Don't We Have More Important Things to CAIR About?

There's a mini tempest in a teapot brewing against Joe Sestak for his agreement to speak at a C.A.I.R. (Council on American-Islamic Relations) event.
Recent opinion articles against Sestak (wrongly) attempt to portray him as practically a terrorist sympathizer for merely talking to the group (that according to some, supports the worst of Hamas).

The critics conveniently ignore that Hamas was democratically elected into the majority party Palestinian National Authority. This result that necessitates dialog and engagement on the issues and an acknowledgement that Hamas is a valid political entity that should be encourage to pursue politically solutions.

The critics try to portray Sestak's upcoming event at a local synagogue as inconsistent and call for him to withdraw from the CAIR event. (Notice, we don't hear the CAIR group requesting that Sestak withdraw from the synagogue event.)

The way the Bush administration freezes assets, wiretaps, detains and deports anybody they merely suspect of terrorist ties (without evidence or legal authority), CAIR could not exist in the current climate if it was as bad as Sestak's critics portray it.

It should be no suprise that local Archie Bunker wannabee, Gil Spencer, waded deeper into the cess-pool. Delco Times: Sestak May Want to be CAIR-ful
Spencer uses Daniel Pipes (crediting him as a "world-renowned expert on Islamic terrorism" to define the CAIR organization:

"For starters," he says, "it’s on the wrong side in the war against terrorism."
He points out that after the 9/11 attacks, CAIR dragged its feet on officially recognizing Osama bin Laden as the culprit, but that was in keeping with the group’s consistently defending known and suspected Islamic terrorists. (neo-cons like Spencer, and Bush/Cheney, believe suspect=guilty and no trial/proof required)
....
CAIR was founded and supported with Saudi money and, since its inception, has refused to admit Hamas is a terrorist organization. It was Hamas that was responsible for the murder of 241 U.S. Marines in Lebanon in 1983.

CAIR’s known activities and connections led the FBI’s former chief of counterterrorism, Steve Pomerantz, to announce, "CAIR, its leaders and its activities effectively (but not ACTUALLY) give aid to international terrorist groups."

Spencer (as usual) fails to research or present any balance before declaring Daniel Pipes an expert or investigate any bias: From Wikipedia article on Mr. Pipes

On the other hand, a 1983 Washington Post book review by Thomas W. Lippman stated that Pipes displays "a disturbing hostility to contemporary Muslims ... he professes respect for Muslims but is frequently contemptuous of them". It said his book "is marred by exaggerations, inconsistencies, and evidence of hostility to the subject" while admitting that "[f]ew other writers have explained so lucidly such complex developments in Muslim history" and that his "book is a valuable contribution to our understanding" (Washington Post, December 11, 1983).

Pipes' Middle East Forum sparked controversy in September 2002 when it established a website called Campus Watch which said that it identified five problems in the teaching of Middle Eastern studies at American universities: "analytical failures, the mixing of politics with scholarship, intolerance of alternative views, apologetics, and the abuse of power over students". Students were encouraged to submit reports regarding teachers, books and curricula. The project was accused of "McCarthyesque intimidation" of professors who criticized Israel, when it published a "blacklist" of professors. In protest, more than 100 academics demanded to be listed as well. Campus Watch subsequently removed the list from their website. [8] [9] [10]

Peace Institute appointment

In April 2003, President Bush nominated Pipes for the board of the federally sponsored U.S. Institute of Peace, on which Douglas Feith was already serving. Soon afterwards, a broad array of Arab-American, American Muslim, and other groups, vehemently denounced the appointment, claiming that Pipes was an "anti-Islamic extremist". A The Washington Post editorial suggested that many Muslims viewed Pipes' nomination as a "sort of cruel joke".[11] The Arab American Institute, headed by James Zogby, stated "For decades Daniel Pipes has displayed a bizarre obsession with all things Arab and Muslim. Now, it appears that his years of hatred and bigotry have paid off with a presidential appointment. One shudders to think how he will abuse this position to tear at the fabric of our nation."

Christopher Hitchens, who is also a prominent critic of Islamists, also expressed "bafflement" at this appointment in a critical essay entitled "Daniel Pipes is not a man of peace" in Slate. [5] Hitchens wrote that Pipes "employs the fears and insecurities created by Islamic extremism to slander or misrepresent those who disagree with him" and that this contradicted the USIP's position as "a somewhat mild organization [...] devoted to the peaceful resolution of conflict." Hitchens concluded his opposition to Pipes' nomination by saying that Pipes "confuses scholarship with propaganda" and pursues "petty vendettas with scant regard for objectivity."

The other "commentary" piece I found against Sestak was by Beila Rabinowitz in the Evening Bulletin: Setak Must Recind his Ties to CAIR. Gee, now it's ties?
Beila is the directory of the Militant Islam Monitor website. Their "LINKS" page http://www.militantislammonitor.org/links.php lists Daniel Pipes at the top as well as sites like Campus Watch, Anti-CAIR, etc. It also lists PipelineNews. (Note: Pipeline also had anti-Sestak hit piece, written by, Beila Rabinowitz.)

AS far as I can tell, we seem to have an anti-Islamic group run by bigots, zealots, paranoids and hypocrits that is attempting to generate media attention to pressure a congressman into cancelling an event. A fool like Gil Spencer seems more than happy to follow along to attack Sestak.

No one seems to consider that having people like Joe Sestak talk to Islamic groups is a positive way to improve American-Islamic Relations (the AIR of CAIR). This stands in contrast to the hot-AIR (Anti-Islamic-Rhetoric) of Gil Spencer, Daniel Pipes and Beila Rabinowitz.

Instead of all the hot-air, we need cool reason (like the voters had in November when they made a change for the better).