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

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

[Sabertooth]

I just can't escape the feeling that somebody somewhere is covering their own butt by tossing Grover to the wolves.

< -snip- >

I think someone's setting up Grover to use as a club against much bigger fish, in that old guilt-by-association game.

Are these two different people?

Seems to me that only a higher-up could throw Grover to the wolves, if that's what's happening. However, if that's what's happening, then I think your second statement is inoperative.

[general_re]

Shit. I'm too tired for this. ;)

If an apology is owed, I'm sorry.

[philman_36]

Psst...General...Phil is saying he has read what we've written and is thinking about it. Time to let the pie cool on the windowsill.
Well said. Later.

[Bob J]

Seems to me that only a higher-up could throw Grover to the wolves, if that's what's happening.

Yes, but somebody first has to attract the wolves, or in this instance, the Sabertooths.

[Trollstomper]

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


Yes they did, but that is not the point. The point is that Grover 'had the con' and he didn't come clean, use good judgement, etc. He abused the trust people placed in him.

Maybe he was a man in a hurry trying to prove his point about Muslim coalition potential, or to look like he was delivering more votes and money or... Whatever. Who cares?

On the way he made big mistakes and repeatedly compounded them, lied about them and snarled out unconscionably at his colleagues and seniors who were trying to help him and the cause avoid what has already come to pass and what will.

That's the Grover part and that's 95% of it. Period

About law enforcement and intell: in sum, in the process of developing cases you want to determine how many people are really involved, how do they implement their tradecraft, are you compromised, are they in league with others yet undetermined, how do they move money and people, etc.

If it is an international terror case, which several of Grover's people are parts of (doesn't that just chill anybody on this thread???) -- then it takes even longer, years often, to piece it together, follow the leads, test theories and convince yourself you've got it all. And then convince, at about a hundred points along the way, US atorneys, Justice lawyers, CIA or DIA who may be running the same traps for different reasons, and foreign government liaisons, and the FISA court judge for the wire taps, and other squads and agencies for support resources -- and all of this takes huge time. Now, why might you watch this for even longer -- because you may be able to stop a 911.

And if that is the consideration, then there is a signoff that the mission has to be protected and prosecuted in the utmost secrecy and brought to a successful conclusion.

This might for instance include simultaneous raids in 10 countries, some of whose officials are notorously corrupt, infiltrated, etc., or in which you may first also have to exfiltrate one of your own double agents, or a source, or a family 'pawn', etc. Pick your options.

Now given all that, the complications and permutations of which you have doubltess seen in Clancy movies or somesuch, -- Do you really, Any of you, think that even if you knew, from a wiretap, that an Al Arian was going into the White House via Grover -- that you then would risk all of this to raise a red flag to Grover (who already knows who Sami is and you know is taking money from the same source and might be involved more deeply)? or warn some Gs-11 placeholder in Public Liaison (who you know knows al Arian via past Muslim work or shared family ties)? Are you goign to say, what? -- that there all this counter-terrror op is going on worldwide, and in 72 FBI field offices, all related to this guy -- so "Tsk tsk, better call off that meeting" -- just to protect Grover and Public Liaison from Grover's cupidity or stupidty, or corruption, or who-cares-what?

Or even, in fact, to protect the President from some possible future headline embroglio.

NO WAY IN HELL! THE JOB IS TO PROTECT THE COUNTRY FROM ANOTHER 9/11, or whatever dastardly deed is afoot.

At the very most, you want to watch the meeting if you have time and resources, and if you can get a judge and a superior to approve it (never happen), so that you can see if AlArian has other contacts in the building, what is he asking for at the meeting (e.g., More muslims working for TSA at airports to prove that we are earnestly against profiling? His chosen Muslims, from his special training charity? The ones we don't want inside the perimeter with box cutters, etc. etc.)??? He may come home and tell his wife, so you'll pick it all up without the hassle of going into the WH.

But actually, there are over 1000 active terror-related cases in the US, and there are 13,000 agents. It takes multiple agents to do a case (3 for 24 hour moving posts for intance),so you can do the math and see that if all the FBI did 24/7 was terror, it would still not likely be judged a good use of resources to dog AlArian to a White House mtg. Even if it is going blessedly to be in English so you don't have to wait a week for a translation.

This is a rough-out of how it really works, what some of the equities are, and how low on the pole political judgment or public relations or Presidential embarassment comes.

Too many people on this thread seem more concerned, or comfortable, with the political aspect, Norquist or otherwise -- and not enough concerned with or knowledgable about the terrorism angle and how it is worked -- which is mostly what all this is about. I have found it rather appalling that people glibly dismiss the idea of Grover, or anyone else, trying to bring, for instance, Alamoudi's lawyer Nawash into the party, the tent, or the WH for that matte -- much less doing a fundraiser for him at Grover's home. How is it somehow within the accepted realm of rationalization to say that this is all 'no big deal', quite normative, and that Al Qadea or Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorists 'need lawyers too', and we should adjust and calm down about it? After all, Grover must have his reasons. Passing strange.

[general_re]

Seems to me that only a higher-up could throw Grover to the wolves, if that's what's happening. However, if that's what's happening, then I think your second statement is inoperative.

I don't know what the hell's going on, frankly. But I don't think this is the whole story, by any stretch - this whole "we don't do background checks" thing smells to high heaven, just for starters. I think somebody caught on to the fact that Grover was either knowingly or unknowingly associating with some unsavory folks, but rather than take steps to do anything about it - one damn phone call to the White House, for crying out loud - they let him get in good and deep, so that Grover's associations could be used to tar the White House or people in it.

Because I have to believe that somebody somewhere knew who these guys were, somebody other than Norquist. And that somebody owed the White House the courtesy of a phone call before letting them stumble into a trap that Norquist either intentionally or stupidly set up. That's what I mean by a "gotcha". Yes, Norquist should be responsible for the people he vouches for, but I can't believe that he can run a parade of folks like that through the White House without someone noticing that at least one of them probably shouldn't be there. And whoever that somebody is, is in just as deep as Norquist is, IMO.

[Bob J]

It's late, get some sleep...tomorrow is another day!

[general_re]

Yes they did, but that is not the point.

No, that's exactly the point. If the intelligence and law enforcement communities can't be bothered to communicate with the folks they're legally supposed to be reporting to, that's a problem, and it's an institutional problem that goes way the hell beyond Grover Norquist.

If it is an international terror case, which several of Grover's people are parts of (doesn't that just chill anybody on this thread???) -- then it takes even longer, years often, to piece it together, follow the leads, test theories...

Whatever. That's a nice story, but at this point, that's all it is - a nice story. I don't know any such thing, and neither, I suspect, do you.

[general_re]

Man, you're not kidding. Lucky for me, I already took tomorrow off to finish my Christmas shopping ;)

Over and out...

[William McKinley]

As you know, I found this article credible and disturbing; it is why I pinged you to the other copy of it.

However, someone on the other thread challenged part of it, and I have to say I think that person was right-- one incident in the article appears to simply be made up despite the fact that it is footnoted.

Ironically, pro-Islamist groups had been scheduled to meet with President Bush on the morning of September 11 to hear what he planned to do to deliver on his secret evidence campaign pledge.27 But that day, the executive mansion complex was shut down, for fear that a fourth hijacked aircraft was headed its way.I watched bemused as Grover Norquist and the White House official responsible for Muslim outreach, Suhail Khan, escorted the displaced Islamists into the conference room we share.(Al-Arian had arranged to participate in the presidential meeting via phone. According to his website, his teaching schedule at the University of South Florida would not allow him to be there in person.)28

We all know that Bush was not scheduled to meet with anyone regarding anything at the White House on the morning of Sept. 11. Like Al-Arian, he was in Florida.

And if this footnoted incident is incorrect, how much else of the information is incorrect?

At the same time, there is so much information presented that can or could be confirmed or denied by third parties that I can't fathom that most or all of it is made up.

We need to hear more. We need a substantive response from Norquist; charges of bigotry won't cut it any more. But I sure would love to hear Gaffney explain why he said Bush was to have a White House meeting with these people when everyone knows he was in Florida.

[William McKinley]

There is no verifiable evidence that Bush carried the Mulsim vote by anything like 70% (other than Norquist asserting it (w/o footnotes)in the American Spectator and elsewhere. It turns out, by the way, that the only assertion one can find after exhaustive research for this claim came from a "sample" done by Sami Al Arian's Tampa Bay Islamic Center. What a shocker! What IS verifiable is that Bush and the GOP lost in every major state with substantial Arab and or Muslim population concentration (CA, NY., NJ, MI -- the latter being the then-only Arab American Senator, Spencer Abraham, in the state with the largest Arab and Muslim concentration). Florida.....well, we all know .... Hope this answers your question.

That is some indirect evidence that the Muslim vote did not go as has been presented by Norquist and some others. But there is more evidence, some direct, some indirect.

First are the 2000 exit polls. In the breakdown by religion, 94% of people said they were Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, or "None". That leaves 6% "other" which would be primarily Muslim. The "Other" vote went 62%-28% for Gore. There were some problems with the exit polling in 2000, but not large enough problems to cause a complete reversal within a demographic subgroup.

And the additional indirect evidence comes in the fact that supposedly Bush has alienated the Muslim vote which supposedly supported him so overwhelmingly. Were this really the case, then Bush would be struggling in the polls now in the states where there is a large Muslim population; this isn't the case though. For example, in Florida he leads all Democrats by about 15 points.

[ml/nj]

WOW !

This thread is stiil active?

ML/NJ

[William McKinley]

There are conservatives who have concerns about the Patriot Act. Bob Barr and Dick Armey come to mind right away. Does that leave them open to the same sort of charges that are made against Grover Norquist?

Non sequitor. Were that the case, they would be facing the same sort of charges. They aren't.

[tgslTakoma]

See this photo of Kamal Nawash (R) ex-candidate for Va State Senator 2003, as he spoke at a rally sponsored by Ramsey Clark's World Workers Party front group, International ANSWER, and the Muslim American Society (MAS). Both groups have very obvious ties to communist North Korea, Palestinian terrorists, Fidel Castro... and more!

At this rally that the good (R) candidate spoke, I was shoved around, singled out from the stage (Brian Becker - WWP secretariat) as a "government spy" and a cockroach, and threatened with grievous bodily harm by attendees of the peace rally; as you can read in this FR report.

Or you can blindly follow anyone who paid the requisite filing fee and registered himself as a (R) candidate, and believe that he is a good guy; and simply ignore the company that he keeps.

I vote country before party.

[William McKinley]

That link doesn't work, and according to the news shows I saw last night, CENTCOM is denying that Saddam was moved to Qatar. FWIW.

[William McKinley]

Was that from Kamal's website?

I found something interesting when I Googled on him. This was apparently taken by tgslTakoma, or at least posted by her. tgsl, can you give some more information as to the context of this photo and posting?

I also found this cached story, of which the original seems to be gone. But the parts which caught my eye are the following:

Nawash did not blame his loss on the fact that he was an Arab-Muslim. What may have contributed to his defeat, he explained, were the “numerous hits” he received from extremist Jewish personalities like Daniel Pipes, who some consider an anti- Muslim bigot. The “bad media,” as he described it, began with the revelation that he had received a $10,000 contribution from Abdel-Rahman Alamoudi, a leading Muslim activist and founder of the American Muslim Council and American Muslim Foundation. Caught at Heathrow airport on his way to Damascus carrying $340,000 in cash in his suitcase on Sept. 28, Alamoudi is currently on trial for allegedly attempting to fund terrorist organizations, including Al-Qaeda. Alamoudi denied the charges in court last Tuesday. Although he has returned the contribution, Nawash still defends him.

This strikes me as yet another one of those things which by itself probably would not be all that damning against Norquist, but when taken in aggregate show a disturbing pattern. But even stand alone it is puzzling to me; why is a conservative activist actively backing a guy who speaks at ANSWER rallies, who took funds (since returned) from a guy with terrorist connections, and who continues to defend the guy with terrorist connections?

Further about Nawash, according to his Washington Post profile, he lists his "Extra-curricular activities: Member, Solidarity USA; host, radio show, "The Solidarity Hour With Kamal Nawash." What is Solidarity USA? According to their website, they are a "revolutionary, socialist, democratic, feminist, anti-racist organization".

Nawash is also a bigwig with adc.org. Looking at the groups which link to adc, I am doubting that this is a group which sees eye to eye with conservatives on most issues.

I don't think that Nawash is a friend, or someone who we should support, nor is he someone we should think is acceptable for a conservative activist to be supporting. The fact that Norquist does really makes me wonder.

[William McKinley]

Oh. I see you already HAVE given more details and context.

Thanks.

[general_re]

[Trollstomper]

I'm not sure what your bottom line is; nor that the "6%" can be stipulated to be Muslim. It is certainly not the case that 6 % of voters were Muslim, nor would the conflated addition of Arabs) overwhelmingly Christian, bring it to this figure). And even if it were, 40 % of Muslims in the US are Black Americans, and I don't think even Grover would suggest they voted for us. Told the "Grover/Sami Florida Muslim vote thesis, one of the top operatives for Jeb Bush and the Bush campaign, now serving in the Administration, laughed aloud and said that Haitian immigrant voters were more important than any Muslim vote!

I have not had time to check your links; there are numerous academic and journal articles about this, incuding by Alex Rose and by STATS (Statistical Assessment Service) which I would commend to your attention an dhave cited previously.

On the issue of Muslim alienation, if/when I have time I will send you statements from leading spokemen for that "community" who have said in recent weeks that "Bush will be lucky if he gets 5% of the Muslim vote." A reason that does not seem to be affecting his lead in Fla, is most probably because it never did.

Finally, again, the states (MI most notably) and the precincts and CDs, (MI again especially) where the "Muslim vote" going for Bush in anything like the cited 70% should have carried for Bush and the GOP -- Gore votes and Dem votes remained solid.

[Trollstomper]

Such research is, like the proverbial sunlight, the best disinfectant. There are countless such examples of Grover's wholesale dedication to this effort and his concommitant suspension of judgment. I am glad some are able to see this after a few looks. Others will just have to go through yet more contortions to explain all these clever coincidences as they seek to emulate their heroe's judgment