspended until a week later, on July 28. Once he was suspended—which happened as a result of a CAIR-led campaign—the group instigated a campaign to have him fired.

In the week before the suspension, CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper even came on Graham's show—telling him that CAIR didn’t want him fired, just punished. Once Graham was suspended indefinitely later that week, however, CAIR quickly called for his head.

In buckling to pressure from CAIR, WMAL has sided with an organization that continually demonizes genuine criticism of radical Islam as “Islamophobia†and has never specifically condemned radical Islam or Islamic terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

And in the process, the radio station arguably has given CAIR its biggest coup to date.

Not only did WMAL side with organization with three former officials who have been convicted, arrested, or deported on terror-related charges, but it demanded an apology for comments that were far from flippant and were not beyond the pale. The surrounding statements made by Graham, in fact, put the thrust of his comments in an entirely different light.

Here are Graham’s remarks, with full context:

Because of the mix of Islamic theology that—rightly or wrongly—is interpreted to promote violence, added to an organizational structure that allows violent radicals to operate openly in Islam’s name with impunity, Islam has, sadly, become a terrorist organization. It pains me to say it. But the good news is it doesn’t have to stay this way, if the vast majority of Muslims who don’t support terror will step forward and re-claim their religion.

Plenty of people can—and do—take issue with the framing of the religion itself as a “terrorist organization.†But his surrounding comments have more than a ring of truth. Islamic theology is used to promote violence. And in many parts of the world, radicals have taken control of Islam—and the moderates have been effectively silenced.

And Graham’s desire that moderates re-claim control of Islam is shared by many, though likely not by CAIR or groups of its ilk.

CAIR was founded in 1994 by two former high-ranking officials with the Islamic Association of Palestine, a rabidly anti-Semitic organization known as Hamas’ biggest political booster in the United States.

Since 9/11, CAIR officials have been careful to avoid the appearance that they support Islamic terrorism. But not before 9/11. In November 1999, CAIR President Omar Ahmad addressed a youth session at the IAP annual convention in Chicago, where he praised suicide bombers who “kill themselves for Islamâ€: “Fighting for freedom, fighting for Islam – that is not suicide. They kill themselves for Islam.†(Transcript provided by the Investigative Project.)

Though CAIR’s mission is not to serve as an overt Hamas partisan, the organization has refused to specifically condemn the terrorist organization. Ditto for Hezbollah, which is responsible for murdering more Americans than any other terrorist group besides al Qaeda. And CAIR refused to condemn bin Laden or al Qaeda by name until three months after 9/11.

The Washington Post in November 2001 asked a CAIR spokesman to condemn Hamas or Islamic Jihad. He refused, explaining, “It’s not our job to go around denouncing.†Asked a similar question about Hamas and Hezbollah by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in February 2002, Hooper called such queries a “game†and added, “We’re not in the business of condemning.â€

Of course, CAIR is very much “in the business of condemning.†The group gleefully slams critics of radical Islam, television shows, and talk radio hosts. But when it comes to Islamic terrorist organizations or prominent Muslims who endorse terrorism or embrace radical Islam, CAIR’s silence is deafening.

To provide cover—and further perpetuate the myth that CAIR and other American Muslim organizations are genuinely “moderateâ€â€”various fundamentalist Muslim leaders recently issued a fatwa against “extremism†and “terrorism.†It was classic CAIR obfuscation: it condemned terms that were intentionally not defined. Not coincidentally, no terrorist organizations were named. Sadly, many media outlets were snookered.

WMAL now appears to be the most recent media outlet duped by CAIR. The station, for its part, refused comment last week before Graham had been fired. No one at WMAL could be reached for comment over the weekend.

The station’s defense would likely be that it gave the host an out by allowing him to apologize. But as Graham notes, “WMAL wouldn’t be asking for apology without CAIR’s pressure. And if I apologize, then I’m admitting that I’m a bigot and wrong. I am neither.â€

Now that CAIR can claim success in ousting Graham, it’s only a matter of time before the group launches its next smear campaign. There’s no telling who would be CAIR’s next target, though it is clear who it would not be.

[igloo]

Another interesting viewpoint:

August 22, 2005, 5:29 p.m.

Sometimes It’s Who You Offend

Radio-talk-show host Michael Graham is out of a job.

Let’s imagine a scenario that’s not so fictional. Suppose we had a big multinational corporation called Filch. Its code of conduct includes some dubious provisions that can be interpreted to encourage aggressive business and accounting practices. Filch is huge, and overwhelmingly composed of decent, honest officers and employees. But a not insubstantial cabal of its officials, taking advantage of the climate created by the code, cheats its suppliers and customers in addition to cooking the books. When the shenanigans are publicized, the shareholders lose millions of dollars.

So a radio commentator, in the context of a reasonably accurate description of the above circumstances, comes out and says: “Filch is a fraud, through and through.â€

Is that hyperbole? Perhaps. After all, fraudsters comprised only a small percentage of the personnel. The commentator’s statement could be taken to tar the law-abiding majority with the outrages of the thieves. And while the corporate code contained troublesome sections, it didn’t force anyone to go out and commit crimes, and most did not. On the other hand, great harm has been done. Further, it is settled law that a business itself (i.e., the corporate entity) can be prosecuted for offenses committed by its officials, even though most of the company’s actors are undeniably blameless.

So our commentator is, at most, a little over the top in one of his characterizations. But especially given that his description was otherwise on the mark, and that he made a point of noting the innocence of the vast run of Filch’s personnel, the remark is within the realm of fair argument. It’s certainly not a firing offense.

Unless, that is, the wrong people get offended. And that’s what happened to Michael Graham.

Graham, a commentator on ABC Radio in Washington (WMAL 630), was fired this weekend after three weeks of drum-beating by the ethnic grievance industry’s robust Muslim wing.

Here is the July 21 soundbite that did him in: “Islam has, sadly, become a terrorist organization.â€

Sounds pretty bad, right? Particularly given that he refused to apologize.

But hold on a second. Here is more of what he said, with the soundbite in context:

Because of the mix of Islamic theology that — rightly or wrongly — is interpreted to promote violence, added to an organizational structure that allows violent radicals to operate openly in Islam’s name with impunity, Islam has, sadly, become a terrorist organization. It pains me to say it. But the good news is it doesn’t have to stay this way, if the vast majority of Muslims who don’t support terror will step forward and re-claim their religion.

Let’s parse this, shall we?

Islamic theology is amenable to the interpretation that it promotes violence. This cannot be open to debate among serious people at this point. The scriptures speak for themselves, including some of the final (chronologically, that is) verses in the Koran — specifically, the Ninth Sura’s verse 5 (“… [F]ight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) …â€); and verse 29 (“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, from among the people of the book, until they pay the jizya [a poll-tax required in Islamic lands from those who do not convert to Islam] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.â€)

Or, for example, these (which I’ve cited here before): Sura 47:4 (Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers in fight, smite at their necks; at length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind the captives firmly: therefore is the time for either generosity or ransom until the war lays down its burdens….â€); Sura 2:191 ("lay them wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they first fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who reject faith"); Sura 5:33 ("The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief throughout the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land"); and Sura 8:12 ("Remember thy Lord inspired the angels with the message: 'I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: Smite ye above their necks and smite all their fingertips off them").

More to the point, Islamic theology has in fact been construed to promote violence, repeatedly, by Muslims — including several Islamic clerics deemed to have special authority in the religion due to their education and training. The resulting carnage is the defining issue of our era. Surely that cannot be denied by reasonable people.

Why has brutality in the name of Islam endured? Well, it is because, as Graham posits, this violence — driven by an interpretation of scriptures that self-evidently lend themselves to just such an interpretation — has long been coupled with “an organizational structure that allows violent radicals to operate openly in Islam’s name.â€

The eminent Islamic scholar Bernard Lewis described the phenomenon in his 1993 book, Islam and the West. Divergences among Muslims in the interpretation of Islam, Lewis explained, are not easily labeled “heterodox†or “heretical,†for such notions are Western ones that have “little or no relevance to the history of Islam, which has no synods, churches, or councils to define orthodoxy, and therefore none to define and condemn departures from orthodoxy.â€

Taken together, the lack of formal hierarchy, the plain language of Koranic passages, and what is, indisputably, the military tradition out of which Islam emerged, have made it difficult for Muslims convincingly to condemn terrorism as antithetical to their creed. Meanwhile, acts of terrorism have continued unabated. Thus, the system is open to the reasonable conclusions that: (a) it promotes violence, ( it has spawned violence, and © it has been unable to restrain violence despite the vastly superior number of non-violent adherents.

Michael Graham connected these dots and reasonably found that the system, Islam, was to blame. Now, do I wish he hadn’t phrased it quite so bluntly by calling Islam itself a “terror organization� Yes. Even if his conclusion was within the bounds of acceptable argument, in the same sense that branding the entire company a “fraud†is not unreasonable in my multi-national corporation example, the comment was not helpful. It was certain to irritate our allies in the war — authentic moderate Muslims — to call their religion “a terrorist organization.†And even if Graham was convinced he was right, being right is not always a complete defense to incivility when one has been gratuitously provocative. He certainly could have found a way to apologize for his tone without apologizing for his point.

But all this is substantially mitigated by Graham’s closing sentiments. He pointedly left his listeners with the “good news†that the vast majority of Muslims do not support terror committed in the name of their religion. And he offered what sounded like a very sincere hope that they can and will take steps to marginalize and discredit the militants’ use of Islam.

On balance, Graham did what successful radio hosts do. He made a defensible argument in a manner designed to startle. The controversial phrase was ill-advised, but it was very far from the hanging offense it has become. And while it seems unduly stubborn for him to have resisted at least some expression of regret about his phrasing, that should not, in any event, have been a precondition for keeping his job.

The role of Islam in terrorism is a crucial issue. There is currently a good deal of contention, much of it from Muslim interest groups, that terrorism is a reaction to political conditions rather than a result of doctrine. That many of us would disagree — vehemently — with that assessment hardly means the argument should not be heard. But it is at least equally viable and appropriate to air the position that much of the problem of Islamic terrorism lies with Islam itself — something that even courageous Muslim moderates have acknowledged.

This was not a case of loathsome bombast. Graham made a thoughtful and defensible argument that was marred by a poor choice of words he should have realized could be painful to some of his natural allies. It was worthy of a wince, not a pink slip. In firing him, ABC not only chooses sides — the wrong side — in our most important public debate. It helps the shock troops of political correctness turn the proper focus of that debate, Islam, into a third rail.

— Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

[destruction]

This is bullshit he didn't say one untrue thing.

destruction you're a moron

"Islam is a terrorist organization" He didn't say that? Then what did he say? He said that 23 times on his july 25th program.

If you're saying that he didn't say one true thing, then congrats. You are sucker to the false generalizations and you believe that all islamics are terrorists, meaning you are also islamophobic. Like Graham.

I'm sorry but WMAL isn't going to bend their policy to accomodate his vomit. WMAL isn't going to put themselves at risk of losing their listener base, nor lose advertisers or put their FCC license at risk on the count of an islamophobic hate-whore only to benefit you and others who spew hate.

WMAL, Graham Exchange Words

Aug. 22, 2005

By Tony Sanders

The debate over conservative talker Michael Graham’s statements and his subsequent dismissal from his on-air gig at ABC Radio’s news/talk WMAL is getting louder.

Graham was let go from his position as mid-morning talker (9 a.m.-11:45 a.m.) at WMAL last week. Over the weekend, Graham was quoted in an Aug. 21 report at the World Net Daily Web site saying that he was let go because “It appears that ABC Radio has caved to an organization that condemns talk radio hosts like me . . .†and that “pressure from a special interest group like CAIR [the Council on American-Islamic Relations] can result in the abandonment of free speech and open discourse on a talk radio show.†Graham declared that “caving to this pressure is a disaster.â€

WMAL GM Chris Berry called BillboardRadioMonitor.com this afternoon and offered a statement in answer to Graham’s published comments.

“Typically we don't comment on personnel matters, but given the misstatements being communicated by Michael, I want to set the record straight.

“Some of Michael’s statements about Islam went over the line – and this isn’t the first time that he has been reprimanded for insensitive language and comments. In this case, as previously, Michael’s on-air statements do not reflect the attitudes or opinions of station management. I asked Michael for an on-air acknowledgement that some of his remarks were overly broad and, inexplicably, he refused.

“Michael has also tried to position this that we were pressured into taking disciplinary action against him. For the record we make our decisions independent of external pressures or third parties and we will not permit an employee to willfully violate our policies or disregard management direction.â€

http://billboardradiomonitor.com/radiomonitor/news/format/talk/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001019176

I agree with the firing.

PS Silicone: Only morons hate.

[igloo]

PS Silicone: Only morons hate.

Retard...your stench is on enough threads....go somewhere else.....

[destruction]

Retard...your stench is on enough threads....go somewhere else.....

Translation:

I'm a moron who hates too.....

[destruction]

Retard...your stench is on enough threads....go somewhere else.....

Translation:

I'm a moron who hates too.....

[destruction]

Retard...your stench is on enough threads....go somewhere else.....

Translation:

I'm a moron who hates too.....