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.

 

[Bob J]

Norquist was fighting the good fight for conservatism when you were still in diapers. His credentials aside, I am waiting for any of his detractors to demonstrate the evidentiary national security damages from his attempt to open a dialogue and working relationship between American Muslims and conservatives.

The unsavory connections of the moles were discovered and the relationships severed. Seems like the system worked to me, maybe not as soon as it should have, but then again we got a hole in the Pentagon and two collapsed buildings in NY because America did not wake up soon enough to the danger posed by the Islamists.

Could it be that some are crying wolf over an incident that resulted in no national security damage in an attempt to destroy an influential conservative voice who disagrees with them about a non terror related issue like, say, immigration?

You're predisposition toward grandstanding with bombastic rhetoric while tossing cheap shots at any conservative who doesn't strictly adhere to your positions (which is pretty easy to do from the bleachers on this Forum) is a reason why your influence on FR has never extended any further than the overly sensationalized threads in which you love to perform.

[Criminal Number 18F]

If Norquist is a practicing religious Muslim he should never ever be trusted for even one second

AAABEST, a couple points:

1. No one has said Norquist is a Muslim. He is doing what he thinks is best by trying to bring Muslims together with the President. The problem is, he has picked a bunch of very unsavoury Muslims, if the allegations in the article are even half true.
2. There are plenty of "practicing religious Muslims" that don't want to kill people or see Islam rule the world at sword's point. I know some of them, and they can render unto Allah what is Allah's and unto the USA what is the USA's as well as any Christian, Jew, Hindu or heathen can. It is very important to understand that Islam is a large and complex religion, riven by fault lines. The Wahabbists -- Grover's friends -- are the ones that insist that there is only one path, and it is their path (imagine that). They are rather like the Roundheads in the English Civil War that way; they dream of a world united under a caliph, a sort of Islamic Cromwell. That is an image that appeals no more to many Muslims than a return of Cromwell would to many Christians.

I can tell that you are sincere, but when we lump all Muslims together, we play into the hands of the terrorists, who tell the Muslims that don't support them that Americans hate them all and they must hang together. We don't, and they mustn't... we need to welcome all Muslims who can shoulder their part of America, and get rid of those who would make America a Wahhabi nightmare land.

The devil is in telling who's who... as Grover Norquist could probably tell us right now. Tough to be him today.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[Poohbah]

Sorry but a large majority would have all of the Jews and America gone after turning the entire planet into an Islamist theocracy, if you don't know this you should.

I'm sure that you have reliable polling data to support this claim.

[diotima]

Norquist is not a muslim, to my knowledge.

[Bob J]

Sorry but a large majority would have all of the Jews and America gone after turning the entire planet into an Islamist theocracy, if you don't know this you should.

And how do you know this, exactly? Yes, there are passages in the Koran that support your statement along with a contingent of Muslim extremist nuts who actually believe it can be achieved, but then again, the old testament advocated the stoning of prostitutes. I haven't seen any bloody hookers on the sidewalk lately.

Are you stating that the only way non Muslims can ever be safe is to exterminate all Muslims worldwide?

[Sabertooth]

If someone uses ANY religion to justify murder, they need to be prosecuted and put away. I don't care WHAT religion is twisted for that sick purpose.

You're assuming a fact not in evidence, that Islam has been twisted to justify murder.

Islam has to be twisted not to justify murder. Mohammed was a murderer. Islam is murderous from the start.

A crusade against Islam is self-defense against jihad, and always has been.

Your comparision of Islam being akin to Japanese heritage does not make for an apt analogy. Islam is far more akin to Nazism, had the Third Reich actually lasted a thousand years.

This is where the First Amendment offers only phantom refuge for the apologists for Islam. Does the Constitution give comfort to practitioners of a religion which, in historical practice and the stated intent of it's "holy book," desires to overthrow the Constitution and force America to submit to Sharia law? If a religion's purpose is to overthrow the Constitution, can practitioners of that religion cite that very Constitution to gleen protection, and by consequence, aid and comfort, from the people of our government who have sworn to uphold the Constitution?

Shall the First Amendment compel us to aid those who, should they gain power, would undo the First Amendment and the rest of the Constitution, in a Mohammedan heartbeat?

Of course not.

[Shermy]

"But Grover Norquist?"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?s=norquist&ok=Search&q=deep&m=all&o=time&SX=3fd6091c77b19f4a246d9c02fcbc303ad5ea43a5


It's about money.

[NYC GOP Chick]

Why the focus on Norquist? Is he being singled out as the scapegoat? It seems like FBI, CIA, NSA and others are responsible for national security and they should have stopped the contacts prior to them getting an audience the White House. The fact they did is prima facie evidence even the Gov was unaware. To hold Norquist to a higher standard than the US Gov is ridiculous.

As I see it, looks like everyone got fooled regarding these deep moles and their hidden affiliations. Giving Norquist 40 lashes over it is nothing but a diversion.

I think that he's been the focus of so much scrutiny because he's the one who (mostly pre-9/11) had been bragging about bringing Muslims and Arabs into the GOP and acting as their conduit to the White House.

[AAABEST]

I appreciate your thoughts, however it's very simple for me. Islam wants Israel, power and the souls of men. God = truth and love while Islam = darkness and death.

I usually go a bit more deep on such lofty subjects, but it really is just that simple.

[NYC GOP Chick]

Seems to me "his activities as of late" were mostly pre 911. Norquist ws trying to put together a coalition of Muslim groups that could identify with and support the GOP, a good long term goal for conservatism. The extent of the Wahhabi tentacles into Muslim American society were unknown, even by the government.

Well, there was the group of islamofascist-supporting guys he got to stand with President Bush right after 9/11...

To assert that Norquist knowingly has and is undermining the security of the US is absurd. Did he screw up? Yes.

Could it be that he's more concerned with his own power, both real and perceived? After the 2000 election and before his pals blew up my neighborhood (again), he was crowing and puffing his chest, bragging about how he "delivered" that vote to Bush and how it won the election. I think *somebody* made an oopsie.

I got an idea, let's continue to eat our own so we end up with no effective non GOP conservative influence or leadership. Then we can just hand everything over to the pols.

Better yet, let's just blindly, reflexively defend our own, even if they're (knowingly or not) supporting those who want to literally destroy us!

[EverFree]

I think that he's been the focus of so much scrutiny because he's the one who (mostly pre-9/11) had been bragging about bringing Muslims and Arabs into the GOP and acting as their conduit to the White House.

What's wrong with that? Who wants Muslims and Arabs to start voting predominantly Rat?

[Sabertooth]

*Sorry but a large majority would have all of the Jews and America gone after turning the entire planet into an Islamist theocracy, if you don't know this you should.

**And how do you know this, exactly?

Those History book things.

The question you're asking is like asking "how do we know communism infringes on liberty?" Because the Communist Manifesto said so, and because every attempt at a communist government confirmed it.

Yes, there are passages in the Koran that support your statement along with a contingent of Muslim extremist nuts who actually believe it can be achieved, but then again, the old testament advocated the stoning of prostitutes. I haven't seen any bloody hookers on the sidewalk lately.

Not, however, in the New Testament.

Nor does the Old Testament advocate the stoning of prostitutes the world over. World domination isn't in the mission statement of Judaism.

World evangleization is in the mission statement of Christianity, but Jesus recognized the principle of secularism when he said "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and render unto God that which is God's"

Mohammed did not acknowledge secularism.

It's Sharia or jihad, to the ends of the Earth, to the end of time.

Are you stating that the only way non Muslims can ever be safe is to exterminate all Muslims worldwide?

Islam is in a state of perpetual war with our civilization. There might be respites, but Mohammedanism will have revival, so long as Islam persists.

What do you suggest? How are wars won, with finality?

When the opponent is either wiped out, or their surrender is absolute.

[NYC GOP Chick]

BRAVO! I am in major awe of you! :)

[Salvation]

**Zogby Bros**

I thought they were Jewish. Am I wrong?

[Cacique]

bttfl

[hchutch]

But then again, so do you. You assume Islam and the Koran SUPPORT terrorism, and encourage murder-suicide bombings. That is not the case.

"Acts of Terrorism which result in the terrorist taking their own life are in direct violation of that which the Koran teaches. The Koran insists that you "do not kill yourselves" (4:29). Suicide is looked down upon by the Koran and is shown very clearly by its imperative form of writing. The Book is a guide for the righteous to live by and demands that one does not take his own life. The act of suicide in itself suggests that one is not actually righteous and should therefore be labeled more appropriately as one who "says he believes" but does not in fact follow the religion. The Koran points out that "there are some who declare: 'We believe in Allah and the Last Day,' yet they are no true believers... they shall be sternly punished for the lies that they tell" (2:09-10). Accordingly these unbelievers will be judged at death and will be punished for that which they have done wrong. Those who commit suicide claim to be righteous, however, by committing suicide and going against the Book they are showing themselves to be hypocrites and will be punished as such.

"The Koran also warns: "he that kills a believer by design shall burn in Hell for ever" (4:93). The terrorists that claim to be killing in the name of Allah think of themselves as believers. These terrorists are not only going against their own belief system by committing suicide but also by taking the lives of other believers, who are defined by the Koran as those who follow Islam, Judaism and Christianity alike (4:171; 2:62). In the case of the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, these terrorists not only took their own lives, but also took the lives of other believers. The killing of any of these people is strictly prohibited by the Book and those who violate this law of Islam are to be punished accordingly."
http://www.emayhem.org/serious/1038808893.shtml

"[2:195] You shall spend in the cause of GOD; do not throw yourselves with your own hands into destruction. You shall be charitable; GOD loves the charitable.

"[ 4:29] O you who believe, do not consume each others' properties illicitly - only mutually acceptable transactions are permitted. You shall not kill yourselves. GOD is Merciful towards you.

"[ 4:30] Anyone who commits these transgressions, maliciously and deliberately, we will condemn him to Hell. This is easy for GOD to do.

"Suicide bombing by young mis-informed Muslim youths has been carried out almost routinely as a mean of revenge in the Middle East conflict. It is mainly done to avenge their oppression, occupation and loss of freedom they have been experiencing all their life. It is carried out by the youth who lost all the hope to a peaceful settlement as they witnessed their families, loved ones, neighbors, and the innocent bystanders die or tortured at the hand of a merciless occupying force. Despite these intolerable situation no permission can be found in Islam to avenge by suicide bombing or by targeting the innocent civilians. These young desperate Muslim youth have been taught what is NOT in the Quran, and what was never promised by God in the Holy book.

"As the verses quoted above show, suicide in any form is condemned by God, no excuse given under any circumstances. The Quran does not promise Heaven (Paradise) to those who commit suicide but rather warn of condemnation to Hell. The promise of paradise or of virgin wives in Heaven for those suicide bombers and those who kill the innocent civilians has no basis in Islam and cannot be found anywhere in the Quran. These fabrications taught to these poor desperate Muslim youths originated probably from the man made books of Hadiths and Sunna that were condemned by God and by the prophet Muhammed himself who told his followers to follow ONLY the Quran."
http://www.submission.org/jihad/suicide.html

"Attention to our readers: This collection of articles is never meant to insult those who chose to believe in one doctrine or another but rather to present educational materials to those interested in learning about them. We may not agree with each other but we do respect your choice and expect the same from you. In some of these articles we have received comments about verses of the Bible taken out of context and used in the wrong place. We urge everyone reading any material on this site , or any site, to verify that materail for his/herself, see Quran 17:36. As for books referrred to here, we are not promoting any of these books , but we are only using some of the materials in them because of the interest they raise. We have full respect to those who believe different than us. Quran teaches that: "There shall be no compulsion in religion". 2:256"
http://www.submission.org/jews/

In short, the murder-suicide bombers in the MidEast (Israel and Iraq, and anywhere else), but a reading of the Koran, do NOT die as martyrs to Islam, but instead die as apostates and murderers. They do not get a mansion. They do not collect their seventy-two virgins. They go straight to Hell.

By the way, the 2:256 quote sounded quite familiar... a lot like the part in the First Amendment that says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;".

You may also find this link worth perusing:
http://www.submission.org/terrorism.html

In short, not every Moslem or interpretation of Islam supports al-Qaeda. If anything, based on the verses from the Koran I've seen through a simple Google search and reviewing other links on the page I found, it is far more likely that al-Qaeda represents Islam with the same legitimacy that the Irish Republican Army represents Catholics.

[Rummyfan]

Bump for reference.

[EverFree]

Getting the story straight: Grover Norquist replies to Ratner's accusation of selling out America

Ellen Ratner writes that I want to "bring Islamic fundamentalists into the Republican Party without regard to how they feel about terrorism or Americans, let alone Republicans." This is not true. And it is silly. It is, however, a sad lie that a handful of bigots have tried to spread to attack President Bush and others. These bigots have had very little success in getting this nonsense published, but sadly Ellen Ratner allowed herself to be used here.

The truth is that I share President Bush and President Reagan's view that the Republican Party and the conservative movement should reach out to Americans of all faiths and all ethnic backgrounds. We are a nation of immigrants and this is a strength and part of our national greatness. I believe that the Republican values of individual liberty are best for the nation and for all individuals.

I wrote an article in 2000 for the American Spectator pointing out that Muslims in America have traditionally voted Republican. President George W. Bush reached out in the 2000 election and won more than 70 percent of the Muslim vote. Bush's leadership and outreach is a model of how Republicans can and should reach out to all Americans – not by pandering as the Democrats do, but by highlighting how conservative values are best for all Americans.

[NYC GOP Chick]

What's wrong with that? Who wants Muslims and Arabs to start voting predominantly Rat?

If they won't condemn the extremists and the 9/11 attacks in an unqualified manner, the 'rats can have them. These people would fit in well with the other America-haters on the left.

I, for one, am damn sick and tired of these so-called "moderates" who wag their fingers at the islamofascists -- and then follow up right away with how 9/11 was somehow our fault, either for not hating Israel and/or being successful and non-muslim.

The hamas/hezbollah/palestinian islamic jihad and their supporters crowd with whom Norquist hangs out are NOT the kind I want in this party. If need be, I'll still vote for Bush, but my registration and dollars will move to the Conservative Party.

[Sabertooth]

Norquist was fighting the good fight for conservatism when you were still in diapers.

Not original, and not correct. Norquist is in his 40s.

His credentials aside

Appeal to authority fallacy, and Norquist's credentials are suspect anyway. He's good on guns and taxes, lousy on terror and Illegal Aliens.

I am waiting for any of his detractors to demonstrate the evidentiary national security damages from his attempt to open a dialogue and working relationship between American Muslims and conservatives.

"He tried to gain influence for the pro-terror symps, but where's the proof he meant or did any harm?"

The unsavory connections of the moles were discovered and the relationships severed.

Not even close to true. Nortquist lets fly with ad hominems any time anyone questions his friendliness with Islamists affilliated with ANSWER, and other America haters. Khaled Saffuri and Suhail Khan have not been disavowed. Nor have the Islamic Institute, Muzzamil Siddiqi, CAIR, Shakh Mamza, or a host of other pro-terror entities.

Do your homework, Bob, Click on the GROVERNORQUIST and ENEMYWITHIN keywords. Norquist is bad news.

Seems like the system worked to me, maybe not as soon as it should have, but then again we got a hole in the Pentagon and two collapsed buildings in NY because America did not wake up soon enough to the danger posed by the Islamists.

If the system was working, Norquist wouldn't still be hanging out with and shepherding terror symps into access two years after 9/11.

Could it be that some are crying wolf over an incident that resulted in no national security damage in an attempt to destroy an influential conservative voice who disagrees with them about a non terror related issue like, say, immigration?

Yeah, I tricked Gaffney and Horowitz into publishing this article too.

You're the one who made the appeal to Norquist's conservative credentials, as though they are beyond question or criticism (if one ignores the voluminous evidence that he's friendly with terror symps). Norquist's cavalier attitude about borders and sovereignty belies your appeal to authority.

You're predisposition toward grandstanding with bombastic rhetoric while tossing cheap shots at any conservative who doesn't strictly adhere to your positions (which is pretty easy to do from the bleachers on this Forum) is a reason why your influence on FR has never extended any further than the overly sensationalized threads in which you love to perform.

I imagine, then, that facts will follow, on your part?

Or is your bag of ad hominems not yet exhausted?