Replies

The access of Islamists and terror symps is ongoing. I'd say that's evidence.

Evidence of what? Where is the demonstrable harm to America's national security? The illegal transfers to the People's republic of China were proven to my satisfaction and to a Congressional Committee's satisfaction.

C'mon, look at how silly your argument is:

"We don't know that steps aren't being taken, therefore maybe they are, therefore we shouldn't worry about whether or not steps are being taken."

Right now, there is NO evidence of harm to nationals ecurity or the prosecution of the war. Only very serious charges being laid out.

And what strikes me as suspicious is that in the ABSENCE of any evidence of a crime on the part of Grover Norquist, you demand a full investigation. Do you know what your position sounds like to me? It sounds like Tom Foley saying that the charges that Reagan-Bush campaign officials met with Iranian officials to sabotage negotiations to release the hostages held by Iran - baseless charges leveled by Carter Administration Gary Sick needed to be investigated BECAUSE there was no evidence of wrongdoing. "We need to investigate for evidence of wrongdoing BECAUSE there is no evidence of wrongdoing."

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.

Evidence of what? Where is the demonstrable harm to America's national security?

We're fighting a War on Terror based, in part, on a principle of pre-emption. We aren't going to wait until terrorists or terror states attack, or can threaten us with WMDs, we're taking the fight to them.
Why, then, should we preclude pre-emption with regard to Fifth Columnists in the WoT?
Shouldn't we find them before they do harm our national security?

The illegal transfers to the People's republic of China were proven to my satisfaction and to a Congressional Committee's satisfaction.

Great, let's get a Congressional Committee to investigate the Islamist Fifth Columnists, and those who are aiding them in their efforts.

Right now, there is NO evidence of harm to nationals ecurity or the prosecution of the war. Only very serious charges being laid out.

Thanks for acknowledging the charges are serious.
Unfortunately, you seem, like the Democrats, to want to wait until our national security is actually harmed before you're willing to do anything to prevent it.

And what strikes me as suspicious is that in the ABSENCE of any evidence of a crime on the part of Grover Norquist, you demand a full investigation.

Isn't the purpose of investigations, to gather evidence? What we do have with Norquist is a lot of evidence that he's cozy with terror symps, and has assisted them in penetrating the circles of power in Washington. Maybe he's just an ambitious dupe, and has committed no crime. Maybe some of his associates have committed crimes. Sami Al Arian is under arrest for involvement with Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Abdurahman Alamoudi is under arrest for charges that include financial dealings with al-Qaeda and Hamas. Alamoudi also helped recruit the Islamic chaplain spies at Gitmo. Khaled Saffuri, Ahmoudi's former deputy at the American Muslim Council, and Norquists current partner at the Islamic Institute, whom Norquist calls a "great patriot," gave money to the Holy Land Foundation, now a banned terror organization. Their Islamic Institute has received donations from the Safa Group, an umbrella for a number of terror orgs.
No, nothing to raise suspicions here, no reason to investigate.

Do you know what your position sounds like to me? It sounds like Tom Foley saying that the charges that Reagan-Bush campaign officials met with Iranian officials to sabotage negotiations to release the hostages held by Iran - baseless charges leveled by Carter Administration Gary Sick needed to be investigated BECAUSE there was no evidence of wrongdoing. "We need to investigate for evidence of wrongdoing BECAUSE there is no evidence of wrongdoing."

You sound like John Glenn.
Is providing access to terror symps an example of rightdoing, or wrongdoing?

Where is the evidence of criminal wrongdoing? I have seen NONE.

Where's the evidence that you want to look? And why are you now hedging with "criminal" wrongdoing?

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.

How badly will President Bush be smeared if you're wrong?
Tell you what: 90% of the reason I'm voting to re-elect this President is because of the War on Terror. I don't want that war or his re-election hindered because Republicans were unwilling to look squarely at a problem in our own camp in the person of Grover Norquist.

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!