I know little about Daniel Pipes. But my quick impression is that he really takes CAIR to task with respect to their failure to quickly condemn terrorism. Not so much in the conventional way like "XYZ org took responsibility for something and they should be condemned" but less obvious examples. As such he *seems* to ignore the notion that terrorism in many instances is a matter of definition (great article by Eqbal Ahmad on this here). I realize that's pretty controversial, and many instances, I would come down on the side against the "terrorist," but Pipes writings make him seem pretty extreme. Like he's oblivious to any grey area (the greatest example from the cited article was that Afghan Mujahiddin were once regarded as freedom fighters but a short while later as terrorists:
In 1985, President Ronald Reagan received a group of bearded men. These bearded men I was writing about in those days in The New Yorker, actually did. They were very ferocious-looking bearded men with turbans looking like they came from another century. President Reagan received them in the White House. After receiving them he spoke to the press. He pointed towards them, I'm sure some of you will recall that moment, and said, "These are the moral equivalent of America's founding fathers". These were the Afghan Mujahiddin. They were at the time, guns in hand, battling the Evil Empire. They were the moral equivalent of our founding fathers!).As such, he would seem to be an odd choice to be appointed to the U.S. Institute of Peace (also never heard of this organization before this). Anyway, that's the two cents. Also a comment from Pipes' site is funny (all the comments are sort of troubling):
I wish you would comment on the Oklahoma City bombing.
Surely there is proof emerging that Arabs were behind it and if so, why did we and why do we not hear about it?
I would hope he would not give credence to anything like that . . . .
re my comment: off topic much?? To answer your question, the strategists must not care very much about the Arab-American community. If they did I would think they would have distanced themselves from or jettisoned Ashcroft by now. Instead he's on *tour*??
It's hard not to get into Pipes' work, I understand. But I'm still not sure about Michigan. Although Gore won it in 2000 and Granholm (popular democrat) is governor, I thought it would still be a contested state. Perhaps not. So where does Bush concentrate in 2004? Pennsylvania, probably. Where else?
I hope it's PA; I just moved here, and I'm looking for an emetic. As for the actual question, my guess is that Pipes or no, most of the Arab-American population in MI is a lost cause for Bush, hence there's no harm in adding to the resentment. Their votes don't count more because they're that much angrier.
I'm not sure I understand what you hope will be expelled. You? Everyone else?
I suspect you're right about Michigan. It's a lost cause so no more pandering to the Arab American population. I wonder if this will have wider and more serious ramifications.
And Fontana, will you still be called Fontana Labs, now that you're in PA?
I'm just looking forward to getting intimately acquainted with my disgust-responses. For the most part I've lived in Foregone Conclusion states, and a few seconds of online research show that the PA primary is too late to matter.
Those precious moments also reveal that Howard Dean looks, at least in some photos, like the narrator of the Rocky Horror Picture Show. And why does his web site say things like "If anything could top having a pork chop on a stick, it is the endorsement of the Butter Cow Lady"?
And I wonder why I can't get anything done.