Replies

The problem I and others are having with your posts is the heavy handed let's get Norquist attitude. For the sake of argument, let's accept the premise you have put forth. What do we have?

1. The Sauds and other middle east countries have been funding what appeared to be moderate front groups (surpise) to push their agenda in the US.

2. Scores of politicians, from Governors, State legislators, Congressman, Senators and even the White House (Clinton and Bush) have been duped and held meetings with these groups and their representatives.

3. For at least a decade, the intelligence corps has been unable to adequately get their message across that these people have a hidden agenda that may not be in the best interests of the country (if so, why have they been able to get meetings with so many prominent politicians and their staffs?).

The question is, with so many prominent targets (individuals and governement agencies) of what appears to be at the least very poor judgement, why the single minded obsession with Norquist? You yourself have stated that he is basically a domestic issue wonk and that he doesn't possess the research and intelligence capabilities of the US government. Yet you place more responsibility and blame at his feet than you do the people and organizations actually responsible for insuring security.

It all appears to much like a personal pissing contest.

Let's put all the marbles on the table. Let's quit all the nambly pambly innuendo, gossip and guilt through association stuff. You have basically alleged that Norquist knew who these people and what their agendas are, that he has been in collusion with them to push a radical Islamist agenda here in the US, that he has knowingly accepted money from terrorists and terrorists organizations, that he has assisted them in attempting to water down provisions of the Patriot Act (A position also taken by other prominent conservatives and libertarians including stalwarts such as David Keene of the ACU and Paul Weyrich of Free Congress, although they don't seem to show up on your criticism radar as Norquist has), and that he has knowingly provided access to the US Government, politicians and even the President, so that they, and Norquist by extension, can pursue and agenda that calls for the destruction of the United States and replacing it with the United Muslim States.

Make your allegations against Norquist crystal clear and then maybe we can get onto a productive discussion instead of all this he said, she said crap.

You write: "You have basically alleged that Norquist knew who these people and what their agendas are, that he has been in collusion with them to push a radical Islamist agenda here in the US, that he has knowingly accepted money from terrorists and terrorists organizations, that he has assisted them in attempting to water down provisions of the Patriot Act (A position also taken by other prominent conservatives and libertarians including stalwarts such as David Keene of the ACU and Paul Weyrich of Free Congress, although they don't seem to show up on your criticism radar as Norquist has), and that he has knowingly provided access to the US Government, politicians and even the President,..."

Yes, I will take that as as close as you are going to come to representing in reasonable summation what I have demonstrated, in accordance with the facts, none of which have been disputed.

I have given you pages of opportunity, as did Gaffney and other posters here, to work from the record. I have walked you through the money flow, the people flow, the timeline. I have pointed you toward Congressional testimony, court documents, etc., which clearly establish the nature of the groups involved and their stated missions in the US, both regarding control of Islam and support for terror. I have demonstrated that Saffuri and Norquist (who as you know share an office and attend these meetings together) have received the vast majority of their funding from foreign governments and from front groups and individuals associated with terror. ( They presumably has a wide range of options for funding if they wanted to avoid those with terror connections and foreign money.)

I have pointed out that Norquist and Saffuri have not disclosed to their interlocutors, nor come clean in public, re the source of their funds and by direct implication, the control of their funds and agenda (in DOJ this is called, simple, "Foreign direction and control" and is triggered when you receive 25% rmore from foregin sources, whether registered and disclosed or not).

I have explained to you enough of how the WH clearance process works for visitors and how the law enforecement and intelligence community do/don't, with empahsis on the latter, interact with same -- and how by direct implication, it is possible for people pushing an agenda, lobbyists and others, including Grover and Saffuri, to therefore bring people in without any bar from LE/IC. All of this you have ignored, though it corrects/refutes your stated assumptions.

You, for the third time or so, come back to saying it is the responsibility of others (anyone but Grover or Gaffney) to ensure this bad access doesn't happen. No it is not: once again, it is the responsibility of LE/CI to do identify, surveil, gather intelligence and evidence, and build and prosecute the case. That's it.

It is the business of lobbyists and policy advocates/activists to learn how to work around the system (which they understand better that you seem to) and to take advantage of loopholes and open doors, and get their agenda advanced. This is what Grover does for a living on taxes and other issues. Grover has done this for the Islamist, as he is funded and staffed to do; I have watched him do it. The Islamist community is on record, as is Rove and Saffuri, etc. acknowledging this.

I personally know of several Cabinet agencies and congressional offices who as acknowldege it. As recently as 2 weeks ago one was pressured by Norquist to accomodate Saffuri and other Islamist groups including CAIR and AMC whose leaders are open endorsers of terrorism and whose officers have been arrested for same in recent months.

He has not stopped, and he is playng a direct role (both of which he denies in public). He is now fully aware of who these people are, where their money comes from and why - and fully aware certainly of the heightened sensitivity and exposure on this issue. Yet he persists. That agency, a lead national security agency, rebuffed his efforts, (which I outlined in a previous post you ignored) and cancelled the event.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

You, and those here who support the Norquist version, seem intent on 'cherry picking', creating strawmen and then knocking them over, inserting elliptcal references to one line out of a hundred, literally, to then spin off in some direction that enables you to skirt the facts, ignore the corrections in your arguments which the fact have provided, and to cling ever-harder to your need to say it's all about Norquist and unfairness to him -- and to avoid virtually all the facts and logic of the case.

It is all about "bad people" as Grover articulates it, getting into places of influence in our government and policy apparatus.

If you could join the rest of us in stiputlating that this access itself is a bad thing, and that the people indicated are indeed bad (irrespective of whether you think law enforcement and IC procedures are traitorously wrong _- a nervy statement from someone outside the process with clearly little clue about it) --- then all that is left is the imperative all of us here in the arena of Washington deal with every day, namely: what is to be done to correct it as fast as possible.

Well, as it stands -- and as we are not going to get the FBI, DOJ., CIA, USSS, DHS, IRS to listen to you and change their procedures so as to violate everyones's rights and jeopardize cases, simply in order to take the burden off Norquist and place it on "others" -- the simplest way to correct all this is to out the problem and interdict Norquist & Saffuri's influence, access, etc. That is being done. You will just have to make adjustments.

It is amusing that you want to posit that Grover is such a hero, a political polymath of impeccable discernment and vision, a master worker of the system on behalf of the cause -- and at the same time refuse to believe he could then be applying all that to this particular cause with equal aplomb. That is your problem. Unfortunately the facts, all of them, make it clear that he has done, and is still doing exactly that -- both without admission and without apologies. So, Yes it is then also, if not now primarily, about stopping him.

By the way, others, like David Keene, and Weyrich -- both of whom are clearly on record saying that they abhor the Islamists with whom Grover is associating and his advancing of them under the flag of civil liberties or any other flag -- do have issues with the Patriot Act, to the extent they understand it in its entirety. But they are in no way involved in pushing the Islamist agenda and groups, and in fact have taken public and private steps to explain, expose and oppose the same groups. I have discussed this at length with each of them. Paul's shop has put out several monnographs on these groups and the general Islamist phenomena. Grover has walked out of meetings with Keene over the Islamist issue. So, it is either misinformed or disingenuous for you therefore to inject them to innoculate Grover, as you tried to do in your posting.

I would entreat you to choose from my writings, or Gaffney's or Horowitz's, 10 facts that you can then disproove regarding this issue. In the same vein,I would also ask you to demonstrate that you are capable of joining this debate on the facts -- rather than clinging instead to your preferred defense of Grover -- by writing at some length in a way that shows you have read the affadavits, Congressional hearings, books and articles about the individuals and organizations and have a genreal understanding of the Isalmist goals, objective, and modalities, and that you also understand the history and practice of influence activities and their effects on US policy. Call it 'midterm comprehensive' on the topic you would presume to objectively evaluate. You have neither refuted the facts on the table, nor advanced a credible comprehensive alternative theory to explain the events of the covered period. This should be your point of departure in the exercise. When you can do that to the level,let us say, of a "Gentlemans C", I will reengage. Otherwise you are not serious, and this is a waste of my time and a diversion from my national security work.
ps. By the way, what is your work; and what professional experience do you have in these areas?

The question is, with so many prominent targets (individuals and governement agencies) of what appears to be at the least very poor judgement, why the single minded obsession with Norquist?

Another question is:
Why the singleminded efforts to dismiss scrutiny of Norquist?
Another:
Why is he explaining himself so poorly, according to a number of observers?

It all appears to much like a personal pissing contest.

If that's the case, then given the favors Norquist has done for the Free Republic Network, which way are you pissing?
Or, to avoid that appearance yourself, why not confront the facts head on?

Let's put all the marbles on the table. Let's quit all the nambly pambly innuendo, gossip and guilt through association stuff.

I'm not sure you fully understand the information. Whether or not Norquist was aware of or incurious about his Islamist associates, the primary allegation is association. Once the associations are established, and despite a lot of handwaving there's been no effort to bring any factual evidence to dispute them, other questions ensue.
It certainly appears that a number of Islamists have cultivated associations with Grover Norquist, presumably for his access to various circles of power in Washington.
To what extent were they successful? To what effect?
Are the associations ongoing?

You have basically alleged that Norquist knew who these people and what their agendas are, that he has been in collusion with them to push a radical Islamist agenda here in the US, that he has knowingly accepted money from terrorists and terrorists organizations, that he has assisted them in attempting to water down provisions of the Patriot Act (A position also taken by other prominent conservatives and libertarians including stalwarts such as David Keene of the ACU and Paul Weyrich of Free Congress, although they don't seem to show up on your criticism radar as Norquist has), and that he has knowingly provided access to the US Government, politicians and even the President, so that they, and Norquist by extension, can pursue and agenda that calls for the destruction of the United States and replacing it with the United Muslim States.

Which of them did so on behalf of Sami Al Arian's brother-in-law, Mazen al-Najjar, and received an award from Al Arian's NCPPF for doing so?
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

Yes, by the way, I have posted about Campbell and Bonior.
Here's a question: on the Hugh Hewitt show last Tuesday, why did Grover Norquist lie and say that Sami Al-Arian didn't visit the Bush White House in July of 2001, when it's a matter of public record?