Anti-Muslim hate spewing

I begin the day with a rant more or less aimed at the NY Times. Prominent on their front page today is a story designed to tarnish the image of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a group dedicated to eradicating anti-Muslim bias in the U.S. and to furthering understanding between cultures. The article, headlined "Scrutiny Increases for a Group Advocating for Muslims in the U.S.", lead of with:

With violence across the Middle East fixing Islam smack at the center of the American political debate, an organization partly financed by donors closely identified with wealthy Persian Gulf governments has emerged as the most vocal advocate for American Muslims — and an object of wide suspicion.

The group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, defines its mission as spreading the understanding of Islam and protecting civil liberties. Its officers appear frequently on television and are often quoted in newspapers, and its director has met with President Bush. Some 500,000 people receive the group’s daily e-mail newsletter.

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, and have gone so far as calling the group an American front for the two.

Lets begin at the, "partly financed by donors closely identified with wealthy Persian Gulf governments." Eeww "Persian," that's Iran, isn't it? No. It's actually Saudi if you read further. Only far later in the article do we learn that the vast bulk of funding for this organization does not come from wealthy Persian Gulf governments or even wealthy Arab foreigners. The vast bulk comes from grass roots donations here in the United States. And, of course, under our beautiful "Patriot Act," they too may be labeled terrorists and prosecuted or simply imprisoned without prosecution for giving to a "terrorist organization," as the Times tells us the group is labeled by some, including some prominent Republicans in the House and Senate.

The Times goes on to explain how many Republicans and some Democrats -- notably Barbara Boxer -- have been convinced to snub the group by Joe Kaufman, who happens to be Chairman of a group misnamed as "Americans against Hate" but should really be named "Pro-Israelis sponsoring Hate against Muslims." [If you don't believe me, go visit their web site and see for yourself.]

The tactics used by this group come straight from the AIPAC play book (which was probably the model for Karl Rove), but it isn't till deep in the article that the Times even suggests there may be an Israeli connection when it says:

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.

The article is "fair and balanced" in the sense that it does give approximately equal weight to Mr. Kaufman and his "small band of critics" and the many supporters of CAIR. That's just the kind of "fair and balanced" reporting AIPAC loves.

The Times should tell us what prompted it to publish this article. There's nothing particularly newsworthy in it. No event triggered it. Why did they publish it? Is it because AIPAC told them too?