UNDESIRABLE INFLUENCE Muslims are regulars at the White House
June 17, 2003
By Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
Readers of this column were not
surprised by the news article that led the front page of Wall Street
Journal last Wednesday. They are already aware that a number of Arab- and
Muslim-American organizations and representatives that support Hamas and
other militant Islamic (or "Islamist") terrorist groups have gained
unwarranted access to the White House and top Bush Administration
officials.
The Journal quoted yours truly as warning that "'Allowing these sorts of
organizations to meet with the president and his senior subordinates is a
very bad idea,' says Mr. Gaffney. While the administration now is cracking
down on terrorism abroad and at home, Mr. Gaffney says [such contacts]
could still lend legitimacy and 'undesirable influence over policy' to
individuals and groups hostile to American interests."
Even those who have followed this story on these pages and elsewhere,
however, might have been surprised at the response Karl Rove, President
Bush's top political advisor, gave the authors of the Journal article:
"'What's the evidence' of undesirable influence? he says. 'There's no
there there.'"
Actually, the evidence of undesirable influence is unmistakable to anyone
willing to look for it. Past and present leaders of the American Muslim
Council (AMC), the Council on American Islamic Relations, the Muslim
Public Affairs Council and the American Muslim Alliance, for example, have
publicly expressed support for those engaged in "armed struggle" against
Israel and the United States.
Even as President Bush stresses his opposition to such terrorist
organizations as Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, their advocates
and/or apologists in this country with ties to Saudi Arabia's radical
Wahhabi sect (dubbed the "Wahhabi Lobby") are routinely turned to when the
Administration seeks to reach out to Muslims. Worse yet, such "outreach"
usually excludes those representing the majority of Muslims who are not
Islamist sympathizers. That is undesirable influence.
In addition, the American Muslim Council-created National Islamic Prison
Foundation have been allowed to proselytize in U.S. prisons. Another
Wahhabi-associated organization, the Graduate School for Islamic Social
Sciences (raided by Operation Green Quest for suspected ties to terrorism)
has been allowed to select, train and certify imams for the U.S. military
chaplain corps. That is undesirable influence.
FBI Director Robert Mueller has similarly cultivated Islamist
organizations with a view to mitigating complaints about racial profiling
and other forms of alleged official harassment of Muslims. As a result,
these same radical groups are conducting "sensitivity training" for new
FBI agents. Tom Reynolds, chief of the Bureau's civil rights division, has
responded to the Wahhabi Lobby's demands by signaling a willingness to
establish a "national Muslim and Arab working group" including Islamist
groups that routinely defend terrorists arrested by the FBI. This is
undesirable influence.
What is more, Islamist sympathizers are using their access to the Bush
Administration as a shield to establish ominous bona fides. For example,
an individual once courted by the Bush team as part of its efforts to woo
Muslims -- Sami Al-Arian -- is now in federal custody awaiting trial on
fifty charges of running the North American operations of Palestinian
Islamic Jihad. At a recent bail hearing, a number of individuals from
organizations also dubiously cultivated for Bush "Muslim outreach"
appeared as character witnesses for Al-Arian (including a Defense
Department imam). Without exception, they cited their involvement with the
Administration to demonstrate their standing in pleading for the accused
to be sprung. This is undesirable influence.
The question occurs: Could the President's recent decision to pursue a
"road map" for Mideast peace that is, in important respects (notably with
respect to the need for a new Palestinian leadership "untainted by
terror," the dismantling of Palestinian terrorist infrastructure and an
end to Palestinian incitement as preconditions to U.S. recognition of a
state of Palestine) -- at odds with the "vision" he enunciated last June
also be a product of the undesirable influence of the Wahhabi Lobby? The
far-reaching changes were reportedly the subject of major internal fights
between top Administration officials.
According to the Middle East News Line, unnamed officials and
congressional sources said, that "most of the issues were submitted to
Bush's chief political strategist Karl Rove. They said Rove, who
engineered the Republican victory in Congress in November 2002, has been
granted major input in U.S. foreign policy as part of an effort to prepare
Bush's reelection campaign in 2004. Rove accompanied the president during
the Sharm e-Sheik and Aqaba summits."
If cultivating votes is the motivation for affording Islamists unwarranted
access and undesirable influence, it seems likely to backfire on the
President. A new national poll conducted by Luntz Research to be unveiled
today [Tuesday] by the Center for Security Policy indicates that a strong
majority of Americans (72.7% to 18.0%) support the precondition on
dismantling terror Mr. Bush laid out last June. Among one of President
Bush's core constituencies, Christian conservatives, the result is even
more dramatic (78.6% to 13.6%).
Unfortunately for Mr. Bush, the effort to curry favor with Islamists may
not only be bad for the national security. It may jeopardize his political
base without producing offsetting gains among Muslim voters and/or donors.
The Singapore-based newspaper Strait Times, reports that no less an
authority than the American Muslim Council's communications director, Faiz
Rehman: 'There's no chance Muslims are going to vote for Mr Bush [in
2004]." Which makes the influence his organization and its ilk enjoys with
the Bush team not only undesirable, but unfathomable.
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. heads the Center for Security
Policy.
© 2003, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr
Visitors since March 2002
|