Former GOP lawmaker charged in terror conspiracy

January 16, 2008

Oh dear.

A former congressman and delegate to the United Nations was indicted Wednesday as part of a terrorist fundraising ring that allegedly sent more than $130,000 to an al-Qaida and Taliban supporter who has threatened U.S. and international troops in Afghanistan.

The former Republican congressman from Michigan, Mark Deli Siljander, was charged with money laundering, conspiracy and obstructing justice for allegedly lying about lobbying senators on behalf of an Islamic charity that authorities said was secretly sending funds to terrorists.

A 42-count indictment, unsealed in U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Mo., accuses the Islamic American Relief Agency of paying Siljander $50,000 for the lobbying — money that turned out to be stolen from the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Siljander, who served two terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, was appointed by President Reagan to serve as a U.S. delegate to the United Nations for one year in 1987.

When the AP first noted that a “former congressman” was “indicted as part of a terrorist fundraising ring,” Michelle Malkin wrote, “Any bets on which political party and which state the former congressman belongs to?”

Of course, as it turns out, Siljander was a Republican. (Malkin responded, “Oops.”) [My mistake; the “oops” was in reference to a different point. My apologies.]

Imagine, just for a moment, if he were a Dem and Clinton had appointed him to serve as a U.S. delegate to the United Nations. I suspect the response from the right would be quite boisterous.

Malkin responded, “Oops.”

I bet her mother responded the same way …

**ba duh bump**

  • “Any bets on which political party and which state the former congressman belongs to?”

    The political party of an indicted lobbyist is obvious to any reality-based person, I would have guessed he’d be from Louisiana though. One out of two ain’t bad.

    Given how bogus some of the “terrorist rings” the Feds have claimed to have preemptively busted have turned out to be, I’m not putting too much stock in the veracity of these charges just yet.

  • Wow, that’s misleading. Immediately after asking ” Any bets on which political party and which state the former congressman belongs to?,” Malkin writes “Keep in mind–both parties have flirted with jihadis.” In other words, it isn’t a rhetorical question suggesting that Democrats are terrorists, it’s an honest question before the identity had been announced.

    Moreover, you neglect to mention the full context of the “Oops” update: “Oops. There goes the book!” That statement links to a story in Washingtonian.com regarding Mark Siljander’s book deal. So, Malkin isn’t admitting she was wrong in predicting that the indictee would be a Democrat (which she never did); she’s making a snarky comment about another story related to Siljander.

    This is probably the most disappointing post I’ve ever seen here. Doesn’t Michelle Malkin give you enough fodder for criticism without blatantly quoting her out of context to give the impression that she’s making an argument that she quite clearly is not? I thought this blog was above that kind of BS.

  • Doesn’t Michelle Malkin give you enough fodder for criticism without blatantly quoting her out of context to give the impression that she’s making an argument that she quite clearly is not? I thought this blog was above that kind of BS.

    Yes, how dare CB misconstrue the mulings of Our Lady of Perpetual Outrage. You must be a devoted follower of Our Lady to have caught this piece of underhandedness. I myself am OUTRAGED…

    And so, Our Lady spreads the message, even to this humble servant.

  • If this were a Democrat the shrieks from the right would make our ears bleed and I’m sure the fRighties are frantically looking for something, anything that could suggest that he was a stealth Democrat.

    Who wants to bet that if FAUX News runs this story there will be a big (D) beside his name?

    Any one?

    In other words, it isn’t a rhetorical question suggesting that Democrats are terrorists, it’s an honest question before the identity had been announced.

    An honest question from Malkin. File with Dry Water and Hot Snow.

  • Hey, Republicans turned lobbyists have a God-given right to be traitors. It says so right in the U.S. Constitution. Or if it doesn’t say so yet, the Supreme Court will find a way to decide that it does anyway – just the way they decided yesterday that ordinary investors have no right to sue behind-the-scenes manipulators who defrauded them.

    I mean, what country to you think this is anyway? The United States of America? Not recently, pal.

    Crankily yours,
    The New York Crannk

  • I feel sorry in advance for Rep. Ellison (D-Mn). Somehow, despite the fact that Siljander is a Republican, I’d bet money that certain elements on the right suggest this is why Ellison should not have been elected, and that he should be monitored day and night.

  • zeitgeist: Exactly. And don’t forget a satellite dedicated solely to Obama-Monitoring.

  • I think Reagan new at that time, 1987, that communism was about to fall and that his future wannabes would need an enemy, so he was secretly planting these people to help develop the next great enemy. Can’t be a GOP without a cutthroat enemy.

  • At 3 PM PDT, I just watched CNN’s Situation Room, where Wolf Blitzer gave a long report on this indictment without ever once mentioning his party affiliation… I assumed that meant that Mr Mark Siljander was a Republican… Sure enough, I checked with Google News, and there was that familiar old “R” beside his name. Wolf and the many other corporate apologists for the Bush gangster regime and Republicans in general just never miss a trick to cover up and obscure for their big darling rightwingers.

  • If this were a Democrat the shrieks from the right would make our ears bleed and I’m sure the fRighties are frantically looking for something, anything that could suggest that he was a stealth Democrat.

    Who wants to bet that if FAUX News runs this story there will be a big (D) beside his name?

    Wait a minute. The guy was a Republican, right? And Republicans are acting like fascists these days, right? And fascists are really liberals, right? So, in reality, the guy is actually a Democrat! Goldberg logic pwns the left yet again!

  • Now, what was it that flea-riddled little howler monkey the the WH was saying so ofter—that “we have to fight them over there, so we don’t have to fight them over here?”

    Another bayonet to the “legacy” of KG43….

  • You can’t suggest that this “lobyist” was in fact a Epublican I have seen NO proof what so ever of this “alligation”!!!
    You must cease and/or disist from smearing the Republican party and our brave troops who are in harm’s way at this point in time just to furter your own warped “political” agenda!!!

  • Wow, that’s misleading.

    Quite right; I misread Malkin’s “oops” comment and updated the post to reflect this. My apologies.

  • Um, everyone?

    James Dillon is right – Steve totally took Malkin out of context, and misquoted her on this one. I’m not at all Malkin fan, but look at her post and the comments. In the post, she wrote “And bets on which political party and which state the former congressman belongs to? Keep in mind–both parties have flirted with jihadis.” Then, immediately after BlameAmericaLast wrote “100% Dem…” at 2:47 pm she responded “Don’t be so sure.” at 2:48 pm.

    I don’t mean to defend Malkin, but I think Steve should do better than this. It is a very dissapointing post. I’ll still be reading daily (okay, multiple times a day…) but taking with a slightly larger grain of salt than I had before.

  • surely a dozen good sized substantive posts every day, day in and day out, without editors or staff, Steve can get a little slack for one mistake (and an understandable one at that) now and again without people suggesting the site cant really be trusted? and unlike the rightwing trash, Steve admits when he slips up and corrects it.

  • Well, well. CB makes an error about a relentless shit who isn’t just constantly wrong, but disturbingly nasty and critters have come out of the wood work fingers a-waggin’ because CB is being “misleading.”

    Please. Get. Fucked.

    Get fucked now and stay fucked until I tell you to unfuck yourself.

    Misleading? No deal toots, if you can’t tell misleading (intentional) from simple error (accidental) after nearly eight years of BAdmin, don’t pretend you’ve been reading this blog or anything else for that matter. Clearly you’ve been in a deep slumber that can only be broken when a scrupulous and hard working blogger makes a simple mistake.

    There’s the link right there. If you want misleading, read Malkin’s block-buster expose on the Super Rich SCHIP Cheats or dig further back for her excellent reporting on Jamil Hussein.

    Cretins.

  • At least CB is “big” enough to admit to a mistake and correct it. The blogging buggers on the dark side, OTOH… “Mistakes were made”, anyone?

  • While I do enjoy fucking quite a bit, I think I’ll not do it for your pleasure, orange. Let’s please at least aim for slightly higher-level discourse. I’m pretty happy here, and appreciate all the great insights CB provides!

  • Steve can get a little slack for one mistake (and an understandable one at that) now and again without people suggesting the site cant really be trusted?

    I certainly hope so. The truth is, I make mistakes. I strive for 100% accuracy, in every post, in every instance. On occasion, usually when I’m rushing, I make a careless error. Today was one of those times. As soon as I realized it, I corrected it.

    I appreciate readers bringing this to my attention, and I’m more than happy to accept legitimate criticism about a clear mistake. As for the broader concern about the reliability of the site in general, I’m willing to let my five years of blogging stand on its own, and let readers come to their own conclusions.

  • As for the broader concern about the reliability of the site in general, I’m willing to let my five years of blogging stand on its own, and let readers come to their own conclusions.

    I don’t speak for James Dillon, but with him that agree that prior to your correction this was the most disappointing that I recall post here. And it really wasn’t that disappointing. And then you corrected it.

    I think your five years of blogging are standing up just fine, and are why I hold you to a higher standard (and in higher esteem) than the ilk you often link to. I’m sorry about using the phrase “grain of salt” – it overstated my normal desire to find multiple sides to a story, and to look at primary sources (which you’re particularly good about linking to).

    Cheers!

  • and given my poor editing skills, I’m glad you’re around to catch mistakes!

    (“but with him that agree that” – who writes like that?)

    and now I’m off to bed. Thanks again CB

  • Mark Siljander wouldn’t have supported the Taliban and Al Quaida if Bill Clinton had been doing his job and defeating Al Quaida instead of getting a blow job from Monica. So it’s all Clinton’s fault.

  • A crook is a crook irrespective of the party. When you find them, hang them. What can be worse that the betrayal of the people’s trust. Perhaps this is why there is such growth in “Independants”

  • Glad to see CB fixed the error in the post. Shows 100% class.

    About Malkin, however, I will note that anyone who wastes any amount of time not only defending internment, but advocating we do it again … who claimed, with no evidence, that John Kerry shot himself in order to get a Purple Heart … and who basically stalked the house — and encouraged her readers to do so as well — of someone who did nothing but disagree with her on a government policy … deserves ZERO benefit of doubt.

    Malkin is a scumbag who would could best serve the country by just going away. I’ll cut CB some slack given both his and her track record.

    (I also still think my first post was funny … but that’s apparently just me.)

    • Comments are closed.