February 25, 2003

In response to a headline story recently featured on the website of The Center for Security Policy, a Washington DC think tank headed by Frank Gaffney, MPAC wrote the following rebuttal. In the article, Gaffney accuses MPAC of being "pro-Hamas" and having a "Wahabi" ideology.

Gaffney was reacting to an action alert MPAC released asking concerned citizens to thank President Bush for his continued support of all his employees regardless of race or religion. At a recent Conservative Political Action Committee conference (CPAC), Gaffney attacked an American Muslim employee in the White House based on his religion. The CPAC conference was the same conference that featured bumper stickers with a swastika replacing the "s" in "Islam", and a sticker that read, "No Muslims = No Terrorism".

The sheer level of inaccuracy and libelous statements and assertions made in Gaffney's piece prompted us to clear the record in the following statement: 

There's an old saying: "You can know a lot about a book from it's title." This principle certainly holds for a February 19 article written by Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Studies entitled, "Pro-Hamas group rallies to support controversial White House staffer." This piece of yellow journalism accuses the Muslim Public Affairs Council of being "pro-terrorist" and "supporters of Hamas". The record must be set straight.

The title of the article itself is a lie. MPAC has a long track record of condemning terrorism of all kinds against all people. This track record started long before September 11, and has ranged from condemning an attack on a synagogue in Turkey in the 1980's to issuing several statements condemning the practice of suicide bombing, to condemning the violence at the El Al counter at LAX on July 4, 2002, in which members of MPAC visited the victim's families and received a letter of commendation from the governor of California, Gray Davis, as a result. Our organization has consistently taken stances that have set MPAC apart, including the condemnation of church bombings in Pakistan as well as having consistently criticized the Taliban long before it was fashionable to do so -- even in American policy-making circles. We are very proud of our long record against dictatorship, against bigotry, for peace and for inclusion, and we have the documentation of two decades to show for it.

MPAC's impeccable track record speaks for itself and exposes Gaffney's article for what it is: a propaganda piece meant to slander and intimidate American Muslims from participating in their government. Gaffney belongs to a group of pro-Israel extremists who believe that any participation of American Muslims in their own government spells trouble for Israel. As Daniel Pipes, a prominent member of this group, put it, "(the) increased stature, and affluence, and enfranchisement of American Muslims...will present true dangers to American Jews." (Daniel Pipes' speech before the convention of the American Jewish Congress, 10/21/2001)

It all started when MPAC encouraged its members to write to President Bush thanking him for his continued support for inclusiveness in the White House, in response to an attack -- orchestrated by Gaffney -- against a White House staffer. From the very beginning, MPAC's action alert focused not on an individual, (hence the statement did not name anyone), but on a principle. That principle is inclusiveness and fairness. That principle holds that an American Muslim who is talented and qualified enough to work in the highest office in the land should be evaluate based on an objective and professional appraisal of his or her performance, and by his or her direct supervisor. Supporting this principle and protecting individuals from unsubstantiated rumors is the honorable duty of all decent citizens.

The body of Gaffney's article actually contradicts the implications of the already slanderous title. Gaffney writes that support for a White House staffer is, "coming from an odd source: a left-wing group whose leaders reportedly support Hamas terrorists." First of all, what is so odd about an American Muslim group, whose mission is to advocate for the constructive role of American Muslims within our system of government, defending an American Muslim White House staffer who has been publicly slandered and maligned? This seems to fit in quite well with MPAC's mission, which is why we took on the case.

We are also curious how Gaffney squares our supposed "left-wing" tendencies with our supposed "support" for Hamas, a group that could not be any more right wing. We are at a loss to answer this question ourselves.

As for the charge of support for Hamas: it's an outright lie, and anyone who makes this claim is either completely ignorant of the facts or willfully distorting the truth. This simple fact only adds credence to the claim that Gaffney is low on the facts and high on the vapid rhetoric. Our condemnation of all terrorism, including suicide bombing, can be found in any number of statements, including, specifically, our official policy paper on the Arab-Israeli conflict, our condemnation of the Hebrew University bombing, an appearance on Fox News' 'Hannity and Colmes' in which MPAC condemned Hamas by name, and many, many other instances, most of which are available on MPAC's website.

For the record, those who would include MPAC as a "Wahabi supporting" organization only reveal their own ignorance or willful distortion of the truth. MPAC was quoted in the L.A. Times on December 20 as describing the Saudi regime as "dictatorial" and "fascist" among other things, and has had a decades-long policy of not accepting one penny of foreign money for its operations precisely to maintain it's intellectual and religious independence.

Why, therefore, do people like Frank Gaffney, Steve Emerson, Daniel Pipes, Mona Charen and others continue to refer to MPAC as "pro-Hamas" or "pro-Wahabi"? Does this insistence on out-and-out deception betray another agenda? We believe it does, and we believe that such repeated misrepresentation calls into question the agenda of these self-styled "terrorism" experts and "objective" journalists.

Serious people and those who really care about the security of this country should take note.

Gaffney describes the White House staffer in question as "low ranking". If he is low ranking, how is it that he is single-handedly responsible for bringing "terrorist sympathizing" groups to the White House? Indeed, what reasons except for blatant bigotry would Gaffney have to pick on one "low ranking" White House staffer on the front page of his organization's website? It's hardly a slow news week.

Simply put, to enter the White House, one needs a security clearance. If you don't have a security clearance, you don't enter the White House. Gaffney does not know something that the FBI, CIA, or the Department of Homeland Security doesn't know. He is only playing the game of bigotry and opportunistic politics at a time the country needs all its citizens to be as helpful as possible.

Gaffney goes on to say, "Groups supportive of Hamas have not refuted Gaffney's statements. Instead they and their political allies have tried to divert attention from the terrorism question by accusing Gaffney of racism and bigotry, or in MPAC's words, 'slander'".

Although we abhor classifying ourselves in this alleged group of Hamas supporters, let us not let the opportunity pass to once again highlight MPAC's long-standing counterterrorism efforts. In 1997, long before September 11, MPAC commissioned a position paper on counterterrorism, deemed very helpful by policy and law makers throughout the country. This paper has recently been updated and expanded in light of recent events. MPAC has worked with local and federal law enforcement at all levels to do what it can to help in the struggle against terrorism. Again, our record on this cooperation is extensive and a matter of public record.

Gaffney claims that "MPAC's involvement with the White House, in 2000, generated a blast in the Wall Street Journal, in which a terrorism expert excoriated then First Lady Hillary Clinton for consorting with Hamas supporters, including MPAC." Again, at the risk of embracing yet another false characterization, the "terrorism expert" in question is none other than Steve Emerson, who has been guilty -- ever since the days of pointing the finger at Muslims for the Oklahoma City bombing -- of the same kind of agenda-driven politics playing and outright bigotry as Gaffney.

Furthermore, one op-ed written by none other that Steven Emerson exorcising Hillary Clinton for meeting with a wide range of groups, MPAC included, is hardly evidence of support for terrorism. Rather, it's slander and terrorist-baiting of the most blatant kind.

In the last and perhaps most pathetic smear of all in Gaffney's article, he "accuses" MPAC of joining an "anti-Bush" coalition against the war. In case he hadn't heard, the anti-war rallies of last weekend, spanning 600 cities and including tens of millions of people world wide was one of the largest anti-war rallies in world history. Are these people all terrorists, too? Should the Pope be barred from the White House and "excoriated" on the pages of the Wall Street Journal?

Such is Gaffney's zeal to slander American Muslims at all costs -- including his own credibility. Those who really care about the security of the United States -- people like President Bush -- understand that American Muslims are an important part of the solution, not the problem. It would be in all of our interests if ideologues like Gaffney, Pipes and Emerson stopped with their childish, single minded-mission to smear American Muslims for what they perceive as the "good" of Israel, and started really helping their country.