Washington Examiner chief political correspondent Byron York criticized Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul el Sayed for comments comparing the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks with the subsequent United States military response. York characterized the comparison, made by el Sayed in a 2021 podcast, as “absolutely offensive” during an appearance on The Hugh Hewitt Show.
The criticism arises as el Sayed campaigns in a competitive Senate race against Republican Mike Rogers. York referenced remarks el Sayed made on his podcast, America Dissected, in September 2021, where the candidate discussed the impact of post-9/11 U.S. actions on global populations.
What the Left Is Saying
El Sayed has framed his critique of U.S. foreign policy as a matter of moral accountability and historical awareness. In his 2021 remarks, he stated, “9/11 scarred our country in profound ways, but what we did after 9/11 scarred millions of other people.” He noted that he holds “a lot of questions about the way we, the United States, went about retaliation for 9/11.”
Regarding domestic policy, el Sayed has advocated for addressing “unpaid debts” to Black communities, as reported by C-SPAN. His campaign platform includes support for reparations, a policy proposal that progressive advocates argue is necessary to address systemic economic disparities resulting from slavery and segregation. When questioned about contributions from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), el Sayed stated that the criticism stemmed from his skin color and religious practices.
What the Right Is Saying
Byron York argued that equating the actions of al-Qaeda with those of the United States and other Western powers is historically inaccurate and morally equivalent in a way that is unacceptable to many Americans. “The idea of equalizing what was done on 9/11 by al Qaeda and what was done afterwards by the United States and other Western powers is just absolutely offensive,” York said. He acknowledged that one could object to the intensity of the U.S. response but maintained that equating the two events is “absolutely outrageous.”
York also dismissed el Sayed’s reparations stance, stating, “Reparations for slavery were paid by the hundreds of thousands who fought in the American Civil War.” He described the concept as “ridiculous,” noting the lack of political consensus and the logistical difficulties in determining eligibility for such payments. York characterized reparations as a talking point confined to “some progressive circles” rather than a viable national policy.
On the issue of CAIR, York noted that the organization originated from the Islamic Association for Palestine, a group founded by a future Hamas leader. While CAIR is not designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. government, it was named as a conspirator in a financial terrorism investigation. York argued that concerns about terrorism advocacy are legitimate and that el Sayed’s attribution of criticism to racial bias is a deflection.
What the Numbers Show
The comments in question originate from el Sayed’s podcast, America Dissected, recorded in September 2021. The current political context is the Michigan Senate race between Democratic nominee Abdul el Sayed and Republican nominee Mike Rogers. El Sayed has received campaign contributions from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). CAIR is not currently designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department but was named in a federal financial terrorism investigation. York’s comments were made on The Hugh Hewitt Show.
The Bottom Line
The exchange highlights the ideological divide in the Michigan Senate race, focusing on historical interpretation of U.S. foreign policy and domestic approaches to racial justice. York’s critique underscores the Republican strategy of questioning the judgment and background of progressive candidates, while el Sayed’s positions reflect a broader progressive movement to re-evaluate American historical narratives and address systemic inequalities. Voters in Michigan will weigh these perspectives as the election approaches, with foreign policy ethics and domestic reparations serving as key points of contention between the candidates and their supporters.