Posted on 06/23/2004 4:18:13 AM PDT by ovrtaxt
(Washington, D.C.): For over two years, the Center for Security Policy has been warning that organizations and individuals sympathetic to or otherwise supportive of the radical, intolerant and jihadist subset of the Muslim faith known as "Islamists" have mounted a sophisticated political influence operation against the Bush Administration. Today’s Washington Times contains a column by Center President Frank Gaffney entitled "Dubious Company</a href>" that describes a meeting Secretary of State Colin Powell held with representatives of four such groups just last Thursday.
Unfortunately, it now seems clear that this influence operation has succeeded in getting more than meetings with senior officials. According to the on-line magazine Salon.com, a seemingly unqualified individual nonetheless secured a position as the policy director for the Department of Homeland Security's intelligence division, thanks to his ties to a well-connected political activist named Grover Norquist.
Norquist’s activities on behalf of, and together with, Islamist sympathizers and associates has been documented by numerous publications -- including a detailed analysis by Mr. Gaffney which appeared last December in FrontPageMagazine.com ("A Troubling Influence"</a href>). Norquist’s apparent role in the case of Faisal Gill is particularly interesting, however, insofar as it seems unlikely that Mr. Gill would have been considered for - let alone actually secured - his Homeland Security post but for the Norquist connection.
The nature of that connection is all the more troubling insofar as Mr. Gill was, according to Salon’s Washington correspondent, Mary Jacoby, "briefly removed from his job in March." Ms. Jacoby cites unnamed officials as saying the temporary removal occurred when "the FBI raised concerns with Homeland Security officials...after discovering that Gill had failed to list on security clearance documents his work in 2001 with the American Muslim Council." (The AMC and its operations feature prominently in a lengthy investigative article concerning Islamist activities centered in Herndon, Virginia that appeared on the front-page of yesterday’s Wall Street Journal.)
Ms. Jacoby goes on to report that:
The advocacy group, which was controlled by [Abdurahman] Alamoudi, has been under scrutiny in an investigation of terrorism financing. [Jacoby notes elsewhere in the article: "Alamoudi was indicted last year on terrorism-related money-laundering charges and now claims to have been part of a plot to assassinate Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Abdullah."] The lead agent in that investigation works for an arm of Homeland Security. Gill's omission of the information on his "Standard Form 86" national security questionnaire is a potential felony violation.
While Salon states that "There is no evidence...that Gill has taken any action to compromise national security," his failure to disclose a troubling association with an indicted terrorist conspirator raises serious questions about the circumstances and appropriateness of his placement in a position with access to some of the Nation’s most sensitive secrets. These include information about vulnerabilities associated with U.S. ports, airports, transportation systems, refineries, chemical and nuclear facilities, etc.
Even though Mr. Gill has been reinstated by his superiors at Homeland Security following what is said to have been "a thorough investigation," it is not obvious how someone who withheld information about his employment history could be "cleared" - especially given how troubling that information is.
As Ms. Jacoby reports: "Gill's placement in the sensitive intelligence job has alarmed government officials because it fits the operating theory of prosecutors and investigators that Alamoudi was part of a long-term scheme by Islamic extremists to place friendly, if perhaps unwitting, associates in key U.S. government positions."
The bottom line is that it is past time for a rigorous review of the extent and implications of the evident Islamist influence operation in official Washington and the troubling role that Grover Norquist has appeared to play in facilitating, if not actually enabling it. If the Bush Administration can or will not conduct such an examination, Congress should undertake to do so.
_______________________________________
Well, it's a perfectly legitimate question that under normal circumstances would readily prompt immediate and matter-of-fact answers.
98% of any fighting we do is directed by our military commanders in the field and for the most part is overwhelmingly successful.
Herein lies the problem: The 98% military victories are made to become null and void by the major screwups - FUBAR - made by the 2% political elite who keep putting our boys in harms way and pulling them back just when they have all but wiped out the enemy in any given battle (e.g., Fallujah).
That kind of PC-FUBAR-B$ didn't work in Viet Nam and it sure won't work in Iraq.
(Now, I see we are pushing to fund $600 million (to be taken out of our own scarce annual defense budget already being quabbled over) and build a STANDING UNITED NATIONS ARMY.)
Back to the question of allowing the enemy into our Intel operations . .
The answer to that is that we have to. We wouldn't know what the Muslim terrorists were saying to each other (about us) if we didn't. The problem with THAT is that more often than not, the Muslim brought in to harvest intel to save our troop's lives is turned around (because of Muslims fierce loyalty to each other and deep hatred towards "infidels").
This has happened at least five times that I know of and I'm not sure if thre is anyway to turn that around - When can you really trust a Muslim when it comes down to him saving other Muslime lives or the lives of "infidels?"
Ya know, every time something comes up (Osama/Iraq, Clinton, WMD, 911 Commission) there's never any evidence. Of course there's evidence but everyone turns a blind eye and are more than willing to twist such evidence into such fluff.
bump for later
Look-- if our jackass politicians don't want to win it, that's their business. But I and others like myself will fight it with or without them, in our own capacity.
This is supposed to be a nation of, by and for the people anyway. As you well know, citizens have taken to patrolling the borders because the ruling scum won't do it. Sounds like a plan to me...
BTTT
That's why we need Arabic Christian or Jewish translators.
Oh, but that's not "diversity". Remember, Jewish applicants were turned down for translator jobs at State Dept., IIRC.
Do you know if the WSJ article from yesterday was posted on FR? I just did a quick search and couldn't find it.
When their family's safety and security and prosperity depends upon it!! What the Radical Muslims are trying to sell their brethren is a pretty dark and dismal future, while Americans are selling them FReedom, Hope and Self-determination!! What would YOU pick?!
FReegards...MUD
post it!
If you'd like to be on or off this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.
Drama Queen Alert.
Grover Norquist is also a huge advocate of unlimited immigration and open borders.
Do you recall the title?
Thanks for the ping!
...for your issue file. SECURITY.
Alamoudi Clinton connection:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2000/11/6/170946.shtml
We are winning. Mr. Wolfowitz testified before Congress yesterday, and cited all the advances we have made.
Rome was not built in a day. Let's all show patience, stocism. loyality and fortitude while the President does what he has to do. Acting like five year olds on an oreo high is not useful to President Bush
The essential question is this: Are we, as defenders of the Republic willing to pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty?
Of course we are. Now lets all calm down.
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.