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.

 

[EverFree]

The charge that "neocons" are "pro-big government" are thoroughly hypocritical

Hypocritical!!?! Only as in "but everybody does it" hyopcritical, and you are reaching too far with that:
Govenments have limited geographical jurisdiction. And a worldwide gov't is a big gov't.

"Palaeos" are opposed only to "big government" in America but support it in places like Spain, Portugal, etc

Once again, the Key Word is "Limited." Could you show me an example of a paleo "supporting it in places like Spain?"

Domestically, I think neos support New Deal/NEP BigGuv.

[Trollstomper]

you say:"... only by someone with a profound ignorance of the basic elements of this situation."

and this is preceded by you saying "whoever this Nyquist person is"????????????????

Give us all a break!

[hchutch]

Well, Gaffney DID inpugn the loyalty to this country of Ali Tulbah and Suhail Khan, and he did so in public. And to be very blunt, I think Gaffney's evidence against the two is suspect at best.

It is well known some people don't like Norquist. The question is, what do they stand to gain by taking Norquist down now, and how far are they willing to go?

I really don't care abotu the so-called "evidence" against Norquist. I personally think he's done a lot of good for the movement and that a combination of jealous rivals and ideological opponents are seizing on a philosophical disagreement and using it as an excuse to destroy someone they don't like.

In fact, if Gaffney had evidence they were disloyal, he should have gone to the FBI or Secret Service. He should have used what conenctions he had to start an investigation. He instead chose to attack two White House staffers publicly. And now, the trend of posts seem to be inching towards Karl Rove as well.

I'm not ready to disbelieve Nick Danger's theories about this. If anything, his theroies are ringing true. I do not know all the details, but what I am seeing about the people who have Grover Norquist in their sights is that taking him down is the major concern and any national security concerns that are corrected are incidental benefits. Now, I note that claims are made thew white house knew, but nobody would touch it because of Karl Rove.

And Rove is also disliked by certain conservatives as well. At best, Frank Gaffney's copncerns are legitimate, but are being used to take out two of President Bush's top political allies in order to weaken him politically. Why? Who could benefit from a weakened President Bush?

Answer: The Democrats. And if Howard Dean is elected, the damage to the war on terror would be far more substantial and quantifiable than the damage Grover Norquist has been accused of causing.

[Sabertooth]

It is well known some people don't like Norquist. The question is, what do they stand to gain by taking Norquist down now, and how far are they willing to go?

No, that might be the question is Norquist wasn't lying and race-baiting... but he is.

See again the Norquist statement at #419:

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

From the Wall Street Journal, June 11th, 2003...
(I'm not a WSJ subscriber, btw, so I don't have access to their archive. I've linked to a reposting at FR, and a .pdf of Gaffney's.)

In 2002, Mr. Arian visited the Islamic Institute in Washington. Institute officials say his purpose was simply to drop off literature. Mr. Norquist adds that he himself has never worked with Mr. Arian and has met him only briefly at various events before Mr. Arian was indicted. Calling attention to Mr. Arian is unfair, he says. "Since I started working with Muslims, a handful of bigots have been trying to smear the president, Rove and me for working with them," he adds.
Reaching Out: In Difficult Times, Muslims Count On Unlikely Advocate --- Mr. Norquist, Famed Tax Foe, Offers Washington Access, Draws Conservative Flak --- Meeting an Alleged Terrorist
The Wall Street Journal - Tom Hamburger and Glenn R. Simpson | June 11, 2003 (FR link)
Gaffney link (cached HTML of .pdf, scroll down to page 2)

So, Norquist, in addition to his characteristic race-baiting, has been invoking both the President and Karl rove in this, both before and after he said he wasn't doing exactly that.

Norquist is repeatedly lying and race-baiting. If the truth were sufficient, why would he need to do that?

[Nick Danger]

I do not know why Norquist went off on Gaffney. Those two have known each other a long time; there are going to be dynamics between them that outsiders will not understand. Even people who know both men well say that they are baffled by this apparent feud between them.

The article you linked to tells us that Gaffney said that Norquist's Muslim outreach efforts were a sideshow compared to what was going on in the White House. All this noise we're hearing now would have us believe that Norquist had the only hose through which questionable Muslims were flowing toward the President. That's not what he said back in April, though. Back then the White House was finding the majority of these critters all by themselves, with no help from Norquist.

Well isn't that special. How do our national security professionals propose to blame Norquist for this batch of bad guys that got into the White House?

Don't tell me. It's not their department. It's against procedures. It's the other guys' fault.

[hchutch]

Well, there is a case to be made for an attempt to smear Norquist.

I still have trouble understanding why Gaffney did not go to the FBI or Secret Service over those staffers if he was so concerned. Why he had to instead bring that matter up publicly and in manner that was sure to provoke an angry response. It is a curious manner in addressing such grave concerns about a fifth column, is it not?

Is this REALLY national security, or is it the removal of one or more obstacles to an agenda that Norquist and Rove oppose? Why the curious conduct by Gaffney and some of his allies if he is so convinced national security is at stake? Are there hidden agendas here? If so, what are they?

I want those questions answered. Norquist might or might not have clean hands. But this is lookinglike a power play more than a legitimate concern about national security. To be very blunt, the "national security professionals" are acting very unprofessional.

[Sabertooth]

I do not know why Norquist went off on Gaffney.

Fair enough. Why is Norquist lying?

The article you linked to tells us that Gaffney said that Norquist's Muslim outreach efforts were a sideshow compared to what was going on in the White House. All this noise we're hearing now would have us believe that Norquist had the only hose through which questionable Muslims were flowing toward the President.

No, I don't believe that's a correct summation of "all this noise we're hearing now."

Norquist is a key conduit of access between Islamists and the White House. No one has suggested he's exclusive, or that he waves them past the gates all by himself.

You keep focusing on the focus being on Norquist. Inquiries have to start focusing somewhere. This one appears to be focusing early on Norquist. Is that somehow unfair?

Does it matter? How is that relevant to whether or not there's anything about which to inquire? The facts are what determines that.

Was it unfair that the Watergate investigation started with the focus on a few burglars?

The focus, for the time being, is on Norquist. My guess is that Saffuri's number is coming up soon

How do our national security professionals propose to blame Norquist for this batch of bad guys that got into the White House?

I imagine that many of them would like nothing better than to find out, and/or make it known, and prevent it from happening any further.

[Sabertooth]

Well, there is a case to be made for an attempt to smear Norquist.

OK, if that's the case, then why does Norquist respond with lies and race-baiting?

Is that the best way to respond, if you're actually being smeared?

[hchutch]

I don't know Norquist. I can't explain that. I have ample reason to believe, though, that Gaffney has been acting in a very curious manner for a person who has serious national security concerns, don't you think?

Nick Danger's questions are deserving of answers.

[Trollstomper]

" He instead chose to attack two White House staffers publicly. "


Again, He did no such thing. He questioned their judgement. Plain, Simple; 'Stop lying about his record.'

[Nick Danger]

Why is Norquist lying?

Let's try to keep this focused above whether Grover Norquist can keep the names of 100 Arabs straight on a radio show.

Inquiries have to start focusing somewhere. This one appears to be focusing early on Norquist. Is that somehow unfair?

It looks to me like what we have here is the fox's attorney conducting a national security investigation into what happened in the chicken coop. He would like us to focus our attention on Mr. Scarecrow here, and you would apparently like to help him by asking whether focusing on Mr. Scarecrow is unfair.

I think I will ignore your question and continue to wonder whether I should trust the fox to direct the investigation of this matter, especially now that I know that this same fox was guarding another chicken coop where we had more of these incidents... and Mr. Scarecrow was nowhere around.

[AnnaZ]

TLBSHOW, or perhaps DITHF?

Do you ever get embarrassed?

 

(TLBSHOW?! Even in an attempt to go incognito, at least one "ratty rat" would slip out... Good grief!)

[Sabertooth]

Let's try to keep this focused above whether Grover Norquist can keep the names of 100 Arabs straight on a radio show.

Let's try and be honest about what actually happened on that radio show. I've listened to it three times, how about you?

Sami Al Arian isn't an obscure Arab name among 100 that was discussed on that show, he's one of the highest-profile terror infiltrators this country has seen.

There was a very specific exchange in which Norquist claimed that not only had Al Arian not visited the White House under President Bush, but also that Norquist had made a specific point of calling the White House about that visit, and that someone there had told him Al Arian's visit never happened.

Norquist is lying in this, as he has in other instances. Al Arian's visit has been reported in numerous sources, and has been acknowledged by the White House.

[Poohbah]

I was thinking that maybe this guy was TLBSHOW was on better meds (c8

OK, I vote DITHF.

[AnnaZ]

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

Quotes?

 

It's usually a symptom of trolldom, Trollstomper.

Out of the wealth of actual information posted by "trollstomper" could you not find anything of substance to refute/comment upon?

 

---

 

And that Siddiqi is just plain creepy... it was an abomination when he addressed the nation (world) on September 14th, 2001.

[AnnaZ]

I was thinking that maybe this guy was TLBSHOW was on better meds (c8

If there are meds that exist that can accomplish such a turnaround in argumentation skills... trust me, baby, my hand is out.

[Trollstomper]

" I still have trouble understanding why Gaffney did not go to the FBI or Secret Service over those staffers if he was so concerned. "

First, you persist in treating Grover like a kid and saying the parents or teachers should have done something to thwart his insistent bad behavior. Yo are much keener on this than on calling him on what he's done. You want to ignore everything you can, reshuffle every fact off the table and re-characterize and mispresent every argument until you can get back, in your mind, to some way removing the spotlight from the guy who was the intiator, enabler, defender and who continues to be the caller on behalf of these groups. It is not washing in Washington, and in increasinly large parts of the conservative movement and leadership. Perhaps you will figure it out in time to still make it across the finish line.

A) Why do you think Gaffney did'nt do this; and why do you assume there are not effects from such efforts?

B) The USSS et al issue has been answered several times. You can't have the answer you apparently want, so you ignore the right one: The USSS and the FBI don't vet political meetings. When they have tried, including in this admin., with Muslims, Rove has kicked their butts and Grover and Saffuri pointed to it as another example of racism and profiling of Muslims. Ditto with Gary Aldrich under the Clintons, as I already mentioned in trying to explain this to you. There are many other examples I could give. (You could google the Rove/AlArian one that is in Gaffney's piece, it was a national news story , including the national network evening news).

C) For the umpteenth time, what Gaffney said was that these folks were consistently exercising bad judgment by letting in the "bad" guys, and only the "bad" guys (nothing about being traitors or security risks).

Nb, Norquist and Saffuri say that no other Muslims (i.e., Shia, Sufi, syncretic and moderate, etc. or, put another way those who don't have money and an organized mau-mau, and are not part of the Saffuri. Norquist faction) -- are legitimate Muslims, they won't get Karl the credit he's looking for, so don't let them in. So only the bad ones go in; exactly as Gaffney predicted. This proved to be a disaster.

When Gaffney and a host of others began reprising the record of the Awads, Alamoudis, Saffuris, AlArians, Grover would hear none of it, called any and all "racists" and took it public. (Honestly, what does this tell you about his hubris, his power trip and his temperament to throw such charges around, against honorable people as he's just gotten the franchise for DC from Jesse Jackson?)

If you are a major figure in town like Gaffney, as big in National Security as Grover is in taxes, not to mention much senior -- and Grover calls you a racist and bigot, that, folks, is a big deal. Moreover, when Grover and Rove refuse to hear that it is a bad policy and is getting us bound up with the wrong people, there is no inside or quiet alternative left. Many efforts were made privately and quietly, by the way.

Rove actually told a reporter "Well, Al Arian hasn't been indicted yet" -- back in the day. Now first, that is hardly the threshold we expect for WH engagement and second, this is because Rove's trusted guy on all this, Grover, has assured him that all this complaining about AlArian,and the rest, has been going on for years and is just driven by racist and bigots and Likud agents. Rove bought it, Sami and Alamoudi got arrested, other likely soon wiil be. Grover finds it impossible to admit mistakes and is not a research/homework kind of guy -- he would much rather use his power to blast people, call them names, lock them out and push ahead with his folly. This shoot-the-messenger, circle-the-wagons approach is well-known to this White House and to Grover -- and so the stage was set for the mess we're in. Both Grover and Rove bought their own propaganda. Always a deadly thing.

IN DC, when you are a trusted confidant, you go out and bring the people in that you want to and you have considerable leeway. People don't have time to check you people's policy backgrounds, they expect you to do that. Grover chose the wrong people to run this under him impramatur, starting with Saffuri, and all of them were beholden to, and likely anyway, to follow the direction of the people paying them ---Alamoudi, and the same terror-connected entities that he shared offices with, and that funded Al Arian, etc. These, after all, were people Saffuri had worked with for over a decade -- his closeness to them made manifestly evident in their provision of the start-up money for the Insitute.

If a 13 year old visited the websites of these organizations, anytime in the 1980s, 1990's and 'til today even -- one would find immediately that they are not remotely moderate, free market, or pro-US; quite to the contrary. Go do this yourself, or simply read the profiles of the groups from the congressional record, or wherever. They hate America, they teach women in separate rooms with one way glass,

What some of you don't seem to understand is that political and policy vetting is not a law enforcement function. What we are dealing with here is little different in type, than a Nixon staffer bringing someone, or a group, repeatedly into the WH who oppose the war and support campus peace demonstrations. To do advocate such things is not a crime, to bring people into the WH who do so is not a crime. It IS appallingly bad judgement.

Now, where it gets tricky is when you know that these people are also funded by the NVA or Moscow or some Soviet-front UN peace charity, some of which are also paying you, and you still take them into the WH, and you don't tell anyone who they really are or why you are bringing them here or who paid for it. It is the kind of thing that happens when someone is appointed by the President and then begins assigning NEA and AARP people to advisory boards in his/her agency, etc. Bad judgement, somethign the Gaffney of that topic/issue cone would be expected to raise a stink about and try to stop. And just as often the answer comes back, that we have to let that person run the agency, or there are some equities with some Senator or voting bloc, and so one is told that one has to just grind your teeth.

For some dedicated people, like Gaffney, who is known for getting things done when everyone says it can't be -- the only option if you believe you are right, much less if it is proven indeed to be a problem in the course of events (as it is here), is to keep pushing anyway you can, hoping to out the problem sufficiently, and choke it off earlier, under your team's control, before it blows up or the Dems get it and blow it up in a less felicitous manner.

By the way, for you Rove admirers, his decision, overwhelmingly opposed by conservatives and the military,to close Vieques firing range in PR, was driven solely by political calculations and lobbyists for PR. We ended up losing a vital element of pre-deployment training to a bunch of leftist protestors because Rove, who knows nothing at all about national security -- looks at everything as politics. Not everything is political. But if that's all you know, then it is -- The old hammer and nail.

"To be very blunt, the "national security professionals" are acting very unprofessional." This is so unfounded and off the mark that it jsut doesn't merit a response. You really should lay off this kind of thing, and the "agendas" crap and deal with the facts. The facts outlast any agenda.

[Trollstomper]

Even I am embarrassed.

[Trollstomper]

It is written: Out of the wealth of actual information posted by "trollstomper" could you not find anything of substance to refute/comment upon?



Even I am embarassed.

[Trollstomper]

"Norquist is lying in this, as he has in other instances. Al Arian's visit has been reported in numerous sources, and has been acknowledged by the White House. "


This is typical of Grover's "research", due diliegence and glib/hubristic approach: "I don't need the facts, I'm Grover and I can overpower you." This time he screwed up to big to walk away. Happens when you engage in issues you know nothing about and ignore the advice of those who know a great deal more because of your pride, guilty knowledge or whatever.