| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Ineptitude or dhimmitude?
From the Washington Times, via FrontPage:
The Democratic Party, which gave America the proud legacies of men like Harry Truman and Henry "Scoop" Jackson, is poised to nominate for president a man who either doesn't understand the struggle against radical Islam or blindly went trolling for votes from a radical Islamic organization.In December, when John Kerry was badly trailing Howard Dean, the Massachusetts senator spoke at the annual convention of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), an anti-Semitic organization that has defended infamous terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah. Addressing the Long Beach, Calif., audience by phone, Mr. Kerry told the crowd that he "really want to earn support of Muslim leaders across the United States." Mr. Kerry appealed to the crowd by strongly implying that the Bush administration is not protecting the First Amendment rights of Muslims. "I believe this administration is moving our country in a radically wrong direction and is cynically exploiting people in the country and has forgotten some of the heart of the Constitution of the United States of America," he said during his speech.
Mr. Kerry's words, though not justified by facts or any reasonable interpretation of reality, are not the primary problem. His willingness to address the group in the first place is. No presidential candidate should lend legitimacy to a group with MPAC's track record.
On the day of the September 11 attacks, MPAC's executive director and co-founder, Salam Al-Marayati, wasted no time launching into an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, saying on KCRW-FM's "Which Way, L.A.?" program that "we should put the state of Israel on the suspect list." MPAC has also defended the actions of terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah. Mr. Al-Marayati, at a speech at the University of Pennsylvania in 1997, lauded Hamas' "social and educational operations" and downplayed what he called "its quote unquote military operations." In a 1998 speech at the National Press Club, MPAC Senior Adviser Maher Hathout claimed that Hezbollah merely fights for the "American values" of "freedom and liberty."
It's possible, of course, that Mr. Kerry's campaign had no idea about the true nature of MPAC. But given the group's notoriety, particularly among many in Los Angeles, how could the Kerry staff have been so careless?
The other alternative is far worse. We don't suspect that Mr. Kerry shares any of MPAC's repugnant views. But knowing the ugly truth about MPAC and speaking there anyway would not be much better. We hope for Mr. Kerry's sake that his campaign staff were simply completely inept.
Posted by Robert at April 9, 2004 8:13 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
This is very serious, but I can't find this article in the Washington Times website.
I want Kerry to precipitate a Kerry meltdown as much as you, but none of my liberal friends will believe me if I send a copy of this publication using "frontpagemag" or "jihadwatch" as the source.
Why doesn't the article have an author name?
Posted by: Milan at April 9, 2004 10:05 AMMilan,
If your liberal friends distrust FrontPage and Jihad Watch, I doubt they will believe the Washington Times, but in any case, here is a link to the original story:
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040406-105543-7597r.htm
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Many thanks!
Yes, I know: Most liberals do not give the Washington Times much credibility, but unlike the courageous service you are providing, the Washington Times has been around long enough to have some credibility among moderate liberals.
I value what you are doing PRECISELY because I am a liberal, and only when liberal publications like the New York Times and Harpers start publishing your articles can we be confident about winning the war of ideas.
Keep up the good work!
Milan,
Thank you. I much appreciate it. I explain in "Onward Muslim Soldiers" that this is not a liberal/conservative issue, but nevertheless the silence from the Left has been deafening.
Cordially
RS
Somewhat off topic here, but I wanted to just let anyone know who was unaware that Andy Whitehead from Anti-CAIR, who was just sued by the Council on American Islamic Relations, is retired from the U.S. Navy......
CAIR has overstepped their bounds too many times, and I hope Whitehead gets all the support he needs to put them down for good.
Sorry for being off topic, but someone has to put this group out of business. Whitehead and Anti-CAIR, who Ibrahim "wart" Hooper claims is a one man operation, stand a good chance to do it, but I get the feeling they will need any help they can get.
I don't know him, but I like him. I encourage everyone to share the address for the Anti-CAIR website with everyone they know. The CAIR fungus needs to be scraped off of the American scene.
D.C.
Posted by: D.C. Watson at April 9, 2004 11:57 AMDC Watson...I would be happy to help anti-CAIR...what can I do?
Mr. Spencer,
THANK YOU!!!
Posted by: milford at April 9, 2004 2:05 PMD.C.,
I wish I had the money and/or professional expertise to help Mr. Whitehead. The best I can do now is get the word out to lawyers who might feel priviledged to contribute to anti-jihad.
In fact, just yesterday I urged a conservative lawyer on the Hillary Clinton Forum (www.hillary.org) to help out Anti-CAIR, or at least spread the word. Being a liberal at heart, I have locked horns in heated debate with this gentleman on many issues (Obviously, you don't have to like Hillary to participate on the forum), but I know that he cares about this issue more than any liberal I know (with the expection of the forum's editor).
In an earlier message, Mr. Spencer told me "The silence from the left is deafening."
This fact really hit home this evening when I watched an episode of NOW with Bill Moyers. The guest on NOW was the infamous Islam-apologist Karen Armstrong:
After touching very briefly on the theme of terrorism, they went straight into the topic of how "religion" has always "oppressed" women whenever it became a dominant force, regardless of what the religion was originally about. Armstrong only mentioned Islam in order to to DEFEND how Muhammad gave women rights to divorce and inheritance that were "ahead of their time." Then she launched into this gratuitously mealy-mouthed discourse about how all the other religions (including Buddism!) have oppressed women, and eloborated AT LENGTH(!) on all the bad things Christians and fathers of the Christian church with regards to women's rights.
You would think that the Christians were the biggest misogynists in the world and the "true" Muslims were feminist heros!
It was disgusting, so I had to do something. I used to like Bill Moryers (even when he irritated me), but this took the cake. I will never donate to pbs again.
That is also why I sent the message to the lawyer on the political forum.
In the meantime, be sure to stock up on copies of "Islam Unveiled" and lend/give them to friends and/or the nearest library (I have bought 4 copies so far. One I gave to the library, and the others I loaned to friends. As long as the books are being read, I don't much care whether or not I get them back.).
"Onward Muslim Soldiers" is still too new to get a good deal on used copies at Amazon (so I still have only one copy), but this book is just as timely and easy to read. I do not intend to just it sitting on my shelf for long.
Keep up the anti-jihad. As Andrew Whitehead recently told me, "It's an 'all-of-us' issue."
Warm regards,
Milan
What the Washington Times omits, in its unbiased presentation of the facts, is that George W Bush has been associated with the very same group for years.
MPAC endorses Bush for president in 2000, citing inter alia his accessibility (he met with them on several occasions): http://www.iiie.net/Articles/MPACBushEndors.html
Jewish World Review complains about Bush meeting---twice---with MPAC immediately after 9/11 (note typo; the date of the article is really 10/12/2001): http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1001/apologists.asp
Bush meets with MPAC Executive Director, 9/10/2002 (at this meeting, Bush praised MPAC's Director's remarks as "eloquent"): http://mpacnews.org:8100/Lists/MPACnews/Message/32.html
Bush invites MPAC to White House Conference on Faith-Based Initiatives, 3/4/2004: http://www.amperspective.com/html/mpac_meets_bush.html
Oh, and by the way: That MPAC convention to which Kerry phoned? It's true that Bush didn't call in himself. But he did send a representative, who was physically present.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 11, 2004 2:19 AMAnonymous,
Thank you for the links. I recall CAIR attempting to lead a boycotte by Muslims leaders of the Whitehouse Iftar dinner a few months ago: They had not been invited. This put an end to their special relationship with the Whitehouse that began with Hillary Clinton.
However, the information you present suggests that much less has changed since 9/11 than we were made to believe.
I hope these charges get a higher profile. I would like to see the Bush administration's response. Whatever the outcome, it can only help send a message to all mainstream politicians that courting the Muslim vote in America is not only bad policy, but bad publicity as well.
Posted by: Milan at April 11, 2004 3:08 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)