Cruz assails terror policy
Senator renews attack on Obama for not using ‘radical Islam’
WASHINGTON — One of Ted Cruz’s most popular attack lines as a presidential candidate centered on President Barack Obama’s unwillingness to utter the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism.”
On Tuesday, in a politically charged hearing, the Texas Republican used his post as chairman of a Senate subcommittee on federal oversight to hammer home the point in a congressional setting, even if it was not directed at any particular legislative initiative.
Stymied by the Obama administration, which declined to make two top Justice Department officials available, Cruz convened a contentious panel discussion on his assertion that the administration has failed to confront what some witnesses described as a global Islamist movement bent on imposing Sharia law in the West.
“The purpose of this subcommittee hearing is to assess the degree to which the administration is willfully turning a blind eye to radical Islamic terrorism, and the consequences for the safety and security of the American people,” Cruz said.
In one of the more provocative moments, a witness who had infiltrated a U.S. Muslim group accused the two Muslim members of Congress of having attended an event organized by the Muslim Brotherhood.
Chris Gaubatz, identified as a national security consultant from Virginia, testified that the two Democratic congressmen — Keith Ellison of Minnesota and André Carson of Indiana — attended a 2008 convention hosted by the Islamic Society of North America, a group he claims is a front for Muslim Brotherhood.
Neither of the two congressmen was at the hearing, and attempts to reach them for comment afterward were unsuccessful.
Minnesota Democrat Amy Klobuchar, a member of the panel, stood up for Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress. “He is my congressman,” Klobuchar said. “He is a man of great patriotism.”
The combative hearing came hours after the House Benghazi Committee faulted the administration for responding too slowly to the deadly 2012 terrorist attack in Libya. Both issues are expected to form part of a broader GOP election year offensive in which Cruz — who has held out against backing Donald Trump’s presidential campaign – still faces an undefined role.
Some Democrats on the committee objected to the underlying rationale for the subcommittee hearing, the panel’s first of the year.
“It’s very premise suggests that we can either keep America safe, or preserve our fundamental values,” said Delaware U.S. Sen. Chris Coons, the ranking Democrat on the committee. “To compromise these principles and blame over a billion Muslims for the twisted actions of a few only serves to divide Americans, to alienate the Muslim world, and legitimate a murderous group who falsely claim to speak for Islam.”
The hearing came 16 days after Omar Mateen, a one-time terror suspect, massacred 49 people at a gay nightclub in Orlando, sparking a debate about whether it was a hate crime or a terrorist attack.
Two empty places in the committee room were supposed to have been occupied by John Carlin, assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s National Security Division, and Michael Steinbach, executive assistant director of the FBI’s National Security Branch.
Justice officials issued a statement saying Carlin and Steinbach had informed Cruz’s committee more than a week ago that they were declining his invitation to appear, and that the committee “chose to proceed anyway.”
Their statement also said the administration has focused on “terrorist adversaries,” and that since 2013 prosecutors have charged more than 90 foreign terrorist fighters and homegrown violent extremists, three-quarters of whom are linked to the Islamic State.
Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson is scheduled to appear before the committee later this week.
Religious war
Obama has defended his refusal to use the phrase “radical Islam” by saying he does not want to legitimize terrorist claims to waging a religious war.
Following a June 14 counter-terrorism briefing, Obama held a press conference in which he criticized the “yapping” over his choice of terminology, saying, “It’s a political talking point. It’s not a strategy.”
“For a while now, the main contribution of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have made in the fight against ISIL is to criticize this administration and me for not using the phrase ‘radical Islam,’” Obama said. “That’s the key, they tell us. We can’t beat ISIL unless we call them radical Islamists.
“What exactly would using this label would accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to trying to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer, is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction.”
Cruz and other conservative critics deride it as political correctness run amok – or worse, a deliberate attempt to minimize the avowedly religious motivations of terrorist attackers like Mateen, whose references to the Islamic State and other terrorist groups initially were redacted from the government’s 911 call transcripts.
Cruz also cited testimony by Homeland Security whistleblower Philip Haney alleging that he had seen law enforcement and intelligence documents “purged” of references to the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist or terrorist organizations.
Longtime criticism
Cruz’s criticism stems from the early days of Obama’s presidency, including the 2009 shooting at Fort Hood, which initially was classified as a case of workplace violence. The debate has intensified since the Orlando shootings, with Trump suggesting that Obama’s aversion to the phrase could have a more sinister aspect
“People cannot believe that President Obama is acting the ways he acts and can’t even mention the words ‘radical Islamic terrorism,’” Trump said on Fox News’ “Fox & Friends” show in the wake of the Orlando attack. “There’s something going on. It’s inconceivable. There’s something going on.”
Democratic witnesses before the committee warned of the danger of playing into the hands of terrorist groups such as the Islamic State by inflaming anti-Muslim rhetoric.
Farhana Khera, president and executive director of the California-based Muslim Advocates, invoked former President George W. Bush’s pronouncements after the 9/11 attacks that the U.S. was not at war with Islam.
Stoking fears of all Muslims, she said, has led to calls for banning non-U.S. Muslims from entering the country, national registries of Muslims, and special patrols of Muslim neighborhoods, an idea Cruz has proposed.
“This rhetoric makes our nation less safe,” Khera said. “It makes us less safe because law enforcement’s job is to find the needle in the haystack, a task that is made much more difficult when more stacks of hay are added to what the FBI director has called a nationwide search for needles. We are also less safe because ISIS wants this to be a war against Muslims.”