Replies

He has figured out how to personally profit from it, and its been an ugly thing to see... L'etat ces't Moi from Grover. How rich. And that is the beginning of his ending.

Yet this is not about Norquist. It's not a hatchet job on Grover Norquist, it's a serious policy dispute coming to us live, from mysterious National Security greybeards who are seriously concerned, and so are using the pages of FrontPage magazine to gently nudge the White House in the right direction, as they always have.

And this is necessary, because Frank Gaffney and his dedicated coterie of mysterious and knowledgeable National Security Types are the only people smart enough to protect our poor befuddled President from those bumblers that he surrounds himself with in the White House... who keep letting in The Wrong People because they -- unlike Frank and his friends -- do not understand who the Bad Guys are in the war on terror.

And so the experts have come here, to Free Republic, to throw hatchets at Grover Norquist; not to conduct a hatchet job, but to inform and to educate. Not to pose as professionals with decades of experience who can't seem to get the White House to pay any attention to them, but to get other people to pay attention to them. So that they might stimulate debate, and discussion, and the throwing of hatchets at Frank's old officemate.

It's hard to know what to think. You were doing so well with that act until you got a little cocky. And then out came the bile. And so we see the flash of hate, and with it the realization that this really is just a hatchet job. A cleverly disguised one to be sure, but a hatchet job, dressed in robes that the perpetrator knows best how to wear. For if it is not, we must believe that men with decades of experience in this field, with all the contacts that must bring in the National Security apparatus, think that going into the pages of FrontPage magazine is how you get things done in Washington.

I don't think so. If you were half of what you are trying to get people to believe you are, you could have cut off Norquist's access to the White House without him even knowing what hit him. Instead here you are on Free Republic, gloating over the 'beginning of his ending'. A serious policy debate? It's no such thing, is it. It's a vile little personal feud dressed up in a fancy suit because that happens to be Frank Gaffney's suit... the biggest axe he knows how to throw.

What else can we conclude from the actual behavior we see here? As you have said yourself, Grover Norquist is no national security type. Those who are should therefore have no trouble mowing him down among those who today are concerned with such matters. Yet this has not happened. Instead we see Mr. Gaffney hurling spears across town from the pages of magazines, and on the air, and now on the Internet. And always directed personally at Mr. Norquist, not at the policy dispute you claim this concerns. Why must he do this? Why does the National Security apparatus not pay attention to his clarion call? Do they not know the difference between Wahhabi and Shia? Do they not share Mr. Gaffney's concern for the security of the country? Or is just that they think that Mr. Gaffney is out throwing spears at some guy he used to share an office with, and it's none of their concern?

And if it isn't their concern, why should it be ours?

Given that you've sat at Norquist's table, the officials have ruled "offsetting ad hominems."

Cool backhanded appeal to authority.
Any of Gaffney's footnoted specifics you'd like to address, yet?

And if it isn't their concern, why should it be ours?

Because the train is leaving the station.
Norquist has had since early February to address concerns about his Islamist associations. The war in Iraq has come and gone since then, but Norquist is still in spin mode.
If, as you appear to assert, this is all about nothing, then why hasn't Norquist dealt with it?
Why are David Horowitz and Hewitt Hewitt (Norquist's Harvard classmate) not vouching for him?
Finally... have you ever seen Khaled Saffuri at Norquist's table?

To the man in the trenchcoat:

1) The Policy dispute has been ongoing and continues, albeit unaddressed by yourself, or Grover -- the "hatchet job" only is met in your mind.

2) Watch the series of hearings in Judiciary, Government Affairs and elsewhere, and the upcoming N.Va. terrorism trials and arrests. Already this has resulted, among other thigns, in CAIR, ISNA and others being frozen out of the WH Iftar dinner. Gee, wonder how all this is happening.

3) You saw the US News cover story on Saudi funding of global terror, and the recent WSJ and WP leads on Saudi embassy funding and it being rolled up and slowly squeezed by the FBI. Watch that space, and you won't have to read it here. Just remember you read it here first, assuming that flls you with pride of place. Just be patient.

(sidebar: To answer your question: Indeed not to many months ago, Bureau and other government types did not/not know the difference between the branches of Islam in any serious way, and had not learned a lot about recruitment tehcniques, etc. That is changing rapidly, in part because of them being educated by people like Gaffney and in part by Congressional pressure).

Increasingly, everyone, except Grover and his clients and bitter-enders,do "understand who the Bad Guys are in the war on terror."

4) Cut away the sneering tone, invective and red herrings of your screed and what you have left is pretty much what Sami Al Arian spouted for months, years, and even on his way to jail "It's all politics." Oh, Ok.... just keep walking and watch the head as we put you in the car.

5) Last time I checked, Gaffney still was a tenant of Grover's along with the Islamic Institute.

6) Grover and the whole "Wahabbi Lobby" ARE held in disregard by the national security community, in and out of government, to the extent that its members are even aware of him. If you knew that community you would not ask that question.

Why does he still have WH access, In part because he delivers on other issues for Rove (and all Rove knows or cares about is politics, not national security ---Lynn Nofziger he ain't). And in part because Intelligence, National Security, Law Enforcement types don't do Rove; don't do elections, don't do WH 'outreach,' etc. That is not where and how they act; they don't "mow" people down either. They do patiently surveil and arrest people though.

Speaking of which, let's just wager here and now, that a lot more people who are associated with Norquist -- and who have handed checks to his group, and with whose organizations Grover has shared a platform on numerous occasions from 1998 to last month --- are being investigated, arrested or are already in jail than ever will be the case with Gaffney, or anyone associated with his national security operation.

In fact the last time I checked, Gaffney's decade-long Chairman was the Undersecretary of Defense, and 25 or so of Gaffney's long-time associates are holding down the top jobs in the Pentagon, not to mention those sprinkled in other agencys doing national security and intelligence.
(nb,Yoy so trenchantly ask: "Why does the National Security apparatus not pay attention to his clarion call?" It's always dangerous to believe your own propaganda and to assume that what you don't know or see isn't there. I wouldn't thumb it in the face of such nice intell and law enforcement folks if I were a Grover type.).

Back to Gaffney and your evident concern about his national security community stature: A month or so ago, Acting SecDef Wolfowitz, the Joint Chiefs Vice Chair Pace, CPA head Bremer and the SecDef addressed his annual dinner, as per usual, along with the Undersecretary of Homeland Security(who weeks later cancelled a day long DHS hug-athon with Norquist' Safuri, CAIR's Awad, and others Grover had introduced to this President and his team). Also attending Gaffney's dinner were the DEA director, Chairmen from the Intelligence and Armed Services committees, and a dozen or so IRS, ICE and DOJ senior types -- the latter of whom had just that day gotten a conviction, it was announced at the dinner to appropriate applause, of yet another American Muslim Council member. (I know, you're possibly thinking, '500 more "racsist and bigots, obviously.)

Anyway, I guess that would be a few national security types who seem to be lining up for Gaffney. Wonder what that means. Hmmm.

7) Gaffney was not the one to initiate this dispute on a "personal" basis as you imply. Norquist began calling "a racist and bigot" Gaffney and anyone who questioned, in any manner, what he was doing and whom he was doing it with re Muslim outreach, and who tried to approach him about it.

It was clear two years ago that Alamoudi, AlArian and others Grover brought into the campaign and was defending were going to be arrested. Gaffney said so. He was attacked, leftist-lenninist style, as "a racist and bigot" -- not by Al Sharpton or Jesse Jacskon, but by that R & B man Norquist, whose only form of rebuttal is the ad hominem and the diversionary and the prevaricating.

[A typical Norquist reply goes something like this: "We've taken no money from Saudi Arabia. Oh, Okay, a bunch of $5000 and $10,000 checks from Saudi Banks and fronts (but only if you have pictures!), but not from the Saudi Goverment. Oh, ok, so the Saudi government is proven to fund the fronts, well how was I supposed to know. Oh, ok, well we gave that back..." This guy could coach Clinton on the meaning of was. ]

Another 'for instance' -- on the Hewitt show , Norquist fumbled and bumbled, unable to directly answer whether he knew Sami Al Arian, the worldwide secretary of Palestinian Islamic Jihad. In the event, Norquist has to be reminded by Hewitt, in front of a patient Gaffney, that this was pretty much a simple 'Yes' or 'No' question. (nb, Hey Grove, the govt. has 27,000 hours of tapes of Sami's phones and faxes; better practice how you answer some of these questions....).

Then, get this, Grover lied straight-out about whether Sami Al Arian had been in the White House under this administration. He smarmily said he hasd just called the White House, and they had told him; and, 'Frank Gaffney could just do the same thing.' Well, thanks, but no need because the Washington Post, WSJ and NEWSWEEK did just that immediately Sami's arrest. And the White House lied to them for 24 hours (something journalists really love of course) -- and finally they had to cop to it, excuse the pun, admitting that Al Arian had been there. Sami sat in the front row in fact. And Sami talked to Rove about Secret Evidence. Gee. Alamoudi said the same thing; even Grover's jailbird donor got it right!

Every major media covering the story ran this fact. Front page in the Post and lead on the NEWSWEEK website. But oh, no, "Gaffney got it wrong," "they all got it wrong," -- all except Grover and his mysterious White House laision. "The White House told me." -- Give me a break!!

If Norquist will lie about that, almost a year later, so bold faced, risibly and shamelessly ---why should anyone believe anything he says? Pray tell.

(Think, too, for a moment, of the deep denial and the deep and condescending hubris that is required to tell such a lie on nationaly syndicated radio, to two knowledgable interlocutors who actually HAVE done their homework, and you get more that just a clue about Norquist's character. And about why in the end he is a danger to this White House).

And ask yourself: Why is such a tortured and twisted trail of explanations, post hoc rationales and mumbling red-faced stares on Norquist's behalf required at every turn of this sordid tale? Ignominy.

Suggestion for Grover et cie: Plea ignorance. Say Grover was duped, "Hustled by the East" as Kipling said, and that he's just having the usual Grover hard heck of time in admitting to being at all Wrong, and in trying then to envision breaking free, and dragging tail away, to say, the Mariannas, for a decent interval. Fine. But the problem will remain that no one so easily and consistently duped should be advising this White House, in a time of war no less, on anything vaguely implicating our nation's security.

Moreover, no one with his ready tendency to accuse other conservatives so glibly of being "racists and bigots" while hiding behind the skirts of power should be tolerated at all. Talk about last refuges of scoundrels! Under fire and testing he has shown his mettle and he is found wanting.

Apologies would be the minimum first step. This country loves second acts, of almost any sort; he's lucky to be an American. So Grover, "Be a man my son." For once, Be a man.