Posted on 02/26/2003 1:50:19 PM PST by Fred Mertz
Islamist 'enabler' threatens 'grave harm to Bush presidency,' Gaffney warns |
||||
|
||||
A prominent conservative leader who allegedly has used undeclared foreign money and top political connections to promote terrorist sympathizers is an 'enabler' who threatens 'to do grave harm to the Bush presidency.'
Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney issued the warning in a letter to Grover Norquist, founding chairman of the Islamic Institute, after Norquist publicly accused Gaffney of 'racism and bigotry' and banished him from a weekly strategy group. Norquist's actions came in response to Gaffney's criticism of a White House official who allowed pro-terrorist Muslim groups access to the White House complex on January 16.
'People who afford terrorist-supporters or -apologists and their organizations entree into the White House deserve to be both challenged and criticized,' Gaffney wrote in response. Norquist, an anti-tax activist and Washington networker who often purports to speak in the name of President Bush, told Gaffney in a widely distributed letter that the Center for Security Policy leader was guilty of 'racial prejudice, religous bigotry or ethnic hatred' because the criticized official is a Muslim.
In response, Gaffney and American Conservative Union leader David Keene slammed Norquist for 'employing "Stalinist tactics" against those who disagree with Mr. Norquist's role in brokering access to the Bush White House,' the Washington Times reported on February 7.
Norquist has been criticized for promoting what is called the Wahhabi lobby, a Saudi-funded network designed to dominate and radicalize Islam in America, at the expense of other Muslim groups whose stand against terrorism is unequivocal.
'Why have you gone to such lengths to defend - to say nothing of legitimize and advance the agendas of - terrorist sympathizers and others hostile to everything for which American conservatives stand?' Gaffney asked Norquist in a responding letter. Gaffney listed his concerns: * The Islamic Institute, which Norquist co-founded and houses in his Americans for Tax Reform office, received seed money from an avowed supporter of Hezbollah, the terrorist group that killed 241 US Marines in a 1983 suicide bomb attack. * The Islamic Institute reportedly is 'predominantly funded by foreign governments, shady Saudi sources, and US-based groups raided by the Treasury Department-led Operation Green Quest Task Force for allegedly funding suicide bombers, al Qaeda and other terrorists' activities.' * Norquist led conservative opposition to parts of the Bush administration's anti-terrorism legislation, without disclosing that his Islamic group was dependent on such funds. * Norquist has affiliated himself with the radical National Committee to Protect Political Freedom (NCPPF), from which he received an award shortly before the September 11, 2001 attacks, despite the group's thirty-year public track record of promoting domestic and international terrorism. * Norquist reportedly introduced Sami Al-Arian, whom federal law enforcement officials say is a leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, to then-candidate George W. Bush during the 2000 campaign. Televised videotape shows Al-Arian raising money in the US for terrorists.
|
Nice try, but you know that won't fly... total avoidance of my questions is all you have to offer... Why dont' you try working as a campaign consulatant sometime?
Did Arabs behead Richard Pearl?
Did Arabs plant the Bali bomb?
Probably not but then you don't know the difference between an Arab and a Muslim anyway.
"Yet, in his sense that we must avoid war with militant Islam, lest we find ourselves at war with all Islam, President Bush is surely right.
"In the last century, America was threatened by a global communist revolution. Avoiding all-out war, we outlasted it. And we can outlast this Islamist revolution. What we must avoid is a war of faiths, a war of civilizations between Islam and America. And those who propagandize for such a war are the unwitting or willful collaborators of Osama bin Laden."
I don't recall that particular charge, nor have I made it . What I'm contending is that supporters of of Islamic terrorism have been brought to the White House. Is that something you doubt?
We all know that Al Arian was there in 2001, correct? He was also there under the Clinton's, at least once. This is by no means an exclusively Republican problem.
There are other groups, such as the AMC, CAIR, and the Islamic Institute that have been sympathizers with and supporters of Islamic terrorism, who have been brought to the White House.
You're aware of this, right?
Did you know that the AMC and CAIR are affiliated with the leftis ANSWER organizations?
Are you also aware that one of the men who arranged these meetings is one Suhail Khan, whose father helped Ayman Al Zawahiri raise funds for Al Qaeda in California in 1995?
Are you aware that Suhail Khan was recommended for his White House post as assisstant director of cabinet affairs in charge of Muslim Outreadh by Grover Norquist?
Are you aware that two months before Sami Al Arian visited the White House in 2001, Grover Norquist was accepted an award from Al Arian's National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom, along with former California Congressman Tom Campbell (R-Santa Clara), for their work in opposing anti-terrorism legislation that had gathered evidence against Al Arian's brother in law?
Did you know that Suhail Khan had been a member of Campbell's staff, and that Al Arian had contributed to Campbell's unsuccessful 2000 Senatorial campaign?
Or, is this all stuff you've heard before?
Don't you find any of this in the least troubling?
Yep Arafat is a constant house guest right?
FWIW, his artlessness and guilessness I used to think were sincere, and I was one who had defended him early on when others became upset at what the newbie was saying. Nowadays I have my doubts. Since we are at war for our very survival, and for good or for bad, anyone who consistently criticizes the President and his policies should be given a close scrutiny, IMHO.
Under indictment at the time of their visit?
Were they criminally indicted at the time they visited the White House, or AFTER????
And before you answer, remember, address the post... don't go calling names, k? (I'm waiting for you to call me an anti-semite and a nazi...)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.