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.
I'm simply stating that Todd lied when he said that Bush is a friend of al-Arian.
Notice he hasn't provided any proof.
This story has been out for MONTHS; you didn't find it.
However, your lies are here for all to see once again.
I take it you cannot prove your statement that Bush and al-Arian are friends since you, once again, haven't answered the question OR provided proof to back up your own words.
You NEVER stand by your own statements. What is one to make of that.
And stop acting like you're working with Sean Hannity.
I am a real conservative; you are nothing but a disruptor.
Nope, the Rosenbergs were convicted of espionage. The judge and jury were more willing to impose the death penalty because we happened to be in the Korean War by the time the trial happened, but that of course did not make them liable for a treason charge for what they did in 1944-5.
If you look, I don't believe you'll find a single case of Communists being convicted of treason at that time.
The constitutional provision may not be clear, but the case law is quite clear. The U.S. needs to be at war for a treason charge to lie.
I didn't realize this was a humor thread. Thanks for the laughs. LOLOL.
Since you won't answer the question put to you, I'll just take that non-statement as an admission that you have nothing to back your big fat mouth up with, and hence can be considered a liar.
Go back and read my post again.
I never said a few errors in the White House invitation list when it comes to Muslim leaders "isolates" them.
I was talking about these idiotic suggestions that Bush declare war on all Muslims...and instead of gaining the help of decent Muslims in tracking down a few thousand terrorists, make it a war against millions for their religion.
How stupid.
BTW, wishful rhetoric aside, we are at war with radical Islam (a thing) not "terrorism" (a tactic).
No we're not either. People can be as radical as they want in their beliefs. We have freedom of religion in America in case you've forgotten.
It's when religious kooks take their beliefs to the next level and engage in terrorism that we are at war with them.
I care about your lies.
Todd will be correct again. Watch and see.
And quit throwing out the liar line. It makes you look like a little, cruel, petty person.
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.