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.

 

[philman_36]

Then why did they let him in?
Who is "they"?
Umm, you know - the White House and its staff?
So you meant to ask, but didn't...Then why did the White House and its staff let him in?
Well, gee Wally, do you think it's because Norquist arranged the meeting and they trusted him to vet those he brought in? Did they even know exactly which individuals were being brought in or was it just a "some guys I know" type of thing.
The folks who are supposed to know about terrorists and terrorist sympathizers?
Is the White House and its staff the ones who are supposed to know about terrorists and terrorist sympathizers? That's funny...
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.
Aren't "they" and "the people whose job it is to know things like that in order to prevent people like that from getting in" the same? It doesn't seem like it from your replies. It's like you're saying there are two different groups involved there.
How's that for a start?
Not too good.

[philman_36]

Just a general FYI, general...
INVESTIGATION OF ILLEGAL OR IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN CONNECTION WITH 1996 FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS
Snip...National Security Council staff members were wary of Chung. On April 7, 1995, NSC staff member Melanie Darby sent an e-mail message to colleagues regarding the March 11 presidential radio address. She asked whether they felt the visitors should be given copies of the photographs taken that day. She wrote that President Clinton ``wasn't sure we'd want photos of him with these people circulating around'' and that the DNC had arranged for the six businessmen to visit without ``knowing anything about them except that they were D.N.C. contributors.''
It seems that somebody trusted somebody else who trusted somebody else who couldn't be trusted.
As I said earlier...It's deja vu all over again!

[philman_36]

And speaking of "them", whoever that may be, and vetting...
From the same link...After the arms-dealing allegations were publicized, the White House determined that Wang Jun had not been vetted by the NSC (there had been only a ``summary background check'' by the DNC). The NSC was then asked what it would have recommended if it had performed a background check. Suettinger of the NSC stated in his interview that he believes that if he had been consulted he would have recommended against Wang attending a DNC event because of Wang's ``business connections, not his ties to the Communist government'' of China.112
Such minor things though. No sense getting too complicated as to specific responsibilities, is there.
Trust is a terrible thing to waste.

[philman_36]

Oops, that last was for you too.

[AzJohn]

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?

Also, we're not just talking about White House access. Al-Arian, Alamoudi, Saffuri, Awaad and Saeed all met with President Bush during his campaign, according to Gaffney's article. Presumably a presidential campaign, even more so than a White House, depends on someone such as Norquist to vouch for the people that are brought in.

[diotima]

ping!

[philman_36]

I did pose it as a hypothetical.

[AzJohn]

I didn't mean to criticize your hypothetical. My only point is that the thread seems to be focusing on the White House meetings, whereas the concern is really a lot broader. I suspect you would agree with that.

[philman_36]

I didn't mean to criticize your hypothetical.
I didn't take it as such. I understood the gist of your comment.
My only point is that the thread seems to be focusing on the White House meetings, whereas the concern is really a lot broader. I suspect you would agree with that.
Yep.

[Nick Danger]

I'm still waiting on an answer to my 335...

It's just too exciting around here to keep up with all of it. My question as to whether the White House knew what Saffuri is, has to do with my unwillingness to accept the proposition that an L Street lobbyist is the guy we are to hold solely responsible for the fact that agents of a hostile foreign power got into the White House.

For all I know, this bureaucratic dodge we're getting about why all these people we pay to hunt down the spies were sitting on their hands is true; but if it is, that still doesn't make intelligence failures Grover Norquist's fault. Now we have a systemic problem instead of an incompetent-bureaucrat problem. I frankly don't care which it is. I am tired of hearing bureaucratic excuses for why this crap happens.

This guy wants to herd us all into a pen where we believe it's Grover Norquist's fault -- and his alone -- that foreign agents got close to Bush. You believe it if you want. I don't. I think we pay a ton of money to protect the national security, and when it gets breached the national security guys say it's not their department; and if the lobbyist was a serious professional he would have caught it. To paraphrase our Mystery Correspondent, are you buying that crap?

Our Mystery Correspondent has told us for a fact that "the White House" knew, where "the White House" in this case means whichever 'national security professional' Frank Gaffney whispered into the ear of. Supposedly, that guy can't do anything because it's Rove's deal and they don't do Rove; or perhaps because Rove will chew their heads off if they try. So now our national security professionals are telling us that Karl Rove is a traitor? What was the point of that story, because it absolutely left that little stench hanging in the air. In which case we come around again to, "Why Grover Norquist?" If Karl Rove is on the take or something, let's hear about that instead of dropping it in the form of innuendos. Hell, if it's Bush himself, I'd just as soon know.

Don't misunderstand my motivations here. I do not care where these chips fall. If they all end up falling on Grover Norquist, fine. But right now, what I see is that the guys we pay to keep Bush out of this kind of trouble are telling us it's not their fault, it's not their department, it's not in the procedures, and all the other crap we always hear from bureaucrats when something bad happens on their watch. Instead it's all supposed to be Grover Norquist's fault, and we can believe that because these particular bureaucrats never lie, and they're always right. You'll just have to pardon me for not being herded along properly in that direction.

[Trollstomper]

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.



No, actually the point is that Grover placed him there -- his payback demand for "delivering the Muslim vote" -- after Khan served a stint on the campaign and on the Board of the Islamic Institute. Nobody, nobdoy, vets for who your father is in the security community. As I've said before, when the USSS caught Samil Al Arian's son because of his name, and escorted him from the building, Grover, Saffuri and the lobby went crazy and got Rove to demand, via the President, an apology. The President then also called Mrs. Al Arian, as above mentioned. So that sent an eveen clearer reminder to the USSS: if the guy's father is Hitler, don't say anything. Again, how things work in the real world is a bit different than you see to think, or indeed, than any of us might like. Again, though, the question is not what is the fail safe, the question is why are all these people associated with Grover, virtually every one of them, as donors, associates, or II staff, one or two clicks away from terror or a terror nexis.

Stop searching for motives; the facts stand on their own, irrespective of Gaffney's narrative style. What is your's by the way, and do you as a result of your style and expertise appear on CNN, FOX, MSNBC, CSB, etc., daily and in hundreds of newspapers, etc. Stop doing your cheap shot literary-pscyhology analysis from the gallery. Does "flag words" actually mean "trigger words" as in words like evidence "trigger" some paranoid psychosis in you? It seems like it. But clever fellow that you are you "don't fall for crap like that" Neither do I. ON elast time on your "take down" screeds: I have plainly said, Grover has done these things, is still doing them, and needs to be stopped, for clear national security reasons. I am a national security professional and it is my duty. Simple as that. People actually do their jobs for honest and "pure" reasons. If you are some cynical crank angry at things he can't understand or control or play in, keep it to yourself.

[philman_36]

You'll just have to pardon me for not being herded along properly in that direction.
I surely didn't and don't expect you to "go along with the herd". You know I don't go with the herd.
I've done what I've always done and chased the rabbits down the hole. I've chased these rabbits for several years and it's too bad that Norquist is caught up with them.
You keep talking about just the White House meetings and, as noted earlier, fail to consider the earlier campaign trail too. This has all been going on for some time. These people were probably considered, like before with x42, "just contributors", with the impetus being upon someone else to bring the trust along. Let's not besmirch a good thing with easily provable misdeeds by "an L Street lobbyist" as you call him. Things are "too exciting" and I'd hate to see a stink like what happened with x42 happen with GWB. Too easily susceptible to the Dems that way and plenty of stones can be thrown. I'd hate to be considered a hypocrite so I call 'em as I see 'em. Norquist recommended and has questionable ties with these people and should have to answer to it.
Well, minimal damage is what I'd recommend. Cut the losses! Damned embarrassing is how I see it and how I'd work it out. Somebody trusted burned 'em, be it Rove or whomever.
It's actually good that it's all coming out now. Perhaps the link will someday read...
"After the Islamic Fifth Column penetration allegations were publicized, the White House determined that Alamoudi, Sami al-Arian and others had not been vetted by the NSC (there had been only a ``summary background check'' by Grover Norquist)."

[EveningStar]

Disturbing

[MrNatural]

..I am a national security professional..

No you're not. People like that don't post their activities on internet forums. What you're doing here is the last thing any of them would do.

Whatever is with this Nyquist person, who I gather has been around DC for decades, it's no secret to the people in charge of WH security.

And the idea that their interdiction of security threats could or would be be compromised by Karl Rove is juvenile. That a first-rate political operative like Rove would endanger his principal (Bush) for the sake of potential gain or harm among 1% of the electorate is a suggestion that could be advanced only by someone with a profound ignorance of the basic elements of this situation.

I don't know who or what you really are; there is a certain adolescent quality to your manner of expression. Of course your screen name is quite suggestive. In any event, I don't believe a word you're saying, including 'a', 'an' and 'the'.

[Nick Danger]

Grover has done these things, is still doing them, and needs to be stopped, for clear national security reasons. I am a national security professional and it is my duty. Simple as that.

And that is why Frank Gaffney is in FrontPage magazine, and on Hewett, and why you are here on Free Republic. Because this is where national security professionals always go to do their duty. We always have big media take-downs of these national security threats; that's how it's done, right?

People actually do their jobs for honest and "pure" reasons.

I'm sure that's true. This is not one of those times. This is one of the times when people of ill will are conducting a media hit in public. That they would do so under color of protecting the national security is a misuse of their positions, and of the trust that the public places in them. I hope it is not also a misuse of the powers that the public has granted them, for that would be terrifying.

[Sabertooth]

I'm sure that's true. This is not one of those times. This is one of the times when people of ill will are conducting a media hit in public.

Like this...?

Grover G. Norquist
810 Constitution Avenue, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20002

February 5, 2003

Mr. Frank Gaffney
President
Center for Security Policy
1920 L Street NW
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Frank:

I have learned that you took the opportunity during your Thursday remarks at the 30th annual Conservative Political Action Conference to impugn the loyalty of Ali Tulbah, an associate director of cabinet affairs in the Bush White House.

There is no place in the conservative movement for racial prejudice, religious bigotry or ethnic hatred. This is the second time that a Muslim working for President George W. Bush has been subjected to an attack by you because of his faith. You made similarly dishonest allegations against Suhail Khan while he worked inside the White House.

The conservative movement cannot be associated with racism or bigotry. We have come too far in the last 30 years in our efforts to broaden our coalition to allow anyone to smear an entire group of people, sending a signal that there is no place for them at our table.

Therefore, until you have made a public apology to Ali Tulbah, Suhail Khan, and the president - and these apologies have been accepted - I am afraid that your attendance at the Wednesday center-right coalition meeting at the offices of the Americans for Tax Reform can no longer be allowed.

It is important that we, as conservatives, stand up against bigotry, racism, and religious hatred whenever it raises its ugly head. You have dishonored yourself and the founding principles of the movement and the nation.

Sincerely,

(signed)

Grover G. Norquist

cc:    Ali Tulbah
         Suhail Khan
         Wednesday Meeting attendees
Norquist letter to Gaffney (pdf)
February 5th, 2003

Gaffney raised national security concerns, first privately, then publicly, and Norquist played the race card as a first defense.

Why?

[EveningStar]

Good thread.

[EveningStar]

Norquist played the race card as a first defense.

Why?

When in doubt, play the race card. It's a great way to muddy the waters.

[Sabertooth]

And that is why Frank Gaffney is in FrontPage magazine, and on Hewett, and why you are here on Free Republic. Because this is where national security professionals always go to do their duty. We always have big media take-downs of these national security threats; that's how it's done, right?

Do you believe that isn't where Norquist wanted it?

Gaffney's remarks enraged Norquist, who responded in an open letter to conservative activists. "There is no place in the conservative movement for racial prejudice, religious bigotry or ethnic hatred," Norquist wrote. "We have come too far in the last 30 years in our efforts to broaden our coalition to allow anyone to smear an entire group of people. . . . The conservative movement cannot be associated with racism or bigotry."
(Note: this is the letter I transcribed and posted above, at #416.)

The reaction was explosive. Even if Gaffney had been wrong to mention Tulbah by name, some conservatives felt, Norquist's reaction was over the top. To make matters worse, Norquist used a standard rhetorical device of the Left: If you can't win an argument with a conservative, call him a racist. "I, for one, don't see it," says David Keene, head of the American Conservative Union and an organizer of the CPAC conference. "If you read the transcript [of the panel], you can see if Frank was right or wrong, but there was nothing racist or bigoted about it."

Heightening the tension was Norquist's angry assertion that the White House, and in particular chief political adviser Karl Rove, supported his racism-and-bigotry argument. One witness quotes Norquist as saying, "This is terrible. Karl's upset because we're insulting the people who helped Bush win the election." Another witness recalls that Norquist "said the president and Rove were angry at the conference." In addition, Norquist sent an e-mail to American Conservative Union board members saying that "[t]he White House and the press are increasingly angry with [the American Conservative Union] for some indefensible statements and actions at CPAC this year."

The letter caused a complete break inside the conservative camp. Keene has not spoken to Norquist since it was written, and Gaffney, whose organization shares an office suite with Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform, was kicked out of Norquist's famous Wednesday meeting of conservative strategists.

That is where things stand now. In a recent interview, Norquist denied using the White House to support his accusations: "I never invoke the president or Karl Rove on this position - in anything." But he refused to back away from his incendiary charges about Gaffney, on one occasion calling him a "sick little bigot." "I'm sorry," Norquist said. "His whole life screams of bigotry, and what he said is just part of a pattern." Gaffney could have held higher-up administration staffers responsible for choosing who attends White House briefings, Norquist argued, but instead "decided to single out the Muslim." He continued: "Frank Gaffney and Osama bin Laden share the same view on the relationship between the United States and Islam. I agree with the president in rejecting Osama bin Laden's and Frank Gaffney's worldview."
Fight on the Right: 'Muslim outreach' and a feud between activists.
National Review, April 7, 2003, by Byron York
FR link

Note Norquist's lie:

"I never invoke the president or Karl Rove on this position i in anything."

This despite several accounts that he's done just that, as well as the words of his own letter to Gaffney of February 5th of this year"

"Therefore, until you have made a public apology to Ali Tulbah, Suhail Khan, and the president - and these apologies have been accepted..."

The gauntlet thrown down by Norquist was that Gaffney had to apologize to the President for his remarks, and that the President had to apologize.

Norquist lied when he said he didn't invoke the name of the President, just as he lied last Tuesday, when he told Hugh Hewitt that Sami Al Arian didn't attend a meeting at the White House in June, 2001.

So, Norquist is lying and playing the race card. That tends to cast a shadow on his credibility, does it not?

[Trollstomper]

"..I am a national security professional..

No you're not. People like that don't post their activities on internet forums"

Guess again spud. And, "first rate Political operative" have huge egos, and no background or concern about intell or CI, this has been amply dedicated again and again in all administrations, as others have just demonstrated above.