Replies

Gaffney makes a strong case, undercut at times by his personal falling out with Norquist, and overstretched assumptions like Norquist's opposition to the PATRIOT Act being on behalf of his Muslim associates. But there's plenty of meat there, and Norquist needs to explain himself. Given his stellar record of conservative activism over decades I think we can give him the benefit of the doubt, at this point. Let's wait for his response, which for his sake had better be a point-by-point rebuttal, rather than an attack on Gaffney's character.

Well, the hostilities between Gaffney and Norquist have been going on since very early this year (I think). And since all of these troubling allegations/facts/etc. have been brought out, Norquist hasn't addressed them in a way that satisfies many people -- he's only really attacked Gaffney and others as "bigots" and the like.

I'm all for giving people (especially conservatives) the benefit of the doubt, but not when it comes to national security. For me -- and I am someone whose neighborhood has *twice* been blown up by the people with whom he aligns himself -- it can literally be a matter of life and death.

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.

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??

>>>Let's wait for his response, which for his sake had better be a point-by-point rebuttal, rather than an attack on Gaffney's character.<<<

I agree wholeheartedly with your last statement, above. I do not agree that we give Norquist the benefit of the doubt.

Norquist better explain his very defensive posture to Gaffney's allegations and do it clearly and concisely. His actions are of a man caught red handed.

We all trusted Ritter, the arms inspector, a while back - until Saddam bought him off and he changed his stripes. Lets see Norquist's stripes. Gaffney's veracity is, in my opinion, pretty close to the gold standard.