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.

 

[Nick Danger]

I note that you still have not refuted any facts, introduced any relevant new ones nor otherwise addressed substance.

That's right. Nowhere have I claimed to have any facts. Nowhere have I claimed to be defending Grover Norquist. You think I'm trying to debate with you whether he's guilty or not. No. I'm just trying to make sure that I'm not being driven like a head of cattle into some pen. These are serious charges that are being made here.

I'm well aware of how unpopular it is on this forum not to convict people on the basis of accusations. Go into one of our many Kobe Bryant threads and suggest that we might want to have a trial before we hang that guy, and you'll get a ration you won't believe. This place is the home of "Guilty until proven innocent." And sometimes even that won't help. But I'm just one of those obstructionist types who wants to ask a few questions before we get out the rope. Don't take it personally.

Could this a personal feud? Some people say it is. How the hell do I know? You tell me it isn't. But I see personal animosity in your notes. I agree that doesn't mean you're wrong, but it does mean I need to add windage for that.

Is the Compendium of Facts hyperbolic and reminiscent of one of those "The Illuminati Rules the World" tracts? Maybe you don't want to hear this, but yes, it is. There's way too much stretching to reach for mud to throw. There is too much creepy organ music being played around what might be totally innocuous events. I read both of those things as signs that (a) somebody is trying to BS me, and (b) this is a hatchet job. If there are actual damning facts in there, I can't tell, because I don't know any facts. But I do recognize rhetorical trickery, and there is a fair amount. That's an alarm to me.

I'm not a big fan of credentialism. I don't know Frank Gaffney. I don't know you. You bring us this big pile of ugly stuff, and I know I'm supposed to just grab my torch and my pitchfork and go march on Grover Norquist.

And I may well do that. But not on your say-so. Not when it's clear that you don't like the guy, and that your claims are at least somewhat inflated -- and I can't tell by how much. Another generation and we'll have mob rule in this country, and then this will be a lot easier to do. But I will not go quietly into that good night. If the current activities are as you describe, then I will sign on. The current stuff is all you need anyway; the rest of it almost detracts from the case by giving the appearance of piling on.

[Trollstomper]

EXCERPTS of below article to further educate you re procedures, all of which I guarantee you Grover will continue to oppose, just as he opposed the removing of the "wall" which I earlier identified as the single most imporatant change to date and which is reflected below as same. A clue for to answer some of your questions about why certain people are allowed to float awhile//longer:

"We're still interested in the criminal violations that people may be involved in," Pistole said. "But in many cases we are going to put that in the back seat and go down the road until we have all that we need." Solid intelligence approach, Got it? Cheerio.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A60964-2003Dec12?language=printer

FBI Applies New Rules to Surveillance
Many Searches Not Subject To Regular Courts' Oversight

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 13, 2003; Page A01


The FBI has implemented new ground rules that fundamentally alter the way investigators handle counterterrorism cases, allowing criminal and intelligence agents to work side by side and giving both broad access to the tools of intelligence gathering for the first time in decades.
......

The new strategy -- launched in early summer and finalized in a classified directive issued to FBI field offices in October -- goes further than has been publicly discussed by FBI officials in the past and marks the final step in tearing down the legal wall that had separated criminal and intelligence investigations since the spying scandals of the 1970s, authorities said.

Senior FBI officials said the changes have already helped the bureau disrupt plans for at least four terrorist attacks overseas and uncover a terrorist sleeper cell in the United States, though they declined to provide details on those cases. The approach also has resulted in a notable surge in the number of counterterrorism investigations, a statistic that is classified but currently stands at more than 1,000 cases, officials said.
............

Under previous FBI protocols, terrorism probes could be opened along two separate tracks, one for the purposes of developing a criminal case and one for intelligence gathering. Each was labeled with separate classification numbers, which govern the way cases are tracked and budgeted within the FBI. Sharing between the two categories was sharply limited, overseen by legal mediators from the FBI and Justice Department, and subject to scrutiny by criminal courts and the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
..............
Pistole said that focusing on intelligence gathering will improve the ability of the FBI to prevent, rather than just investigate, terrorist attacks. He and other FBI officials also said the new system will result in less emphasis on bringing criminal charges against suspects in favor of longer surveillance operations. When charges are eventually brought, however, prosecutors will be able to use information gathered through intelligence methods.

"We're still interested in the criminal violations that people may be involved in," Pistole said. "But in many cases we are going to put that in the back seat and go down the road until we have all that we need."
.....
"In the past, it was an absolute cardinal rule that there be a wall between the two cases," Blitzer said. "Now, you will have much broader access to see what is going on. You can see the whole scope of things. . . . We were always afraid that something could slip between the cracks on both sides under the old system, and that did happen."

In one stark example, FBI lawyers refused to allow criminal agents to join an August 2001 search for Khalid Almidhar, who had entered the United States and would later help commandeer the airliner that crashed into the Pentagon. The lawyers said that information about Almidhar's ties to al Qaeda obtained through intelligence channels could not be used to launch a criminal investigation. An angry New York FBI agent warned in an internal e-mail that was later revealed during congressional hearings that "someday someone will die" because of the decision.

In another case, the FBI failed to seek an intelligence warrant to search the belongings of alleged al Qaeda conspirator Zacarias Moussoaui, who had been detained in Minnesota three weeks before the attacks. The legal counsel in the FBI's Minneapolis field office said headquarters officials limited the actions of regular FBI agents in the case because of concerns about breaching the wall between intelligence and criminal cases.
>>>>>> see link

[Trollstomper]

You write: "Nowhere have I claimed to have any facts. Nowhere have I claimed to be defending Grover Norquist. ... I'm just trying to make sure that I'm not being driven like a head of cattle into some pen. "

Advice: pay more attention to facts than only organ music you hear. Frank and myself have given you plenty of facts, none really "innocuous" and none refuted in all of these posts -- quite to the contrary, I and others have knocked every rhetorical challenge or shading of the facts out of the park. The organ music you here is the home run organ.

So let go of your bovine fears; there is no pen awaiting you but your mind.

I don't do Kobe Bryant om Free Republic, I do national security in the real world. You pehaps will have to adjust you settings.

You further write "If there are actual damning facts in there, I can't tell, because I don't know any facts"

Wow. what can I say. "I don't know who Dr., but they are out to get me." Listen, relax. Have a pizza with Bob. Some fine shiraz. Go for a walk. Ruminate, from the latin ruminare.

"Nothing personal" you say, to someone in a town where your word is everything and accusations you level are fighting words, at least among honorable people. You are sure enough to accuse me of "trickery" , "stretching" and "inflating" (the same facts you admittedly can't measure because you "don't have any"). Proove any of this; that is to say disproove any of the facts that Gaffney, the cited sources and I have stipulated. Otherwise you are doing the same infantile leftist thing Grover does when he accuses uncomfortable fact bearers as "racists and bigots" never bothering to firs, or apparently even later, check their facts or his own. See the trouble not having "any facts" leads to?

I'm sorry, but not surprised, to hear you have a "pitchfork and torch" in the closet. I have a vest and mask, but that's an occupational hazard of a different sort than you are used to, I gather. But, I did appreciate the Dylan Thomas reference though. Of course he wrote that about a real fire, as you doubtless know. Which prompts me to enquire: Are you now feeling the heat, or just still ignoring the smoke? Final advice: get lower down anyway. I won't think any worse of you for it; might not even notice. My aim is high. nite nite

[tgslTakoma]

I'm caught up and keeping up, now. Thanks for your intelligent commentary. It takes longer to read than the "Are too!" "Am not!" comments of others, but it's also a whole lot more satisfying for one's mind, and well worth the time spent reading it.

[philman_36]

...I do national security in the real world.
...just as he opposed the removing of the "wall" which I earlier identified as the single most imporatant change to date and which is reflected below as same.
Well, now it's my turn to comment/chastise and commend and you can pass it along to your national security buddies.
First of all, "the wall" was supposed to have been removed during the Clinton Administration. We all realize it wasn't because the petty turf wars were ongoing.
I could give you plenty of links, but I'm pretty sure you already know about that.

Secondly, the greatest provision in any of the new laws that I'm most thankful for is allowing people such as yourself to get information from the Internet. I personally don't see why intelligence people weren't using that from the get-go as the Net is the greatest source of study and independent research available.
I don't like some aspects of the PATRIOT Act myself. Recent events show that domestic money laundering is just one of the ways in which a law supposedly intended for "internationl terrorists" wasn't really that way at all from the outset, just like many stated and predicted. There were already enough laws on the books to cover that area of domestic criminality.

Lastly, and belatedly, kudos to all the new work you guys/gals have been doing lately. A little late, but better late than never. A little slow, but the tortoise wins the race in the fable.

P.S. I understand more from your replies the whys and wherefores that I brought up here. I still think it was wrong to allow it to go on as long as it did. They should've been busted long ago! I know, I know...the wall.

[Nick Danger]

You are sure enough to accuse me of "trickery" , "stretching" and "inflating"

I said that about the Compendium of Facts, referring to the Horowitz article. That article contains such things. I'm sorry, but it does. It may well contain useful and damning facts. They would be more apparent if they were not mixed in with what is quite obviously hatchetry.

To tell people that Grover Norquist knows a guy who works at the White House whose father was a terrorist does not pass my test for linking Grover Norquist with terrorists. It passes my test for wondering why the 'national security professionals' would like me to stare at Grover Norquist -- instead of at them -- when I hear that the son of a terrorist was working at the White House. When I ask questions about this, I get answers like, "That's not our department." When I suggest that's a BS, bureaucrat's answer, I get back condescending bureaucratese, and the message that I have not refuted the "facts."

Now get I get a victory dance. I still don't know why that story is in the Horowitz article, other than it is a lame attempt to get people with short attention spans to think they just heard something bad about Grover Norquist, instead of something bad about the people at the White House who do background checks on new hires.

Using flag words like "evidence" and "proposition" to describe a conversation with a campaign manager about how to win votes is rhetorical trickery. That's what I mean by "playing creepy organ music." The stupid people are supposed to think they just heard something damning and horrible, when all they really heard is that some guy was telling Karl Rove how he thinks they could get more votes. Since I don't fall for crap like that, I get to be the unpopular guy who is "defending the traitor."

If this article is a sincere effort to expose the deeds of the misguided and/or traitorous Grover Norquist, why it is peppered throughout with misdirection plays and tricks worthy of a "60 Minutes" hatchet job? That is not an unreasonable question.

Even if I stipulate to Norquist having done some pretty weird things here that do not look good, I'm still left with wondering where this hatchet job is coming from, who is behind that, and why... because the hatchet job is an independent event. It also has perpetrators, and may also be motivated by evil, greed, political agendas, foreign influence, and so on. To say so is not to defend Norquist in any way. It is to open a new file called "political hit jobs by the national security community," which in the long run might be just as scary as anything Norquist did.

One evil at a time, perhaps, and if the current events are as you describe I'll even thank you for warning me about that. But I'll still wonder what else is happening here, because this is a 'hit.' Don't tell me isn't; we see them all the time. Down goes Trent Lott. Down goes Newt Gingrich. Down goes Grover Norquist. And don't come back with some rhetorical BS about how I just equated the evil deeds of Grover Norquist with anything that Trent Lott did. I'm using them as illustrations of media-blitz hit jobs, nothing more. We have one here, and let's recognize that. You're part of it, and you're not a saint in all of this. You are part of a take-down, and you are having entirely too much fun with it to be pure of motive. The glow of petty vindictiveness emanating from your notes is blinding. So whether or not Grover Norquist is a bad guy, I think the Republic might not be entirely safe from you either.

[general_re]

Since I don't fall for crap like that, I get to be the unpopular guy who is "defending the traitor."

I really have a hard time believing that all this hoopla was the best way to deal with this problem, if, in fact, it's a real problem. And even if all the innuendo and insinuation about Norquist turns out to be 100% true, the undercurrent here seems to be that the problem begins and ends with him, and that therefore he's the only one who should have to face the music, which is just plain old bullshit, IMO. "Groverdunnit" is not an adequate answer to the question of how this happened, in that case, and I for one appreciate the hell out of your efforts to ask hard questions about the apparatus that is ostensibly - but apparently not actually - in place to prevent foreign agents from gaining influence.

[TigersEye]

and for something completely different...

Don't miss this thread!

Terrorist Behind September 11 Strike was Trained by Saddam

[philman_36]

...I for one appreciate the hell out of your efforts to ask hard questions about the apparatus that is ostensibly - but apparently not actually - in place to prevent foreign agents from gaining influence.
Ummm...where exactly do you see that happening?
I'm still waiting on an answer to my 335...
Nick...Do you suppose the White House doesn't know who he is?
So you're saying that the White House does in fact know exactly who and what Saffuri is including his support of terrorists/terrorist organizations and then they knowingly let him visit the POTUS and WH. Is that right?

Is that also what you consider a hard question? I sure don't see any easy answers from Nick.

[general_re]

So you're saying that the White House does in fact know exactly who and what Saffuri is including his support of terrorists/terrorist organizations and then they knowingly let him visit the POTUS and WH. Is that right?

There's two possibilities here. One, they knew who he was, and let him in anyway for reasons currently unknown. Two, they didn't know who he was, in which case, the people whose job it is to know things like that in order to prevent people like that from getting in, have failed. They failed. If Saffuri is such a bad guy, somebody up there was supposed to know about it, and that somebody ain't Grover Norquist.

[philman_36]

Well, thanks for your opinion. Now, back to what I was asking you about...
...I for one appreciate the hell out of your efforts to ask hard questions about the apparatus that is ostensibly - but apparently not actually - in place to prevent foreign agents from gaining influence.
Ummm...where exactly do you see that happening?

[philman_36]

If Saffuri is such a bad guy, somebody up there was supposed to know about it, and that somebody ain't Grover Norquist.
And another question, and I'll pose it as a hypothetical.
If you had high level access to the WH and the POTUS would you personally take it upon yourself to ensure that whoever you brought in for a visit was on the up and up beforehand, no matter if it was supposed to be "someone else's job" or not?

[philman_36]

If Saffuri is such a bad guy, somebody up there was supposed to know about it, and that somebody ain't Grover Norquist.
And another thing...there is, and was, no "if" about it. It was known for a long time that he was, indeed, "a bad guy".
Why these "if"'s keeps coming up in these various conversations is beyond me!

[general_re]

Ummm...where exactly do you see that happening?

My point about Saffuri and his access is simply a restatement of some of what Nick's been saying.

If you had high level access to the WH and the POTUS would you personally take it upon yourself to ensure that whoever you brought in for a visit was on the up and up beforehand, no matter if it was supposed to be "someone else's job" or not?

You have the same two options with Grover as with the White House staff - either he knew, or he didn't. If he didn't know, then perhaps he didn't look, or didn't look hard enough, or simply wasn't able to know what we know now - you'll have to ask Grover which was the case. If he knew, then certainly he should have at least given whatever information he had to the people whose job it is to worry about such things. Perhaps he did - we don't know that either.

But no matter what, I'm essentially being asked to believe that Grover Norquist is so powerful and influential that he can bring anyone he likes into the White House without anyone over there even doing a basic background check on who it is he's bringing. And I'm not at all sure I believe that. Grover Norquist is not in charge of White House security or of national security, and if the people that are in charge of those things are doing their jobs under the assumption that everyone is always totally forthcoming about who they are and what they're up to, then we're screwed. Just plain screwed, because that's no way to run those kinds of operations - bad guys will occasionally lie about themselves and their agendas, and any security apparatus that doesn't take that into account is not doing its job.

[general_re]

And another thing...there is, and was, no "if" about it. It was known for a long time that he was, indeed, "a bad guy".

Then why did they let him in? Does Grover Norquist decide who sees the President? I doubt it - find out who does, and ask them why he was let in. Grover may not have totally clean hands here, but culpability goes way beyond just him if what you say is so.

[philman_36]

My point about Saffuri and his access is simply a restatement of some of what Nick's been saying.
Let's see, you stated...
...I for one appreciate the hell out of your efforts to ask hard questions about the apparatus that is ostensibly - but apparently not actually - in place to prevent foreign agents from gaining influence.
I asked..."Ummm...where exactly do you see that happening?" and I get...
My point about Saffuri and his access is simply a restatement of some of what Nick's been saying. (?!)
...which is a non-answer. Okay, whatever. Duly noted.
As to the hypothetical...
You have the same two options...
You fail to understand. I'm not asking about what I'd do, I'm asking what you would do. I know what I'd do. What would YOU do?
You've "answered" neither question, but I'd settle for an answer to the second question since an answer to the first obviously isn't coming down the pike.

[philman_36]

Then why did they let him in?
Who is "they"?
Does Grover Norquist decide who sees the President?
Well, to some extent, it seems that he does. Isn't that what he is paid to do? Gain access.

[general_re]

...which is a non-answer.

You don't like the answer you got. Okay.

You fail to understand. I'm not asking about what I'd do, I'm asking what you would do. I know what I'd do. What would YOU do?

Who cares what I would do? Am I Grover Norquist? Am I Karl Rove or GWB? We can spend all day building castles in the air like that, or we can talk about some actual events, and try to figure out what actually happened. And it sure looks like to me that someone dropped the ball up there.

[general_re]

Who is "they"?

Umm, you know - the White House and its staff? The folks who are supposed to know about terrorists and terrorist sympathizers? How's that for a start?

[philman_36]

You don't like the answer you got.
If I'd gotten an answer I'd have no problem. All I see that I got was "the run around".
Who cares what I would do?
Well, I do. The purpose of building and answering the hypothetical is for a comparison.
Am I Grover Norquist?
I don't know. As far as I know you're merely general_re. Are you Grover Norquist?
Am I Karl Rove or GWB?
I don't know that either. As far as I know you're merely general_re. Are you Karl Rove or GWB?
We can spend all day building castles in the air like that, or we can talk about some actual events, and try to figure out what actually happened.
I do believe that you're the only one "building castles". I'm trying to build a starting point with you. You apparently don't want to go there.
I'll ask again in an effort to build that starting point...If you had high level access to the WH and the POTUS would you personally take it upon yourself to ensure that whoever you brought in for a visit was on the up and up beforehand, no matter if it was supposed to be "someone else's job" or not?
And it sure looks like to me that someone dropped the ball up there.
Who is "someone" "up there"?