Recent Posts

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Is Huma Abedin the New Alger Hiss?

Jeffrey Lord
Washington GOP Establishment hits Bachmann for fighting Muslim Brotherhood.

Is Huma Abedin the new Alger Hiss?

Is Huma Abedin to the Muslim Brotherhood what Alger Hiss was to the Soviet Union?

Why are Republican Senator John McCain, Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rodgers (R-MI) acting in the growing Abedin controversy as Washington Establishment Democrats of the 1940s did in the Hiss episode? Which is to say, writing off the dangers of a foreign enemy whose goal is to infiltrate the U.S. government -- because, well, the people in question are part of the Washington Establishment?

And last but certainly not least, why is the Republican Establishment pursuing a losing strategy in the war against Islamic radicalism? Is it returning to the losing strategy it pursued during the Cold War -- a strategy that was overturned over Establishment opposition by Ronald Reagan's victorious "we win, they lose" strategy?

These questions arise because of McCain's vehement attack on Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann. Bachmann, along with four other conservative House members (Louis Gohmert of Texas, Trent Franks of Arizona, Thomas Rooney of Florida and Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia), has written a series of hotly controversial letters.

What did Bachmann and the others do to infuriate McCain? And draw a rebuke from Boehner and Rodgers?

The five House members wrote letters to the Inspector Generals of the Departments of State, Justice, Defense, and Homeland Security -- along with a fifth to the IG in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

Asking?

Asking that the recipients take seriously the possibility that the Muslim Brotherhood is becoming a security threat within the government of the United States itself.

The congressional group cited chapter and verse to back up their concerns. This included the reference in the State Department letter to Ms. Abedin, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's deputy chief of staff. As the letters were individualized to five different departments, Abedin was mentioned only in the State Department letter, with other people or issues mentioned as relevant to the respective department receiving each individual letters. So Abedin was most certainly not alone.

So why all the fuss from McCain and the others that focused on Huma? After all, the government itself has reported that an unwillingness to recognize the presence of Islamic extremism in the military is exactly what caused the Ft. Hood shootings by Maj. Nidal Hasan, a man whose sympathies with Islamic extremism was well-known but fatefully ignored by his superiors. What is so disreputable about raising the very same questions about Ms. Abedin, her security clearances, and the Muslim Brotherhood?

There are two serious points at issue here. Let's start with the Washington Establishment and Huma Abedin. Why all the fuss over the mention of Huma?

Because Ms. Abedin's prominence comes both because of her position in the State Department -- and her political connections through her husband.

Ms. Abedin, if known at all outside the corridors of Washington and Establishment power, is prominent because of her marriage to now-former New York Congressman Anthony Weiner. Yes, that Anthony Weiner, the Democrat who departed the House in haste when it became clear that was he was busy texting pictures of his… uh… nether regions to various women.

But as Bachmann and company point out, Ms. Abedin plays a much more serious role in her own job as a senior aide to Secretary Clinton. (Abedin also worked in the Clinton White House as well.)

No comments: