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]

You know, you come on pretty arrogant for a person who just signed up today and who has attacked SEVERAL posters who have been here for quite a while and who have raised questions about the accusations against Mr. Norquist.

I'm not Grover Norquist by any stretch of the imagination. Such a wild accusation is not going to improve your credibility with me by any stretch of the imgination, unless you inhabit the same reality Gary Sick did with his allegations of an "October Surprise" by Reagan-Bush officials.

[Sabertooth]

I'm not Grover Norquist by any stretch of the imagination. Such a wild accusation is not going to improve your credibility with me by any stretch of the imgination...

I missed this.

Where were you accused of being Grover Norquist?

[Nick Danger]

In the interests of full disclosure, can you briefly describe the Free Republic Network's connections to Grover Norquist?

Allow me to answer that. Grover Norquist is one of several people who informally advises FRN on a number of issues. By 'informally' I mean that none of these people has any authority over anything we do; they just give us ideas or advice when we ask for it.

As you may know, Norquist's office is host every Wednesday to a meeting that is attended by representives from practically every conservative organization on the planet. The White House, Senator Frist's office, and Speaker Hastert's office also send representatives, and they tell us about the legislative agenda or other policy topics. Conservative candidates from around the country come there to introduce themselves. Virtually any group that has something going on can get a minute or two on the agenda, and I have done so numerous times to promote things the FRN was doing, such as the "Rally for America" events we did back in March. This is also how I was able to arrange for Angelwood to attend a speech given by President Bush. It is how we met Jeff Gannon of Talon News, who now hosts a program on Radio FR. In short, Grover Norquist has been of enormous help to us in connecting us with other people and organizations that share our goals.

He can do that because he is widely respected in the conservative community in Washington. I wish that I could take a webcam into the Wednesday meeting with me so that I could flash it around and show our fellow Freepers just how seriously people in Washington are taking Mr. Gaffney's crusade. You are making this out to be some kind of big deal, when in fact it's just one Nut On A Mission who has managed to convince a few people that he has something. What he has is a list of scary-sounding Arab names and a gift for placing them in the same sentence with the words "Grover Norquist" and shouting Booga Booga!

If I ever see any guys in sheets with AK-47's in his office, I'll let you know. So far all I've seen in there is a veritable Who's Who of conservative politics.

[hchutch]

Rereading the post, I realize I misread it.

That said, I still find it interesting that he has just signed on today, and that he has seen fit to attack SEVERAL upstanding Freepers.

I'd like to see some proof of his bona fides.

[Trollstomper]

That's the point: Grover refuses to seriously engage, understand the facts as listed and deal with them rather than recasting them and then shooting htem down. FOr instance, Gaffney never accused Khan or Tulbah of "treason" he said that they were the ones who the wrong Muslim groups had thanked for bringing them into the White House.

IN so stating, Gaffney pointed out that both of their fathers had demonstrable Wahhabi connections. Several major papers wrote about Khan the elder hosting Al Qaeda' s number 2 (among other things Khan senior did, including start a host of spin-off groups some of which are vicously anti-Semetic and anti-American, Americans for Global Peace and Justice), and any serious effort to research the people who run the Greater Houston Islamic Center (a collection of a few dozen mosques, schools, etc) where Tulbah Sr. controlled the money, whould reveal that a number of the members of the fiqh and khtub councils also run pro-AlQaeda websites and praise bin Laden.

Once, in office, these two young men seemed only to be inviting the individuals and groups Gaffney cites and most all now agree were the wrong groups. In turn those groups are ideologically and otherwise very much related to, and in the same vein as, those the fathers where part of running and funding. Gaffney simply suggested that may be why the sons then seem to only bring them into the White House. That's who they grew up around and can most easily and credibly reach out to, etc. Just like Red Diaper Babies and Port Huron Statement signers.

IF all of you would actually get down on the ground and research the groups and people, instead of lofting alleged principles and concepts, you would get a clearer picture. Gaffney has done a serious, well-footnoted effort at this and it provides an excellent point of departure for people who are serious to begin their own research. Grover clearly has not aND WILL NOT. A person like Gaffney who is a serious national security professional would never bring someone to the Secretary of Defense and suggest they be, for instance, placed on an arms control advisory group, without fulllyexmining their record, public statements, interviewing people who worked with them over the years, etc. Grover,and anyone given his role and WH relationship, shoould do the same. When they don't one, ends up with a pile of "unfortunate" associations that you have to strain all credulity to excuse time and time again.

[Sabertooth]

In short, Grover Norquist has been of enormous help to us in connecting us with other people and organizations that share our goals.

Thanks for that bit of background.

What he has is a list of scary-sounding Arab names and a gift for placing them in the same sentence with the words "Grover Norquist" and shouting Booga Booga!

Then it should be easier for Norquist as well as his supporters who think Gaffney has nothing, to refute the particulars, point by point, than they've been able to do thus far.

If I ever see any guys in sheets with AK-47's in his office, I'll let you know.

Where has anyone suggested that this is the case?

So far all I've seen in there is a veritable Who's Who of conservative politics.

I don't think anyone diputes that, by and large. The fact that they're a "veritable Who's Who of conservative politics" makes them quite influential, and a ripe target for infiltration, by, say, someone like Khaled Saffuri, a contributor to the banned terror org., the Holy Land Foundation, and former deputy at the American Muslim Council under Abdurahman Alamoudi, an avowed supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah who is currently under arrest for a number of terror-related activities.

Ever seen Saffuri at the Wednesday meetings?

[Trollstomper]

You haven't answered anything. I am a 30 year veteran of US conservative policts and have worked for President Reagan and in Congress and intelligence. I have known Norquist and Gaffney for decades. I live in DC and watch this very closely and am more than passingly familiar with the facts in question, and have considerable professional experience in relevant areas. I have not attacked anyone here. Ihave provided facts and asked questions. You have not provided facts and you have not answered questions. If you thing that's an attack on you, deal with it!

[swarthyguy]

If Grover was investigated under RICO, his associations would have sent him to the pokey.

[Trollstomper]

I'm glad you find it "interesting" that I "just signed on yesterday" Does that mean I was born yesterday? WHo does one know if I haven't been here under other names for years. Hmmm. SO many questions. How about this: my bona fides are my facts and points. Deal with those, not my bloodline -- That would be a kind of e-bigotry.....

What consitutes an 'attack' on several Freepers? Just stick to the facts and not the diversions.

[Trollstomper]

I'm glad you find it "interesting" that I "just signed on yesterday" Does that mean I was born yesterday? WHo does one know if I haven't been here under other names for years. Hmmm. SO many questions. How about this: my bona fides are my facts and points. Deal with those, not my bloodline -- That would be a kind of e-bigotry.....

What consitutes an 'attack' on several Freepers? Just stick to the facts and not the diversions.

[Poohbah]

I'm glad you find it "interesting" that I "just signed on yesterday" Does that mean I was born yesterday? WHo does one know if I haven't been here under other names for years. Hmmm. SO many questions. How about this: my bona fides are my facts and points. Deal with those, not my bloodline -- That would be a kind of e-bigotry.....

Have you ever been registered on Free Republic prior to December 11, 2003? If so, what screen name(s) did you use?

For a guy who just started posting, you sure are quick to accuse other Freepers--of much greater primogenitural standing--of various misdeeds.

It's usually a symptom of trolldom, Trollstomper.

[Howlin]

And only posts to this thread.

Naw, couldn't be.

[Poohbah]

TLBSHOW, or perhaps DITHF?

[Trollstomper]

Please catalogue this accusations of misdeeds> starting with the ones I allegedly accused you of?

The multiple listings point was obviously rhetorical. Nice try though. Just finding it funny that one imputes such serious value to bloodline-type issues, rather than deailing with the facts, questions, etc. It's just a blog, not Mensa or the Debretts Registry (which I'm sure you'd be amused about if I belonged t given your concern with "greater primogenitural standing." Wow. "I was in line first" I think that was the first thing I heard someone say in kindergarten.

[Trollstomper]

Please catalogue this accusations of misdeeds> starting with the ones I allegedly accused you of?

The multiple listings point was obviously rhetorical. Nice try though. Just finding it funny that one imputes such serious value to bloodline-type issues, rather than deailing with the facts, questions, etc. It's just a blog, not Mensa or the Debretts Registry (which I'm sure you'd be amused about if I belonged t given your concern with "greater primogenitural standing." Wow. "I was in line first" I think that was the first thing I heard someone say in kindergarten.

[hchutch]

How can I believe you?

Quite frankly, if you've really been that involved, you may want to re-think your approach.

I have had my disagreements with other posters here. Poohbah and I have disagreed on whether or not the Iowa-class battleships should be reactivated (I'm for reactivation, he's against it). Long Cut and I have disagreed on the need for the SURTASS LFA sonar system (I am in favor of developing and deploying that system, he is against it). In neither case do I feel that their opposition to those systems is cause to question their commitment to this country's security.

El Conservador and I have disagreed about the AUC and Carlos Castano. I see them as a valuable ally against FARC and the drug lords, and I feel his work with Los Pepes ought to count for something. His view about the AUC and Castano is much different from mine, and I am sure he will not hesitate to jump in on that. But I think it is safe to say that both El Conservador and I both want to see FARC out of business and that we both share a desire for Colombia to experience doestic tranquility.

Both Nick Danger and Bob J have made some very valid points in this thread. And it looks like both of them are being attacked for not going along with the charges that have been thrown at Norquist.

There are conservatives who have concerns about the Patriot Act. Bob Barr and Dick Armey come to mind right away. Does that leave them open to the same sort of charges that are made against Grover Norquist?

Am I a "terrorist supporter" because I believe Colin Powell made the wrong call about the AUC?

Am I a "terrorist sympathizer" because I don't buy the "Islam is the enemy" bullcrap some people are foisting here?

Am I a "terrorist sympathizer" for pointing out that this feud could be more related to the known tension between cultural conservatives and the more libertarian wing of the movement?

I'd like to know.

[Howlin]

Whoever it is, it is most certainly NOT Door Number 1; it can't piece together a coherent statement unless it copies it from FR.

[Trollstomper]

Please catalogue this accusations of misdeeds> starting with the ones I allegedly accused you of?

The multiple listings point was obviously rhetorical. Nice try though. Just finding it funny that one imputes such serious value to bloodline-type issues, rather than deailing with the facts, questions, etc. It's just a blog, not Mensa or the Debretts Registry (which I'm sure you'd be amused about if I belonged t given your concern with "greater primogenitural standing." Wow. "I was in line first" I think that was the first thing I heard someone say in kindergarten.

[Trollstomper]

I'm sure all that is interesting to someone. I didn't address any of those issues, nor make any of the implied statments or allegations (e..g, "terrorist sympathizers"). I have just posted facts, asked questions and answered people's, largely rhetorical, questions. I would be interested in seeing you stay on subject and reply in kind to the "very valid points" I have made.

[Poohbah]

Please catalogue this accusations of misdeeds> starting with the ones I allegedly accused you of?

You have yet to accuse me of any. You have flat-out accused hchutch, Bob J, Byron the Aussie, and others of not answering your questions solely because they don't have a case of hinge-head to your every remark.

The multiple listings point was obviously rhetorical.

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.

When you look like a duck, walk like a duck, quack like a duck, and then do all that during duck season...it's your own fault if you get a load of buckshot into your tailfeathers.

Nice try though. Just finding it funny that one imputes such serious value to bloodline-type issues, rather than deailing with the facts, questions, etc.

Free Republic has been a key player in organizing and executing grass-roots activism. Ever see a "Sore/Loserman" sign that used the same graphic style as the "Gore/Lieberman" campaign signs? That was invented right here on Free Republic.

It's just a blog, not Mensa or the Debretts Registry (which I'm sure you'd be amused about if I belonged t given your concern with "greater primogenitural standing."

It's a bit more than a blog. We like it the way it is, and we don't like pushy newbies trying to coarsen the debate.

Wow. "I was in line first" I think that was the first thing I heard someone say in kindergarten.

You got here last. 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.

Enjoy your stay. It will be brief.