Replies

Well, Gaffney DID inpugn the loyalty to this country of Ali Tulbah and Suhail Khan, and he did so in public. And to be very blunt, I think Gaffney's evidence against the two is suspect at best.

It is well known some people don't like Norquist. The question is, what do they stand to gain by taking Norquist down now, and how far are they willing to go?

I really don't care abotu the so-called "evidence" against Norquist. I personally think he's done a lot of good for the movement and that a combination of jealous rivals and ideological opponents are seizing on a philosophical disagreement and using it as an excuse to destroy someone they don't like.

In fact, if Gaffney had evidence they were disloyal, he should have gone to the FBI or Secret Service. He should have used what conenctions he had to start an investigation. He instead chose to attack two White House staffers publicly. And now, the trend of posts seem to be inching towards Karl Rove as well.

I'm not ready to disbelieve Nick Danger's theories about this. If anything, his theroies are ringing true. I do not know all the details, but what I am seeing about the people who have Grover Norquist in their sights is that taking him down is the major concern and any national security concerns that are corrected are incidental benefits. Now, I note that claims are made thew white house knew, but nobody would touch it because of Karl Rove.

And Rove is also disliked by certain conservatives as well. At best, Frank Gaffney's copncerns are legitimate, but are being used to take out two of President Bush's top political allies in order to weaken him politically. Why? Who could benefit from a weakened President Bush?

Answer: The Democrats. And if Howard Dean is elected, the damage to the war on terror would be far more substantial and quantifiable than the damage Grover Norquist has been accused of causing.

It is well known some people don't like Norquist. The question is, what do they stand to gain by taking Norquist down now, and how far are they willing to go?

No, that might be the question is Norquist wasn't lying and race-baiting... but he is.
See again the Norquist statement at #419:
"I never invoke the president or Karl Rove on this position - in anything."
From the Wall Street Journal, June 11th, 2003...
(I'm not a WSJ subscriber, btw, so I don't have access to their archive. I've linked to a reposting at FR, and a .pdf of Gaffney's.)
In 2002, Mr. Arian visited the Islamic Institute in Washington. Institute officials say his purpose was simply to drop off literature. Mr. Norquist adds that he himself has never worked with Mr. Arian and has met him only briefly at various events before Mr. Arian was indicted. Calling attention to Mr. Arian is unfair, he says. "Since I started working with Muslims, a handful of bigots have been trying to smear the president, Rove and me for working with them," he adds.
Reaching Out: In Difficult Times, Muslims Count On Unlikely Advocate --- Mr. Norquist, Famed Tax Foe, Offers Washington Access, Draws Conservative Flak --- Meeting an Alleged Terrorist
The Wall Street Journal - Tom Hamburger and Glenn R. Simpson | June 11, 2003 (FR link)
Gaffney link (cached HTML of .pdf, scroll down to page 2)

So, Norquist, in addition to his characteristic race-baiting, has been invoking both the President and Karl rove in this, both before and after he said he wasn't doing exactly that.
Norquist is repeatedly lying and race-baiting. If the truth were sufficient, why would he need to do that?