Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is now publicly on record as defending her closest adviser and Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin. She’s also praising John McCain for doing the same.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton defended her own top State Department aide Huma Abedin against charges that Abdein had ties to radical Islam — saying that those attacks have “no place in our politics.”
Speaking at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Monday, Clinton was asked about suspicions raised by a handful of Republican members of Congress in a letter — including Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) — that the Muslim-American Abedin may have ties to Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood group.
In answering the question, Clinton tied the Abedin controversy into the struggle of developing nations to respect minority religions.
“Leadership is incredibly important. Leaders have to be active in stepping in and sending messages about protecting the diversity within their countries. And frankly, I don’t see enough of that, and I want to see more of it. I want to see more of it, and we did see some of that in our own country. We saw Republicans stepping up and standing up against the kind of assaults that really have no place in our politics,” Clinton said.
What’s very key in that quote from Clinton is that it doesn’t contain a denial of the facts. Instead, she refers to questions as “assaults” and says they shouldn’t be asked.
We beg to differ, especially in light of what we now know. What Hillary knows becomes very important as well.
Regular visitors to this site know that Huma’s time with the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA) is key to understanding the questions raised by the likes of Bachmann. In particular, Huma served as an Assistant Editor there for years. Blind Sheikh prosecutor Andy McCarthy explains over at PJM:
The Center for Security Policy has reviewed past mastheads of the IMMA’s journal. Huma Abedin is listed as an assistant editor (to her mother, the editor-in-chief) as far back as 1996, the year she began interning at the Clinton White House. The IMMA was started in Saudi Arabia in the 1970s by Huma Abedin’s parents, with the backing of Abdullah Omar Naseef. Naseef is a former secretary-general of the Muslim World League, which, as I’ve previously explained, has long been the Muslim Brotherhood’s principal vehicle for the international propagation of Islamic supremacist ideology.
Moreover, Huma remained at IMMA until at least September 24, 2008. Shortly thereafter, she joined Hillary at the State Department. Are we to believe that Hillary doesn’t know about the people Huma was working with at IMMA? Is that why Hillary decided to smear instead of deny facts revealed by asking and answering legitimate questions?
Perhaps it’s time to take stock of some of the people who have defended Huma Abedin, praised John McCain, attacked Michele Bachmann, or have done all three.
Some questions should be asked of Esposito and Heba.
Questions for Esposito: Are you the same ‘John Esposito’ listed as being on IMMA’s Advisory Editorial Board? If so, why does your name at the top of the Washington Post Op-Ed refer to you as “John L.” and the name on the IMMA Board have you listed as “John I.”? If it’s you, when did you change your name on the IMMA Board to include that middle initial?
Questions for Heba: Do you also go by the name “Heba A. Khalid”? If so, why did you change the spelling of your last name from “Khaled” to “Khalid” in late 2003 / early 2004? How long have you been an Assistant Editor at IMMA? Were you an Editor there when you contributed to an IMMA Journal with your brother, Hassan Abedin?
Isn’t it time for John McCain to ask himself these questions? Perhaps if he did, he might begin to question why such people are siding with him.