Huma Abedin with Hillary Clinton
CNN's Anderson Cooper is running a series of reports in his "Keeping them honest" segment of his show, 360. He is taking to task Michele Bachmann and four other congressmen who wrote a letter to the State Department inquiring about possible infiltration of Islamists into the government, particularly the State Department. In the letter, they asked about the background check procedures conducted with Huma Abedin, Middle East advisor to Hillary Clinton. Aside from attacking Bachmann et al, Cooper also criticizes Newt Gingrich for coming to their defense. One of the "experts" he chose to bring in for insight is Professor John Esposito of Georgetown University. There are several video clips at the CNN site.
You can read the letter from Bachmann and other congressmen here.
http://bachmann.house.gov/uploadedfiles/ig_letter_dept_of_state.pdf
First of all, as I have already said, though the now-infamous Bachman et al letter does not accuse Abedin of disloyalty, it does raise questions as to what kind of background check was done on her in light of her close family connections to the Muslim Brotherhood. I myself am in no position to question the lady's fitness for her job. She was born in the US, and like other Muslims, deserves to be educated and hired for whatever profession she is trained for. Remember that most Muslim immigrants who came here a generation or so ago were educated, and thus, their children figure to be educated as well. Should they be discriminated against in government employment just because they are Muslims? No.
Yet, we do have a problem on our hands in that the Islamists out there have declared war on the West. The Muslim Brotherhood, in spite of its claims and apologists, has as its goal a world-wide Islamic caliphate. There is also that infamous Brotherhood document seized by the FBI and used as an exhibit in the Holy Land Foundation trial in the 1970s.
http://www.douglasfarah.com/article/230/finally-the-smoking-gun.com
"The process of settlement is a 'Civilization-Jihadist Process' with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated ad God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."
There is also the fact that before and after 9-11, presidents of both political parties reached out to certain individuals and organizations (like CAIR) in order to "bridge the gap", for lack of a better expression, and show that Islam and America were not at war with each other. One of those figures was the now-deceased terrorist leader Anwar Awlaki. There were others who while not being identified as terrorists, have been shown to have links with the Muslim Brotherhood. They were-and are still being received in the highest corridors of power in Washimgton as "moderate" Muslim leaders.
One of those is Mohammed Elibiary, whose name has also been involved in the congressional inquiry. This is the man brought in as an advisor to Homeland Security by Janet Napolitano. This is the man who reportedly downloaded material from DHS computers which he reportedly used to attack Rick Perry. This is the man who participated in a 2004 conference in Texas, in which the late Ayatollah Khomeini was honored. Indeed the purpose of the conference was to pay tribute to Khomeini. One of the signers of the Bachmann letter, Louie Gohmert (R-TX), recently grilled Napilitano about Elibiary. Napolitano refused to give him a straight answer (par for the course for Napolitano).
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com/2012/07/janet-napolitano-ducks-and-dodges-today.html
One of the signers of the letter to DOS, Trent Franks (R-AZ), has reportedly expressed second thoughts about whether they should have used Ms Abedin's name in the letter. He may be correct, and it may turn out that her name was dragged through the mud unnecessarily. Yet, given her important position and her close family connections, is it unreasonable for someone in Congress to at least ask about the background check procedure?
As far as Professor John Esposito is concerned, he is a well-known apologist for Islamic extremists-hardly one for an unbiased view on the matter. In all, Anderson's show was biased against Bachmann et al, and Newt Gingrich for defending them. One wonders who is keeping Anderson Cooper honest.
Here is Newt Gingrich's op-ed in defense of Bachmann et al in Politico. I recommend it.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/79104.html
It is not unreasonable to vet and do background searches on individuals who will have access to sensitive and secret information. This is how the United States protects national security. The watered down security measures of the Obama administration has allowed Muslim Brotherhood types into the White House, such as Daliah M. of the ISNA (a Muslim Brotherhood un-indicted co-conspirator organization). The leaks of secrets from the White House is also a problem. So, when Bachmann and others express concern, they are correct in their actions. Newt points out the details in his article. Those who would be critical of this national security concern are wrong and may have ideological agendas to protect.
ReplyDeleteSquid
When I went for my Security Clearance for the Air Force in the late 70's the military turned over every stone they could find.
ReplyDeleteThey discovered my Grandfather's association to the Socialist movement (Early 1900's), my Grandmother's activism for many liberal causes. My father's membership in the American Legion and Moose Lodge. Mom's association with Deborah Hospital and Hadassah. If there was a Zionist cause, my family was a member or associated with the group.
They questioned not only myself but every person who ever knew me. Even my Kindergarten teacher who was then in her 80's.
I received my clearance.
Why can't we question the background of one Huma Abedin? A woman who is closely associated with Secretary Clinton and is working within the State Department.
Next Gary will issue a retrospective justifying the internment of every Japanese American on the west coast because after all, we were at war with Japan, so we couldn't take chances.
ReplyDeleteFindalis: Did thousands of people across the United States post copies of the military investigation, and comment nightly on whether you had been properly investigated?
P.S. I love your grandfather. Maybe he worked with my father's Aunt Bessie.
"Next Gary will issue a retrospective justifying the internment of every Japanese American on the west coast because after all, we were at war with Japan, so we couldn't take chances."
ReplyDeleteThat I would never do. If you had read any of my previous references to the internment, you would have known that.
@ Siarlys
ReplyDelete100's of people didn't have to post copies of anything. The investigators did their job.
Huma Abedin didn't receive any investigation. She is Hillary's aide and that is ok with them. That is wrong.
How do you know she wasn't investigated? All we know is that the lower-middle chattering classes are pronouncing that she wasn't. We could have talked for five years about various allegations that Findalis may or may not have been properly investigated, now matter how well they did their job. Incidentally, State isn't exactly the Air Force.
ReplyDeleteGary, I know you would never do that with regard to the Japanese, nor to Americans of African descent. That's why I made the comparison. You have 20/20 hindsight, but you are prepared to level arguments about Muslims that you would NEVER countenance about people characterized as a racial, religious or ethnic group 70 years ago, to unanimous ex post facto condemnation.
You can be such a liberal sometimes.