Rep. Peter King (R-NY) said yesterday that the House Committee on Homeland Security that he will chair in the next Congress will hold hearings on the radicalization of American Islam.
Given the string of terrorist plots in the past few years that can be directly linked to radical Islam, it’s reasonable for the U.S. Congress to devote some time to studying what’s been going on. But, predictably, the group the mainstream media treat as the mouthpiece of American Muslims is screaming bloody murder about the prospect of such hearings. In fact, Ibrahim Hooper, the spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), said such hearings will be an “anti-Muslim witch hunt.”
It is true that any congressional hearing, no matter how important the topic or germane the line of questioning might be to public policy, can be an excuse for shameless grandstanding by politicians who know little about the subject matter but are hungry for a good sound bite. But Hooper and CAIR have their own agenda here, and it is far more sinister than that of any of the publicity-hungry members of Congress who participate in such forums.
Founded as a political front for a group that funneled money to the Hamas terrorist group (the Holy Land Foundation, which has since been closed down by the Treasury Department) back in the early 1990s, CAIR poses as a civil-rights group for Arabs and Muslims, but its true purpose is to put a reasonable face on a radical ideology. It rationalizes anti-American and anti-Jewish acts of terror and seeks to demonize Israel and its supporters while falsely portraying American Muslims as the victims of a mythical reign of terror since 9/11. Most insidious is its attempt to deny the very existence of radical Islamism, either here or abroad. Indeed, during a debate in which I participated at Baruch College in New York City last month, a spokesman for CAIR claimed it was racist to even use the word “Islamist” or to dare point out the danger from radical Islam to highlight the way foreign interests in this country have funded mosques in which such radicals have found a platform. Though there has been no backlash against Muslims, CAIR has been successful in manipulating the mainstream media into claims of victimization. Indeed, rather than listen to the evidence of the threat from Muslim radicals, we can expect many in the media to hew to CAIR’s talking points about “witch hunts” in their coverage of King’s hearings.
While Rep. King will have to carefully manage such hearings to prevent his colleagues from hijacking their serious purpose, his main problem will be in combating the successful efforts of CAIR to label any such inquiry as beyond the pale. It will be up to the committee’s staff to assemble the compelling evidence already largely on the public record and focus the public’s attention on the real danger. Otherwise, this initiative will become yet another opportunity for CAIR to stifle discussion on the source of motivation for home-grown Islamist terror.
Jimmy Carter will never be anything but a naive fool destined to be continually surprised and dismayed by the real world.
Banjo Says:
November 22nd, 2008 at 4:09 PM
Jimmy Carter will never be anything but a naive fool destined to be continually surprised and dismayed by the real world
Nobody but a naive fool would not be continually surprised/dismayed by the “real” world.
I’ve never heard of Graca Machal, but if Mugabe refused to let Carter and Annan into the country, then I have to say that this is the first (and surely only) time that I can applaud Robert Mugabe!!
Banjo, Carter is worse than a naive fool. He an apologist for some of the worst govts there are. And worse, he actively tried to undermine his own country by going behind the back of Bush I to subvert the Gulf War I effort. Despicable in and of itself from a former President. Especially one whose Presidency was the monumental failure that his was. Annan is of the same mold.
Ritchie Emmons, Graca Machal is Nelson Mandela’s new wife.
And you’re absolutely right about Carter.
Thanks Gordon. Speaking of distasteful people, we can add Nelson Mandela to the group too if you ask me. I know that he’s the darling from Africa for so many here in America for his role in ending apartheid in South Africa. However, when he called GWB a racist, that was despicable. Not only did the “racist” GWB have Condi Rice and Colin Powell in his administration, but the USA was the country most responsible for pressuring the South African govt to get Nelson out of prison and to quit on apartheid. Such gratitude. I shall not forgive him.
Especially one whose Presidency was the monumental failure that his was.
In Jan 1980 what was the unemployment rate,and our national indebtedness? Let’s contrast those #s with todays before we use the word monumental. Googlemental, thank you George
Dictators and fanatics hate those who oppose them. They hate those who want to negotiate with them even more—for being weak.
Peter Godwin’s autobiographical book WHEN A CROCODILE EATS THE SUN links the awfulness of Mugabe’s rule to his own experiences in Zimbabwe.
Let’s play fantasy presidential election. Jimmy Carter vs “W” in Nov 2008. Who would you bet on?
RCAR,
Jimmy Carter had nothing to do with “our national indebtedness” in 1980. Average unemployment levels weremuch higher during his term in office than they’ve been during Bush’s.
He had plenty to do the Iranian hostage crisis and Ayatollah Khomeini’s rise to power, inflation, the gutting of our military and intelligence agencies, Soviet expansionism, gas lines around the block for unprecedented high prices, the idiotic 55 mph speed limit, giving away our Panama Canal, and too many other failures to mention here.
Unemployment dropped once Reagan became President, and you don’t care one jot about “our” national debt–which the Anointed One will increase to record level.
I would not object if Mugabe met the fate of the Ceausescus at the hands of the Zimbabweans or even the South Africans, but the quoted statement is more feel-good rhetoric that a guide to policy.
“We” are not the Zimbabweans. The Zimbabweans are ‘they.’ In a world of nation-states, we have neither the right no the responsibility to intervene in this situation, nor is a change in international law to grant such a right in our interest. Do we want UN tribunals messing around in Puerto Rico, or telling us we can’t impose the death penalty? I think not.
Moreover, we have no particular interest in what happens in Zimbabwe. It’s a faraway place of no great importance to us.
Some may say this view is callous. But a world in which we tried to impose or norms and our will just because we think certain things are right would be one in which we would be constantly at war, our soldiers and other people would be dying because our intervention would be resented, and we would bleed resources as well. A world in which an international body could intervene would be even worse.
The practical and moral choice with Zimbabwe is to keep our hands off. Protests and sanctions (travel and banking bans on the bad guys, for instance) might be appropriate, but it should stop there. Carter in retirement has been a kind of secular missionary, and mostly, I think, of no great importance, positive or negative.
Carer is not naive, he is narcissistic evil antisemite
You wonder what it takes to convince Mugabe you’re on his side.
At this link you can read Carter’s lengthy praise of Mugabe when he visited the White House as the newly-elected leader of newly-recognized independent Zimbabwe, back when the world was young:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=44951
Carter was hosting Mugabe after helping him brutally subvert the democratic process in Zimbabwe over the previous 18 months, as recounted here:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/746zsgtg.asp?pg=1
The following excerpt from Commentary contributor James Kirchik’s article is perfectly evocative:
“The 1979 election”
“The Carter administration, the Labour government in Britain, and the international left all insisted that Mugabe and Nkomo be part of the negotiating process–on its face a concession to terrorism. Presaging the edicts of Al Qaeda in Iraq, both guerrilla leaders pledged violence against any black Zimbabwean who dared take part in the April balloting. Nkomo called for a ‘bloodbath.’ A year earlier he had ridiculed the ‘all party nonsense’ advocated by the moderate black leaders and said, ‘We mean to get that country by force, and we shall get it.’ Mugabe, not to be outdone, issued a public death list of 50 individuals associated with the internal settlement, including the three black leaders of the executive council. ZANU described these individuals as ‘Zimbabwean black bourgeoisie, traitors, fellow-travelers, and puppets of the Ian Smith regime, opportunistic running-dogs and other capitalist vultures.’ Mugabe also expressed his belief that ‘the multiparty system is a luxury’ and said that if Zimbabwean blacks did not like Marxism, ‘then we will have to reeducate them.’ This was the same Mugabe whom [Andrew] Young, in that 1978 interview with the Times of London, had called ‘a very gentle man,’ adding, ‘I can’t imagine Joshua Nkomo, or Robert Mugabe, ever pulling the trigger on a gun to kill anyone. I doubt that they ever have.’ ”
Robert Mugabe has hardly had a better friend than Jimmy Carter.
Carter of no great importance? What about his role in birthing the North Korean bomb?
Graça Machal is also the widow of the former leader of Mozambique.
A possible explanation for snubbing Jimmy: Robert Mugabe is hungry for some positive press.
You’ve got the wrong take on this. This is more evidence of how stupid Zimbabwe’s leaders are- bring Carter in, wine and dine him, and he is likely to say that Zimbabwe is the good guy and that we are the bad guy. The political leaders of that nation are dumb- Carter is a willing and easy tool, and they missed a chance to use him to further thier evil agenda.
I only wish the rest of the world would banish Jimmy Carter to oblivion like the Zimbabweans did. Banning Kofi Annan is a bonus.
” he has at least performed an invaluable public service by giving Carter a lesson”
Jimmy Carter is hardly teachable by now. (I doubt he can even blush.)
But our president-elect – for example – can still learn:
Mugabe’s real public service consisted in making an
object lesson of Jimmy Carter…
Whom would you cheer for if Stalin and Hitler were beating the living daylights out of each other?
Me? I would cheer for the fight!
I regret that Mugabe didn’t humiliate Carter AND Annan enough! I regret that Carter and Annan didn’t call Mugabe out more!
I weep that these nincompoops have the brass to call themselves “Elders” as though this were enough to give them legitimacy!
I wonder who paid for the trip!
Gordon:
When Carter is discussed the adjectives which come to mind are “self righteous” (yours), “sanctimonious”, “ego maniacal”, “holier than thou” ……
Perhaps now we can coin another and save ourselves much work in the future thinking of a good one:
I am thinking of “sancarterous” or “cartrighteous” …..
Well, anyway, just a thought to add some levity to an otherwise dismal state of affairs.
Grumpy, I can agree with much of what you say and I don’t think Zimbabwe should be a high priority for us. Nonetheless, we should push for travel bans, and, if Mugabe travels outside his country, we should work to have him detained and turned over to an international tribunal.
bobh, I had “sanctimonious” in a prior draft. Unfortunately, there was room for only so many adjectives in this posting.
But you have done us all a favor by adding a few more descriptive words to English. I like them.
Zimbabwe must be in a pretty bad shape if they won’t give ol’ Jimmy a visit. When has he ever called out a leftist dictator, anyway? What is Mugabe worried about?
The day that Carter drops dead will be a day to sing and rejoice throughout the land.