Frank Gaffney has another column on the same thing in the New York Post

I sent a letter to the editor of the WaPo opposing their opposition.

I propose Pipes for Governor of Iraq, now. Once we have full control of the rest of the middle east, I propose Pipes as Mullah with the Biggest Beard for all of Islam.

There is historical precedent, you know. The Archbishop of Canterbury, spiritual head of all the world's Anglican's, is appointed by the temporal power of the British Government thru the constiutional monarch.

In the number two spot of Mullah with the second Largest Beard, I propose Jacky Mason.

The Islamic world will be churning out vaccines and sattelites quicker than you can say baba ghanouj.

Iraqi Minister of Culture: Mel Brooks

#2 no way.

Pipes is to valuable to the US to waste him in that stinkhole.

But since we are playing.
Eminem for Minister of culture. That ought to flip the imams.

Ariel Sharon as Director of Internal Security

Madonna for Womens Affaires....or maybe Chiccolina...:P

aarrghhhhhhhh

Charles as Minister of Information

ploome (#6):

How 'bout Andrea Dworkin?

Man-hating feminazi vs. woman-hating islamonazi culture: I'd pay to see that jello-fight ;-)

More OT fun for Bagdad Bob fans:The Wacky Iraqi Show

#7 NuclearDionysus

There is no person here by the name of Charles. No way. But, if there were: his stomach has been roasted in hell by God.

Q.....

wait till I get MOAB ready....

then, relase the hounds.....

"Crazy Eddie" Antar as director of the National Museum of Antiquities.

On the same subject--one funny line from last night's mock news report on "The Daily Show", regarding the looting of the Museum: "It was particularly unfortunate that the looting attacks coincided with the Museum's blockbuster exhibit, 'Hand-Cars and Dollies Through Time'."

That man has an extraordinary amount of patience...listen to the moonbats who call him up and how graciously he responds. It's amazing.

#4 Julius the Kat
How about Madonna? I can imagine the outrage...

It's a classic 'shoot the messenger' situation - shutting him up won't change the truth of what he's saying. I hope Bush continues to cut through all the crap and ignore the bleatings of CAIR et al.

Just finished listening to the C-span interview with Daniel Pipes and this man is a rarity and a gem. Does he teach at Harvard? He should be teaching!! His knowledge is obviously vast and invaluable. Has he ever done a stint on FOX. I'd love to see him on Hannity and Colmes only to watch Colmes try to come up with some semi-concrete argument against Pipes.

That would be entertaining to say the least! Did you hear that Sean?

Thanks for the C-SPAN link. It's always interesting to hear someone's voice after you've been reading his words for a long while. Plus, he had some good stuff to say there.

No wonder the left and the Militant Islamists hate Doctor Pipes. He cuts through their crap and tells the truth.

Daniel Pipes does not hate Islam. He just tells the truth about Islam and how it is being perverted by the Arab world. Pipes is fair and objective, but radical Arabs want no criticism whatsoever of the evils being carried out in the name of Islam. We have seen that in every Arab country a free press is inimical to the workings of the ethically depraved governments of these countries. which tolerate no dissent. Time to start writing politicians to approve Dr. Pipes's nomination to this position. Nobody is better qualified than Daniel Pipes.

Steve Emerson was on Kudow & Kramer on CNBC last night and also defended Mr. Pipes. He does have a lot of friends. He won't go down without a fight.

While Mr. Pipes is very reasonable and intelligent, and a much better analyst than most public figures at the moment, I would like to see the evidence that Islamic law as such is NOT anti-freedom. Everything I have seen, read, and heard indicates that the foundational tenets of Islam are 100% aligned with OBL and his islamo-fascist friends.

Ceterum censeo, Mecca delenda est.

OK, today's New York Sun (page 2) has the most bizarre twist yet in the Daniel Pipes saga. The latest name to come out against his nomination? Laurie Mylroie. She thinks he's oversold the threat of radical Islam on its own and discounted the role of state-sponsored intelligence infrastructure, i.e. Saddam. Thereby making us more vulnerable I guess.

I can type in the article later if anyone's interested. The dispute itself is way too inside baseball for me.

......essentially, Mylroie thinks arab/muslim states are involved up to, and including, their ears in exporting terrorists....

which I believe also...

Pipes, however gives them the benefit of the doubt....hoping the theory of self fulfilling prophesy will somehow kick in, while Pipes holds out a thread of deniability for them..while there is some vestige of hope remaining, these governments will change..

everyone knows islam is a fascist death cult...

totally different to admit it....

I've read Militant Islam Reaches America carefully, and Pipes definitely does a little tap dance. He will go into great detail about how Islamists will use the American system to crush free speech, and many other horrors, and then will say "oh, but it's not all of them, not all Muslims are fascist at heart." (Not a real quote, but realistic in intent.)

My supposition is that he wants to encourage those moderate Muslims to stand up and stop being such pathetic wimps.

Me, I doubt that there are very many of these mythical moderate Muslims, and hardly enough to bother over. But Pipes evidently does believe they exist in some meaningful number. In that, he is an optimist. I hope he is right and I am wrong.

BTW, Militant Islam Reaches America is definitely worth a read.

Isn't hoping that there are "moderate" adherents of the islamo-fascist credo --such "moderates" supposedly being the vanguard of a peaceful future-- dangerously similar to hoping for "moderate" supporters of Hitler, Stalin, and/or Saddam? Hope can be a very powerful illusion.

I have yet to see an explanation of how the fundamental tenets of Islam could possibly be compatible with liberty, including the individual rights of e.g. women and Jews and atheists and apostates. On the contrary, all the available evidence points in the opposite direction.

How many "moderate" Muslims have campaigned to respect and protect Rushdie's freedom of expression?

#24 Brenda You are right in that Pipes wants to encourage the moderate anti-militant Muslims who are pro-American to resist being dominated and intimidated by the militant Islamists.

If moderate pro-American Muslims who are reading this want to gain empowerment, now is the time to write to your US senators to support the Pipes nomination to the board of the US Institute of Peace.

In Pipes' book Militant Islam Reaches America he wrote: "As the battle among Muslims unfolds, non-Muslims will mostly find themselves in the role of outsiders. Nonetheless, outsiders, and the United States in particular, can critically help in precipitating the battle and in influencing its outcome. They can do so both by weakening the militant side and by helping the moderate one." (p252)

This moderate pro-American Muslim side is "disarmed, in disarray, and nearly voiceless" (p254), and "weak, divided, intimidated, and generally ineffectual" (p256). Moderate pro-American Muslims have a champion in Pipes, and should rally now to his side.

Does anyone know when his nomination will come up before Congress?

I guess that should have read "the Senate." BTW, isn't Daniel Pipes' father Harvard professor Richard Pipes? Richard Pipes has written some EXCELLENT books on Russian history. His "A Concise History of the Russian Revolution" is the most informative book I've read on that subject.

#21 Kalle (kafir forever)
#25 Kalle (kafir forever)

I've been reading my English version Koran, front to back, and I can find nothing to refute your assessment of Islam.

They are the enemy.

Greg B

Greg B (#29) thanks. How many people realize this? Islam is a death-cult -- a radical enemy of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In many ways it is the antithesis of the Enlightenment.

This is a great point on Islam Donald Rumsfeld made in the run-up to Operation Iraqi Freedom:

Q: Although the United States does very intensive public diplomacy campaigns to the Islamic world, anti-Americanism is growing all over the world. What is the reason, what is the reaction of that?

Rumsfeld: Well, I would have to say that the United States is not very effective in public diplomacy. We have wonderful people working on it, and they work hard on it, and they're talented and they do a good job. But what they're up against is a flow of information that's coming out of these extremists that are trying to hijack that religion, and feeding people in the madrassas schools a line that the West and other religions are against them and that, therefore, they should engage in terrorist acts.

And it seems to me that we have a task, not just the United States, but the world. I would think -- you cast it as though it's the United States and the Moslem world, or the United States and people who are anti-United States. I think that's a bit of an oversimplification. I think there's a real struggle taking place in the Moslem faith. There are an awful lot of people who are unhappy that extremists and small groups of clerics are teaching young people things that aren't true; teaching people that the best thing they can do is not learn a language, not learn mathematics, not learn how they can provide for themselves in the world, instead, filling their heads with hate against the West and against progress, and encouraging them to conduct suicide campaigns.

Now, that religion needs to take back its religion from people who are teaching that. The whole world is part of this process; it's not just the United States.

It's not a clash of civilizations. It's a struggle for civilization inside Islam. Possibly, it's the fact that Daniel Pipes has got that which makes the advocates of militant Islam so angry against him. They'd prefer to see someone on his chair who allowed them to pretend they'd speak for all Islam.

#31 leo: all true, but only up to a certain point. It's obvious to all but the usual suspects that anti-americanism is only the latest symptom of a deeper internal problem. But Rumsfeld's being (by necessity) far too diplomatic, just like Pipes with the militant vs. Islam distinction.

The struggle for civilization within Islam does originate from a plan of aggression, so it always inevitably ends up in a clash of civilizations without. There's hardly a difference in the outcome. Which is what matters most to us non-muslims. It's not that Islam refuses modernity, it's that it wants to destroy the modernity others have reached.

The fundamentalists are not hijacking the 'religion' at all. They're only carrying out Allah's orders, not betraying a faith, but obeying it most faithfully. That masterplan's been there from the start, it's the core of Islam, religion, or rather, religious plagiarism was only a tool for the ideology of military, political and social conquest.

So it's actually the modernising forces within Islam that want to hijack it, for a good reason. But since the early history of Islam, they've always been marginalised and denounced as betraying the original concept. It's all the same old repetitive pattern. Even today, modern Muslims are either those who've given up the faith entirely, or are still nominally Muslim believers but do not really practice or follow strictly, ie. those who choose modernity above submission to ideology, for themselves, at the individual level. Those who try to modernise the core beliefs for everyone else do not end up very nicely.

Democratic reforms in Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries is not an impossible task, but reforming Islam is a whole other story. It'd be enough of a victory for modernity to disarm it.