A couple of days ago, I posted (here) about the Obama administration’s decision to engage in official communications with the Muslim Brotherhood. In the course of recounting some of the administration’s relevant history, I wrote that “Los Angeles Deputy Mayor Arif Alikhan (who has referred to Hezbollah as a “liberation movement”) was named assistant secretary for policy development at Obama’s Homeland Security Department.”
Mr. Alikhan has responded as follows:
Mr. McCarthy:
Your allegation in this article that I have “referred to Hezbollah as a ‘liberation movement’” is absolutely false. I have never stated, nor do I believe, that Hezbollah is a liberation movement. It is a terrorist organization and I have never made any statement to the contrary. In fact, I have spent the vast majority of my professional career as a public servant dedicated to protecting the United States from the harm that criminal and terrorist organizations, such as Hezbollah, seek to inflict on our country. I respectfully request that you retract this gross inaccuracy in your article.
Sincerely,
Arif Alikhan
In referring to Mr. Alikhan, my post linked to an article in Human Events by Robert Spencer. Robert, who is a careful scholar and analyst, had written:
[I]n April 2009, Obama appointed Arif Alikhan, the deputy mayor of Los Angeles, as assistant secretary for policy development at the Department of Homeland Security. Just two weeks before he received this appointment, Alikhan (who once called the jihad terror group Hezbollah a “liberation movement”) participated in a fund-raiser for the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).
Robert is the director of Jihad Watch. There, on November 22, 2009, he posted an item about Mr. Alikhan, in which he excerpted a report, posted the same date, “by Judicial Watch via Right Side News,” which included the following:
Earlier this year President Obama appointed Arif Alikhan to be the nation’s Assistant Secretary for Policy Development at the Department of Homeland Security and Kareem Shora to the agency’s influential advisory council, which provides recommendations and advice directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Alikhan, who leads a Homeland Security team responsible for developing policy issues to secure the country against terrorism, has referred to the renowned terrorist organization Hezbollah as a “liberation movement” and was responsible for killing a Los Angeles Police project that monitored terrorist activities in the city’s notoriously radical mosques. The defunct Muslim terror tracking plan was designed to identify hotbeds of extremism in an area where several locals offered the September 11 hijackers support.
The Judicial Watch report relies on a Canada Free Press post, dated November 11, 2009, by a writer named Alan Caruba, who discussed Mr. Alikhan’s appointment to the DHS post, and stated:
In his new job, Alikhan will be the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Policy Development. In his former job, he was in charge of public safety for the city and observers noted that he was responsible for derailing the LA Police Department’s plan to monitor activities and individuals within the Muslim community.
Vincent Gioia, a retired patent attorney, living in Palm Desert, California, first called this to public attention in late September on his blog. Gioia noted that Los Angeles is home to “numerous radical mosques” and where “some of the 9/11 hijackers had received support from local residents. “Alikhan is strongly anti-Israel; he has referred to the terrorist organization Hezbollah as a ‘liberation movement’” despite the fact that is on the U.S. official terrorist list.
So the quote from Mr. Gioia seems to be the root of various reports which, for two years, have asserted that Mr. Alikhan called Hezbollah a “liberation movement.” If Mr. Alikhan sought a correction of any of these reports from any of these publications, it is not apparent.
Moreover, Mr. Alikhan is variously reported to have had some sort of relationship with the Muslim Public Affairs Council. (Besides the above, see this from the Investigative Project on Terrorism and this from Jihad Watch.) MPAC’s leaders have notoriously referred to Hezbollah as a liberation movement and sought to justify Hezbollah’s 1983 Beirut bombing against the U.S. marines and navy as a “military operation” rather than a terrorist attack. I do not know the nature of Mr. Alikhan’s relationship with MPAC, but if he wants people to understand he regards Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, he ought to choose different company.
That aside, though, and the two years of reports notwithstanding, I am delighted to be able to report that Arif Alikhan has publicly, clearly and unequivocally called Hezbollah exactly what it is, a terrorist organization. I applaud him for doing so, and I wish more American Muslim leaders would follow his lead on that score.
According to Islamists it is OK to lie to further Jihad. Do I believe this guy said Hezbollah is a "liberation movement"? Yes. Do I believe his denials? No.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou know he's an Islamist because he called Hezbollah a liberation movement, and you know he called Hezbollah a liberation movement because he's an Islamist. See a problem here?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, it's curious that there is no original source for the alleged quotation. Gioia made this claim in a post entitled "Purported non Muslim President Obama makes high level Muslim appointment to DHS," but he didn't provide any of the usual details; he didn't where Alikhan said it, or when, or to whom, and so on.
The trouble with tiredturtle's approach is that it can be used to substantiate any allegation whatsoever, no matter how baseless or wild.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAgreed. There is no original attribution for the quotation, even in the earliest secondary source.
Also, his association with MPAC needs to be clearly laid out and sourced if it is going to be used as a way to attack his credibility.
If we are going to assert that someone is an apologist for terrorism (or worse), we need to be able to actually prove it, otherwise the charge will lose its force over time (kinda like the Left with racism...).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think the comparison to accusations of racism is a good one. Often, when people are accused of racism, they point to their history of working with people of other races, their support for affirmative action or whatever, and so forth, only to have this evidence dismissed as "camouflage." Of course it *could* be, but in the absence of other evidence, you can't conclude that it is. Otherwise, a mere accusation is automatically damning, and nobody can ever acquit themselves of the charge.
It's a bit peculiar to see McCarthy pursuing this line of reasoning--I have to presume that, on some level, he knows better.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHaving tried to run down the source of the quote to Mr.Alikhan himself, and failed to come up with it, I would have preferred a graceful retraction from Mr. McCarthy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePretty sure that's what he just did. The light of day helps keep the pressure on, even if tiredturtle is absolutely right.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn which sentence of McCarthy's do you see a retraction of the original claim?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCheck out the Canada Free Press web page. It has a lot of pro-birther articles. The Canada Free Press is not a reliable secondary source.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou miss the point badly. The Free Press was the only site in this chain that didn't screw up the facts.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat facts? That's the problem; there is no hard evidence here.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLook, Mr. McCarthy has tracked down the 'quote' to a single blogger, who lists no attribution. I consider that an unreliable source.
Mr. McCarthy, whom I greatly admire, posts Mr. Alikhan's denial of the 'quote', including Mr. Alikhan's opinion of Hezbollah.
Mr. McCarthy has done the proper thing. Now it is up to the rest of us to judge Mr. Alikhan's credibility. Given Mr. McCarthy's penultimate paragraph, and other evidence over the years of the Koranic encouragement of lying to infidels in the furtherance of jihad, I tend to side with tiredturtle.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMcCarthy has wonderfully demonstrated how misinformation festers in the when bad writers play at journalism like its a game of telephone.
I'd like to think that, having been embarrassed, McCarthy will be more careful with his attributions from now on. But I'm not optimistic, as his implicit defense is that he was citing a "careful scholar and analyst," a scholar who apparently sources his research off things he's seen written down on Right Side News.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@redfate: Quite. McCarthy says that Robert Spencer is a "careful scholar and analyst," and indeed much of his argument seems to rest on this claim. He doesn't seem to realize that that claim is vitiated by the evidence he goes on to present--specifically, if Spencer really were careful, he wouldn't've sourced a quotation in this way.
I'm not sure how someone--particularly a former prosecutor!--can fail to recognize this, but, well, there it is.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTypical Andrew McCarthy. Shoot first, ask questions later. As an attorney, he should know better.
LOL. My captcha was "jump the gun."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOr....we could be getting a dose of Islamic "Taqqiya" and are being lied to to further the usual Islamic nonsense.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe fact that a person like this is developing policies for Homeland Security explains why old women have to remove their diapers at checkpoints while avowed jihadist organizations are free to raise money and influence public policy. A true fifth column has arisen in this country and is proceeding according to the well laid plans of the Muslim Brotherhood to infiltrate our institutions and gain power within the system.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Redfate @Rasputtin @Robb @Lorraine -- your points are correct. Credit to Mr. McCarthy for running down the source and posting. However, Mr. McCarthy's post is an very ungracious and unsympathetic retraction. Although the retraction yields to the facts (there is no credible source)it attempts to formulate an acceptable excuse by making the weak and sneaky attribution ("various reports", "some sort of association") of association with MPAC. IMO, undignified and lacking in character.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAndrew:
"If Mr. Alikhan sought a correction of any of these reports from any of these publications, it is not apparent."
Really? Some nobody on the internet quotes something that gets quoted by some other nobody on the internet that gets quoted by some other nobody on the internet that two years later gets quoted by you in National Review, and you find it unsettling that the person originally quoted is only now objecting?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"If Mr. Alikhan sought a correction of any of these reports from any of these publications, it is not apparent."
For all we know, Mr. Alikhan may have sent the identical denial and request for retraction to all the other publications, only to have it end up either unpublished on on a back page in a later issue. Has Mr. McCarthy *looked* in later issues for "letters to the editor"? If not, why expect one to be "apparent"?
As for whether an actual *correction* (i.e. retraction) then appeared in these publications, why expect one of those to be "apparent" either? Mr. McCarthy hasn't issued one, even after finding out that the original source was a lone blogger of unknown credibility who cited no place, time, context, periodical, or anything else that could be checked. The other publications may have shared his sense of journalistic ethics.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse