A Troubling Influence - An Islamic Fifth Column penetrates the White House

FrontPageMagazine ^ | 12/09/03 | Frank J Gaffney Jr.

[kattracks]

Why We Are Publishing This Article by David Horowitz

The article you are about to read is the most disturbing that we at frontpagemag.com have ever published. As an Internet magazine, with a wide circulation, we have been in the forefront of the effort to expose the radical Fifth Column in this country, whose agendas are at odds with the nation’s security, and whose purposes are hostile to its own. In his first address to Congress after 9/11, the President noted that we are facing the same totalitarian enemies we faced in the preceding century. It is not surprising that their domestic supporters in the American Left should have continued their efforts to weaken this nation and tarnish its image. Just as there was a prominent internal Fifth Column during the Cold War, so there has been a prominent Fifth Column during the war on terror.

By no means do all the opponents of America’s war policies (or even a majority) fit this category. Disagreement among citizens is a core feature of any democracy and respect for that disagreement is a foundational value of our political system. The self-declared enemies of the nation are distinguished by the intemperate nature of their attacks on America and its President – referring to the one as Adolf Hitler, for example, or the other as the world’s “greatest terrorist state.” They are known as well by their political choices and associations. Many leaders of the movement opposing the war in Iraq have worked for half a century with the agents of America’s communist enemies and with totalitarian states like Cuba and the former USSR.

We have had no compunction about identifying these individuals and groups. America is no longer protected by geographical barriers or by its unsurpassed military technologies. Today terrorists who can penetrate our borders with the help of Fifth Column networks will have access to weapons of mass destruction that can cause hundreds of thousands of American deaths.  One slip in our security defenses can result in a catastrophe undreamed of before.

What is particularly disturbing, about the information in this article by former Reagan Defense official, Frank Gaffney, is that it concerns an individual who loves this country and would be the last person to wish it harm, and the first one would expect to defend it. I have known Grover Norquist for almost twenty years as a political ally. Long before I myself was cognizant of the Communist threat – indeed when I was part of one of those Fifth Column networks – Grover Norquist was mobilizing his countrymen to combat it. In the early 1980s, Grover was in the forefront of conservative efforts to get the Reagan Administration to support the liberation struggles of anti-Communists in Central America, Africa and Afghanistan.

It is with a heavy heart therefore, that I am posting this article, which is the most complete documentation extant of Grover Norquist’s activities in behalf of the Islamist Fifth Column. I have confronted Grover about these issues and have talked to others who have done likewise. But it has been left to Frank Gaffney and a few others, including Daniel Pipes and Steven Emerson, to make the case and to suffer the inevitable recriminations that have followed earlier disclosures of some aspects of this story.

Up to now, the controversy over these charges has been dismissed or swept under the rug, as a clash of personalities or the product of one of those intra-bureaucratic feuds so familiar to the Washington scene. Unfortunately, this is wishful thinking. The reality is much more serious. No one reading this document to its bitter end will confuse its claims and confirming evidence with those of a political cat fight. 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.

As Frank Gaffney’s article recounts, 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.” 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.

Parts of this story have been published before, but never in such detail and never with the full picture of Islamist influence in view. No doubt, that is partly because of Grover Norquist’s large (and therefore intimidating) presence in the Washington community. Many have been quite simply afraid to raise these issues and thus have allowed Grover to make them seem a matter of individual personality differences. This suits his agendas well, as it does those of his Islamist allies. If matters in dispute reflect personal animosity or “racial” prejudice, as Grover insists, then the true gravity of these charges is obscured. The fact remains that while Grover has denied the charges or sought to dismiss them with such arguments on many occasions, he has never answered them. If he wishes to do so now, the pages of frontpagemag.com are open to him.

Many have been reluctant to support these charges or to make them public because they involve a prominent conservative. I am familiar with these attitudes from my years on the Left. Loyalty is an important political value, but there comes a point where loyalty to friends or to parties comes into conflict with loyalty to fundamental principles and ultimately to one’s country. Grover’s activities have reached that point. E.M. Forster, a weak-spirited liberal, once said that if he had to choose between betraying his country and his friends, he “hoped [he] would have the guts” to betray his country.

No such sentiment motivates this journal. In our war with the Islamo-fascists we are all engaged in a battle with evil on a scale that affects the lives and freedoms of hundreds of millions people outside this nation as well as within it. America is on the front line of this battle and there is no replacement waiting in the wings if it fails, or if its will to fight is sapped from within. This makes our individual battles to keep our country vigilant and strong the most important responsibilities we have. That is why we could not in good conscience do otherwise, than to bring this story to light.

 

[Trollstomper]

You write: "The White House has extended abilities to research these people, their opinions and potential connections to unsavory middle east groups. Much more than Norquist.

Norquist may be been mislead and he certainly doesn't have the ability to conduct the extensive background and financial checks that might have uncovered connections to terrorists groups. No one was aware of them until after 911 when the FBI, CIA and other depts of US Gov (particularly Homeland Security) started doing deep investigations."

Well, actually, many people, Pipes, Emerson, the FBI, several congressional committees, etc., were well aware of these groups before 9/11; focus on them intensified after the Africa embassy bombings. Some like AlArian and CAIR and the Benevolence International Foundation had been subect o investigations, court actions, and USAID grant revocations inthe 1990's --all available via the internet.

Having worked in 2 White Houses, I can tell you what everyone in this business knows -- you rely on your outside political friends and groups to make the call about who you will "meet and greet" whether it' sin th White House or on stops around the country. Grover is longtime reliable for Rove and he simply "got the con" to handle the Muslim Account, mostly because he showed up with Saffuri and the money and promisses of votes (in the event the GOP lost all the major Arab/Muslim populations states - CA, NY,NJ, MI.) The White Hosue Public Liaison Office has 13 people, the NSC usually under 100. There is no practical way to deal with 280 million Americans and their groups other than 'contracting out.'

To your other qustion, "Isn't he being singled out as the scapegoat? It seems like FBI, CIA, NSA and others are responsible for national security and they should have stopped the contacts prior to them getting an audience the White House?" No: letting these groups or people (any) into the White House is a politcal call, the Secret Service et al, only tell you if the person on the list has outstanding warrants, has threatened the President, etc. It is not the Secret Service's, CIA's or FBI's job to save the WH from political embarrassment, or the bad judgement of it's virtual contractors.

And actually, re the USSS letting Al Arian in the the WH being "prima facie evidence" that the Fed Gov didn't knwo --read the Al Arian indictment -- the gov't has 27,000 hours of wiretaps on him going back over a decade. Again -- it is only the Secret Service's job to stop guy trying to kill the President -- not the one they know is trying to blow up the rest of us.

And Yes, People are accusing Norquist of knowing the dirty truths about these groups (comes with the territory of representing yourself as their handler and godfather), and of refusing, as he has all his life, to admit mistake. He prefers if he can, to attack the messenger instead. Now his bad calls are increasingly openly linked to terror cases, terror funding, spying, and other convictions and he still just prefers to call Gaffney and anyone else who points this out a "racist and bigot."

Every White House has slip-ps, and so do many intermediaries -- but usually they are very rare. The Carter folks had John Wayne Gacey in a clown suit photo'd with Mrs. Carter, then found out he'd buried a bunch of young boys under his porch. If it was Grover, he'd have Gacey and his clubmates back time and again, and call anyone who mentioned it a "pedophile-aphobe and an bigot. And doubtless some here would then claim that Grover's outstanding record for things like naming huge federal buildings after a President who hated large federal buildings, ought to somehow exonerate this other, um, daft behavior. Go figure.

As I've pointed out elsewhere here, the Arab and Muslim pops already vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, and their main groups have all pledged to do so again this year. And anyway, why would one trade off national security just to get a few thousand votes?

[Trollstomper]

"BTW - At the event mentioned in the article where Norquist shared a stage and supported the position of Alec Baldwin regarding the PA, the stage was also shared by the Chairman of the American Conservative Union, David Keene, who also voiced support.

Where is the outcry against Mr. Keene and the ACU?"

ANS: Keene does not do so on behalf of and with money from the muj and their supporters. IN fact he is clearly on record as opposed to them, the Islamists, and is not at all supportive of Grover pushing them. Keene speaks on the Act on what he thinks are solid libertarian grounds. Actually, as those who have read the Act know, in the main it extends to law enforcement tools already available for a range of other federal crimes, notably drug dealing and RICO. (see the excellent essay on the Act in the Manhattan Institute's City Journal). Why would you not want the Govt. to have the same intelligence sharing, surveillance or even penalty range for terror cases as they have for these others? There is much more heat than light surrounding this debate. Grover is only laying down the smoke. He can't explain the Act any more than he can explain M1 and M2 to a midlevel econ class. He's a spinmeister and gadfly for a living, the question is why is he spinning for the muj.

[Trollstomper]

Exactly, and the goal of the Islamist the Norquist has exclusively trafficked with, is to establish Sunni wahhabist Islam A) in US Islam, b) in the US, c) in the world. They are very open about this. Some of the leaders in Gaffney's article have said they want to see Islam as the only religion in America, that they expect that in their lifetime, and that they "would like to see America become an Islamic state." That is a violation of the Constitution you archly cite.

The Islamists, when they get into the White House and cabinet agency meetings demand this exclusive franchise, starting with things like the Prison and Military chaplains programs, etc. They dress this up in the language of the civil rights mau-mau, and Norquist tells everyone that they are the 'right' or 'only' Muslims -- and that anyone who points out the problem is a "racist and a bigot"

So, as the Sauds send them here and fund them to do, they are trying to define and control, including with US Govt. support and fiat, Islam in America. And Grover is their agent in this. Hell of a thing for a Libertarian troll to be extolling and enabling. And that is the complaint.

Now, does Grover do this because he has made a study of Islam and is well acquainted with its many schools of law and interpretation, its sects, e.g., Sunni, Shia, Sufi, and the Barlevis, Deobandis, etc. NO! Ask him sometime. He is defiantly insisting on these particular groups, and still now defending their right and need to be there, with a PC vengance for some specific reason. Could be money, could be a lot of things; Who Cares?!? The point is it's deadly dangerous and has to stop.

[Trollstomper]

"Yet Norquist is the only targeted as a "Fifth Columnist", and there seems to be a constant effort by Gaffney to portray him as such. It is only fair to ask cui bono (who benefits) if Norquist is taken down, and to try to ascertain possible motives."


Try to stick to facts not motives, less diving in needed. Gaffney and other national-security minded writers who have come out on this issue (no major conservative writers have defended Norquist)think the President and the country will benefit if the Islamists are replaced in favor by non-Islamist Muslims. Gaffney et al are not out to "take down" Grover- that is a red herring. Rather, as Gaffney carefully recounts doing, to raise some obvious questions about this aspect of Norquist's operation and either convince him to desist or convince the Admin et al to stop dealing with Norquist on that issue.

RE effects: 1)The exlusive "franchise" afforded to the Islamists versus normative, moderate or syncretic (pic your nomenclature) Muslims misprepresents American Islam (that's whay these groups are all foreign controlled and funded, as is Grover's own Islamic Institute, by the way) 2) it intimidates and thus accelerates the takeover of the latter moderate community 3) It thus provides a Base (hence "Fifth Column" as you'll recall it derviation from the Spanish Civil War) for recruitment, training and fundraising/ remittance. The Govt. has successfully brought a number of cases since 9/11 wherein mosques, charities, foundations and hawalas have raised, in single edifices, as much as $20 million that has then roundtripped to terrorists groups abroad, including Al Qaeda. 4) The Base allows greater opportunity for infiltration of the US systems (Govt, private) -- there are many cases related to this as well,ranging from the military and intelligence entities, to the prison system to airports administration & support services and others that are classified or not yet public. 5) If you are a 3rd year case agent looking at money laundering schemes at an Islamic center and, courtesy of Norquist, you then see the head of that Center or its controlling body standing next to the President or the FBI Director, it has a chilling effect on your decision to ask up the nine layers of bosses for a wiretap or warrant or whatever. (A related example: Four people who figure in Gaffney's article, and who are Islamists, some of whom are very closely tied to terror cases already, have testified in federal court as character witnesses for Norquist bud Sami Al Arian, (alleged, jailed worldwide head of the Shura council of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad) -- all of them invoked -- as their bona fides as to why the judge should listen to their appeal for Sami to be let out on bond -- the fact that they had been advising the White House, lecturing to the White Hosue Fellows Program, serving as contract imams for the Defense Department, etc. So: Saudi-funded wahhabi agents use Norquist'afforded access to get themselves positions and titles they then use to try to sping one of their own from a life sentence for terror. ) How's that for effects. I have a few dozen others, but I don't have the time. You can follow the idea and research it yourself. But this does not have to do with "getting Grover" -- it has to do with stopping this kind of access in a time of war.

The COngressional 9/11 investigation and most others of its ilk (hearings, etc.) have been very clear about the timidity of US law enforcement and how the Church and Pike committees, COINTELPRO and other experiences, coupled with the extreme PC culture in the agencies has created an atomsphere where nobody wants to look at what needs to be looked at, be forward leaning, etc. --al this particualry in regard to Islamists entities, etc.

The cover story on Sauds and Global Terror in the current USNEWS and the NY Times article on redesigning US domestic intelligence and analysis (James Risen, ...Intelligence Overhaul, Dec 9, 2003) both go into this in detail, both regarding past failures to get ahead of 9/11, and post9/11 failures to remediate. You can figure the rest out from here, if you really want to know the answers to the questions you posed relative to the existence or effects of a fifth column and why, by extension, any enabler should be dissuaded or otherwise removed.

[Trollstomper]

I have answered the"what's the damage" issue. Now about this other herring re "crimes"

"Where is the evidence of criminal wrongdoing? I have seen NONE. I have seen nothing that indicates that at all. So that leads me to believe this is more about settling some sort of score that some people have with Norquist than it is about national security, and using the same type of smear tactics that were used against George Bush Sr."

It is not a matter of crimes, although that cannot be ruled out relative to accpetance of foreign money, undeclared lobbying and other issues to arcane to go into here. The point is that crimes are not being alleged, by Gaffney or anyone else serious -- nor is committing a crime the standard against which access and influence should normally be expected to be adjudged.

An analogy with which FP readers and COld War survivors of Norquist' generation will be familiar is the Nuclear Freeze, World without War, World Peace Council, CISPES, et al, groups (the progenitors of ANSWER today). The people running them were leftists with a clear agenda; many were in fact paid and unpaid agents of Soviet controlled front groups, active measures department activities, etc. Some doubtless "believed" in whatever they were doing and had a "policy rationale." For the most part there was no "crime" involved, and this was protected activity, etc.

But we didn't want them in the White House, literally or figuratively, and we did not bring them into coalitions or try to get their vote, etc. And those who took money from handlers in buildings at the UN or on trips abroad and then tried to show up in the American political and policy and media dialogue pretending they were 'just folks with vus' were called "agents of influence." They flew their ideas and their activities under a false flag. And when we pointed that out, they called us McCarthyites. ( Just as Grover calls all critics "racists and bigots")

Later we proved they were taking money from the KGB, Cuba,m E Germany Swedish communists, etc. Some we had long ago taped in meetings in East Bloc embassies but we couldn't say so.

When Russia went out of business so did the marches and most of the hive. That is, until their legal contingent disovered a new life working for the Wahhabi lobby in the US -- Stanley Cohen (representing Hamas and Grover donor Alamoudi), the National Coalition to Protect Political Freedoms, headed by Sami Al Arian, (the ones Gaffney describes giving their award to Norquist), Lynne Stewart, arrested for carrying messages between the "blind sheikh's" cell and his terror buddies; etc, etc,. etc.

Gaffney et al don't want to see such "agents of influence" having influence in the GOP, conservative movement, legal system of protections, terror laws or the White House. One doesn't need a criminal nexus. One needs common sense.

This isn't -- governing, protecting and fighting terror isn't -- a theoretical,ivory tower, oak deck business.

Governments and movements spend billions to influence and inflitrate, propagandize and deceive. The Sauds are well known to be spending as much as the Soviets were, more actually, on these exact efforts $3-4 billion per year. It is well known that virtually every ME studies program, every former ranking US official for ME policy, including most every former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia is on the "Suadi 410 k plan." For instance, former Sec State JIm Baker was the lead lawyer defending the Saud royals against the 9/11 victims families' law suit. Also not a crime of course.

Why can't anyone conceive that someone with the access and teflon-coating some on this site clearly want to paint on Norquist would be an attractive and relatively cheap agent to add to the list if you were a Saud in that line of work?

And as we used to ask, if you were, how would you act any differently: use seed money from several of your lead funding mechanisms (Alamoudi, SAFA Trust, International Institute of Islamic Thought -- all raided for terror financing); give a trusted deputy (Saffuri, from Alamoudi's office) to be the 'hands on" guy (Norquist was founding President/Chariman but Saffuri ran/runs the thing); discover the virtues of free markets and Republicans (Saffuri was a Dem under a Dem leader and org., the Amercian Muslim Council); and set up shop under Norquist, whose hubris encourages any coalition jaunt no matter how risible -- The result of which is that within a year you are getting all your united front's agents into the Candidate, then the White House, etc.

Then, 9/11 happens and you crank up the civl rights/racist/bigotry alarum, a la CAIR and Norquist -- this protects your flank and exposed operations, enlists a hardcore of US leftists (and even some 'useful idiot' Libertarian and conservative types), and marshalls your most militant and angry-at-Amercia base in the country: the 40% of American Muslims who are black converts (increasingly from your well-funded decade-old prison and military recruitment "farm team", just as captured Al Qaeda ops chief Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said to do in America(Newseek,last summer). Brilliant. And a text book case of how it is done.

But I'm sure you knew all that because you read Gaffney's story and all its footnotes, looked into the relevant congressional hearings, did the basic google and nexis searches, read the warrants and indictments of Grover's guests and donors, etc., before deciding that someone is just "jealous" of him, out to get him, smear him, etc.

In re which, by the way: Norquist is the one calling people names and trying to smear them -- people who have served the country and the movement of which he is putatively a leader, for longer than he has and in far more senior and serious positions -- including in the national security arena in question --where Grover has 'accidental tourist' credentials at best!

[Trollstomper]

You write: "Furthermore, if you wish to connect Norquist to the chaplain/translator scandal, you will have to prove he was AWARE of what they were doing on that front. Right now, we're not talking addition or subtraction, we're talking fuzzy math."

No: You run a brothel. One of your girls sets clients up with little boys or girls or whatever. People get infected. I don't have to prove you know what they are "doing on that front" -- only that you and your girls get money from the same place; advocate and militate to keep the umbrella activity and as many of its subsidiary activities as possible covered in the law as "speech" & "privacy" -- and to portray them to the larger public as "educational" or "therapeutic" and anyway victimless; all the while claiming tax exemption because you are providing a home for waywards when you are really a Whoremaster. Anyone who attacks you you accuse of being a misogynist.

Is that easier for you than math?

[Trollstomper]

You write: "For a certain kind of personality, ripping into true heroes of conservatism somehow narrows the accomplishment gap. "

And what is Gaffney? chopped liver, or are you clueless? And Mona Charen, and David Horowitz, and Cal Thomas, etc.

Get out of the personality ditch and look at the facts and decide if you think it's all one 5-year-long series of mistakes by Norquist -- and that this "hero" with all his imputed intrepidity could not in all of America find, in that time or now, Muslims who are not associated in any/any/any way with terror and its supporters --- or who can find a way to fund this exercise with non-Gulf state money? And is the mere suggestion that there are enough troubling connections to warrant such a search being undertaken somehow "small minded," destructive and counter to "principled achievement?"

[Trollstomper]

You write: ".
The fact that a few of them have not turned out to be what people thought they were is unfortunate, but then again, no one knew the extent to which the Saudi's had placed operatives in US Muslim organizations. "

None Grover brought into the campaign are or have ever been accused of being moderate. Anytime in the decade since the Internet has made search engines available, or even just their websites, one could have determined who these individuals were and what they stood for (that is fairly clear in Gaffney's article). People wrote books about them in fact! Ditto the Saudi influence efforts, there have been books like the American House of Saud and The Arabists and years of public records from the Sauds themselves. Some people just wake up slow and late.

People who can't figure these things out are not supposed to be treated like greased wunderkinds and made ad hoc advisors to the President and his retainer-in-chief Mr. Rove. When they are, these "unfortunate" things happen. Got it? It's time to 'get it', not make excuses for it. If Grover doesn't stop or the WH doesn't cut him out of this portfolio, then the curb is the only option.

Gaffney and most all national security types with any serious role fully believe that we need moderate Muslims, and to shore them up against salafist takeovers from LA to the UK and from the Balkans to the Central Asian republics and from Kashmir to Minandao and Eritrea.

Problem is, that is exactly what Grover's Muslims stand athwart. They literally have held press conferences to defend the Turabi regime in Sudan, to give dinner awards to wahhabis who try to kill the King of Jordan; Grover's factotem, Saffuri, shared an office at the AMC, under Alamoudi (who is a member of the Muslim Brotherood,among other things),with the now extradited representative of the Algerian terrorist FIS. The list of such activities of virutally all the group Norquist brought in starting in Austin is numbing and you could easily find this material on the groups' own websites, in the Kyl hearings (see gaffney's website) , or in any of several recent books on the Islamists in America, etc.

[Byron_the_Aussie]

..get out of the personality ditch and look at the facts...

You can't take anything out of the personality ditch when it comes to American politics, mate.

That's why I'm not going to view the Norquist case in isolation. Because I've seen, too many times, the way the conservative fraternity in your country will turn on one of its own like a pack of sharks. A lifetime spent fighting the good fight counts for nothing when you cross the establishment, or fail to meet impossible demands. Witness Senator McCarthy, or Newt Gingrich, or Pat Buchanan. There is a dark side to any intensely competitive fraternity whereby if someone high up gets knocked off his perch, everyone moves up a rung. Can I draw a parallel to the USSR, where in turn, Trotsky, Yagoda and Beria were denounced and destroyed by their successors? Not a parallel comparing our side to them, more to the process- that one day a Gaffney or a Horowitz may in turn wear a slanderous appellation, like Pitchfork Pat or 'Traitor' Norquist.

[Bob J]

I have repeatedly stated that any actions Norquist took that allowed these people close to the White House was unfortunate. I do not believe Norquist knowingly allowed people connected to terrorists this access. He may have been naive, he may have been duped, but he is not a traitor, as some have suggested.

Several people have stated that Norquist has not disavowed the Muslims involved. This is not true. On the Hugh Hewitt show just a couple nights ago, he flatly disavowed them and said he was glad they were in jail. He also stated that the degree to which he was responsible for them gaining access has been greatly exaggerated.

I think Norquist failed in a couple areas. He should not have pulled the race card in dealing with his critics. This may have been an emotional response to a situation he was not familiar in dealing with. Second, he should have come out much sooner and disavowed the people and institutions he has associations with that now we know have ties to extremists groups. He needs to promptly address all these issues fairly and honestly and I believe he will do so.

Norquist may need a spanking, but to run him out of town
on a rail would be unfair and hurt the conservative cause.

[hchutch]

I am no fan of the Church and Pike Committees. I think they did horrible damage to the American intelligence community and helped lead to 9/11.

However, I am also opposed to withchunts and payback, and I remain unconvinced that this is more about national security than it is an attept to take Norquist down a couple of pegs. You cannot deny that there is a split of sorts between cultural conservatives and those who are more libertarian in their outlook.

If that is true among us, is it not true among the major activists as well?

[hchutch]

Well, it goes to show how some people like to add two and two and claim it somehow equals eleven.

I've seen a lot of infighting among the movement. I've seen people attacked and their commitment to the cause questioned over disagreements on the tactics to be used in addressing an issue - never mind honest disagreements over issues like immigration.

If anything is to blame for the reluctance of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to get information on the basis of political correctness, I lay the primary blame on the pattern that started with the committes run by Frank Church and Otis Pike.

[Sabertooth]

Several people have stated that Norquist has not disavowed the Muslims involved. This is not true. On the Hugh Hewitt show just a couple nights ago, he flatly disavowed them and said he was glad they were in jail. He also stated that the degree to which he was responsible for them gaining access has been greatly exaggerated.

Did you catch Hugh's show yesterday?

I didn't hear all of it, but the consensus among Hugh and all of the commentators I did hear was that Norquist's performance vs. Gaffney raised more questions than it answered. Hugh said that feeling was true among all of his Washington contacts as well.

Norquist may need a spanking, but to run him out of town on a rail would be unfair and hurt the conservative cause.

In the interests of full disclosure, can you briefly describe the Free Republic Network's connections to Grover Norquist?

[Trollstomper]

Actually, he lied and denies. He said his Institute only had one check from Alamouid and had sent it back. Actually 2 of the first 12 checks the II ever got came from Alamoudi, one was marked "loan. Both were for $10,000, (exactly the amount by the way that Alamoudi's Libyan tranactions typically were according the the court filings). These have been published in full facsimile by Insight Mag. Grover is like Clinton or any other pathologial liar, he only admits to a bit at a time, and then only after its been outed and proven and when he can make no longer credibly "deny and make counteraccusations." He originally denied Al Arian had been to his office, that he had taken any foreign money (turns out it is the overhwelming majority of the Institutes money, and some $50,000 of it came from people and entities raided for terror financing. he denied having anything to do with the WH Muslim outreach until Muslim and Arab ledes and spoksemen began publicly thanking him, etc., etc. etc.) He was not duped, he is du[ing anyone he can get away with duping.

Anyway , no one is suggesting the shoudl be run out "on a rail." Nor is Gaffney suggesting that he is a traitor. Simply that he has, wittingly done bad things on this from, that he stubbornly persists, and that he should desist for the good of the Presdient, party, and doubtless his own good as well as that of the rest of us. Saying that he is now glad they are in jail allows him to dodge having to fess us to his relations with them; it's a bit of post hoc me-tooism; it also reminds of the chicken thief who wnats credit for not this day having stolen a chicken.

[Trollstomper]

Actually, he lied and denies. He said his Institute only had one check from Alamouid and had sent it back. Actually 2 of the first 12 checks the II ever got came from Alamoudi, one was marked "loan. Both were for $10,000, (exactly the amount by the way that Alamoudi's Libyan tranactions typically were according the the court filings). These have been published in full facsimile by Insight Mag. Grover is like Clinton or any other pathologial liar, he only admits to a bit at a time, and then only after its been outed and proven and when he can make no longer credibly "deny and make counteraccusations."

He originally denied Al Arian had been to his office, that he had taken any foreign money (turns out it is the overhwelming majority of his Institutes' money, and some $50,000 of it came from people and entities raided for terror financing. he denied having anything to do with the WH Muslim outreach until Muslim and Arab ledes and spoksemen began publicly thanking him, etc., etc. etc.) He has traveled all over appearing on platfroms and panels and at conferences with and chaired by Alamoudi and Al Arian, but counting on his audience not to know that, he skirts it, denies he knows them as often as she can, and then cleans up with being happy they now are in jail! He was not duped, he is duping anyone he can get away with duping. And anyway, "dupes" and naives aren't supposed to be advising White Houses, and being leaders.

Gafney et all are not suggesting the should be run out "on a rail." A canard. Nor is Gaffney suggesting that he is a traitor. Simply that Norquist has, wittingly done bad things on this from, that he stubbornly persists, and that he should desist for the good of the Presdient, party, and doubtless his own good as well as that of the rest of us. Saying that he is now glad they are in jail allows him to dodge having to fess us to his relations with them; it's a bit of post hoc me-tooism; it also reminds of the chicken thief who wants credit for not this day having stolen a chicken. All the things Gaffney said about Khan and Tulbah are true, easiy researched; as were all the things Gaffney and his people were arguing about Alamoudi and Al Arian, etc., 2 years ago when warning against bringing them around the President. Grover supported them. kept the doors open for them, and attacked Gaffney for suggesting that the FBI Director should not speak at their events. Now they are facing life sentences for terrorism support! Duh! Grover owes Frank, Gaffney and all he has slimed as "racists and bigots" huge public apology. Gaffney has been right time and again on national security issues for longer than Grover has been a player. There is no equivalance here between Gaffney and Norquist. One was right about the right thing, and one was and is wrong about the wrong thing.

[Trollstomper]

Actually, he lied and denies. He said his Institute only had one check from Alamouid and had sent it back. Actually 2 of the first 12 checks the II ever got came from Alamoudi, one was marked "loan. Both were for $10,000, (exactly the amount by the way that Alamoudi's Libyan tranactions typically were according the the court filings). These have been published in full facsimile by Insight Mag. Grover is like Clinton or any other pathologial liar, he only admits to a bit at a time, and then only after its been outed and proven and when he can make no longer credibly "deny and make counteraccusations."

He originally denied Al Arian had been to his office, that he had taken any foreign money (turns out it is the overhwelming majority of his Institutes' money, and some $50,000 of it came from people and entities raided for terror financing. he denied having anything to do with the WH Muslim outreach until Muslim and Arab ledes and spoksemen began publicly thanking him, etc., etc. etc.) He has traveled all over appearing on platfroms and panels and at conferences with and chaired by Alamoudi and Al Arian, but counting on his audience not to know that, he skirts it, denies he knows them as often as she can, and then cleans up with being happy they now are in jail! He was not duped, he is duping anyone he can get away with duping. And anyway, "dupes" and naives aren't supposed to be advising White Houses, and being leaders.

Gafney et all are not suggesting the should be run out "on a rail." A canard. Nor is Gaffney suggesting that he is a traitor. Simply that Norquist has, wittingly done bad things on this from, that he stubbornly persists, and that he should desist for the good of the Presdient, party, and doubtless his own good as well as that of the rest of us. Saying that he is now glad they are in jail allows him to dodge having to fess us to his relations with them; it's a bit of post hoc me-tooism; it also reminds of the chicken thief who wants credit for not this day having stolen a chicken. All the things Gaffney said about Khan and Tulbah are true, easiy researched; as were all the things Gaffney and his people were arguing about Alamoudi and Al Arian, etc., 2 years ago when warning against bringing them around the President. Grover supported them. kept the doors open for them, and attacked Gaffney for suggesting that the FBI Director should not speak at their events. Now they are facing life sentences for terrorism support! Duh! Grover owes Frank, Gaffney and all he has slimed as "racists and bigots" huge public apology. Gaffney has been right time and again on national security issues for longer than Grover has been a player. There is no equivalance here between Gaffney and Norquist. One was right about the right thing, and one was and is wrong about the wrong thing.

[Trollstomper]

Actually, he lied and denies. He said his Institute only had one check from Alamouid and had sent it back. Actually 2 of the first 12 checks the II ever got came from Alamoudi, one was marked "loan. Both were for $10,000, (exactly the amount by the way that Alamoudi's Libyan tranactions typically were according the the court filings). These have been published in full facsimile by Insight Mag. Grover is like Clinton or any other pathologial liar, he only admits to a bit at a time, and then only after its been outed and proven and when he can make no longer credibly "deny and make counteraccusations."

He originally denied Al Arian had been to his office, that he had taken any foreign money (turns out it is the overhwelming majority of his Institutes' money, and some $50,000 of it came from people and entities raided for terror financing. he denied having anything to do with the WH Muslim outreach until Muslim and Arab ledes and spoksemen began publicly thanking him, etc., etc. etc.) He has traveled all over appearing on platfroms and panels and at conferences with and chaired by Alamoudi and Al Arian, but counting on his audience not to know that, he skirts it, denies he knows them as often as she can, and then cleans up with being happy they now are in jail! He was not duped, he is duping anyone he can get away with duping. And anyway, "dupes" and naives aren't supposed to be advising White Houses, and being leaders.

Gafney et all are not suggesting the should be run out "on a rail." A canard. Nor is Gaffney suggesting that he is a traitor. Simply that Norquist has, wittingly done bad things on this from, that he stubbornly persists, and that he should desist for the good of the Presdient, party, and doubtless his own good as well as that of the rest of us. Saying that he is now glad they are in jail allows him to dodge having to fess us to his relations with them; it's a bit of post hoc me-tooism; it also reminds of the chicken thief who wants credit for not this day having stolen a chicken. All the things Gaffney said about Khan and Tulbah are true, easiy researched; as were all the things Gaffney and his people were arguing about Alamoudi and Al Arian, etc., 2 years ago when warning against bringing them around the President. Grover supported them. kept the doors open for them, and attacked Gaffney for suggesting that the FBI Director should not speak at their events. Now they are facing life sentences for terrorism support! Duh! Grover owes Frank, Gaffney and all he has slimed as "racists and bigots" huge public apology. Gaffney has been right time and again on national security issues for longer than Grover has been a player. There is no equivalance here between Gaffney and Norquist. One was right about the right thing, and one was and is wrong about the wrong thing.

[Trollstomper]

Yes, and that is what the groups Grover has introduced, supported and taken money and awards from seek to perpetuate in our time,The NCPPF is a prime example. I'd behappy to go over the "math" with you and help you out with your homework, but like, Grover, you have not factually rebutted anything. Try. Make my day.

[Trollstomper]

I notice you didn't answer my questions.

[Bob J]

Anyway , no one is suggesting the shoudl be run out "on a rail." Nor is Gaffney suggesting that he is a traitor.

People on this board have done just that either directly or by innuendo. That is what I have been objecting to. Also, I have not criticized Gaffney. We have had him on RadioFR and I find him to be sincere and a fine researcher.

Norquist has some 'splaining to do and I hope he does so quickly and thoroughly. Until he does that, I suggest we ignore the "hang him from the nearest tree" crowd. He deserves the benefit of the doubt until the entire story can be addressed from both sides.