Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Troubling Influence - An Islamic Fifth Column penetrates the White House
FrontPageMagazine ^ | 12/09/03 | Frank J Gaffney Jr.

Posted on 12/09/2003 1:37:45 AM PST by 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.

 


(Excerpt) Read more at frontpagemag.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Extended News; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: ageofliberty; alamoudi; alarian; alitulbah; alkebsi; alnajjar; alqaeda; alzawahiri; amc; ampcc; atr; awad; blackmuslim; bobj; bray; cair; davidhorowitz; elashi; enemywithin; fifthcolumn; frankjgaffneyjr; gaffneynorquist; grovernorquist; hamas; hezbollah; horowitz; iara; islamicinstitute; isna; khafagi; khaledsaffuri; khan; mpac; mrus; mwl; ncppf; norquist; patriotact; pij; rove; royer; saeed; saffuri; secretservice; siddiqi; suhailkhan; todayspurge; vickers; wahhabi; yousefyee; yusuf
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 751-793 next last
To: Poohbah; Valentine_W
Actually there seems to be a problem with the Reason article. Olsen has this to say:

So when Exodus 21:15-17 prescribes that cursing or striking a parent is to be punished by execution, that's fine with Gary North. "When people curse their parents, it unquestionably is a capital crime," he writes. "The integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat of death."

In fact North says something quite different. He devotes over 30 pages of his book "Tools of Dominion" to developing this subject, and finally on page 310 you find:

"At the beginning of this chapter, I raised the question of the parents' willingness to take a rebellious son to court. Would they do this if the death penalty were inescapable upon his conviction? Probably not. The key question then is this: Is the death penalty absolutely required by the pleonasm of execution? The point I have tried to make in this exposition is that this pleonasm applies only in cases where the State is authorized to initiate the prosecution., i.e. in cases where there is no earthly victim who can bring charges."

"This is not the situation in cases involving a rebellious son. Parents can and must bring their son before the civil authorities and complain about his conduct. God requires them to bring him to the civil court. Then judges would then enforce a penalty specified by the parents, although they might first recommend an appropriate penalty. The son would obey his parents far more readily in the future, since he would know that the parents could take him back and insist on escalating penalties up to the death penalty if he committed similar infractions again. This fear would reinforce the parents' authority in the home."

North goes on to say

"This law, Rushdoony perceptively argues, is a law against the development of a professional criminal class.

251 posted on 12/10/2003 8:11:44 PM PST by Pelham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Byron_the_Aussie
I don't give a flying F about someone's "sterling record over decades of conservative accomplishment" when, as they get older and obviously stupider (like Steve Forbes, Sr. or Barry Goldwater in his twilight) when they are NOW sleeping with our enemies and can't see it.

Norquist is now doing nothing more than using his built-up political clout to help his new buddies that have bamboozled him. I'll take Frank Gaffney's version over Grover's any day.

And by the way, "mate", I've got a firm idea of what I'm talking about regardless of your weanie attacks about anominity. Like I could look up "Byron" online for Australia and your address would pop up.

Some of you down under need to realize most of us don't give a hoot what some Queen loving descendant from a criminal have to say about anything.
252 posted on 12/10/2003 9:53:28 PM PST by Fledermaus (Fascists, Totalitarians, Baathists, Communists, Socialists, Democrats - what's the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: Fledermaus
..I don't give a flying F about someone's "sterling record over decades of conservative accomplishment"...

Well, of course you wouldn't.

Norquist's accomplishments only make your inadequacies look even worse. Cheers, By

253 posted on 12/10/2003 10:00:05 PM PST by Byron_the_Aussie (http://www.theinterviewwithgod.com/popup2.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: Byron_the_Aussie
What inadequecies. You don't know me from Adam and you have no idea of anything I've ever done in my life to work and support conservative causes.

Throw another shrimp on the Barbie and worry about your own. You pitiful little attacks just show your shortcomings, if you get my drift.
254 posted on 12/10/2003 10:03:27 PM PST by Fledermaus (Fascists, Totalitarians, Baathists, Communists, Socialists, Democrats - what's the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: Fledermaus
..what inadequecies. You don't know me from Adam...

Puh-leez. Batman pics, on your Freeper page?

The prosecution rests.

255 posted on 12/10/2003 10:05:17 PM PST by Byron_the_Aussie (http://www.theinterviewwithgod.com/popup2.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: Fledermaus
I apologise to you for that last post, which was out of line. This is my last reply to this thoroughly unpleasant thread. Regards, Byron
256 posted on 12/10/2003 10:39:18 PM PST by Byron_the_Aussie (http://www.theinterviewwithgod.com/popup2.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: EverFree
There is no verifiable evidence that Bush carried the Mulsim vote by anything like 70% (other than Norquist asserting it (w/o footnotes)in the American Spectator and elsewhere. It turns out, by the way, that the only assertion one can find after exhaustive research for this claim came from a "sample" done by Sami Al Arian's Tampa Bay Islamic Center. What a shocker! What IS verifiable is that Bush and the GOP lost in every major state with substantial Arab and or Muslim population concentration (CA, NY., NJ, MI -- the latter being the then-only Arab American Senator, Spencer Abraham, in the state with the largest Arab and Muslim concentration). Florida.....well, we all know .... Hope this answers your question.
257 posted on 12/10/2003 10:44:47 PM PST by Trollstomper (Trollstomper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: EverFree
Start voting? As with most all immigrant groups, let alone ones from socialist countries, Muslim Americans and Arab Americans have traditionally voted Dem, and their PACs and the 501 c 3, including the ones Grover brought to candidate Bush and to the White House, have and continue to support Dems (including his own cutout, Khaled Saffuri)-- indeed radical ones like Cynthia McKinney, Ms. Jackson-Lee, James Moran and Bonior. Recent polling data by Zogby for some of these same groups has confirmed that this trend continues. You can easily google for these or pick any of the names Gaffney cites and run them on the net and at Opensecrets or FEC and look at the contribution trends.
258 posted on 12/10/2003 10:53:10 PM PST by Trollstomper (Trollstomper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: NYC GOP Chick
You say "To hold Norquist to a higher standard than the US Gov is ridiculous."

Actually, that's what we are supposed to do with "leaders" -- self-appointed and otherwise!

As has been mentioned, discernment is the key here. These groups and their leaders' pro-terror and explicitly anti-American positions have been well-known for a long time and easily available on the net. If this were in any other aspect of Norquist's political life, he would have vetted the Hell out of people he came remotely this close to (e.g., primary candidates or candidates for political appointments)-- and certainly anyone he was going to use up big chits for -- namely taking them into private audiences with the GOP candidate for President, and thence to the White House (not something even a Norquist spends lightly) -- let alone before then recklessly attacking people like Gaffney, and other's his senior in the movement, in such rabid and leftist Jesse-Jackson/ Al Sharptonian rhetoric --without first doublechecking!

I'm afraid there is no excuse for this, and certainly not ignorance of these rather notorious people. It is about money -- Norquist'firm was hired by Abdurahman Alamoudi and then Jamal Barzingi, two 20-year Wahhabi agents in the US; and Saffuri (immediately past deputy to Alamoudi) was previously a cutout for Norquist's long time rainmaker Jack Abramoff and even briefly worked at his lobbying firm,Greenberg Traurig, according to federal election records from 2001.

By the way, Norquist gets tons of money from all manner of firms and groups, from Microsoft to Beer wholesalers and Philip Morris and the RNC -- how do you think he does all his magicke? (Way more than Gaffney gets from Boeing, I'd bet a 747!). In Washington, it is all about Money. "The cause" is a mask that Norquist continues to wear to confuse the innocent, apparently with some considerable effect, while raking in the money. Abramoff and Norquist lobby for Indian Tribes (CASINOS) --tens of millions in fees -- all the while pretending it's just about lowering taxes and "privatizing" the reservation. (The WSJ and NYT have both profiled Abramoff and the WSJ cites him talking about how he moves millions through Norquist. To do what, get favors and rents from government. Hello!
259 posted on 12/10/2003 11:16:18 PM PST by Trollstomper (Trollstomper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Byron_the_Aussie
Acutally, Norquist sepcifically links his opposition to Patriot (and to Secret Evidenc before that) to his Mulsim activism. And he does so openly and consistently, if not almost exclusively. He speaks at their conferences and events and is rewarded by them for so doing -- he has received the AMC's award and the one Gaffney cited from Al-arian's National Coalition to Protect Political Freedonms. And what is this NCPPF -- legal aid for any and all terrorists groups who have tried to blow upo the US or allied governments in our time --ETA, FALN, IRA & Provos, the Panthers, and Sheik Abdul Rahman (the 'blind sheikh' who brought us the first WTC bombing. and who was and is the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood) -- just to name a few of the NCPPF's roster of clients. Oh, and of course, Samil Al Arian's various Palestinian Islamic Jihad fronts are also members. And there are some fine shooters in the club too, for instance Russel Means, in jail for killing the 2 FBI Agents at Wounded Knee in the early 70's. So why is this the place Grover, before 9/11 and again a month ago, chooses to headline and raise money for while makeing his stand on the Patriot Act. Come on. The Federalist Society maybe, but the NCPPF. Maybe you think Thomas Sowell should go the Panther Headquarters to make his stand on quotas! Grover either is bizzarely incapable of doing the minimum homework (year on year on year), or he did it and decided in some too-clever-for-the-rest-of-us calculus that these are still the best people and groups to make a stand with.

By the way, does it strike anyone as strange that a no-taxes advocate ought to be so engaged, at the expense of such heat, on this issue while the GOP is spending at record reckless rates and the tax cut agenda for the election year is stalled??
260 posted on 12/10/2003 11:32:46 PM PST by Trollstomper (Trollstomper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
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?


261 posted on 12/11/2003 12:01:19 AM PST by Trollstomper (Trollstomper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
"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.
262 posted on 12/11/2003 12:10:45 AM PST by Trollstomper (Trollstomper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
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.
263 posted on 12/11/2003 12:24:57 AM PST by Trollstomper (Trollstomper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
"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.
264 posted on 12/11/2003 1:04:23 AM PST by Trollstomper (Trollstomper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
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!
265 posted on 12/11/2003 1:59:45 AM PST by Trollstomper (Trollstomper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
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?
266 posted on 12/11/2003 2:14:31 AM PST by Trollstomper (Trollstomper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Byron_the_Aussie
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?"
267 posted on 12/11/2003 2:26:07 AM PST by Trollstomper (Trollstomper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
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.
268 posted on 12/11/2003 2:46:40 AM PST by Trollstomper (Trollstomper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: Trollstomper
..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.

269 posted on 12/11/2003 3:43:58 AM PST by Byron_the_Aussie (http://www.theinterviewwithgod.com/popup2.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: Trollstomper
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.
270 posted on 12/11/2003 5:51:32 AM PST by Bob J (www.freerepublic.net www.radiofreerepublic.com...check them out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: Trollstomper; Bob J; Byron_the_Aussie
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?
271 posted on 12/11/2003 6:23:20 AM PST by hchutch ("I don't see what the big deal is, I really don't." - Major Vic Deakins, USAF (ret.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: Trollstomper
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.
272 posted on 12/11/2003 8:03:55 AM PST by hchutch ("I don't see what the big deal is, I really don't." - Major Vic Deakins, USAF (ret.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
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?


273 posted on 12/11/2003 8:14:03 AM PST by Sabertooth (Credit where it's due: saveourlicense.com prevented SB60, and the Illegal Alien CDLs... for now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
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.
274 posted on 12/11/2003 8:20:24 AM PST by Trollstomper (Trollstomper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
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.
275 posted on 12/11/2003 8:32:38 AM PST by Trollstomper (Trollstomper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
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.
276 posted on 12/11/2003 8:32:51 AM PST by Trollstomper (Trollstomper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
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.
277 posted on 12/11/2003 8:32:53 AM PST by Trollstomper (Trollstomper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
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.
278 posted on 12/11/2003 8:35:52 AM PST by Trollstomper (Trollstomper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: Byron_the_Aussie
I notice you didn't answer my questions.
279 posted on 12/11/2003 8:38:20 AM PST by Trollstomper (Trollstomper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: Trollstomper
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.

280 posted on 12/11/2003 9:01:07 AM PST by Bob J (www.freerepublic.net www.radiofreerepublic.com...check them out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: Trollstomper; Bob J; Byron_the_Aussie
You know, you come on pretty arrogant for a person who just signed up today and who has attacked SEVERAL posters who have been here for quite a while and who have raised questions about the accusations against Mr. Norquist.

I'm not Grover Norquist by any stretch of the imagination. Such a wild accusation is not going to improve your credibility with me by any stretch of the imgination, unless you inhabit the same reality Gary Sick did with his allegations of an "October Surprise" by Reagan-Bush officials.
281 posted on 12/11/2003 9:11:19 AM PST by hchutch ("I don't see what the big deal is, I really don't." - Major Vic Deakins, USAF (ret.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: hchutch



I'm not Grover Norquist by any stretch of the imagination. Such a wild accusation is not going to improve your credibility with me by any stretch of the imgination...

I missed this.

Where were you accused of being Grover Norquist?


282 posted on 12/11/2003 9:21:31 AM PST by Sabertooth (Credit where it's due: saveourlicense.com prevented SB60, and the Illegal Alien CDLs... for now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

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

Allow me to answer that. Grover Norquist is one of several people who informally advises FRN on a number of issues. By 'informally' I mean that none of these people has any authority over anything we do; they just give us ideas or advice when we ask for it.

As you may know, Norquist's office is host every Wednesday to a meeting that is attended by representives from practically every conservative organization on the planet. The White House, Senator Frist's office, and Speaker Hastert's office also send representatives, and they tell us about the legislative agenda or other policy topics. Conservative candidates from around the country come there to introduce themselves. Virtually any group that has something going on can get a minute or two on the agenda, and I have done so numerous times to promote things the FRN was doing, such as the "Rally for America" events we did back in March. This is also how I was able to arrange for Angelwood to attend a speech given by President Bush. It is how we met Jeff Gannon of Talon News, who now hosts a program on Radio FR. In short, Grover Norquist has been of enormous help to us in connecting us with other people and organizations that share our goals.

He can do that because he is widely respected in the conservative community in Washington. I wish that I could take a webcam into the Wednesday meeting with me so that I could flash it around and show our fellow Freepers just how seriously people in Washington are taking Mr. Gaffney's crusade. You are making this out to be some kind of big deal, when in fact it's just one Nut On A Mission who has managed to convince a few people that he has something. What he has is a list of scary-sounding Arab names and a gift for placing them in the same sentence with the words "Grover Norquist" and shouting Booga Booga!

If I ever see any guys in sheets with AK-47's in his office, I'll let you know. So far all I've seen in there is a veritable Who's Who of conservative politics.


283 posted on 12/11/2003 9:24:48 AM PST by Nick Danger (With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth; Trollstomper
Rereading the post, I realize I misread it.

That said, I still find it interesting that he has just signed on today, and that he has seen fit to attack SEVERAL upstanding Freepers.

I'd like to see some proof of his bona fides.
284 posted on 12/11/2003 9:29:57 AM PST by hchutch ("I don't see what the big deal is, I really don't." - Major Vic Deakins, USAF (ret.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
That's the point: Grover refuses to seriously engage, understand the facts as listed and deal with them rather than recasting them and then shooting htem down. FOr instance, Gaffney never accused Khan or Tulbah of "treason" he said that they were the ones who the wrong Muslim groups had thanked for bringing them into the White House.

IN so stating, Gaffney pointed out that both of their fathers had demonstrable Wahhabi connections. Several major papers wrote about Khan the elder hosting Al Qaeda' s number 2 (among other things Khan senior did, including start a host of spin-off groups some of which are vicously anti-Semetic and anti-American, Americans for Global Peace and Justice), and any serious effort to research the people who run the Greater Houston Islamic Center (a collection of a few dozen mosques, schools, etc) where Tulbah Sr. controlled the money, whould reveal that a number of the members of the fiqh and khtub councils also run pro-AlQaeda websites and praise bin Laden.

Once, in office, these two young men seemed only to be inviting the individuals and groups Gaffney cites and most all now agree were the wrong groups. In turn those groups are ideologically and otherwise very much related to, and in the same vein as, those the fathers where part of running and funding. Gaffney simply suggested that may be why the sons then seem to only bring them into the White House. That's who they grew up around and can most easily and credibly reach out to, etc. Just like Red Diaper Babies and Port Huron Statement signers.

IF all of you would actually get down on the ground and research the groups and people, instead of lofting alleged principles and concepts, you would get a clearer picture. Gaffney has done a serious, well-footnoted effort at this and it provides an excellent point of departure for people who are serious to begin their own research. Grover clearly has not aND WILL NOT. A person like Gaffney who is a serious national security professional would never bring someone to the Secretary of Defense and suggest they be, for instance, placed on an arms control advisory group, without fulllyexmining their record, public statements, interviewing people who worked with them over the years, etc. Grover,and anyone given his role and WH relationship, shoould do the same. When they don't one, ends up with a pile of "unfortunate" associations that you have to strain all credulity to excuse time and time again.
285 posted on 12/11/2003 9:58:23 AM PST by Trollstomper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger
In short, Grover Norquist has been of enormous help to us in connecting us with other people and organizations that share our goals.

Thanks for that bit of background.

What he has is a list of scary-sounding Arab names and a gift for placing them in the same sentence with the words "Grover Norquist" and shouting Booga Booga!

Then it should be easier for Norquist as well as his supporters who think Gaffney has nothing, to refute the particulars, point by point, than they've been able to do thus far.

If I ever see any guys in sheets with AK-47's in his office, I'll let you know.

Where has anyone suggested that this is the case?

So far all I've seen in there is a veritable Who's Who of conservative politics.

I don't think anyone diputes that, by and large. The fact that they're a "veritable Who's Who of conservative politics" makes them quite influential, and a ripe target for infiltration, by, say, someone like Khaled Saffuri, a contributor to the banned terror org., the Holy Land Foundation, and former deputy at the American Muslim Council under Abdurahman Alamoudi, an avowed supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah who is currently under arrest for a number of terror-related activities.

Ever seen Saffuri at the Wednesday meetings?


286 posted on 12/11/2003 10:09:22 AM PST by Sabertooth (Credit where it's due: saveourlicense.com prevented SB60, and the Illegal Alien CDLs... for now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
You haven't answered anything. I am a 30 year veteran of US conservative policts and have worked for President Reagan and in Congress and intelligence. I have known Norquist and Gaffney for decades. I live in DC and watch this very closely and am more than passingly familiar with the facts in question, and have considerable professional experience in relevant areas. I have not attacked anyone here. Ihave provided facts and asked questions. You have not provided facts and you have not answered questions. If you thing that's an attack on you, deal with it!
287 posted on 12/11/2003 10:20:52 AM PST by Trollstomper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
If Grover was investigated under RICO, his associations would have sent him to the pokey.
288 posted on 12/11/2003 10:23:21 AM PST by swarthyguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
I'm glad you find it "interesting" that I "just signed on yesterday" Does that mean I was born yesterday? WHo does one know if I haven't been here under other names for years. Hmmm. SO many questions. How about this: my bona fides are my facts and points. Deal with those, not my bloodline -- That would be a kind of e-bigotry.....

What consitutes an 'attack' on several Freepers? Just stick to the facts and not the diversions.
289 posted on 12/11/2003 10:26:44 AM PST by Trollstomper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
I'm glad you find it "interesting" that I "just signed on yesterday" Does that mean I was born yesterday? WHo does one know if I haven't been here under other names for years. Hmmm. SO many questions. How about this: my bona fides are my facts and points. Deal with those, not my bloodline -- That would be a kind of e-bigotry.....

What consitutes an 'attack' on several Freepers? Just stick to the facts and not the diversions.
290 posted on 12/11/2003 10:30:48 AM PST by Trollstomper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: Trollstomper; hchutch
I'm glad you find it "interesting" that I "just signed on yesterday" Does that mean I was born yesterday? WHo does one know if I haven't been here under other names for years. Hmmm. SO many questions. How about this: my bona fides are my facts and points. Deal with those, not my bloodline -- That would be a kind of e-bigotry.....

Have you ever been registered on Free Republic prior to December 11, 2003? If so, what screen name(s) did you use?

For a guy who just started posting, you sure are quick to accuse other Freepers--of much greater primogenitural standing--of various misdeeds.

It's usually a symptom of trolldom, Trollstomper.

291 posted on 12/11/2003 10:42:09 AM PST by Poohbah ("Beware the fury of a patient man" -- John Dryden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah; hchutch
And only posts to this thread.

Naw, couldn't be.
292 posted on 12/11/2003 10:45:34 AM PST by Howlin (Bush has stolen two things which Democrats believe they own by right: the presidency & the future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: Howlin; hchutch
TLBSHOW, or perhaps DITHF?
293 posted on 12/11/2003 10:46:55 AM PST by Poohbah ("Beware the fury of a patient man" -- John Dryden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Please catalogue this accusations of misdeeds> starting with the ones I allegedly accused you of?

The multiple listings point was obviously rhetorical. Nice try though. Just finding it funny that one imputes such serious value to bloodline-type issues, rather than deailing with the facts, questions, etc. It's just a blog, not Mensa or the Debretts Registry (which I'm sure you'd be amused about if I belonged t given your concern with "greater primogenitural standing." Wow. "I was in line first" I think that was the first thing I heard someone say in kindergarten.
294 posted on 12/11/2003 10:49:50 AM PST by Trollstomper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Please catalogue this accusations of misdeeds> starting with the ones I allegedly accused you of?

The multiple listings point was obviously rhetorical. Nice try though. Just finding it funny that one imputes such serious value to bloodline-type issues, rather than deailing with the facts, questions, etc. It's just a blog, not Mensa or the Debretts Registry (which I'm sure you'd be amused about if I belonged t given your concern with "greater primogenitural standing." Wow. "I was in line first" I think that was the first thing I heard someone say in kindergarten.
295 posted on 12/11/2003 10:49:56 AM PST by Trollstomper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: Trollstomper; Poohbah; Long Cut; El Conservador; Bob J; Nick Danger; Howlin
How can I believe you?

Quite frankly, if you've really been that involved, you may want to re-think your approach.

I have had my disagreements with other posters here. Poohbah and I have disagreed on whether or not the Iowa-class battleships should be reactivated (I'm for reactivation, he's against it). Long Cut and I have disagreed on the need for the SURTASS LFA sonar system (I am in favor of developing and deploying that system, he is against it). In neither case do I feel that their opposition to those systems is cause to question their commitment to this country's security.

El Conservador and I have disagreed about the AUC and Carlos Castano. I see them as a valuable ally against FARC and the drug lords, and I feel his work with Los Pepes ought to count for something. His view about the AUC and Castano is much different from mine, and I am sure he will not hesitate to jump in on that. But I think it is safe to say that both El Conservador and I both want to see FARC out of business and that we both share a desire for Colombia to experience doestic tranquility.

Both Nick Danger and Bob J have made some very valid points in this thread. And it looks like both of them are being attacked for not going along with the charges that have been thrown at Norquist.

There are conservatives who have concerns about the Patriot Act. Bob Barr and Dick Armey come to mind right away. Does that leave them open to the same sort of charges that are made against Grover Norquist?

Am I a "terrorist supporter" because I believe Colin Powell made the wrong call about the AUC?

Am I a "terrorist sympathizer" because I don't buy the "Islam is the enemy" bullcrap some people are foisting here?

Am I a "terrorist sympathizer" for pointing out that this feud could be more related to the known tension between cultural conservatives and the more libertarian wing of the movement?

I'd like to know.
296 posted on 12/11/2003 10:49:56 AM PST by hchutch ("I don't see what the big deal is, I really don't." - Major Vic Deakins, USAF (ret.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Whoever it is, it is most certainly NOT Door Number 1; it can't piece together a coherent statement unless it copies it from FR.
297 posted on 12/11/2003 10:51:03 AM PST by Howlin (Bush has stolen two things which Democrats believe they own by right: the presidency & the future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Please catalogue this accusations of misdeeds> starting with the ones I allegedly accused you of?

The multiple listings point was obviously rhetorical. Nice try though. Just finding it funny that one imputes such serious value to bloodline-type issues, rather than deailing with the facts, questions, etc. It's just a blog, not Mensa or the Debretts Registry (which I'm sure you'd be amused about if I belonged t given your concern with "greater primogenitural standing." Wow. "I was in line first" I think that was the first thing I heard someone say in kindergarten.
298 posted on 12/11/2003 10:51:12 AM PST by Trollstomper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
I'm sure all that is interesting to someone. I didn't address any of those issues, nor make any of the implied statments or allegations (e..g, "terrorist sympathizers"). I have just posted facts, asked questions and answered people's, largely rhetorical, questions. I would be interested in seeing you stay on subject and reply in kind to the "very valid points" I have made.
299 posted on 12/11/2003 10:55:27 AM PST by Trollstomper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: Trollstomper; hchutch; Howlin
Please catalogue this accusations of misdeeds> starting with the ones I allegedly accused you of?

You have yet to accuse me of any. You have flat-out accused hchutch, Bob J, Byron the Aussie, and others of not answering your questions solely because they don't have a case of hinge-head to your every remark.

The multiple listings point was obviously rhetorical.

Your behavior fits the pattern of many trolls we've had show up and get banned over the years. Yes, we do profile here at Free Republic.

When you look like a duck, walk like a duck, quack like a duck, and then do all that during duck season...it's your own fault if you get a load of buckshot into your tailfeathers.

Nice try though. Just finding it funny that one imputes such serious value to bloodline-type issues, rather than deailing with the facts, questions, etc.

Free Republic has been a key player in organizing and executing grass-roots activism. Ever see a "Sore/Loserman" sign that used the same graphic style as the "Gore/Lieberman" campaign signs? That was invented right here on Free Republic.

It's just a blog, not Mensa or the Debretts Registry (which I'm sure you'd be amused about if I belonged t given your concern with "greater primogenitural standing."

It's a bit more than a blog. We like it the way it is, and we don't like pushy newbies trying to coarsen the debate.

Wow. "I was in line first" I think that was the first thing I heard someone say in kindergarten.

You got here last. That means you have no business whatsoever telling us what this place is, what happens here, and how we're all wrong unless we prostrate ourselves before your superior wisdom.

Enjoy your stay. It will be brief.

300 posted on 12/11/2003 11:01:34 AM PST by Poohbah ("Beware the fury of a patient man" -- John Dryden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 751-793 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson