People more knowledgeable than those on King's witness list will not be testifying, though some have been invited to submit written statements. Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum would be one useful expert. So would Steve Emerson, executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism. Ditto historian and Islamic scholar Bernard Lewis, who knows as much about the beliefs and political agenda of radical Islamists as anyone alive.
Pipes opposed the hearings because he thinks they won't go far enough. In an email exchange, he says he is "particularly disturbed by (King's) privileging of Muslims over non-Muslims, an unexpected act of dhimmitude."
Noting the title of the hearings, Pipes says, "The hearings are on two quite specific topics..." which, he says, "are not topics for generalists and amateurs but for witnesses who have either studied them or who have first-hand experience with them."
Even if Pipes, Emerson and Lewis had been invited to testify, what difference would it have made? With the White House bending over backward to deny the undeniable -- that radicals are among us and new ones are being recruited to kill Americans and harm our economy -- what action would government authorities take to root them out, arrest, or deport them? Could politicians stand against cries of "Islamophobia" and "Nazi tactics" that would predictably be hurled at them?
In a nation obsessed with Charlie Sheen and celebrity, the media are unlikely to practice the kind of serious investigative journalism necessary to warn the public of another 9/11.
Given these undeniable truths, witches don't look so bad.
IRS: By the Way, We Destroyed Lois Lerner's BlackBerry After Targeting Questions Started | Guy Benson