Posted on 02/20/2003 4:19:54 PM PST by TLBSHOW
Conservatives Fight Over Islam
Wes Vernon, NewsMax.com
Thursday, Feb. 20, 2003
WASHINGTON – A fierce, nearly three-week running battle of accusations and counter-accusations between two conservative icons has brought to the front burner a long-festering debate among President Bush’s supporters on how far the White House should go in seeking Islamic support.
Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy and a former assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration, has accused two White House officials – Ali Talbah and his predecessor Sukhail Khan – of putting President Bush in the company of “people who have made no secret of their sympathy for terrorists, provided them financial support, excused their murderous attacks and/or sought to impede the prosecution of the war against them.” Gaffney reiterated these charges in his Washington Times column Tuesday.
Gaffney’s initial comment in this flap came at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference on Jan. 31.
His remarks sparked a stinging rebuttal from Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and one-time confidant of Newt Gingrich when the latter was speaker of the House.
“There is no place in the conservative movement for racial prejudice, religious bigotry or ethnic hatred,” Norquist told Gaffney in a Feb. 5 letter. He went on to accuse his fellow conservative of attacking each of the two White House officials because of their Muslim faith.
Norquist then banished Gaffney from further attendance at his influential coalition meetings that he holds every Wednesday, pending an accepted apology to Tulbah and Sukhail. He added, “It is important that we, as conservatives, stand up against bigotry, racism, and religious hatred whenever it raises its ugly head.”
Gaffney replied with a three-and-a-half page single-spaced letter to Norquist that offered no apology. Gaffney not only refused to apologize but also cited chapter and verse of quotes from radical Islamic fundamentalists (Wahhabists) who had been received cordially at the White House.
He also stressed that he had taken pains to “express distinction between such Islamists, and what is, I believe, the majority of Muslims in this country whom the former [Wahhabists] are determined to recruit, intimidate, and dominate through a variety of techniques.”
The CSP boss took Norquist to task for his involvement with Islamic Institute, through which, Gaffney argued, Norquist and his associates had been instrumental in “promoting and facilitating Wahabbis’ access to the executive and legislative branches of government” and thereby “could prove politically damaging and strategically detrimental to our cause and the well-being of our country.”
Norquist says Islamic Institute “was formed to promote within the Muslim world the fact that the Koran and Islam are perfectly consistent with a free and open society.”
In an interview with NewsMax.com, Norquist said he wrote his letter because the two young White House Muslims whom Gaffney criticized were merely underlings carrying out decisions made by more senior White House officials.
“He decided to single out the kid who was a Muslim in both cases, even though the people making decisions are Presbyterians and Catholics, not Muslims,” the ATR president said.
In his latest column, Gaffney reports that one Muslim representative in a group visiting the Oval Office just days after 9/11, Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, had said two days before the attack: “This country is facing a terrible fate. This country stands condemned.”
Why FBI Couldn’t Find Him
When FBI agents visited Yusuf’s home, they were stunned to learn from his wife that he was unavailable because he was with the president.
However, Norquist, while “not vouching for anyone,” said the Muslims who had access to the president passed muster with the Secret Service and the FBI or they wouldn’t have been there.
“If they were a security risk, not if they said something stupid, if they were a security risk or a problem ... the Secret Service would pull them out,” he said.
Gaffney describes as “bizarre” FBI Director Robert Mueller’s decision to speak to the American Muslim Council last year despite that group’s “long record of activities hostile to the Bush administration’s prosecution of the war on terror.”
Walking the sometimes unclear lines between peace-loving Muslim Americans and those who pose a threat is a dilemma symbolized by the bitter dispute between Gaffney and Norquist, two well-known conservatives in the Bush constituency.
Yes. The FBI's the organization that's been after Al Arian, though.
Where is the evidence that President Bush is getting good advice about the terrroist conspirators and sympathizers with whom he has his picture taken?Bush is dirty on this because of the advice of malignant creeps like Grover Norquist. It is not disloyal to speak the truth about the facts at hand, any more than it was disloyal to speak the truth about Bill Clinton posing with drug runners and communists at his notorious coffees.
You can't defend this.
Just desist, please.
I'm not aware that TLBSHOW was arranging photo-ops for George W.Bush with terrorist sympathizers so that the President could promote the linguistic and essential falsehood: "Islam means peace."
Grover Norquist can't be defended, nor can anyone defend taking his advice where Islamic terrorism or Illegal Aliens are concerned.
President Bush is not a demigod. The criticism here of him is absolutely warranted.
It's far more than Al Arian. Why is Bush posing with Islamist terrorsit sympathizers, over and over again?
It is not disloyal to deal with the truth. The President has been poorly advised.
You want to narrow the question to Al Arian. Way too easy.
Why does anyone in the Bush Administration give Grover Norquist the time of day?
Words mean things on here; you're parsing his lies in your attempt to smear George Bush.
I think the President is getting abysmally poor advice from this guy...
To get his pictures taken with these guys...
Don't you?
Such nonsense. You've been chasing your tail on this for a couple of days now. You instigated a flame war on a stale thread last night that was wholly unjustified and off-topic.
The sole and only issue is Grover Norquist and the terrorist sympathizers he brings to the Bush White House.
You're deconstructing words to defend the indefensible. It is not disloyal to tell the truth about President Bush when he is wrong.
When TLBSHOW was slamming the President about the Trent Lott fiasco, where was I? Do I take every opportunity to slam Bush? Or do I call them like I see them?
Show me the accusation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
