Who is Hugh Fitzgerald?

Hugh Fitzgerald is JihadWatch’s mystery man, no one knows who he is, his Wiki page is one sentence long. Alongside Robert Spencer, Fitzgerald is a co-administrator and contributor to JihadWatch. Robert Spencer claims that he elevated Hugh Fitzgerald to Vice President of JihadWatch in 2004, which is curious considering Fitzgerald is neither listed as Vice President on the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s 990 tax return nor does it mention him receiving any sort of salary.

Some have claimed that Hugh Fitzgerald is in fact Robert Spencer, an accusation Spencer denies, though he leaves much to be desired when answering critics. For instance Spencer  claimed that Fitzgerald was with him at the David Horowitz lead Conference, Restoration Weekend. However, only Spencer corroborated this account while no film was taken of the event and not a single picture exists of Hugh Fitzgerald anywhere on the web.

Photos of Spencer abound: he has one on his site, Jihad Watch, and he has posted over the years numerous photos of himself at various events. He has also posted videos of himself, not only delivering lectures but also in debates with others. Not a single photo seems to exist of Hugh Fitzgerald. Not only this, but no explanation has ever been put forth for this odd dearth of documentation of a major figure in the anti-jihad movement  when we have photos of all the other major players, such as David Horowitz, Andrew Bostom, Daniel Pipes, Nonie Darwish, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, etc. It seems silly to continue maintaining this queer blackout on Fitzgerald’s physiognomy, particularly when Spencer has to keep denying the equally silly rumors of their identity with each other.

Fitzgerald claims to be an atheist, teaming up with Spencer to fight the “threat of Islam.” A tactic it seems to try and enlist people to the anti-Muslim cause from various, (not just Christian Conservative backgrounds) by claiming it as a universal priority for Westerners who want to preserve their Judeo-Christian culture and values.

The anonymity of “Hugh Fitzgerald” affords him the ability to say things that Spencer otherwise would never utter, and also allows Spencer to play the card that JihadWatch is not just a biased Christian-centric, Judeo-Christian Supremacist blog but a site that brings together individuals from differing backgrounds into a coalition opposed to “the Jihad.”

43 thoughts on “Who is Hugh Fitzgerald?

  1. Hugh Fitzgerald is also known for his inability to be concise. He can literally make one sentence last for one whole paragraph … and while your struggling to search for the point, he adds another comma and then a semi-colon (with perhaps some parenthetical information) to include some other additional irrelevant point that’s only distantly related to the main point of his diatribe, but almost always redundantly stated; then before you know it, you’ve just read an entire paragraph without seeing one period. Before you even begin to dissect his quadruple-clause behemoth of a paragraph, you wonder if it’s even grammatically coherent.

    But before you do that, you just grow tired and close the window and go to bed. It’s really an exhausting ordeal. And quite a genius method of advancing your arguments.

  2. Hugh Fitzgerald is a fascistic lunatic who openly, and with Mr. Spencer’s blessing (he was appointed as vice president of jihadwatch and as Mr. Spencer admitted he speaks for jihadwatch), calls for discriminatory policies and mass expulsion of Muslims from the west.
    Here is a recent post which exemplifies this madman’s (and by extension jihadwatch) ideology:
    “No, in one sense we learn nothing, except that now it is harder for the denialists, those who keep thinking we can rely on the “good Muslims” to be our true-blue friends and “help us” against the “violent extremists” when, of course, it is all those who believe in Islam who must be treated as our enemies, for it is they who are raised up in the belief that between Muslims and Infidels a state of permanent war must exist, that Dar al-Islam must push back and eventually swallow up Dar al-Harb, and that Infidels are always to be regarded with mistrust and hostility amounting often to hatred, for that is what Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira teach, and there is no way for American soldiers, building schools or roads or distributing money, clothes, food, toys, to ever undo what Islam inculcates. “

  3. With your permission I would like to reprint the hate-filled words of Mr. Fitzgerald here, it is very important that jihadwatch be exposed as a hate site.

    Who is Hugh Fitzgerald? One who enjoys seeing Muslims suffer everywhere:

    “The Western world should show no great interest in helping Saudi Arabia. It should be secretly delighted with each day’s news, the news that brings word not of Infidel casualties, but of Muslim casualties, inflicted by other Muslims. ”
    “We should take pleasure in the spectacle of warfare, in any Muslim land, warfare that takes up the attention of the locals, and uses up not only their resources, but also, one hopes, the resources of their neighbors.”
    source: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/11/fitzgerald-yemen-and-what-to-think-about-it.html

    This is the man hired by Robert Spencer, the vice-president of jihadwatch whose articles are published and praised by Robert Spencer.

    • There’s actually more to the article:

      Oh, let them impose the buffer zone. Let the Iranians deliver weapons, including missiles to shoot down Saudi planes. Let Saudi planes be shot down. Let Saudi Arabia, with its waddling princes and its unmerited trillions, and its absurd pretensions – a primitive society based entirely on oil revenues, and on the work of foreign, chiefly Infidel, wage-slaves – be occupied with that. The Western world should show no great interest in helping Saudi Arabia. It should be secretly delighted with each day’s news, the news that brings word not of Infidel casualties, but of Muslim casualties, inflicted by other Muslims. And the showdown in Iraq, that is surely coming, between Sunni Arabs (who will never accept their new, inferior status) and the Shi’a Arabs (who will never yield any of the power they have now acquired thanks to the deposing of Saddam Hussein by the Americans) is likely only to exacerbate Shi’a-Sunni tensions and war in the Yemen.

      No one was paying much attention, back in the 1960s, to the war in Yemen. I did, because for a short time, in Madrid, I shared living quarters with a most unsavory Belgian who ran guns to the “Royalists” and was as big a crook as you can imagine. But it was, from the viewpoint of Infidels, a good war. It was not as good a war as the eight-year war that took up the attention of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, and caused both sides to expend men, money, materiel for eight wonderful years. And if this new war continues, and does not exhaust itself soon, with too decisive a victory over the Houthis, no one in our world, in Dar al-Harb, should worry about this, or think things should be done to stop it. Let it go on. Let it go on, forever.

      • Why do Muslims allow all that hatred in their hearts and minds instead of using their intelligence for practical solutions, instead of all that jihad garbage. Ever heard of contra-productive?

  4. If there was any doubt that Hugh Fitzgerald spoke for jihadwatch, Robert Spencer let it slip once on another site that, and I quote:

    “Hello. Someone just sent me this. I do not know who you are, I have never been to this site before, and I have never condemned you as anything whatsoever. No one speaks for Jihad Watch except me and Hugh Fitzgerald, and I am certain that he has called you no names either. Anyone else claiming to speak for Jihad Watch is not telling the truth, and anyone claiming to be me and writing any message other than this one is an impersonator.

    Robert Spencer


    The blog was soon deleted thereafter but the internet has a long memory.

    This is direct evidence that Robert Spencer isnt just providing a platform for hugh fitzgerald to advance his fascistic genocidal agenda; in fact he has the same agenda and jihadwatch is his mouthpiece.

    One last thing, there is a jihadwatch thread where this issue was addressed by yours truly, “strangely” all comments have also been deleted.

  5. Wow. The crusading nature of Spencer is coming out.

    Hugh is blatantly Spencer. There is no doubt that he is a front for Spencer’s more genocidal writings. Even if someone doubts him for those posts, he can lay it all on Hugh and his reputation is clean.

  6. More hatred from Fitzgerald:

    “A complete ban on Muslim migration to the Western world (which needs to be undertaken in any case), and limits put on any contact between Muslims living in the West, who may already have obtained citizenship and — unless they are native-born converts — their countries of origin.”

    “And the first way is to put a complete stop to Muslim immigration, and to find creative ways to deport all Muslim non-citizens. These two measures would be accompanied by the creation of an environment where the practice of Islam is made not easy but difficult.”

    The West must “Understand how very useless is the concept of the “moderate” Muslim — because it is impossible to know when someone’s “moderation” is real or feigned”[5] and must take “specific moves to limit Muslim immigration. This can only take place if the Idols of the Age, about Diversity and Everyone Wants the Same Thing and Tolerance is Always the Only Conceivable Policy, are undermined, mocked, and shown up as the dangers they are.”

    “Stephen Sizar of Virginia Water, should be demanding that in Bethlehem and Nazareth, Iraqi and other Arab-speaking Christians should move in, and Muslims be moved out. The retaking of Bethlehem, by the Israelis, and its being repopulted by Arabic-speaking but non-Arab Christians, or by Christians who are from Europe or Latin America, and willing to live there to keep the place safe for the world’s Christians and out of Muslim hands and inevitable Muslim domination at the expense of a Christian presence, a Christian flavor, and ultimately of Chrsitian access — should be a cause that will also, and most usefully, serve to separate out the Christians from the islamochristians”

  7. Spencer doesn’t seem to give atheists much efficacious reputation if he’s typing out his genocidal and warmongering fantasies under that guise.

  8. Hugh Fitzgerald advocates the expulsion of all Muslims.

    “This kind of thing should be going on round-the-clock, and with expulsions en masse of all those who, in identifying themselves as Muslims, refuse to distance themselves from the Jihad-verses of the Qur’an, such as 9.5 and 9.29, and who can, therefore, legitimately be held to take such things as the literal word of God and hence, their unavoidable and immutable duty. Why bother to wait for enough evidence to prove a link, in this case, to terrorist groups or to illegal immigration rings? Why is that necessary? Isn’t taking the Qur’an as the literal word of God, with all that it contains, quite enough? No? Why not? “

    • A follow-up on this theme :

      “The key here is that a Muslim who calls himself a Muslim thereby signals to us that he believes certain things, in the Total Belief-System of Islam, or at least that those things which Islam inculcates do not so thoroughly dismay or disgust him that he has decided to no longer call himself a Muslim. One can understand why, in a Muslim-dominated land, those who are disaffected from Islam might not wish to draw attention to this, for they know that they can be killed, or their interests severely harmed, and their lives ruined, if they openly declare that they are no longer Muslims. But what about Muslims living in the West, in conditions of far greater safety? If they continue to call themselves Muslims, then it is not unfair to attribute to them agreement with, or not deep disagreement with, what is contained in the Qur’an and the Hadith and the Sira. ”


  9. I have not always read the posts by Hugh Fitzgerald in detail from Jihad Watch. Sometimes I will quickly browse through them and move on.

    Now that I see there could even be a remote chance that both he and Robert Spencer are one and the same, I will begin thoroughly reading the posts of Hugh.

  10. Has anyone noticed the absence of Hugh at jwatch in recent weeks? Its very interesting since the madman continues to blog at that cesspool called the new english review.

    I think the extra attention that sites like this bring on the genocidal writings of hugh fitzgerald worries Spencer and it is likely he asked him to stop posting for a while.

  11. Here is one of Fitzgerald’s more loonier articles. In it, he describes some of his genocidal fantasies:

    Seizure of other Arab-owned or Muslim-owned assets in the West, for the same reasons. There need not be any distinction made between property owned by governments and those who are deemed to be enemy nationals — no such distinction was made during World War II.

    complete ban on Muslim migration to the Western world (which needs to be undertaken in any case), and limits put on any contact between Muslims living in the West, who may already have obtained ciizenship and — unless they are native-born converts — their countries of origin.

    Government-sponsored centers to teach people about Islam outside of universities, which all over the Western world have been infiltrated, or rather captured by, apologists for Islam both Muslim and non-Muslim.

    End all access to Western education, not only for those Arabs and Muslims studying any kind of science, but in every area. Attempting the hopeless project of “educating them” out of their belief-system will not work.

    The article is called “Bomb Mecca?”


    • Here’s Fitzgerald advocating for more discriminatory laws:

      Fitzgerald: Needed: A Muslims-only airline

      Meanwhile, to prevent this kind of thing from happening in the future, perhaps a “Muslims-only” airline should be established — Muslims-only except for the pilots, lest the plane head you-know-where — and with a locked cabin, and possibly armed guards every few feet. Then Muslims can travel on that airline (oh, it can be a very big airline) and on no other.


    • What interesting about that particular quote “Seizure of other Arab-owned or Muslim-owned assets in the West, ”
      is the conflation between arab (the race) and Muslims (the believers in a religion).

      This is from the same site that assures that Islam is not a race.

  12. Lol @ Fitzgerald and all of the other idiots saying that universities have been “infiltrated”. Are you fucking serious here? I can’t believe nobody sees them for the conspiracy theorists that they are. I love how they somehow think they know about Islam than Muslims do…considering they only started “studying” it post-9/11.

  13. Fitzgerald: The UN: Thoroughly infiltrated and taken over by Muslims at every level


    ^ LoL. What a bat***t crazy title. This dude is loonier than I originally thought. The fact that his rants are still on Jihadwatch says a lot.

    It is hard to think of an organization that has been more thoroughly infiltrated and taken over by Muslims at every level, than the United Nations. It has for decades been filled with such willing collaborators as Edward Mortimer, the former Chief Speech Writer and Senior Adviser, as he billed himself, to Kofi Annan — and for all I know, perhaps he’s still senior-advising and chief-speech-writing for that Innocent Abroad Ban Ki-Moon, especially when it comes to Muslim matters.

    This infiltration can be seen everywhere, from the actual staffing of the U.N. secretariat, to the power of the Islamic bloc, which is the last sizable voting bloc left now that the Soviet bloc has dissolved…

    • The organisation that gave birth to Israel with its stupid 1947 partition plan, allowed the US to invade two Muslim countries and stands by whilst America threatens Iran and bombs Pakistan with its drones…

      Is Hugh Fitzgerald on crack?

  14. The fascist lunatic Hugh Fitzgerald on hideous Iraq, its largely hideous people and enjoying the spectacle of civil war:

    “En passant par l’Irak…and then leaving at long last, and while removing all the planes, all the helicopters, all the Humvees, all the Bradley fighting vehicles, all the trucks, all the tanks, all the everything — now remember, boys, don’t leave any war materiel behind, including computers, including absolutely everything, god knows American taxpayers have spent or committed nearly $500 billion to hideous Iraq and its largely hideous people, and nothing should be left behind.

    Let Moqtada al-Sadr be forced to deal, without the Americans to do the fighting for the Shi’a, with those stout-hearted Sunni yeomen of Fallujah, Ramadi, and Tikrit.

    That will be fun. That will make it pleasant, and not disturbing, to get up in the morning, and read the latest dispatches from “Iraq.”


  15. Look at some of the comments on that page:

    Conservatives have that the Muslim is a barbarian in every form and how sweet God’s repayment will be once these sects are left without American protection to make war upon each other.

    This comment is from Hugh himself:

    Set up a department of war propaganda that will identify themes to exploit in attempting to divide and demoralize the Camp of Islam.

    This is a weird one:

    We eat Arabs at this site (always good for breakfast). Personally, though, I prefer the self-basting varieties…

    • “Set up a department of war propaganda that will identify themes to exploit in attempting to divide and demoralize the Camp of Islam.”

      Divide and Conquer. Taking a page out of the British Empire’s book.

  16. I see some themes developing: Hugh Fitzgerald hates all Muslims, all Arabs (including non-Muslim Arabs, apparently), and wants Muslims to kill each other.

    Here’s one of his non-Jihadwatch articles (hat tip to MP11):

    Iraq Scenario: What Could Be Better?

    It’s the title of his article—he thinks a bloody Sunni-Shia civil war in Iraq is the best possible outcome (gee…I wonder why?).

    What time did they allow themselves to read up on Islam, to learn to distinguish the apologists from the experts, to figure out what Iraq was all about (and hence what could be expected, and what could be exploited), and what Islam was all about (which would have put a prompt end to that idiotic phrase “war on terrorism”).

    He’s of course, talking of the Muslim/Dhimmi infiltration of universities and the “War on Islam” (which he desperately wants).

    It was Arab forces, and they did not hesitate, and no Arab at the time appeared to think the Kurds deserved any better. Arabs in the main did not mind when Saddam Hussein killed.

    Arabs are evil—some more racism form Fitzgerald.

    Otherwise, given the Sunni Arab behavior in the past and the present, it became inevitable. And what will also be inevitable is that this internal Iran-Iraq war, at whatever level, will attract the attention and worry of Shi’a and Sunnis outside Iraq. Some may send money or military equipment. Volunteers, and also “volunteers,” may arrive, from Saudi Arabia, or Jordan, or Egypt, to smite the “Rafidite dogs” so many of whom seem too well-disposed to Iran. From the Islamic Republic of Iran will come (have already come) agents with all kinds of ideas as to how to defend the Shi’a. Ideally this could use up men, money, materiel, from all over the Islamic world. And it could lead to more violence against Shi’a in Pakistan, between Shi’a and Sunnis in Yemen, to Shi’a agitating in al-Hasa province in Saudi Arabia, and even to Hezbollah members moving from Lebanon through Syria and Jordan into Iraq, to see that justice is done, much to the relief of Lebanon’s Christians and its wary Sunnis.

    What could be better?

    Wow. Just wow. Did you catch that? Apparently, nothing can be better than “more violence against Shia in Pakistan”, etc.

    What’s even more shocking is that people take this nut seriously.


      • Now imagine it was a Muslim uttering those words, and replace the terms Muslim and Islam with that of other faiths. Need I go on?

      • Absolutely disgusting. I can’t believe the ravings of this loon haven’t been pulled up before. It’s very sad to think articles like this might actually hold sway amongst some people. 🙁

  17. Only ex-muslims are acceptable, moderate muslims by their very existence are a threat.

    “We Westerners soothingly allow ourselves to take, as representative Muslims, a handful of plausible, smiling, educated, knowing-exactly-what-to-say-to-the-Infidels elites, the golden anglophone children, all Oxford and Harvard, of the zamindars in Pakistan, the Indian Muslim of the Fareed-Zakaria school, who may drink alcohol or even, as Zakaria once did, even have a wine column, but who remains the very slyest of apologists for Islam. These most unrepresentative “representatives” of Islam are not, themselves, participants in Jihad, but as protectors of Islam, as people whose effect, objectively, is to delay the day of Infidel understanding, they can be called deceivers — out of filial piety or civilizational embarrassment, but deceivers nonetheless, and it is important to recognize what they are up to, and to understand that even without deep belief in Islam, if they consider themselves as Muslims, if they cannot make the break from Islam, then they can do no other.”

  18. It is very important to understand how this fascistic lunatic is audience to accept mass deportation/genocide. Every Muslim male, female and child must be made a threat, a permanent unchanging threat to which there is only one answer:

    “The mere fact that Muslim numbers may grow in the Western world represents a permanent threat to Infidels. This is true even if some, or many, of those Muslims are “moderates” — i.e. do not believe that Islam has some kind of divine right, and need, to expand until it covers the globe and swallows up dar al-harb. For if they are still to be counted in the Army of Islam, not as Deserters (Apostates) from that Army, their very existence in the Bilad al-kufr helps to swell Muslim ranks, and therefore perceived Muslim power. And even the “moderate” father may sire immoderate children or grandchildren — that was the theme of the Hanif Kureishi film, quasi-comic but politically acute, “My Son the Fanatic.” Whether through Da’wa or large families, any growth in the Muslim population will inhibit free expression (see the fates of Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh, and the threats made to Geert Wilders, Carl Hagen, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and many others), for politicans eager to court the Muslim vote will poohpooh Muslim outrages and strive to have the state yield to Muslim demands — for the sake of short-term individual gain. And Muslim numbers, even with “moderates,” increases the number of Muslim missionaries — for every Muslim is a missionary — whether conducting “Sharing Ramadan” Outreach in the schools (where a soft-voiced Pakistani woman is usually the soothing propagandist of choice), or Da’wa in a prison. The more Muslims there are, the more there will be — and no one knows which “moderate” will end up distinctly non-moderate in his views, and then in his acts.”


  19. We’re still waiting Hugh…

    (Personally, methinks he chickened out of defending his fascistic writing–so I won’t be holding my breath…)

  20. Alas, Hugh has been retired by Spencer…

    I’m sure many loons are missing his deranged, sometimes genocidal rants. Hugh also still hasn’t accepted Danios’ challenge to a debate and probably never will.

  21. Reading about how for the first time we have been able to find out about Hitler’s plan for the jews in one of his earlier letters (“1919 signed letter contains Hitler’s first known stance on Jewish ‘removal’ source: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/07/1919-signed-letter-contains-hitlers-first-known-stance-on-jewish-removal/?iref=allsearch), made me think of the parallels with the writings of the fascistic hugh fitzgerald.

    From the CNN article : “(…)the most significant phrase in the four-page, typed letter – the words “Entfernung der Juden,” German for “removal of Jews” – which Hitler wrote must be the government’s “final goal.”

    Now here is Hugh on the “removal of Muslims”:

    “Why is that all so hard for Infidels to believe? Why do they keep refusing to understand this? Is it because if, once it is thoroughy understood, than all sorts of unpleasant possiblilities — including a serious discussion of large-scale removal of Muslims from Infidel countries — have to be seriously considered, and everyone is afraid to do that? Why? Benes and Masaryk in Czechoslovakia were not afraid. ”

    “The argument that “demography is destiny” has already lead to the asphyxiation of Christianity throughout the Arab Muslim world (except for Maronites and Copts); it will likely lead to the ultimate disappareance of Israel, and of any non-Muslim presence in the Holy Land, unless there is forceful removal of Muslims from that area (and why should one shirk from contemplating what has been an element of statecraft, and survival, since time began — cf. the removal of 3.5 million Germans from the Sudetenland by the “tolerant” Czech government post-WW II”

    This man was paid by Robert Spencer to write this sick garbage.

  22. I found out something else thats very interesting. In the old jihadwatch page “About Robert Spencer” we find this little gem:

    “Q: I have read that you support forced deportation of US citizens who happen to be Muslim, harassment of law-abiding US Muslims (boycotting of their businesses, refusal to renew their cab medallions, refusal of their business permits) and other similar actions.
    RS: I absolutely do not support such actions. Any Muslim who accepts the U.S. Constitution and American pluralism should act to defend the U.S. now, when it is under attack in many ways. Any Muslim who does this I count as a friend, and welcome into the U.S. I am not in favor of harassing or expelling loyal Muslims from the U.S.


    In the new page, this passage has been removed because Robert Spencer knows that it contradicts everything else on his site including the article he paid Hugh Fitzgerald to write.

  23. Hugh Fitzgerald is mentioned as an influence much appreciated by the author in Ibn Warraq’a recent book “Defending the West”.

    I suppose that might mean that Ibn Warraq is in on the secret that Hugh Fitzgerald is Robert Spencer, as, I take it, Robert Spencer is in on the identity of Ibn Warraq. But it might not.

    For what it’s worth, Fitzgerald’s style strikes me as significantly different from Robert Spencer’s, which is either praise for Spencer’s ventriloquism, or an indicator that Fitzgerald is indeed a different, and very different, personality.

    I once asked Mr Spencer whether Hugh Fitzgerald had published any books, and he said no. He wouldn’t lie about that, would he?

  24. Hugh Fitzgerald, whether he is Robert Spencer or not, is right about the removal of Muslims fromWestern democracies. He simply points out that, while we tend to get our politically correct knickers in a twist about such an idea today, there are precedents in history, some of them quite recent, for the pragmatic redistribution of peoples when the reason for it seemed good. It’s not such a big deal.

    That Muslims are adherents to an ideology which is inimical to every hard-won Western value, from democracy to gay rights, and that they have demonstrated, violently, an inability to accept Western pluralism when it fails to kow-tow to their ideology to the degree they demand, seems to some people, of whom Hugh Fitzgerald happens to be an articulate instance, a good reason to find them a place in the world better suited to their…uh… weltanschauung.

    That makes perfect sense.

  25. “In the new page, this passage has been removed because Robert Spencer knows that it contradicts everything else on his site including the article he paid Hugh Fitzgerald to write.”

    You mean Hugh Fitzgerald is for real? How do you know that? Come on, don’t keep us in suspense. No one else can figure it out at all.

  26. In the comments on his blog around 2007-2008, a regular poster Cornelius —who himself works in the US State. Dept or similar–guessed on the basis for long-term reading for Fitzgerald’s posts that he was a man in his 50s, single, and employed in either the US State department of military intel or similar.

    Hugh Fitzgerald himself confirmed and congratulated Cornelius for his good detective work.

    In early 2011, during Egypt’s anti-Mubarak protest, a graduate student managed to fluster Fitzgerald by pointing out that unrest in Egypt was not, as Fitzgerald had been maintaining, likely to lead to a civic war in which Muslims would work their aggression out but rather, under such circumstances of serious instability, to the powerful attempting to retain control by scapegoating the large minority group Egypt has, but which Alger4ia did not have.

    These arguments seemed to have enabled Fitzgerald–who appears to work in the US State Department–to broker a deal between Neocons and Liberal interventionists to push for the fall of Mubarak, and later, to push for air strikes against Libya. The graduate student was appalled at how her argument was misconstrued, and no she was cut off from giving critiqued, and left Middle Eastern studies. Through this there was sexual tension of the part of Fitzgerald which caused the graduate student to believe she had to suck-up to him to avoid his absurd use-diplomacy-to-cause-civil war plan.


    The upside is, Fitzgerald appears to have had a blundering role in ousting Mubarak. The downside is Mubarak would have been out by the end of the year, and the person capable of making the world-changing arguments was sidelined, harassed, and smeared to the point she wasn’t even to work for the liberal candidate as she has wanted.

    Zionists shoot themselves in the foot.

Leave a Reply to NassirH Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *