Replies

I have repeatedly stated that any actions Norquist took that allowed these people close to the White House was unfortunate. I do not believe Norquist knowingly allowed people connected to terrorists this access. He may have been naive, he may have been duped, but he is not a traitor, as some have suggested.

Several people have stated that Norquist has not disavowed the Muslims involved. This is not true. On the Hugh Hewitt show just a couple nights ago, he flatly disavowed them and said he was glad they were in jail. He also stated that the degree to which he was responsible for them gaining access has been greatly exaggerated.

I think Norquist failed in a couple areas. He should not have pulled the race card in dealing with his critics. This may have been an emotional response to a situation he was not familiar in dealing with. Second, he should have come out much sooner and disavowed the people and institutions he has associations with that now we know have ties to extremists groups. He needs to promptly address all these issues fairly and honestly and I believe he will do so.

Norquist may need a spanking, but to run him out of town
on a rail would be unfair and hurt the conservative cause.

Several people have stated that Norquist has not disavowed the Muslims involved. This is not true. On the Hugh Hewitt show just a couple nights ago, he flatly disavowed them and said he was glad they were in jail. He also stated that the degree to which he was responsible for them gaining access has been greatly exaggerated.

Did you catch Hugh's show yesterday?
I didn't hear all of it, but the consensus among Hugh and all of the commentators I did hear was that Norquist's performance vs. Gaffney raised more questions than it answered. Hugh said that feeling was true among all of his Washington contacts as well.

Norquist may need a spanking, but to run him out of town on a rail would be unfair and hurt the conservative cause.

In the interests of full disclosure, can you briefly describe the Free Republic Network's connections to Grover Norquist?

Actually, he lied and denies. He said his Institute only had one check from Alamouid and had sent it back. Actually 2 of the first 12 checks the II ever got came from Alamoudi, one was marked "loan. Both were for $10,000, (exactly the amount by the way that Alamoudi's Libyan tranactions typically were according the the court filings). These have been published in full facsimile by Insight Mag. Grover is like Clinton or any other pathologial liar, he only admits to a bit at a time, and then only after its been outed and proven and when he can make no longer credibly "deny and make counteraccusations." He originally denied Al Arian had been to his office, that he had taken any foreign money (turns out it is the overhwelming majority of the Institutes money, and some $50,000 of it came from people and entities raided for terror financing. he denied having anything to do with the WH Muslim outreach until Muslim and Arab ledes and spoksemen began publicly thanking him, etc., etc. etc.) He was not duped, he is du[ing anyone he can get away with duping.

Anyway , no one is suggesting the shoudl be run out "on a rail." Nor is Gaffney suggesting that he is a traitor. Simply that he has, wittingly done bad things on this from, that he stubbornly persists, and that he should desist for the good of the Presdient, party, and doubtless his own good as well as that of the rest of us. Saying that he is now glad they are in jail allows him to dodge having to fess us to his relations with them; it's a bit of post hoc me-tooism; it also reminds of the chicken thief who wnats credit for not this day having stolen a chicken.

Actually, he lied and denies. He said his Institute only had one check from Alamouid and had sent it back. Actually 2 of the first 12 checks the II ever got came from Alamoudi, one was marked "loan. Both were for $10,000, (exactly the amount by the way that Alamoudi's Libyan tranactions typically were according the the court filings). These have been published in full facsimile by Insight Mag. Grover is like Clinton or any other pathologial liar, he only admits to a bit at a time, and then only after its been outed and proven and when he can make no longer credibly "deny and make counteraccusations."

He originally denied Al Arian had been to his office, that he had taken any foreign money (turns out it is the overhwelming majority of his Institutes' money, and some $50,000 of it came from people and entities raided for terror financing. he denied having anything to do with the WH Muslim outreach until Muslim and Arab ledes and spoksemen began publicly thanking him, etc., etc. etc.) He has traveled all over appearing on platfroms and panels and at conferences with and chaired by Alamoudi and Al Arian, but counting on his audience not to know that, he skirts it, denies he knows them as often as she can, and then cleans up with being happy they now are in jail! He was not duped, he is duping anyone he can get away with duping. And anyway, "dupes" and naives aren't supposed to be advising White Houses, and being leaders.

Gafney et all are not suggesting the should be run out "on a rail." A canard. Nor is Gaffney suggesting that he is a traitor. Simply that Norquist has, wittingly done bad things on this from, that he stubbornly persists, and that he should desist for the good of the Presdient, party, and doubtless his own good as well as that of the rest of us. Saying that he is now glad they are in jail allows him to dodge having to fess us to his relations with them; it's a bit of post hoc me-tooism; it also reminds of the chicken thief who wants credit for not this day having stolen a chicken. All the things Gaffney said about Khan and Tulbah are true, easiy researched; as were all the things Gaffney and his people were arguing about Alamoudi and Al Arian, etc., 2 years ago when warning against bringing them around the President. Grover supported them. kept the doors open for them, and attacked Gaffney for suggesting that the FBI Director should not speak at their events. Now they are facing life sentences for terrorism support! Duh! Grover owes Frank, Gaffney and all he has slimed as "racists and bigots" huge public apology. Gaffney has been right time and again on national security issues for longer than Grover has been a player. There is no equivalance here between Gaffney and Norquist. One was right about the right thing, and one was and is wrong about the wrong thing.