The killing of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in Iraq at the hands of an American drone has stirred up a partisan hornet’s nest. Republicans overwhelmingly approve of the killing of the individual responsible for the recent <a href="https://time.com/5757228/us-iran-events-timeline/">attack on the U.S. embassy in Iraq</a>. Democrats, on the other hand, are overwhelmingly focused on the risks of “escalation” with Iran.
Former Vice President Joe Biden, the leading Democrat for his party’s 2020 presidential nomination, acknowledged blood on Soleimani’s hands, but the main thrust of his <a href="https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1212954848666234880">statement</a> concerns the risk of escalation: &#8220;President Trump just tossed a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox, and he owes the American people an explanation of the strategy and a plan to keep safe our troops and embassy personnel, our people and our interests.&#8221; Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), another 2020 presidential candidate, <a href="https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1212951889060470788">called</a> the move “reckless” and feared it would “lead to a new Middle East conflict.” Similar sentiments were <a href="https://www.reed.senate.gov/news/releases/reed-statement-on-us-strike-that-killed-iranian-gen-soleimani">offered</a> by Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, <a href="https://twitter.com/SenatorShaheen/status/1212949251514388481">as well as</a> Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), <a href="https://www.murray.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/mobile/newsreleases?ID=4A1363EF-535C-42C9-8438-2A4F2F3988FA">Patty Murray</a> (D-WA), and many others.
Some went further. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) made no condemnation of Soleimani’s actions, instead <a href="https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1212959357425651713?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1212959357425651713&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rollingstone.com%2Fpolitics%2Fpolitics-news%2Flawmakers-react-after-us-strike-kills-iranian-military-leader-933470%2F">decrying</a> President Trump for putting us on a path to “endless war.” Senator Warren later suggested that killing Soleimani was <a href="https://www.axios.com/warren-trump-soleimani-killing-impeachment-e548dbfe-f0a3-488d-8ab6-3303c61fb7e1.html">motivated</a> by a desire to distract from impeachment. The usually hawkish Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, <a href="https://twitter.com/RepEliotEngel/status/1213625152937680896">said</a> he would do everything he could to prevent war with Iran — suggesting the killing of Soleimani, rather than Iran’s numerous attacks on the U.S., would be responsible for any such war. Legislation to tie the administration’s hands has <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/01/04/qasem-soleimani-bernie-sanders-khanna-bill-would-limit-iran-action/2812727001/">already been</a> introduced.
Republicans, on the other hand, were having none of it. Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) <a href="https://www.sasse.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=DE21FF49-EBEB-4694-8E94-AEE3AE29083D">accused</a> fellow Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), who largely <a href="https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/1212913952436445185">echoed</a> the party line, of “<a href="https://twitter.com/SenSasse/status/1212938721387057153">drunk partisanship</a>.” Sasse <a href="https://www.sasse.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=DE21FF49-EBEB-4694-8E94-AEE3AE29083D">declared</a> that “General Soleimani is dead because he was an evil bastard who murdered Americans.” Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) put it most <a href="https://www.mcconnell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ID=D2E041A4-B231-4743-A4EA-879A9F8EEB01">starkly</a>: “For too long, this evil man operated without constraint, and countless innocents have suffered for it. Now his terrorist leadership has been ended.”
In short, to paraphrase a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vK0_Ob9qCI0">popular film</a>, most Democrats are critical of the Trump administration risking “open war,&#8221; while Republicans insist that “open war” is already upon us.
The Republicans have the better argument. There has been a steady escalation of tensions in recent months — by Iran, not the U.S. In addition to the previously mentioned attack on the American embassy in Iraq, which was not a “protest,” but an attack perpetrated by Kataib Hezbollah, one of <a href="https://www.pri.org/stories/2020-01-03/kataib-hezbollah-attacked-us-embassy-baghdad-who-are-they">Soleimani&#8217;s most loyal terrorist proxy militias</a> in Iraq, Soleimani was responsible for repeated escalation.
Republicans have eagerly pointed this out. Sen. James Risch (R-ID), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, noted that Soleimani had been actively involved in an attack that <a href="https://www.risch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ID=B77D9F0A-D077-437B-B66C-7E3198C60A92">killed</a> an American contractor and wounded four American troops just days before the embassy attack. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) pointed out that there had been <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/qassem-soleimani-iran-marco-rubio-transcript-on-face-the-nation-january-5-2019/">over 10 rocket attacks</a> against Americans since October. Moreover, Iran’s <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/15/middleeast/saudi-oil-attack-lister-analysis-intl/index.html">attack</a> on Saudi oil fields, <a href="https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9550516/royal-navy-captains-frantic-call-urging-brit-tanker-ignore-iran-threats-change-course/">attack</a> on a British ship in the Persian Gulf, and <a href="https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/iran-us-drone-shot-down-latest-intl/index.html">downing</a> of a U.S. drone are all part of Iran’s provocations. These events were seen as escalations by both sides of the isle.
All this is not even considering that, according to the State Department, Iran, and thus Soleimani, its chief unconventional warfare strategist, is <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/iran-responsible-for-deaths-of-more-than-600-american-troops-in-iraq">responsible</a> for the deaths of over 600 American soldiers in previous years — nor is it even considering Soleimani’s <a href="https://www.trtworld.com/opinion/qasem-soleimani-s-disastrous-syria-legacy-lives-on-32762">boundless support</a> for Bashar al-Assad in Syria vis-à-vis proxy groups. Nor, still, is it considering Soleimani’s part in Iran’s support of the <a href="https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/yemen-houthis-protest-killing-of-iranian-iraqi-chiefs/1694428">radical Houthi </a><a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-security-blast-yemen/yemen-government-backs-soleimanis-killing-minister-idUSKBN1Z2209">movement </a>in Yemen, resulting in one of the bloodiest civil wars in recent history. The list goes on.
Unlike the killing of Osama bin Laden or Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the killing of Soleimani presents significant risk. Soleimani was at the height of his power, and while the Quds Force he oversaw is indisputably a terrorist organization, it is also a branch of a state actor. This creates a more complicated, and dangerous, situation.
However, the focus on U.S. “escalation,” ignoring recent history, is a potentially catastrophic mistake. The word “appeasement” is overused, but no other word accurately describes the position of most Democratic politicians, who are ignoring the pattern of increasingly bellicose Iranian behavior. As Garry Kasparov recently said, appeasement kills <a href="https://twitter.com/Kasparov63/status/1213576615780847617">because</a> it “raises the stakes, postpones the inevitable, and encourages aggressors to assume they can act with impunity.”
Moreover, Democratic worries about endless escalation seem unwarranted. Iran’s recent “retaliation,” launching missiles that resulted in <a href="https://www.militarytimes.com/flashpoints/2020/01/08/no-us-casualties-in-iran-missile-strike-preliminary-reports-say/">zero U.S. or Iraqi casualties</a> and even giving the Iraqi government <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/iran-fires-missiles-at-military-bases-iraq-used-by-us-coalition-troops-today-live-updates-2020-01-08/">advance notice</a>, seems aimed at face-saving more than a desire to escalate further.
The temptation to take a partisan stance on such a major issue, during an election year, may be almost irresistible. But that doesn’t make it right. Leader McConnell was indignant, asking in a <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/01/06/mcconnell_on_impeachment_and_iran_senate_must_put_national_interest_ahead_of_factionalism.html">rousing speech</a>, “Can we not maintain a shred, just a shred, of national unity for five minutes … before deepening the partisan trenches?” As former Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Lieberman <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-democrats-and-iran-11578262553?redirect=amp&amp;fbclid=IwAR3TRr4mMZTInU3PDRqBpPOWlpuyf9RwYvVbesc3vmBUasQ7aeZykIo1lWs#click=https://t.co/PBOkugbjBe">recently wrote</a>, “In their uniformly skeptical or negative reactions to Soleimani’s death, Democrats are … creating the risk that the U.S. will be seen as acting and speaking with less authority abroad at this important time.”
The late Sen. Arthur Vandenberg’s (R-MI) maxim that “politics stops at the water’s edge” has always been more aspirational than real. But in preaching what amounts to appeasement, Democrats are endangering the country.
&nbsp;
Cliff Smith (<a href="https://twitter.com/cliffsmithzbrdz?lang=en">@CliffSmithZBRDZ</a>) is Washington Project Director for the <a href="https://www.meforum.org/">Middle East Forum</a>.

Neville Chamberlain

SMITH: Republicans, Democrats And The Killing Of Soleimani: Is Appeasement Back In Style?

Democratic Party

Foreign Policy

Iran

Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps

Middle East

Qassem Soleimani

Republican Party

Here’s an interesting thought experiment: If you were a professor in charge of a class on geopolitical strategy focusing on Iran, and a student wrote a paper analyzing gender roles in Iranian films, would you give the student a passing grade? Would it even matter if his film analysis happened to be good?
That is essentially the situation faced by Department of Education (DOE) Secretary Betsy DeVos and Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education Robert King, who sent a <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/09/17/2019-20067/notice-of-a-letter-regarding-the-duke-unc-consortium-for-middle-east-studies">letter</a> to the Duke University/University of North Carolina (UNC) Consortium for Middle East Studies (CMES) questioning the efficacy of its Title VI grant-funded programs. “The Department believes [CMES] has failed to carefully distinguish between activities lawfully funded under Title VI, and other activities … [that are] protected by general principles of academic freedom &#8230; [but are] plainly unqualified for taxpayer support [under Title VI].”
If you were to take a glance at news stories concerning this letter, you could be excused for thinking that it amounted to an apocalyptic <a href="https://www.apnews.com/430e62044dba43daa3f2332792cd97b2">assault</a> on the academy, an attempt at <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/462202-trump-admin-say-unc-duke-programs-portray-islam-too-positively?fbclid=IwAR1e_MqG2MtKBanFWr32g-irdB0zq2RIk_BWxZd-jjCe79QoJyS16CiG_G4">Muslim</a> bashing, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/19/us/politics/anti-israel-bias-higher-education.html">some form</a> of pro-Israel extremism, or some other assault on American rights, freedoms, or norms.
The truth, however, is far less shocking.
Title VI of the Higher Education Act was created during the Cold War for very specific reasons, <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/1121">including that</a> “[t]he security, stability, and economic vitality of the United States in a complex global era depend upon American experts in and citizens knowledgeable about world regions, foreign languages, and international affairs” and that the U.S. must therefore “develop a pool of international experts to meet national needs,” <a href="https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/iegps/index.html">in order to</a> “develop and maintain capacity and performance in area/international studies and world languages.” In other words, the purpose was to ensure the U.S. had sufficient experts in foreign languages and foreign affairs in order to compete with its geopolitical rivals.
The DOE’s letter to the CMES alleges that “most of the Duke-UNC CMES activities supported with Title VI funds are unauthorized.” It then cites a number of Title VI-funded projects, highlighting “a fundamental misalignment between [the universities&#8217;] choices and Title VI’s mandates.” These projects include academic papers entitled “Amihri Hatun: Performance, Gender-Bending and Subversion in the Early Modern Ottoman Intellectual History” and “Radical Love: Teachings from Islamic Mystical Tradition.”
“While the Duke-UNC CMES may certainly offer programs in Iranian art and film, these programs should not be funded or subsidized in any way by American taxpayers under Title VI,” the letter continues.
Nonetheless, critics of DOE’s letter are apoplectic. Zoha Khalili, a staff lawyer with Palestine Legal, claims DOE wants to “send the message that if you want to criticize Israel, then the federal government is going to look very closely at your entire program and micromanage it to death.”
Yet, DOE’s letter doesn’t once mention the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Similarly, one wildly <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/462202-education-dept-cites-disproportionate-focus-on-positive-aspects-of-islam-in-reviewing-UNC-Duke-grant-funding">misleading</a> headline read: “Trump Administration says joint UNC, Duke program portrays Islam too Positively.” But the real language of the letter is quite different. Instead, it criticizes CMES’ disproportionate focus on portraying “the positive aspects of Islam,” without also portraying positive aspects of Christianity, Judaism, Yazidism, or other religions also indigenous to the region.
These facts are revealing: For many involved in Title VI, particularly concerning Middle East studies, preaching about their pet issue is more important than equipping future American experts in national security-related topics.
Those, such as UNC History Professor Jay Smith, who claim that DOE’s letter is engaging in “ideologically driven harassment” are engaged in a classic case of projection. It is more appropriate to charge some Title VI recipients with “ideological harassment” than the reverse. As several <a href="https://www.amchainitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/NRC-Report.pdf">studies</a> <a href="https://amchainitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Faculty-Report.pdf">show</a>, a large number of faculty in charge of Title VI funds support the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement against Israel. That naturally affects their programming. It is hard to see how ideologically driven political campaigns aimed at one of America’s closest allies fits under the purpose of the government program.
It is true that this particular inquiry has its <a href="https://holding.house.gov/uploadedfiles/letter.pdf">genesis</a> in a letter sent to DOE by Rep. George Holding (R-NC), concerning a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-duke-and-unc-should-both-be-ashamed-their-josh-hammer">CMES-sponsored event</a> that included a rapper singing a “brazenly anti-Semitic song”— but many Jewish and academic groups have <a href="https://www.meforum.org/campus-watch/21709/joint-statement-on-the-misuse-of-federal-funds">complained</a> about overt anti-Semitism in various Title VI-funded programs for <a href="https://www.meforum.org/campus-watch/59363/jewish-civil-rights-and-educational-groups-urge">years</a>. But even toxic anti-Semitism is a symptom of the larger problem: Specifically, that certain academics consider their pet ideological issue of paramount importance and are not overly concerned about the stated legal goals of Title VI.
Indeed, it’s worth noting that according to a recent <a href="https://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2019/09/duke-unc-consortium-middle-east-funding-education-department-controversy">article</a> in The Chronicle, Duke’s student newspaper, CMES has already received its funding from DOE for the 2019-2020 academic year. This means that DOE’s letter is simply an initial first step toward cajoling the CMES to fulfilling the goals of the grant it is nonetheless still receiving. There is no present threat to its funding or to any specific programing. The hyperventilating surrounding the issue is simply because some in the academy have grown so accustomed to their agenda being blindly funded by Title VI that they feel cheated when someone even requests that they uphold their end of the bargain.
It’s not DeVos or King who is being primarily driven by ideology. The defenders of the status quo on Title VI should take a long, hard look in the mirror.
&nbsp;
Cliff Smith (<a href="https://twitter.com/cliffsmithzbrdz?lang=en">@CliffSmithZBRDZ</a>) is Washington Project Director for the <a href="https://www.meforum.org">Middle East Forum</a>.

Trump Administration Cabinet Members Attend Summit On Combatting Anti-Semitism

SMITH: Trump’s Department Of Education Cracks Down On Title VI Abuse

U.S. Treasury Department documents obtained by the Middle East Forum through a Freedom of Information Act request shed new light on the terror-finance <a href="https://www.meforum.org/7447/exclusive-obama-administration-knowingly-funded">scandal that first erupted last year</a> concerning the Obama-era United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the international evangelical charity, World Vision.
These new documents reveal that not only was World Vision funding Sudan-based Islamic Relief Agency (ISRA) — which has extensive links to Osama bin Laden — with grants from USAID. World Vision was also funding ISRA with grants from the United Nations (U.N.). The documents also disclose that once World Vision’s relationship with ISRA was exposed by a whistleblower from the Swiss-based intergovernmental organization, <a href="https://www.iom.int/">International Organization for Migration</a> (IOM), World Vision mounted a full-court press to strong-arm the Treasury Department into allowing the relationship to continue unabated. This effort involved high-ranking members of Congress, who advocated for World Vision, as well as threats of lawsuits aimed at the Obama administration’s Treasury Department.
When this scandal initially broke last year, all that was known was that in 2014, World Vision had subcontracted charitable work in the hotly contested Blue Nile region of Sudan to ISRA, which was <a href="https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/terrorist-illicit-finance/Pages/protecting-charities_execorder_13224-i.aspx">designated</a> as a terrorist entity in 2004 for giving millions of dollars to Osama bin Laden and raising funds for Palestinian-Arab suicide bombings. Initially, this arrangement appeared to be a one-time event. But it <a href="https://www.meforum.org/7613/lost-in-sudan">soon emerged</a> that World Vision had “prior work experience” with ISRA and had used “other funding streams” to fund projects with the terror-linked charity. Previously, the source of these revenue streams was unknown.
But according to a May 2015 “Case Summary” written by U.S. Treasury officials, World Vision gave ISRA $323,928 for the controversial project paid for by USAID, Irish Aid, and the U.N. — with the U.N. likely paying the lion’s share.
Unfortunately, the U.N.’s relationship with ISRA is not entirely new. ISRA, also known as the Islamic African Relief Agency, previously enjoyed “consultative status” at the U.N. It <a href="https://www.un.org/en/ecosoc/docs/2006/decision 2006-224.pdf">lost this status</a> in 2006 after the United States <a href="https://www.un.org/press/en/2006/ecosoc6188.doc.htm">highlighted</a> its links to al-Qaeda. Since then, ISRA has repeatedly attempted to <a href="https://www.un.org/press/en/2017/ecosoc6839.doc.htm">regain</a> consultative status — a request repeatedly deferred because of <a href="https://www.un.org/press/en/2019/ecosoc6992.doc.htm">unanswered</a> U.S. government questions about ISRA’s shady activities. The U.N. has regularly employed ISRA as a partner over the last decade. In 2013, it <a href="https://www.unocha.org/sites/dms/CAP/2013_Sudan_Workplan.pdf">listed</a> ISRA as a participant in its “Work Plan” for Sudan. And in 2014, the U.N. <a href="https://unamid.unmissions.org/unamid-ddr-launches-youth-projects-west-darfur">partnered</a> with ISRA and the Sudanese government on three projects in West Darfur.
That the U.N, which was aware of its member-states’ concerns that ISRA was a terror financing organization, also specifically partnered with World Vision to fund ISRA, was previously unknown.
Additionally, the aforementioned “Case Summary” document strongly suggests that World Vision was not fully candid with Treasury about its existing relationship with ISRA. According to this document, World Vision disclosed that it began using ISRA as a sub-grantee in 2013. However, as <a href="https://world.wng.org/2018/12/checking_it_twice">previously reported</a>, World Vision Austria’s public 2013 Annual Report explicitly states that at least two projects with ISRA stated well before 2013, one as early as April 2011.
That World Vision began working with ISRA in 2011 should come as no great surprise: This was the year South Sudan was partitioned from Sudan, and the Sudanese government, then headed by radical Islamist Omar Al-Bashir, began requiring international NGOs to work with local partners in hotly contested regions of Sudan. It should also be unsurprising that a genocidal Islamist regime would require partnership with a bin Laden-linked organization like ISRA — a group to which Al-Bashir was particularly close. Before his ouster, in fact, Al-Bashir <a href="https://www.meforum.org/islamist-watch/55360/islamic-relief-agency-and-world-vision-it-worse">personally</a> attended ISRA’s board meetings.
Why did World Vision choose not to disclose the extent of its relationship with ISRA to Treasury while seeking its license? This misrepresentation could have serious consequences for World Vision — even now, years later. The license granted on May 5, 2015 to World Vision to pay ISRA in spite of the terror designation explicitly stated that if the license was granted “as a result of willful misrepresentation, it may, at the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury, be declared void from the date of issue, or any other date.”
It is also noteworthy just how much pressure World Vision placed on Treasury to obtain a favorable result. Newly available Treasury documents demonstrate that high-ranking staff for Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), then-ranking member and now chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, continually reached out to Treasury on World Vision’s behalf.
In addition, the new tranche of Treasury documents casts clear, additional doubts on World Vision’s <a href="https://www.wvi.org/pressrelease/world-vision-statement-regarding-our-past-engagement-islamic-relief-agency-sudan">denials</a> that it knew ISRA to be a designated terrorist organization. The documents show that World Vision admitted to Treasury that it was aware of organizations sharing ISRA’s name on the designated terror list — but World Vision also claimed that the Sudanese branch of ISRA was somehow not designated. However, <a href="https://world.wng.org/2013/11/siljander_declares_his_innocence">extensive</a> <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/islamic-relief-agency-admits-illegal-funds-transfer-iraq-n613731">media</a> coverage and <a href="https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/js2025.aspx">clear statements</a> on Treasury’s website patently show, all branches of ISRA were tied to its organizational headquarters in Sudan.
Despite multiple statements from Treasury warning World Vision not to work with ISRA, the evangelical charity continued to demand the government permit the partnership and allow World Vision to offer taxpayers’ money to the terror charity. Along with pressure from its friends in Congress, World Vision warned that it was planning legal action. World Vision’s threats and impatience flummoxed Treasury, with one exasperated Treasury official stating that it was “hard to fault us with our response, that’s for sure.”
Ultimately, World Vision got its way. It successfully pressured Treasury to issue a license for a one-time payment to ISRA. But it seems World Vision’s relationship with ISRA did not end with that one-time payment. A World Vision <a href="https://world.wng.org/2018/12/checking_it_twice">job posting</a> in December of 2015, 11 months after World Vision reported to USAID that it had stopped working with ISRA, specifically listed partnership with ISRA as part of the job description. Given that we now know that the U.N. was a source of other World Vision projects with ISRA, this raises an important question: Did World Vision continue to fund ISRA projects, perhaps through European subsidiaries, using U.N. grants or undisclosed private donations? Does it still do so?
Furthermore, questions also need to be asked about the IOM&#8217;s role in this drama. While USAID documents clearly indicate an IOM official alerted USAID — and purportedly World Vision, as well — to ISRA’s status as a U.S.-designated terrorist funding organization, further emails from World Vision to USAID officials indicate that the whistleblowing individual from IOM was no longer in his job only months after he raised the issue, and that new IOM leadership “does not have an issue with (ISRA).” We asked IOM if it fired the whistleblower. It failed to respond.
Nearly a year after this important issue was first made public, we have uncovered many answers to questions that public officials, the international aid community, and existing donors to World Vision have all been asking. However, these answers only generate even more questions. Those committed to supporting responsible aid programs and fighting the scourge of terror finance should not stop asking questions. Only when they are answered can this sort of behavior be brought to full account.
Cliff Smith is Washington Project Director at the <a href="http://meforum.org/">Middle East Forum</a>. Sam Westrop is the Director of Islamist Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.

SMITH & WESTROP: New Evidence Shows U.N. Engulfed In Bin Laden-Linked Charity Scandal

Menu

SMITH: Republicans, Democrats And The Killing Of Soleimani: Is Appeasement Back In Style?

SMITH: Trump’s Department Of Education Cracks Down On Title VI Abuse

SMITH & WESTROP: New Evidence Shows U.N. Engulfed In Bin Laden-Linked Charity Scandal