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.

 

[JohnGalt]

That's a fair point; I only read Sailer's interpretation, not the actual transcript.

[EverFree]

I'm tickled trollelot wrote such a long screed, so impressively chock full of important-sounding Statistics, only to discover too late that it didn't apply to you.

So, in the line of RATner the RANTer, Gaffney is the latest tool "outing" Norquist?

I'll run Gaffney as a keyword and educate myself, but please add Gaffney keywords to any good threads you know about. Thanks!

[JohnGalt]

Did you read the New Republic article on Grover from November 2001?

GROVER NORQUIST'S STRANGE ALLIANCE WITH RADICAL ISLAM.

[diotima]

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

But it doesn't. There is no reason to questions Nick's motives, but there are reasons to go after Gaffney's. Namely, why is Grover the focus of this? Why isn't the WH being lobbied? The WH is enabling everything Norquist is able to do. If you want to continue to beat the hell out of Norquist you are welcome to do so, but I see no practical point to it. Because Norquist isn't the real issue. The real issue is that the WH is letting him continue.

If they don't care who Norquist is bringing in, or they don't have sufficient intel to know, then Grover is nothing compared to the problem that we have on our hands. Namely, that there is a War on Terror going on but the WH has a lack of good intel information. Then I have to ask on how many fronts does the WH have a lack of intel?

So if this is all for national security's sake, why isn't the focus on the highest levels of government rather than Grover? Again, this could all be stopped by the WH.

As for treason, I am far from it. I don't believe for one second the WH has no idea who is coming or going. I am assuming that they know there is no real smoke where you say there is fire. Because to assume to opposite, that they are clueless and don't care about terrorists, is insane.

[EverFree]

I linked Grover's response way back in Post 78: Getting the story straight: Grover Norquist replies to Ratner's accusation of selling out America. Cheers!

[JohnGalt]

That is about what I expected him to say.

Keep in mind, I am coming from the perspective that everyone in Washington is corrupt, even as I think Gaffney is more corrupt than Norquist who at least as some wins for the cause. I do disagree with Norquist 'easy entry' policies, however.

Funny, someone pressed the abuse button on my 703; I think I outed Gaffney as a Boeing Stooge and linked to Sailer's VDARE article.

Wonder who pulled the trigger on the abuse button?

Yours in liberty and props for fighting the good fight on this thread. A friend in need and all that...

[Trollstomper]

"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."

A kid is seeling drugs in shcool. Do we focus and rely on the Principal,the parents the kid -- we do all, whatever it takes, unitl interdiction is accomplished and there are no more drugs in school, at least via that conduit. So too here, whatever it takes, whatever angle and order of battle, until interdiction occurs and there are no more Islamists coming into the WH, Admin and our movement.



You are right, as I have said before re Sauds, US Policy, etc., that there are larger problems, but in the nature of "don't let the perfect solution be the enemy of the good solution" we cannot be paralysed by that.

[Sabertooth]

But it doesn't.

But it does. Anyone who wants to play the "question the motives game" can't declare themselves exempt.

If they don't care who Norquist is bringing in, or they don't have sufficient intel to know, then Grover is nothing compared to the problem that we have on our hands. Namely, that there is a War on Terror going on but the WH has a lack of good intel information. Then I have to ask on how many fronts does the WH have a lack of intel?

So if this is all for national security's sake, why isn't the focus on the highest levels of government rather than Grover? Again, this could all be stopped by the WH.

Because inquiries always start somewhere, and this one is starting with Grover, because the evidence of his recklessness is so encyclopedic. Therefore, the focus is on him right now. At some point it might go elsewhere, it might not.

If you've got information about others on whom you'd like to focus, by all means post it. All of this complaining about the focus being on Norquist by folks who've brought nothing else to the table strikes me as misdirection, whether intentional or unintentional.

[EverFree]

why is Grover the focus of this? Why isn't the WH being lobbied?

Excellent questions. Grover anti-taxers and the rest of Bush's political base must be dismantled to maximize neocon leverage on the upcoming election.

First they trashed the paleos, now it's the libertarian and anti-tax people's turn to burn at the stake. Some shots have already been fired directly at W. from the loose cannon crowd. Look for the assault to intensify. You may find this thread excellent background for understanding why/how anyone would do such a thing: Bush’s Coming Betrayal of the Evangelicals

[Poohbah]

Speaking of the Boeing tanker deal--I am not happy. The only other option is Airbus--and Airbus is, IMNHO, an inferior product. But Boeing violated so many written and unwritted rules of conduct, and screwed things up so badly, that their proposed deal has to be killed.

[Trollstomper]

No. Norquist called Gaffney and others, regularly, "Racists and bigots"

[Poohbah]

Funny, someone pressed the abuse button on my 703; I think I outed Gaffney as a Boeing Stooge and linked to Sailer's VDARE article.

As someone who is in agreement with you on this issue, the fact that you cited a VDARE article annoys me immensely. JimRob, for his own (and, IMNHO, very good) reasons, does not want VDARE links.

[Trollstomper]

I think I outed Gaffney as a Boeing Stooge ...



Oh you did? Whoopy. Deal with #710 in a factual manner and rejoin the real world.

[Trollstomper]

"neocon"

Your definition/s please?

[JohnGalt]

Michelle Malkin, the best female conservative columnist going-- and the hottest, writes for VDARE, and she is allowed to have her articles on FR.

I am in agreement that VDARE articles should not be posted on the main, but there is no reason to ban links over to relevant articles, particularly Sailer who is an interesting and provocative up and comer.

[Bob J]

Let's repost that for those that said Grover has never addressed any of these issues. The story is a little dated, but still contains some juicy tidbits into the mind of Norquist and his intentions.

Getting the story straight: Grover Norquist replies to Ratner's accusation of selling out America
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Friday, June 7, 2002 | Grover Norquist

Ellen Ratner and Gareth Schweitzer attempt to criticize me in their article "Removing Norquist's burkha" (WorldNetDaily, May 31) for a series of sins. I count 10 attacks, and each is a falsehood. One is always aware of one's very real deficiencies and failures – and thus, being attacked for things one didn't do is only mildly annoying, and as Churchill said, like being shot at without effect.

The personal attacks are all borrowed without attribution from an article that printed in the New Republic last fall. I am not angry at Ms. Ratner, but disappointed that she could have avoided this embarrassment by simply calling me on the phone. She did not make any effort to do this. To its credit, the New Republic immediately published a letter to the editor in the following issue that exposed their original article as a tissue of lies. I have posted this letter and it is a sufficient rebuttal to both the New Republic article and its repetition by Ratner and Schweitzer.

Ellen Ratner writes that I want to "bring Islamic fundamentalists into the Republican Party without regard to how they feel about terrorism or Americans, let alone Republicans." This is not true. And it is silly. It is, however, a sad lie that a handful of bigots have tried to spread to attack President Bush and others. These bigots have had very little success in getting this nonsense published, but sadly Ellen Ratner allowed herself to be used here.

The truth is that I share President Bush and President Reagan's view that the Republican Party and the conservative movement should reach out to Americans of all faiths and all ethnic backgrounds. We are a nation of immigrants and this is a strength and part of our national greatness. I believe that the Republican values of individual liberty are best for the nation and for all individuals.

I wrote an article in 2000 for the American Spectator pointing out that Muslims in America have traditionally voted Republican. President George W. Bush reached out in the 2000 election and won more than 70 percent of the Muslim vote. Bush's leadership and outreach is a model of how Republicans can and should reach out to all Americans – not by pandering as the Democrats do, but by highlighting how conservative values are best for all Americans.

Are there some Muslims who do not like America's commitment to individual liberty? Certainly. There are some Methodists like that too. I went to college at Harvard and met bunches of Americans who don't like America one bit. People like that are not welcome and would not wish to be in the Republican party. There is a place for such idiots. A key aide to former House Speaker Tip O'Neill said at a private dinner party years ago that there were 20 members of Congress that actually wanted the United States to lose the Cold War. None of them were Republicans.

The article claims that I organized meetings between President Bush and Muslims who are anti-American. No, never. Here, the writers are misreading the New Republic article. The author of the NR article knew that the claim that I had recommended or chosen certain Muslim leaders to meet with Bush wasn't true. So if you read his article carefully, he never said it. He only implied the falsehood. President Bush's White House sets up its own meetings and the Secret Service is there to keep out any bad guys. They are professionals. They didn't ask for my recommendations.

The Ratner-Schweitzer column claims that I have represented the government of Qatar. Here, sadly, they repeat a lie that certain racists have been spreading for months. They have claimed that I have been paid as much as a million dollars a month by some Arab or Muslim country or group – it changes from time to time, but always with swarthy-looking people involved. No. Not true. The racists believe that a white guy would only work with foreign-looking types if he were being paid truckloads. But I don't share their prejudices, and I work without pay or favor with many groups of Americans: orthodox Jews, Filipinos, Indians, African Americans and Hispanics.

I serve as a volunteer on the board of directors of the Islamic Institute, a foundation that promotes free markets, religious liberty, democracy and a free press. The Institute co-sponsors an annual conference in Doha, Qatar, to promote liberty in the Muslim world. This year, at the conference, the head of the World Trade Organization spoke on free trade, four U.S. congressmen spoke on panels, the American ambassador opened the conference and the U.S. military provided a tour of the military base that is the largest pre-positioning of American military equipment outside Europe.

The University of Qatar contributed $150,000 to help fund part of the conference. Ms. Ratner suggests that I got some or all of that money. No. The Islamic Institute rents space from Americans for Tax Reform – as do several groups. In the past, I have given free office space to Toward Tradition, an orthodox Jewish group run by Rabbi Daniel Lapin. Anyone who doesn't like the religion of people I rent to can go to Hell.

I would recommend an article that I wrote on the progress that Qatar is making in holding local elections – women both voted and ran for office. Ratner misquotes the article. The article is now more than a year old and all the cheerful trends in Qatar have continued. Progress has moved Qatar in the Wall Street Journal and Heritage Foundation's "2002 Index of Economic Freedom" to the "Mostly Free" category. It was exciting this year to sit with Ed Feulner, the president of the Heritage Foundation and the emir of Qatar and hear them talk about how Qatar can continue to open up its economy.

A few decades ago, much of Latin America was run by dictators and many believed that democracy and economic liberty could not take root there. Today, Fidel Castro is almost alone in his socialism and despotism. Today, much of the Muslim world is run by despots. It is important to America that groups like the Islamic Institute reach out into the Muslim world to promote democracy and economic freedom. With President Bush's leadership, we can and will make the world freer, safer and forcefully reject religious and ethnic bigotry.

[JohnGalt]

The 'Friends of Boeing' certainly turned it into an embarrassment.

[EverFree]

Like I said, blaming Norquist & W for not stopping 911 and calling it "allowing" is pretty thin gruel. Sailor makes the remark offhand and doesn't press it.

I suggest avoiding questionable vdare links so no one can paint you as a "bush allowed it" type via abuse button.

Stick to solid Dirty Gaffney evidence and you're untouchable!

[Poohbah]

Michelle Malkin, the best female conservative columnist going-- and the hottest, writes for VDARE, and she is allowed to have her articles on FR.

She's published elsewhere. That's why she's OK.

I am in agreement that VDARE articles should not be posted on the main, but there is no reason to ban links over to relevant articles, particularly Sailer who is an interesting and provocative up and comer.

JimRob doesn't want to give VDARE any traffic from FR pages. And given how he got trated by VDARE, I don't blame him one bit.

[JohnGalt]

What was your handle before you were banned?