Logan's Sexual Assault Brings Wave Of Blaming The Victim And Other Ugliness
February 16, 2011 11:17 am ET by Julie Millican
During a news brief on this morning's Fox & Friends, Gretchen Carlson reported that CBS correspondent Lara Logan had been "beaten and sexually assaulted by a mob of men while covering the political uprising in Egypt." While Carlson reported the story as nothing but factual, during her report, the onscreen text read, "Journalist Assaulted in Egypt? Report: Protesters Attacked CBS' Lara Logan."
Is Fox really questioning the validity of the story? If not, why the question mark?
Fox isn't alone in having a completely inappropriate response to Logan's tragic assault. Others have seized on the story to attack Logan, suggesting that the reason this happened was because she was a pretty woman reporting in the middle of a war zone. As Salon's Mary Elizabeth Williams observed:
In a stunningly offensive blog post titled "Lara Logan, CBS Reporter and Warzone 'It Girl,' Raped Repeatedly Amid Egypt Celebration" for LA Weekly, writer Simone Wilson managed to mention Logan's "shocking good looks and ballsy knack for pushing her way to the heart of the action" before getting to the assault itself. She then went on to imagine how it happened: "In a rush of frenzied excitement, some Egyptian protestors apparently consummated their newfound independence by sexually assaulting the blonde reporter." Well, sure, what other motive for an assault could there be, given that Logan is, in Wilson's words, a "gutsy stunner" with "Hollywood good looks"? And how else do Egyptians celebrate anyway but with a gang assault? It's not like she deserved it, but well, she is hot, right?
[...]
Wilson wasn't the only person out there to be wildly tone-deaf in response, either. When the news broke, Nir Rosen, a fellow at the New York University Center for Law and Security, promptly whined to Twitter, "It's always wrong, that's obvious, but I'm rolling my eyes at all the attention she'll get," adding, "She's so bad that I ran out of sympathy for her." He soon backpedaled, deleting several of his most offensive posts and tweeting, "I apologize and take it back. joking with friends got out of line when i didnt [sic] want to back down. forgot twitter is not exactly private." Apparently he still hasn't remembered that sexual assault isn't great joking around material.
Rosen since resigned his post at NYU.
But he's not alone.
Other conservative commentators have seized on the story as an excuse to perpetuate their racism. As Williams pointed out, right-wing blogger Debbie Schlussel responded to the incident by claiming Logan was to blame because "she should have known what Islam is all about":
And the ever-heinous Debbie Schlussel was quick to jump on her regular line of racism, noting how the assault happened in a "country of savages," because that never ever happens anywhere else, and it's never committed by light-skinned people! She then twisted the knife by going after Logan herself, saying, "So sad, too bad, Lara. No one told her to go there. She knew the risks. And she should have known what Islam is all about. Now she knows... How fitting that Lara Logan was 'liberated' by Muslims in Liberation Square while she was gushing over the other part of the 'liberation.'" Debbie Schlussel, what's it like to be so liberated from the burden of having either a mind or a soul?
In addition, notorious Islamophobe Pam Geller seems to be taking issue with CBS not reporting on the religious affiliation of the assailants. She also doesn't think that women really could have had much to do with rescuing Logan from her assailants. From her February 15 post (emphasis in the original):
Freedom-yearning young Egyptian role models? Not so much.
CBS chief foreign correspondent Lara Logan was covering the jubilation in Tahrir Square for a "60 Minutes" story when she and her team and their security were surrounded by a dangerous element amidst the celebration. It was a mob of more than 200 people whipped into frenzy.
CBS reportage on this is ... interesting. Logan was brutally raped for a sustained period of time. I find their mealy-mouthed reportingappalling. Imagine if this were ..... Israel. Or a tea party.
She was saved by "a group of women and an estimated 20 Egyptian soldiers." Color me skeptical, but methinks it was more soldiers than women.
These people ought to be ashamed of themselves. A woman was brutally assaulted in one of the most horrifyingly imaginable ways, and they are using it to blame the victim or to further their own racism. The fact remains that in no way is Logan responsible for what happened to her, and it is beyond disgusting to suggest otherwise. Moreover, the religion of her assailants is completely irrelevant. Would Geller or Schlussel argue that we shouldn't be surprised when a woman gets gang raped by Christian males because they're Christian? Of course not.
This crime was committed by a group of savages who should be brought to justice for what they did. And we should be keeping Logan in our thoughts and prayers. Nothing else should matter.
UPDATE:
Gateway Pundit Jim Hoft blames Logan and "her liberal belief system" for her sexual assault.
Does that make it the slightest bit better or worse? No, not in the least.
I can't even think of something snarky to say. These people are just disgusting.
Go f**k yourself, Debbie.
The lefty men in the blog threads, who enjoy their rape jokes just as much as the righties do, want more gory details before they can decide if she was really really raped or just plain raped before they bring the full force of their victim blaming.
The left has a history of circling the wagons around rapists....
On a side not I cannot and will not give ms Logan my sympathy, I don't think she wants anyone to pity her. All I can give her is my respect cuz she's going right back in there to do her Job.
In this country EVERYONE who is accused of a crime is and should be considered INNOCENT UNTIL proven guilty.
You can make all the accusation you want but UNLESS you've gone to court and proven your case, you're just flapping your jaws.
Neither President Clinton, V.P. Al Gore or Governor Spitzer were EVER found guilty of rape in ANY court in this country!
And so far Assange is just charged with a crime, he has not gone to court.
IF the prosecution proves it's case then he'll be found guilty as charged, but right now he has just been accused.
EVIDENCE? Have YOU provided ANY?... I didn't think so.
The fact still remains that
You really need to start thinking like a man for a change...
This women, Mrs Lara Logan is too tough to ask for anyone's sympathy, so I chose to give her my respect.
She doesn't want to play the victim role!!!
I Like That!
WTF? Empathy is not a male trait? You really are a disgusting example of the rw.
But now This has become your typical leftist Victim Worshiping session.
How predictable!
As opposed to your typical right wing CRIMINAL worshiping session.
You are disgusting.
More importantly though is the total disconnect people like Schlussel and others have about events such as this. I think we would all agree that if someone was desperate enough to sexually assault Schlussel, in the aftermath, she certainly wouldn't see her predicament as being a result of her actions. Nevertheless, it never ceases to amaze me how these right wing thugs hide behind Jesus and Christianity while they say and do things that are in direct contradiction to everything Christ taught. Amazing and so, so sad.
. . . says the one who said:
Our misogyny isn't as bad as their misogyny sounds a bit like the not as bad as Hitler excuse for abuse.
It was not my intent to shock you with a nasty jolt of the reality women live with every day of their lives.
thebewilderness isn't saying anything that's incorrect; misogyny exists everywhere, and it's beyond politics.
Which is exactly what this should be--beyond politics. We can't be pointing fingers at anyone; it just distracts us from the real issue, which is that some men AND women (it even goes beyond gender, which is pretty appalling) blame the victims of sexual assaults.
It has to stop, everywhere. Rapists roam free because their victims are afraid to come forward--that cannot be happening, anywhere.
We just need to keep focused on the real issue at hand, which is how to stop this ignorance.
Example: Bid Laden to attack targets inside US?
<just asking a question>
MagCynic defends rape? Commentor critical of comments outraged by rape of reporter.
Fox News asked the question then answered it with facts from a report.
Do you see how a statement of opinion about a person, place, event, etc can be cleverly concealed by adding a simple question mark?
Fox does it all the time. It's known as a "Cavuto Mark." It's simply a cowardly way of making a statement and concealing that statement with a question mark. Go here and watch Jon Stewart explain what Fox is doing.
http://www.newshounds.us/2006/09/14/jon_stewart_explains_the_cavuto_mark.php
What's your take on that, MagCynic?
American Murdered in Iran?
Report: Iranian military murder American tourist
Would you have a problem with that headline?
Yes.
Full disclosure, mags - I used to be a journalist and I never, ever, used a question mark in a headline.
You didn't. That doesn't mean many other news agencies haven't.
Specifically what do you find wrong with a headline framed like that?
It introduces the topic by asking a question, then answers the question.
NO QUESTION MARK IS NECESSARY. The incident happened. It's a fact. No question needs to be asked. Therefore, Fox is putting this in a "maybe she was, maybe she wasn't" format despite what they wrote below.
MagCynic stretches any understanding of the English language in order to defend the indefensible.
Try answering the question for once, coward.
This entire article, and ensuing discussion, is not about the question mark that Fox placed at the end of their banner, but of the Republican media's response to Lara Logan's rape. The second quote box in the story above refers to Debbie Schussel's response to the rape.
You're willingness to ignore the inconvenient filth your side has been flinging at a rape victim only convinces me that you most likely feel the same as these people, but lack the courage to speak it publicly, instead putting on your tunnel vision goggles about a question mark, hoping that we'll get frustrated with you and let it go. But I'm not going to let it go. I want a direct answer from you about your feelings regarding Debbie Schussel's remarks.
Are you willing to say here that a Republican made disgustingly vile and inappropriate comments by calling rape a "liberation" of its victim?
What's the point of this site? Is Media Matters trying to discredit conservative ideals?
Here it is again:
How about Debbie Schussel saying that her rapists "liberated" her?
What's your take on that, MagCynic?
All this could be true. What, then, would be the point? She's clearly wrong if she holds that belief? What's the point of pointing her belief out?
You're such a child, and a coward to boot who's too afraid to own up to his ideology. You'd rather hem and haw and hope people forget that you refuse to answer any questions directly, yet demand that everyone answer your questions.
You can type all the inane bulls**t you want, here. You're the one who has to live with your cowardice, not me.
My only point of contention is that Media Matters seems to be implying that Fox News doesn't think the rape happened. I could care less if some idiot named Debbie thinks Lara Logan was "liberated" by her attackers.
we know how right wingers dont believe rape happens.
dont you ever get tired of proving how disgusting you are?
Conservatives do a fine job of that on their own.
Where is YOUR humanity?
It'd be like me writing a headline like...
Student Raped In Class?
Report: Rape occurred after teacher left room
Would you have a problem with that headline?
It's a common practice in the news. You see that all the time.
Do you not see the sub-headline answering the question they ask?
If you're asking a legitimate question "Is vinegar or ammonia better for cleaning wine stains out of clothing?" then a question mark is appropriate. If the question is innocuous, (see example above) then my answer is the same.
The "question" in this case is neither legitimate nor is it innocuous. For millennia, men have asked "But was she really raped?" Fox News made it appear as though that ages-old question was legitimate in this case.
yes and that is why we use the term alledged until a trial or the facts are confirmed. fox's banner (?) isn't the problem, its the stupid jerks comments about it (geller, schussel)
I fixed that. This is a straight story. The assault happened, there were witnesses and, as was stated, Gretchen Carlson was reporting the story as fact on Fox and Friends while that chyron was on the bottom of the screen. The only reason for that question mark was to bring the story into question...not to introduce it. It was appalling and kind of surprisingly low down, even for Fox News.
It reads (summarizing): "Was a journalist raped? Yes, a report says she was."
I was paraphrasing.
You're working harder than anyone else here to defend what's been described in the story above.
Christ, I couldn't sleep at night if I did what you're doing now.
I find it easier to communicate with people on here if we have a conversation with one idea at a time.
Let's start with this, what do you find offensive about Fox News' use of the question mark?
You are one of the most evasive persons I have ever experienced in a forum.
We ask why the ? in the on screen title and you dance around the question.
Was a journalist raped? A report says she was.
That's an accurate paraphrase, and it leaves room for doubt as to whether a rape took place. Which is why, I suspect, you added a "Yes" that wasn't there.
D'oh!
At no point did any viewer of Fox News ever come away with the notion that Lara Logan wasn't raped.
I count a dozen posts where you argue that the headline itself vindicates Fox. Happy to help.
Happy to retort.
As Media Matters notes in the first paragraph, "Carlson reported the story as nothing but factual," and I never said otherwise. But my correction of your own paraphrase I think shows just how wrong the chyron was.
BTW, onespeedbiker is also defending Fox News below, but he does think Fox was questioning whether or not the assault happened. Based on the chyron.
My point is that Fox News should not be grouped with anybody that thinks the rape never happened like Media Matters has done here. It is dishonest.
That's what the chyron does. Literally. And, no, I don't think that's as bad as what others have done, and I don't think it represents the view of Fox News. I just think it was very inappropriate and I'd like to see some accountability from Fox.
Really? I can't seem to find much about that. Of cours you could provide some kind of proof this happens "all the time", right. Or even occasionally, outside of places like fox and the rw echo chamber.
God I wish I was a moderator on this site. MagCynic, your IP would be banned so fast it wouldn't even be funny, after seeing the comments that you're writing on this thread. You sick, twisted, evil, woman-hating (as long as they're liberal?) little taint-stain of a man. Daring to defend those who are vilifying this female reporter......you've sunk to a horrible new low.
No doubt - this is the same poster that said he would...
"Laugh. Out. Loud."
...if a muslim theocracy emerged in Egypt after the protests. It seemed to simply be so he could say "Told ya so. Beck was right!"
Mag is one fick suck not to mention an ignorant POS.
"Rape in High School?
Study: More students are being raped in school"
Do you have a problem with that question mark? It's introducing the subject by questioning it and following it up with a report or study to answer the question. Like I said, it's a common way of phrasing news blurbs. It's not arguing that it never happened.
Yes.
No it's not - prove it with some links.
It used to be liability insurance for when they want to go with a story that they do not know is true. That is how it started not so many years ago.
Now it is an effective propaganda tool used to call facts into question and promote falsehoods.
His beef with Logan seems to stem from her criticism of Rolling Stone's story about Stanley McCrystal. Many of us on the left were not at all happy with Logan's actions then. See, for e.g., this piece by Matt Taibbi.
Most of us on the left were horrified by her rape and are sympathetic to her; the fact that she has made some regrettable choices in the past is irrelevant. I don't care that Rosen's a liberal; he behaved disgracefully, and he's earned the scorn (and loss of his NYU job) that he's received.
I sure hope she's stronger than I am, and comes back with a vengeance.
Millions of people want to know."
However, I don't think MMfA got this part quite right...
Considering his body of work on the Iraq war, Rosen is not someone I would put in the company of "conservative commentators."
Of course it always boils down to how the woman looks, right? Not that the men involved are criminal pigs!
What's horrifying here is the conservative pundits quoted here are women; they are nothing more than lackeys for the misogynistic right wing, and that's truly pathetic.
You don't walk up to someone who's house just burned down and say, "Geez, Bill, don't you own a fire extinguisher?"
You don't walk up to a guy who just got shot and ask why he wasn't wearing a bullet-proof vest, or why he wasn't 'paying attention to his surroundings.'
But violence against women? Meh... she HAD to be doing something wrong, right?
It's despicable and it makes me sick.
As far as I'm concerned, Noirin Shirley had it 100% right, when she wrote that, "It's not my job to avoid getting assaulted. It's everyone else's job to avoid assulting me."
Seeing how assault (sexual or otheriwse) is a CRIME, I don't see how anyone can disagree with that sentiment. And yet... most do!
If you insert ANY OTHER CRIME into that statement, you'll get no argument from anyone. Yet we treat sexual assault like it's something to be EXPECTED. Somehow just par for the course. It's really sick.
-----------------------------------------
IMHO
What does it say about us as a civilization when we shamelessly refer to a woman being raped as her being "liberated"? Who the hell thinks like that?
Hmmm... That's a new one for me, but it sure would be evidence of quite a few steps backwards.
--------------------------
IMHO
We're there...
More than forty rapes were reported to police in the small, southern town hosting the oldest public university in our nation during the first three months of the 2010-11 academic year, according to the school’s own newspaper. With approximately 38,000 registered students—presumably about half of whom are male—that makes more than one reported rape for every 500 female students. In a “public ivy” school where female students are commonly referred to as “slam boxes”—especially in the Greek world—most girls know at least one female student who suffered the indignity but chose not to report it to local police. Girls “ruffied” in downtown bars or at frat parties fear the shame and consequences of reporting their attacks. Stories of police threatening victims with arrest or expulsion from school for underage drinking are rampant on campus and help perpetuate the school’s dirty little secret. It would be a long stretch of imagination to believe this university scenario is isolated.
We came a long way baby to end up where we’ve found ourselves today. Women’s Rights icons like Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem have been replaced by uber-trashy celebrities, proudly releasing their sex tapes, bearing children out-of-wedlock and swearing like sailors. Many reality-show episodes contain more bleeps than dialogue. Though some are quick to blame Steinem or Friedan for encouraging women to insist upon the freedom to behave in any way they like, a read of their literature instructs that today’s cultural mores do not in any way reflect what they preached.
Hillary Clinton best embodies their vision. Her academic achievements prepared her to hold the nation’s top diplomatic job. Her career did not hinder her raising an intelligent, productive and dignified daughter who knew how to keep her blouse buttoned and her legs crossed. Clinton entertains audiences with clever wit and substantive commentary rather than pageant walking in stiletto heels and winks. She is viciously attacked by media darlings, Rush and Glenn, for daring to exceed their combined intellect by miles, and for choosing to dress and comport herself in a professional manner. Call it the Cialis Syndrome: women being punished for choosing to elevate intellect rather than male apparatus.
Young men and women can hardly help but fall victim to the Syndrome when Snooki, Bristol and Janelle are so amply rewarded for their lack of taste and diligence. No such excuse exists for the bulk of our society—the baby boomers—whose exposure to high-minded ideals has been stowed away in the attic. It’s time to brush off the dust and speak up.
From Wiki's "Sexual assault" page:
"While sexual assaults are associated with the crime of rape, it may cover assaults which would not be considered rape." The reference is to Black's Law Dictionary, presumably a reliable source.
She was brutally beaten and sexually assaulted. That is terrible, and I have complete sympathy for her and loathing for all those who participated (and admiration for the women who bravely came to her aid). I'm just saying that not all sexual assaults are necessarily "rape."
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/7761442/sexual_assault_of_reporter_lar....html?cat=5
I don't think either one is really any better or makes her feel less of a victim than the other.
hope you're not married or have daughters.
Hold the Phone... Pam Gellar is probably right about CBS sitting on this story. After all Who would want to ruin the narrative of a "peaceful" mostly Muslim Protest with an inconvenient Rape story? The others are the ones who should apologize.
No. They aren't questioning the validity of the story if you'd just read the very next line in the headline. "Report: Protesters attacked CBS' Laura Logan"
You literally just have to adjust the focus on your eyes like a millimeter down to read that, no, they aren't questioning the validity of the story.
Of course, that didn't stop Media Matters from trumping up the notion that Fox News didn't believe the story to begin with.
As for the rest of the article I could care less about who those people are or what they said. If they truly believe that the rape was the fault of Laura Logan herself then they are simply wrong. It has nothing to do with being a conservative or not.
Do you even realize how disgusting this is coming across?
Mag needs to learn when to stop digging.
Do you or do you not believe that Fox News thinks Logan was never raped?
If the answer is yes then how do you explain the sub-headline answering the question that, yes, she was raped.
If the answer is no then what's the point of even including Fox News in this article?
Take your pick.
I'm sure they put up a question mark though so that makes it okie dokie.
It attributes the story to a "Report." That also allows for some doubt. To me, the headline is a question; the sub-headline implies, "Well, it's been reported, but we can't be sure." The sub-headline doesn't "answer" the question at all.
I'm surprised that you don't see it this way. I can't explain that, other than to say that you must be so utterly consumed with the necessity to defend Fox News, that you're willing to convince yourself of just about anything.
Its just like you leftist nuts to continually take something out of context and fill it with made up stupidity. Saying that FOX questioned the validity of this story by adding a question mark to the headline is like saying you're an imbecile because your screen name is Imbecile. (Note: I think you're an Imbecile because of the incoherant drivel you spout, not because of your screen name)
Saying that someone is defending a raptist or dismissing the severity of such a crime by pointing out your earlier non-sense is just as absurd.
MMFA is clearly reaching for straws, and they have been for awhile. They are irrelevant and their agenda clouds their ability to be good journalist.
The point of this story was the Republican reaction to the sexual assault, as evidenced by the clips produced in this story. It's only from the Republican defenders who are unwilling to call out their fellow Republicans that this became an issue. MagCynic would rather defend his fellow Republicans than call out vile comments as I mentioned earlier.
And finally, doing the whole name thing? Really? How can you be taken seriously when you engage in elementary, cliched insults like that?
See my post above about to whom the question mark is targeted.
Someday, the wingnut trolls who come to this board will come to realization that MMfA is not a media outlet -- perhaps after they read the Mission Statement.
Dunno when, but someday . . .
They know exactly what they're doing. Reporting yet implying, giving themselves plausible deniability.
This is a case where any decent human being would have seen how this could be taken, yet once again, MagCynic has to defend Fox, to the death, if necessary.
There are some things that can't be defended.
Yes or no?
...complete non-issue...
The question mark gives them cover for their rabid anti-left fans. Fox and right wing media in general are famous for dancing around issues, using question marks in headlines, and reporting what "some people" are saying as gospel, so as not to drive their crackpot base away.
And, no, I don't have every link to every time I've ever seen it. Sorry. You'll just have to believe that it's been done numerous times before.
We don't need "every link to every time (you)'ve ever seen it." If it's so durned common, you should be able to find more than one example. And you really can't tell us that we'll "just have to believe" you.
Give us examples, or you've got nothing.
Yeah - given YOUR track record we'll just take your word for it.
You always give these weird "I could care less/ I'm not a Beck fan/ I don't agree with what was said" disclaimers, but you obviously feel some obsessive compulsion to put yourself in the line of fire and pull out some stupid, semantics- based wordplay to pretend that MMFA is the villian because they ACTUALLY POINTED OUT THE HORRIBLE THINGS A CONSERVATIVE SAID IN A STATEMENT INTENDED FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION.
Unlike some people here, I'm fully willing to concede that there ARE intelligent and reasonable conservatives out there; they're the ones that NEVER get mentioned on MMFA because they AREN'T lying, mean-spirited hatemongers. Why do you feel the need to defend the ones that ARE?
My comment is ONLY concerning the inclusion Fox News in an article about people blaming Lara Logan for her rape. So let's focus on that.
What about the Fox News headline: "Journalist Assaulted in Egypt? Report: Protesters in Egypt Attacked CBS' Lara Logan" is indefensible?
I suspect YOU don't understand what makes you post here, either.
But for the record: Theoretically, that Fox headline is totally acceptable... but given that network's history of delibrately doing things like putting "D" after the names of scandal-plagued Republicans, I understand why others here are no longer willing to give them the benefit of a doubt.It's not just that Fox has proven itself untrustworthy; it's that they've REPEATEDLY proven themselves untrustworthy on virtually every issue.
That is and has always been the basis of journalism.
No you aren't thinking you are a lying POS trying to obfuscate on behalf of the rw filth that took joy in a woman's rape simply because of her politics.
But sure....whatever. The only thing FOX News is ever at Live that breaks are California Car chases
REAL Journalists all across this nation should speak up and respond to the commentary of these rabid wanabee's.
I am emailing these MMFA articles to every real journalist and honest news analyst in my address book, Thanking those who have already published a response and asking all others to swiftly publish responses to the commentary of these vulgar, vile degenerates.
No decent woman with a healthy, normal and proper sense of right and wrong could ever even suggest that a beating-rape victim is at fault and is responsible for being beaten and raped.
These rabid bittches in that pack of dogs have proven with their commentaries on this horrible crime, that they are completely devoid of anything resembling a sense of right or wrong.
It would be hilarious, if it weren't so pitiful.
Even CBS, whom she works for, has not used the word "rape". I would like to know how anybody can claim to know what really happened, since CBS is not talking about it.
Maybe she doesn't want to be pasted all over the internet as being raped by a bunch of dirty animals who probably haven't bathed in days or weeks because they are too busy protesting for freedom.
How about showing some sensitivity to the victim, and wait until she actually does (if she ever decides to) make that statement herself?
the obvious answer since you omitted it.....is from you....there wouldnt be any action. you would simply ignore it.
i bet your wife and daughters are so proud of you
maybe you would make more sense if you described who "they" is?
and how could you possibly know that? From my response to your vague comment?
Muslim men wouldn't care if a Muslim woman were were "raped" by a "fox news reporter". They would care more about how it looked to other Muslims, or how it dishonored their family. She would then be dealt with, and not in a court of law.
Is there a problem with this article? It doesn't give too many specifics either. In fact, it says nothing about rape, so where would any confirmation of rape come from this morning?
On a related note, your Blind Faith in all things FOX is not particularly endearing or noble.
It's not intended to be. At least on Fox one can tell the difference between opinion and reporting.
A. She had it coming - liberals are stupid and believe the mob was out to protest in favor of democracy and freedom; or for the way she was dressed;
B. What else can you expect from Muslin savages?
and/or
C. "Sorry" it happened - but she'll learn her lesson from it; and other correspodents could stand to learn the same.
Cretins.
Were those Egyptian men celebrating when they sexually assaulted her and chanted "Jew, Jew, Jew" as they did it?
In contrast to FOX, who reported the uprising as Egyptians "not knowing what they want", and calling for Mubarak's support -- then, after Mubarak's resignation, saying "Obama lost Egypt" . . .
Democracy - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41529355/ns/world_news-mideast/n_africa/