AA seems to founder a bit as he looks for locutional stones to cast that can accurately express his haughty contempt for American journalists.
"... for the life of me, I could not believe that this passes as foreign policy analysis and journalism. She [Christiane Amanpour] is to journalism what Barbara Waters is to...journalism and what Thomas Friedman is to...foreign policy analysis. "Here is a much better, closer-to-home and on-target analogy: She [Christiane Amanpour] is to journalism what Prof. AbuKhalil is to academic scholarship.
Update (September 15, 2013): AbuKhalil is now obsessed with Christiane Amanpour. Here he asks:
So conservative and liberal media have been hailing Ms. Manpour for her "emotional outburst" in favor of a US attack on Syria. I wonder how many would have dared to hail her if she were to produce an emotional outburst (she never would, of course, it is hypothetical) on behalf of a US attack on Israel to help the Palestinians. Would she have kept her job? For a second?
Th following info is not an answer. Just an attempt at some perspective and reality from a purely statistical POV:
On 24 July 2013, the United Nations put out an estimate of over 100,000 that had died in the Syria civil war, [since it started in 2011, 2 years]. (wiki)
In terms of the human cost, it is estimated that the Israel-Arab conflict has taken almost 94,000 lives since 1920 to the present (93 years). *
Let's compare this with some other regional war: The Iran-Iraq war, for example: Lasting from September 1980 to August 1988, it is estimated that 100,000+ civilians were killed on both sides
(not including 182,000 civilians killed in the Al-Anfal Campaign).
Or this war:
North Yemen Civil war, from 1962-1970, 1,000 Saudi dead 26,000 Egyptian dead, and altogether between 100,000- 200,000 killed
Numbers do talk, sometimes. You would think that a professor who teaches at an American institution would know it and would at some point learn to make some intelligent, fact-verifiable comments.