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.
Hmmm, our gang has been saying for months that Bush won because it was G-d screwing up all those old Jewish ladies votes in Palm Beach!
What are you talking about?
By "our gang" do you mean Bush supporters?
No Bush supporter ever bought the "confusing ballot" lie. THAT was a dem talking point.
It was President Bush's DOJ that put together yesterday's indictments, putting the lie to the line that he's a "friend of terrorists" or the charge that he ignores those with terrorist ties due to a misguided aim of "kissing up".
The story---which we have discussed during the thread---addresses the picture taken the year before. So, the picture is three years old.
Politically this has the same stink to it as the Pictures of Clinton with the dope dealers and AlGore at the Buddist Temple.
In fact, I addressed this talking point that I was sure someone would dream up. It is NOT the same.
Were you pleased with the indictment of Al-Arian yesterday? I'm sure President Bush was.
My! Aren't YOU the superior one.
Fine. Stop lying and we will.
When you have an agenda, as long as you can find any "source" to back up your contentions, credibility doesn't really matter, does it?
I was under the impression that we disliked biased, inaccurate reporting, regardless of who was doing the talking.
Apparently not if it involves trying to smear Bush.
Messing up a sentence? .. No it does not
But many, including myself asked you several times to explain yourself .. You either denied ever saying it .. you tried to blame it on Howlin or tried to ignore the questions
Todd .. usually when someone calls me on or asks me about a post I made .. I usually explain myself further or I admit my mistake .. it's really easy to do .. try it sometime
And for someone who cares about the Presdient .. you sure have a strange way of showing it
Yes.
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.