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

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

[kattracks]

Why We Are Publishing This Article by David Horowitz

The article you are about to read is the most disturbing that we at frontpagemag.com have ever published. As an Internet magazine, with a wide circulation, we have been in the forefront of the effort to expose the radical Fifth Column in this country, whose agendas are at odds with the nation’s security, and whose purposes are hostile to its own. In his first address to Congress after 9/11, the President noted that we are facing the same totalitarian enemies we faced in the preceding century. It is not surprising that their domestic supporters in the American Left should have continued their efforts to weaken this nation and tarnish its image. Just as there was a prominent internal Fifth Column during the Cold War, so there has been a prominent Fifth Column during the war on terror.

By no means do all the opponents of America’s war policies (or even a majority) fit this category. Disagreement among citizens is a core feature of any democracy and respect for that disagreement is a foundational value of our political system. The self-declared enemies of the nation are distinguished by the intemperate nature of their attacks on America and its President – referring to the one as Adolf Hitler, for example, or the other as the world’s “greatest terrorist state.” They are known as well by their political choices and associations. Many leaders of the movement opposing the war in Iraq have worked for half a century with the agents of America’s communist enemies and with totalitarian states like Cuba and the former USSR.

We have had no compunction about identifying these individuals and groups. America is no longer protected by geographical barriers or by its unsurpassed military technologies. Today terrorists who can penetrate our borders with the help of Fifth Column networks will have access to weapons of mass destruction that can cause hundreds of thousands of American deaths.  One slip in our security defenses can result in a catastrophe undreamed of before.

What is particularly disturbing, about the information in this article by former Reagan Defense official, Frank Gaffney, is that it concerns an individual who loves this country and would be the last person to wish it harm, and the first one would expect to defend it. I have known Grover Norquist for almost twenty years as a political ally. Long before I myself was cognizant of the Communist threat – indeed when I was part of one of those Fifth Column networks – Grover Norquist was mobilizing his countrymen to combat it. In the early 1980s, Grover was in the forefront of conservative efforts to get the Reagan Administration to support the liberation struggles of anti-Communists in Central America, Africa and Afghanistan.

It is with a heavy heart therefore, that I am posting this article, which is the most complete documentation extant of Grover Norquist’s activities in behalf of the Islamist Fifth Column. I have confronted Grover about these issues and have talked to others who have done likewise. But it has been left to Frank Gaffney and a few others, including Daniel Pipes and Steven Emerson, to make the case and to suffer the inevitable recriminations that have followed earlier disclosures of some aspects of this story.

Up to now, the controversy over these charges has been dismissed or swept under the rug, as a clash of personalities or the product of one of those intra-bureaucratic feuds so familiar to the Washington scene. Unfortunately, this is wishful thinking. The reality is much more serious. No one reading this document to its bitter end will confuse its claims and confirming evidence with those of a political cat fight. On the basis of the evidence assembled here, it seems beyond dispute that Grover Norquist has formed alliances with prominent Islamic radicals who have ties to the Saudis and to Libya and to Palestine Islamic Jihad, and who are now under indictment by U.S. authorities. Equally troubling is that the arrests of these individuals and their exposure as agents of terrorism have not resulted in noticeable second thoughts on Grover’s part or any meaningful effort to dissociate himself from his unsavory friends.

As Frank Gaffney’s article recounts, Grover’s own Islamic Institute was initially financed by one of the most notorious of these operatives, Abdurahman Alamoudi, a supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah who told the Annual Convention of the Islamic Association of Palestine in 1996, “If we are outside this country we can say ‘Oh, Allah destroy America.’ But once we are here, our mission in this country is to change it.” Grover appointed Alamoudi’s deputy, Khaled Saffuri to head his own organization. Together they gained access to the White House for Alamoudi and Sami al-Arian and others with similar agendas who used their cachet to spread Islamist influence to the American military and the prison system and the universities and the political arena with untold consequences for the nation.

Parts of this story have been published before, but never in such detail and never with the full picture of Islamist influence in view. No doubt, that is partly because of Grover Norquist’s large (and therefore intimidating) presence in the Washington community. Many have been quite simply afraid to raise these issues and thus have allowed Grover to make them seem a matter of individual personality differences. This suits his agendas well, as it does those of his Islamist allies. If matters in dispute reflect personal animosity or “racial” prejudice, as Grover insists, then the true gravity of these charges is obscured. The fact remains that while Grover has denied the charges or sought to dismiss them with such arguments on many occasions, he has never answered them. If he wishes to do so now, the pages of frontpagemag.com are open to him.

Many have been reluctant to support these charges or to make them public because they involve a prominent conservative. I am familiar with these attitudes from my years on the Left. Loyalty is an important political value, but there comes a point where loyalty to friends or to parties comes into conflict with loyalty to fundamental principles and ultimately to one’s country. Grover’s activities have reached that point. E.M. Forster, a weak-spirited liberal, once said that if he had to choose between betraying his country and his friends, he “hoped [he] would have the guts” to betray his country.

No such sentiment motivates this journal. In our war with the Islamo-fascists we are all engaged in a battle with evil on a scale that affects the lives and freedoms of hundreds of millions people outside this nation as well as within it. America is on the front line of this battle and there is no replacement waiting in the wings if it fails, or if its will to fight is sapped from within. This makes our individual battles to keep our country vigilant and strong the most important responsibilities we have. That is why we could not in good conscience do otherwise, than to bring this story to light.

 

[FreeReign]

Norquist's relationship with Muslim groups that support terrorism became public after Norquist launched an unexpected and inexplicably vitriolic attack against Frank Gaffney, the President of the Center for Security Policy.

Why the hyperbole here? Wasn't Norquist responding to accusations by Gaffney about Suhail Kahn?

[FreeReign]

The Clinton administration may have known about Al-Arian as early as 1995. This article from April 2, 2002 (you'll get a page that says the article can't be found, just keep refreshing your browser until the article appears) says Clinton shut down federal investigations into Muslim charities in 1995. This led former federal prosecutor John Loftus to file a private lawsuit against the charities in Florida. The main target was Norquist's friend, Sami Al-Arian.

On June 22, 2000 Norquist received an award from the American Muslim Council in a program at which Sami Al-Arian was the keynote speaker. Al-Arian's topic was stopping the U.S. government from using profiling or intelligence data to catch terrorists.

Subsequent to Al-Arians arrest and conviction of terrorist ties in 2002, use unnamed sources to suggest that Al-Arian was a KNOWN target of an investigation into terrorist ties back in 1995. Then connect Norquist with Al-Arian after what is supposedly KNOWN in 1995 but before Al-Arians troubles in 2002.

This is what passes for objectivity now on a Norquist-FR thread.

[general_re]

There are no professional vetters as I have explained about 10 times now.

I fear we're still talking past one another - that's precisely my complaint, and precisely why this problem is systemic, and not specific to Norquist. You can hang Grover Norquist from the nearest tree, and there's still no mechanism in place for insuring that the same exact thing doesn't happen again next week, or next month, or next year. Assume for a moment that Norquist is a bona fide fifth columnist, devoted to influencing the United States government on behalf of al Qaeda or whatever. Does it even remotely make sense that the only way the White House knows that fact is if Grover is good enough to spill the beans on his own? And if he's really some sort of agent provocateur, what the hell are the odds of that?

That's the crux of my complaint, and I think the gist of what a lot of other folks are complaining about - when you have terrorists and what-have-you wandering around the White House, "it's not my/our job to say anything" is NOT an acceptable reason for sitting back and letting it happen. We all pay good money to keep track of the bad guys, and letting them cavort around the Oval Office is not exactly what any of us have in mind as the appropriate course of action for law enforcement or intel folks. Call me crazy or whatever, but the notion that someone's anti-terrorism portfolio ends at 1600 Pennsylvania is just absurd, and it reeks of CYOA - at the expense of the political branches of government and the taxpayers themselves.

And FWIW, even if you turn out to be who you imply you are, and know all the things you imply you know, I'm not particularly sorry for giving you the whip and riding you hard on that score. If anything, I'm sorry that the state of the world and the state of the internet is such that we're forced into things like that, but that's the way it is, whether we all like it or not. It's not personal. It's never been personal - jest bidness, so to speak. Next week, it'll be someone else walking across the hot coals instead of you - such is the nature of the beast. And if I'm right to be suspicious...well, that'll just be one more case confirming the necessity of such suspicion, won't it?

[Sabertooth]

Subsequent to Al-Arians arrest and conviction of terrorist ties in 2002, use unnamed sources to suggest that Al-Arian was a KNOWN target of an investigation into terrorist ties back in 1995. Then connect Norquist with Al-Arian after what is supposedly KNOWN in 1995 but before Al-Arians troubles in 2002.

This is what passes for objectivity now on a Norquist-FR thread.

The terror investigations into Al Arian began after his former WISE director and fellow USF instructor, Ramadan Abdullah Shallah, went on to become the Secretary General of Islamic Jihad in 1995, directing numerous terrorist attacks against Israel.

The terror investigation into Al Arian hads been public knowledge since 1996.

All Arian's brother in-law, Mazen Al-Najjar, was arrested in a terror investigation in 1997, and held on classified evidence. Grover Norquist was one of those who worked for his realease, and received an award from Al-Arian's NCPPF for his efforts.

- Oct. 31, 1995: Former World and Islam Studies Enterprise Director Ramadan Abdullah Shallah emerges as the Islamic Jihad's new leader. The World and Islam Studies Enterprise expresses shock.

- Nov. 20, 1995: Federal agents search World and Islam Studies Enterprise's office and Al- Arian's home and office at USF.

- Feb. 26, 1996: The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service denies Al-Arian's petition for naturalization on grounds he registered to vote, and then voted, in 1994 without being a citizen.

- May 2, 1996: USF places Al-Arian on paid leave, effective Aug. 7, pending the outcome of a federal investigation into whether he was running fronts for terrorist organizations. The university lets him return two years later, citing a staffing need and no law enforcement action.

- May 19, 1997: Federal agents arrest Al-Arian's brother-in-law, Mazen Al-Najjar and use secret evidence to jail him as a security threat. Al-Najjar, who had been fighting a deportation order, worked with Al-Arian at the Islamic Committee for Palestine and the World and Islam Studies Enterprise.
Timeline of Events - USF, WISE and Sami Al-Arian
University of South Florida | March 10th, 2003

The Tampa Tribune reported in an April 18, 1996, story that federal officials said in the affidavits they were investigating possible perjury and immigration law violations and portrayed Al-Arian as who helped Palestinian militants enter the United States.

Among those Al-Arian is accused of aiding is current Palestinian Islamic Jihad head Ramadan Shallah, who worked as a USF instructor in 1995. Shallah, who is now in Syria, was named the head of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad immediately after he left the university. The government says Palestinian Islamic Jihad is responsible for more than 100 murders in Israel and its territories.
Judge: Al-Arian search warrant documents accidentally destroyed
AP | December 9th, 2003

In addition to outlining the secret evidence and material support cases, and the impact NCPPF has had on these, a written summary of the coalition's past year also included information on an April 5 awards ceremony at which the "champions of the abolishment movement against secret evidence" were honored. Mazen Al-Najjar, Nasser Ahmed, Hany Kiareldeen, Anwar Haddam, Dr. Ali and Mohammad Karim, and Harpal Singh Cheema (in abstentia) received awards for enduring the pain of imprisonment while fighting against the use of secret evidence. Congressman David Bonior (D-MI) and former Congressman Tom Campbell (R-CA) were honored for their efforts in trying to repeal secret evidence. Many lawyers received plaques as well. Greg Nojeim of the ACLU, filmmaker Hazim Bitar, and Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform received awards for their assistance.
National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom Holds Fourth Annual Convention
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs | October 2001

Thursday's order was the first time Myers' affidavit became available for public view. The affidavit contains new details of the case against Al-Arian and his co-defendants, including:

* The court-ordered wiretaps of co-conspirators and defendants, as well as what the government refers to as terrorist cover organizations, began on Dec. 27, 1993.

* The first official confirmation that the person described in the indictment as ``unindicted co-conspirator twelve'' is Mazen Al-Najjar, Al-Arian's brother-in-law. Al-Najjar was jailed in 1997 and deported last year after a lengthy battle over secret evidence.
Report Tells Of Al-Arian Talks
Tampa Tribune - December 12th, 2003

[general_re]

Yet according to Sami Al-Arian, the meeting with Bush was to occur in the White House at 11:00 AM. The timeline doesn't fit.

Ari Fleischer gave a press briefing on September 7, in which, among other things, he detailed the President's schedule for that week. Notice what's supposed to be happening on Tuesday:

Q Ari, can you tell us about -- preview education week for us?

MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, let me get you the week ahead. I promise not to use the words "OMB" or "CBO" on the entire week ahead.

The President will launch an initiative beginning tonight and it will continue into next week that is a reminder of the importance of reading throughout America. He and Mrs. Bush will give a series of remarks and will also, in the case of the President, remind the Congress of the importance of sending the education package to the White House so that we can improve our public schools.

Specifically -- and now let me give you the entire events for the week -- the President on Sunday will participate in a coin toss to kick off the NFL season. That will take place in the Rose Garden on Sunday afternoon.

On Monday, the President will go to the Navy Yard with the Prime Minister of Australia for an event and he'll have a working lunch and a meeting with the Prime Minister in the White House. In the afternoon on Monday, the President will continue his focus on reading and education when he travels to Jacksonville, Florida, and then on to Sarasota, Florida.

He'll return to the White House on Tuesday afternoon, where he will host, in the evening, the Congressional Barbecue on the South Lawn. Also on Tuesday, Mrs. Bush will make remarks on early child cognitive development to Senator Kennedy's committee.

On Thursday, President and Mrs. Bush will make remarks at the White House Assembly on Reading at the Library of Congress. And on Friday, the President will help dedicate the Eisenhower Executive Office Building and he'll host a reception in honor of Diez y Seis before departing for Camp David.

Q The Sunday Rose Garden event, is that open for coverage?

MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, it is.

Q Thank you.

Source (scroll down to the end)

And that's the end of the briefing. Al-Arian says "At 3:30 the president would have announced the end of secret evidence" - there's supposed to be some sort of "announcement" at 3:30, and yet the President's own press secretary doesn't bother to mention it to...the press, who would presumably be interested in covering any such public event with the President. Why? If you're making an announcement, ostensibly for public consumption, isn't it the press secretary's job to, you know, get the press involved by giving them a heads-up? Why doesn't the record reflect any such public event scheduled on that day, that Al-Arian claims was supposed to happen?

[Sabertooth]

I fear we're still talking past one another - that's precisely my complaint, and precisely why this problem is systemic, and not specific to Norquist. You can hang Grover Norquist from the nearest tree, and there's still no mechanism in place for insuring that the same exact thing doesn't happen again next week, or next month, or next year.

The nearest tree would help.

Have you ever had much interaction with the Secret Service?

Their job is the personaly safety of the President, and they are very good at it. They are thorough, discreet, loyal, and hardworking people, but they are not semi-omniscient cybernauts. Nor is it reasonable to expect them to be so.

What we have in Norquist is a political problem, requiring political solutions.

[general_re]

They are thorough, discreet, loyal, and hardworking people, but they are not semi-omniscient cybernauts. Nor is it reasonable to expect them to be so.

And that's fine, but we also have several thousand other people who are supposed to be concerned with other things beyond the pure physical safety of the President. Where was the FBI? Where was the CIA? Where were any of these folks? It doesn't have to be anything big and splashy - just a simple phone call. "Mr. President, there's something you should know before your meeting this afternoon." But I get the impression that there was no such thing done, and I want to know why.

[Sabertooth]

Where was the FBI? Where was the CIA? Where were any of these folks? It doesn't have to be anything big and splashy - just a simple phone call. "Mr. President, there's something you should know before your meeting this afternoon." But I get the impression that there was no such thing done, and I want to know why.

The impression I get, and I've got hundreds of hours on this, is that calls were made (not likely to the President) in at least some cases, and that those calls were dismissed and the concerns were overruled.

I also want to know why.

[general_re]

It's the $64,000 dollar question, I guess. I'd like to know if such a call was made, first off. And who made such a call, what they said, and why it was rejected. Was the caller in a position to know who exactly these men were, or was it some file clerk somewhere with a bad feeling? Was the information given specific enough to be meaningful, or was it vague and nonspecific, and therefore, meaningless? Was the person called in a position to do something about it all? And finally, why was it ignored - assuming it was specific and credible and meaningful.

[Nick Danger]

those calls were dismissed and the concerns were overruled.
I also want to know why.

Me too. My whole problem with this "Get Grover" deal is that it is obvious that this was somebody's policy. Even Gaffney says that Grover's deal was a sideshow compared to the Muslim Outreach in the White House. And the White House does not appear to have been selecting a higher grade of Muslim than Norquist was.

Every time I tried to broach this with our Mystery Correspondent, I got a bottle of ridicule about not tipping off some new hire at the front gate about wiretapping... or some Major was gonna get his head handed to him by Rove. But I've fought a few battles in bureacracies myself; that isn't where it stops. The Major doesn't take on Rove, the Major tells the General, and the General tells Condoleezza, or Cheney, and they worry about Rove. It has to be capital-S Serious before that will happen, but I can't see Cheney or Rice wanting these kinds of characters around, and either of them is perfectly capable of 'splaining Rove in political terms why he doesn't want 'em around. I've had secretaries that could get rid of salesmen better than this. "He's in a meeting. He was called away. We have to reschedule, how does 2006 look for you?" There are ways to get rid of these guys IF you want to get rid of them.

I conclude that somebody in the White House didn't want to get rid of them, and still doesn't. Why does Gaffney have to run around on Hewett and in here to make this happen? It's because the people who share his views on this who are inside the White House are losing, and I can't believe it's to Rove. And it sure as hell isn't to Grover Norquist.

I can't imagine what's going on here. It is either super-smart or super-stupid, because nothing in the middle makes sense.

[Betty Jo]

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39fca442294c.htm

#72

See Al-Amoudi of Yemen and Alamoudi of America.

See the dates of my posts.

Where is OKCSubmariner when you need him?

[Betty Jo]

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a09aa747589.htm

# 11

More Alamoudi and his distant relative Al-Amoudi of Yemen.

[aristeides]

I don't take the one word "announce" as necessarily implying a public announcement, still less a scheduled one. For what it's worth, I took the paragraph when I initially read it to mean that Bush was expected to promise this during the meeting, and 3:30 PM was the time when the meeting was scheduled either to begin or to end. Since that was my initial reading, I think that's at least a possible interpretation of the word.

[general_re]

I dunno. Who was he supposed to "announce" it to? The furniture? Al-Arian alone?

[aristeides]

My understanding was that there was to be a meeting that afternoon, attended by both the Islamists on the conference call with Al-Arian and by President Bush.

[general_re]

AFAIK, though, the only support for that is Al-Arian himself, who's not exactly a neutral observer.

[Trollstomper]

"Does it even remotely make sense that the only way the White House knows that fact is if Grover is good enough to spill the beans on his own" ....etc.


1) Islamists, not "AlQaeda" specifically, but who knows?

2) I have nowhere said anyone says "its not their job" -- you keep interpreting it that way. Nor did I say that no one in the White House knew or knows. Quite the opposite. And yes, it's very very very hard to believe, understand forgive or fix. But it is not hard to show. I am with you on the frustration.

What I have said again and again is how the process works; and, that when some have tried, from the LE side, to tell the WH pols what to do, they got kicked in the teeth and told to mind their own business or worse. So don't blame them.

I cited the USSS incident re AlArian's son, (and the father by the way) and the Aldrich case with the Clintons. You get yelled at by the WH once, the next time you get fired. Everyone gets the message. (So you should get it too.)

I was called (4/01) to provide the Vice President's staff with background briefing on many of these groups and their leaders ahead of the AlArian mtg,(6/01). It was made clear who the people in question were, from only open source information! The result, in that case, was that the VP, who was originally scheduled to speak to these groups at the WH, did not. He made a travel excuse to the Muslim groups and it was proferred at the event; the ranking person they met with instead was Rove!

So some get it, but not enough to stop it all from happening, although that is what was recommended. Rove did the meeting anyway. (I don't know that the Cheney staff or the VP told Rove as to why the Vp wouldn't attend.) The rest is history. Others in the WH, NSC and media, as well as major donors and political acquaintances, have raised it with Rove and he says something to the effect of "I've heard that before..." and other things of a similarly glib and unserious sort.

That was the same June 01 mtg that Al Arian and Alamoudi attended. In researching that brief I first came upon the Austin picture with Alamoudi, Saffuri, Bray, Awad, Saaed, et al, and candidate Bush -- the one Grover arranged (see Gaffney, National Journal, etc.)

Point: The White House has been told from Rove on down. I have had at least 4 such WH meetings. David Frum knew about it when he worked there, and wrote about it over a year ago in his book I am told. KARL doesn't want do anything about it, or he just doesn't believe it is/is going to be a problem.

But, Yes, it is also the responsibility of Grover to stop putting everyone he can within the proximity of these people.

3) RE FBI etc., Look, it is a matter of public record that many in the media, WH and within the Bureau itself, strongly opposed the FBI Director meeting with Alamoudi's American Muslim Council last summer. Keyes, Gaffney, Brit Hume and several others warned about it on TV and in print, as did Pipes, and other editorialists. Gaffney debated the ED of the AMC the night before Mueller's mtg. on "Hardball" --during which debate the guy refused repeatedly, as he had done on Keys and some Fox program to denounce Hamas, Hizb, or even AlQaeda -- finally muttering to Gaffney that Al Qaeda was involved in "resistance activity." [[by the way, that ED, Ervan Vickers, had a charity, IARA, that had its money yanked by USAID in the Clinton Admin because it was linked to logistical support to terror in Sudan and in the Embassy bombings. Judith Miller wrote about it in the NYTimes. FBI knew that too. Anyone with an internet or a library card could figure it out in a half hour. The charity still exists under a different name, and works with the UN! ]]

OK, SO the next day Mueller was the keynote speaker at their conference in DC. Now you know d*&^d well that the FBI has been on Alamoudi for years, and just arrested him last month. You know that at least one other AMCer, Soliman Biheri, has been convicted this year, a case I'd guess that was clearly in process when Mueller spoke to AMC. Now why do you think the FBI Director did this appearance despite the media pressure not to, all of whcih laid out the terror issues in stark detail, and after being called by his colleagues inother agencies, and having senior agents complain, and journalists aksing the FBI asst dir for media ? Well, I would stipulate, that as with Ridge ONeill and Powell, to name a few that are on record saying so in their cases, Rove called and said "DO IT".

The only compromise that good LE/IC people were able to get was a sentence added by the NSC saying that some in the AMC had been on a different page, (FBI HQ switched that to "in the past" which was an untrue alteration). A--- a VERY important signal in DC, protocol and policy-wise: the NSC succeeded in changing the speech to say "I want to thank the American Muslim community" -- instead of "American Muslim Council" -- and so he did, and then the d^*( W. Post article on Saturday said, Mueller "thanked the American Muslim Council" !! Can't win even when you win.

Reminds me of a funny story: when Hillary returned American Muslim Council's money during her campaign -- after Alamoudi sounded off about Hamas and Hizb. in a public rally across from the White House -- the Hillary campaign listed the repost in the FEC filing as "American Museum Council" --hoping nobody would notice. Later claimed it was a typo. Typical. BUT also shows you how much not only the WH, FBI and media know about these people, but how much Rove and Grover could and should have, esp. re such high profile people as AlArian, Alamoudi and his deputy, Saffuri, who runs Grover's operation.

Everyone in town and dealing remotely with Muslims has always knew who Alamoudi was and that he always was the power behind the AMC -- even when he changed the name plate on his desk and became the head of the American Muslim Foundation, the c4 org. (along with the US office of IRO, aka Success Fdn. and other entities). But the name change allows Grover and other who want to , to say "O, the AMC isn't Alamoudi anymore." The affadvit for his arrest states he control the AMC. So now maybe the will keep doing AMC meetings b/c, "O, Alamoudi's in jail."


So a lot of people are doing a lot of things to get the larger problem fixed (Islamists access and infiltration of the US and allied governments and societies) and get whatever subelements of it we can along the way. The Rove/Grover and who knows who else fixation has been the hardest and because it is what it is, it has had an blocking effect across the board pretty much on the larger issue. The apex of the problem, govt'-wide is of course the SAUDI QUESTION, as nicely exampled in the Kyl hearings and in the last cover story on USNEWS to which I , and Gaffney's organization (quoted in same) contributed.

By the way, Grover's been pretty much forced out of National Review, American Specator and a lot of other places for this Islamist business and for treating people the same way he treated Gaffney if they dared raise a question. He's done it to editors and movement people ranging from Rich Lowry and Mona Charen to Jack Wheeler. He has done himself huge damage and the longer he digs in the more he will do. Because of the personal nature of his attacks, many have now seen a different side of him (you see a person's true character when they are under pressure)-- that will cause them to be very slow to forgive him, even assuming he stops the Islamists efforts.
He and Grover are now 2 years into this and still are able to say, "Hey, Gaffney and other's have been saying it's, at a minimum, a political risk aborning, but we haven't seen any problem yet." That's the same way they look at everything -- politics (Votes & Money).

It's Karl Rove's anti-terrorism porfolio (sic) that seems to end at 1600 PA Ave.! No one every accused Grover of having one in the first place. It is after all the 'Islamic Free Market Institute" Right.

I hope this is helpful. I'd like to see you be "suspicious" about Grover, too. I don't have the time or inclination to answer much more; I've reviewed the information, postings, etc. anm I think there is enough here without the need for further repitition, etc.

[Trollstomper]

" Even Gaffney says that Grover's deal was a sideshow compared to the Muslim Outreach in the White House. And the White House does not appear to have been selecting a higher grade of Muslim than Norquist was."

1)
Actually the point of Gaffney and others who have written on it and have knowledge of it, is that the WH outreach was set up at grover's initiative and staffed by his placee from his org. They then used him as the supplier and vetter, just as they do on taxes. If he brings a guy in for taxes no one would think to question him, espcially not if he got them the job, are fiercely loyal to him, and he is making their job easier by doing the heavy lifting both above them (Rove) and under them (getting the bodies list).

Now, if someone who has spent their career watching taxes in some state comes along and says, "Hey. wait a minute, I know that Joe guy, he scuttled every tax cut we tried." -- the staffer will say, Hey. Grover knows more than you do so whatever you say, even if you have pictures, it doesn't matter and it can' tbe true. And if it was it must not be now b/c Grover wouldn't even think about hanging with such people. And anyway, what's your personal beef with the Joe guy anyway, you obviously had policy differences with him, so you should just shut up and go away."

2) People have, in public, by not just Rove, but the PRESIDENT, been handed their head for calling attention to the problem, notably, afor the 4th time in 2 days, I suggest the Al Arian junior and senior case.

As if that weren't enough, Yes, people on the NSC staff, at the level of Special Assistant to the President, have been told, have agreed fully, and have said: 'But, No one will want to go to Rove with this.' Some have gone to Rove and he has sent them off saying he is aware of the complaints or words to that effect. It has also been mentioned that the lawyer for the Holy Land Foundation (listed for terror and closed by the President in a Rose Garden address held for that very topic), George Salem, was also the head of Ara Americans for Bush and qurtermilllion dollar fundraiser, and the Solicitor of Labor under Bush one -- and that Karl rejects any dicussion of that topic and so "we don't want to go to him on this one." And neither will Condi.

Last,in this same vein: the same is true of Grover's donor and his successor as Islamic Insitute chairman, Talaat Othman. Othman is an old Bush family friend, so much so that he is invested for 17 % of W's oil company, Harken Energy, on behalf of his Saudi boss gigilionaire Sheikh Baksh. Othman was appointed to the Texas State Utilities commission, even though he lives in Illinois. Othman also gave the invocation at the GOP 2000 convention (the first Muslim at either Party's convention, and possibly at Grover's suggestion)

And, in another one of those darned coincidences, Othman just happens to be on the Board on at least one of Yaqub Mirza's investment funds (other Mirza funds you might have heard of include MENA Invesments, MarJac--both raided -- and a little thing called the Ptech Investment Fund, which funded, along with designated global terrorist Yasin Qadi, the software company Ptech raided and closed last year in Boston for a variety of terrorism charges. see endnote.) Now might it bother someone that this Othman guy joins the Board of a fund run by a terrorist finance wiz, who also funded Norquist buddy Al Arian and Grover's Institute (Institute took at least $46,000 before 9/11 from this source).

WH staff and others have expressly stated these relationships to be off bounds as issues to take to Rove, based on previous experience. Obviously, then, if one sits down with Rove and gets beyond the first couple of bullet points one then has, to sooner or later, raise these kinds of names connected to Grover (e.g. his Insitute's then-Chairman and donor). Some pretty serious people have had this experience to no good effect. Now if one of you just thinks this stinks and wants to walk into Rove's office and try, where veterans of many White Houses and DC battles have failed, be our guest.

endnote: For those who need a refresher, Mirza (one of the names on Grover's WH Muslim Outreach waiver list), is the chief financial officer of the SAAR Trust/SAFA group of entities raided by Operation Greenquest in the aforementioned largest terror-finance investigation by the US government anywhere in the world. (see Farah, et al, Washington Post) He funded Sami AlArian and the Islamic Institute and was an attendee of the Islamic Institute's "Islamic Banking" conference with Grover last Fall -- well after the raid and the April, 2002 Wall Street Journal article by Glenn Simpson which outlined some of the groups in question and linked Saffuri, Othman, Mirza and Barzingi (the strategist and effectively COO of the alleged terror financing network of entities raided) in an illustrative chart.

By the way, to Be very clear: I view the SAUDI problem, in all its scope, to be the ultimate problem, source of funds and the thing that garbles every line of communication involved -from the very top, through to Grover and across the panoply of individuals and groups mentioned in connection to the Islamist problem. A good example is the fact that SECSTATE, and Bush campaign guru, James Baker 111, represents the Saudi government and royal family defendants in the 911 victims' families lawsuit. For a primer, again, I suggest Dave Kaplan's USNEWS cover story. But none of that means what Grover has chosen to do is excusable, and is not his own responsibility and choice.

[Sabertooth]

As if that weren't enough, Yes, people on the NSC staff, at the level of Special Assistant to the President, have been told, have agreed fully, and have said: 'But, No one will want to go to Rove with this.' Some have gone to Rove and he has sent them off saying he is aware of the complaints or words to that effect. It has also been mentioned that the lawyer for the Holy Land Foundation (listed for terror and closed by the President in a Rose Garden address held for that very topic), George Salem, was also the head of Ara Americans for Bush and qurtermilllion dollar fundraiser, and the Solicitor of Labor under Bush one -- and that Karl rejects any dicussion of that topic and so "we don't want to go to him on this one." And neither will Condi.

"Neither will Condi..." what?

She won't go to Rove, or won't listen to complaints?

[Trollstomper]

"Subsequent to Al-Arians arrest and conviction of terrorist ties in 2002, use unnamed sources to suggest that Al-Arian was a KNOWN target of an investigation into terrorist ties back in 1995. Then connect Norquist with Al-Arian after what is supposedly KNOWN in 1995 but before Al-Arians troubles in 2002. "

Actually, Al Arian (who by the way has not been convicted, as you write; his trial in in 2/05), was raided by the FBI in 1995, very publicly. Since there have been thousands of column inches and tv news and journal programs about him between then and when Norquist joined up with him; including specifically, films of him saying things like "Let us Damn America" and "$500 to kill a jew" (how did that miss Grover's "Racist and bigot" screen?).

His NCPPF represents IRA,CPUSA, Shining Path, ETA,FALN, Leonard Peltier, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, PFLP, AlQaeda and Eqyptian Islamic Jihad (WTC 1 bombing convicts), National Islamic Prsion Foundation, the bombers of the US capitol (1983,)and a passel of other terrorists, along with the American Muslim Council of Mr Alamoudi.

Why does Grover choose to make his stand, on any point, with these people and the head of their legal aid front, whose expressed purpose is to weaken US national security law and procedures so they can do what they do without as esily getting caught!

Anybody who wanted to do what I do before any new meet and google or nexis the guy would have found enough proof of the guy's 'leanings' and activities to choke an elephant. Not to mention when people like Gaffney, and plenty of others, respected for national security acumen tell Grover who the guy is so he can check into it himself even as late as 2001. Any suggestion that Grover could not, or should not have been expected to know or find out about the backgrounds of people like AlArian, Awad, Agha Saeed, Alamoudi and his deputy Saffuri, et al, is ridiculous on its face.

Also incorrect in your posting is the date Grover received the award from Sami, it is 2001, after getting the President to support the goal of eliminating the use of intelligence information. It's important to stick to the facts and/or correct them so they don't get handed down the thread.