A Troubling Influence - An Islamic Fifth Column penetrates the White House

FrontPageMagazine ^ | 12/09/03 | Frank J Gaffney Jr.

[kattracks]

Why We Are Publishing This Article by David Horowitz

The article you are about to read is the most disturbing that we at frontpagemag.com have ever published. As an Internet magazine, with a wide circulation, we have been in the forefront of the effort to expose the radical Fifth Column in this country, whose agendas are at odds with the nation’s security, and whose purposes are hostile to its own. In his first address to Congress after 9/11, the President noted that we are facing the same totalitarian enemies we faced in the preceding century. It is not surprising that their domestic supporters in the American Left should have continued their efforts to weaken this nation and tarnish its image. Just as there was a prominent internal Fifth Column during the Cold War, so there has been a prominent Fifth Column during the war on terror.

By no means do all the opponents of America’s war policies (or even a majority) fit this category. Disagreement among citizens is a core feature of any democracy and respect for that disagreement is a foundational value of our political system. The self-declared enemies of the nation are distinguished by the intemperate nature of their attacks on America and its President – referring to the one as Adolf Hitler, for example, or the other as the world’s “greatest terrorist state.” They are known as well by their political choices and associations. Many leaders of the movement opposing the war in Iraq have worked for half a century with the agents of America’s communist enemies and with totalitarian states like Cuba and the former USSR.

We have had no compunction about identifying these individuals and groups. America is no longer protected by geographical barriers or by its unsurpassed military technologies. Today terrorists who can penetrate our borders with the help of Fifth Column networks will have access to weapons of mass destruction that can cause hundreds of thousands of American deaths.  One slip in our security defenses can result in a catastrophe undreamed of before.

What is particularly disturbing, about the information in this article by former Reagan Defense official, Frank Gaffney, is that it concerns an individual who loves this country and would be the last person to wish it harm, and the first one would expect to defend it. I have known Grover Norquist for almost twenty years as a political ally. Long before I myself was cognizant of the Communist threat – indeed when I was part of one of those Fifth Column networks – Grover Norquist was mobilizing his countrymen to combat it. In the early 1980s, Grover was in the forefront of conservative efforts to get the Reagan Administration to support the liberation struggles of anti-Communists in Central America, Africa and Afghanistan.

It is with a heavy heart therefore, that I am posting this article, which is the most complete documentation extant of Grover Norquist’s activities in behalf of the Islamist Fifth Column. I have confronted Grover about these issues and have talked to others who have done likewise. But it has been left to Frank Gaffney and a few others, including Daniel Pipes and Steven Emerson, to make the case and to suffer the inevitable recriminations that have followed earlier disclosures of some aspects of this story.

Up to now, the controversy over these charges has been dismissed or swept under the rug, as a clash of personalities or the product of one of those intra-bureaucratic feuds so familiar to the Washington scene. Unfortunately, this is wishful thinking. The reality is much more serious. No one reading this document to its bitter end will confuse its claims and confirming evidence with those of a political cat fight. On the basis of the evidence assembled here, it seems beyond dispute that Grover Norquist has formed alliances with prominent Islamic radicals who have ties to the Saudis and to Libya and to Palestine Islamic Jihad, and who are now under indictment by U.S. authorities. Equally troubling is that the arrests of these individuals and their exposure as agents of terrorism have not resulted in noticeable second thoughts on Grover’s part or any meaningful effort to dissociate himself from his unsavory friends.

As Frank Gaffney’s article recounts, Grover’s own Islamic Institute was initially financed by one of the most notorious of these operatives, Abdurahman Alamoudi, a supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah who told the Annual Convention of the Islamic Association of Palestine in 1996, “If we are outside this country we can say ‘Oh, Allah destroy America.’ But once we are here, our mission in this country is to change it.” Grover appointed Alamoudi’s deputy, Khaled Saffuri to head his own organization. Together they gained access to the White House for Alamoudi and Sami al-Arian and others with similar agendas who used their cachet to spread Islamist influence to the American military and the prison system and the universities and the political arena with untold consequences for the nation.

Parts of this story have been published before, but never in such detail and never with the full picture of Islamist influence in view. No doubt, that is partly because of Grover Norquist’s large (and therefore intimidating) presence in the Washington community. Many have been quite simply afraid to raise these issues and thus have allowed Grover to make them seem a matter of individual personality differences. This suits his agendas well, as it does those of his Islamist allies. If matters in dispute reflect personal animosity or “racial” prejudice, as Grover insists, then the true gravity of these charges is obscured. The fact remains that while Grover has denied the charges or sought to dismiss them with such arguments on many occasions, he has never answered them. If he wishes to do so now, the pages of frontpagemag.com are open to him.

Many have been reluctant to support these charges or to make them public because they involve a prominent conservative. I am familiar with these attitudes from my years on the Left. Loyalty is an important political value, but there comes a point where loyalty to friends or to parties comes into conflict with loyalty to fundamental principles and ultimately to one’s country. Grover’s activities have reached that point. E.M. Forster, a weak-spirited liberal, once said that if he had to choose between betraying his country and his friends, he “hoped [he] would have the guts” to betray his country.

No such sentiment motivates this journal. In our war with the Islamo-fascists we are all engaged in a battle with evil on a scale that affects the lives and freedoms of hundreds of millions people outside this nation as well as within it. America is on the front line of this battle and there is no replacement waiting in the wings if it fails, or if its will to fight is sapped from within. This makes our individual battles to keep our country vigilant and strong the most important responsibilities we have. That is why we could not in good conscience do otherwise, than to bring this story to light.

 

[Sabertooth]

I have to wonder if this snip above is indicative of all your other posts on this issue.

Why wonder? Why not read the thread in it's entirety?

My post is indicative of an objection, on my part, after much patience, to the low crap that Nick Danger has been trying to pull on this thread, not the least his baseless charge of calling me a liar.

Please stop implying that Nick's objections and arguments are on account of some "debt to Grover" because I might start to think this is your modus operandi, to take one statement out of context (which you just did) and attempt to make it appear nefarious. It isn't. No one is in a position to defend Grover, except Grover. You may not like that Nick is questioning this issue, but don't make this into some obligation to defend Grover. I can bet you that Grover Norquist doesn't know who "Nick Danger" is.

Please understand that if Nick Danger wants to play ad hominem fallacies based on dark speculations as to the motives of others, then turnabout is fair play.

Nick's not questioning the issue; he's questioning motives of messengers. He must feel that's all he's got.

I'm well aware of the need for Norquist to say something convincing in his own defense. By some striking coincidence, he also hasn't addressed the issues; he's attacked the messengers and questioned their motives.

Of Nick and the others on this thread who've chosen to go that route, repeatedly, I've repeatedly requested that they address the substance of the case.

Their inability or unwillingness to do so has been amply apparent.

You want context?

Here's what I said:

You want to play attack the messenger?

Fair enough. Here's the lense through which every one of your posts on this thread ought to be viewed:

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

Or, if you like, you can get in the real game, and post something of substance. #692

You want context? Then don't ignore mine.

I was giving Nick an option to to feel the near edge of his chosen ad hominem sword, or to rejoin the debate on substance.

The fact of the matter is that, thus far, Nick Danger and the other Norquist defenders on this thread have had their heads handed to them. They're short on facts and long at grasping at straws.

If they want to be taken seriously, then they need to be serious.

Their invitation to start is as open now as when this thread began.

[swarthyguy]

Well, if Grover Norquist had the good sense and the smarts to court those muslims not of the wacky wahhabi persuasion, he would be performing a valuable service.

As it is, his shilling for this group of nutcases borders on the treasonous.

It is ignorance of the nuances of various muslims sects that is the main issue; his refusal to acknowledge his "mistakes", if that's what they really are and his shameless dismissal of those who disagree with him as racists.

Sweet, isn't it?

[EverFree]

Norquist may have secured an end to the death tax, but he also supported policies, if nothing else by staying silent, that allowed easy access for unemployed Arab males to come into the country and stay indefinitely whilst they became learned on the subject of airplane flight.

Blaming Norquist and W's open immigration policy for 911 is pretty thin soup. I don't think Steve Sailer even tries very hard to make it stick.

It only took a dozen of the thousands of "unemployed Arab males" to hijack four planes. The other thousands are innocent, huddled masses yearning to breathe free...

[Trollstomper]

Hi, Agree. Norquist's work has made it harder for the few organized moderate/syncretic, or "peacable" (in Gaffney's wording), Muslims to have any presence anywhere (Media, WH, etc.) The irony here is that moderates are those who don't want to be political about their religion and don't want to play victim and rent-seeker.

Re the sects, etc., Grover does not do serious in-depth work, he is what we called in B-school a "tranactional manager" --very standard DC thing, and fine, but it focuses on people and process and reaction time, not on facts, implications thinking ahead and deep. There is no "net assessment" -- e.g.,are radical muslim votes now and later going to outwiegh marginalization of moderate muslims, or alienation of jewish votes, or risks to national security, etc.

The approach is acutally simplistic (muslims = arabs and muslims = bloc vote/issues). And, by not bothering to learn any of these details (let along read the hadith, know the Hanafi school, sharia variations, etc.), and clearly not investigating the history of Islam in America, he has been condescending and irresponsible; and, Karl Rove et al have been sloppy, at the least, in farming this out to him. The "racist and bigot" nonsense as Keene has said is "Stalinist tactics," and is at once also puerile, and well beyond the pale -- and certainly not part of the President's "new tone in Washington" policy. all best

[JohnGalt]

I understand, I am not carelessly throwing the 'traitor' word around like those who, you know, get excited about Norquist but don't seem particularly worried about Mssr. Perle, but I think Norquist should do better than calling his critics racists-- I don't like that as a tactic.

My suggestion back to you is not to bother with defending Norquist, but to keep the guns set on Gaffney, but that is just MHO. On the other hand, I come across as the centrist on L'Affaire Norquist, which is a rare spot for me indeed!

[diotima]

You write: The fact of the matter is that, thus far, Nick Danger and the other Norquist defenders on this thread have had their heads handed to them. They're short on facts and long at grasping at straws.

I offered: Nick Danger: Be careful here. I am not "defending Norquist" from things he actually did, if in fact they were wrong. I am not on some mission here to claim that he is pure in all of this. I don't claim to know. What I do know is that this document which has been presented to us as containing "documented facts" contains a whole bunch of documented facts that don't tell us anything, but are being presented as if they are some sort of damning indictment. HERE

When Gaffney wants to come out and write this piece, questions will be asked about his motives, his evidence and his facts. On the other hand, you are are trying to create suspicion about Nick's objections (when none exists and the extent of any FRN "relationship" with Norquist has been fully stated and demonstrated to be casual and innocuous at best) and insinuate that his questions and his argument is motivated by some allegiance that doesn't exist.

So while there are no nefarious motives to Nick's objections, there are questions surrounding Gaffney's focus on Grover rather then say...the WH. If there is such a security issue here, I'd think the people to talk to and persuade would be the WH. It would be rather simple to just have Grover's access cut off, if the WH thought there was some kind of threat.

If you ask me, the fact that there seems to be some horrible intelligence breakdown at the highest levels of government is the REAL BIG DEAL HERE.

And don't even try and ascribe my questions above to being a "defense of Grover." They aren't, I have no idea what Grover's defense or response is. I'm not here to defend his choice to associate with purported terrorists. But I am here to question why the WH lets this go on. Any influence he has is because the WH grants it to him. Grover could be marginalized in a New York minute. That isn't happening and I have to ask why.

[EverFree]

As with most all immigrant groups, let alone ones from socialist countries, Muslim Americans and Arab Americans have traditionally voted Dem

There is no verifiable evidence that Bush carried the Muslim vote by anything like 70% (other than Norquist asserting it (w/o footnotes)in the American Spectator and elsewhere.

Until you can indict Norquist, his published expert opinion is evidence. Your whine about "w/o footnotes" is funny; what if he did have footnotes, but the footnoted references didn't have footnotes, and so on ad infinitum!??

I really don't want to debate about percentages with you; the main point, and bigger picture, was summed up very well by Bob J, two hours before your posts:

To: Taxman

We cannot win the war on terrorism without the help of the moderate Muslim community. I applaud Norquist's efforts attempts to bring what he thought to be moderate elements into a dialogue with Bush. The fact that a few of them have not turned out to be what people thought they were is unfortunate, but then again, no one knew the extent to which the Saudi's had placed operatives in US Muslim organizations.

There appears to have been no security losses over these incidents. As Nick Danger pointed out, they instead directed a spotlight on them and the government has been able to ferret out and prosecute them. Kicking Norquist to the curb over it is unfair and unproductive.

There are those who believe that no Muslim can be trusted and that our only solution is to kill them all and let God sort them out. This viewpoint is shortsighted and will only result in failure, not to mention the acrid genocidal aroma. I've seen this same attitude expressed on other other threads that are race based, immigration for instance.

Allowing these attitudes to fester will result in the marginalization of Free Republic and a failure in achieving it's goals.
221 posted on 12/10/2003 8:15:12 AM PST by Bob J

[swarthyguy]

>>>>the help of the moderate Muslim community.

Then why the hell is Grover focused on jihadis?

Don't you understand the crux of the argument.

Grover has assisted the most radical jihadis. Claiming ignorance and decrying critics as racist won't cut it.

It's his damn ignorance of moderates and fellating of the jihadis that is causing him trouble and threatening the security.

[Trollstomper]

"...question of Gaffney's motivation ( Boeing funded think-tank, neocon positions with-in the conservative movement...) "

And so you rely on cited Mother Jones leftist "evil military industrial complex" positions introduced "with-in the conservative movement" (as represented by FR)?

To proove what? -- that the President, the Secretary of Defense, etc., have seem fit to appoint "17" of Gaffney's Board and house network to senior appointive positions (actually now over two dozen I think; see Gaffney's annual report on line)? All or most all of whom are former Reagan Admin officials, conservatives, not "neo" anything.

Boeing? Gaffney's group, now 16 years old has on average received 14% and never more than 17% from all businesses (a category which is not just defense, but including peple like Regnery, and certainly not just Boeing by a long shot, over all that time).

And who anyway would you expect might fund a security policy think tank, and in much greater amounts one would expect?

And by comparison, what percentage of the Islamic Institute's money over its short existence has come from foregin governments and Saudi front groups (related to terrorism not US military equipment supplier)? 14 %, 24% 5o %. No, somewhere close to 95%. So what does that tell you, using your standard/logic, about Norquist's "motivations?" -- and Sauffuri's.

And last, what about the hundreds of thousands of dollars anually Grover gets from uberlobyyist Jack Abramoff to shill for his clients [[see Wall street Journal]]. These are US Indian tribe casinos, Microsoft, Channel One, Mariannas, The Islamic Republic of Pakistan, to name just a few.

Other corporate interests pay Norquist directly. Microsoft has paid Norquist $150,000 a year, ATR pays him only $120,000 Phillip Morris chips in too -- so is Grover spending more time doing software export decontrol and internet coalitions, cigarettes, gambling, Islamists or taxes?

Not to mention the companies that pay ATR to be part of this backroom lobby access to WH tax, energy bill, trade and other efforts with Rove, et al.

And not to mention the over 100 clients of the lobbying firm Grover co-founded according to National Journal (the definitive journal of record for the lobbying business) Janus-Merritt -- an involvement Norquist has long sought to hide and downplay , and through which Alamoudi and Barzingi, two terror finance implicated Islamists, paid tens of thousands additional in the late 1990's.

I find all that a more interesting question that what Gaffney does for a living and who contributes to same, all of which has been consistently transparent and productive and clearly in the national security interests of the United States. How about you?

[Sabertooth]

When Gaffney wants to come out and write this piece, questions will be asked about his motives, his evidence and his facts. On the other hand, you are are trying to create suspicion about Nick's objections

No, I'm observing that it goes both ways: as to goose, so to gander.

People can deny they're defending Norquist all they want, but when their overwhelming focus is to ignore all of the information about him and speculate instead about the thought processes of others bringing them the information, then we're free to draw contrary conclusions.

If you ask me, the fact that there seems to be some horrible intelligence breakdown at the highest levels of government is the REAL BIG DEAL HERE.

Precisely.

And don't even try and ascribe my questions above to being a "defense of Grover." They aren't, I have no idea what Grover's defense or response is. I'm not here to defend his choice to associate with purported terrorists. But I am here to question why the WH lets this go on. Any influence he has is because the WH grants it to him. Grover could be marginalized in a New York minute. That isn't happening and I have to ask why.

By the standards of some, your above statement is tantamount to an accusation of treason against some in the White House. I'm not making that leap, but others have. That has a history of happening on Norquist threads, with the intent of driving recipients of the strawman from the forum.

I have a history of suggesting that it shouldn't happen.

[Trollstomper]

"not to bother with defending Norquist, but to keep the guns set on Gaffney"


Oh. I see. That way we can avoid the real issues. Bye-bye

[JohnGalt]

See, EF, you can smoke these phonies out if you go after one of their own.

Ike (that would a Republican) first employed the phrase Military Industrial Complex, and if Mother Jones provides an on-line source to point out that Gaffney not only has his own agenda but when he was shilling for the Boeing Leasing deal, he 'forgot' to mention that he receives his paycheck in large part because of Boeing contributions.

I have little time for Norquist, even if I thank him for his work on eliminating the death tax and fighting against the Patriot Act, but believe he is just another insider not to be trusted with much of anything.

Gaffney cares more about securing government contracts for his benefactors than national security. He is a true phony, a minion of the War Bucks crowd.

[EverFree]

Grover has assisted the most radical jihadis.

If solid evidence of harm emerges, I'll condemn him.
Otherwise, it's W. keeping his enemies closer and a suspiciously timed rehashing of old charges.

[JohnGalt]

What was your handle before you were banned?

[Poohbah]

What was your handle before you were banned?

Is that any way to talk to someone Deep in the Huertgen Forest?

[JohnGalt]

LOL

That was a classic episode in the annuls of FR.

[swarthyguy]

>>If solid evidence of harm emerges, I'll condemn him.


Meeting supporting and vouching for jihadis isn't harm enuff for you?

Ignorance is no excuse at this high level of govt and lobbying. Heck, it wouldn't work for you and me at a traffic stop.

So now, we're back to the old chestnut about enemies.

Just the emotions, ma'am. No facts, they're too inconvenient and may ruffle feathers.

You won't even acknowledge that if courting moderate muslims is the strategy then Grover has shown an appalling level of ignorance by pursuing relationships with the worst jihadis.

To be fair, Saudi money buys virtually everyone in DC, partisan affiliation be damned.

[Nick Danger]

You entered this thread because of the Free Republic Network's connections to Grover Norquist.

That is correct. I actually know this guy. Not well, but I know him. So this is not just a Keyboard Cowboy exercise for me. I care about this. I want to know the truth here.

I've heard all this stuff. Frank Gaffney stands outside the meeting room on Wednesdays and hands out his materials. I've read them. People take that stuff and walk right into the meeting with Grover Norquist. David Keene; David Frum; Chuck Muth; people from the White House; the Senate; the House; the Pentagon; the Cato Institute; the Heritage Foundation; the NRA; people running for office from all over the country. They walk right past Frank Gaffney and into Grover's meeting. That is what I see.

You said I'm in over my depth. I said it first. I admit it: I'm a Washington newbie. I just moved here a year ago. I don't do this for a living. I don't have "connections." I'm just some Freeper who's there on a volunteer basis once a week (and not every week) to hear what's going on, and to occasionally let people know what we're doing.

I have no idea what to think about a pissing contest between Frank Gaffney and Grover Norquist. I look around and it doesn't look to me like "old Washington hands" are paying much attention to Frank. If Grover Norquist is about to be arrested as a traitor to the United States, there are going to be a whole bunch of people who were sitting at his table the week before (I don't rate a seat at the table, BTW) who will be pretty embarrassed about that. So if I, a mere newbie, were to take my cues from people who have been around here a lot longer than I have, I would not pay a whole lot of attention to Frank Gaffney on this issue. People tell me he really is a big-time expert on defense stuff, and I have no reason to doubt that. But no one is acting as though he's an expert on this.

I thought it would probably have to stay there, because... how the hell am I ever gonna find out what the truth is here? And then, lo and behold, our Mystery Correspondent shows up right here on Free Republic. This is terrific. This is more time than David Frum has had with the guy.

So I listen to all this stuff. And I poke the guy. And I try to piss him off, to see what he does and where the smoke comes out. Because for me, this is a big puzzle. This man claims to have this big file of facts that means "X", where "X" is something that should have cleaned out that conference room a long time ago. But it hasn't.

I figure most people in that room are in the same state I'm in: they don't know what to believe about this. And they aren't in any position to call up the White House and poke around to find out. "So tell me Karl, were you and Grover running a honey pot, or are you guys traitors?" But some people in that room are capable of making those kinds of phone calls. And I observe them sitting at the table with Grover Norquist.

After watching how the smoke comes out when this guy starts to rant, I think I understand better now why the old Washington hands are not running for the exits.

Let me close by saying that it may turn out that Frank Gaffney is a hero for exposing all this. I can't rule that out. But I have to go with what I see, which is that after an initial period of considerable alarm about these charges, some very well-connected people with impeccable reputations have returned to Norquist's table. That is what I see. And when granted an opporunity to poke it at myself, I found it necessary to keep adding more and more windage as time went on, to account for personal animosity as the thing driving this effort. So in the end, I choose not to join you at the necktie party.

And on that note, I think I will get out of your way here so you can convince all these other fine people that Grover Norquist is a terrsymp dupe or worse, and that I am his shill. Do your worst.

[EverFree]

Norquist should do better than calling his critics racists

Norquist *did* do better, he called his attackers on their religious bigotry, not racial bigotry.
That charge was morphed into a liberal race card by the usual gang of bigots. It made him easier to attack and harder to defend.