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

FrontPageMagazine ^ | 12/09/03 | Frank J Gaffney Jr.

[Bob J]

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.

(...crickets...)

[Sabertooth]

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.

(...crickets...)

At this point, Bob, you're just compounding your earlier errors. I've been more than clear, and anyone who wades through this thread will see that your questions have been more than answered, and that your answers are less than compelling.

I've posted information and links, and you've ignored all of it, suggesting that I'm "selectively presenting information."

Fair enough. Then there should be a much larger exculpatory fact set with which you should be able to knock concerns about Norquist right out of the park.

Go for it.

So far, however, you're whiffing.

You suggested that Norquist's objections to the use of secret evidence were similar to those of Weyrich and Keene, apparently unaware that Norquist's objections were related to Al Arian's brother in law, and that Norquist received an award from one of Al Arian's organizations.

You suggested that there was nothing wrong with Qatar's funding of the Islamic Institute, apparently unaware that while at times an ally, Qatar was simultaneously funding the families of homicide bombers.

Those are just a couple of examples from today. I'm assuming you were unaware of these things, because I want to give you the benefit of the doubt.

[Trollstomper]

You write: (a lot of your material is ammo in the hands of a Democrat). and "Microsoft shills"

That it may become ammo for Dems is that point, as I earlir pointed out, of the Gaffney, Horowitz, et al effort to shut it down, first queity and privately, and then after Grover's public name-calling, in the open.

I do not hate Grover and I have known him and worked with him for 20 years. I hate what he is doing and I know full well what it is as I have described. Winking at more of your flaccid bait, I don't have a "vendetta," -- rather I am a national security professional with a job, like Gaffney, which I am doing. Whether you will like the outcome or not.

By the way, why do then hate Gaffney?

Yet again you have ignored every fact and refuted nothing. And for the 4th time you have ignored my explaining to you what the legal and procedural reasons are that the LE/IC ("spooks" who engage in fantastical "gotcha" games in your arch Hollywood argot), are not supposed to, or allowed to, warn anybody. If you choose to ignore this or disbelieve it, then this former agent just feels sorry for you. Maybe if you were a "Washington creature" you might know a little better.

Anyway, the issue is not whether anyone could or should have stopped Grover's muj express, it's whether Grover shoul dhave been on it and why he shou;d by now have stopped, and now must be stopped -- as opposed to using every tool, dollar, and slimy leftist epithet to get his way. And you know it.

FYI, A 10 minute google or nexis search by the way would inform you that Norquist has made hundreds of thousands of dollars as a "Microsoft shill" So I'm curious as to whether you have "lighted" into him in the past?

Re your paragraph about being an "apologist" for Norquist - I think you protest to much: I did not say or imply you are sponsored by the Saudis. Rather that you are an apologist for Norquist. You are, I am not. Very simple.

You are full of "wonder" and invective, but alas void of facts. Perhaps if you could deal with the facts and demonstrated any facilty with them you would "wonder" less and learn more. You failed the assignment. Goodbye.

[Nick Danger]

for the 4th time you have ignored my explaining to you what the legal and procedural reasons are

Yes, you have patiently explained this. Now let me explain something to you. As a citizen and a taxpayer, I spend a fortune every year on a defense and national security establishment. When it comes to protecting the President of the United States from foreign intrigue, "that's not my department" is not the answer I want to hear.

Call me naive; call me anything you want. What I'm not is a bureaucrat, and I do not want to hear bureaucrat answers like "it's not our fault" that all these creepy guys got in to see the President. I do not want to hear that the head of Americans for Tax Reform is the guy on the hook for finding the Arab terrorists. This is just a totally BS spew that you are giving us here. Patiently or otherwise.

This is how 9/11 happened. You guys haven't changed a thing. It's against procedures. It's not my department. We don't do airplanes. It's all his fault. We have Bad Guys in the White House, and the answer to this is to beat up the head of Americans for Tax Reform because the people the taxpayers are paying to protect the President from this stuff are out following procedures somewhere.

It's enough to make a poor citizen tear his hair out.

[Trollstomper]

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

No, he set it up run by and funded by radicals who are in jail or going to jail, per roughly 100 previous facts in this thread, Gaffney's article/s, etc. Norquist merely passed it off as "free market" and "moderate."

You variously refer to the subject Muslims as "moderate" and "conservative" and 'free market'. They are none of these, and the regimes they support and the causes for which they work, are socialist at best. E.g., one of the people Grover got into Austin was the former head of the Pakistani Communist Party. Another, Alamoudi, Saffuri's penultimate boss and mentor is funded, in part, or via actually, the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jumahiriyah (trans. "state of the masses.) Some free market creds.!

"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."

No,again: they were not a "few" and did not "slip through" --- they were virtually the only ones brought in, and they were brought in the front door, starting in the campaign, by Norquist. The have not thus had "a couple of meetings," rather, they have had over 50 meetings at Cabinet, WH and subcabinet level. (I have not tabulated the congressional meetings in DC and district offices but they are not as connected, if at all, to Grover, and they are too numerous to count.)

"You keep mentioning how most of the II's funding comes from the middle east (bugga bugga!)."

No, again (did you always do this poorly at reading comprehension?). I, as Gaffney and myriad news organizations, and court documents and congressional testimony and investigations, have explained that the funding comes from Saudi-sponsored, government directed, front organizations identified by the US as part of "the largest ongoing terror finance investigation by the US anywhere in the world." (Not exactly "the middle east, bugga bugga"). I tire of retyping these things only to have you pointedly ignore them and recast them to lubricate your so-called argument. As I said, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not you own facts.

Re Qatar: As Sabertooth points out, Qatar, the only other officially Wahabbi state, plays against us at least half the time, e.g., sponsors al Jazeera, and hid and then exfiltrated AlQaeda oprations chief Khalid Sheikh Mohammed when the FBI and CIA went there to get him. (By the way, their registered agent is Nick Rahall's sister; and Saffuir et al contribute to Rahall, who is hardly a supporter of moderation in the middle east, or of this President/GOP.)

All the notes you cite from Armey, Newt, RNC, etc., were written by Grover and signed because he traded on his reputation while hiding these facts from those signers. Do you begin to understand here???? Years ago they had no reason to question him. You now do, but won't. None of them would sign those letters today.

Detail, a) Qatar only became the largest funder of Grover after 9/11, (I must again stress the earlier point that the majority, literally, of the seed money for the II came from terror-connected people and fronts that Saffuri knew were such and worked with and for since the 1980's), and b) this, along with the other foreign money, clearly -- in the law, and for certain -- makes the operation a "foreign lobbying entity" -- and this is a wholly different thing than ATR's normative lobbying on taxes, etc.

[The other point here is that Grover denied he took ANY foreign money until it was proven; he then lied about virtually all of it, for instance saying the Qatari money was for conferences and congressional travel. In a given year he recv'd over $600,000 from Qatar, and the congressional travel came to less that 20% of that (yep, I researched the records, just as you could). The in-country expensed were covered by the Qatari government and host institutions related thereto. So the rest of the money: in reality lobbying fee pass throughs. Welcome to the seamy side of Washington. ]

The problem lies in Grover not disclosing any/all of this, and to the contrary, representing it, in a purposely deceptive manner (which is also illegal, about which more in future news stories) -- to Congress and the Administration -- not to mention friends and associates in the movement, including myself -- as an "American Muslim community" operation. This is deceptive, deceitful, unethical, and illegal. Just as it is when he urges the movement on Weds, or a MC, to do something re internet regulation or taxation without saying that he, not just ATR, is being paid $150,00 a year by Microsoft (while,by the way, Grover claims in public that his only income is $120,000 from ATR) Lies. Lies. Lies. How many are too many for you? Or are they, like facts seem to be for you, only "lies" when they are convenient?

There is no way around this pattern of deceit and illegality and the fact that an actionable portion of it was clearly premediated, supportive of terrorism, and is ongoing -- and this is part of the exposure Grover has created for this President, whom by the way I fully support. This is the extent to which Grover has betrayed his country.

[Bob J]

You suggested that Norquist's objections to the use of secret evidence were similar to those of Weyrich and Keene, apparently unaware that Norquist's objections were related to Al Arian's brother in law, and that Norquist received an award from one of Al Arian's organizations.

Norquists objections were the same as Keene's, Weyrich's, other conservatives and libertarians not to mention many people on this board...portions of the Patriot Act may be unconstitutional. Now, that may not be yours or my interpretation, but there seem to be quite a few reliable people who hold that opinion. Your habit of assigning inflammatory motives using circumstantial anecdotes to people you do not know is disturbing and lends credence to your reputation as a bomb thrower.

You suggested that there was nothing wrong with Qatar's funding of the Islamic Institute, apparently unaware that while at times an ally, Qatar was simultaneously funding the families of homicide bombers.

So, when Qatar funded the II, were they Qatar the ally or Qatar the evil?

'Tooth, you remind me of the kid in Junior High that knew the name and weight of every element on the periodic table but couldn't perform the simplest experiments without knocking beakers all over the table.

[Trollstomper]

"I do not want to hear that the head of Americans for Tax Reform is the guy on the hook for finding the Arab terrorists."

We are not actually talking about "foreign intrigue," another one of you bait-and-switch gambits. we are talking about a domestic one.

No, "he is on the hook" for bringing them in. Hate to break it to you , but we are a nation of laws. We operate under laws whether we like it or not. The LE/IC would like to do a lot more in many cases, but Congress does things like Pike and Church and people like Grover try to block so-called "secret evidence" and Patriot Act, and then when any of us suggests some terr or terr symp (we don't make much distinction as the President has rightly said,and Grover hates)-- should be blocked ,watched, arrested, Norquist et al start accusing of racism, bigotry and profiling. So you're beef about that should be with him and Saffuri, and Sami, et al.

People are doing their jobs, thank you very much, but Grover is trying to make it harder. As the USSS and FBI have learned time and again -- one example you all must be familiar with is Gary Aldrich and his book (and he was precisely the FBI liaison the FBI and USSS). When Gary, (yes, a friend of mine)and the Service told the WH political operation and other staffers things they didn't want to hear, he was ignored, punished and finally forced out of his job. So don't compound your evident ignorance of the machinery and laws/due process, etc., by suggesting that people aren't doing their job, and at considerable risk I might add.

You don't know who I am, granted, but I am in the forefront of efforts to rewire US LE and IC so that a greater fusion of foreign and domestic intellegence and analysis results and the "dots" get connected. The lack of this was one of the primary contributing elements of the 9/11 intelligence failure (along with many others, such as the Clinton gutting of humint and elint, ordering LE/IC not to look at anything Saudi or domestic Muslim, etc., much of which Powell/State and Tenet are continuing).

One of the structural and operational keys to any fix, a necessary condition, is the use of the exact tools that Grover opposes and has attacked the AG for: use of foreign intelligence information domestically and the Patriot Act. Not to mention NSEERS or CAPPS 1 and II, or Grover's position on immigration. Again, are you getting any of this?

[Trollstomper]

"portions of the Patriot Act may be unconstitutional"

Might we leave that to Congress and the Courts and to disinerested experts, say Bork or Keene, rather that to people paid by terrorist-funding fronts and foreign governments -or at least engage in such analysis with the Federalist Society or someplace other than Al Arian's NCPPF, whose interest is not the US constitution, but rather how to be maximally protected by it while they try to blow us up? (recall the good Justice's admonition that the 'Constitution of the United States is not a sucide pact."

[Trollstomper]

So, when Qatar funded the II, were they Qatar the ally or Qatar the evil?

Both, that was the point. Famously a mark of intelligence is to be able to hold two fully examined ideas in ones mind at the same time and to then reconcile them to higher plane. Try it. To help you , read Bob Baer's chapter on Qatar and the Dark Prince in his "Sleeping with the Devil." Mostly becasue I don't have time now to teach you about Qatar on top of everything else and it's an good read on that subject for the purpose of your question.


re Your cleverling remark to Saber': YOU remind ME of the kid in school who loved getting lauchs mocking the teacher's accent but missed most of the lesson and flunked the tests. Maybe you should try to learn the lessons know, instead of poorly mimicking snippets you half-absorbed and reurgitating them as anklebiting flea questions. Again, try this: Don't ask or assert re opinion, just ask o rassert with direct reference to the facts.

[Sabertooth]

Norquists objections were the same as Keene's, Weyrich's, other conservatives and libertarians not to mention many people on this board...portions of the Patriot Act may be unconstitutional.

If what you say is true you should have no trouble directing me to comments from the others you've mentioned objecting to the use of secret evidence in concert with efforts like those of Al Arian's NCPPF to free associates of Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman, who were implicated in his efforts to order acts of terror frm prison, following his conviction in the conspiracy to bomb the World Trade Center in 1993.

Did Keene and Weyrich get "attaboys" from terror fundraisers for their efforts?

Did Freepers?

Who?

Source?

Link?

So, when Qatar funded the II, were they Qatar the ally or Qatar the evil?

A specious question. You attempted to make the point at #356 that the Islamic Instutes's ME funds from Qatar were ok, because Qatar is "hardly an enemy of the United States." I pointed out, since you were obviously unaware, that Qatar isn't always our ally, and that not all money from Qatar is therefore excusable.

Or, do you excuse Qatar's subsidies for the families of homicide bombers?

If not, then it's not especially compelling when you suggest that Norquist's Qatari fundraising is kosher, simply because it's "one of the few middle eastern countries pushing Western style free market principles. "

Qatar was funding homicide bombers, Bob, at the same time they were giving money to Norquist and Saffuri for the Islamic Institute. Saffuri has given money to the now-banned Holy Land Foundation, which also funded the families of homicide bombers.

I suppose there is something of a free market principle at work here.

'Tooth, you remind me of the kid in Junior High that knew the name and weight of every element on the periodic table but couldn't perform the simplest experiments without knocking beakers all over the table.

I see your objections to argumentum ad hominem are fluid, and spilling over.

[Trollstomper]

1) By the way, of course, the point was not simply whether Qatar was good or bad at the time, but rather than Grover shold have registers and otehrwise disclosed that this is who he works for rather than trying to both hide and lie about it, per se, and lie by saying II works on behalf of the putative "American Muslim Community."

2) Estimates of this "community" ,by the way, are greatly exaggerated by the II types. Census and polling date, and analysis by several universities and by the conservative STATS, indicates the number is betweem 2 and 3 million , inclusive of 800,000 Arab-American (most of whom are Christian. 30-40 % of American Muslims are black converts and highly unlikley to ever vote GOP or join the conservative movement. Further, when adjusted for the cohort who can legally vote ( a large number are arrived within last decade from S/SE Asia and are either illegal or not citizens yet), and then applying to that normative party break down (even unadjusted for 1- 2nd generation immigrant Democratic Party voting tendencies), and you get something like 200,000 votes nationwide possible for the GOP.

[Nick Danger]

are you getting any of this?

I'm paying attention. I already told you... I just do not want to be BS'd. I'm making sure, OK? I do not want to get caught up in some other guy's personal feud. And I also do not want to hang some guy for other people's failures. I agree that today at least, it's not possible to claim you don't know who the creeps are. So yeah, a failure to drop these guys like a hot rock now is Not Good. I'm less anxious to hang Norquist for not knowing what Sami al-Arian was doing in his secret life. I didn't know either.

I am happy to hear that you are working on the problem of "it's not my departmnent," because from here it sounds pretty damned stupid to spend hundreds of billions of dollars every year to watch for bad guys, only to have the knowledge of it stop right down the hall from Karl Rove, and the bad guy still gets in to see the President. It is angry-making to hear that stuff, and it is more angry-making to hear the people doing it claim that some K-Street type is supposed to know these things. I think you should lose that part from your presentation. I don't believe for one minute that Grover Norquist is the only guy on L Street who has creepy foreigners trying to be his friends. This stuff is gonna happen, and the system for dealing with it can't be "we rely on the intelligence capabilities of the lobbyists." When I hear that, I want to scream.

[Bob J]

Some people's resistance to believing Norquist is a traitor and with full knowledge has been assisting the Islamists in their crusade to take over the world should not be mistaken as sympathy for their cause nor refudiation of the painstaking research Gaffney and others have done. We just separate on the "Norquist is an evil piece of filth" question.

On the contrary, we have had both Gaffney and Pipes on Radio FreeRepublic as guests and next week we have Timmerman to discuss his new book. We have asked Norquist to guest and hope to be able to schedule that in the next few weeks. If you would like to submit specific questions for him, send them along to me at bobj@freeper.org and I will pass them on to the host, Kay Daly.

[secretagent]

Placemarker

[Trollstomper]

I'm less anxious to hang Norquist for not knowing what Sami al-Arian was doing in his secret life.


The people "doing it" are Grover and Saffuri, et al, in this case. We have made that abundantly clear. He DID know who the funders were and so did Saffuri.

As someone who has worked in these vineyards for a long time, and has taken people into two Presidents, I can tell you that it is highly imcumbent on anyone who does so to vet the hell out of the people they bring. When you reach the age and access that Grover has, you are expected to know how to do that and to do so. In this town and level you damned well better know who you are traveling with and who you are hiring and what is attached, as well as imlpied, by your funding.

If you want to speak about "hanging" someone for failures, it is Grover in this case, sorry to say. "Nothin' personal, jes' bi'ness." As we have also made abundantly clear, Al Arian's views and life involvements were very much a matter of public record from the St Petersburg Times to Front Line and myriad articles, books, speeches, etc. not to mention a ten year fight between him and variously the Govt., Emerson, Pipes, et al. Ditto the nature of the NCPPF, which he headed. The fact that you didn't know it means nothing, the fact that Grover did know (or the idea that he failed to find it out) means a lot. Mind you this has gone on since 1998 and several people gave Grover all the information he needed and that you are now learning, including Gaffney, Jack Wheeler, and others whose judgment is quite well respected in such matters, and Grover responded , not by reading or asking for a briefing, but by immediately castigating these fine people in the most despicible manner.

So do yourself and all of us a favor and drop the faux shock about the "claim that some K-Street type is supposed to know these things" or the "every one does it" and "This stuff is gonna happen," exculpations re your L or K street references. The defense is wearing thin, so I seee why you might want to hedge a bit.

I'm glad you are happy I am doing my job. I am glad you want the billions we spend to reach into the White House and tell people who they can meet with or can't whether we have charged them or not --unfortunately the law doesn't allow it. And when the USSS tried, Rove had a fit. (We spent the same money knowing who the "bad" Chinese were, but that didn't stop the Clinton's from letting them in hundreds of times.) I hope you are then also a supporter of Patriot Act and the use of national security evidence that Grover opposes.

I also hope you know want to "scream" at Grover when you hear that he has two weeks ago tried to get the same bunch of "bad" actors into Cabinet level meetings, despite the fact that, as you say, "today at least, it's not possible to claim you don't know who the creeps are. So yeah, a failure to drop these guys like a hot rock now is Not Good." No kidding!

I note that you still have not refuted any facts, introduced any relevant new ones nor otherwise addressed substance.

[Trollstomper]

We just separate on the "Norquist is an evil piece of filth" question.

I have not said that, rather that he should stop or he must instead be stopped.

I was a friend an associate of his for long time and do not recognize your right to carciature my views on that relationship from whatever arm chair you sit in. I want Grover to survive this, all things being equal, but my inclination toward that outcome diminishes daily as he refuses to desist, stop lying and trying to deceive everyone at such strain, and to apologize. None of which
will he do unless forced by rather extreme measures, I'm afraid.

I have provided you with probably 50 points, corrections, refutations, amendments and suggestions from which you can do some new questioning and so holding to account of GGN, if you have the instestinal fortitude and skills to do so. Thanks for the offer. Frank, Ken and Dan, will do just fine; GGN has been unable to factually rebut any of them. So since we all have the same facts, it's just up to you to become familiar with them and to use them. I also thank you for the opp to out myself,

[Bob J]

Let me get this straight. For almost 400 posts you have railed about Norquist and how he has refused to answer questions regarding your allegations, and when I give you the opportunity to personally compose questions (you are the expert, right?) that will be asked in a closed, non combative environment, for up to an hour, you tell me to review your postings and do it myself?

Sumpin' ain't right here...

[Pelham]

And that is the beginning of his ending

Some of us certainly hope so. Your posts are excellent and greatly appreciated.

[Trollstomper]

Yes, You want others to do your job for you. That's what's wrong! I will not out myself for this pointless exercise. I have actual national securtiy equities, imagine that.

nb. actually it has been a couple dozen posts at most, and I have not "railed" about Norquist not answering my questions, if anything I have pointed out, as have others and as is obvious, that you have not done so. Snipe at paper targets a bit better before you take on the real carriers my friend.