SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sully- who wrote (413)12/10/2003 1:36:04 AM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 35834
 
A Troubling Influence cont'd....

Hence, in addition to the seed money from Alamoudi, the Islamic Institute has also received funding from organizations described by the Washington Post as a “secretive group of tightly connected Muslim charities, think tanks and businesses based in Northern Virginia [and] used to funnel millions of dollars to terrorists and launder millions more” – a number of whom are currently part of the “largest federal investigation of terrorism financing in the world.”14

Point Man: Khaled Saffuri

The founding director of Grover Norquist’s Islamic Institute, Khaled Saffuri, is a Muslim Palestinian by birth. Prior to joining Alamoudi’s group (where he served for almost three years15), Saffuri was active in Muslim-support operations in Bosnia,16 a hot-bed for Islamic radicals from Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere anxious to establish a beachhead on the continent of Europe. In recent years, he has acknowledged personally supporting the families of suicide bombers – even though, in public settings, he strenuously denies having done so.17 He denounced President Bush for shutting down the Holy Land Foundation, a Saudi charity that the U.S. government determined was funneling American Muslims’ donations to terrorist organizations overseas.18

I first had occasion to observe Saffuri in the late 1990s, when I became a regular attendee of Grover Norquist’s “Wednesday Group” meetings, weekly gatherings of conservative movement activists and libertarians. Troubled that many of the participants rarely, if ever, addressed national security matters – certainly before 9/11 and, arguably, even afterwards – I viewed these conclaves as an opportunity to promote awareness of and renewed support for robust foreign and defense policies. With a view to doing that on a routine basis, I accepted Norquist’s invitation to move my Center for Security Policy into new office space he had acquired. In the summer of 1999, I relocated to the space which was also occupied by his primary organization, Americans for Tax Reform, which also housed the Wednesday Group meetings and the Saffuri-headed Islamic Institute.

Since the Institute was located inside the ATR suite next to ours, we wound up sharing a large conference room, Xerox room, bathrooms, elevator bank and hallway. Consequently, I had a ring-side seat as Saffuri and his colleagues became ever more prominent fixtures at the Wednesday Group meetings, usually underscoring their close relationship with the host by sitting next to Norquist (or near him) in the center of the room.

From time to time, one or another of the Islamic Institute’s associates would make a presentation to the generally standing-room-only crowds of influential Washington conservatives, would-be politicians, think-tank denizens, journalists, and an increasing number of lobbyists. Over the years, topics they addressed included: the plight of Palestinians under Israeli occupation; the much-maligned and badly misunderstood Islamist government of Sudan (in fact, a designated state-sponsor of terrorism); the innocent nature of the process whereby Muslim chaplains have been selected for the armed forces; the honored status of women in the Muslim world; and efforts to promote Islamic causes and candidates in Republican circles.

Whenever possible, I tried to interject or make presentations to counter what I considered to be an ill-concealed and ominous influence operation. On one occasion, which occurred a few weeks after 9/11, I made an intervention to decry the fact that Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council was among the groups invited to the White House. I observed that on the same day its representatives were meeting with the President and his senior subordinates to talk about how Muslims could help with the war on terror, the AMC’s website featured a box headlined “Know Your Rights.” A click on the proferred hyperlink took you to a joint statement urging Muslims not to talk to the FBI. The statement was issued in the name of an organization of which the AMC was a member: the National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom (NCPPF) – a virtual legal aid office for terrorists. At the time, a South Florida University professor named Sami al-Arian was the NCPPF’s president. As will be discussed below, he was also Secretary of the worldwide governing council of a terrorist organization called Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), responsible for 99 suicide-bombing victims.

I suggested to the Wednesday Group that the White House would surely have been astonished to discover that it was dignifying so-called Muslim leaders who were urging their co-religionists not to cooperate with law enforcement. I also pointedly observed – without mentioning names – that those responsible for facilitating the President’s Muslim outreach, who profess to support him and wish him success, should take pains to avoid including such groups in the future. I circulated a column I had written making similar points and that had been published the day before in the Washington Times.19

No sooner had I finished speaking than Norquist left his seat to consult with Saffuri’s deputy and successor as director of the Islamic Institute, Abdulwahab Alkebsi (another former Deputy Director of Alamoudi’s AMC).20 After the consultation, Norquist came over to me and whispered that he had checked and that there was no such box on the AMC website. I, in turn, consulted with one of my colleagues, who produced a copy of the webpage in question and sequential images as it was removed from the site in the wake of my column’s publication. (This was not an isolated phenomenon; in fact, in the post-9/11 period, webmasters for a number of pro-Islamist organizations evidently were directed to sanitize their internet sites.)

I reported this to Grover and showed him the original item. Shortly thereafter, I had to leave the meeting. Only later did I discover that he had taken advantage of my absence to disinform the group by announcing that what I had told them about the AMC website was wrong and that it featured no such encouragement to obstruct justice.

Penetrating The Bush Campaign

In 2000, thanks to Grover Norquist’s influence with the White House political operation, Khaled Saffuri was named the George W. Bush presidential campaign’s National Advisor on Arab and Muslim Affairs.21 Holding out the promise of votes and donations in key battleground states with significant Muslim populations (notably, Michigan, Florida and New Jersey), Saffuri and Norquist were able to persuade the Bush campaign’s chief strategist, Karl Rove, essentially to contract-out to them responsibility for identifying the groups and individuals upon whom the Governor should rely to elicit such support. Insight Magazine reported in February 2001:

[In September 2000], on [Karl Rove’s] way to the airport to catch his flight back to Texas, Khaled Saffuri, executive director of the Islamic Institute, joined Rove in his car. Saffuri explained to him that the vote of the Arab-American community, which includes both Muslims and Christians, still was up for grabs. The community is prosperous and could be the source of considerable campaign contributions. If Bush would mention in public just a few of the issues that concern Arab-Americans, Saffuri told Rove, he would win their hearts, their minds and their support.22

While the thrust of this report sounds right, the evidence suggests Saffuri’s car ride with Rove was by no means the first time such a proposition had been discussed with the Bush campaign. Indeed, the lure of such political dividends induced Governor Bush to hold a meeting in his mansion in Austin on May 1, 2000, not only with Alamoudi and Saffuri, but with other, immoderate Muslims, as well. As the National Journal reported:

It was the summer of 2000, and for George W. Bush, the meeting held the promise of an unusual but important endorsement for his presidential bid. Conservative activist Grover Norquist had persuaded the Republican nominee to sit down with leaders of the Muslim American Political Coordinating Committee, a confederation of four Muslim community groups.23

In addition to Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council, the group included the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). CAIR’s executive director, Nihad Awad is another self-professed Hamas-supporter and, as will be discussed further below, its radical agenda and ties have recently been the focus of sharp, bipartisan criticism in Sen. Kyl’s Judiciary subcommittee.

Saffuri had also arranged for the Bush campaign to enlist Sami al-Arian, a well-known Florida-based activist – despite the fact that the professor made little secret of his radical Islamist sympathies – to help engender Muslim support in his state.24 A photograph of Mr. Bush taken with al-Arian in March 2000 subsequently received considerable attention after the professor was arrested last February on 40 terrorism-related counts. Of particular concern are those alleging his functional direction over the past 19 years of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, one of the most murderous terrorist organizations in the Middle East.25

Obstructing Justice

Al-Arian’s arrest was made possible by the USA-PATRIOT Act. With this legislation’s enactment after 9/11, it became possible for the first time in decades, for U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies to share sensitive information – such as the voluminous wiretaps of Sami al-Arian coordinating Palestinian Islamic Jihad operations from his professor’s office in Tampa.

Not surprisingly, the Islamist front recognizes the threat this and other provisions of the PATRIOT Act represent to their operations in America. They are determined to rescind it and, if possible, remove its principal architect and most effective defender, Attorney General John Ashcroft. Accordingly, they have become an integral part of the left-wing coalition, which includes the ACLU, the pro-Castro National Lawyers Guild and many Islamic “solidarity” groups, in waging a national campaign against the PATRIOT Act. It seems hardly coincidental that the preeminent conservative figure to join the campaign and lead the recruitment of other conservatives is Grover Norquist.

In fact, Norquist was also a prime-mover behind efforts to secure one of the Islamists’ top pre-9/11 agenda items: the abolition of a section of the 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act that permits authorities to use what critics call “secret evidence.” This is a rarely employed practice whereby prosecutors can withhold classified information from foreign suspects. To do so, however, the authorities must have reason to believe the disclosure of such information could compromise – and, thereby, eliminate – the sensitive intelligence “sources and methods” by which it was obtained.

cont'd



To: Sully- who wrote (413)12/11/2003 5:51:41 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
The lies of Grover Norquist
Powerline Blog;

Hugh Hewitt kindly invited me on his show this afternoon together with Edward Morrissey of Captain's Quarters to discuss the Frank Gaffney/Grover Norquist controversy. The discussion was occasioned by Gaffney's FrontPage essay on America's Islamist fifth column, "A troubling influence." I flagged Gaffney's essay yesterday morning in this post and gave my impressions of Hugh's one-hour interview with Gaffney and Norquist yesterday in this post.

I reread Gaffney's article to prepare for Hugh, and tracked down a couple of other pieces as well: Franklin Foer's New Republic article "Grover Norquist's strange alliance with radical Islam," and Byron York's National Review Online article "Fight on the right."

Gaffney's article is a tremendous piece of work. It may err in some details, but it portrays the operations of America's Islamist fifth column in the Wahhabi lobby with insight and care. Gaffney relies not only on journalistic sources but also provides his own valuable eyewitness testimony. His criticism of Norquist in the article is impersonal and principled.

Norquist's reponse, on the other hand, is personal and evasive. He attacks Gaffney as racist and bigoted; not a trace of evidence in the public record supports these charges. I heard Norquist respond to Gaffney in this manner at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington this past January. He did not deign to respond to Gaffney's remarks in substance.

Hugh replayed his one-hour interview of Gaffney and Norquist on the show tonight and I took the opportunity to listen to it again. Having just reread the materials cited above, I was able to weigh the substance of Norquist's responses to Hugh's questions more carefully than the first time around. One particular exchange struck me as illustrative of Norquist's deceit and evasiveness.

Hugh asked Norquist to respond to the charge that an indicted (indicted as a bagman for Muhammar Khadaffy) Islamist -- Abdurahman Alamoudi -- had contributed $10,000 by personal check to help set up the Islamic Institute under Norquist's auspices. He stated that the check had been returned; he didn't say whether it had been cashed or when it had been returned. (In a footnote, Gaffney cites a source quoting Saffuri to the effect that the check was returned in October 2001.)

Norquist further stated that the institute was founded by Khaled Saffuri, as though that answered Hugh's question regarding Alamoudi's role in funding the institute. The institute is run by Saffuri, who, according to Gaffney, is one of Alamoudi's former deputies; Norquist never responded to Gaffney's charge that Saffuri is Alamoudi's former deputy. In other words, Norquist in effect conceded that Alamoudi in fact contributed substantial funds to Norquist's Islamic Institute and Norquist never disputed Gaffney's point about Saffuri's relationship to Alamoudi.

Norquist's themes are those of the Islamist apologist organizations like CAIR and the American Muslim Council: informed critics of Islamofascism and advocates of American interests like Daniel Pipes and Frank Gaffney are portrayed as bigots, and key law enforcement tools against domestic terrorism are alleged to be nefarious infringments of civil rights. When Norquist attempted to enlist James Woolsey to his cause on the latter score, Gaffney powerfully established that Norquist was all but lying.

Finally, except when attacking Gaffney personally, the tone of Norquist's remarks is insouciant and unserious. Norquist's response to the merits of Gaffney's charges was by turns evasive, deceitful, and flip. In defending himself from Gaffney's chages, Grover Norquist is an advocate with a fool for a client.

powerlineblog.com



To: Sully- who wrote (413)12/13/2003 12:25:24 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Wahhabis at the Gate
What are the Saudis up to in the Balkans?
by Stephen Schwartz Weekly Standard
12/15/2003, Volume 009, Issue 14

Skopje, Macedonia

THE MUSLIM HOLY MONTH of Ramadan came and went in the Balkans without serious incident. Nevertheless, the ancient town of Skopje, war-weary and impoverished after local fighting between Albanians and Slavs in 2001, buzzed with rumors of terrorist conspiracies. In a mild, foggy late-autumn, under a skyline dominated by impressive Ottoman mosques, residents spoke anxiously of the recent suicide bombings in Istanbul and of "special measures" against possible attacks on U.S. and other foreign personnel in Kosovo, Albania, and Macedonia.

It is said that Islam has "bloody borders," but in the Balkans the border dwellers are exhausted. Too much blood has already been wasted, and there is no appetite for more.

Among the ethnic Albanian Muslims--especially in western Macedonian regions where they and their Christian fellow-Albanians continue agitating for the right to education in the Albanian language--there is much discussion of infiltration by Saudi-funded agents of the Wahhabi sect. Riyadh continues to send Wahhabi missionaries, in their characteristic beards and archaic Arab outfits, to seek control over Balkan Muslims. And the missionaries continue to fail.

Arben Xhaferi (pronounced Jaferi), leader of the Albanian Democratic party, is considered both the main Albanian patriotic leader in Macedonia and the region's outstanding critic of Wahhabi influence. He spoke with me at his office in Tetovo, in the heart of the ethnic Albanian majority area. The building displayed the trademark sign of recent war in the Balkans: bottles of water for sanitary purposes in the toilet, since the plumbing still has not been restored.

"We cannot accept the endless agitation presenting democracy as opposed to Islam," Xhaferi said. "Albanian Islam faces an immense threat from fundamentalism. We are traditional in our Islam, which for us means pluralism, respect for the other religions represented among us, and repudiation of Arabization. Fundamentalist Islamists preach that there is only one Islam, represented by them, just as Hitler said there could be only one nation under one Führer."

"It is absurd that Wahhabis should come here and demand, in the name of Islam, that we live and dress like them," Xhaferi said. "Albanians will not allow foreigners of any kind to tell us our customs must be abandoned and our behavior determined by Islamic totalitarians. We have our own history, our own culture, and our own Albanian model of Islam, based on interfaith respect and the understanding that religion is private. They will not destroy us."

Xhaferi has paid for his forthright criticism of Islamist extremism, as have others who support him, such as the Skopje newspaper publisher Emin Azemi, whose Albanian-language daily Fakti (The Facts) is among the most professional in the region. Azemi took a strong stand in support of the U.S. liberation of Iraq--Fakti editorialized, "The defeat of Saddam Hussein will be a victory for all humanity." It has also published Xhaferi's anti-Wahhabi polemics.

With Saudi subversives still fanning out in the Balkans, it comes as no surprise that Xhaferi and Azemi's activist stance has earned them anonymous threats. But since the Wahhabis, notwithstanding their hatred of everything modern, use cell phones, Azemi was able to reply to their harassment by printing their telephone numbers in his paper and calling on readers to communicate their opinions to the Wahhabis. And public condemnation of them was extensive.

More startling, however, is the coolness of Western diplomatic and foreign media authorities in Macedonia to efforts to isolate and oppose aggressive Islamism.
Azemi and his newspaper are under permanent suspicion for their Albanian patriotism, which is seen as a threat to regional stability--even though Macedonian Slav journalists praised Fakti during the 2001 communal fighting for consistently advocating a cease-fire.

Lately, a group called the International Journalists Network even called on foreign donors to the cause of "media development," including a U.S. group, IREX ProMedia, to establish an Albanian daily that would provide an alternative to the "hardline" Fakti. But for all its considerable problems, Macedonia has general media freedom, and such interference by foreigners is neither necessary nor just.

Wahhabi propagandists seek to cast every conflict as religious. They lump together all the grievances of Macedonia's Albanians as a campaign of self-defense by "the Muslims"--leaving out of the picture the 15 percent of Macedonian Albanians who are Christian, yet seek recognition of their linguistic rights with no less enthusiasm than the Muslims.

For example, a polemic on the Wahhabi website Islamonline, titled "Macedonian Spark Can Incinerate the Region," by Omer bin Abdullah, comments disingenuously, "The Muslims argue that the Albanian language should be the second official language in the country." In reality, it is not the Muslims, but the Albanians who argue this. Non-Albanian Muslims in Macedonia--Turkish, Bosnian, and Slav--have failed to support the Albanians, and the portrayal of Albanian struggles as based on religion is false. These smaller Muslim minorities have historically felt dependent on the Slav Macedonian authorities.

The topic of Wahhabism keeps many Albanian young people preoccupied. With unemployment high, facing an uncertain future and probable discrimination, Albanians do not want to be saddled with a reputation for Islamic extremism. And they are clear on where the truth lies. Students at the European- and U.S.-subsidized Southeast European University of Tetovo expressed disgust with reactionary Saudism, including its primitive repression of women.

Traveling through Macedonia after Ramadan, I encountered distaste for Islamism on all sides--from elderly Albanian men sporting fierce mustaches and speaking of their village laws no less than from fashionably dressed young women who said Saudi Arabia must cease to be the only country in the world that forbids women to drive. I came away struck by the fact that these European Muslims, living in a remote and disregarded country, understand the truth about the Saudi/Wahhabi threat to the Islamic world, and to the world at large--even as many in capitals like Washington continue to deny it.

Stephen Schwartz is the author of The Two Faces of Islam: The House of Sa'ud from Tradition to Terror."

weeklystandard.com.