During an appearance on Hannity, Ann Coulter singled out Republican establishment figures and identified them as ‘shysters’. Of all the ones she mentioned, Hannity took most exception to one – Liz Cheney. To this point, Coulter comes closest to our concerns about the daughter of the former vice president. The former asks a very important question relative to Cheney that many conservatives are willing to overlook because of a perception that Cheney is more conservative than her soon-to-be Republican primary opponent, incumbent Mike Enzi. Here is the relevant part of the exchange:
The good news is that Coulter may be reaching the right conclusion albeit for incomplete reasons. The bad news is that some critical questions may need to be asked about Cheney and, to this point, Hannity exemplifies someone unwilling to ask them because he’s accepted the premise that she is an unabashed conservative. Coulter raises one of those questions, which is:
Why is Liz Cheney spending her time running against one of the most conservative Republican incumbents in the U.S. Senate? Could not her time be better spent elsewhere?
Coulter chalks it up to ego and an unhealthy dose of self-interest, which may be true. She’s asking a legitimate question and Hannity, for one, doesn’t seem interested in exploring it.
We’d like to introduce another possible factor into the equation – conflict of interest.
For example, what might Liz Cheney be more interested in than pushing conservatism from a U.S. Senate seat in Wyoming? Might the answer be protecting her father’s legacy from inside the beltway? Since 9/11/01, that has become increasingly important and more difficult to do when it comes to members of the Bush administration. In the years since the attack, the Muslim Brotherhood’s mask has continued to slip and the more it falls, the more obvious it becomes that the strategy after 9/11 was incredibly flawed.
Almost immediately after 9/11/01, no doubt with the help of their advisers, Bush and Cheney decided to engage the Saudis and embrace Muslim Brotherhood front groups – who are funded with Saudi money – in the U.S.
Two days after 9/11, Bush and Cheney met with Saudi’s Ambassador to the U.S., Prince Bandar bin Sultan at the White House. Bush stood with CAIR inside the Muslim Brotherhood’s Washington, D.C. mosque on 9/17/01. A week later, he welcomed leaders of various Brotherhood front groups into the Oval Office.
Karl Rove – another establishment Republican – necessarily must have interests similar to Cheney. He understandably wants to protect his former boss’s legacy. One of the ways he’s been doing that is by supporting establishment Republicans – through his PAC, his Fox News media appearances, and through his Wall Street Journal Op-eds. Make no mistake; George W. Bush has a prominent, powerful, and highly influential advocate at work in this area on a daily basis in Rove.
The Bush administration chose to target Al-Qaeda exclusively while letting both Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood groups in America off the hook. This has been utterly disastrous. That may be Monday morning quarterbacking for an increasingly educated American public but it’s not when it comes to the Bush administration. It had inside knowledge of what was going on; it had the truth. Now, the truth is like something underneath a melting layer of snow; it’s being revealed.
As for Liz Cheney, a question that should be asked after the one about why she’s seeking to unseat one of the Senate’s most conservative Republicans is another one that begins with the word, “why”.
Why did Liz Cheney not publicly stand with Rep. Michele Bachmann last year when the congresswoman from Minnesota raised legitimate questions about the Muslim Brotherhood in general, and Huma Abedin’s familial connections to it in particular?
As we wrote last month, the notion that Cheney is ignorant on the subject is untenable. In 2006, as a representative with the U.S. State Department, Liz Cheney was in attendance at the U.S.-Islamic World Forum (US-IWF). Saudi Arabia was more than aptly represented, as were Muslim Brotherhood members, apparatchiks, and sympathizers, to include none other than Abedin’s mother, Saleha Abedin, a leader with the Muslim Sisterhood.
Another individual who joined Cheney at the 2006 US-IWF was Ground Zero mosque Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. In 2010, during an appearance on Fox News Sunday, Cheney equivocated when asked if she would support the mosque’s construction absent concerns over Rauf’s background. Instead of the Islamic agenda in the U.S. being an issue for Cheney, it was simply Rauf’s connections to terrorists, which indicates a world view similar to that espoused by her father.
To her credit, in 2012, Cheney appeared on Hannity’s television show shortly after Egypt elected the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohammed Mursi as President. She enunciated a clear understanding of who and what the Muslim Brotherhood is, saying…
“The Brotherhood is anti-freedom, they’re anti-women, they’re anti-Christian, they’re anti-Jew, they’re anti-Israel, they’re anti-American, they’re anti-Democratic, they’re very closely allied with… the same organization as Hamas; they are the organization that spawned al-Qaeda…”
Based on that understanding, why didn’t Cheney stand with Bachmann in 2012? She has got to know the truth when one considers her comments on Hannity about the Brotherhood’s goals. It also tells us something else. Cheney has a willingness to speak truthfully about the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt while apparently being unwilling to speak truthfully about the Brotherhood’s front groups in the U.S.
An admission by Cheney, Rove, or any other Bush Administration official that the Muslim Brotherhood’s agenda in the U.S. is no different than its agenda in the Middle East would be an indictment of the Bush Administration’s entire post-9/11 strategy. Unfortunately, until we get to the point when that admission is made, said officials and family members will be tempted to run interference for that flawed strategy, which can only be detrimental to America’s future.
Even if Liz Cheney’s heart is in the right place, a potentially tempting conflict of interest should call into question her qualifications to be U.S. Senator. Her decision to run against a conservative Senator may also justify discussions about her decision to do so.