Yet, just as people began to realize this and to ostracize CAIR accordingly, The New York Times arrived with a life raft. Earlier this month, Neil MacFarquhar wrote an incredibly generous profile called "Scrutiny Increases for a Group Advocating for Muslims in U.S." MacFarquhar's piece is so fraught with errors--of commission and omission--that it is a coup of CAIR propaganda.
MacFarquhar gets off on the right foot, noting, "Several federal officials said CAIR's Washington office frequently issued controversial statements that made it hard for senior government figures to be associated with the group." But he cites none of these "controversial statements." Nor does he mention the CAIR-sponsored fund-raisers and conferences featuring former neo-Nazi leader William Baker and jihadist cleric Wagdy Ghoneim. (At a 1998 CAIR event, Ghoneim sang, "No to the Jews, descendants of the apes." And, after he was deported in 2004 for overstaying his visa, Hussam Ayloush, CAIR's Southern California director, called Ghoneim's removal from the U.S. "a dent in our civil rights struggle.")
CAIR's real deal
Wednesday March 28, 2007
Steven Emerson's excellent and detailed New Republic column about the terror connections of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the New York Times's air-brushing of same, is a great example of why the US media are biased towards giving Islamic extremists in America a pass. As Emerson shows, it is embarrassingly easy to demonstrate how objectionable CAIR is, and how closely it's tied to our enemies in the war on Islamist terror. But you rarely read about this in the mainstream media, and CAIR spokesmen are often quoted as if they were no different from any other interest group. Read the Emerson piece; does CAIR sound like the ADL, the NAACP, La Raza, GLAAD, et al.? As Emerson points out, leading Democratic politicians are starting to get wise to CAIR's game, and avoid them:
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
So as per Anne, a mere internet search engine discredits Emerson? And even if he has ties with the Mossad, do what; that doesn't mean he's untruthful. And still, you've done nothing to discredit him anyway. And Emersaon isn't really the issue. CAIR does more to discredit itself than anything or anyone else.
Silly me, I thought Emerson's credibility mattered, which is why I suggested using an internet search engine to learn something about his history and what's gone into his self-proclaimed expertise on terrorism(trans., Arabs aka Muslims). But no. Apparently he's just saying what you already *know*. . .so why bother? You got me there.
Tell me about CAIR's reasonable statements regarding the flying imams; Minny supermarket clerks refusing to ring up pork chops or cabbies refusing fares carrying a 6 pack; or above all, denouncing murderous Islamic terrorism, ever. Any statements about Iran kidnapping British sailors? It's so much easier to assert Emerson is a jerk than address the real issue.
My dad served in Vietnam, who was also very right wing, I grew up that way. I was in the Army and served in Bosnia, and now Im a contractor in Iraq. Being half Native American and half Polish, at one point in time I had thought of myself as a democrat, then I asked myself a question, why should I compromise who I am and what I believe in for what democrats want me to believe? Why should I compromise my vote in an election for a guy whos name sounds a lil too much like osama? The hell with that and the hell with the like those in Minnesota who are trying to change my country. I can give a rats ass to some first generation muslim who is here in my country, whos beliefs are to drink the blood of thier enemies and death to America. Every bleeding heart democrat cries foul to political incorrectness as it makes "them" who ever "them" is a "victim" of living in a free society. I am very proud of who I am, and not afraid to be humbled either, but I will not compromise who I am for some democrat. Over here in Iraq there is NO second thought to who is trying to kill us here. democrats no doubt would love for real Americans to second guess who killed thier son or daughter over here. I know this is all rambling, but my point is this, think of yourself and who you are, and the future of this country. Do not compromise yourself non American beliefs.
Oops I have to amend my last sentence in my last post before some liberal comes along a twists my words and uses them against me. I meant to say, do not compromise yourself for non American beliefs.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.