A Troubling Influence - An Islamic Fifth Column penetrates the White House

FrontPageMagazine ^ | 12/09/03 | Frank J Gaffney Jr.

[kattracks]

Why We Are Publishing This Article by David Horowitz

The article you are about to read is the most disturbing that we at frontpagemag.com have ever published. As an Internet magazine, with a wide circulation, we have been in the forefront of the effort to expose the radical Fifth Column in this country, whose agendas are at odds with the nation’s security, and whose purposes are hostile to its own. In his first address to Congress after 9/11, the President noted that we are facing the same totalitarian enemies we faced in the preceding century. It is not surprising that their domestic supporters in the American Left should have continued their efforts to weaken this nation and tarnish its image. Just as there was a prominent internal Fifth Column during the Cold War, so there has been a prominent Fifth Column during the war on terror.

By no means do all the opponents of America’s war policies (or even a majority) fit this category. Disagreement among citizens is a core feature of any democracy and respect for that disagreement is a foundational value of our political system. The self-declared enemies of the nation are distinguished by the intemperate nature of their attacks on America and its President – referring to the one as Adolf Hitler, for example, or the other as the world’s “greatest terrorist state.” They are known as well by their political choices and associations. Many leaders of the movement opposing the war in Iraq have worked for half a century with the agents of America’s communist enemies and with totalitarian states like Cuba and the former USSR.

We have had no compunction about identifying these individuals and groups. America is no longer protected by geographical barriers or by its unsurpassed military technologies. Today terrorists who can penetrate our borders with the help of Fifth Column networks will have access to weapons of mass destruction that can cause hundreds of thousands of American deaths.  One slip in our security defenses can result in a catastrophe undreamed of before.

What is particularly disturbing, about the information in this article by former Reagan Defense official, Frank Gaffney, is that it concerns an individual who loves this country and would be the last person to wish it harm, and the first one would expect to defend it. I have known Grover Norquist for almost twenty years as a political ally. Long before I myself was cognizant of the Communist threat – indeed when I was part of one of those Fifth Column networks – Grover Norquist was mobilizing his countrymen to combat it. In the early 1980s, Grover was in the forefront of conservative efforts to get the Reagan Administration to support the liberation struggles of anti-Communists in Central America, Africa and Afghanistan.

It is with a heavy heart therefore, that I am posting this article, which is the most complete documentation extant of Grover Norquist’s activities in behalf of the Islamist Fifth Column. I have confronted Grover about these issues and have talked to others who have done likewise. But it has been left to Frank Gaffney and a few others, including Daniel Pipes and Steven Emerson, to make the case and to suffer the inevitable recriminations that have followed earlier disclosures of some aspects of this story.

Up to now, the controversy over these charges has been dismissed or swept under the rug, as a clash of personalities or the product of one of those intra-bureaucratic feuds so familiar to the Washington scene. Unfortunately, this is wishful thinking. The reality is much more serious. No one reading this document to its bitter end will confuse its claims and confirming evidence with those of a political cat fight. On the basis of the evidence assembled here, it seems beyond dispute that Grover Norquist has formed alliances with prominent Islamic radicals who have ties to the Saudis and to Libya and to Palestine Islamic Jihad, and who are now under indictment by U.S. authorities. Equally troubling is that the arrests of these individuals and their exposure as agents of terrorism have not resulted in noticeable second thoughts on Grover’s part or any meaningful effort to dissociate himself from his unsavory friends.

As Frank Gaffney’s article recounts, Grover’s own Islamic Institute was initially financed by one of the most notorious of these operatives, Abdurahman Alamoudi, a supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah who told the Annual Convention of the Islamic Association of Palestine in 1996, “If we are outside this country we can say ‘Oh, Allah destroy America.’ But once we are here, our mission in this country is to change it.” Grover appointed Alamoudi’s deputy, Khaled Saffuri to head his own organization. Together they gained access to the White House for Alamoudi and Sami al-Arian and others with similar agendas who used their cachet to spread Islamist influence to the American military and the prison system and the universities and the political arena with untold consequences for the nation.

Parts of this story have been published before, but never in such detail and never with the full picture of Islamist influence in view. No doubt, that is partly because of Grover Norquist’s large (and therefore intimidating) presence in the Washington community. Many have been quite simply afraid to raise these issues and thus have allowed Grover to make them seem a matter of individual personality differences. This suits his agendas well, as it does those of his Islamist allies. If matters in dispute reflect personal animosity or “racial” prejudice, as Grover insists, then the true gravity of these charges is obscured. The fact remains that while Grover has denied the charges or sought to dismiss them with such arguments on many occasions, he has never answered them. If he wishes to do so now, the pages of frontpagemag.com are open to him.

Many have been reluctant to support these charges or to make them public because they involve a prominent conservative. I am familiar with these attitudes from my years on the Left. Loyalty is an important political value, but there comes a point where loyalty to friends or to parties comes into conflict with loyalty to fundamental principles and ultimately to one’s country. Grover’s activities have reached that point. E.M. Forster, a weak-spirited liberal, once said that if he had to choose between betraying his country and his friends, he “hoped [he] would have the guts” to betray his country.

No such sentiment motivates this journal. In our war with the Islamo-fascists we are all engaged in a battle with evil on a scale that affects the lives and freedoms of hundreds of millions people outside this nation as well as within it. America is on the front line of this battle and there is no replacement waiting in the wings if it fails, or if its will to fight is sapped from within. This makes our individual battles to keep our country vigilant and strong the most important responsibilities we have. That is why we could not in good conscience do otherwise, than to bring this story to light.

 

[hchutch]

From what I have seen, Norquist doesn't seem to have done anything more for the Islamic groups mentioned than he has for other groups he's involved with.

And I would like answers to my questions in Post 296.

[Trollstomper]

"You have flat-out accused hchutch, Bob J, Byron the Aussie, and others of not answering your questions... "


Well, they haven't , for whatever reason. If you want to have a debate, then join it, stick to facts, etc., don't bait and switch -- you can do that with your own two hands.

[Poohbah]

They did answer your questions. You merely seem to dislike the answers you got.

[Trollstomper]

To save me the bother, why don't you go back over my postings, there are not too many, and add up the questions and rebuttals to previous questions of others'I have stipulated, and then match them to what you are calling the "answers." Let's see how they match up. Hint: If I say "Good Morning" and You reply "acceleration" that is not an example we would count as an answer. In court we would instruct you to "be responsive." Be serious.

[Poohbah]

In court we would instruct you to "be responsive."

What's this "we" stuff?

That's yet another troll profiling hit--troll accounts are frequently run by multiple individuals, and they sometimes screw up and let it be known that they aren't individuals.

If you don't like being profiled, quit fitting the profile.

[Trollstomper]

"We" as in normal people who argue cases rationally for a living. Once again, you throw your pretend weight around, call names, and divert, rather than take the challenge, do the assignment and actually try to debate, win, etc. Go profile yourself. I could care less.

By the way, did you really hae to run off and get your friends and your little virtual badges. Very impressive. And still you can't put together a factual argument. Hmmm.

[Sabertooth]

We like it the way it is, and we don't like pushy newbies trying to coarsen the debate.

You shouldn't worry; Trollstomper looks to have too much in the way of factual information to be a serious threat to your well-established niche.

"Enjoy your stay. It will be brief."

.. said Poohbah graciously.

[Poohbah]

"We" as in normal people who argue cases rationally for a living.

Uh-huh.

Once again, you throw your pretend weight around, call names, and divert, rather than take the challenge, do the assignment and actually try to debate, win, etc.

I haven't called you any names.

You're claiming that they didn't answer the questions: I fail to see why I must go and review your multiple replies to others, when you're the one making the initial assertion of fact.

(BTW, in the interest of not clogging the server, please press "Post Reply" only once. Also, mashing "Post Reply" multiple times is another tried-and-true troll profile hit. If you don't like the fact that you're fitting the profile, please quit fitting the profile. There's a certain etiquette here. Kindly respect it.)

By the way, did you really hae to run off and get your friends and your little virtual badges.

I pinged a few people that you've traded responses with on this thread. If you don't feel comfortable with those people possibly reading your posts, then you might wish to only use "Private Reply."

[Poohbah]

You shouldn't worry; Trollstomper looks to have too much in the way of factual information to be a serious threat to your well-established niche.

If he does have factual information, he can be a shade more polite in his presentation. But I have reason to doubt his "facts."

As for the "it will be brief" remark...I am reasonably sure that this gentleman has been here before.

[Sabertooth]

But I have reason to doubt his "facts."

Run with that for a while. Let's see your reason.

[Trollstomper]

Leaving aside "newbies," presumably an occupational pathology of yours -- I think the following is what I mean you calling names, "Your behavior fits the pattern of many trolls..."

I feel comfortable with anyone actually answering questions and making valid, factual points. Ignoring points and replying with non-sequitors is not answering. If you , or anyone else "fails to see" why questions should be answered, then that's one thing,but to at the same time call non-responsive replies "answers" is a bit ridiculous. As all can see, they are really just snipes and ankle bites.

Truly sorry about the posting, I am new to this, as you have pointed out, and when I have hit 'post' at the requisite two prompts the message has not loaded very promptly, leading me to think it wasn't being sent. Kind of like hitting the starter twice in your car. Usually not considered a 'moving violation', although it occasionally rattles cranky holier-than-though neighbors.

Now , if you don't have any other marginalia or enforcement tips, perhaps you could answer, defend, reply or otherwise subtantively engage re the Gaffney article or my earlier replies to you, your friends and others. Until you do I won't bother with you, and that way you won't have to bother with me. A club of one's own is so comfy, eh?

[Trollstomper]

Leaving aside "newbies," presumably an occupational pathology of yours -- I think the following is what I mean you calling names, "Your behavior fits the pattern of many trolls..."

I feel comfortable with anyone actually answering questions and making valid, factual points. Ignoring points and replying with non-sequitors is not answering. If you , or anyone else "fails to see" why questions should be answered, then that's one thing,but to at the same time call non-responsive replies "answers" is a bit ridiculous. As all can see, they are really just snipes and ankle bites.

Truly sorry about the posting, I am new to this, as you have pointed out, and when I have hit 'post' at the requisite two prompts the message has not loaded very promptly, leading me to think it wasn't being sent. Kind of like hitting the starter twice in your car. Usually not considered a 'moving violation', although it occasionally rattles cranky holier-than-though neighbors.

Now , if you don't have any other marginalia or enforcement tips, perhaps you could answer, defend, reply or otherwise subtantively engage re the Gaffney article or my earlier replies to you, your friends and others. Until you do I won't bother with you, and that way you won't have to bother with me. A club of one's own is so comfy, eh?

[Trollstomper]

Leaving aside "newbies," presumably an occupational pathology of yours -- I think the following is what I mean you calling names, "Your behavior fits the pattern of many trolls..."

I feel comfortable with anyone actually answering questions and making valid, factual points. Ignoring points and replying with non-sequitors is not answering. If you , or anyone else "fails to see" why questions should be answered, then that's one thing,but to at the same time call non-responsive replies "answers" is a bit ridiculous. As all can see, they are really just snipes and ankle bites.

Truly sorry about the posting, I am new to this, as you have pointed out, and when I have hit 'post' at the requisite two prompts the message has not loaded very promptly, leading me to think it wasn't being sent. Kind of like hitting the starter twice in your car. Usually not considered a 'moving violation', although it occasionally rattles cranky holier-than-though neighbors.

Now , if you don't have any other marginalia or enforcement tips, perhaps you could answer, defend, reply or otherwise subtantively engage re the Gaffney article or my earlier replies to you, your friends and others. Until you do I won't bother with you, and that way you won't have to bother with me. A club of one's own is so comfy, eh?

[philman_36]

Well, this has been a very interesting thread so far and I'm looking forward to the rest of it.
I especially liked the part about the chaplains. Who could have possibly imagined, so long ago, that there would be so many Islamic followers needing spiritual guidance in the future while being detained at Guitmo!
How fortuitous that early decision has come to be. /sarcasm

I'd really like to see this sort of exploration go all the way back to OKC and before. What names we'd see then!
Alas, it'll never be. Too much time has elapsed and Americans are no longer interested.

[Byron_the_Aussie]

...I notice you didn't answer my questions...

Hey, it was 1:00AM, here in Australia.

I'll be back to read your very interesting posts, and make a response, later today. Cheers, By

[Trollstomper]

Re would I answer your four questions from #299, rhetorical though they were:

My answer to your 4 questions is the same as yours, I assume. So, Can you accept agreement? Or does that stymie you?

Re Islam. I don't know what others have said to which you refer as "crap" -- but what Gaffney, and myself, clearly and carefully stipulate to be "Islamists" is a thing distinct from "Islam" or "Muslim," and is the accepted academic, governmental and journalistic term for politicial Islam's espousers, whether violent or not in mein and modality.

In religious terms, they are Salaffi, wahabbi, deobondi, tablighis, and related variants, as I'm sure you know.

Islamists are the enemy, or more formally, Islamists call themelves our enemy -- the West, the US, moderns, and any non-them Muslim is the enemy,and is plainly identified as such as in "the US is the main enemy of Islam." -- Bilal Phillips(look him up,he started the organized Saudi recruitment of US miitary during the first Gulf War and is an often cited figure and featured guest of many of Grover's groups).

This distinction is now increasingly well understood by policy makers, and others dealing at serious and senior levels. People, including the President and the Securty cabinet, may speak euphimistically about "Global War on Terror" but they all know what and who is meant.

It is what Rumsfeld's recently leaked memo about the war of ideas and the need to interdict at the madrassah level was all about. There are 10,000 madrassahs roughy, in each of Pak, Indo, and Malysia and a not insignificant number in India, not to mention of course Afgh. Most of these are less than 2 decades old -- n other words a massively funded rabidly grown phenom on a sharply upward curve. They are, in the main, Saudi funded, e.g., the Sauds spend more on these schools in Pak. for instance that the Pak. gvt. spends on all levels of education.

A few million more graduates a year and in a decade they will be Islam -- and then we will be at war with Islam. That is, strategically speaking, why it is so crucial to call a spade a spade here, stop wasting time with (much less legitmatig) the "wrong" Muslims and instead embrace, shore up, and work with the moderates while that is still possible.

Last, from that point of departure, I would suggest to you that the root of this contretemps with Gaffney and the national security convervaties is the above -- not personal ,political, points, jealousies, or whatever. These are serious strategic thinkers, people who understand how the world of security and threats works, and who helped to win the Cold War -- they are not gadflies or people dipping into the security realm, skimming the surface like a waterbug, making casual observations to fit one or another prejudice.

One does them, the movement and one's own argument a large disservice to think otherwise, no matter what a comfortable default that may be for some. It is a deeply flawed thesis.

Islamists are actively threatening Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, East and Central Africa, the Balkans and Central Asia, and virtually run Pakistan as well as dominating the Muslim community's voice and institutions from Mecca and AlAzar to Finsbury Park, Marseilles to Chicago, LA and DC. It is time for strategic clarity on the matter.

[Trollstomper]

Forgot about the time diff. !

[philman_36]

What's this "we" stuff? Hmmmm...Your behavior fits the pattern of many trolls we've had show up and get banned over the years. Yes, we do profile here at Free Republic.
We like it the way it is, and we don't like pushy newbies trying to coarsen the debate.
That means you have no business whatsoever telling us what this place is, what happens here, and how we're all wrong unless we prostrate ourselves before your superior wisdom.
Same question...What's this "we" and "us" stuff?
And that last...coming from you! What a HOOT! You're the purported "well read one". Pot, meet kettle!

[philman_36]

Well, I'd like to chime in that your replies, repeated as they are, have been very informative.
Don't let "attitudes" bother you too much, new posters have to get used to the system. As an alternative try using the back button, after you've attempted to reply, right click on the post number (ie 299) and open it up in a new window. You'll have a new view of the thread and you can see if your last reply made it or not.
Thanks again for your replies. Most informative.

[Trollstomper]

Thank you. If I stay around long enough I may eventually figure out how to navigate about.