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.
You're deconstructing words to defend the indefensible
That's laughable, coming from you. You're defending a person who has now posted remarks on TWO THREADS that have been to be untrue.
And I am NOT the only one who thought he called Bush a traitor. Jim Robinson, among others, did, too, remember?
Frankly, I'm surprised at you; even though I rarely agree with you, I've never seen you FALSIFY posts or make any attemtpt to defend them.
And as I said above, when I see lies, you can damn well bet I'm going to point them out. And he DID lie because he never even bothered to DENY it.
TLBSHOW is often a blowhard. You're gonna make your hay over a pop-off one liner?
Hey, TLB, are you actually saying that GWB is a personal friend of Sami Al Arian? I thought not.
So. Now...
Let's deal with the actual issue: why are the two of you more outraged by the hyperbolic comments of one Freeper than you are by the terrorist supporters and sympathizers that Grover Norquist is bringing into contact with President Bush and his Administration?
Is there an answer from Todd in there? If so, I missed it.
Let's be blunt: he said it; he meant it; he won't even bother to deny it.
And, no, we cannot get past that.....he's all over these boards posting that crap, and we're sick of it. He's a liar.
Like I said, if you chose to align yourself with him, that's your business.
You are speaking for Todd now??
Sorry it doesn't work that way
Oh and for the record he has made these charges more then once
Like I said, if you chose to align yourself with him, that's your business.
There are two reasons why you won't get past it:
1: You have a need for personality conflicts. You generally take them with you from thread to thread.
2: The real issue: President Bush is flat out wrong and ill-advised on the matter of the so-called "mainstream" Muslims to whom he is reaching out. You can't defend it and you know it, so you fall back on the old conflict.
I don't give a rip about my alliances from issue to issue. I'm not on FR to bowbeat cliques. You and I were on the same side and opposed to TLB during the Trent Lott mess; here the triangle bends differently. It may yet again on some other matter next week. I won't change my opinion because of unexpected likemindednesses.
Grover Norquist is the problem child of conservatism. We need to deal with him, or he will bring us yet more grief in the future.
If you don't mind, I'd rather not be psychoanalyized by somebody who puts a cat on all his posts.
I can't speak for Howlin .. but I can't get passed it because it was WAY OVER the edge .. uncalled for .. flat out lie and I AM SICK AND TIRED OF IT
For the record: that's utterly irrelvant.
I don't care if someone in the past has claimed that President Bush has been possesed by reincarnated vegans from the planet Ix. If they can recognize that Grover Norquist is bringing bad, bad, very bad people into contact with President Bush, then they are correct on that particular matter.
Where does that leave you? Do you still want to engage in the points beside the point?
You, me, TLBSHOW, and all the rest are Freepers. We are fleas in comparison to the influence that Grover Norquist and the influence has. He is a dirty dog. Focus on him.
Are you pleased with his sway on President Bush?
No problem. Then you'll have no difficulty from here on out addressing the issue of Grover Norquist?
Not to mention the one just busted today was in a picture with The President. M
Thanks for the correction. Too bad you didn't make it 250 posts ago.
The issue here is Grover Norquist. Don't give those in denial any extra excuses to go off-topic.
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.