And that is why Frank Gaffney is in FrontPage magazine, and on Hewett, and why you are here on Free Republic. Because this is where national security professionals always go to do their duty. We always have big media take-downs of these national security threats; that's how it's done, right?
Do you believe that isn't where Norquist wanted it? Gaffney's remarks enraged Norquist, who responded in an open letter to conservative activists. "There is no place in the conservative movement for racial prejudice, religious bigotry or ethnic hatred," Norquist wrote. "We have come too far in the last 30 years in our efforts to broaden our coalition to allow anyone to smear an entire group of people. . . . The conservative movement cannot be associated with racism or bigotry."
(Note: this is the letter I transcribed and posted above, at #416.) The reaction was explosive. Even if Gaffney had been wrong to mention Tulbah by name, some conservatives felt, Norquist's reaction was over the top. To make matters worse, Norquist used a standard rhetorical device of the Left: If you can't win an argument with a conservative, call him a racist. "I, for one, don't see it," says David Keene, head of the American Conservative Union and an organizer of the CPAC conference. "If you read the transcript [of the panel], you can see if Frank was right or wrong, but there was nothing racist or bigoted about it." Heightening the tension was Norquist's angry assertion that the White House, and in particular chief political adviser Karl Rove, supported his racism-and-bigotry argument. One witness quotes Norquist as saying, "This is terrible. Karl's upset because we're insulting the people who helped Bush win the election." Another witness recalls that Norquist "said the president and Rove were angry at the conference." In addition, Norquist sent an e-mail to American Conservative Union board members saying that "[t]he White House and the press are increasingly angry with [the American Conservative Union] for some indefensible statements and actions at CPAC this year." The letter caused a complete break inside the conservative camp. Keene has not spoken to Norquist since it was written, and Gaffney, whose organization shares an office suite with Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform, was kicked out of Norquist's famous Wednesday meeting of conservative strategists. That is where things stand now. In a recent interview, Norquist denied using the White House to support his accusations: "I never invoke the president or Karl Rove on this position - in anything." But he refused to back away from his incendiary charges about Gaffney, on one occasion calling him a "sick little bigot." "I'm sorry," Norquist said. "His whole life screams of bigotry, and what he said is just part of a pattern." Gaffney could have held higher-up administration staffers responsible for choosing who attends White House briefings, Norquist argued, but instead "decided to single out the Muslim." He continued: "Frank Gaffney and Osama bin Laden share the same view on the relationship between the United States and Islam. I agree with the president in rejecting Osama bin Laden's and Frank Gaffney's worldview."
Fight on the Right: 'Muslim outreach' and a feud between activists.
National Review, April 7, 2003, by Byron York
FR link
Note Norquist's lie: "I never invoke the president or Karl Rove on this position i in anything." This despite several accounts that he's done just that, as well as the words of his own letter to Gaffney of February 5th of this year"
"Therefore, until you have made a public apology to Ali Tulbah, Suhail Khan, and the president - and these apologies have been accepted..." The gauntlet thrown down by Norquist was that Gaffney had to apologize to the President for his remarks, and that the President had to apologize. Norquist lied when he said he didn't invoke the name of the President, just as he lied last Tuesday, when he told Hugh Hewitt that Sami Al Arian didn't attend a meeting at the White House in June, 2001. So, Norquist is lying and playing the race card. That tends to cast a shadow on his credibility, does it not? |
