Replies

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.

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...

As I see it, looks like everyone got fooled regarding these deep moles and their hidden affiliations

But it appears from the article, that not everyone was fooled. This is very disturbing.

If unarmed Islamists were able to secure access to Mr. Bush and his subordinates (e.g., the Secretaries of the Treasury, State and Energy, the Attorney General, the directors of Homeland Security and the FBI), law enforcement and intelligence professionals got the message that they were not to interfere.

Consequently, over the years, and particularly as the Bush Administration’s Muslim outreach effort ramped up in the aftermath of 9/11, Grover Norquist was able to gain extraordinarily high-level access for a number of troubling individuals and groups

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.

I think that he's been the focus of so much scrutiny because he's the one who (mostly pre-9/11) had been bragging about bringing Muslims and Arabs into the GOP and acting as their conduit to the White House.

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?