As the saying goes, a stuck clock will be right twice a day.

*raises left eyebrow*

LOL! Charles, you're the kewlest ;-)

On this site can we say: "Fair and Balanced"?

Wow... next thing you know, monkeys will fly out of my butt! Or maybe the French will master that pesky concept of addition.

Lenin is rotating in his sarcophagus.

Sanity and reason, hooray!

Next thing you know, la Times will notice that a substantial chunk of California's red ink is due to the cost of supplying welfare to half of Mexico.

Uday to Qusai:

"Is it me, or is it getting cold in here today."

Here's hoping for a wider outbreak of common sense

Before Professor Pipes became well known, he was a celebrated expert on Syria, in academic circles. He hardly indulges polemic, although that accusation can be fairly tossed at each and every muslim dogmatist in academia. Those who doubt the factual basis for any of his findings, should either put up, shut up or be shut up if all they have to offer is invective.

They're in favor of it? Surely you jest!

If Fuoad Ajami hadn't endorsed the nomination, the LA Times wouldn't have either.

/mult-culti cynicism

Brrrr!!!

It's mighty cold here in hell today.

Three cheers for the editorial board of the LA Times.

They have shown the good sense to read what Daniel Pipes actually wrote, and they have come to the only sensible conclusion: the defamation against Pipes is completely without any basis in fact or reason.

Shame on the defamers. And, to those Democrat Senators who joined in the attempted verbal lynching of Pipes by believing the CAIR-lies, I have to say: shame on you for dancing with the lynch mob. And why don't you read what Pipes actually wrote -- not out of context, but take the time to actually read what he wrote before you defame him.

If it wasn't already one of his proclivities I would say that Robert Scheer could go F--- himself. The Times' attaboy to awshit ratio is approaching a ratio of about a million to one and is best known to persons who buy it for the supermarket coupons.

This is kind of OT, but when I read this WorldNetDaily article it seemed to point to the possibility that either the US State department is one huge mole, or it contains a mole the size of the Rock of Gibralter.

Sorry, folks, but the real target here is the trumped-up "extremism" of Pryor, Estrada, et al. and the paper's attempt to justify this unprecedented power grab by Democratic Senators (the first ever filibusters of federal appeals court judge apointments). Pipes, they say, is not quite as bad, can't do that much harm, so why not let him in?

What a crock.

(But it's not out of the question that the judge issue is also driving, in part, Bush's recess appointment announcement.)

Robert Scheer is not going to be happy about this.

The sniveling little rat must be on vacation.

The L.A. Times in favor of Pipes?

Damn it! This blatent example of Jewish media influence through domination is playing right into the hands of the Thorazine Set.

First off, congrats to the LA Times, even if their motives, as suggested above, may be less than pure.
However, what came back to my attention is the opposition to Pipes' nomination by the named Democratic Senators, and that is what I want to discuss. Choosing my words very carefully, it is a dereliction of their duty to protect our security in wartime.

The term "treason" is rightfully reserved for overt acts that provide actual aid to the enemy. When Hanoi Jane sat in an NVA antiaircraft gun, that was outright treason, captured irrevocably as an image, both blatant and symbolic. Idiotarian ranting and sundry moonbatism aside, there is a special place on my personal blacklist for outright treason.

What has happened with the Pipes nomination is something less than Hanoi Jane style treason, but in my opinion it goes beyond fair criticism and enters the realm of aiding the enemy. A seven step process of reasoning clearly shows that the Senators named in the LA Times piece have deserted their posts in the War on Terror, and have taken the wrong side in the critical war of ideas portion of the war, namely, the identification of the enemy. PC is not silly any more:
it kills.

My reasoning is as follows:
1. Daniel Pipes says moderate Islam is good, that a radical fringe must be opposed, reformed, brought to heel by what he says is the majority of Islam, which is peaceful and moderate
2. CAIR vehemently opposes Pipes
3. Therefore, CAIR won't brook any criticism of radical Islam
4. Among radical Islam, there are terrorists
5. Therefore, CAIR supports terror
6. Senators Harkin, Dodd, and Kennedy support CAIR and oppose Pipes.
7. By participating in the PC culture smog campaign to obscure the identity of the radical Islamist enemy, those Senators support terrorism.

No, the war doesn't hinge on Pipes, but it is a critical test case about whether we can identify the enemy in this war, or whether suicidal PC will prevail, and we will be cleaing anthrax, sarin, or dirty radiological bomb victims off the streets of our cities. I will never forgive these Senators for taking what they perceive to be the easy PC way out, for taking the "easy wrong" over the "hard right" as an infantry captain once told me as a young lieutenant.

For the record, I am not even sure Pipes is right about that moderate peaceloving majority, but at least he has identified Islamism as the enemy. I hope he's right, because Islamism certainly exists and is dangerous. If it is the dominant strain, then we have a "clash of civilizations" type scenario on our hands. I fear we might.

This is surprising, but welcome. Sometimes newspapers defy expectations. This reminds me: I was living in Peru when communist terrorists took over the Japanese ambassador's residence in 1996. A few months later, as you may remember, the Peruvian military staged a brilliant spec ops raid, freed all the hostages (except one who was killed), killed all the terrorists, and lost only two of their own. The New York Times had an editorial shortly thereafter, basically saying: congratulations to Peru, for winning a victory against terrorism. No qualifications, no "root causes" crap, nothing. Just flat out "this was a victory against terrorism." In contrast, the Wall Street Journal (!) promptly ran an opinion piece entitled, "Now What About Those Other Hostages--Peru's Poor?" The world turned upside down.

#20: rebmiami: If you're going to bring up treason, you can take your talk of treason and shove it up your ass.

# 22 - Gordon

Regardless of the merits of the argument, you should engage it and not just resort to freeway-you-cut-me-off-you-bastard insults.

Also, let me ask you this: is there, and should there be, such a crime as Treason? And, if so, what ought to be, in your opinion, the elements of such a crime?

I'd be real interested to hear your view on that.

Gordon,

I'm working backwards, so I didn't see your nice little missive until after our exchange earlier today. Oh, so you'll answer this one, will you? Try reading it again. Your knee-jerk reaction belies the care I put into how I worded it. It is long because I specifically and carefully did not accuse the Senators of treason. I reserve treason for overt action, not ideas. I was drawing a parallel to ideas, but I would never suggest that "ideological" aid and comfort is actual treason. If it were, the various and sundry idiotarians and moonbats who spout anti-Americanism in public would be traitors, and in my definition they are not.

I am simply stating they are being negligent in their duty to protect our security. I amply detail why I believe this to be the case.

I'll make a deal with you though. What you have invited me to do with my ideas, you may do the same, if you please with your flippant "genocide" accusations.

Maybe the Times will retract when it reads Dr. Pipes' latest.