Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Troubling Influence - An Islamic Fifth Column penetrates the White House
FrontPageMagazine ^ | 12/09/03 | Frank J Gaffney Jr.

Posted on 12/09/2003 1:37:45 AM PST by kattracks

Why We Are Publishing This Article by David Horowitz

The article you are about to read is the most disturbing that we at 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 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.


(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Editorial; Extended News; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: ageofliberty; alamoudi; alarian; alitulbah; alkebsi; alnajjar; alqaeda; alzawahiri; amc; ampcc; atr; awad; blackmuslim; bobj; bray; cair; davidhorowitz; elashi; enemywithin; fifthcolumn; frankjgaffneyjr; gaffneynorquist; grovernorquist; hamas; hezbollah; horowitz; iara; islamicinstitute; isna; khafagi; khaledsaffuri; khan; mpac; mrus; mwl; ncppf; norquist; patriotact; pij; rove; royer; saeed; saffuri; secretservice; siddiqi; suhailkhan; todayspurge; vickers; wahhabi; yousefyee; yusuf
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 781-793 next last
To: Bob J
Norquist is not a traitor.

Perhaps not, but it appears he has some 'splainin' to do. Looking forward to his response...

21 posted on 12/09/2003 5:43:49 AM PST by Damocles (sword of...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Byron_the_Aussie
I agree with what you state. Norquist's considerable conservative credentials precludes ad hominem attacks but sensible questions are justified and Norquist should address each of them.

The Saudis have been working for some time to penetrate and influence American politics and it is no suprise they have used American Muslim groups to further that aim. Few were aware of the extent of their penetration prior to 911 and to hold Norquist singularly responsible smacks of a witch hunt. At worst, I believe Norquist may be guilty of bad judgement (which you would have to extend to the entire Bush administration since they approved of and conducted the contacts), but to call him a traitor as some are doing, is unfair and ignores his unimpeachable record of successfully advancing conservative causes for decades. Efforts almost all of which would recieve considerable support for here on FR.

I would add that Norquists criticism of portions of the Patriot Act (and be extension the Muslim groups) sound exactly like the positions held by many FReepers on this board. To use that as a basis for condemnation is inconsistent.

22 posted on 12/09/2003 6:03:34 AM PST by Bob J ( them out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Damocles
I also look forward to his response.

I applaud his efforts to reach out and attempt to bring Muslim groups into the GOP...they'll just go to the dems of we don't. I'm willing to accept that he was deceived about their connections to terrorists groups, I doubt anyone here is accusing him of having knowledge about it and continuing to make connections with the GOP and the White House.

What I don't get is the singular focus on Norquist for this apparent breach of security. The White House has extended abilities to research these people, their opinions and potential connections to unsavory middle east groups. Much more than Norquist.

Norquist may be been mislead and he certainly doesn't have the ability to conduct the extensive background and financial checks that might have uncovered connections to terrorists groups. No one was aware of them until after 911 when the FBI, CIA and other depts of US Gov (particularly Homeland Security) started doing deep investigations.

Why the focus on Norquist? Is he being singled out as the scapegoat? It seems like FBI, CIA, NSA and others are responsible for national security and they should have stopped the contacts prior to them getting an audience the White House. The fact they did is prima facie evidence even the Gov was unaware. To hold Norquist to a higher standard than the US Gov is ridiculous.

As I see it, looks like everyone got fooled regarding these deep moles and their hidden affiliations. Giving Norquist 40 lashes over it is nothing but a diversion.
23 posted on 12/09/2003 6:26:37 AM PST by Bob J ( them out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
" call him a traitor as some are doing, is unfair and ignores his unimpeachable record of successfully advancing conservative causes for decades."

His conservative political record is all well and good, but his activities as of late serve only to directly undermine the national security of this country. Norquist isn't doing this for his love of mankind... to label innumerable repetitions of the same type of behavior "bad judgment" may hold true for a ten year old, but it is irresponsible here. His position as a conservative should make him doubly aware of the damage of his actions.

This isn't a witch hunt.
24 posted on 12/09/2003 6:29:39 AM PST by snowrip ("Going to war without the French is like going hunting without your lawnmower.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Bump for later reading.
25 posted on 12/09/2003 6:32:01 AM PST by The Mayor (Through prayer, finite man draws upon the power of the infinite God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
Why the focus on Norquist? I don't know. But if any of these allegations are true, he won't be the only one being examined.

I am not predisposed to make a judgment now, but if Norquist has knowingly comported with the dirt bags mentioned in the article then he needs to face recrimination.

It makes no difference to me who he is.

If these charges are baseless, then the author or person responsible for manufacturing this evidence needs to be held responsible for the damage caused.

I'll take a wait and see approach, and I'm sure you will too.

Either way this could be ugly...

26 posted on 12/09/2003 6:41:51 AM PST by Damocles (sword of...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Where there's smoke, there's usually fire. Gaffney identifies an awfully lot of smoke in this article, as well as the names of the players.

...the strategy Norquist’s Islamist friends would follow in the wake of the hijackings: Exploit the President’s laudable – and strategically sensible – desire to show that neither he nor the American people would hold all Muslims responsible for the murderous actions of the few.

This tactic surely seems to be working!

As an insider, Gaffney's appalling and detailed allegations will have the effect of either reversing the radical Islamist influences in the Bush Administration and this country or killing off Gaffney. Watch what happens to him to see how the battle goes.

Muslims = Communists. We need to treat Muslims the same way we treated Communists in the Cold War - always suspected of acting against American interests until proven otherwise (which almost never happened)!

27 posted on 12/09/2003 6:53:27 AM PST by Gritty ("Outside the US we say 'Oh, Allah, destroy America'. Inside, we change it--Abdurahman Alamoudi, AMC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snowrip
Seems to me "his activities as of late" were mostly pre 911. Norquist ws trying to put together a coalition of Muslim groups that could identify with and support the GOP, a good long term goal for conservatism. The extent of the Wahhabi tentacles into Muslim American society were unknown, even by the government.

To assert that Norquist knowingly has and is undermining the security of the US is absurd. Did he screw up? Yes.

I got an idea, let's continue to eat our own so we end up with no effective non GOP conservative influence or leadership. Then we can just hand everything over to the pols.
28 posted on 12/09/2003 6:54:18 AM PST by Bob J ( them out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Damocles
The functional word in your post is "knowingly". I am willing to accept that Norquist may have been duped but cannot accept the allegation that he knowingly entered into a scheme to undermine the security of the US.

His entire life cries out against it.
29 posted on 12/09/2003 6:56:32 AM PST by Bob J ( them out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Gritty
BTW - At the event mentioned in the article where Norquist shared a stage and supported the position of Alec Baldwin regarding the PA, the stage was also shared by the Chairman of the American Conservative Union, David Keene, who also voiced support.

Where is the outcry against Mr. Keene and the ACU?
30 posted on 12/09/2003 6:59:17 AM PST by Bob J ( them out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
I agree. Knowingly is the hanging word.

I've been burned enough times by blindly believing in a persons character, without REALLY knowing the person.

As dissapointing as it would be I'm cynical enough to entertain the idea.

31 posted on 12/09/2003 7:10:04 AM PST by Damocles (sword of...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
Moslems from the middle-east are here. Better Norquist try to move moderate ones to support the GOP than to send them packing over to the DNC. If they weren't bad before the DNC were able to influence them, they certainly soon would be. I too do not believe this is a black and white issue at Norquist's expense.
32 posted on 12/09/2003 7:16:43 AM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Bump for later read
33 posted on 12/09/2003 7:17:00 AM PST by agrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bob J; LurkerNoMore!
34 posted on 12/09/2003 7:21:34 AM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
I think Norquist believed the ones he was entertaining were the moderate ones. Hindsight is always 20/20.
35 posted on 12/09/2003 7:32:32 AM PST by Bob J ( them out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

Comment #36 Removed by Moderator

To: DoughtyOne; Bob J
Any human will be loyal to their God before all. If Norquist is a practicing religious Muslim he should never ever be trusted for even one second...ever again.

This is not my opinion BTW, it's a hard and very real fact of life.

37 posted on 12/09/2003 7:39:09 AM PST by AAABEST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: AAABEST; Bob J; Howlin
Excuse me, the last time I checked, freedom of religion was still a part of the Constitution - and I did not hear of any amendment that created an exception that only applied in the case of Moslems.
38 posted on 12/09/2003 7:39:47 AM PST by hchutch ("I don't see what the big deal is, I really don't." - Major Vic Deakins, USAF (ret.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
Maybe not, but Gaffney is quite convincing. Norquist needs to answer point for point. This is truly disturbing.
39 posted on 12/09/2003 7:42:31 AM PST by savedbygrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Read Later.
40 posted on 12/09/2003 7:44:20 AM PST by c-b 1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 781-793 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson