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

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

[kattracks]

Why We Are Publishing This Article by David Horowitz

The article you are about to read is the most disturbing that we at frontpagemag.com have ever published. As an Internet magazine, with a wide circulation, we have been in the forefront of the effort to expose the radical Fifth Column in this country, whose agendas are at odds with the nation’s security, and whose purposes are hostile to its own. In his first address to Congress after 9/11, the President noted that we are facing the same totalitarian enemies we faced in the preceding century. It is not surprising that their domestic supporters in the American Left should have continued their efforts to weaken this nation and tarnish its image. Just as there was a prominent internal Fifth Column during the Cold War, so there has been a prominent Fifth Column during the war on terror.

By no means do all the opponents of America’s war policies (or even a majority) fit this category. Disagreement among citizens is a core feature of any democracy and respect for that disagreement is a foundational value of our political system. The self-declared enemies of the nation are distinguished by the intemperate nature of their attacks on America and its President – referring to the one as Adolf Hitler, for example, or the other as the world’s “greatest terrorist state.” They are known as well by their political choices and associations. Many leaders of the movement opposing the war in Iraq have worked for half a century with the agents of America’s communist enemies and with totalitarian states like Cuba and the former USSR.

We have had no compunction about identifying these individuals and groups. America is no longer protected by geographical barriers or by its unsurpassed military technologies. Today terrorists who can penetrate our borders with the help of Fifth Column networks will have access to weapons of mass destruction that can cause hundreds of thousands of American deaths.  One slip in our security defenses can result in a catastrophe undreamed of before.

What is particularly disturbing, about the information in this article by former Reagan Defense official, Frank Gaffney, is that it concerns an individual who loves this country and would be the last person to wish it harm, and the first one would expect to defend it. I have known Grover Norquist for almost twenty years as a political ally. Long before I myself was cognizant of the Communist threat – indeed when I was part of one of those Fifth Column networks – Grover Norquist was mobilizing his countrymen to combat it. In the early 1980s, Grover was in the forefront of conservative efforts to get the Reagan Administration to support the liberation struggles of anti-Communists in Central America, Africa and Afghanistan.

It is with a heavy heart therefore, that I am posting this article, which is the most complete documentation extant of Grover Norquist’s activities in behalf of the Islamist Fifth Column. I have confronted Grover about these issues and have talked to others who have done likewise. But it has been left to Frank Gaffney and a few others, including Daniel Pipes and Steven Emerson, to make the case and to suffer the inevitable recriminations that have followed earlier disclosures of some aspects of this story.

Up to now, the controversy over these charges has been dismissed or swept under the rug, as a clash of personalities or the product of one of those intra-bureaucratic feuds so familiar to the Washington scene. Unfortunately, this is wishful thinking. The reality is much more serious. No one reading this document to its bitter end will confuse its claims and confirming evidence with those of a political cat fight. On the basis of the evidence assembled here, it seems beyond dispute that Grover Norquist has formed alliances with prominent Islamic radicals who have ties to the Saudis and to Libya and to Palestine Islamic Jihad, and who are now under indictment by U.S. authorities. Equally troubling is that the arrests of these individuals and their exposure as agents of terrorism have not resulted in noticeable second thoughts on Grover’s part or any meaningful effort to dissociate himself from his unsavory friends.

As Frank Gaffney’s article recounts, Grover’s own Islamic Institute was initially financed by one of the most notorious of these operatives, Abdurahman Alamoudi, a supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah who told the Annual Convention of the Islamic Association of Palestine in 1996, “If we are outside this country we can say ‘Oh, Allah destroy America.’ But once we are here, our mission in this country is to change it.” Grover appointed Alamoudi’s deputy, Khaled Saffuri to head his own organization. Together they gained access to the White House for Alamoudi and Sami al-Arian and others with similar agendas who used their cachet to spread Islamist influence to the American military and the prison system and the universities and the political arena with untold consequences for the nation.

Parts of this story have been published before, but never in such detail and never with the full picture of Islamist influence in view. No doubt, that is partly because of Grover Norquist’s large (and therefore intimidating) presence in the Washington community. Many have been quite simply afraid to raise these issues and thus have allowed Grover to make them seem a matter of individual personality differences. This suits his agendas well, as it does those of his Islamist allies. If matters in dispute reflect personal animosity or “racial” prejudice, as Grover insists, then the true gravity of these charges is obscured. The fact remains that while Grover has denied the charges or sought to dismiss them with such arguments on many occasions, he has never answered them. If he wishes to do so now, the pages of frontpagemag.com are open to him.

Many have been reluctant to support these charges or to make them public because they involve a prominent conservative. I am familiar with these attitudes from my years on the Left. Loyalty is an important political value, but there comes a point where loyalty to friends or to parties comes into conflict with loyalty to fundamental principles and ultimately to one’s country. Grover’s activities have reached that point. E.M. Forster, a weak-spirited liberal, once said that if he had to choose between betraying his country and his friends, he “hoped [he] would have the guts” to betray his country.

No such sentiment motivates this journal. In our war with the Islamo-fascists we are all engaged in a battle with evil on a scale that affects the lives and freedoms of hundreds of millions people outside this nation as well as within it. America is on the front line of this battle and there is no replacement waiting in the wings if it fails, or if its will to fight is sapped from within. This makes our individual battles to keep our country vigilant and strong the most important responsibilities we have. That is why we could not in good conscience do otherwise, than to bring this story to light.

 

[AnnaZ]

This week on Unspun...

 

Makes you think twice (and three or four times) about the "moderates" allowed to represent the rest. An overly informative, and not undepressing, work.

In other words, post-reading Mr. Timmerman's first-hand research, it's a bad week to have seen this article.

I have no opinion either way in regards to Mr. Norquist, he most certainly may be (most hopefully) an innocent dupe. But any cavalier attitude in regards to an Islamic 5th column in America can only be based on ignorance or willful blindness.

: |

[Trollstomper]

think I will ignore your question and continue to wonder whether I should trust the fox to direct the investigation of this matter, especially now that I know that this same fox was guarding another chicken coop where we had more of these incidents... and Mr. Scarecrow was nowhere around.

Can ANYONE explain what this means? Anyway, why don't you do your own investigation. Start with any 20 facts presented. I notice that everytime one of us takes down your accusations, assumptions, mischaracterizations or whatever, you ignore that and move on to another, later repositing the one we've destroyed as if new and now true.

Thus far you have given no/no evidence of having read the material, let alone done any research of your own. You are like the kid who doesn't know the answer and tries to slide by with a Pass by a lot of misdirection about some pastiche or other. How strange.

[AnnaZ]

Fortunately, some FReepers who have taken the other side of the argument on this thread have used a modicum of respect and intelligence and have attempted to clarify their opinions, rightly or wrongly.

Your line regarding sign-up dates versus birthdates was spot on. Silly attacks such as that are embarrassing as this board tends to host some well-thought out and well-read participants. However, such ad hominem keyboard punching has driven some fine minds far away.

You are a patient poster -- newbie status notwithstanding -- and have provided much information worth considering -- newbie status thus not important. FReep on.

[Sabertooth]

Makes you think twice (and three or four times) about the "moderates" allowed to represent the rest.

Doesn't it?

July 23, 2003

The Honorable George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC

Dear President Bush:

I write to express serious concerns of the American Muslim community to the nomination of Daniel Pipes to the United States Institute for Peace, a taxpayer-funded think tank. Pipes is an upsetting nomination for such an institution, and his published views -- more often than not -- oppose the goals of your administration.

Through his writings and speeches, Daniel Pipes has demonstrated a virulent perspective against Arabs and Islam. He called for the monitoring of all American Muslims in public service and has maliciously questioned the patriotism of American Muslims who serve in your administration. In trying to marginalize the growing American Muslim vote, Pipes has branded all major American Muslim political and advocacy groups as terrorist fronts and has vocally criticized you for making a careful distinction between Islam and terrorism. Most recently, after calling for federal surveillance of all Muslim organizations and mosques, Pipes refused to condemn the shameful interment of Americans of Japanese descent during World War II.

Throughout his career, Pipes has justified his campaign of hate, stating that "(The) increased stature, and affluence, and enfranchisement of American Muslims...will present true dangers to American Jews." (American Jewish Congress Convention, 10/21/01). Furthering this paranoia, Pipes has established a "blacklist" of American academics and writers who he believes are too critical of the State of Israel. Incredibly, Pipes opposes your Road Map for Peace as he opposed all previous peace efforts including the Oslo, Madrid and Wye peace efforts.

The U.S. Institute for Peace was established by Congress to promote international peace. Nominating Pipes is like asking David Duke to discuss race issues or Louis Farrakhan to discuss Judaism. The Washington Post, the Forward, Chicago Tribune, Dallas Morning News, numerous experts on the Middle East and countless others interested in peace oppose Pipes' nomination.

The nomination of Daniel Pipes to head the U.S. Institute for Peace will not contribute to the mission of the Institute. On the contrary, his approval will only serve to further divide people and nations rather than to bring them together to foster peaceful resolutions of conflicts.

Sincerely,

Khaled Saffuri
Chairman
Enclosures: (3)
IslamicInstitute.org

I imagine now we'll be told it's ok for Khaled Saffuri, Norquist's partner, to compare Daniel Pipes to David Duke and Lous Farrakhan, because he didn't unduly influence anyone, in this instance.

[Trollstomper]

"I have no opinion either way in regards to Mr. Norquist, he most certainly may be (most hopefully) an innocent dupe. But any cavalier attitude in regards to an Islamic 5th column in America can only be based on ignorance or willful blindness"


Quite right about the latter. Abuot the former, as I think we have demonstrated amply in this thread, Norquist was not an innocent dupe, and even if one were to have given him that benefit 3 or 5 years agon, one no longer can. If he were, by the way., he would be less likely to lie repeatedy, attack any questioners as ipso facto "racists and bigots," and to still be doing the same work with the same people (the ones not yet jailed). Ken will disabuse any listener of that. He is almost as close to this as I am and clearly more facile on the facts than my antagonists hereabove. Chapter 10 is particularly useful for this discussion and maybe some of the Groverites here could constrain themselves to reading it. They will find a bit about Norquist, Gaffney, Keene, etc., and the money trail.He also spent a good deal of time trying to squeeze the truth out of Khan and others in the immediate aftermath of the AlArian arrests and the revelations of his White House visit. Happy reading, especially for Danger and Bob.

[MissAmericanPie]

This certainly explains the in your face Ramadan celebrations at the "People's House", the ire over Israel's fence, and the ever so disasterous "Road Map" to a terrorist state.

[hchutch]

You have not exactly convinced me YOU are to be believed.

If I think someone is acting like part of a fifth column, or doing the sort of things Norquist is ACCUSED of doing, then I don't go public, I go the FBI and keep at it until someone takes it seriously.

You expect me to believe that George W. Bush's White House is as cavalier about who meets the President as Bill Clintons? For all intents and purposes, your claims about Rove are just that. Never mind what David Frum observed in his time at the White House (as his book points out).

I'm going to be very blunt. I think that the concerns about judgement/national security are only part of the equation. I think that part of this is taking down some folks they don't like.

It is obvious that certain conservatives do not care for Karl Rove or Grover Norquist. They seek to have them discredited for whatever reason - I suspect it is mostly ideological differences motivating this, and that is part of the "bad judgement" that is being railed against.

And if it is bad judgement, why go public? Why create a public split with these public allegations?

It is obvious Rove and Norquist are not liked and that they are seen as part of the problem. I do not think that is sufficient grounds for such a campaign, and I question the motives of those who seek to continue this campaign aaginst Norquist.

[Trollstomper]

Saffuri alleges: "Pipes refused to condemn the shameful interment of Americans of Japanese descent during World War II. "


Actually, Dan said he had not written about it and therefor did not want to speak to it. A different thing. He was beign baited on a radio show by a wire reporter who happened to work for CAIR, and he suspected it in the line of questioning, And sure enough! "Gotcha" Maybe Nick and Bob will be upset about that gameplaying.....

He aslo says Pipes, " has branded all major American Muslim political and advocacy groups as terrorist fronts ...."

No , just ones that are, many of which have subsequently had their key officers arrested and in some cases already convicted as well, notably CAIR and AMC. Others will be rolled up within the next few months, making Pipes as precient as Gaffney on these matters.

This is typical of the Saffuri/ Norquist twist and accuse approach. Saffuri, by the way, earlier tried to get himself appointed to the Commission on Regigious Freedom, but failed; in som doing he said the Muslim on the Commission (a woman) was unrepresntative of Muslims. Agian the effort to exclude and denigrate all non-Wahhabis. There are hundreds of such examples I could site, all of which would make puffballs of the some of the dissembling "benefit of the doubt" types hereabove.

In the happy event, Pipes was recess appointed. Anyone could go the the Campus Watch website and see what a great service Pipes provides in tracking the work of the largely left, and largely Saudi-funded by the way, Middle East Studies professoriat. All national security conservatives I know suppor the effort as one more vital area re the fight against liberals on campus and the fight against radical Islam.

That is why Saffuri and Norquist hate it and him, and why they opposed the President's nominee, someone who is emminently qualified as a scholar ,author ,and I might add, a former Reagan Administration senior advisor to the Secretary and Undersecretary of State-- his father, in contrast to Khan's and Tulbahs, was not a Wahhabi activist, and did not help raise money for AlQaeda, but was President Reagan's Assistant on the NSC for Russia and Eastern Europe. Just want to be fair about the fathers thing:)

[Nick Danger]

repositing the one we've destroyed

You haven't destroyed squat. The only thing you've done here is hurl epithets and engage in proof by louder assertion. This while carrying on a media crusade against a guy that you don't like, and trying to deflect the blame for all these foreign agents getting into the White House onto Grover Norquist, even though he had nothing to do with many of them getting in there.

When I ask how this can happen when we supposedly pay a fortune for a huge national security apparatus, I get answers like "it's not our department." You think you've destroyed my question by explaining in detailed bureaucratese why it isn't your department, but what I think you've done is quack like a bureaucrat, which explains a whole lot about how this happened, and gives us reason to think that you may not be the guy to fix it. And you are certainly nobody who ought to be telling the rest of us whom to blame for it; the objects in your mirror are a lot larger than they appear.

I'm sure it just infuriates the hell out of you that I, a mere citizen, an absolute nobody on an Internet forum, would have the gall to point the the finger at you, Mr. National Security, and hold you responsible for the fact that all these bad guys got into the White House. "It's not fair! It's all Grover Norquist's fault! You don't understand!" Yeah, I understand. I understand that we pay you guys to stop this stuff, and it happened anyway, and now you're trying to blame some other guy for it. And I'm not buying it.

[Trollstomper]

If I think someone is acting like part of a fifth column, or doing the sort of things Norquist is ACCUSED of doing, then I don't go public, I go the FBI and keep at it until someone takes it seriously.


1) Get it straight, Norquist has done them and has and continues to lie about them. Both have been amply demonstrated hereabove and elsewhere.

2) I work with the Bureau every day. I've warned you before about assuming and asserting things you don't know.

3) You say that's what you would do because, as you've amply demonstrated, you don't have a clue how the system works, you have no evident personal or institutional equities in this.

4) This was first taken public by Norquist. HELLO!!!!!!!!!

5) This is one of several necessary avenues and it is working. When NR, Horowitz,Gaffney, Cal Thomas,and many others similar standing publicly call attention to this problem and denounce it (see NR's summer cover banner, "Grover Norquist Radical Islamist Problem" by Byron York). It educates a lot of people and is a part of closing this sad sideshow down. Law enforcement is another. Grover's persistence and rude fliberttygibbet attitude toward these same people will also help. If you were in serious Washington and foundation and media cirlces, you would know all of this, and you would be way past things like "If" and "ACCUSED" and "DUPE" ad nauseum ad infinitum.

5) A small group of associates, most of whom are Freepers, outed many of the Clinton China scandals the same way and you loved it. We did it in our respective Congressional, government agency and think tank roles, and we stoked these sorts of venues and Drudge and Inforwar, etc. That is what one does in this business, according to need. I would have thought that you had at least a clue about that much. You seem to see just the hair of the elephant and think your holding a rope to heaven; you are clearly missing the bigger picture, even when it's broken down for you and all the dots are color coded. Oh well.

[AnnaZ]

(Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer)

That is, of course, the only stomach-able scenario.

 

 

</prayer that this is not reminiscent of a "Bush signed CFR because he knows the SC will veto it" brand of optimism>

[Trollstomper]

"I question the motives of those who seek to continue this campaign aaginst Norquist."

I question your motives for questioning my motives.

"And if it is bad judgement, why go public? Why create a public split with these public allegations? "

For umpteenth time: because serious experience policy and opinion leaders in DC and the movement believe this is a necessary tool. Simple as that.

"For all intents and purposes, your claims about Rove are just that"

Well I don't know what is obvious to you or how, but Gaffney and any number of us actually talk to Rove and deal with people who interview him, etc, and have corespondence, etc. What we know is what we know. Unless you want to assert we are lying. Or maybe "racists and bigots" too?
Again, rather than bragging about what you don't know, why don't you keep it to yourself rather than making bizarre assertions and implied insults out of the thinning air?

[Trollstomper]

even though he had nothing to do with many of them getting in there

You have no evidence to support that and Gaffney's article and all my postings, along with that of many others, have provided plenty of evidence Either you will perpetually refuse to see it or you are simply too obtuse.

I never said "our deparment" or my deparment or any such thing.

I did numerous times explain to you how the process works, what the law is (I took the trouble to send you yesterdays' Post articel about how that has changed and how long it took to change it, etc, all of which I had previously explained to you and you ignored). That's how it works whether anyone likes it or not.

That was all by way of explaining why therefore your whole line about 'why do you want us to beleive our billions couldnt' stop these meetings, how could Grover have gotten by if these people are terrible, how-o-how is it his fault, why aren't the Mr. National Securitys taking care of all this, blah blah.- is so widely off base.

"I'm sure it just infuriates the hell out of you..."

No , it's just like flea season, a pesky bother one puts up with the see the flowers and to appreciate how clean your dog's own house is.

[hchutch]

"For umpteenth time: because serious experience policy and opinion leaders in DC and the movement believe this is a necessary tool. Simple as that."

Yeah, sure. A necessary tool for what? Destroying a reputation?

"Again, rather than bragging about what you don't know, why don't you keep it to yourself rather than making bizarre assertions and implied insults out of the thinning air?"

So, in other words, shuit up and let a hatchet job go on - one that is NOT necessary and would arguably hurt the conservative movement by removing one of its strongest activists.

Nick Danger and Bob J both have been around for a while. I see no reason for their judgement to be questioned, and I certainly think that their arguments in this case carry merit. And I do NOT appreciate you telling me to shut up because I will not join you anti-Norquist lynch mob.

The only bizzare allegations are coming from you.

[hchutch]

BTT. I have observed both you and Bob J on this forum for a while - and while I might not agree with all your positions (the case against Microsoft was nearly as full of crap as this crusade against Norquist), I think that when you and he post, people should read and consider it carefully.

[diotima]

I have been quietly following this lengthy discussion and I really have to ask: Why would Grover turn from being a tireless supporter of conservative principles to being someone subverting US security interests?

I really, really have a hard time believing that Grover is actively working to help Islamic extremists take down this country. Was he always working to do this, or is a recent enterprise? When exactly did he go bad?

You may be in the Security community, but people who know Grover and have worked with Grover have got to find this accusation of an organized attempt to compromise the US, as an incredible one. (Yes, yes I know you have worked and known Grover for over 20 years, I am refering to people who do not have the benefit of the US Intel aparatus.)

You don't need to get all snippy with me. I am honestly presenting my point of view. I have no idea about the validity of the accusations made against him, but I do find it hard to swallow that he is actively working to damage the US.

[Nick Danger]

You have no evidence to support that

Who said this?

"I think the role that [Norquist] has played personally in this effort on behalf of Wahhabi-sympathetic and - supported institutions is an important one, but it's a bit role... It's a sideshow."

This same fellow goes on to say that the main show is the Bush administration's policy on which Muslim groups will be granted access to the White House.

The last time I looked, "the Bush Administration" included a fairly large contingent of national security professionals. What were they doing during all this? Why is it unreasonable for me to hold these people responsible for what happened here?

[Sabertooth]

You expect me to believe that George W. Bush's White House is as cavalier about who meets the President as Bill Clintons? For all intents and purposes, your claims about Rove are just that. Never mind what David Frum observed in his time at the White House (as his book points out).

Yes, never mind what David Frum observed...

Here now is where the story gets painful for us Bush Republicans. Not only were the al-Arians not avoided by the Bush White House - they were actively courted. Candidate Bush allowed himself to be photographed with the al-Arian family while campaigning in Florida. Candidate Bush denounced the immigration laws that detained - and ultimately deported - Mazen al-Najjar. In May 2001, Sami al-Arian was invited into the White House complex for a political briefing for Muslim-American leaders. The next month his son, Abdullah, who was then an intern in the office of Congressman David Bonior, joined a delegation of Muslim leaders at a meeting with John DiIulio, head of the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives. After the group entered the complex, a red flag belatedly popped up over the al-Arian name, and the Secret Service ordered him out of the complex. The entire delegation marched out with young al-Arian - and soon afterward, President Bush personally apologized to the young man and ordered the deputy director of the Secret Service to apologize as well.

(Young al-Arian published a strikingly disingenuous account of this experience in the online edition of Newsweek on - note the date - September 14, 2001. Newsweek - a magazine normally celebrated for its rigorous fact-checking - permitted young al-Arian to claim on its site that he had been "singled out" only because of his "name and physical features." Now in one sense that's true - had Abdullah al-Arian been named Abdullah al-Shmarian, nobody at the Secret Service would have troubled him. But al-Arian and Newsweek cooperated in leaving the reader with a very false impression that he had been the victim of some kind of bigoted anti-Muslim dragnet.)

The al-Arian case was not a solitary lapse. The Bush campaign in 2000 very determinedly reached out to Muslim voters. Indeed, Muslim-Americans may have tipped the election to George Bush. One survey suggests that the 50,000 Muslim voters of Florida, normally staunch Democrats, reacted to Al Gore's selection of Joe Lieberman as his running mate by voting 80% for Bush. That outreach campaign opened relationships between the Bush campaign and some very disturbing persons in the Muslim-American community. Many of those disturbing persons were invited to stand beside the president at post-9/11 events, like his meeting with Muslim community leaders at the Massachusetts Avenue mosque.

Over the past year, the White House has become much more selective about its invitations. More selective - but still far from selective enough.

There is one way that we Republicans are very lucky - we face political opponents too crippled by political correctness to make an issue of these kinds of security lapses. At least - so far. But who knows? The day may come when some Democrat decides he cares more about winning elections than he does about liberal pieties. Against the day, is it too much to ask a wartime White House - please, please choose your friends more prudently!

Correction

Memory failed me on point above: Sami al-Arian's visit to the White House occurred in June 2001, not May; his son's visit was later in the same month.
David Frum's Diary - National Review Online
FEB. 21, 2003: THE STRANGE CASE OF SAMI AL-ARIAN

[hchutch]

I also recall them being pretty much determined not to do things the way Clinton did. It was mostly the ethics rules. I would certainly imagine if security flags had shown up, they would have been heeded.

Yet you claim they were ignored by Rove at the behest of Norquist. This is awfully convenient, particularly given your dislike for both men.

It is hard for me to imagine that anyone could hold the camapignmeetings against anyone. Their efforts have certainly not appeared to produce any change in policy. The complaint about Dan Pipes was not heeded.

So, whose soends like it is more based in reality? I have to go with Nick Danger's at this point. The other claims still strain creduility.

[Trollstomper]

Thanks, and frankly, I too "...find it hard to swallow that he is actively working to damage the US."

However,I know for a fact that the facts and the fact-driven implications laid out by Gaffney , are as Horowitz points out, too sadly too true for too long now to be further ignored.

As to motives, I have some ideas, there are a couple of theories I find credible but can't really address here. It is anyway distinctly beside the point. It is demonstrably doing harm, it already has placed the President and members of his cabinet in photos on the front page of the Washington Post (9/17/01) with known supporters of terrorism and financial contributors to charities designated by that same President as terror organizations and thus barred and frozen. Grover did that, Grover lied about it; Grover is still doing such things and still lying about it.

When you need to stop, say a shooter, you do everything to interdict him. You then worry about what his motivations were. That is someone else's problem and will not be dispositive. I do appreciate the obvious difficulty people have in coming to grips with it; especially those who have the star view from afar. Believe me, Gaffney, Horowitz, Timmerman and all of us have other things to do, but we believe this is critical, mostly for its exposure for the President who has in his public statements clearly said that we make no distinction between those who support or house or finance a terrorist and the terrorist. Grover and Saffuri have set us up for a killer split-screen ad from Dean et al showing the President saying that on the left side and the President meeting with Nihad Awad, Khaled Saffuri, Siddiqi, Bray, et al, and praising Alamoudi for his good works, on the right side. "Which Bush do You Believe the one who condemns terrorist or the one who coddles them", etc. An unnecesary exposure on the both the issue of the President's crediblity and his security policy - the latter brought upon us by someone trying, beyond his ken, to play fast and loose in the national security sandbox.

I'm sorry but that is how it is and it will increasingly be so proven over coming months; one way or the other. The idea is to have a controlled detonation (the movement, the government) versus the Post or Newsweek.

As to timing , he started this process in 1998.

"...but people who know Grover and have worked with Grover ...." Yes, starting with Horowitz, Frank and myself, and Timmerman, and Waller, and Berlau and Keene, and Charen, and Lowry, York, etc., etc. What we found even more incredible, is the spleen and speed with which he turned on us all for merely suggesting he read some documents about these same people, including the ones since arrested. Everyone of a certain senority in the movement here has witnessed his irrational, red-faced, steamed-glasses yelling at people and generally boorish behavior and have concluded that there is most likely a deeper problem for him than just his famous difficulty in admitting mistakes.

By the way, since College Republican Days, Grover has kept file on his enemies, part of the tactics of Lenin he prouldy emulates. So for those of us who have known him that long, what is INCREDIBLE is that he suddenly wants us to believe that he knew nothing about Saffuri and the others with whom he has been associated in this tale. Again, if you are here, involved in all of this and privy to much more than has made it past the lawyers at Frontpage and into print, trust me, you would feel a lot more betrayed, incredulous, disappointed and needful of speedy redress. For us this is not just our 'movement', or the guy who we see in our homestate or at CPAC, this is someone who has been our colleague for decades and has chosen to decieve and dissemble and to "deny everything and make counter accusations" -- a phrase Grover would readily recognize. But one which was only supposed to apply to what used to be our common enemies. Thanks for your remarks.