by David Horowitz
On Saturday morning, Feb. 12, I gave a speech at CPAC warning of the dangers posed by the infiltration of the conservative movement by the Muslim Brotherhood in the person of Suhail Khan and his sponsor Grover Norquist. Both Khan and Norquist are board members of the American Conservative Union, and both spoke at CPAC. The facts about Norquist and Khan which I discussed in my speech were taken from an elaborate dossier presented to the board of the American Conservative Union and posted on Frontpagemag.com.
Yesterday morning SLATE, which is published by the Washington Post, rose to the defense of Khan. This was reminiscent of the past when liberals defended the Soviet spy Alger Hiss and attacked conservatives like Richard Nixon who were attempting to expose Hiss — a parallel I mentioned in my speech.
Slate’s defense of Khan is typical of the reactions of the soft left — compulsively mislabeled “liberals” throughout the (also mislabeled) “war on terror.” When I organized Islamo-Fascism campus weeks on 100 college campuses two years ago my efforts were savagely attacked by such leading lights of the (also mislabled) democratic left as Joshua Micah Marshall, who produced a satiric video ridiculing my efforts. I am about to launch a campaign this spring to oppose the “Israel Apartheid” weeks organized by the Muslim Brotherhood through its campus front, the Muslim Students Association. I am sure the liberal chorus will be out there defending the genocidal efforts of the Left as well.
Suhail Khan’s defense against the detailed charges against him, only a few of which I was able to mention in my 15 minute speech, is as disingenuous and lame as it has been since the first of these were leveled against him by Frank Gaffney in Frontpagemag.com several years ago.
As in all of Khan’s defenses, he offers no specifics in his statement in Slate and the claims that he does make are false — e.g., I was never a communist, I despised Saul Alinsky when I was on the left and never read his book, and neither Gaffney nor I ever said he he was a member of al-Qaeda. What we said was that in 1995 his father Mahboob Khan held a fund-raiser at a the mosque he founded for Ayaman Zawahiri, the number two man in al-Qaeda. Suhail called me to deny that his father was anything more than a member of the mosque and said he couldn’t remember any fund-raiser for Zawahiri. So I emailed Suhail the Washington Post story which said that Mahboob Khan was a founder of the mosque and had held a fund-raiser for Zawahiri at the mosque in 1995 and asked him to respond. I haven’t heard from him since.
In my speech I made the specific charge that Suhail Khan was a protege of his father and of the convicted terrorist Abdurahman Alamoudi. (Readers can view the video evidence here.) I also charged tht Suhail Khan, along with his patron Grover Norquist, was instrumental in getting President Bush to agree to ban the use of secret evidence in trials of terrorists. This was a campaign launched by the terrorist Sami al-Arian (whose brother, also a member of Palestine Islamic Jihad, was deported on the strength of secret evidence.) Grover Norquist and Suhail used their influence to get al-Arian a face-to-face with George W. Bush who then attacked the use of secret evidence in his campaign and was about to implement al-Arian’s proposed ban when 9/11 took place. Al-Arian who, as the head of PIJ in North America, and its chief financier was responsible for the suicide murders of over 100 people in the Middle East,was also supported in this campaign by the ACLU, The Nation magazine and the American Left. (The ACLU was also one of his chief defenders when he was indicted for terrorist activities and eventually deported.) Suhail Khan has no response to these (or any other) facts because they are true.
David Horowitz
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment