A Troubling Influence - An Islamic Fifth Column penetrates the White House

Need a clue/hint Nick?
Who's 'with' President Bush?
Snip to the relevant part...And Saffuri has personally denounced the President's listing of the Holy Land Foundation as a charity that supported terrorist organizations. He has acknowledged sponsoring the children of suicide bombers through the Foundation, even after its closure by the government.
Since Gaffney wrote it you'll probably ignore it...
And another clue, possibly, as to the representative "friend"...Rogue Statesman
Snip to relevant part...What’s remarkable is not only Rohrabacher’s attempt to rewrite history after Sept. 11, but there’s also his glaring naivete, evident in his bungling assessment of the Qatar meeting. One member of his entourage, Khaled Saffuri, executive director of the Islamic Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based group that partially bankrolled Rohrabacher’s trip, said he was impressed by how "flexible" Taliban officials appeared. Rohrabacher came away equally impressed. He announced he would travel to Afghanistan to work out details with the Taliban.
This happened on April 10, 2001 as detailed in the article.
Oh, what a wicked web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.

I liked this little snippet too...
Right-wing organizations across the nation immediately picked up on Rohrabacher’s anti-Taliban, anti-Clinton statements and hailed him a "hero."
I see your true colors, shining through.../Cyndi Lauper

We like it the way it is, and we don't like pushy newbies

Try speaking for yourself. This 'newbie' uses fact and argument rather than lame personal attacks and me-tooism. Your replies on this thread are a disgrace to reasoned debate. I'll take 1 newbie like him to 50 old hands like yours.

The fact is none of Norquist's apologists have a comparable command of the facts or an ability to construct a persuasive, even coherent defense of Norquist.

Again, excellent points.

So a guy's father is a jerk - does that provide any reason to question the loyalty of the guy's kids?

Gaffney's crusade against Norquist has managed to top the BS level that the Clinton-Reno Justice Department took to against Microsoft.

That says a lot.

Care to respond to Nick Danger's points?

Excellent comments Nick.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1036747/posts?page=283#283

*the officials have ruled "offsetting ad hominems."

** Bullsh*t. This guy came in here acting cool as a cucumber. It was all a policy dipute; serious stuff. Facts. Logic. Coherence. And then he got a little bit smug, and all of a sudden it's "and that b*stard is finally coming down, bwaa ha ha." No, sir, this is not a policy dispute. With those two, it's personal.

The "offsetting ad hominems" point is, you have a personal stake in Norquist's fortunes. Therefore, even if it's personal between Gaffney and Norquist, you can't objectively wave away the particulars on the basis of that alone.

*Any of Gaffney's footnoted specifics you'd like to address, yet?
** Yes. Gaffney's "footnoted specifics" are the most blatant use of BS artistry I've seen in years, and I think you ought to be ashamed of yourself for trying to sell crap like this to your fellow Freepers.

Khaled Saffuri, executive director of the Islamic Institute, joined Rove in his car. Saffuri explained to him that the vote of the Arab-American community, which includes both Muslims and Christians, still was up for grabs. The community is prosperous and could be the source of considerable campaign contributions. If Bush would mention in public just a few of the issues that concern Arab-Americans, Saffuri told Rove, he would win their hearts, their minds and their support.22

Goodness gracious! How damning! How cunning these Moslems are!

While the thrust of this report sounds right, the evidence suggests Saffuri’s car ride with Rove was by no means the first time such a proposition had been discussed with the Bush campaign.

I'm floored. Gaffney has evidence that Saffuri spoke numerous times(!) with Karl Rove(!) about a proposition. Which was that Bush push a few hot buttons popular with Arab-Americans while he was out campaigning. Seriously: we needed footnotes for this? We need to use words like "evidence" and "proposition" to talk about a guy giving political advice on how to win votes by saying a few of the right things? He makes this sound like some kind of criminal activity. We're in on the secrets, now! We have evidence! They were in a car together! Imagine discussing votes with Karl Rove! Who'd have thunk it? Boy, we have the goods on that Norquist character now!

For the benefit of our fellow Freepers, let's take a look at the conclusion of that section of the article, which you truncated...
While the thrust of this report sounds right, the evidence suggests Saffuri’s car ride with Rove was by no means the first time such a proposition had been discussed with the Bush campaign. Indeed, the lure of such political dividends induced Governor Bush to hold a meeting in his mansion in Austin on May 1, 2000, not only with Alamoudi and Saffuri, but with other, immoderate Muslims, as well. As the National Journal reported:
It was the summer of 2000, and for George W. Bush, the meeting held the promise of an unusual but important endorsement for his presidential bid. Conservative activist Grover Norquist had persuaded the Republican nominee to sit down with leaders of the Muslim American Political Coordinating Committee, a confederation of four Muslim community groups.²³

In addition to Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council, the group included the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). CAIR’s executive director, Nihad Awad is another self-professed Hamas-supporter and, as will be discussed further below, its radical agenda and ties have recently been the focus of sharp, bipartisan criticism in Sen. Kyl’s Judiciary subcommittee.

Saffuri had also arranged for the Bush campaign to enlist Sami al-Arian, a well-known Florida-based activist – despite the fact that the professor made little secret of his radical Islamist sympathies – to help engender Muslim support in his state.²⁴A photograph of Mr. Bush taken with al-Arian in March 2000 subsequently received considerable attention after the professor was arrested last February on 40 terrorism-related counts. Of particular concern are those alleging his functional direction over the past 19 years of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, one of the most murderous terrorist organizations in the Middle East.²⁵

Not quite "booga booga" anymore, is it?
By asking that you address the particulars, I did not intend to convey "omit the context."
Grover Norquist and Khaled Saffuri associated with known "bad guys" (to use Norquist's term for them), American Muslims with open terror-sympathies, and brought them into contact with the Bush campaign and White House, both before and after September 11th.
Saffuri himself has many questionable positions and affiliations in his resume.
You've contended elsewhere that this is part of some pattern of surveillance by the Bush camp:
"You watch the known bads to build a model of what unknown bads look like. In order to do that, you have to let your known ones run around and be bad a little bit."
Are we to conclude that the Bush campaign was letting "known bads" get close to him, even before he was elected President, as part of some master strategery to root out Islamist terror sympathizers?
Do all campaigns do this?

" does that provide any reason to question the loyalty of the guy's kids?"

Gaffney no place has done so -- that is only Norquist spin to avoid answering what Gaffney DID say and what the record demonstrates was true about the decisions and judgement of youn Khan and Tulbah re who to let in a nd put next to the President. Only as a contextual aside was it also pointed out that perhaps a MITIGATING excuse for these kids bad judgment was the fact of their parents strong active association (which had been discussed in LATIMES, FOX, NYTIMES, San Joes Mercury, etc, long before Gaffney). Of course, one could also observe that the only excuse for such a persistent pattern of bias toward invitees associated of their respective fathers and their ideology (which you could easily research and determin to be way beyond "racist and bigotted") was indeed that this is who they grew up knowing, had phone numbers for, were unable to be objective in screening, etc. If Chelsea Clinton was put in charge of WH outreach , Grover would be the first to throw a fit, doubtless followed by many on this site, full, rather logically, with fear that she would merely be the revloving door stamp for all manner of her parents leftie friends. And anyway, if that then did happen, I doubt anyone would jump up and start calling someone who had predicted it a bunch of names!. Or maybe you would? Consistency being the hobgoblin .......

>>It is time for strategic clarity on the matter.

Hear, hear. Great post.

Care to respond to Nick Danger's points?

Nick Danger didn't make any factual points, but he tried very cunningly to make malicious insinuations.

Care to answer the FACTS pertaining to Norquist's terrorist associations and advocacy? Not a single one of Norquist's apologists (they haven't earned the title "defenders") has even attempted a factual rebuttal.

Facts are stubborn, they're not going away, and I'll continue to pull every disingenuous spinner back to the FACTS. I am waiting for a refutation to the allegation that this "conservative stalwart" is not an enemy agent. Whether or not he's a dupe is quite irrelevant in time of war.

Fishing in barrel is more difficult than deciding which side is winning this "debate".

You've contended elsewhere that this is part of some pattern of surveillance by the Bush camp:

Nowhere have I said that. The "Bush camp" is not the national security apparatus of the United States.

But you raise an interesting question, and it is whether the Wahabbi lobby is a fifth column... or the sixth.

Our Mystery Correspondent tells us that "the government" has 27,000 hours of tapes of Sami Al Arian. Do the math.

How did this guy get into the White House? Grover Norquist? Wait a minute. Grover Norquist does not have the charter to conduct wiretaps in the United States. Those who did sat by and watched while the President of the United States got himself into a potentially politically embarrassing position. That's pretty scary. What did our patriotic heroes do with that information? To hear Gaffney tell it, they're ready to use it now to play 'gotcha' with Grover Norquist. What other political opponents have they played 'gotcha' with? Have they done it to Senators? Congressmen? Other Presidents?

Who are these people, and why didn't they tell the President? There were a hundred ways to whisper in somebody's ear over at the White House that this is not a guy you want in a photograph with the President. They didn't do that, did they? These patriotic defenders of the United States put the President in a position where he could be blackmailed... by them. You know what? That sucks. That is really scary. And now we have some Mystery Correspondent who claims to be in the middle of all this, and he thinks it's funny. He thinks playing after-the-fact "gotcha" with his political opponents, using national security information, is just something we do around here. He didn't even notice what that would sound like. He was proud of it when he wrote it.

How did Sami al-Arian get into the White House, Sabertooth? Don't tell me it was Grover Norquist. The people whose job it was to know this stuff knew it, but they were withholding that information from the President of the United States... allowing him to get himself into a compromising position.

Maybe you think that was just Patriotism in Action. I don't. I think it's terrifying. And I think that anybody who chortles over it who says that he's any sort of 'defender of the United States' is... really, really scary.

I think we need to back up here. So this domestic politics guy is a traitor, or a dupe, eh? And who is telling us this? Mr. National Security is telling us this. Mr. National Security is telling us that Grover Norquist associated with Sami al-Arian, known bad guy. How do we know Sami al-Arian is a bad guy? There are 27,000 hours of tapes on him. How long does it take to tape 27,000 hours of stuff? A minimum of three years, and that's if the guy is on the phone every minute, 24-by-7. Who had these tapes? Who knew this? If I told you, I'd have to kill you. Did Mr. National Security know that Sami al-Arian was a bad guy when he went to the White House and had his picture taken with the President, which Mr. National Security now chortles about? Apparently so.

I guess if I have to choose my villians, I'll take the guy who was duped over the guy who would set himself up to blackmail the President of the United States and call it patriotism. I'd hang that sumbitch.

Nick Danger wrote "How did Sami al-Arian get into the White House, Sabertooth? Don't tell me it was Grover Norquist. The people whose job it was to know this stuff knew it, but they were withholding that information from the President of the United States... allowing him to get himself into a compromising position."

Hey,learn a little about Your Government. And the cases. If you would bother to read the relevant court documents, or even articles glossing them, you would know that the FBI, which first raided Al Arian in 1995, found enough to get a FISA court to authorize surveillance. Over the intervening years, Sami was recorded saying and doing all the things the head of a terrorist organization does, all nicely sampled in the affadavit for your convenience.

These happen to be the things that anyone half-worthy of attempting to engage in this discussion would logically assume Sami might be doing had they also read his speeches, writings or any of the hundreds of articles about him by professional terrorist analysts, investigative reporters, etc. That is what Grover should have done before he decided to sit on panels and in conferences with Sami (And Alamoudi,and Awad,...), and to sign on to Sami's cause ("Secret Evidence")and get then-candidate Bush to sign on to it, and subsequently to take Sami's award as a token of his gratitude.

I would say the same about Grover's Boy Friday in all this, Saffuri -- except that he actually did read the speeches and know who and what AlArian and Alamoudi was (see today's Sabertooth's above-posted Atlanta Constitution wherein Saffuir admits he knew the SAFA group principals "since the 1980'). So he knows the people, of course, who funded the start up of his and Grover's Institute, who funded Al Arian, and whom the US Government calls the subjects of "the largest terror financing investigation by the US anywhere in the world."

He knows them the same way a candidate knows his early and large primary donors. And Grover knows all about primaries and money shuffles... Importantly, at least in Washington, no responsible officer of a 501 c 3 takes money, especially in the beginning, without knowing who the donors are and what they want. It just isn;t done, except by the sort of person who doesn't want to know and thinks they are above the law. Grover is way too experienced to not have done this due diligence, or, he has become so irresponsible as to not be trusted by the White House or any of us

If he, Saffuri, is hanging with these type, as per the AC article and the evidence -- and getting on so well that they all pitch in together (SAFA, GSISS, IIIT, Alamoudi) to fund his startup -- don't you think there is something wrong with Grover's vetting process at the least?

And do you think Grover and Saffuri, in dealing with the White House, Congress and Cabinet heads (all of which they did do), also disclosed, honorably,that they were not there representing American Muslims, but in fact foregin embassies, ambassadors and Saudi funded front groups (as they knew they were from day one?? From 1998 through 9/11, this was the source of 99%, literally , of their money. Do you think had they disclosed this, even Rove would have said "Oh good, come on in" ? I know a few congressmen and cabinet secretaries who will be constrained to say "no" to that question. All in good time.

Now, as soon as the Islamic Institute is in place, they start picking up Sami al Arian's case, among others.

What is Sami trying to accomplish ? He wants to stop the govt. from holding and deporting (since done) his alien brother-in-law, one Mazzen al Najjar, based on information, including that authorized by the FISA court. Information which shows the two of them talking about how to funnel money with, and from, the same above-captioned groups who fund Grover and Khaled (some actually listed as enumerated unindicted co-conspirators, and identified by name in subseqently unsealed affadavits you could read, as Gaffney did (and doubtless Grover and you haven't).

AlArian and AlNajjar also discussed nifty operational things like using the charity front at the Univ. of S. Fla. to raise money for bus bombs and to export pelletized urea, a precursor for same. Also taped is AlArian discussing how to use charities and non-profits to advance terrorism because of a loophole in the Clinton-era Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, and how to co-opt "influential persons" in Washington under the "guise of promoting Arab and Muslim civil rights." (Of course you and Grover read all, or Gaffney made it all up and sold it to the Government, or......)

So, to stop the government from thus protecting us, Grover joins hands with these people and paints Secret Evidence (along with 'profiling'. etc.) as a "civil liberties" issue, one which Bush and Rove should airbrush because we might pick up some votes on the way to the bombing.

(This in much the same way Norquist and others dress up their lobbying from Indan tribes and Marianna's sweat shops as somehow really about "taxes" and "right to work" laws -- a cynical disingenousness that betrays the movement and its embrace of those causes while making millions for Abramoff's and Norquist's operations and pockets. Nice.

And where do Sami and Grover, et cie, run this campaign with and from? The National Coalition to Protect Political Freedoms, a group wholly comprised of legal defense ops for some 20 or so convicted terrorists, ranging fromm AIM and IRA to ETA, FALN, the Capitol bombers and the "blind sheikh." So as was the case above, re knowing who the funders of the Islamic Institute were, for years; once again with the NCPPF, the idea that Grover couldn't have known, or that the information was only in the hands of terrorists and FBI agents, and the clever Gaffney, is risible.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming from your sarcastic caricatured remarks that you REALLY don't have a clue how law enforcement, terrorism cases and financial invesigations advance (or what the role of the Secret Service is and how it performs it, and what a minimal cross pollenation there is between the USSS and the FBI et al), let me tell you a little bit:

1) Cases are highly compartmentalized to maximize security, integrity, chain of evidence, etc., and to minimize any form of compromise both re civil rights and re policy or political pressure from within the process or without (i.e., Congress, media, White House, politicos, lobbyists, etc.) the FBI, DOJ and other agencies involved.

2) Until the 9/11 forced the removal of the "wall" prohibiting the sharing of national security intelligence and domestic law enforcement information and the combining of these for the prosecution of terror and other cases in the US, the Al Arian wiretaps (a foreign terror group investigation, broadly speaking), could not be shared. Their mere existence could not be exposed to domestic prosecutors looking at Sami or al Najjar (in re his deportation proceedings, for example. Had 9/11 not occurred -- and had Bush made good on the "secret evidence" pledge Grover, AlArian, Alamoudi and Saffuri lobbied for -- we would not have been able to prosecute AlArian or almost any terror case we subsequently have seen coming forward.

That would have set us and others up for more terror -- terror financed and directed in part from the US and from charity and non-profit groups, including, specifically, to be clear, those that funded Saffuri and Grover and whom Saffuri, rightly, says he has known and worked with "since the 19080's" Are you getting this?

Finally, from the above it follows, by law, practice and culture, that the investigative agencies operate within the operational and time logic of the case, and under the laws, statutes and AG guidelines, etc, in moving the cases and the sharing of information.

None of that is remotely construed as including telling the President, or Rove (much less anyone lower in the parking space order like Goeglein, Kahn, Tulbah or uberadivsor Norquist), who it is who may be the target of a case, much less a subject of interest...

They won't tell anyone -- not the homestate Senator, not the relevant oversight committee chair, not even others in the Criminal Division of the DOJ, or the IRS or DHS. It is learned about when the arrest happens and the cameras roll. Period. Really. Not the President. Got it. Got it?

So, No, it is expressly not the job of anyone above to call the White House and say, "Hey, Officer Joe on the front gate,in one of the hundreds of meetings going on this week in the White House, including ones that Rove has blessed and allowed Saffuri and Norquist to vet(or Khan or Tulbah or your favorite star dujour), if one of the attendees is named Al Arian or Alamoudi, don't tell anyone, but we are going to arrest him in 8 hours, 8 days or 8 months, so don't let him in." Sorry, but that ain't how it works. Hang who you want; auto da fe if you wish.

Given that, Yes, it not only is possible, and very possible, but it has happened on multiple occasions (think Jonny Wang) that targets of US LE and IC interest, many of whom are on the glide path to jail, end up being visitors, even recurrent ones, to the White House. They could be Oval Office guests, and have been; even while under active investigation. And hardly ever does a) the prosecutor and agent side know about the WH meeting or how it got organized, or b) does the WH side have a clue that even later that day the person is going to be tapped or arrested.
(The rare exceptions tend to be foregin intelligence or FCI-tagged foreign perons, but not US citizen for the reasons above.)

Now, people who are national security professionals, like Gaffney and his shop, which includes former LE and IC people obviously; and simply analysts and serious journalists, develop information about people, groups, and cases in the old fashion ways: they study the actions, histories, teachers, travel, associates, words, funders, public documents and 990 tax filings, and they attend events and interview people, and sometimes people leak to them. After analysing that 'take', smart people, and even not terribly smart people, can often come to the same effective conclusion that, known or unknown to them, the government might be, or not be, reaching.

Sometimes, as may be appropriate, they take their information or theses to the law enforcement or intelligence community, or to policy or legisliative types, or to academic and media types, to compare notes, encourage or discourage action, etc.

Its not a conspiracy, it';s not about secrets, or invading or "getting." In the same way, if Grover's friends and contacts, in whatever walk of life, hear something about a candidate, or a group of people drawing up referendum language or drafting an opposing candidate, they analyse that 'take' and go tell Grover who decides what to do about it. They might even say, "Look it's important this not be sold to this White House" or not endorsed by the RNC, or whatever.

That's what the national security and terrorism analyst do. That's what Gaffney did. They react to seeing AlArian or Alamoudi at a meeting in thes way local ATR or Citizens Against Government Waste types might react to seeing Ralph Neas or Ralph Nader showing up at their local PUSH or NOW or DNC office, or whatever.

Gaffney doesn't do taxes, Norquist doesn't do national security. Both subjects are arcane and have their own science, art and community and different relationships too with the civil society, the social compact. etc. (n.b., National security, the ultimate public good, is not a political game or playing field and does not yield itself to Norquist's usual modalities, glib approaches or rather weak, if at all extant, analytics.)

Now, about Gaffney.... he did "whisper into the ear of people at the White House," and in other agencies. Many took action to insulate themselves or their Cabinet principals. Many at the same time, said "this is Rove's baby," we aren't going to mess with him, and we the security/ foreign policy shop doesn't want to leak over to the political side, so we'll do what we can, this all stinks, thanks for coming by.

Some took stronger action and indeed much has moved because of efforts like Gaffney's. Many more people in the LE and IC speak across lines and to the Hill on related matters than previously was the case, this especially post-9/11. Doubtless Gaffney's network has helped that process along.

And just as Gaffney's orginal warnings and his public letter to Grover were vindicated by events (the arrests of Al Arian and Alamoudi and the media mockingly pointing out that Bush has commended Alamoudi for his work, and the FBI Director had addressed his group, etc.)-- more will be found to be true, to the embarrassment, if not worse, of all concerned.

Gaffney's point in trying to warn Grover and others in the first place was clearly to enable all concerned to slowly segue to a different, less felonious and politically risky set of interlocutors. That could have been done out of the media spotlight, quietly and effectively.

But No! Grover insisted on pulling himself into a tumescent ball of anger, resentment and defiant denial, spewing invective and making a melodramatic spectacle (tears, red face, tremulant hands) expecting both the problem and fine people like Gaffney to sit back, take the public sliming and name-calling, allow the cancer to grow, and say nothing. He thinks, in short, that it is all about and for him, as apparently do most of his courtiers.

This was not only rude, and tacky, but politically stupid of Norquist. It compounded his already egregious lack of judgment, lack of "due diligence" as to funders, associates, venues and causes -- and exposed to ridicule, and worse, the President, himself, any attenuated Muslim/GOP theory, in fact -- all those who treated with him and trusted him on related matters. His ultimately selfish, boorish and hubris-driven behavior has, rather ironically, shown why power is indeed dangerous, and its corruption even more so, and why the system needs checks and balances like Gaffney, congressional hearings, FISA courts and the Justice Department, in the present case, to help us protect ourselve from such folly.

Napolean once remarked, 'every corporal carries a field marshall's baton in his napsack'. Grover is styled the "Field Marshall of the Revolution" in an article he likes to hand people. Perhaps in the end, it will be better, as so often in history, had he remained a corporal. At the very least he should have stuck to the fiscus inasmuch as the rest of the Party seems to have become just like him as they greedily spend our money at a faster clip than most of us can remember, while covering themselves in a false flag of tax reform and responsibility. All, like the drug benefit giveaway, sold to us as "another way to get votes." Just like this errant Muslim outreach scheme.

Come to think of it, why are you, as has been said elsewhere in this thread, his apologist?

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?

By the way, is this a Defend Grover Norquist Website or a Defend the Republic Website? As Horowitz put it citing Conrad, where do you come down in the "betray your friend or your country" question? I'm sorry if your answers to these questions are neither simple for you or clear to the rest of us.

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?

By the way, is this a Defend Grover Norquist Website or a Defend the Republic Website? As Horowitz put it citing Conrad, where do you come down in the "betray your friend or your country" question? I'm sorry if your answers to these questions are neither simple for you or clear to the rest of us.

I see. The fact that I have a problem with people calling Grover Norquist a traitor makes me...a traitor. Nice, and illuminating.

To answer your question, this is a website where we discuss and debate conservative issues and ideas. Historically, it has been typified by no holds barred brawling at times. I've often referred to it as the Dodge City of the Internet.

Historically, it also has been a place where a debater loses his argument when he resorts to easy as hominems such as "racist", "nazi", or now, the popular "traitor".

Again, I ask you to show me where Norquist has knowingly betrayed his country. Does he engage in lobbying? Of course. He has been doing that, mainly through his organization "American's for Tax Reform", for decades. It's what he does, he rallies supporters, galvanizes opinion and then goes to the politicians best able to effect positive conservative changes in this country. To act surprised at this point that this is what he is doing is weird.

Did he set up an organization to improve conservative-Muslim relations and to educate them on conservative values and free markets? Yes.

Is it possible that a few of the bad guys slipped through and got a couple audiences with politicians, even the White House? Looks like it.

You keep mentioning how most of the II's funding comes from the middle east (bugga bugga!). You conveniently fail to include that on many occasions Norquist has stated that the majority of his funding comes from Qatar, hardly an enemy of the United States and one of the few middle eastern countries pushing Western style free market principles.

To put Grover Norquist at the head of some international conspiray to undermine the United States is simply ludicrous and smells of a witch hunt. Anyone that knows him knows he is one of the biggest conservative patriots this country has and he'd cut off his arm before hurting it.

We're mistakes made? Sure looks like it. Did Norquist handle it poorly, reaching for the race card? Probably. Has he thoroughly addressed the accusations? Not to my satisfaction, but I believe he must do so soon.

The bottom line for all of us Norquist apologists, as you seen to stereotype us, is we just don't see the benefit in laying what appears to be a tremendous national security screw up at his doorstep instead of spending your time doing what is necessary and taking positive action with the government agencies who can best fix it quickly and effectively.

Again, why make Norquist the scapegoat here? Who benefits if one the most successfull and influential conservative NGO activists, who also happens to advocate bringing moderate Muslims into the conservative tent, helping give them a voice in politics and educating them on Western/conservative principles, takes a header?

Here is info from the "about" page at the Islamic Free Market Insitute. I'm not member and not advocating it, but in the context of this debate it seems to me that everything Norquist has done is pretty much reflected in what they state they are trying to accomplish here. (Once again, I am not saying some of the bad guys didn't slip through the fence.)

Islamic Free Market Institute at a glance

There are more than five million Muslims in the United States. The American Muslim community represents one of the fastest growing segments of American society.

The Institute inspires and facilitates the development of grassroots Muslim political movements that are economically conservative. The Institute is a membership-based nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, founded in 1998 to initiate these goals:

Create a better understanding between the American Muslim community and the political leadership.

Provide a platform to promote an Islamic perspective on domestic issues (social and fiscal) to help enhance the Muslim community’s input in the decision-making process.

Cultivate and expand Muslim activists and mobilize the community at the state and federal levels on issues affecting the American Muslim community.

Run aggressive campaigns to help increase the American Muslim participation in the electoral process.

Introduce traditional American values to the Muslim community and traditional Islamic teachings and values to decision-makers.

The Islamic Free Market Institute is governed by a highly qualified body of directors, who are active in envisioning long-term goals and strategies.

Muslims in America Sharing Our Dreams, Our Values

More than 5 million strong, Muslims represent one of the fastest growing segments of American society. They come from all walks of life: doctors, business leaders, grocers, teachers, etc. They are part of the American social fabric, yet they are the most misunderstood citizens of the United States.

The Muslim community is composed of diverse people and viewpoints. Despite media stereotypes and widely held misconceptions, Muslims share many of the same values and beliefs with Americans of other faiths.

"(The Islamic Free Market Institute's) efforts to educate Americans on the true traditions and beliefs of Islam will help the relationship between all Americans and the American Muslim community." Newt Gingrich, former Speaker

Americans may be surprised to know that many Muslims believe in school prayer, low taxes, ending abortion, fighting crime and drugs, while being family and community oriented.

Making a Difference, Building Relationships

Located in the nation's Capitol, the Islamic Free Market Institute attempts to build relationships between American Muslims and the mainstream political movement in the United States.

The alliance between Muslim constituency and the fiscal conservative movement is realized through the Institute’s efforts to teach traditional conservative values to Muslims, and traditional Islamic beliefs to the public as well as political leaders and activistists.

With more than one million Muslims registered to vote, mainstream organizations realize the importance of including a politically active American Muslim community in the electoral process. The task of the Institute is to launch a campaign emphasizing the Muslim electorate in state and federal elections, while fostering enhanced relationships with elected officials.

"The Institute's work in spreading the importance of conservative principles and the Republican Party in the Islamic community is compelling and important." Jim Nicholson, Chairman of the Republican National Committee

"I..... commend the Islamic Free Market Institute on it's recent accomplishments on Capitol Hill which serves to educate members of Congress and benefit the Muslim community as a whole." Nick J. Rahall, Member fo Congress (D-WV)

The Islamic Free Market Institute: A Plan of Action

The Islamic Free Market Institute plans numerous activities to fully engage the Muslim community and members of the mainstream movement through:

Researching and mapping demographic trends within the Muslim community.

Mobilizing, educating and giving Muslims an active voice in the electoral process.

Compiling a library of scholarly works about Islamic views on social and economic issues including papers on free trade, monetary policy, banking, abortion, the Death Penalty and crime.

Commissioning analysis on a wide range of topics for policy makers pursuing active relations with Muslim leaders and potential Muslim candidates.

"Islam and Free Market (The Institute's first academic paper) should be read by all Americans who want a better understanding of Islam and economists.” Rep. Dick Armey, House Majority Leader

Establishing a network of think tanks, advocacy groups, political organizations and local community centers to expand activities and engage American Muslims.

Conducting overseas conferences on free enterprise and privatization between American leaders, businessmen and women to meet and exchange ideas with Muslim business leaders.

Organizing domestic forums to promote traditional agenda among American Muslim scholars through a series of conferences and forums in the United States.

Promoting the appointments of Muslims to positions of influence.

Establishing Muslim organizations in cities around the United States to serve as a catalyst in the development of traditional grassroots movements in the Muslim community.

*********************************************************

I don't see anything illegal, unconstitutional or nefarious here. If bad guys slip through, let's find them and fry 'em. I don't see a problem with Norquist attempting to bring traditionally conservative Muslims into the conservative movement and the political process.

If we don't you can be sure the Dems will.

Why don't you be a man an accuse Norquist directly of what you think he is guilty of instead of selectively presenting information for maximum grandstanding and playing the cheap guilt by association game.

You keep mentioning how most of the II's funding comes from the middle east (bugga bugga!). You conveniently fail to include that on many occasions Norquist has stated that the majority of his funding comes from Qatar, hardly an enemy of the United States and one of the few middle eastern countries pushing Western style free market principles.

Qatar is like Saudi Arabia. They can be "allies" in some way or another, while sponsoring terrorism.
At the same time Qatar was funding Norquist and Saffuri's Islamic Institute, they were also contributing to the Palestinian homicide bomber fund...
The documents come in many flavors. They include Saudi-government accounting schedules showing the amount of money paid to individual Palestinians and their families, with the names of suicide bombers and others who carried out armed attacks against Israelis highlighted in yellow, blue and pink. They include correspondence between Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority (PA) and the Saudi government that discusses the payments. They also include a damning letter from the Saudis complaining that the Palestinians had exposed the secret financial ties by allowing the publication of a Feb. 19 report in the PA publication al-Hayat al-Jedida thanking Saudi Arabia for assisting the families of terrorists killed in attacks on Israelis. < -snip- >
Other foreign donors included the largest Muslim charity in the United States, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) in Richardson, Texas, whose assets were frozen in December 2001 on presidential order because of its alleged ties to terrorist groups.
The HLF frequently has been singled out by the Israelis as a major source of funding for Hamas. Last year, it raised an estimated $13 million, which it boasted of donating to charities in the West Bank and Gaza. HLF supporters, which include groups such as the American Muslim Council and the Islamic Association for Palestine, claim they merely are providing humanitarian aid for Palestinian families, much as the Saudis are doing today.
Khaled Saffuri, a former legislative director of the American Muslim Council who now heads the Islamic Institute in Washington, has met with top Justice Department officials several times since the HLF was shut down — including a private dinner with U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft — questioning the breadth and manner of the FBI crackdown on Muslim charities in America. Saffuri openly boasts of his ties to the Bush White House and to top Republican strategist Grover Norquist, who cofounded the Islamic Institute four years ago.
In a meeting with Insight editors last week, Saffuri firmly denounced Hamas, Hezbollah and all other terrorist groups. He called for Arafat's ouster. Norquist, also present at the meeting, heatedly dismissed critics of his efforts on behalf of Saffuri and other Muslim leaders, some of whom have been tied to Hamas fund-raising efforts in the United States, as "bigots" and "racists spreading lies."
< -snip- >
Documents seized by the Israelis suggest that the substantial payments distributed to the families were a key element in recruiting suicide bombers. The one-time grants amounted to $25,000 per family from the government of Iraq, $5,300 from Saudi Arabia, $2,000 from the PA and $500 each from the United Arab Emirates and Qatar.
Sneak Preview
(documents Israel seized from Palestinian terrorist cells and governmental offices)
Kenneth R. Timmerman - Insight Magazine | June 10th, 2002

Interesting, isn't it, that Islamic Institute's Khaled Saffuri keeps finding himself associated with sponsors of homicide bombers in Israel?
Could happen to anyone, I guess.

Why don't you be a man an accuse Norquist directly of what you think he is guilty of instead of selectively presenting information for maximum grandstanding and playing the cheap guilt by association game.

Why don't you address the facts, instead of complaining about them?
If the facts I've posted are selective, then post the exculpatory facts.
Incidentally, in light of your own complaints about ad hominems, (arguments to the man) at #356 it's sort of ironic that you make comments such as "why don't you be a man" and "maximum grandstanding."
Why don't you address the substance, with substance?

Come to think of it, why are you, as has been said elsewhere in this thread, his apologist?

I hate to talk about myself, but since you are new here, I will. Depending on which thread I am in, I am either an apologist for the drug companies, the IBM Corporation, the Federal Reserve Board, Enron... I've forgotten all the people I supposedly work for. Now I see that I can add the Saudi Royal Family to the list of my nefarious sponsors. Very well.

I should probably also tell you that if Grover Norquist and I passed on the street, he might recognize me as someone he has seen around, but if he remembered my name, it would surprise me. That is the succinct description of where I am in the world of Grover Norquist. For me, this isn't really about Grover Norquist; nor is it about taking anybody's "side." I have a private business that has nothing to do with any of this. My whole involvement in politics is a very part-time volunteer deal. I'm a Freeper, not a Washington Creature.

For me, this is about BS. I would probably be here hassling you had I never even met Grover Norquist. People on this forum will tell you that I will jump in and take on 15 people at a time if I think somebody is trying to sell BS in this forum... and it almost doesn't matter on what subject. I regularly light into Scientologists, Microsoft shills, feminists, economic quacks of various kinds, all kinds of things. Sometimes when I go into these things I already know the guy is peddling BS. Sometimes I don't know; it smells like it, but I'm not sure. So I poke around to find out.

To me this "Get Grover Norquist" crusade is another instance of "I smell BS." Take your long and very condescending note. Here we have more scary stuff that the Arabs did, something I view as an appeal to emotion and as stage-setting; more attempts to make me pin all the dead bodies on Grover Norquist; a few paragraphs exposing a fair amount of personal animosity towards Mr. Norquist; and finally a sincere inquiry into my motivations, or an insinuation, depending on how polite I choose to be here.

So what do I do with this? Well, first I add the personal animosity stuff to the growing pile of evidence that this is a personal feud of some sort. I don't really know whether it is. But I've heard that, and so when I see evidence for it, I note that. Second, I note the overpowering whiff of "I told you so, in fact I told everybody; if only they had listened to me" in the whole thing, and add that to the list of possible reasons for the jihad-grade intensity here.

Then I notice that you're trying really, really hard to get people to stop at Grover Norquist when assigning crap-points to what went on here. But I'm not that easily led, and I can't help but notice that there's no reason not to continue up the chain and to award crap-points to Karl Rove, the White House staff, and even to the President for all these nefarious associations. "Bush meets with indicted Moslem terrorist; questions surface: did he know?" That sort of thing. You would like me to take your word for it that Grover is the bad guy here, but I don't think Americans for Tax Reform has the same level of resources for checking up on people that the White House has. So I'm wondering why we're supposed to hold Grover Norquist to a higher standard than we would the White House staff.

As soon as I get to that point, I wonder two things: One, should I add the attempt to target Grover Norquist as the one guy who is supposed to absorb all crap-points for these events to the pile of "personal animosity" evidence, or do I open a new evidence drawer and label it, "Back-handed attack on Bush and/or Rove for reasons unknown." That one is interesting, because in your long narrative here you contradict yourself and in your zeal to hose Norquist you tell us that the White House should indeed have been able to avoid the embarrassment of meeting with al-Arian, and presumably Alamoudi as well. After all, anyone versed in the arts could have put two-and-two together; they didn't need any FBI wiretaps to guess that these guys were Bad News. You would like me to hold Grover Norquist responsible for having failed to suss this out, but I think I'll continue to wonder where the people in the White House were who are supposed to protect the President from this sort of thing. They are more "versed in the arts" than Grover Norquist ever would be.

Actually, I can stop wondering now because you've told me. They did know. Even if they hadn't figured it out by reading widely available materials that I haven't read, Frank Gaffney helpfully pointed it out to them. That way they could have the popcorn ready and the lounge chair in place when Karl Rove stepped on the banana peel. Tough place, Washington.

OK, so what I get from that little tale is that the spooky types don't like Rove and they decided to let him get the President mixed up with something the Democrats might have made a lot of hay with. That's because they're not political. Clinton, Bush, what's the difference. They don't do elections. I guess they don't worry about the impact overseas of pictures of Bush and al-Arian together, either.

Anyway, down that alley lies a maze of twisty passages all alike, that smell like they probably go down into a sewer.

As has happened with previous exchanges here, the issue of whether this "Get Grover" crusade is BS has not been settled. There's more evidence that it might be a personal feud, some new evidence that it's a righteously satisfying (for you) game of "I told you so," lots more prestidigitation trying to direct all the crap-points at Norquist instead of at more logical targets on the government side, and another whiff of what might be a very large butt-covering exercise by the "Frank Gaffney wing" of the government, which appears to be trying to shift blame onto the domestic politics crowd for intelligence failures.

Since we are talking here about taking down a guy who, while not irreplacable, has brought -- and still brings -- a tremendous amount of drive and energy to conservative causes and conservative politics, I would like to be convinced that I'm not joining some guy's personal vendetta; or a political hit from RINO's or Democrats or somebody else; or a bureaucratic butt-covering exercise emanating from inside the government, to blame Norquist and/or the "political" side of the house for failing to know things that they should have known but didn't; or a hit on Rove disguised as a hit on Norquist; or a hit on Bush disguised as a hit on Norquist (a lot of your material is ammo in the hands of a Democrat). The fact that you point the finger at Norquist and say "it's all his fault" is not all that persuasive to me, particularly when it's obvious that you hate the guy's guts. I do not expect domestic politics types to know spooky things. We taxpayers hire spooky people to do that. They are supposed to do it... not hide in the weeds and then jump out afterwards to say "gotcha!" to all the people who didn't know what they knew. That's BS.