As Qaradawi Preaches, Berger Fries
By Isaiah Z. Sterrett (07/22/04)
Those interested in connections between various political and social figures will find great appeal in examining the careers of Sandy Berger, the former Clinton National Security Adviser, and 77-year-old Islamic cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi. They may share more than one would guess.
Al-Qaradawi is one of the most discernibly vicious terrorists in the world, though also one of the most unknown in America. Based in Qatar since 1961, he is said to have memorized the Koran by the time he was 10-years-old. He is the spiritual leader of the radical, anti-secularist Muslim Brotherhood, members of which were implicated in the assassination of Anwar Sadat.
Al-Qaradawi reportedly “condemned” the 9-11 attacks, though probably in the same way that Democrats “condemned” Clinton’s philandering; sure it was naughty, but what’s all the fuss about?
Still, one of al-Qaradawi’s “contemporaries,” according to one British news service, was “the man who provided the ideological basis” for al-Qaeda.
What makes al-Qaradawi important, as opposed to just your garden-variety terrorist, is that he has his own TV show on al-Jazeera called “Islamic Law and Life.”
According to the British website “This Is London,” (www.thisislondon.com), some of his many nuanced positions are as follows:
- On Palestinian efforts to end violence with Israel: “They are treason.”
- On worldwide corporations: "They are part of a Jewish conspiracy."
- On punishing homosexuality with execution: "While such punishments may seem cruel, they have been suggested to maintain the purity of Islamic society and to keep it clean of perverted elements."
Al-Qaradawi has also said that it’s perfectly acceptable to beat women, but “not with a stick.” Showing that he’s nothing but a sentimental old romantic, the softhearted Casanova added that a woman’s face “should not be a target.”
Al-Qaradawi isn’t a terrorist because he overtly aids terrorist groups, and he’s not a terrorist because he personally commits acts of terrorism. He’s a terrorist because he opposes everything America stands for. If there’s an Old Europe, as Don Rumsfeld said, there’s certainly also an Old Mid-East, and it’s represented by Yusuf al-Qaradawi.
Like al-Qaradawi, Sandy Berger has abstained from openly supporting terrorism, though, in fairness, he’s also never openly opposed terrorism. Indeed, stealing top-secret documents directly related to terrorism on five different occasions doesn’t quite leave one with the impression that he and Clinton were exceedingly involved in counterterrorism.
As is usually the case when a Democrat gets in trouble, the most entertaining part of the Berger story is Democrats’ reaction. President Clinton, under whom national security was normally based around pending criminal proceedings, said that he was “laughing about” Berger’s situation.
The Kerry campaign, mourning the lost of a close adviser, questioned the timing of Berger’s actions by—surprise!—blaming George Bush. Kerry said the White House was more concerned with “protecting its political hide” than promoting national security.
At best, blaming Bush for the Berger “leak” is like blaming Emeril Lagasse for Martha Stewart’s criminal conviction. Both may be relatively important in their particular field, but they don’t necessarily have anything to do with each other.
And suppose Bush was involved. What if he specifically ordered his henchmen to investigate Berger, and then demanded that they inform the press of his offenses? What would have been wrong with that? Sandy Berger is responsible for Sandy Berger, regardless of what President Bush does.
I wasn’t around when President Nixon was being rightly lambasted for Watergate, but I don’t recall reading anything about Republicans blaming his wrongdoings on “timing.” In fact, if my history books are accurate, Nixon resigned out of shame and embarrassment and continues to be mocked today, even after his death. That Democrats are ignoring Berger’s crimes proves that they learned nothing from the saga of the Clinton scandals.
If impeaching Clinton, and then tossing the Democratic majority to the Republicans didn’t alert Democrats to a problem—and clearly it didn’t, given their reaction to Berger—what gives anyone the idea that they’ll be any use to us in the War on Terror?
Neither Berger nor al-Qaradawi can be thrown into the same category as Mohammed Atta or Osama bin Laden. But they’re both enemies of the United States—Berger, for ignoring our laws, and al-Qaradawi, for inciting terrorism overseas.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Isaiah Z. Sterrett
