I'm puzzled by the derisive comments about Daniel Pipes.
1) It's a complete non-sequitur. The topic of this thread is the closing of the embassies; either Pipes is right that it's a wimpy act, or he's not.
2) When attacking someone, it's always a good idea to provide some examples or evidence.
3) I find Daniel Pipes to be a consistently provocative and original commentator, who isn't afraid to challenge conventional wisdom as well as the neo-conservative/Republican consensus, e.g. his
argument that the U.S. should support Syria's Bashar al-Assad against the rebels.
4) What is a "thought pimp"?
Regarding the embassy closures -- I find it interesting but improbable that the U.S. would close 21 embassies just to make a point about the indispensability of the NSA. After all:
Spencer Ackerman and Dan Roberts wrote:Most warnings about NSA over-reach have focused on its domestic bulk surveillance program authorised under section 215 of the Patriot Act. Yet several news organizations reported on Monday that the information justifying the latest alert came from an intercepted communication between al-Qaida leader Ayman Zawahiri and the chief of the terrorist organization's Yemeni affiliate. Such information would have been collected overseas using powers granted to the NSA under section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Critics of the NSA surveillance programs pointed out that the latest threat had nothing to do with the bulk collection of domestic phone data. Senator Ron Wyden, the Oregon Democract who has been a longstanding voice against the bulk collection of phone records, said the latest threat was "serious".
But Wyden, a member of the Senate intelligence committee, added: "While I can't go into specific details, the vice chairman of the Senate intelligence committee noted yesterday that this information was collected using section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, rather than the Patriot Act. I still haven't seen any evidence that the NSA's dragnet surveillance of Americans' phone records is providing any unique value to American counterterrorism efforts."
"US embassy closures used to bolster case for NSA surveillance programs"
Spencer Ackerman and Dan Roberts in Washington | theguardian.com | Monday 5 August 2013
It's hard to see, therefore, how these embassy closures bolster the case for more domestic surveillance. Of course, there are many people who would draw that conclusion, but the closure of numerous embassies seems an awfully elaborate, indirect, risky, and politically costly way to persuade those people.
Skepticism is fully warranted and justified, but I find the simpler explanation more likely: that this action is the product of craven incompetence.