A Troubling Influence - An Islamic Fifth Column penetrates the White House

FrontPageMagazine ^ | 12/09/03 | Frank J Gaffney Jr.

[Trollstomper]

"No one that I can see has been defending Norquist per se, we're just wondering why the focus on him when security breaches seem to have been the rule of the day and by much larger fish than him."


How about becauwe he's the one we have the best chance to stop and he's the one who comes closest to doing it in the name of the GOP, conservative community, etc. And because he started it, abetted it along the way, and is still doing it?

[Bob J]

Seriously Troll, you're teetering. My suggestion is take a few days off and go fishing...or bending spoons.

[Bob J]

All right, then you call out who is responsible for those security breaches and flag me to those threads.

Huh? Why is Grover Norquist. Head of the Secret Service, the FBI and the NSA.

[general_re]

I'll ask again in an effort to build that starting point...If you had high level access to the WH and the POTUS would you personally take it upon yourself to ensure that whoever you brought in for a visit was on the up and up beforehand, no matter if it was supposed to be "someone else's job" or not?

Well, to answer your earlier questions, I'm not Norquist. Or Rove. Or GWB for that matter. Along with that, I'm also not the Secret Service, the FBI, the CIA, or any of the other folks we put in charge of tracking terrorists and terrorist sympathizers. Neither, to my knowledge, is Grover Norquist. And concomitant with my failure to be those people or institutions, I don't have the resources that they have. And if they knew something about these guys that I didn't, and used it to play "gotcha" rather than letting me or their masters - remember them? the people they're supposed to report to? - I'd probably be a bit pissed off too.

Well, gee Wally, do you think it's because Norquist arranged the meeting and they trusted him to vet those he brought in? Did they even know exactly which individuals were being brought in or was it just a "some guys I know" type of thing.

I dunno. Why in the hell didn't they ASK? Or am I supposed to believe that Grover Norquist can stroll up to the front gate with Osama bin Laden in tow, and everyone there will just wave them into the Oval Office, no questions asked - because hey, it's Grover, right?

She wrote that President Clinton ``wasn't sure we'd want photos of him with these people circulating around''....the White House determined that Wang Jun had not been vetted by the NSC

Et cetera. You'll have to excuse me if I hold this White House to a slightly higher standard than the last one.

Such minor things though. No sense getting too complicated as to specific responsibilities, is there.

Let's see. Shall I go through and count the number of threads that blamed all the Clintoon Chinagate problems on Chung and Charlie Trie and the rest of those characters? Or maybe, just maybe, I'll find a whole bunch of threads assigning responsibility to the man at the top, Der Schlicker himself. Is that where this is going? Is Grover just a convenient knife with which to stab Bush? 'Cause it's starting to look that way to me - is that where you want to go with this? Is that what this is all about?

[Trollstomper]

I have explained numerous times the canard about WH security. They do guns, not gut checks, ok. that's the simplest way to put it. If you want the long version see earlier posts re USSS, Gary Aldrich, the son of AlArian attempt by the USSS for which they were castigated by Grover and Rove and Saffuri, or the little hypothetical about Nixononian war protesters.

And, anyway, as none of you can get the USSS to change its mandate, procedures, etc, but may be able to so regarding Grover, who is in the first instance the intiating factor, it is incumbent upon us to do so. You know, approbative behavior, and all that nice market philo.

[AzJohn]

Another hit piece from FrontPage that has already proven a prepdisposition for disliking Norquist

There are plenty of links in the article if you want to evaluate its fairness. And of course, as Sabertooth's post #531 indicates, others have written about Nawash as well.

[Sabertooth]

#518: They don't call it the stupid party for nothing.

Then there's no need to try and prove it by yourself.

#523: I have a problem with Norquist being called a traitor and having him accused of knowingly selling this country down the river.

You have a problem with repetitious straw men, and avoiding the actual arguement.

#528: C'mon. Another hit piece from FrontPage that has already proven a prepdisposition for disliking Norquist.

Again, nothing of substance from you. Attack the messenger. If it's unflattering of Norquist, it's a hit piece. If one publisher is working the story, they have "proven a prepdisposition for disliking Norquist."

Not any attempt from you to discuss a fact.

Well, handwaving is good cardio, I suppose.

#530: No one that I can see has been defending Norquist per se,

See the earlier: "Another hit piece from FrontPage that has already proven a prepdisposition for disliking Norquist," per se.

#530: we're just wondering why the focus on him when security breaches seem to have been the rule of the day and by much larger fish than him.

"Everyone lies about sex."

"Grover-haters."

#539: You keep piling up all those articles as beakers crash around you.

Tell you what: you can throw them all night, I'll continue to post pertinent informartion, and you can continue to pretend otherwise.

Fair enough?

#539: Look around 'tooth. I never thought you'd be duped so easily.

Did you make a grand sweep of your arm as you posted "look around?"

If the duping was so easy, your debunking of it should be childsplay.

Let me guess: you're toying with me.

[philman_36]

It's a phrase Francis, lighten up.
Yeah, whatever "Big Toe"! You just lost any respect I might ever have had for you. I know it's no big loss for you as I hardly matter, do I.
And thanks for the implied "psycopath" implication, which is what many considered "Francis" to be in the movie "Stripes" from which you pull your quaint quip from.
Deameaning others isn't below you either, is it! I somehow expected more from you. How disappointing.

[Bob J]

How about becauwe he's the one we have the best chance to stop and he's the one who comes closest to doing it in the name of the GOP, conservative community, etc. And because he started it, abetted it along the way, and is still doing it?

Seems to me the best way to stop it is for the Republican and conservative community to say "Nyet" to Grover. I don't live in DC and am not privy to the soap opera machinations of political intrigue and who's got the biggest...trout.

Look, this is getting comical. The only reason people have been on this thread questioning the opinions of the intelligentsia is because we couldn't understand the single minded obsession to get Grover. It's obvious that question is not going to be answered to any degree of satisfaction, so maybe it's time bid adieu and let the natural order of chaos and self fulfillment in Washington play out it's normal half life.

DISCLAIMER

My interaction on this thread should not be taken as any kind of terrorsymp (sympathy for terrorists). I just happen to like Grover, have followed his career and in a way he is kind of a hero to me. I find it unfathomable that he in any way would knowingly be complicit in any scheme to subvert the government of the United States. It is possible that he has been mislead or duped, that is always a possibility. But I do challenge anyone who would question his patriotism or loyalty to our constitution. He has been a good soldier in our fight and he deserves that from us.

With that, I sign off this thread. Good luck to the FR denizons who wish to stay and fight the good FR fight.

See you in the jungle.

[Bob J]

One last.

Jeeze, buck up dude.

[Bob J]

BTW - I never recite "Stripes" to anyone I don't like. It's kind of a fraternal thing, like Caddyshack.

[Trollstomper]

And if they knew something about these guys that I didn't, and used it to play "gotcha" rather than letting me or their masters -"

FYI, No one is playing "gotcha" --if anything the game is "Stop Ya."

The point as almost everyone else seems to get, is that Norqyist is the one who knew who these people were. If he didn't why was he taking their money, sharing an office with their deputies and speaking at untold numbers of events with them and getting their awards for 5 years? Is it because he's the dumbest person on L street?

Just FYI: There is no Thought Policy Division of the Secret Service. It is not anyone's job to ideologically vet those taking meetings in the WH complex except those arranging their own meetings.

If you are the WH in-house staffer or outside advisor on Veterans coalitions, and you decide you want to bring Jane Fonda in, it is no one's job in the security, intell or scheduling office to tell you "No", question your decision or anything else.

No outstanding warrants, no threats to the President, and she's in.

The responsible and guilty person is the one who brings her in. period. That's how it works whether you think its laughable or not. This is only further compounded when it turns out that this same person took money from "Ted" or "Jane," and a little from some known fronts for Soros and Hanoi, and to top it off used "Jane's" former congressional agitator to do all the leg work. Got it? Ok, now, slowly, substitute "Grover" for "the person", and "Alamoudi" for "Jane", and "Saudi" for "Hanoi," and...

Using this simple diagram, we can see that IT IS NOT SOMEONE ELSE's JOB -- IT IS GROVER's . Call it the burden of access, fame and power -- a terribly heavy thing, but some of us have to do it, and it's only once every few years that someone comes this close this often to screwing it so big.

[general_re]

And so nobody in the government knew who these guys were. Nobody at all. Right.

[philman_36]

Why in the hell didn't they ASK?
Good question! And an even better question...Why aren't they asking now?
Or am I supposed to believe that Grover Norquist can stroll up to the front gate with Osama bin Laden in tow, and everyone there will just wave them into the Oval Office, no questions asked - because hey, it's Grover, right?
Well, you can believe what you choose to believe. Why you're asking me what you're supposed to believe is beyond me. Nevertehless, Grover is considered part and parcel of the whole package, whether it is liked or not.
You'll have to excuse me if I hold this White House to a slightly higher standard than the last one.
Doesn't seem like you're doing that to me. You, and others, appear to be trying to minimize affiliations that have gone on since before the last election for political expediency.
Shall I go through and count the number of threads that blamed all the Clintoon Chinagate problems on Chung and Charlie Trie and the rest of those characters?
Nah, I'm familiar with all of that too and it would merely be a diversion. I'd rather we stick to the stuff this thread is talking about. I was merely using those things as illustrations.
Or maybe, just maybe, I'll find a whole bunch of threads assigning responsibility to the man at the top, Der Schlicker himself.
Now that I would like to see! Maybe though, you couldn't.
Is that where this is going?
Is that where what is going? You have a most infuriating manner of asking incomplete questions.
Is Grover just a convenient knife with which to stab Bush?
To me, as I see it, Grover is stabbing himself with the proverbial knife and I'm the one hoping it doesn't end up in someone else. You seem to care not where the blade ends up.
'Cause it's starting to look that way to me - is that where you want to go with this?
Why are you also doing this? All you're doing here is the same BobJ did with his "this is not the mountain you want to die on." threat. You're the ones who need to be called "Francis" if anyone does!
Is that what this is all about?
Another of those incomplete questions. How do you ever expect anyone to carry on a conversation with you? Or is it that you have no wish to carry on a conversation with anyone so you ask incomplete questions deliberately?

The two of you have given me an epiphany though with your 513-517 replies. The MO is so obvious now.
I'll see the both of you on the next WOsD threads in ya'lls various pseudonymous characters.

[philman_36]

I never recite "Stripes" to anyone I don't like. It's kind of a fraternal thing, like Caddyshack.
Well, thanks, belatedly, for that. Hindsight is 20/20 and all that...
Still, it wasn't very nice if you aren't privvy that it's an inside joke.

I still stand by my epiphany though. The MO stands as self evident. Ya'll have played the game one time too many.

[Bob J]

Still, it wasn't very nice if you aren't privvy that it's an inside joke.

If I told you in advance, I'd have to kill you.

[philman_36]

If I told you in advance, I'd have to kill you.
What you consider funny, in this instance, isn't, to me.

[Bob J]

Phil, you seem like a nice dude but seriously, you need to loosen the tie some. You've been around FR since 2000, me since, well, it germinated. The Forum is a great source for education and sometimes rallying the troops for a needy cause.

In between, we attack, we parry, we retreat. It's all about honing our skills when we go up against the A Team. Sometimes we break the morgue like atomosphere with a little humor to remind us that although this politics stuff is important, it ain't our whole lives. We all got families, jobs and relationships that are more important than who is "FReeper of the day".

It's just a website.

[general_re]

Nevertehless, Grover is considered part and parcel of the whole package, whether it is liked or not.

Hey, that's fine - I just want to know that we're getting the whole package. And so far, throwing Grover on the pyre doesn't persuade me that he is, all by himself, the whole package. If Grover did things he shouldn't oughta done, so be it, but he's not the end of the questions here - I just can't escape the feeling that somebody somewhere is covering their own butt by tossing Grover to the wolves. Maybe he even deserves it, but if he shouldn't be alone in the shitstorm, let's not let whoever else is responsible off the hook too.

Doesn't seem like you're doing that to me. You, and others, appear to be trying to minimize affiliations that have gone on since before the last election for political expediency.

Who's minimizing anything? If anything, the folks telling you Grover's the beginning and end of this problem are the ones minimizing this. I don't believe that, and I don't believe that some of the posters here touting that notion - not you in particular - believe it either. I think someone's setting up Grover to use as a club against much bigger fish, in that old guilt-by-association game.

Or maybe, just maybe, I'll find a whole bunch of threads assigning responsibility to the man at the top, Der Schlicker himself.
Now that I would like to see! Maybe though, you couldn't.

Riiiiiight. So when Algore got busted in the Buddhist temple, everybody blamed the Buddhists, right? When Chinese influence-peddlers and assorting comsymp moneymen were cavorting in the White House, nobody here pinned that on Clinton, right? Somebody's setting this up to make political hay about the White House itself, and I don't believe for a minute that it'll stop with Norquist being labeled a terrorist sympathizer.

You seem to care not where the blade ends up.

On the contrary, I decline to participate in the witch-hunt today, thank you. I'm content to let the whole story come out, rather than relying on the word of people who can barely disguise the fact that they hate Norquist, which is pretty much all you've got to work with so far. If there's more there, I want to know about it, rather than pretending that if we make Grover go away, this'll never ever happen again.

Another of those incomplete questions. How do you ever expect anyone to carry on a conversation with you? Or is it that you have no wish to carry on a conversation with anyone so you ask incomplete questions deliberately?

I suspect that you're just about the only one who is having trouble with the sort of basic english comprehension needed to follow what I'm saying. Actually, I don't even think you're having trouble with it - for whatever reason, you've decided to play little rhetorical games rather than discuss the issues at hand, perhaps in an attempt to score some sort of debating points with the peanut gallery. I don't know. Frankly, I don't care.

The two of you have given me an epiphany though with your 513-517 replies. The MO is so obvious now. I'll see the both of you on the next WOsD threads in ya'lls various pseudonymous characters.

What in the hell are you blathering about? Lemme let you down really gently, sport - I haven't posted to the WOD threads in a good long time now, and I only run under the one name here. I do scan 'em occasionally though, and I recognize you from them. Here's the funny part - mostly, I'm pretty sympathetic to the points I've seen you make. Heck, I agree with a lot of what you have to say on that issue. But hey, you know sooooooo much about me from this thread, right? Hell, you don't even have to ask me about my opinion on anything any more, do you?

Sheesh. Whatever.