Norquist (Islamofascist stooge) slams Frank Gaffney

FoxNews Channel | 02/07/2003 | self

[montag813]

Did anyone see Grover Norquist viciously slam Frank Gaffney for daring to question surrendering the GOP to Islamic extremists? He just did it on John Gibson's show. Norquist is nothing but a stooge for Islamofascists. He actually claimed that no extremists or anyone even espousing or supporting extremist views could ever gain entry to the White House due to SS "vetting". Gee, so how did those three imams on tape calling for America and Israel's destruction end up in the post-Sept 11 meeting with Bush? Norquist actually said "people with a higher security clearance than Frank Gaffney will ever have" were giving prudent advice to the President regarding how wonderful Islam is. Perhaps he forgets that he has never had any security clearance and that Gaffney was Deputy Secretary of Defense. How insulting this little gerbil is. Gaffney was a gentleman, very reserved and reasoned. Norquist was a maniac, hurling nasty insults and questions about Gaffney's mental health. Digusting.

[Skatergal]

it seems to me that it would be a good idea to get some facts straight. I heard Gaffney's comments at CPAC and I thought it was awful. He claimed that some guy at the White House shouldn't be in the White House just because he is a moslem. That is not just a shot at the guy, its a shot at the President. The left is always going after Grover making up stories that he hangs out with bad moslems just because they can. Why are so many conservatives feeding that frenzy, I don't know. People need to realize that not all moslems are Islamic extremists, and shouldn't be treated as if they were.

As for Grover, whether I agree or disagree, I admire what he is trying to do. He is taking the position that we shouldn't have hatred or bias towards people because of their religion and because some evil people performed evil in its name. It is a hard, politically incorrect thing to do. It's easy for people like Gaffney to call everyone a wahabi without even thinking about it, its much harder to defend the unpopular, even in a country created for purposes of religious liberty.

And he does not date a moslem. He has been dating a person in the movement for many years whose name most of you would recognize.

[browardchad]

I heard Gaffney's comments at CPAC and I thought it was awful.

I wasn't at CPAC, and this thread, as I recall, was discussing Norquist's appearance on Fox News. I was not aware of the background of the story, so was watching through unbiased eyes. Norquist looked bad, and his tactics, as I described in my original post, were worse.

He is taking the position that we shouldn't have hatred or bias towards people because of their religion and because some evil people performed evil in its name.

If that it his intent, that is honorable, but his tactics on Fox News were dishonorable, and definitely did not further his cause.

Considering the documented evidence of exactly who Norquist (the apparent liason with the Muslim community), has invited to the White House in the past (and to the 9/11 Memorial Service at the National Cathedral), I don't believe skepticism regarding his judgement are unwarranted, and certainly Gaffney is not the only conservative who has questioned that judgement. Are they all wrong? Are the anti-American, anti-Semitic statements of Norquist invitees, which are a matter of public record, to be disbelieved?

he does not date a moslem

I could care less who or what he dates. I made no reference to Norquist's love life in my original post.

[Frankie Fiveangels]

I heard the CPAC remarks as well and Gaffney did, as advertised, single out a peron who works in the White House -- by name -- and essentially accused him of letting terrorist sympathizers in to see the president based on nothing more than the allegation that his father is the treasurer of a mosque in Houston, Texas.

Norquist, in my view, has every right to be upset. Rather than confront him directly, Gaffney has been writing columns about him and otherwise smearing Muslims by altering facts to fit his theory. If Norquist went over the top, and I don't think he did, he had every right to.

Think about how you would feel if Gaffney were Blumenthal or Brock talking about Free Republic as a group based on what a few of the posters say.

[browardchad]

essentially accused him of letting terrorist sympathizers in to see the president based on nothing more than the allegation that his father is the treasurer of a mosque in Houston, Texas.

I wasn't at CPAC, but I believe Gaffney's objections were based on something other than generic anti-Islamic sentiments.

Per Gaffney in The Washington Times, 2/11/03:

"The AMC (American Muslim Council) press release made a point of commending Ali Tulbah, an associate director of the White House's Office of Cabinet Affairs, for including their representatives (notably, executive director Eric Erfan Vickers) in the meeting. Mr. Tulbah similarly admitted another highly controversial organization, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), in this meeting. There appear to have been at least nine other meetings that these groups have attended with the White House and senior administration officials since September 2001, some at the invitation of a predecessor of Mr. Tulbah in the role of gatekeeper for the administration's Muslim "outreach" efforts, Suhail khan. The inclusion of such organizations is remarkable on its face. It is, after all, a matter of public record that they actively oppose President Bush on: the need forcibly to liberate Iraq; increasing surveillance of potentially dangerous aliens in this country and the places where they congregate (including mosques); and giving law enforcement tools to counter terror. They have also repeatedly expressed sympathy for, excused or otherwise supported groups identified by the Bush administration as terrorists. Last June, for example, CAIR's executive director Nihad Awad declared "I am in support of the Hamas movement." And in a television debate last June with me, the AMC's Mr. Vickers declined repeatedly to denounce either Hamas, Hezbollah or even al Qaeda, finally describing the last as a "resistance movement."

Think about how you would feel if Gaffney were Blumenthal or Brock talking about Free Republic as a group based on what a few of the posters say.

If Free Republic were actively condoning and/or encouraging the rhetoric of groups such as the AMC and CAIR, I would say they deserved the criticism.

I don't see Bush as a villain in this BTW, but as a politician who is not thinking outside the box on this matter. Relying on entrenched special interest groups is a way of life in D.C., but in this case, it is preventing the moderate Muslims -- those who truly believe that theirs is a "Religion of Peace" -- from having their voices heard.

Today, I listened to anti-Semitic spew from Ibrahim Cooper, spokesman for CAIR, on the Press/Buchanan show on MSNBC. He stated that the arrest of Sami Al-Arian was a result of the Jewish control of the U.S., along with the same-old, same-old "persecution of Muslims" line. It was nauseating -- and yet this organization is the one cultivated by Norquist, given entree into the White House, and consulted by the State Department in its PR campaign to improve the U.S. image in the Muslim world. That is the basis of Gaffney's (and others) objections, and he definitely has a point.

[hchutch]

If Gaffney did say what Norquist is saying he said, then the White House staffer is owed an apology unless Gaffney has PROOF to back up his allegations.

Otherwise, Norquist is correct to disinvite a person who has apparently slandered a White House aide.

[Poohbah]

In the old days, this would have already been settled in a properly masculine fashion--dueling pistols at ten paces.

Norquist is perfectly within his rights to be angry if Mr. Gaffney cannot substantiate the charges.

[Ligeia]

Okay, thanks for the ping. I now have a better understanding of the disagreement. I sure wish someone would invite the two of them over for a beer and settle this misunderstanding / feud in private.

[LurkerNoMore!]

Sometimes you are fed only 1/2 of the story.

[TLBSHOW]

Norquist is nothing but a stooge for Islamofascists.

[TLBSHOW]

he is a fake, he is a liberal rat

[LurkerNoMore!]

tat tat

[TLBSHOW]

ping

[TLBSHOW]

Grover is NOT an ideologue.
He's more than willing to cast aside principles for the highest bidder

FOR THE TERRORIST

[nutmeg]

bump

[Frankie Fiveangels]

he may have been measured and reasonable but I suspect that Zodiac, the serial killer who terrorized San Francisco in the 1960's, was measured and reasonable too on those few occassions when he called the police

[Frankie Fiveangels]

what gaffney said at cpac was that the american muslim council bragged ina press rlease that they had gotten in to see the president as part of a group of American-Muslims because of one Ali Tulbah, who is, I believe, the associate director of cabinet affairs for, if you can believe it, state, defense and justice... his father is one Hassan Tulbah, the treasurer of an Islamic Mosque in Houston -- that was it -- not facts, not proff just smear by innuendo because the guys' father happens to be the treasurer of a Mosque.

[TLBSHOW]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/848113/posts?page=342#342

[Frankie Fiveangels]

ping! and bump!

[philosofy123]

I was watching the Christian Coalition yesterday on C-Span, and this Norquist name came by Daniel Pipes as a guy that pushes Islam as a religion of peace on to President Bush.

As long as the Islamic organizations in the US and the rest of the world are not outraged at their religion being the motive for violence around the world, ALL Moslems should be suspects, should never have high security clearance.