CNN Says 'White Men' are the Biggest Terror Threat in US

[Typical Lax Dad]

She doesn't even know the name of the diplomat she's insulting.
How knowledgeable is she about the Nicaraguan Cortras (sic) ?
She doesn't rehearse her talking points with the staffer who wrote them either.

Thanks for sharing.
She indeed comes across poorly. In a variety of ways.
So does the guy she's questioning.

Hate the format of these kinds of sessions. She begins with some setting the stage of why not to trust him, given his history, but doesn't let him defend himself, as her time is so short and the questions she actually wants answered come later.

Those are actually legitimate questions, but she creates such a hostile situation that there's no real dialogue possible.

And way, way too short to really get at her legitimate concern (from her perspective). By the time she actually gets to the point, time's up.

What she's basically challenging is: in our process of supporting one faction versus another in South or Central America, or wherever for that matter, whether we are willing to sacrifice human rights values in order to achieve 'democracy' or other government favorable to the United States. Are our interests the people or are they our capitalist interests in their resources. It's an interesting question, and indeed our history to our south is fraught with missteps and massive human rights abuses. Important discussion.

I don't have a problem with this challenge, but the grandstanding nature of the process is not conducive to real exploration.

She's just a puppet, mouthing the words which her handlers prepared for her.
How much do you think she knows about Abram's history or the Contra affair ?
It was a staged video hit piece, but she blew her lines.
She can't even read their names. Being an immigrant is no excuse.
She's a US HS & college grad who has lived in the US for 14 years.
She served in the MN Legislature.
She is stunningly unqualified to be on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
There are some very qualified (D) freshmen members who could have capably filled that seat.

Fortunately your opinion of her qualifications doesn't matter.

Did someone on here excuse her language skills because she's an immigrant? It's actually a fair point, but I agree that it hurts her effectiveness if she fumbles her prepared text. She did much better toward the end when she wasn't speaking from the text.

But you don't have a clue as to whether she knows about or understands the history of US foreign policy and interventions.
IMO, she brings an interesting perspective, quite novel in the Committee's history.
Quite the contrast to the "offended" subject of her questioning.

And she actually appeared to have a solid command of the issue she was going after.
That said, it would have been far more interesting to have had a comprehensive dialogue on the topic...that's why this 5 minute drill process is so problematic.

Your vitriol is very telling.

I read this woman's bio. She is an american success story. I would wager, with a high degree of confidence, that her family is far more serious about education than the average american and as such I would imagine she did well in school. This reminds me of my american classmates making fun of a student from Turkey who butchered the English language as a graduate student. He was the smartest kid in the class.... Billy and Bobby american wondered how he could be so smart with his English being so poor. Those dudes cheated at every turn also.....

So, true.
The rabid xenophobia of some is really ugly. It's also downright stupid.

That said, from what I can tell, she needs to work on making sure what she says doesn't fall into bigoted tropes.

Salty, I found her command of the issue plenty strong.
Maybe you didn't because you don't think the issue is legitimate (?), but her stumbling a bit when reading the prepared part doesn't mean she doesn't know her subject matter. When she spoke to it without prepared notes, she was much more fluid, in full command of her subject.

I agree regarding propagating tropes and stereotypes. It’s dangerous....particularly from politicians. Criticizing her speaking is small minded. That woman has overcome odds most people here can’t imagine. Raised by a single father after losing her mom at 2...quite a story. Friends of ours met a woman that was in the Hotel Rwanda. Was from an upperclass family in Rwanda and is was sweeping the floors in our friend’s micro lab....has since moved up and out. English isn’t the greatest. I wonder how old salt’s Swahili is doing these days....as for puppets....you can argue someone spending a good chunk of their life taking orders is more of a puppet..

[old salt]

We'll see going forward. We'll have plenty of opportunity to see if she tones it down, has learned anything, or knows her stuff.

Her defense of her remarks on the House floor, during the debate on the resolution she caused, was not encouraging.

I'll see it I can find it again & edit it in this post.

Omar rationalizes & defends her rhetoric on the House floor starting at 8:20 of this clip :

[foreverlax]

Trump Has Retweeted at Least Four White Nationalist Accounts That Were Later Suspended

...and who are the hypocrites?

[old salt]

Here ya go TLD -- another Bootlicker Puppet for your enjoyment :

[old salt]

Trump Has Retweeted at Least Four White Nationalist Accounts That Were Later Suspended

...and who are the hypocrites?

So hammer Omar like you hammer Trump.

[foreverlax]

Trump Has Retweeted at Least Four White Nationalist Accounts That Were Later Suspended

...and who are the hypocrites?

So hammer Omar like you hammer Trump.

Don't need to, you guys have it well covered.

[old salt]

Trump Has Retweeted at Least Four White Nationalist Accounts That Were Later Suspended

...and who are the hypocrites?

So hammer Omar like you hammer Trump.

Don't need to, you guys have it well covered.

That's my response when MDLF76 harangues me for not hammering Trump nonstop ...what's the use ?

The sad thing -- Omar & Talib have the opportunity to be a positive force for integration of the Muslim community. Instead, they're choosing to be dividers.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Here ya go TLD -- another Bootlicker Puppet for your enjoyment :

This is what makes America great.

[tech37]

Nah, no cause for fear right foreverlax?

And hey, are you an apologist and look past/rationalize her anti-Semitic comments?

Yikes, I thought that was talking about the Congresswoman.

Then I bothered to open it.

Wow.

Shame on anyone trying to conflate the two "Omar"s.
Salty, shame on you. Tech37, come on bother to read it.

Nice try mdlax...you're the one conflating, not me.

The first sentence pertaining to OS's scary al-Shabab recruitment in the United States article. The second, obviously having to do with the congress woman.

[foreverlax]

Trump Has Retweeted at Least Four White Nationalist Accounts That Were Later Suspended

...and who are the hypocrites?

So hammer Omar like you hammer Trump.

Don't need to, you guys have it well covered.

That's my response when MDLF76 harangues me for not hammering Trump nonstop Omar doesn't bother me as much as Trump....what's the use I don't know what your asking. ?

The sad thing -- Omar & Talib have the opportunity to be a positive force for integration of the Muslim community. Instead, they're choosing to be dividers.I haven't finalize an opinion on her, but they do have an opportunity that shouldn't be squandered, Odds are they are no worse the any of the other DC clowns and will have about as much impact. Other then being a dick, has King really been able to accomplish much to benefit his moronic views?

[MDlaxfan76]

Nah, no cause for fear right foreverlax?

And hey, are you an apologist and look past/rationalize her anti-Semitic comments?

Yikes, I thought that was talking about the Congresswoman.

Then I bothered to open it.

Wow.

Shame on anyone trying to conflate the two "Omar"s.
Salty, shame on you. Tech37, come on bother to read it.

Nice try mdlax...you're the one conflating, not me.

The first sentence pertaining to OS's scary al-Shabab recruitment in the United States article. The second, obviously having to do with the congress woman.

What???
You do know that the article was about a man with the name Omar, not a woman???
Open the article!

[Trinity]

Bwhahaha.

[MDlaxfan76]

Trump Has Retweeted at Least Four White Nationalist Accounts That Were Later Suspended

...and who are the hypocrites?

So hammer Omar like you hammer Trump.

Don't need to, you guys have it well covered.

That's my response when MDLF76 harangues me for not hammering Trump nonstop ...what's the use ?

The sad thing -- Omar & Talib have the opportunity to be a positive force for integration of the Muslim community. Instead, they're choosing to be dividers.

Baloney. I don't want you to "hammer" Trump, just admit he's a racist dirtbag and doesn't deserve ANY support, and certainly no cover.

You simply have no credibility when you critique rookie congresswomen for things you give Trump a pass on.
"Divider"???

I don't have any difficulty examining Omar's series of statements and saying they fall into anti-semitic tropes and can't be just waved off as nothing. These are very serious bigotries and they do need to be identified and understood. I just want to give her a couple of heartbeats to learn and grow. If she fails to do so, she'll be benched.

I wish I could be confident about my party doing the same with the butthead in the Oval Office.

[wahoomurf]

We'll see going forward. We'll have plenty of opportunity to see if she tones it down, has learned anything.

I posted something similar to this.The only difference was the pronoun. HE instead of SHE.Good lord...I hope SHE tones it down....and learns alot more than HE has.

[old salt]

Nah, no cause for fear right foreverlax?

And hey, are you an apologist and look past/rationalize her anti-Semitic comments?

Yikes, I thought that was talking about the Congresswoman.

Then I bothered to open it.

Wow.

Shame on anyone trying to conflate the two "Omar"s.
Salty, shame on you. Tech37, come on bother to read it.

Nice try mdlax...you're the one conflating, not me.

The first sentence pertaining to OS's scary al-Shabab recruitment in the United States article. The second, obviously having to do with the congress woman.

.. ...you should try reading the article before you get your panties in a bunch.
Omar's a common name. Was I not supposed to post the article because they had the same last name ?
I know pronouns are no longer PC, but the 2nd article used he/his in reference to that Omar.

[ToastDunk]

She doesn't even know the name of the diplomat she's insulting.
How knowledgeable is she about the Nicaraguan Cortras (sic) ?
She doesn't rehearse her talking points with the staffer who wrote them either.

Thanks for sharing.
She indeed comes across poorly. In a variety of ways.
So does the guy she's questioning.

Hate the format of these kinds of sessions. She begins with some setting the stage of why not to trust him, given his history, but doesn't let him defend himself, as her time is so short and the questions she actually wants answered come later.

Those are actually legitimate questions, but she creates such a hostile situation that there's no real dialogue possible.

And way, way too short to really get at her legitimate concern (from her perspective). By the time she actually gets to the point, time's up.

What she's basically challenging is: in our process of supporting one faction versus another in South or Central America, or wherever for that matter, whether we are willing to sacrifice human rights values in order to achieve 'democracy' or other government favorable to the United States. Are our interests the people or are they our capitalist interests in their resources. It's an interesting question, and indeed our history to our south is fraught with missteps and massive human rights abuses. Important discussion.

I don't have a problem with this challenge, but the grandstanding nature of the process is not conducive to real exploration.

She's just a puppet, mouthing the words which her handlers prepared for her.
How much do you think she knows about Abram's history or the Contra affair ?
It was a staged video hit piece, but she blew her lines.
She can't even read their names. Being an immigrant is no excuse.
She's a US HS & college grad who has lived in the US for 14 years.
She served in the MN Legislature.
She is stunningly unqualified to be on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
There are some very qualified (D) freshmen members who could have capably filled that seat.

Fortunately your opinion of her qualifications doesn't matter.

Did someone on here excuse her language skills because she's an immigrant? It's actually a fair point, but I agree that it hurts her effectiveness if she fumbles her prepared text. She did much better toward the end when she wasn't speaking from the text.

But you don't have a clue as to whether she knows about or understands the history of US foreign policy and interventions.
IMO, she brings an interesting perspective, quite novel in the Committee's history.
Quite the contrast to the "offended" subject of her questioning.

And she actually appeared to have a solid command of the issue she was going after.
That said, it would have been far more interesting to have had a comprehensive dialogue on the topic...that's why this 5 minute drill process is so problematic.

Your vitriol is very telling.

I read this woman's bio. She is an american success story. I would wager, with a high degree of confidence, that her family is far more serious about education than the average american and as such I would imagine she did well in school. This reminds me of my american classmates making fun of a student from Turkey who butchered the English language as a graduate student. He was the smartest kid in the class.... Billy and Bobby american wondered how he could be so smart with his English being so poor. Those dudes cheated at every turn also.....

So, true.
The rabid xenophobia of some is really ugly. It's also downright stupid.

That said, from what I can tell, she needs to work on making sure what she says doesn't fall into bigoted tropes.

Salty, I found her command of the issue plenty strong.
Maybe you didn't because you don't think the issue is legitimate (?), but her stumbling a bit when reading the prepared part doesn't mean she doesn't know her subject matter. When she spoke to it without prepared notes, she was much more fluid, in full command of her subject.

I agree regarding propagating tropes and stereotypes. It’s dangerous....particularly from politicians. Criticizing her speaking is small minded. That woman has overcome odds most people here can’t imagine. Raised by a single father after losing her mom at 2...quite a story. Friends of ours met a woman that was in the Hotel Rwanda. Was from an upperclass family in Rwanda and is was sweeping the floors in our friend’s micro lab....has since moved up and out. English isn’t the greatest. I wonder how old salt’s Swahili is doing these days....as for puppets....you can argue someone spending a good chunk of their life taking orders is more of a puppet..

This whole exchange highlights the double standard in Washington.

Abrams is showing contempt (I suspect) because she's a woman, wearing a hijab, who speaks with an accent, and is brown. He simply should have answered her f'ing questions instead of trying to scold her. Her questions deserved answers. Abrams needed to show Rep. Omar the same respect she showed him. Maybe Abrams "handlers" ought to have discussed with him that he may get (some) questions he won't like. We had a name for people like him growing up that I can't use here, let's just go with snowflake.

As an aside, being critical of Rep. Omar's delivery is rich given the barrage of incoherent drivel emanating from the White House. Drivel mind you, at times when we need and deserve clear discourse. Ms. Omar is much more qualified for her seat, than the President is for his.

[old salt]

Omar showed no respect for Abrams, starting with not knowing his name & using the hearing to immediately launch into an attack for things that happened over 3 decades ago at the height of the Cold War in our hemisphere. Omar was 2 mos old when the El Mozote attack took place. She was doing what her handlers wound her up & sent her there to do. She wasn't asking questions. She was making an attack.

The fact that she's brown, wears a hijab, can't read English from her notes after 14 yrs in the US & a US college education, are no excuse for an unprovoked attack like that on a diplomat testifying before that committee. That wasn't tough questioning, it was a screed.
I'm sure Abrams' religion was not a factor.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/02/ ... s-big-lie/

Omar was cribbing from the Left’s notes on U.S. Latin American policy, and doing it badly. She made much of the 1981 El Mozote massacre in El Salvador. The idea that Abrams is somehow directly implicated in this bloodcurdlingly awful event is completely absurd. He was assistant secretary of state for international organizations in the Reagan administration, then became assistant secretary of state for human rights and humanitarian affairs on December 10, 1981. The massacre occurred the next day. Unless we are to believe the El Salvadoran military unit took his change of jobs as a green light to indiscriminately kill villagers (which unfortunately was not a new practice), Abrams obviously had nothing to do with the massacre.

Nonetheless, the Omar attack is an opportunity to examine the premises of the Left’s narrative on Reagan’s policy in El Salvador, which supports the persistent attacks on Abrams as a “war criminal.”

It is true that the Reagan administration wrongly minimized the 1981 El Mozote massacre. But this wasn’t out of malice or support for the killers.

When Abrams publicly relayed bad information about the massacre, he was relying on the erroneous reporting from the embassy.

The military was dethroned from its leading role in society, among other important reforms, while the FMLN put down its arms and became a political party. Amazingly enough, it worked and the agreement stuck, making Representative Omar’s question to Abrams whether he still considered Reagan’s El Salvador policy a “fabulous achievement” a very stupid one.

The excuse for her is that she’s profoundly ill-informed. More blameworthy are all those people who should know better but spread the big lie about Reagan policy in Central America, and give the likes of Representative Omar their noxious lines to read.

[tech37]

She doesn't even know the name of the diplomat she's insulting.
How knowledgeable is she about the Nicaraguan Cortras (sic) ?
She doesn't rehearse her talking points with the staffer who wrote them either.

Thanks for sharing.
She indeed comes across poorly. In a variety of ways.
So does the guy she's questioning.

Hate the format of these kinds of sessions. She begins with some setting the stage of why not to trust him, given his history, but doesn't let him defend himself, as her time is so short and the questions she actually wants answered come later.

Those are actually legitimate questions, but she creates such a hostile situation that there's no real dialogue possible.

And way, way too short to really get at her legitimate concern (from her perspective). By the time she actually gets to the point, time's up.

What she's basically challenging is: in our process of supporting one faction versus another in South or Central America, or wherever for that matter, whether we are willing to sacrifice human rights values in order to achieve 'democracy' or other government favorable to the United States. Are our interests the people or are they our capitalist interests in their resources. It's an interesting question, and indeed our history to our south is fraught with missteps and massive human rights abuses. Important discussion.

I don't have a problem with this challenge, but the grandstanding nature of the process is not conducive to real exploration.

She's just a puppet, mouthing the words which her handlers prepared for her.
How much do you think she knows about Abram's history or the Contra affair ?
It was a staged video hit piece, but she blew her lines.
She can't even read their names. Being an immigrant is no excuse.
She's a US HS & college grad who has lived in the US for 14 years.
She served in the MN Legislature.
She is stunningly unqualified to be on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
There are some very qualified (D) freshmen members who could have capably filled that seat.

Fortunately your opinion of her qualifications doesn't matter.

Did someone on here excuse her language skills because she's an immigrant? It's actually a fair point, but I agree that it hurts her effectiveness if she fumbles her prepared text. She did much better toward the end when she wasn't speaking from the text.

But you don't have a clue as to whether she knows about or understands the history of US foreign policy and interventions.
IMO, she brings an interesting perspective, quite novel in the Committee's history.
Quite the contrast to the "offended" subject of her questioning.

And she actually appeared to have a solid command of the issue she was going after.
That said, it would have been far more interesting to have had a comprehensive dialogue on the topic...that's why this 5 minute drill process is so problematic.

Your vitriol is very telling.

I read this woman's bio. She is an american success story. I would wager, with a high degree of confidence, that her family is far more serious about education than the average american and as such I would imagine she did well in school. This reminds me of my american classmates making fun of a student from Turkey who butchered the English language as a graduate student. He was the smartest kid in the class.... Billy and Bobby american wondered how he could be so smart with his English being so poor. Those dudes cheated at every turn also.....

So, true.
The rabid xenophobia of some is really ugly. It's also downright stupid.

That said, from what I can tell, she needs to work on making sure what she says doesn't fall into bigoted tropes.

Salty, I found her command of the issue plenty strong.
Maybe you didn't because you don't think the issue is legitimate (?), but her stumbling a bit when reading the prepared part doesn't mean she doesn't know her subject matter. When she spoke to it without prepared notes, she was much more fluid, in full command of her subject.

I agree regarding propagating tropes and stereotypes. It’s dangerous....particularly from politicians. Criticizing her speaking is small minded. That woman has overcome odds most people here can’t imagine. Raised by a single father after losing her mom at 2...quite a story. Friends of ours met a woman that was in the Hotel Rwanda. Was from an upperclass family in Rwanda and is was sweeping the floors in our friend’s micro lab....has since moved up and out. English isn’t the greatest. I wonder how old salt’s Swahili is doing these days....as for puppets....you can argue someone spending a good chunk of their life taking orders is more of a puppet..

This whole exchange highlights the double standard in Washington.

Abrams is showing contempt (I suspect) because she's a woman, wearing a hijab, who speaks with an accent, and is brown. He simply should have answered her f'ing questions instead of trying to scold her. Her questions deserved answers. Abrams needed to show Rep. Omar the same respect she showed him. Maybe Abrams "handlers" ought to have discussed with him that he may get (some) questions he won't like. We had a name for people like him growing up that I can't use here, let's just go with snowflake.

As an aside, being critical of Rep. Omar's delivery is rich given the barrage of incoherent drivel emanating from the White House. Drivel mind you, at times when we need and deserve clear discourse. Ms. Omar is much more qualified for her seat, than the President is for his.

How anyone can honestly defend Omar's performance during Abram's testimony is beyond me. I say that despite the list of typical "identity politics" boxes you've checked off. What color she is, etc., has nothing to do with it. Question...Are you just another apologist on here, willing to ignore Omar's blatant, recurrent anti-Semitic remarks?

[foreverlax]

Steve King back at it -

“Do you think a white society is superior to a nonwhite society?” Mary Lavelle, 63, asked, testing his reputation for white supremacist sympathies.

Simple enough question

“I don’t have an answer for that. That’s so hypothetical,” Mr. King, Republican of Iowa, told her. “I’ll say this, America is not a white society — it has never been a completely white society. We came here and joined the Native Americans.”

joined the Native Americans...is that what we did, join them?

[ToastDunk]

She doesn't even know the name of the diplomat she's insulting.
How knowledgeable is she about the Nicaraguan Cortras (sic) ?
She doesn't rehearse her talking points with the staffer who wrote them either.

Thanks for sharing.
She indeed comes across poorly. In a variety of ways.
So does the guy she's questioning.

Hate the format of these kinds of sessions. She begins with some setting the stage of why not to trust him, given his history, but doesn't let him defend himself, as her time is so short and the questions she actually wants answered come later.

Those are actually legitimate questions, but she creates such a hostile situation that there's no real dialogue possible.

And way, way too short to really get at her legitimate concern (from her perspective). By the time she actually gets to the point, time's up.

What she's basically challenging is: in our process of supporting one faction versus another in South or Central America, or wherever for that matter, whether we are willing to sacrifice human rights values in order to achieve 'democracy' or other government favorable to the United States. Are our interests the people or are they our capitalist interests in their resources. It's an interesting question, and indeed our history to our south is fraught with missteps and massive human rights abuses. Important discussion.

I don't have a problem with this challenge, but the grandstanding nature of the process is not conducive to real exploration.

She's just a puppet, mouthing the words which her handlers prepared for her.
How much do you think she knows about Abram's history or the Contra affair ?
It was a staged video hit piece, but she blew her lines.
She can't even read their names. Being an immigrant is no excuse.
She's a US HS & college grad who has lived in the US for 14 years.
She served in the MN Legislature.
She is stunningly unqualified to be on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
There are some very qualified (D) freshmen members who could have capably filled that seat.

Fortunately your opinion of her qualifications doesn't matter.

Did someone on here excuse her language skills because she's an immigrant? It's actually a fair point, but I agree that it hurts her effectiveness if she fumbles her prepared text. She did much better toward the end when she wasn't speaking from the text.

But you don't have a clue as to whether she knows about or understands the history of US foreign policy and interventions.
IMO, she brings an interesting perspective, quite novel in the Committee's history.
Quite the contrast to the "offended" subject of her questioning.

And she actually appeared to have a solid command of the issue she was going after.
That said, it would have been far more interesting to have had a comprehensive dialogue on the topic...that's why this 5 minute drill process is so problematic.

Your vitriol is very telling.

I read this woman's bio. She is an american success story. I would wager, with a high degree of confidence, that her family is far more serious about education than the average american and as such I would imagine she did well in school. This reminds me of my american classmates making fun of a student from Turkey who butchered the English language as a graduate student. He was the smartest kid in the class.... Billy and Bobby american wondered how he could be so smart with his English being so poor. Those dudes cheated at every turn also.....

So, true.
The rabid xenophobia of some is really ugly. It's also downright stupid.

That said, from what I can tell, she needs to work on making sure what she says doesn't fall into bigoted tropes.

Salty, I found her command of the issue plenty strong.
Maybe you didn't because you don't think the issue is legitimate (?), but her stumbling a bit when reading the prepared part doesn't mean she doesn't know her subject matter. When she spoke to it without prepared notes, she was much more fluid, in full command of her subject.

I agree regarding propagating tropes and stereotypes. It’s dangerous....particularly from politicians. Criticizing her speaking is small minded. That woman has overcome odds most people here can’t imagine. Raised by a single father after losing her mom at 2...quite a story. Friends of ours met a woman that was in the Hotel Rwanda. Was from an upperclass family in Rwanda and is was sweeping the floors in our friend’s micro lab....has since moved up and out. English isn’t the greatest. I wonder how old salt’s Swahili is doing these days....as for puppets....you can argue someone spending a good chunk of their life taking orders is more of a puppet..

This whole exchange highlights the double standard in Washington.

Abrams is showing contempt (I suspect) because she's a woman, wearing a hijab, who speaks with an accent, and is brown. He simply should have answered her f'ing questions instead of trying to scold her. Her questions deserved answers. Abrams needed to show Rep. Omar the same respect she showed him. Maybe Abrams "handlers" ought to have discussed with him that he may get (some) questions he won't like. We had a name for people like him growing up that I can't use here, let's just go with snowflake.

As an aside, being critical of Rep. Omar's delivery is rich given the barrage of incoherent drivel emanating from the White House. Drivel mind you, at times when we need and deserve clear discourse. Ms. Omar is much more qualified for her seat, than the President is for his.

How anyone can honestly defend Omar's performance during Abram's testimony is beyond me. I say that despite the list of typical "identity politics" boxes you've checked off. What color she is, etc., has nothing to do with it. Question...Are you just another apologist on here, willing to ignore Omar's blatant, recurrent anti-Semitic remarks?

Have you watched one of the hearings before? I simply didn't see anything remarkable about Rep. Omar's performance. In fact, how anyone could direct outrage at her performance is beyond me. Abrams' response is as much about theatrics as Omar's line of questioning, it's a byproduct of televised hearings. As for those "identity politics" boxes you speak of, are you telling me you think this woman isn't treated any different because she looks and sounds different? We've proven this country wasn't ready for a black president, and you think the same people are ready for a muslim woman sitting in Congress? If you're like me, Tech (and I have no reason to think you're not), than the answer is yes, her gender, color, religion don't concern me or play a role in how I view her as a person. I just think we live in a society where too many don't see it that way. And as for Omar's anti-Semitic remarks, she needs to be much more careful with her choice of words, of that there's no doubt. I think the remarks were more unfortunate than evidence of a deep seeded hatred for Israel and the Jewish people. There can't be all this on-the-job training, she needs to get it right. Threading the needle that is criticizing the U.S./Israeli relationship might be better left to senior members of Congress.