SIGN IN to access Harper’s Magazine
1. Sign in to Customer Care using your account number or postal address.
2. Select Email/Password Information.
3. Enter your new information and click on Save My Changes.
Subscribers can find additional help here. Not a subscriber? Subscribe today!
I reported in late August that hardliner Daniel Pipes was advising Rudy Giuliani’s campaign. Since then, a number of other outlets, including the New York Times last week, have identified Pipes as numbering among Giuliani’s hawkish advisers, along with Norman Podhoretz and Martin Kramer.
Today, Eli Lake has a story in the New York Sun saying that Giuliani’s campaign has told him that it was angered by a “series of inaccurate articles summing up the candidate’s foreign policy brain trust as a collection of particularly hawkish neoconservatives.” Charles Hill, Giuliani’s chief foreign policy adviser, told the Sun that Pipes is not an official adviser, saying, “He is invited to send things to the campaign. We have not announced him, he has no formal role in the advising of the campaign.” Pipes told Lake, “I am not supposed to talk about this. They have not formally announced my name.”
I got the distinct sense from reading Lake’s piece that Giuliani’s campaign is simply seeking some distance, albeit artificial, from its controversial advisors. For example, Podhoretz told the Sun, “I have told a million people that I don’t speak for Giuliani. I express my views mainly through email communications to the foreign policy team. Rudy is free to accept or reject them.” In other words, he advises the campaign.
As to Pipes, I contacted him in late August and asked him if he was advising Giuliani’s campaign, as a source had told me. He denied it and so I left him off my original list of Giuliani advisors. The next day Pipes emailed again to say that he had, just that day, joined the Giuliani campaign, which is when I wrote a follow-up item saying so.
And here’s another curious thing: Just two weeks ago Pipes wrote a blistering attack on Newsweek on his blog, criticizing the magazine (rightly) for running six pictures of Giuliani’s advisors and mislabeling five of them. Pipes called it a “jaw-dropping” mistake that belonged in Guinness World Records. But he never disputed Newsweek’s identification of him as an advisor to Giuliani. Nor did he dispute that in criticizing last week’s “nasty” New York Times story.
So I guess Pipes is officially not an official advisor, or he’s an official unofficial advisor.
More from Ken Silverstein:
Perspective — October 23, 2013, 8:00 am
How pro-oil Louisiana politicians have shaped American environmental policy
Postcard — October 16, 2013, 8:00 am
A trip to one of the properties at issue in Louisiana’s oil-pollution lawsuits
Acres of hemp grown by “patriotic‚” U.S. farmers in 1942 at the behest of the U.S. government:
A study suggested that the health effects of exposure to nuclear radiation at Chernobyl were no worse than ill health resulting from smoking and normal urban air pollution.
Greenpeace apologized after activists accidentally defaced the site of Peru’s 2,000-year-old Nazca Lines when they unfurled cloth letters reading “time for change” near the ancient sand drawings. “We fully understand,” the group wrote in a statement, “that this looks bad.”
Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!
“I hope that after reading the following pages the leaders of the Y. M. C. A. will start a campaign to induce good young men to do nothing. If so, I shall not have lived in vain.”