Posted on 02/20/2007 5:32:03 AM PST by SJackson
High Volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel. or WOT [War on Terror]
----------------------------
bookmark
I don't like or trust Norquist...
ping
Every voting member of the ACU should be sent a copy of this before their election.
I think Frank Gaffney overstates things here....
"In fact, the very course of the war may have been different had Sheikh Khabbani been given the sort of access to President Bush"
I don't think Siddiqi shaped the course of the war.
btw - I've posted threads and referenced Sheikh Khabbani a number of times in the past, including the 1999 presentation referred to in the article - Recommended reading for every FReeper.
I know he's met with Pres. Bush and he IS THE muslim leader who should have the President's ear. IMO
It is time, once and for all, for conservatives to take a hard look at what Norquist and his associates have been doing in the guise of Muslim “outreach.” A good place to start would be for the membership of the American Conservative Union to reject the "Khan job" being perpetrated by Norquist’s influence operation.
<<<<
You will want to read this report.
Thanks granny...
I've been speaking out against Grover Norquist, and his associates, for a number of years.
Got slammed for it by the "I can't believe it he's a Republican" crowd...
I love vindication.
Gaffney has a very personal axe to grind with Norquist and has had for many years -- something he fails to mention at any point in this piece.
It is not neutral journalism nor is it competent investigative reporting. This screed offers no proof -- only innuendo, using safe words like "reportedly," "seemingly" and "if true." These are notorious modifiers signifying that the writer wants to make an assertion they do not have the facts to back up -- but its just too important to the story to let go.
Indeed, Gaffeny goes so far as to site an opinion writer offering an opinion about Khan's duties at the DOT as proof of the fact of an allegation he is making.
For example, I could say "A well known Freeper he, according to at least one source who wishes to remain nameless, likes to take chickens to bed with him" and be well within my rights under U.S. law. I blacken your name without actually doing so because I am quoting an unnamed source and not doing so in the context of knowing the statement to be factually accurate. (P.S. -- For purposes of clarification, I am in fact suggesting no such thing about Milford421 or anyone else on Free Republic.... I am merely stating an example.)
An article of this type would never stand up against the libel laws in Britain (which I mention only because a libel charge is virtually impossible to sustain in the U.S. courts thanks to Times v. Sullivan).
Vindication? Hardly. Rumormongering, almost certainly.
winga-ping-ping.
It most certainly is vindication.
As evidenced by your comment, "It is not neutral journalism nor is it competent investigative reporting. This screed offers no proof -- only innuendo, using safe words like "reportedly," it is clear that you have NOT read the articles, nor have you researched the matter on your own.
There most certainly IS evidence to support Mr. Gaffney's assertions.
Opinion writer? Hardly. You need to do your homework. Gaffney has been right on Norquist.
I have read the articles and I have researched the matter on my own. There is no evidence to support the allegation that Mr. Khan or Mr. Norquist are terrorist sympathizers or terrorists themselves... or Mr. Gaffney would have produced it.
Norquist engaged in an effort to bring observant Muslims into the conservative coalition. No more, no less. And I, for one, do not have a problem with that. Mr. Gaffney has bismirched Mr. Khan, his family, and several other current and former Bush administration appointees through smear and innuendo for no reason other than they are Muslims. QED. And that's shameful.
And, by the way, what proof has been offered and what, exactly, has been proven?
We posted a retraction from Investor's Business Daily a couple of days ago and expressed the belief that it was less than a full retraction. It appears that someone out there agreed with us. So Investor's Business Daily published a more direct one yesterday:
We received a demand to clarify our retraction in the July 26 edition of Investor's Business Daily concerning the editorial titled "Mineta's Welcome Exit, Stage Left" that ran June 28. We do so as follows: It was erroneous to say that Suhail Khan or the mosque or its parishioners are "hard-line Wahhabi." It also was erroneous to say that any money was raised by the mosque or that funds were used to purchase satellite phones.
What is shameful is that you've failed to see the facts in this case.
"And, by the way, what proof has been offered and what, exactly, has been proven?"
This. (From the article you supposedly read)
"Grover’s own Islamic Institute was initially financed by one of the most notorious of these operatives, Abdurahman Alamoudi, a supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah who told the Annual Convention of the Islamic Association of Palestine in 1996, “If we are outside this country we can say ‘Oh, Allah destroy America.’ But once we are here, our mission in this country is to change it.”
Fact: "Grover appointed Alamoudi’s deputy, Khaled Saffuri to head his own organization. Together they gained access to the White House for Alamoudi and Sami al-Arian and others with similar agendas who used their cachet to spread Islamist influence to the American military and the prison system and the universities and the political arena with untold consequences for the nation."
Fact: Alamoudi is in jail now, as is al-Arian...terror charges.
If you read the article in its entirety, along with the linked articles, you would agree that: "On the basis of the evidence assembled here, it seems beyond dispute that Grover Norquist has formed alliances with prominent Islamic radicals who have ties to the Saudis and to Libya and to Palestine Islamic Jihad, and who are now under indictment by U.S. authorities. Equally troubling is that the arrests of these individuals and their exposure as agents of terrorism have not resulted in noticeable second thoughts on Grover’s part or any meaningful effort to dissociate himself from his unsavory friends."
Fact: "The investment began when Alamoudi wrote two personal checks (a $10,000 loan and what appears to be a $10,000 gift) to help found Norquist’s Islamic Institute.9 In addition, Alamoudi made payments in 2000 and 2001 totaling $50,000 to Janus-Merritt Strategies, a lobbying firm with which Norquist was associated at the time."
"The fact remains that: "Hence, in addition to the seed money from Alamoudi, the Islamic Institute has also received funding from organizations described by the Washington Post as a “secretive group of tightly connected Muslim charities, think tanks and businesses based in Northern Virginia [and] used to funnel millions of dollars to terrorists and launder millions more” – a number of whom are currently part of the “largest federal investigation of terrorism financing in the world."
This is important PDR: " while Grover has denied the charges or sought to dismiss them with such arguments on many occasions, he has never answered them."
No, he hasn't. He can't refute the evidence. Smear job? No, more like caught in the act.
Fact: Americans for Tax Reform shared office space with Norquist's Islamic Insitute.
"No one reading this document to its bitter end will confuse its claims and confirming evidence with those of a political cat fight."
Except you, PDR. Of course, when it behooves ones' purpose it is always easier to ignore and deny...but the facts contradict the denials.
"Norquist engaged in an effort to bring observant Muslims into the conservative coalition. No more, no less."
You must be joking...could you really be so ignorant? AMC, ISNA, CAIR, MPAC, AMA....do you realize what and who these groups are?!!!! You really do need to do your homework...
Unless, of course, you sympathize with the radical muslim agenda.
To all of the facts you offer up I say, "So what?" As I recall, Alamoudi's moneyw as returned to him... I see no proof that any of the people you site received access to anything because of Norquist or Khan's influence... As to the lack of refutation, how does one prove a negative? Its all sound and fury signifying nothing... show me the quid pro quo.
Just because Gaffney says "it seems beyond dispute" doesn't mean anything is beyond dispute.
You see no proof? You ignore the proof.
"To all of the facts you offer up I say, "So what?"
Yep, that pretty much says it all. Thanks for clarifying.
"I see no proof that any of the people you site received access to anything because of Norquist or Khan's influence..."
It's been meticulously documented in the articles and links. Putting your fingers in your ears and screaming is not a debating technique on these boards.
In your world, ignorance is bliss...
"As to the lack of refutation, how does one prove a negative?"
It isn't a negative. Of course, if the information really was wrong, Norquist certainly would have filed a libel suit...he has the means.
He hasn't. He can't, of course, because the information is true.
His failure to file a suit only serves to strengthen Gaffney's statements.
"show me the quid pro quo."
You might want to look up what "quid pro quo" is...
As far as proof goes, I've given it to you...you chose to ignore it.
Sound and fury? That's all you've shown me in this discussion...nothing more.
you so blinded by your feelings you cannot see that there is nothing there before you..... Gaffney has a long personal history with Norquist: His columns are part of a personal vendetta. I say again, the statements of fact you have posted, even if they are true, prove nothing. People met people, people knew people, some people said things -- again, so what? What thng or things occured because of it all that is criminal or even suspect to a rational mind.... some of the best investigative journalists -- real reporters unlike Gaffney -- have looked at all this and found nothing worth reporting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.