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.

 

[Sabertooth]

In a religion of over one billion, you could find millions who go either way on an issue. This latest link is from Hindus, who have not exactly been tolerant of Moslems in India. I'm inclined to take their claims with more than a few grains of salt.

Yeah? How about the claims of the Israelis?

Your salt is absurd.

Muslims are killing people all over, of many faiths, whether Hindu, Jew, Christian, Buddhist, or animist. No other religion is doing that.

When those folks fight back against Muslims, it's not intolerance, it's self-defense. Not to say that there are never excesses or atrocities committed against Muslims, but you're rather deliberately confusing cause and effect.

I am far more inclined to belive at this point that Mr. Norquist's ties are being used as a weapon against him by people from three camps that I can identify.

What's the basis for your belief?

Why do you ignore and/or disbelieve all of the evidence against him?

The first camp consists of those who are envious of Mr. Norquist's success and influence and seek to bring him down.

Ad hominem. Address the evidence.

The second camp comes from those who seem to think that some religions are more equal than others, to paraphrase George Orwell.

Why would the Muslims try to bring down Norquist?

The third camp are those who view Norquist's brand of conservatism (particularly his "Leave Us Alone" coalition) as a form of heresy. They also do not seem to like the fact that he seems to have put forth an effort to create a political coalition that can win elections, which entails some compromises. In short, their sense of ideological purity is affected.

Yeah, I confess, at the point where the coalition seeks to include Jew-haters and terror sympathizers, I find that kinda heretical.

As Bob J has said elsewhere - the system ultimately worked, even if it was not as fast as some would desire.

This is a variation of the Clintonian "it's time to move on."

The system hasn't begun to work.

There has been an effort, prior to and during wartime, by Islamic Fifth Columnists to use Grover Norquist to influence the Bush Administration. This needs to be fully investigated, damge needs to be assessed, and the Fifth Columnists need to be rooted out. Then and only then will the system have worked.

There is far too much at risk in the War on Terror to sweep this under a rug, just because it's a Republican named Grover Norquist who's culpable.

[hchutch]

Why would the Muslims try to bring down Norquist?

I'm not talking Moslems. I'm talking about the folks who seem to have difficulty comprehending Article VI, Clause 3 and Amendment One of the Constitution. Look at some of the posts on this very thread.

I'm also talking about those who claim that Moslems have conflicting loyalties, the same slurs that were used in the past against Catholics and Jews with no basis in fact whatsoever.

Yeah, I confess, at the point where the coalition seeks to include Jew-haters and terror sympathizers, I find that kinda heretical.

Actually, I was thinking more of the folks who might disagree with his views on immigration or other issues or who take exception to the fact that he dared to reach out to certain segments of the population on a message of individual liberty. Segments like Moslems.

It is also undeniable that there is considerable friction and disagreement between cultural conservatives and the more libertarian wing of the conservative movement. I admittedly trend towards the latter on most cultural issues. For the most part, Norquist seems to do the same, and he also is a bit more libertarian on civil liberties issues. So are Bob Barr and Dick Armey.

Yet Norquist is the only targeted as a "Fifth Columnist", and there seems to be a constant effort by Gaffney to portray him as such. It is only fair to ask cui bono (who benefits) if Norquist is taken down, and to try to ascertain possible motives.

There are those who have questioned the Patriot Act in the same terms Norquist has - see Armey and Barr. There are those who do not think Islam is what we are fighting - see President Bush. The difference between those two and Norquist is the fact that Norquist has a LOT of influence through his Wednesday meetings, which are now being replicated in various states.

This is a variation of the Clintonian "it's time to move on."

The system hasn't begun to work.

A bunch of arrests and military operations disprove that assertion. Where is the demonstrable harm to the war against the terrorist groups?

It was PRESENT with the Chinagate situation, but there is no evidence that such a cover-up is in the works here.

There has been an effort, prior to and during wartime, by Islamic Fifth Columnists to use Grover Norquist to influence the Bush Administration. This needs to be fully investigated, damge needs to be assessed, and the Fifth Columnists need to be rooted out. Then and only then will the system have worked.

But did that effort compromise the War on Terror? The answer appears to be a big fat negative.

There is far too much at risk in the War on Terror to sweep this under a rug, just because it's a Republican named Grover Norquist who's culpable.

Do you have any proof that none of that is being done? Do you have any proof that there have been impediments to the system working? Unless you can produce the proof of either of those, then Bob J is correct in his take on the situation.

Norquist made mistakes. But there is nothing to indicate he is guilty of anything more than making mistakes. And I dare you to find ANY conservative that hasn't come back to bite them on the rear. The only difference here is that some people are trying to make this Chinagate II and use it to whittle away the influence of a person who there may have been long-standing disagreements with.

[k2blader]

Bump for later read and browse...

[rmlew]

Is it possible that some Free-market conservatives, who generally support outreach, are against this case?!
I support outreach to Muslims, not to ISLAMISTS.
Norquist is blind to the difference. I hope that you are not.

[rmlew]

1. The Constitution is a legal document. It is not the foundation of the country. Read the Declaration of Independence, and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers for the entire scope.
Legal structures survive based on culture. The Latin American countries freed under Bolivar's revolution based their constitutions on ours. These failed because the culture was not ready for limit government based on a virtuous and free citizenry.
Look at the bloody failure of the French Revolution. From the start it was doomed by cultural war. The American Revolution worked because we were simply continuing a culture. Even the American Tories supported increased self-governance and limited government.

2. The word "Christian" does not exist in the Constitution. However, we were founded as an expressly non-denominational Christian country.

Check out the following quotes:
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." -Benjamin Franklin, deist.

Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion, and Morality are indispensable supports. -- In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. -- The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. -- A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. -- Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. -- Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure -- reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

--George Washington, from his Farewell Address

"Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand." John Adams, Letter to Zabdiel Adams, June 21, 1776

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion...Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -John Adams
{John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, ed. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, June 21, 1776.}

And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever."
Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 18, 1781

"Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the Foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?" James Madison

I have many others.

[rmlew]

finally, even if this country is not based on a people and culture, why should we not be concerned with a group that wants to destroy us.
You are allowing Islaists terrorists to hide behind freedom of religion and their Muslim cousins to the detriment of both and the country.
Where is your shame?

[rmlew]

Are you actually ignorant of the difference between Islam and Islamism?

We are not at war with all terrorists. We have not declared war on communist groups like th IRA, FARC, or Shining Path. The US funds the PLO!
We are fighting Islamist terrorists.
Bush dare not speak the name because it would offend both the Saudis, the Wahabbi influenced Muslim block, and those infected by the cultural relativism of the left.

[hchutch]

1. The Constitution (with its Amendments) is the foundation for our government and the legal system in this country. The Declaration of Independence is arguably a mission statement/the reasons we broke away from England.

The Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers provide some insight, but the final word is what the Constitution says, with the Declaration of Independence as a mission statement/statement of principles.

First and foremost, IMO, are the truths that Jefferson said were self-evident. "All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights."
Again, I see nothing there that makes any exception based on the basis of religion or culture.

Let me lay it out simply: There is nothing in the Consitution that establishes the United States of America as a Christian nation. If anything, the two provisions (plus the 14th Amendment) I have cited say very clearly that when it comes to religion, there are some basic rules for the federal government and the states:
1. No specific religion is to be singled out for support.
2. No specific religion is to be singled out for restrictions.
3. No person can have his/her religious beliefs dictated to him/her.

2. The quotes really don't matter much. Legally, they are not binding.

[hchutch]

So now you question my support for this country over this disagreement?

Get this straight, I am loyal to the Constitution and this country. I had ancestors who were here when this country gained its independence. I had ancestors who fled religious persecution in Missouri and Illinois in the 1830s and 1840s.

Where is your shame? Where is your decency? Are you even familiar with that concept?

[hchutch]

Then what are American troops doing in Colombia, picking up new orchids for the White House garden?

We're helping the Colombians fight FARC. I bet we're helping other countries with some of their terrorists, too. Bush did not limit the war to terrorists who are trying to hijack Islam the last time I checked.

[4.1O dana super trac pak]

Bump for later.

[Sabertooth]

I'm not talking Moslems. I'm talking about the folks who seem to have difficulty comprehending Article VI, Clause 3 and Amendment One of the Constitution.

That would be Muslims, everywhere they have power.

Actually, I was thinking more of the folks who might disagree with his views on immigration or other issues or who take exception to the fact that he dared to reach out to certain segments of the population on a message of individual liberty. Segments like Moslems.

Segments which are tolerant of individual liberty only while they can't take it away.

I'm also talking about those who claim that Moslems have conflicting loyalties, the same slurs that were used in the past against Catholics and Jews with no basis in fact whatsoever.

Catholics and Jews aren't slaughtering religious minorites around the world. Muslims are. They're doing so because their Koran tells them to do so. It's not a slur, it's the truth.

Yet Norquist is the only targeted as a "Fifth Columnist", and there seems to be a constant effort by Gaffney to portray him as such. It is only fair to ask cui bono (who benefits) if Norquist is taken down, and to try to ascertain possible motives.

Ask away, since you don't want to address the degree to which Norquist has compromised himself. What's your motive for ignoring the truth?

There are those who have questioned the Patriot Act in the same terms Norquist has - see Armey and Barr. There are those who do not think Islam is what we are fighting - see President Bush. The difference between those two and Norquist is the fact that Norquist has a LOT of influence through his Wednesday meetings, which are now being replicated in various states.

The difference, actually, is that only Norquist has developed longstanding associations with terror symps and conspirators like Sami Al Arian. Norquist lobbied on behalf of Al Arian's brother in law, Mazen Al-Najjar, who was facing charges related to terror orgs, and Sami Al Arian's National Coalition to Protect Political Freedoms (NCPPF) gave Norquist an award in 2001 for his efforts to hinder the government's ability to use secret evidence in the case against Najjar. Norquist showed up and accepted it.

A bunch of arrests and military operations disprove that assertion. Where is the demonstrable harm to the war against the terrorist groups?

How can you or I know what's been disproven, without an investigation into efforts by Islamic Fifth Columnists to penetrate our government?

Heck, we didn't learn the extent of communist penetration until after we'd won the Cold War.

It was PRESENT with the Chinagate situation, but there is no evidence that such a cover-up is in the works here.

Anyone who doesn't want to investigate is leaning toward covering up.

We're at war. Islamists are trying to penetrate our highest levels of government to influence policy at the least, and probably more. There is always espionage. We've seen that at Gitmo. Why not investigate? What is there to hide?

But did that effort compromise the War on Terror? The answer appears to be a big fat negative.

Argument from ignorance. Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.

We're in the early stages of the WoT. It's going well; could it be going better? Are there problems we can avoid if we determine the extent of Islamist penetration into our government?

You don't know, and don't appear to want to know.

Do you have any proof that none of that is being done? Do you have any proof that there have been impediments to the system working? Unless you can produce the proof of either of those, then Bob J is correct in his take on the situation.

The access of Islamists and terror symps is ongoing. I'd say that's evidence.

C'mon, look at how silly your argument is:

"We don't know that steps aren't being taken, therefore maybe they are, therefore we shouldn't worry about whether or not steps are being taken."

[ml/nj]

The Constitution (with its Amendments) is the foundation for our government and the legal system in this country. The Declaration of Independence is arguably a mission statement/the reasons we broke away from England.

I suggest you have a look at Gerber's To Secure These Rights. You might learn a thing or two.

ML/NJ

[A Navy Vet]

"...a non terror related issue like, say, immigration?"

Boy, have you got that one wrong. The OTM's (other than Mexican) illegal immigrants from Middle Eastern countries is increasing alarmingly. Not to mention a number of the 9/11 perps had overstayed their visas.

[hchutch]

The access of Islamists and terror symps is ongoing. I'd say that's evidence.

Evidence of what? Where is the demonstrable harm to America's national security? The illegal transfers to the People's republic of China were proven to my satisfaction and to a Congressional Committee's satisfaction.

C'mon, look at how silly your argument is:

"We don't know that steps aren't being taken, therefore maybe they are, therefore we shouldn't worry about whether or not steps are being taken."

Right now, there is NO evidence of harm to nationals ecurity or the prosecution of the war. Only very serious charges being laid out.

And what strikes me as suspicious is that in the ABSENCE of any evidence of a crime on the part of Grover Norquist, you demand a full investigation. Do you know what your position sounds like to me? It sounds like Tom Foley saying that the charges that Reagan-Bush campaign officials met with Iranian officials to sabotage negotiations to release the hostages held by Iran - baseless charges leveled by Carter Administration Gary Sick needed to be investigated BECAUSE there was no evidence of wrongdoing. "We need to investigate for evidence of wrongdoing BECAUSE there is no evidence of wrongdoing."

Where is the evidence of criminal wrongdoing? I have seen NONE. I have seen nothing that indicates that at all. So that leads me to believe this is more about settling some sort of score that some people have with Norquist than it is about national security, and using the same type of smear tactics that were used against George Bush Sr.

[ml/nj]

Maybe I missed it, but does anyone know if Norquist is an adherent of some religion?

ML/NJ

[Poohbah]

When the absence of evidence indicates that an investigation is necessary, the motive isn't any sort of search for the truth--it's political haymaking and nothing more.

[hchutch]

Which means the next question would be: Cui bono?

[A Navy Vet]

"If anything, the two provisions (plus the 14th Amendment) I have cited say very clearly that when it comes to religion, there are some basic rules for the federal government and the states:
1. No specific religion is to be singled out for support.
2. No specific religion is to be singled out for restrictions.
3. No person can have his/her religious beliefs dictated to him/her."

What happens when a religous doctrine conflicts with those rights and other American civil and criminal law? At the very least, Islam is mysognistic...many of the men treat their women as chattel. Their divorce doctrine is unequal; their ownership doctrine is unequal; and on it goes.

[A Navy Vet]

.