This interview with Jane Hamsher (Firedoglake) on Washington Journal is fascinating. Jane was on discussing the stance of the Obama administration on many issues and how the left feels about those stances.

While I appreciate Jane’s willingness to touch upon and her hard work on many issues. Her willingness to call Dem Reps and the Obama administration out on so many issues. And I also know she cannot make all issues her "pet issues" But why does she avoid bringing up this critical issue when she so clearly has the opportunity? How is this any different than our MSM talking heads? She brought up Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet she completely avoided this humanitarian crisis and decades long conflict and how the Obama administration is dealing with it during these 45 minutes. Did not even whisper about it.

At one point on this blog she called my efforts to bring up this issue here at Firedoglake my “pet issue”

This is one of the most critical issue in the middle east. The issue that the 9/11 commission even mentioned. The decades old conflict that many leaders in that part of the world have endlessly referred to as the most critical issue to resolve. The issue that former head of the CIA Bin Laden unit Micheal Scheuer, Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern and many many others state is the most critical issue to resolve. Jane and others will not touch it. She even criticizes others who do make an effort to shed light on this conflict.

She had a prime opportunity to shed some light on this issue during her 45 minutes on Washington Journal.She did not. Silence. Not any different than talking heads in the MSM.

During this interview Jane referred to herself as “left of the left” on many issues. How is avoiding even mentioning this issue progressive?

When Jane was asked who her favorite Reps were she mentioned Rep Grayson and Rep Barney Frank. Both of these Reps support Israel no matter how many UN resolutions they are in violation of, how many illegal settlements they keep expanding and building, how many Palestinian homes are bulldozed etc. They both support more aggressive actions towards Iran. Can anyone tell me how these stances are progressive?

Now remember Jane takes pride in calling others out on the mat. But is incapable of taking the same kind of criticism from others.

Go ahead Jane and others knock me out. I know you are smarter etc than me. I appreciate all you do but why do you keep avoiding this critical issue when you have a clear and totally appropriate opening to bring it up?

Link below