Two members of Congress accused of Muslim Brotherhood ties

tedcruzAmerican Thinker, by Carol Brown, June 29, 2016:

Covering the Senate hearings on Islamic terror, Tuesday’s HuffPo headline read: “Witness At Ted Cruz Hearing Accuses Congress’ Two Muslim Members Of Muslim Brotherhood Ties.” The teaser read: “This doesn’t normally happen on the Hill.” The teaser should have been: It’s about time.

I rarely venture over to the HuffPo, but I couldn’t resist reading their coverage:

In explosive testimony Tuesday, a witness before a Senate panel about Islamic terrorism accused the two Muslim members of Congress of having attended an event organized by the Muslim Brotherhood.

The charge was leveled by Chris Gaubatz, a “national security consultant” who has moonlighted as an undercover agitator of Muslim groups that he accuses of being terrorist outfits, and it was directed at Reps. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) and André Carson (D-Ind.). At the heart of his accusation is the attendance by those two members at a 2008 convention hosted by the Islamic Society of North America — a Muslim umbrella group, which Gaubatz claims is a front for the Muslim Brotherhood.

HuffPo was eager to smear Chris Gaubatz, whose impressive undercover work inside CAIR is chronicled in his book Muslim Mafia. (To learn more about him, The Clarion Project has a short interview, here.)  The Huffpo continues:

“I attended a convention in Columbus, Ohio, in 2008, organized by Muslim Brotherhood group, ISNA, and both the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons had recruitment and outreach booths,” Gaubatz said in his testimony. “Both Congressman Keith Ellison, MN, and Andre Carson, IN, spoke at the Muslim Brotherhood event.”

Allegations that Ellison and Carson are secret Muslim agents with extremist leanings are usually found among fringe groups online, often discussed in dire tones on poorly designed websites. Rarely, if ever, do such sentiments get read into congressional testimony, with the imprimatur that offers.

Wow, this is why, as a rule, I don’t read the HuffPo. But seriously, the excerpt noted above highlights how behind the curve we are regarding the Muslim Brotherhood. The MB should have been declared a terrorist organization ions ago. Instead, they have been operating through countless front groups that are legitimized and lauded by leftist politicians and the media. As a result, no red flags are raised about anyone affiliated with these groups.

Responsibility for this rare instance lies with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who oversaw the hearing as chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts and whose staff likely saw the testimonies of the witnesses.

Oh, well. Leave it to Ted Cruz to invite someone associated with “fringe groups” that operate online using “dire” tones on “poorly designed websites.”

An aide to Ellison confirmed that he did attend the 2008 ISNA convention. He’s gone to a few of the group’s conventions, in fact. Carson’s office didn’t return a request for comment. But news reports show that both he and Carson led a discussion at the 2008 convention on how to mobilize Muslims politically. President Barack Obama has addressed the group as well, though only via a video recording.

Mobilizing Muslims politically. Hmm. I’m sure that’s perfectly innocent, right? And who can forget Obama’s video recording where he praised ISNA, Muslims, the fabulous halal food in his hometown of Chicago? (Warning: Don’t look in his eyes for too long.)

Critics of ISNA have insisted that these politicians have either turned a blind eye to — or explicitly embraced — the group’s affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood, an affiliation that is based on ties some of the founding ISNA members have allegedly had to the hard-line religious organization. ISNA has long insisted that no such connection has ever existed.

“I can definitely tell you we are not Muslim Brotherhood. We are not affiliated with them at all and never were,” said Faryal Khatri, an official with ISNA. “That much I can reassure you.”

Well if an ISNA official has gone on record to assure everyone that the organization is not affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood in any way, that’s good enough for me! Mr. Khatri wouldn’t lie, would he?

ISNA is not the only group targeted by Gaubatz. In 2009, he told Talking Points Memo that he obtained an internship with the Council on American-Islamic Relations as part of an effort to secretly collect evidence against the group to be used in a book written by his father. The book, “Muslim Mafia,” alleged that CAIR, a Muslim advocacy group that works to combat Islamophobia, was a front for the Muslim Brotherhood.

In case there is any confusion, CAIR is a front group for the MB. Now if we could all stay focused on facts such as these, we might actually get somewhere.

And to those who think I might be a “fringe” person using a “dire” tone (surely AT isn’t one of those “poorly designed websites” to which HuffPo referred), I’m not just making this up. The MB told us who their front groups were in their Explanatory Memorandum during the Holy Land Foundation trial. Here’s the list. ISNA’s right on top.

Cruz’s office did not respond to a request for comment on Gaubatz’s allegations against Ellison and Carson or whether it had given either member a chance to respond. But the senator has displayed a tolerance for these kinds of conspiracy theories in the past.

Oh my goodness! I am kicking myself for reading through the entire HuffPo piece. “Conspiracy theories?” Anyone who thinks any of this is a conspiracy theory is on the fringe of reality. Dire, desperate, and dumb. (Whether they are affiliated with a poorly designed web site, or not, I couldn’t say.)

Before he suspended his presidential campaign, Cruz appointed known Islamophobe Frank Gaffney to his team of national security advisers. Gaffney, now head of the Center for Security Policy, has objected to Ellison and Carson serving on the House Intelligence Committee because he believes their Muslim faith could compel them to leak information to the Muslim Brotherhood. He has also accused Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin, and conservative heavyweights Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan of being closeted Muslim Brotherhood members.

When asked about his controversial selection, Cruz defended Gaffney as a “serious thinker” focused on “fighting jihadism across the globe.”

Frank Gaffney is a tireless warrior trying to inform the idiot masses on the looming threat before us. His work, and the work of his colleagues who sound the alarm day in and day out might one day save the lives of those who smear him as aall that they do n “Islamaphobe” (a fabricated word that has no actual meaning).

God bless Ted Cruz, Frank Gaffney, and everyone on the front lines of this fight of the ages.


And God bless David Reaboi and the folks at and for all that they do to defend freedom! Everyone should go back and see the updates in their masterful coverage of Ted Cruz’s Willful Blindness hearing featuring running commentary and video clips!

The Senate Judiciary Committee is questioning Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson right now – Livestream

David Reaboi rips into the Huff Po’s propaganda:

You’ll Never Guess How CAIR’s New Report Defines ‘Islamophobia’


It’s is so far-out, steeped in campus Marxist radicalism and Critical Theory jargon, that it must be read to be believed.

CounterJihad, by Bruce Cornibe, June 22, 2016:

On the heels of the deadly jihadist attack in Orlando that killed 49, the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)– with the help of the UC Berkeley Center for Race and Gender– released a national strategy report on fighting Islamophobia in 2016. The report’s definition of Islamophobia is so far-out, so steeped in campus Marxist radicalism and Critical Theory jargon, that it actually overshadows the errors in the rest of the 140-page document.  It must be read to be believed:

Islamophobia is a contrived fear or prejudice fomented by the existing Eurocentric and Orientalist global power structure. It is directed at a perceived or real Muslim threat through the maintenance and extension of existing disparities in economic, political, social, and cultural relations, while rationalizing the necessity to deploy violence as a tool to achieve “civilizational rehab” of the target communities (Muslim or otherwise). Islamophobia reintroduces and reaffirms a global racial structure through which resource distribution disparities are maintained and extended.

It’s an indication that, for Islamists, talk of Islamophobia is not aimed at helping people who have been unjustly harassed or discriminated against because of their Islamic identities, but a deliberate attempt to silence any kind of criticism of the concrete laws that constitute Islam. CAIR allowed the Center for Race and Gender to define “Islamophobia”– certainly an unusual thing for a concept as closely tied to an organization’s mission as CAIR’s. The Islamist pressure group didn’t offer a competing definition, so we can only assume that its inclusion in the report amounts to an acceptance or ratification.

Today, Texas-based national security and political warfare analyst David Reaboi dissected their definition of Islamophobia on Twitter (@DaveReaboi).

In the definition, there’s an intentional effort to turn ‘Islamophobia’ into a race issue (ex. “prejudice fomented by the existing Eurocentric and Orientalist global power structure” and “Islamophobia reintroduces and reaffirms a global racial structure”) rather than about the doctrine of Islam. This is done because CAIR finds it easier to stigmatize its opposition rather than discussing actual ideas. CAIR even alludes to this out in a section labeled “Lessons from the Klan” where it talks about how the “progressive erosion of the Klan’s social acceptability serves as a model for CAIR’s strategy toward contemporary Islamophobic groups.” So, essentially a group that wants to discuss the threat of violent jihad could get branded as racist, comparable with the KKK. How moronic right? It’s interesting their definition of ‘Islamophobia’ includes a “real Muslim threat” when phobias typically deal with irrational fears. It’s another way to discredit even justifiable reasons to hold this particular ‘phobia.’

CAIR’s strategy is changing from an “opposition-centric” focus which concentrates on “anti-Islam” groups to a more “environment-centric” approach which tries to get at the “societal acceptance of Islamophobic sentiment.” The stated goal of the strategy is to come to “a shared American understanding of Islam in which being Muslim carries a positive connotation and Islam has an equal place among many faiths in America’s pluralistic society.” However, we know from disclosed documents the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates such as CAIR, who put together this report, are seeking a “grand jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated” (An Explanatory Memorandum: On the General Strategic Goal for the Group). This does not sound like a group who just wants Islam to have “an equal place among many faiths in America’s pluralistic society[,]” but a group who wants to undermine our U.S. Constitution and its governing laws to the dictates of Islamic law.

One of CAIR’s main tactics for trying to persuade the public that ‘Islamophobia’ is on the rise is to talk about the topic of hate crimes against Muslims. This subject was brought up in section six of the national strategy report. Not to diminish the individuals who are unjustly targeted for their Islamic faith, but CAIR exaggerates the prevalence of hate crimes against Muslims. For instance, CAIR cited a Washington Post article which concludes hate crimes against Muslims are “roughly five times higher than the pre-9/11 rate.” The 2015 article based upon FBI stats also says anti-Muslim crimes comprise “…about 13 percent of religiously-motivated hate crimes, and 2 percent of all hate crimes in general[,]”while “…Jews are consistently targeted for their faith more often than members of any other religious group, and that anti-Semitic crimes accounted for roughly 60 percent of religious hate crimes…” That puts the number of anti-Muslim hate crimes in perspective. It should also benoted that “…religiously motivated murders are rare. too. There are no such killings listed in the FBI’s database for 2013. Most hate crimes involve assault, intimidation or vandalism.” It’s important to mention that there’s a long list of alleged anti-Muslim hate crimes which have been debunked as false, such as:

Dec. 27, 2014 update: …Immediately after vandals attacked the Islamic Cultural Center of Fresno on Christmas Day, Police Chief Jerry Dyer labeled it a “hate crime.” But the suspect arrested turns out to be Asif Mohammad Khan, 28, a Muslim who had attended the mosque and acted out in response to being bullied by mosque members.

Dec. 30, 2015 update: A similar incident took place in Houston: CAIR called for investigation into “a possible bias motive” for a fire on Christmas Day at a storefront mosque in Savoy Plaza in the southwest part of the city, insinuating Donald Trump was responsible for the arson. In fact, surveillance tapes showed, the perpetrator was a Muslim who regularly attended the mosque, one Gary Nathaniel Moore, 37, who was promptly arrested.

What CAIR wants to do is make anti-Muslim sentiment look like a bigger problem than the actual threat of terrorism committed in the name of Islam. This tactic draws attention away from radical Islam. The shows over 28,600 fatal terror attacks since 9/11 conducted by Islamic terrorists. Just the number of terror attacks committed in the name of Islam since the start of Ramadan 2016 (as of Day 16) is over 120 attacks, leaving over 930 dead. One can see radical Islam poses a far more significant threat than ‘Islamophobia,’ especially for Americans in the wake of the San Bernardino and Orlando shootings.

CAIR’s shift in strategy entails attacking ‘Islamophobia’ in a way that changes the alleged anti-Muslim environment rather than just counter one’s opposition. We have seen the deceptive nature behind CAIR’s strategy and how they not only propagate the narrative of widespread ‘Islamophobia,’ but also shift the focus from Islamic terrorism to Muslim victimization. One way is appealing to hate crime statistics, but when taken into context, actually hurt their point by showing anti-Jewish hate as a much greater problem in the U.S. than anti-Muslim hate. Even if anti-Muslim hate crimes were the highest of any religious group, why should we take such statistics at face value from a Muslim Brotherhood affiliate (CAIR) who is listed as a terrorist organization by the UAE?

CAIR is not an organization to trust; it doesn’t represent moderate Muslims.


Also see:

San Bernardino Terrorist Followed Brotherhood-Linked Groups on Twitter

Center for Security Policy, by David Reaboi, Dec. 3, 2015:

On Twitter, San Bernardino terrorist Syed Rizwan Farook followed several accounts associated with Muslim Brotherhood, including the official accounts of Free Syrian Army and the Syrian Revolution Network.

PJMedia’s Patrick Poole found that, while Farook never seemed to tweet from this account, several of the 11 accounts he followed were institutional Twitter accounts with ties to large Islamic organizations in America which have controversial histories and ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and other Islamist movements.

It is significant that Farook followed what many in American media would call “mainstream” Islamic organizations, rather than some of the more notorious ISIS-affiliated social media feeds. While these groups have the patina of respectability and often condemn terrorist events in the United States, many rationalize terrorism abroad as legitimate resistance or have, as their goal, the implementation of Islamic law in America.

Screen Shot 2015-12-03 at 1.58.43 PM

WhyIslam @whyislam is an account run by the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), “Dedicated to Clearing Misconceptions, Answering Questions, and Providing Free Material About Islam.” ICNA is an Islamist organization with close ties to the Pakistani extremist Pakistani group Jamaat-e-Islami, which advocates the Islamization of all governments, and can be considered a Subcontinent Muslim Brotherhood. A 2000 press release by the group claimed that, “Jamaat e-Islami’s supporters have an organization in America known as ICNA” and that, “Islam must be translated into political dominance.” ICNA’s charter is just as explicit about its goal, the “establishment of the Islamic system of life” in the world, “whether it pertains to beliefs, rituals and morals or to economic, social or political spheres.” It’s not surprising that, rather than follow the comparatively larger Islamic Society of North America, Pakistani-American Farook followed the Islamic Circle of North America, which traces its organizational and intellectual lineage to the subcontinent.

Muslim American Society @mas_national is a Kansas-based Islamist group very much in the constellation of Muslim Brotherhood entities. Former MAS Secretary General Shaker Elsayed told the Chicago Tribune in 2004 that the organization was founded by the Muslim Brotherhood. MAS has been described as “a major component” of the “Wahhabi Lobby,” Gulf-funded which has influenced American Islam for decades.

CAIR National @CAIRNational is the Council on American-Islamic Relations, founded in 1994 by Omar Ahmad and Nihad Awad, two former employees of the now-shuttered Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood front group, the Islamic Association for Palestine. CAIR has ties to violent jihad as well. Daniel Pipes writes that, “At least seven board members or staff at CAIR have been arrested, denied entry to the U.S., or were indicted on or pled guilty to (or were convicted of) terrorist charges: Siraj Wahhaj, Bassem Khafagi, Randall (“Ismail”) Royer, Ghassan Elashi, Rabih Haddad, Muthanna Al-Hanooti, and Nabil Sadoun.”

CAIR San Francisco Bay Area @CAIRSFBA The Muslim Brotherhood has long had an active presence in the Bay Area, going back to a pre-9/11 fund-raising visit by al Qaeda’s Ayman al-Zawahiri in several Silicon Valley mosques. CAIR’s Bay Area branch also has a long record of radicalism. The group—which has honored convicted terror leaders like Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Sami al-Arian—released a poster in 2011 that discouraged Muslims from reporting on jihadists in their communities, telling them, “Build a Wall of Resistance; Don’t Talk to the FBI.”

Free Syrian Army @FreeSyrianArmy The Muslim Brotherhood played an early role in the formation of the Free Syrian Army, utilizing in particular the MB’s close relationship with Turkey.  The Brotherhood dominated the political opposition Syrian National Council, and was able to force the election of Texas-based IT professional, and former CAIR member Ghassan Hitto to the position of prime minster, reportedly after U.S. pressure encouraged anti-Brotherhood members to abstain in the vote.  Hitto himself would be ousted in favor of a Saudi-backed candidate. The FSA coordinated with the Syrian National Council from September 2011 until a September 2013 when a pull out by Islamist militias, some with links to Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood collapsed cooperation with the SNC.

Syrian Revolution Network @RevolutionSyria is a Brotherhood-affiliated social media presence that, as Hassan Hassan described in a 2013 article in Foreign Policy, “decides the names for Friday’s protests” tied to the Syrian revolution. The SRN has been called one of several Muslim Brotherhood fronts, and has an active Facebook page.

Obama Officials Trained To Focus On Behavior, Not Religion Or Ideology

Syrian refugees Getty Images/Anadolu Agency

Syrian refugees Getty Images/Anadolu Agency

Daily Caller, by Kerry Picket, Nov. 19, 2015:

Obama administration counter-terrorism officials have trained domestic Homeland Security law enforcement officers to focus on the behavior of people entering the United States, rather than their political, ideological or religious background.

The training directives from top Homeland Security officials raise questions about the effectiveness of the screening process for Syrian refugees.

Officials process a refugee’s biographic information such as name and date of birth, along with biometric data like fingerprints. This information is crosschecked over different U.S. databases and agencies.

U.S. officials overseas then conduct a series of in-person interviews in the next phase. The interviews are done by Department of Homeland Security officers who are trained to question refugee applicants and examine the credibility of their responses.

But that training requires that the officials collect intelligence based on “behavioral indicators” while downplaying “religious affiliation.”

DHS’s civil rights division released a “Countering Violent Extremism Training”best practices document for federal, state, and local government and law enforcement officials in October 2011.

The document calls for training programs that are not “overbroad, equating an entire religion, nation, region, or culture with evil or violence, For example, it is incorrect and damaging to assert that all Muslims have terrorist ties.”

Instead, the training encourages to “ensure that it uses examples to demonstrate that terrorists span ethnicity, race, gender, and religion.”

Since 2012, the FBI’s guiding principles training manual in the Touchstone Document has stated:

Training must emphasize that no investigative or intelligence collection activity may be based solely on race, ethnicity, national origin, or religious affiliation.  Specifically, training must focus on behavioral indicators that have a potential nexus to terrorist or criminal activity, while making clear that religious expression, protest activity, and the espousing of political or ideological beliefs are constitutionally protected activities that must not be equated with terrorism or criminality absent other indicia of such offenses.

“On September 28, 2011, I issued a memorandum to all heads of components and United States Attorneys to ‘carefully review all training material and presentations provided by their personnel, particularly training related to combating terrorism, countering violent extremism, and other training that may relate to ongoing outreach efforts in Arab, Muslim, Sikh, South Asian
and other communities,’” Deputy Attorney General James Cole wrote in a memorandum to all heads of components and United States Attorneys March 2012.

Cole continued, “Carefully review all training material and presentations provided by their personnel, particularly training related to combating terrorism, countering violent extremism, and other training that may relate to ongoing outreach efforts in Arab, Muslim, Sikh, South Asian and other communities.”

The FBI training manual principles extends to other members of federal law enforcement, including those who guard the nation’s borders and ports of entry.

“The FBI 2012 Guiding Principles Touchstone Document was just one in series of official policy directives that gradually, but severely, restricted the efforts of federal law enforcement officers to accurately and effectively assess whether an individual entering the county had any potential nexus to terrorist or criminal activity,” a government source familiar with national security told The Daily Caller.

“These gradual but severe restrictions were coupled with a simultaneous reduction in accurate, fact-based training to address the nature of the threat we face, leaving us inadequately prepared for the challenges we face today.”

The same year, the FBI’s counter-terrorism lexicon, following a purge of terminology of past years, deleted all references to “al-Qaida,” “Muslim Brotherhood,” or “jihad.”

The Justice Department continued to alter its training policy in 2012. In March of that year, Deputy Attorney General Cole sent another memorandum to the heads of components and United States Attorneys in regards to “training guiding principles.” The memo stated in part:

Training must be consistent with the Constitution and Department values. Training must promote, and never undermine, our fundamental principles of equal justice and opportunity for all, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and our other core national values. Trainings must not disparage groups or individuals based on their race, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, economic condition, political affiliation or other similar characteristics.

“The 2012 FBI directive to remove religious and political motivations from investigations and screening came at a time when the Obama administration was busy purging anything they believed might reflect poorly on Muslims, regardless of how it effected our national security,” national security consultant David Reaboi told The Daily Caller.

Reaboi explained, “Since then — and now, presumably, in screening refugees, investigators are trained not to ask about all the key identifiers that would allow them to spot Islamic terrorists or other Islamists who want to do harm to America. Because ISIS, al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood understand themselves in precisely those ways, they’re prevented from asking anything meaningful beyond, ‘are you a terrorist?’”

“‘Are you a member of the Muslim Brotherhood? What school of Islamic law do you follow? Where do you go to mosque? Do you believe someone who insults Islam deserves to be killed? Would you like to make America an Islamic country?’ All of these questions — the most important ones — are off-limits,” Reaboi said.

Convicted Terror Supporter Attends Congressional Briefing

Sami al-ArianBy :

A convicted terrorist supporter who is currently under house arrest attended a Capitol Hill briefing hosted by a pro-Muslim Brotherhood group in a congressional office building earlier this month, according to reports.

Sami Al-Arian, a former engineering professor at the University of South Florida, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to aid the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) in 2006. He has been under house detention in Northern Virginia since 2008 for refusing to testify in a subsequent terror financing trial.

Al-Arian admitted in the plea agreement to having worked with the PIJ and other groups from the 1980s to the 1990s. He said he helped assist the PIJ after it was officially designated as a terrorist organization in 1995.

Al-Arian showed up at the briefing at the Cannon House Office Building in Washington, D.C., on Nov. 5, the Investigative Project on Terrorism reported. A group called the Egypt Freedom Foundation hosted the event.

The Egypt Freedom Foundation recently helped organize an event at Georgetown University that featured a member of Egypt’s Nazi Party, Ramy Jan, the Free Beacon reported last month.

Al-Arian’s house detention was modified last January, according to a court order, allowing him to leave his home during non-curfew hours with a monitoring device.

Briefing rooms in the Cannon House Office Building are available for public events, but a member of Congress must reserve them.

A spokesperson for Rep. Andre Carson (D., Ind.) confirmed to the Free Beacon that his office reserved the room where the event was held, but said Carson was not aware of Al-Arian’s appearance.

“He didn’t really know anything about the room being booked, or who was going to show up at this thing,” said spokesperson Lauren Burke. “He wasn’t there, nor was any staff there. We didn’t know that this person was going to show up.”

The Department of Justice declined to provide a comment.

An attorney for Al-Arian and his advocacy group did not respond to request for comment.

The Center for Security Policy’s David Reaboi contrasted the incident to terror cleric Anwar al-Awlaki’s now-infamous Capitol Hill prayer sessions prior to his becoming al Qaeda’s top spokesman.

“When Anwar al-Awlaki led prayers at the Capitol, he wasn’t yet known to be a terrorist. Sami Al-Arian, on the other hand, has been convicted for his role in directing and funding Palestinian Islamic Jihad,” Reaboi said.

“In a time when Homeland Security advisers like Mohamed Elibiary praise the Muslim Brotherhood daily on Twitter, a convicted terrorist like Al-Arian visiting Capitol Hill seems almost positively quaint. But it should still be an outrage.”

Read more at Free Beacon

CAIR’s Irony Deficit

download (47)by IPT News:

David Reaboi: Who’s Arming Syrian Jihadist Groups?


David Reaboi, Vice President for Strategic Communications at the Center for Security Policy, appeared on to discuss the increasingly deadly weapons Syrian jihadist groups are using during the Civil War there. He notes the latest news about the sophisticated and expensive AS50 sniper rifle (or a copy) in the hands of a Hamas-run rebel militia called the Descendants of the Prophet Brigade, and argues against the US intervening in the conflict. Despite the heartbreaking casualties of civil war, now in its second year, there is no good outcome for the United States.

David raised some important points during the interview:

  • Recent NYT reporting reveals Qatar and Saudi money is being used to send arms into Syria from Croatia possibly with the cooperation of the CIA
  • The Independent Commission (ARB – Accountability Review Board) criticized the State Department for calling in the February 17th Martyrs Brigade for security at the consulate in Benghazi.
  • David says he doesn’t trust our intelligence bureaucracy to know who the good guys and the bad guys are because they have removed the study of ideology from the equation. “So once you take out what these guys actually believe, all you’re left with is competing personalities, and that doesn’t tell you very much about where they want to go in the long run.”
  • It is the position of the Center For Security Policy that the United States should not become involved in the Syrian war because we would be forced to support “the bad guys”. The choice being discussed in Washington is between “moderate” Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood versus more militant Salafi or al-Qaeda al-Nusra front type groups. There is no good outcome.



Egyptian scholar: US pushing for Brotherhood victory

OBy David Reaboi:

Middle East analyst Walid Phares sends along the translation of an Arabic aricle in el Watan, in which Egyptian scholar Ahmad Abed Rabbo has some provocative comments:

An el Watan article reported that US ambassador to Egypt Ann Paterson is meeting all political parties in Egypt to convince them to accept the coming legislative elections rushed by the Muslim Brotherhood. Ahmad Abed Rabbo, an Egyptian scholar said the US wants the Brotherhood to win the coming elections. They want to consolidate the Ikhwan’s rule

ومن جانبه، اعتبر أستاذ العلوم السياسية الدكتور أحمد عبدربه، أن اللقاءات التي تجريها السفيرة الأمريكية نوعا من جمع المعلومات من ناحية ومن ناحية أخرى فهم كافة الأطراف السياسية. وأضاف أنه من صالح الولايات المتحدة إجراء الانتخابات البرلمانية وعدم المقاطعة لأنها تراهن على دعم نظام الإخوان لأخرة قطرة ونجاحه في العملية الديمقراطية.

An observer in Washington DC said “the Obama Administration is pressuring the seculars in Egypt to accept the early elections as devised by Morsi, so that the Brotherhood would win them. The Administration is now meddling in Egyptian politics on the side of the Islamists, using its political influence, its foriegn aid and the fact that there is no one in Washington opposing the Administration in its pro-Ikhwan stance, so far.”

The Obama administration’s view of the Middle East can certainly be considered pro-Muslim Brotherhood– and it hasn’t been the first time Egyptians themselves have noticed. Maybe the New York Times will, once again, blame Frank Gaffney for anti-Obama sentiment by Copts and moderate Muslims in Egypt.

Barry Rubin this week wrote the must-read piece on how their view of the region (and of potential ‘moderation’ of Islamist forces more generally) couldn’t be more disastrously wrong. He points out that, in order to arrive at the conclusion that Islamist groups will moderate once they’ve taken hold of the levers of power,  the administration– from the president to highly influential advisers like John Brennan– have had to ignore the most crucial facts about these groups:

Here is an important principle in studying the politics of this contemporary era: violence (including terrorism) is not the main measure of radicalism. Instead, the way to judge the extremism of a group is the organization’s ideology, goals, and seriousness in seeking total victory. Strategic and tactical flexibility should be taken into account, but do not mitigate the threat posed by the objective toward which any political force is striving.