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

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

[Bob J]

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.

I

[Trollstomper]

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.

Well, obviously not. As told above 3 or 4 times now, and in the Gaffney article and probably 100 newspapers, the Secret Service tried to have Al Arian's son removed from a White House outreach meeting b/c the system came up saying "Al Arian is a problem" -- and they had their heads handed to them for just trying to do their job and responding to the NCIC check flash report re the waiver list for that meeting.


re "...the campaign meetings" not resulting in anything:
au contraire, they resulted in the candidate's pledge to review and implicitly to remove the use of so-called "secret evidence" -- which as detailed elsewhere, has been a if not the key tool to breaking terror cases, notably and first, Sami Al Arian's -- precisely the person on whose behalf Norquist did this, and with and for whose organization (the also aforementioned NCPPF), Grover has campaigned aganst this and a month agao, the Patriot Act, along with Alec Baldwin. Had 9/11 not occured there is no reason to doubtt that the President would have followed through on his pledge and eliminated this tool.

They also set the predicate for, and the initial list of invitees for, the campaign's and then the White House's Muslim Outreach efforts, then staffed by Islamic Institute director and placee, Suhail Khan. The first meeting in Texas resulted in Bush being photographed next to Nihad Awad, Alamuodi et al, per above postings. These then get to go on TV and around the world and country saying they advise Bush and the Goverment, etc -- even as they are being tracked by US and foreign law enforcement and intelligence and finally arrested. Making it much more like an 'association of the guilty' than "guilt by association."

re Pipes, Because the WH did not clarify for a long time their intent to stand by Pipes, the left in Congress, and CAIR, were som emboldened and effective that the nomination did not pass out of committee and Pipes had to be recess-appointed, partly from outside pressure and from a couple of heroic GOP conservative Senators, and in part b/c even this WH knew they couldn't be seen to hand a veto on all things perceived to be Muslim or Arab to the likes of CAIR. But the important thing to keep in mind here is that Norquist and Saffuri tried to scuttle the President's man --and did so by crass distortions of his record (see above examples) -- and not "privately" as some here thing should be the case when reversed onto Grover!

[Bob J]

Candidate Bush denounced the immigration laws that detained - and ultimately deported - Mazen al-Najjar.

Perhaps you could elaborate on the part of the Patriot Act in question instead of lumping it all together making it look like they oppose it in it's entirety.

I would add it is the same part criticized by many... democrats, conservatives and libertarians, as reminiscent police state powers.

[Trollstomper]

"Perhaps you could elaborate on the part of the Patriot Act in question instead of lumping it all together making it look like they oppose it in it's entirety"


Actually Grover does oppose it in its' entirety. See the transcript of his appearance with Alec Baldwin and the extreme left-wing (not to mention anti-Reagan, 'back in the day') NGOSs a month or two back.

[ovrtaxt]

Did you happen to catch the end of the Talker's MAgazine conference at the Heritage Foundation yesterday on CSpan? Gaffney was there, he made a few choice comments about Norquist as he relates to possible political difficulties for Bush in the coming year.

Later, a woman associated with an anti-tax org in Mass stood up and called Gaffney a 'Judas Iscariot'. I chuckled-- Norquist id supposed to be Jesus?

Anyway, I brought this issue up on FR about 4-6 months ago, along with Bush's border policy, or lack thereof. The Bush-bots were squirming, but they had to admit that it's a huge problem. Saddam and Osama and a free independent Iraq or not, these are serious issues for Bush, perhaps enough to keep critical, cynical conservative voters at home.

[Sabertooth]

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.

Didn't take you long to gloss over the point that David Frum, the authority to which you'd appealled at #447, is not of like mind with you in glossing over the wrecklessness with which radical Islamists have been brought into contact with the Bush White House.

This is not about what you imagine, it's about what actually happened. Security flags were raised, and were not 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.

Given that you like both men, your defense of them is likewise convenient.

Guess we'll have to fall back on those pesky facts. Got any?

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.

This response was predicted when I posted Saffuri's race-baiting letter to President Bush against Pipes.

Saffuri is a protege of an indicted bagman for terror-related activities, Abdurahman Alamoudi. He's a long-time associate of Sami Al Arian, another indicted Islamist infiltrator. Beyond that, Saffuri's up to his neck in terror contacts and ANSWER orgs.

It's unacceptable that he has any White House access whatsoever.

You don't get to shrug this stuff off by saying, "hey, he tried to use his high level access, gotten via Norquist, against the best interests of the United States in the War on Terror, but it's ok, nothing happened, this time."

Hey, it's ok, I had Subway.

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.

Interesting tactic: appeal to a nonauthority.

Nick has leaned heavily on his seniority, and little else, to justify a thorough shoulder-shrugging at barrels of facts and evidence here.

Both of your BS meters need recalibration, as they are more sensitive to the big arrow of facts pointing to an uncomfortable conclusion than they are to the idea that in the 10 months that the Gaffney-Norquist dispute has been public knowledge, Norquist has offered a only gossamer defense of lies and race-baiting.

There are things to know, articles to read, and pieces of evidence that need rebuttal to hold your panglossian positions on the matter with a straight face.

Why not get about it?

[Bob J]

That wasn't my question. You've used the II's disagreement with a portion of the Patriot Act as prima facie evidence for Norquist being a terrsypm. I've pointed out, several times, that that same portion is resisted by many prominent conservatives and libertarians.

The problem is, you never explain the basis of their position, just claim they are trying to gut the PA and then yelling bugga bugga!

[Sabertooth]

*Candidate Bush denounced the immigration laws that detained - and ultimately deported - Mazen al-Najjar.

**Perhaps you could elaborate on the part of the Patriot Act in question instead of lumping it all together making it look like they oppose it in it's entirety.

The Patriot Act was passed after Candidate Bush became President Bush.

I would add it is the same part criticized by many... democrats, conservatives and libertarians, as reminiscent police state powers.

Is it your assertion that President Bush still opposes the use of classified evidence in the detention and prosecution of terrorists, as he did as a candidate?

If not, then spare me the goose chase.

Bottom line is that Norquist still opposes the use of classified evidence against terrorists.

Cite for me the "many... democrats, conservatives and libertarians" who, like Norquist, were acting in concert with receiving awards from, terrorists.

You can't, so your "lotsa people do it" parry is non-responsive.

[MrNatural]

..

..Guess again spud...

Pretty mild reply considering how roughly I spoke to you; you're making me feel bad here. Well, not too bad :)

Let's imagine Columbo, abashed by his brilliant, sophisticated antagonist, head down, shuffling to the door, but turning just before passing through it, and saying "You know Professor Troulstaumpurgh, I'm sure you're right about all this, but there's just one thing that bothers me..." ..and it is this: it is alleged that there has been wrongdoing on the part of this Nyquist person, but the doings described in the allegations are not wrong!

It is not his franchise to keep persons of questionable antecedents out of the White House. Period. If such people have been getting in, those responsible should have to stand and deliver. Those responsible for screening the WH visitor lists and keeping shady characters out is a group that does not include Nyquist.

So what's going on here..?

[Bob J]

This Bud's for you buddy...

Saddam Just Moved to Qatar

Now, would that be the good Qatar that Norquist gets some of his funding from, or,

...the bad Qatar thta you yell BUGGA BUGGA at whenever it's mentioned?

I've got a question...WHAT THE HELL IS RUMMY AND THE US ARMY DOING SECRETING SADDAM IN A COUNTRY FILLED WITH TERRORISTS BENT ON DESTROYING AMERICA (and who helps fund Norquist's Free Market seminars, God forbid)?

I DEMAND AN INQUIRY! RUMMY AND THE US ARMY MUST BE STOPPED! THEY'RE TERRSYMPS! THEY'RE TRAITORS!

[Sabertooth]

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.

And?

I've already explained that I've also posted information about Bonior in the past.

"The Democrats do it to!" Is that what you're getting at?

[Bob J]

You're dodging and spinning 'tooth. Do agree that the government should be able to detain and prosecute individuals based on evidence that they don't have to produce? Isn't it a constitutional right that persons accused of wrong doing have the right the be confronted with the evidence against them?

And the biggie, what do you think Hillary Clinton would do with this power if, God forbid, she was ever elected President?

[Bob J]

"The Democrats do it to!" Is that what you're getting at?

No, I'm stating that maybe his being a STAFFER for a US CONGRESSMAN had something to do with him getting in the WHITE HOUSE.

No, it has to be Norquist's fault...his number came up last week.

[Sabertooth]

This Bud's for you buddy...

Saddam Just Moved to Qatar

Now, would that be the good Qatar that Norquist gets some of his funding from, or,

...the bad Qatar thta you yell BUGGA BUGGA at whenever it's mentioned?

I've got a question...WHAT THE HELL IS RUMMY AND THE US ARMY DOING SECRETING SADDAM IN A COUNTRY FILLED WITH TERRORISTS BENT ON DESTROYING AMERICA (and who helps fund Norquist's Free Market seminars, God forbid)?

I DEMAND AN INQUIRY! RUMMY AND THE US ARMY MUST BE STOPPED! THEY'RE TERRSYMPS! THEY'RE TRAITORS!

OK, Bob, so based on the moving of Saddam to Qatar, what do you make of the Qatari funding for homicide bombers in Israel?

Good or bad?

You've clumsily oversimplified my position on Qatar, which is available on this thread.

Here, I'll get it for you:

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. " #371

I've bolded to avoid further confusion on your part in this matter, but I''ll elaborate for emphasis:

"Qatar isn't always our ally" does not equal "Qatar is never our ally."

I explained to you earlier that Qatar is a mixed bag, like Saudi Arabia. You should intuitively grasp this when holding simultaneously in your thoughts that Qatar is assisting with the detention of Saddam Hussein, yet Qatar also funded homicide bombings.

You do agree that homicide bombings are bad, don't you?

You never answered earlier.

[Trollstomper]

It is not his franchise to keep persons of questionable antecedents out of the White House. Period. If such people have been getting in, those responsible should have to stand and deliver. Those responsible for screening the WH visitor lists and keeping shady characters out is a group that does not include Nyquist.


Acutally it does include Norquist and was handled by his placee, Suhail Kahn from his Board, and Nina Shokrai Rees, also from his board. As I have explained dozens of posts agao, these thigns are contracted out tot trusted people and thats it. The rest is just an NCIC check for outstanding warrants and threats against the President. I have epxlain theis process , which I have in the past worked, above many times. Gaffney is entrusted to bring people to the WH or DOD or a Senator, it is on the basis of trust and the expectation that as a professional, a former Senate Armed Services cmte staffer, and a former Assistant Secretary of Defense, he knows the people, their pasts, their positions on issues, and their associates. He is also expected to honestly represent how he chose them and to make sure the Prinicipal (SECDEF, DCI, SENATOR) is not later found in an awkward position.

This expressly includes disclosing if you are being paid by a foreign government and its US fronts, or if you are or have has a registered lobbying relationship to the person or group you are bringing. All the latter applied and apply to Grover and he did not disclose them, and even since has repeatedly been caught fuzzing or outright lying about same.

Finally, re "not his franchise to keep persons of questionable antecedents out of the White House." That is a strawman I have now removed, so what remains is the actual fact and charge: as per above, it was his franchise to bring persons into the White House and exclusively brought ones of, a you delecately put it " questionable antecedents."

As I've said before, only adults are allowed; viz, you cannot assert on the one hand that he is an adult action hero, etc., and then say that if he waddles in the toilet water that is the responsbiity of his parents and the babysitter -- but it can't be held against little Grover because he's such a charming mercurial and precocious little munchkin. Well you can if you want.....

[hchutch]

You appeal to the "national security expertise" and of Gaffney and Trollstomper.

It's well-known you do not like Grover Norquist. It is well-known you don't like Karl Rove. I do not think it is beyond dispute that they are advocating immigration policies you oppose - and in fact are obstacles to the immigration policies you prefer. Seeing as they keep on trying to pursue those policies, you would not mind seeing one or both taken down a few pegs.

That's why there is such a fuss when nohing happened. It's all about settling some scores and a few personal pet peeves. Nothing more. Fine by me, I don't mind getting a few licks in, myself.

And why shouldn't I like Norquist and Rove - on most fronts, they have delivered considerable progress towards getting reasonable officials elected, reasonable policies pursued, and I am comfortable with their strategy. I'd like to see a lot of those policies continued. Certainly, I don't like people who want to undercut successful conservatives.

But then again, they are not "real" conservatives to some people, are they?

[hchutch]

A very interesting question.

And certainly deserving of an answer.

But you just might be accused of sabotaging the war effort for questioning the need for that...

[Trollstomper]

Do agree that the government should be able to detain and prosecute individuals based on evidence that they don't have to produce? Isn't it a constitutional right that persons accused of wrong doing have the right the be confronted with the evidence against them?

Wrong on both counts (are you ever right on facts or law?):

1) The evidence is reviewed by a special court, as is the case in the authorization of the collection of same.

2) Illegal aliens, the class we are talking about here, have no such rights, by specific act of Congress in re the establishment of the Immigration Judges.

Next?

3) Apropos of nothing: Are you more worried about fantasy Hillary threats or Sami Al Arian and his pelletized-urea exporting brother-in-law/arms. Quick!

[Sabertooth]

You appeal to the "national security expertise" and of Gaffney and Trollstomper.

Incorrect, I've appealed to facts, with links, from a number of sources.

Facts you don't answer.

It's well-known you do not like Grover Norquist. It is well-known you don't like Karl Rove.

It's well known that you agree with them. This isn't, however, a matter of contending opinions, it's a matter of evidence vs. a breathtaking lack thereof.

If I'm making things up, if I'm being in anyway selective about the documents I've posted, then it should be a real turkey shoot for you to show that's the case.

Are you just lazy? Get to it.

That's why there is such a fuss when nohing happened. It's all about settling some scores and a few personal pet peeves. Nothing more. Fine by me, I don't mind getting a few licks in, myself.

No comment, this is for Mercuria, who's lurking.

That's why there is such a fuss when nohing happened. It's all about settling some scores and a few personal pet peeves. Nothing more. Fine by me, I don't mind getting a few licks in, myself.

No comment, this is for the lurkers.

And why shouldn't I like Norquist and Rove - on most fronts, they have delivered considerable progress towards getting reasonable officials elected, reasonable policies pursued, and I am comfortable with their strategy. I'd like to see a lot of those policies continued. Certainly, I don't like people who want to undercut successful conservatives.

Well, now at least we can see the objective basis for your position, being factually shortchanged and all.

[Trollstomper]

" And why shouldn't I like Norquist and Rove - on most fronts, they have delivered considerable progress towards getting reasonable officials elected, reasonable policies pursued, and I am comfortable with their strategy. I'd like to see a lot of those policies continued. Certainly, I don't like people who want to undercut successful conservatives. "

Yes, but let's see, they also helped engineer the highest increase in spending, non-defense primarily by the way, since LBJ? And that's not counting the new drug dollop and the aborning effort to subsidize another 12 million illegal aliens --- and the first term isn't even over yet!

Grover attempted to get elected Kamal Nawash to the VA state senate this year -- a radical Muslim lawyer, who , along with Stanley Cohen, the lawyer for Hamas, is representing Libya & AlQaeda-charged terrorist detainee (and Norquist seed donor; Saffuri mentor)A. Alamoudi. Grover held a fundrasier for Nawash at his house ti summer. Yep, just let's elect more radical Muslim terrorist lawyers to show we have a big tent.

Grover's Islamist-support efforts are serving to "undercut successful conservatives." Starting with George Bush, not to mention John Ashcroft and Frank Gaffney, et al.

May I ask how old you are?