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
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 781-793 next last
To: Bob J
Norquist is not a traitor.Perhaps not, but it appears he has some 'splainin' to do. Looking forward to his response...
21
posted on
12/09/2003 5:43:49 AM PST
by
Damocles
(sword of...)
To: Byron_the_Aussie
I agree with what you state. Norquist's considerable conservative credentials precludes ad hominem attacks but sensible questions are justified and Norquist should address each of them.
The Saudis have been working for some time to penetrate and influence American politics and it is no suprise they have used American Muslim groups to further that aim. Few were aware of the extent of their penetration prior to 911 and to hold Norquist singularly responsible smacks of a witch hunt. At worst, I believe Norquist may be guilty of bad judgement (which you would have to extend to the entire Bush administration since they approved of and conducted the contacts), but to call him a traitor as some are doing, is unfair and ignores his unimpeachable record of successfully advancing conservative causes for decades. Efforts almost all of which would recieve considerable support for here on FR.
I would add that Norquists criticism of portions of the Patriot Act (and be extension the Muslim groups) sound exactly like the positions held by many FReepers on this board. To use that as a basis for condemnation is inconsistent.
22
posted on
12/09/2003 6:03:34 AM PST
by
Bob J
(www.freerepublic.net www.radiofreerepublic.com...check them out!)
To: Damocles
I also look forward to his response.
I applaud his efforts to reach out and attempt to bring Muslim groups into the GOP...they'll just go to the dems of we don't. I'm willing to accept that he was deceived about their connections to terrorists groups, I doubt anyone here is accusing him of having knowledge about it and continuing to make connections with the GOP and the White House.
What I don't get is the singular focus on Norquist for this apparent breach of security. 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.
Why the focus on Norquist? Is 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. The fact they did is prima facie evidence even the Gov was unaware. To hold Norquist to a higher standard than the US Gov is ridiculous.
As I see it, looks like everyone got fooled regarding these deep moles and their hidden affiliations. Giving Norquist 40 lashes over it is nothing but a diversion.
23
posted on
12/09/2003 6:26:37 AM PST
by
Bob J
(www.freerepublic.net www.radiofreerepublic.com...check them out!)
To: Bob J
"...to call him a traitor as some are doing, is unfair and ignores his unimpeachable record of successfully advancing conservative causes for decades."
His conservative political record is all well and good, but his activities as of late serve only to directly undermine the national security of this country. Norquist isn't doing this for his love of mankind... to label innumerable repetitions of the same type of behavior "bad judgment" may hold true for a ten year old, but it is irresponsible here. His position as a conservative should make him doubly aware of the damage of his actions.
This isn't a witch hunt.
24
posted on
12/09/2003 6:29:39 AM PST
by
snowrip
("Going to war without the French is like going hunting without your lawnmower.")
To: kattracks
Bump for later reading.
25
posted on
12/09/2003 6:32:01 AM PST
by
The Mayor
(Through prayer, finite man draws upon the power of the infinite God.)
To: Bob J
Why the focus on Norquist? I don't know. But if any of these allegations are true, he won't be the only one being examined.
I am not predisposed to make a judgment now, but if Norquist has knowingly comported with the dirt bags mentioned in the article then he needs to face recrimination.
It makes no difference to me who he is.
If these charges are baseless, then the author or person responsible for manufacturing this evidence needs to be held responsible for the damage caused.
I'll take a wait and see approach, and I'm sure you will too.
Either way this could be ugly...
26
posted on
12/09/2003 6:41:51 AM PST
by
Damocles
(sword of...)
To: kattracks
Where there's smoke, there's usually fire. Gaffney identifies an awfully lot of smoke in this article, as well as the names of the players.
...the strategy Norquists Islamist friends would follow in the wake of the hijackings: Exploit the Presidents laudable and strategically sensible desire to show that neither he nor the American people would hold all Muslims responsible for the murderous actions of the few.
This tactic surely seems to be working!
As an insider, Gaffney's appalling and detailed allegations will have the effect of either reversing the radical Islamist influences in the Bush Administration and this country or killing off Gaffney. Watch what happens to him to see how the battle goes.
Muslims = Communists. We need to treat Muslims the same way we treated Communists in the Cold War - always suspected of acting against American interests until proven otherwise (which almost never happened)!
27
posted on
12/09/2003 6:53:27 AM PST
by
Gritty
("Outside the US we say 'Oh, Allah, destroy America'. Inside, we change it--Abdurahman Alamoudi, AMC)
To: snowrip
Seems to me "his activities as of late" were mostly pre 911. Norquist ws trying to put together a coalition of Muslim groups that could identify with and support the GOP, a good long term goal for conservatism. The extent of the Wahhabi tentacles into Muslim American society were unknown, even by the government.
To assert that Norquist knowingly has and is undermining the security of the US is absurd. Did he screw up? Yes.
I got an idea, let's continue to eat our own so we end up with no effective non GOP conservative influence or leadership. Then we can just hand everything over to the pols.
28
posted on
12/09/2003 6:54:18 AM PST
by
Bob J
(www.freerepublic.net www.radiofreerepublic.com...check them out!)
To: Damocles
The functional word in your post is "knowingly". I am willing to accept that Norquist may have been duped but cannot accept the allegation that he knowingly entered into a scheme to undermine the security of the US.
His entire life cries out against it.
29
posted on
12/09/2003 6:56:32 AM PST
by
Bob J
(www.freerepublic.net www.radiofreerepublic.com...check them out!)
To: Gritty
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?
30
posted on
12/09/2003 6:59:17 AM PST
by
Bob J
(www.freerepublic.net www.radiofreerepublic.com...check them out!)
To: Bob J
I agree. Knowingly is the hanging word.
I've been burned enough times by blindly believing in a persons character, without REALLY knowing the person.
As dissapointing as it would be I'm cynical enough to entertain the idea.
31
posted on
12/09/2003 7:10:04 AM PST
by
Damocles
(sword of...)
To: Bob J
Moslems from the middle-east are here. Better Norquist try to move moderate ones to support the GOP than to send them packing over to the DNC. If they weren't bad before the DNC were able to influence them, they certainly soon would be. I too do not believe this is a black and white issue at Norquist's expense.
To: kattracks
Bump for later read
33
posted on
12/09/2003 7:17:00 AM PST
by
agrace
To: Bob J; LurkerNoMore!
Bump!
34
posted on
12/09/2003 7:21:34 AM PST
by
Howlin
To: DoughtyOne
I think Norquist believed the ones he was entertaining were the moderate ones. Hindsight is always 20/20.
35
posted on
12/09/2003 7:32:32 AM PST
by
Bob J
(www.freerepublic.net www.radiofreerepublic.com...check them out!)
Comment #36 Removed by Moderator
To: DoughtyOne; Bob J
Any human will be loyal to their God before all. If Norquist is a practicing religious Muslim he should never ever be trusted for even one second...ever again.
This is not my opinion BTW, it's a hard and very real fact of life.
37
posted on
12/09/2003 7:39:09 AM PST
by
AAABEST
To: AAABEST; Bob J; Howlin
Excuse me, the last time I checked, freedom of religion was still a part of the Constitution - and I did not hear of any amendment that created an exception that only applied in the case of Moslems.
38
posted on
12/09/2003 7:39:47 AM PST
by
hchutch
("I don't see what the big deal is, I really don't." - Major Vic Deakins, USAF (ret.))
To: Bob J
Maybe not, but Gaffney is quite convincing. Norquist needs to answer point for point. This is truly disturbing.
To: kattracks
Read Later.
40
posted on
12/09/2003 7:44:20 AM PST
by
c-b 1
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 781-793 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson