I had a dead-tree issue of the NYT on the plane this morning-- got my nails all dirty-- and noticed this humdinger of a front-pager. Calling them simply, "a group that advocates for Muslims in the U.S." the investigative powers of the Grey Lady turn this up:Yet a debate rages behind the scenes in Washington about the group,
commonly known as CAIR, its financing and its motives. A small band of
critics have made a determined but unsuccessful effort to link it to Hamas and Hezbollah,
which have been designated as terrorist organizations by the State
Department... My, I coulda sworn the "efforts" of "critics" weren't all that "unsuccessful." Capt. Ed elaborates:Let's get specific and move past any blank stares, shall we? For
instance, on Kaufman's site, they have screen captures from 9/17/01 of
CAIR attempting to direct visitors to their web site to make donations
for 9/11 relief to what they first identified as "NY/DC Emergency
Relief Fund". The hyperlink took people to the Holy Land Foundation's
website. The HLF funneled money to Hamas by the millions until the
federal government shut it down in December 2001. Eight days later,
they changed the hyperlink to identify the site as HLF and added one
for the Global Relief Foundation -- which also got shut down in
December 2001, this time for channeling money to al-Qaeda and Hamas.
CAIR exploited 9/11 to help fund the very group that perpetrated the
attack. Is that specific enough for MacFarquhar? Why didn't he bother
to note this very specific charge in his article, filled as it was with
protestations of lack of specificity?
And, it's not as if the critics of CAIR can all be painted as Islamophobic neocons, either, which would at least give the Times a little bit more cover for its CAIR butt-covering.Let's check out some of the critics-- latecomers, though some of them may be, to the CAIR-watching: Barbara Boxer rescinded an award to an Islamic activist in California after finding out about his ties to CAIR and investigating the organization: After directing her staff to look into CAIR, Boxer “expressed concern”
about some past statements and actions by the group, as well as
assertions by some law enforcement officials that it “gives aid to
international terrorist groups,” according to Natalie Ravitz, the
senator’s press spokeswoman. That was, according to the Times, the critics' fault, of course: Last fall, Senator Barbara Boxer
of California issued a routine Certificate of Appreciation to the
organization representative in Sacramento, but she quickly revoked it
when critics assailed her on the Web under headlines like “Senators for
Terror.” That information managed to elude the NYT reporter, Neil MacFarquhar, as did all the information at Anti-CAIR, despite the fact that it's the SECOND Google hit for CAIR, right behind, um, CAIR.There, he would have found quotes about CAIR suspicions from none other than Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin.
He also missed all the info on CAIR misbehavior at CAIR Watch, despite having referenced the site in the story.
MacFarquhar does, however, get a Jew-blaming paragraph in there: Several federal officials said CAIR’s Washington office frequently
issued controversial statements that made it hard for senior government
figures to be associated with the group, particularly since some
pro-Israeli lobbyists have created what one official called a “cottage
industry” of attacking the group and anyone dealing with it. But this gem is buried far beneath that particular excuse:Some Muslims, particularly the secular, find CAIR overly influenced by
Saudi religious interpretations, criticizing it for stating in news
releases, for example, that all Muslim women are required to veil their
hair when the matter is openly debated. There are two sides to the story. Let the CAIR folks have their say, but give fair treatment to the charges levied at CAIR. MacFarquhar is kind enough to "summarize" critics' arguments:Broadly summarized, critics accuse CAIR of pursuing an extreme
Islamist political agenda and say at least five figures with ties to
the group or its leadership have either been convicted or deported for
links to terrorist groups. They include Mousa Abu Marzook, a Hamas
leader deported in 1997 after the United States failed to produce any
evidence directly linking him to any attacks. There were no
charges linked to CAIR in any of the cases involved, and law
enforcement officials said that in the current climate, any hint of
suspicious behavior would have resulted in a racketeering charge.
Big Lizards goes through the list of figures deported or convicted, and adds this: Curious that the Times says that critics claim "at least five
figures" connected with CAIR have been convicted or deported; but they
only mention one, Mousa Abu Marzook... and him for the sole purpose of
ridiculing the charge ("innocence by association," I suppose).
Even more curious is that nobody claims that Marzook is a member of CAIR -- just as nobody but the Times denies he is a major terrorist figure. The Times
appears to have mixed him up with Ghassan Elashi -- who was convicted
of laundering money to Marzook (see below). The elite media's multiple
layers of editorial scrutiny strike again.
This isn't just lazy reporting or mistaken reporting. It's deliberately misleading. This thing reads like a CAIR press release.
CAIR and its supporters say its accusers are a small band of people who hate Muslims and deal in half-truths. Even-handed, that.
|