Wednesday, August 27, 2003
Pipes follow up
Almost forgot to mention my total delight at Bush's recess appointment of Daniel Pipes to the US Institute of Peace. Even more satisfying is the the seething and whining from the losers in our esteemed government (Ted Kennedy), and from the terrorist-apologizing Islamist CAIR:
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington-based civil rights group, said Pipes is "known for his hostility to Muslims," and called the appointment "a backdoor move" that is "an affront to all those who seek peace."
Actually, I find Islamist terrorism an affront to those of us who simply want to live in peace and freedom from tyranny that an Islamist state would guarantee. And, truthfully, he's just rightfully hostile towards Islamist fundamentalism that has an incredibly rich history of slaughtering innocent human beings. But that's another story...
Kudo's to the President for standing up and doing what is right in the face of politically correct, pacifist, hippy terrorist appeasers. They wouldn't be seething if he wasn't a threat to their agenda. But Pipes is smart, and so is Dubya. Hopefully we have more people like Pipes in positions of influence in our government-- if anything, to counter the political lobby efforts of the boneheads at CAIR and the pacifists who seem to have their heads firmly planted up their asses (pardon my french).
We'll see if the President will stand up to the forces of the politically correct, pacifist, hippy, terrorist appeasing lobby in Washington. You know, the ones who have been engaged in an all-out smear campaign against Pipes? They're going to complain loudly and fight to make sure that Pipes is not appointed to that post again. My smirk will be quite large as he unapologetically exposes the evil force of Islamism for what it is. Maybe we'll start calling a terrorist a terrorist, instead of whitewashing them with terms like "militant" or "radical" (as they proudly display the fresh blood of innocents on their hands.)
It looks like he has more than a few enemies. It's rather interesting that they refer to him as "extreme." In contrast to those he speaks of, he's quite the dove. At least he doesn't plant bombs in Mosques to kill the "infidels." I'd like to know how a person who rejects politically correct double-speak, who predicted that we were due for a disaster such as 9/11, who clearly defines what he considers to be a danger to the free world can be considered "extreme." Honest, sure. Extreme? Hardly.
On Being Borked - How foes distorted my record
Bush appoints anti-Muslim to peace role (Al Guardian)
Comments: Post a Comment