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.
Please answer the following question with a "yes" or "no" answer.
Did Frank Gaffney actually present any evidence to support the allegations of treason he made at CPAC against a White House staffer?
Excellent point that bears repeating.
Not the exact word, but he did accuse said staffer aiding terrorist groups. That is the definition in the Constitution: Treason shall consist of making war against the United States, or giving aid and comfort to their enemies...
Is said staffer involved with terrorist?
I don't know. Gaffney, according to two FReepers who were present and listening, didn't present any evidence at the time of the speech. I want to know if he has done so since.
“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.
By that standard, Osama Bin Laden, properly searched and supervised, would be an appropriate White House guest.
And is Norquist implying (I think he is) that some of his invitees were culled from the list by the FBI or Secret Service?
Please keep the two points separate. Norquist was the guy who arranged the meeting you are referring to. Gaffney produced no evidence re: the White House staffer, whom Gaffney specifically NAMED.
If I were the staffer, I'd tell Gaffney to either produce the evidence or name a second.
Bush did meet with Sheik Muhammad Hisham Kabbani of the Islamic Supreme Council recently, but you would think they would want to be broadcasting the message that someone like Kabbani has the Administration's ear and not the likes of the American Muslim Council.
Kabbani is a respected Sufi scholar and head of one of the Sufi orders in this country. The Sufis are the Muslim mystics who are hated intensely by the Wahhabis - like, they would as soon kill a Sufi as a Jew or a Christian. In 1999, he said at a State Department forum that 80% of the mosques in America were controlled by extremists, after which which CAIR and the AMC and all the so-called "mainstream Muslim groups" did their best to ruin him.
Kabbani is worth getting to know about, because he is a Muslim from a very traditional school of thought who is very clear and unsparing in his repudiation of radical Islamism. If there were any justice in this world, he would have been the Muslim leader at the National Cathedral service after 9/11.
Kabbani is very pro-American and believes that America, the real existing America, is a great place for Muslims. Asked in an interview whether America should become a Muslim state, he answered: "America was founded on the principle of a separation between church and state. Therefore, I presume it is not legally possible by virtue of the Constitution of this country." Notice that he took American law as the framework for his answer.
I know that many FReepers would contest his benign characterization of Islam, but if he can persuade Muslims to interpret their religion this way, more power to him. I think its clear that he really believes what he is saying.
You can read an interview with Kabbani from 1999 about the State Department appearance here; an interview with the Middle East Quarterly on Muslims in America here; the webpage of the Islamic Supreme Council is here.
I, while understanding it, don't really like nor appreciate the way the President and others are playing the "Islam - Peace", bull.
I would ask Mr. Norquist if it is ok to stand up against the bigotry and religious hatred inherent in the Socio/Political/Religious system of Islam as directed by the Quran?
Is he possibly saying that American conservatives should turn the other cheek when dealing with a philosophy that is intent upon world domination and willing to achieve it through the killing of all "infidels" (defined as those who are not of the Islamic faith).
I really am getting tired of hearing and reading "conservatives" spouting the progressive message for political game. Of course those in charge, while not as foul as the Democrats, really aren't conservative at all in practice. But they do talk a good game for political expediency and bamboozle many of the faithful here on FR and across the land.
The "support me 'cause I am not Democrat, afterall", defense is beginning to wear thin.
Good point.
And it would be completely stupid to turn the war against terrorism into a war against Islam.
Bush has very wisely exploited divisions in the Muslim community to isolate the radicals and terrorists.
IMHO he's been brilliant, politically, in the way he's handled this very volatile situation.
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.