Posted on 04/08/2003 6:14:17 AM PDT by Dr. Scarpetta
President Bush on Wednesday aggravated some Arab-Americans by nominating Daniel Pipes of Philadelphia to serve on the board of directors at the United States Institute of Peace.
A columnist for the New York Post and the Jerusalem Post, Pipes runs the Middle East Institute, a think tank.
Pipes long has argued that U.S. authorities must consider militant Islamists a threat to American interests.
A former State Department official, Pipes courts controversy by saying that U.S. agencies should pay extra attention to ordinary Muslim workers.
"There is no escaping the unfortunate fact that Muslim government employees in law enforcement, the military and the diplomatic corps need to be watched for connections to terrorism, as do Muslim chaplains in prisons and the armed forces," Pipes wrote in January.
"Muslim visitors and immigrants must undergo additional background checks. Mosques require a scrutiny beyond that applied to churches and temples."
Pipes republished this controversial declaration on March 25, two days after Hasan Karim Akbar, a sergeant with the 101st Airborne Division, allegedly killed Army Capt. Christopher S. Seifert of Williams Township and Air Force Maj. Gregory Stone of Boise, Idaho. Akbar was charged Friday with the two murders.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, an organization based in Washington, D.C., has urged Bush to rescind the Pipes nomination to the Peace Institute.
The council also is pressing Senate lawmakers to block confirmation of Pipes. The American-Islamic group complains that Pipes serves as a "pro-Israel commentator" and labels him a leading "Islamophobe."
"Pipes' nomination sends entirely the wrong message as America seeks to convince Muslims worldwide that the war on terrorism and the war against Iraq are not attacks on Islam," Nihad Awad, executive director of the council, said in a news statement.
In books and columns, Pipes consistently has defended Islam as a peaceful religion. But he has stridently criticized militant Islamists, such as Osama bin Laden, as a threat to innocent Americans and secular Arabs.
A key to the dispute: Pipes defines "Islamists" as people who would overthrow legitimate, secular governments and institute intolerant, totalitarian, Muslim theocracies in their stead.
Failure to recognize his limited definition leads to misunderstandings and raises hackles about politically incorrect speech.
I think you should make that read ".... if it weren't for the U.S. TRAITOR Hasan Akbar."
I think you should make that read ".... if it weren't for the U.S. TRAITOR Hasan Akbar."
Thank you
I believe and ascribe to the freedoms of our country -- but these are not "free" freedoms. We have soldiers paying the price for all of us right now. We would be foolish indeed if we did not stay on top of this -- the Islamonazis are counting on us NOT paying attention. My prayers and sympathies to the family of Captain Seifert.
Yesterday Rumsfeld was asked if we're checking out this problem of Muslims in the military, but he didn't want to commit himself. Who can blame him for avoiding the question? They'd be trashing him on the front page again.
What the heck is that?
It was Bill Gertz who asked Rumsfeld the question that, from what I saw, made Rumsfeld very irritated. I believe, if I could read into Gertz's questioning, that Gertz's concern is that in the interest of appearing politically correct the higher-ups in the military by avoiding the issue of internal jihadis, have made "force protection" vulnerable. Gertz now has an article U.S. fears attacks from Muslims in armed forces.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.