Replies

Why would the Muslims try to bring down Norquist?

I'm not talking Moslems. I'm talking about the folks who seem to have difficulty comprehending Article VI, Clause 3 and Amendment One of the Constitution. Look at some of the posts on this very thread.

I'm also talking about those who claim that Moslems have conflicting loyalties, the same slurs that were used in the past against Catholics and Jews with no basis in fact whatsoever.

Yeah, I confess, at the point where the coalition seeks to include Jew-haters and terror sympathizers, I find that kinda heretical.

Actually, I was thinking more of the folks who might disagree with his views on immigration or other issues or who take exception to the fact that he dared to reach out to certain segments of the population on a message of individual liberty. Segments like Moslems.

It is also undeniable that there is considerable friction and disagreement between cultural conservatives and the more libertarian wing of the conservative movement. I admittedly trend towards the latter on most cultural issues. For the most part, Norquist seems to do the same, and he also is a bit more libertarian on civil liberties issues. So are Bob Barr and Dick Armey.

Yet Norquist is the only targeted as a "Fifth Columnist", and there seems to be a constant effort by Gaffney to portray him as such. It is only fair to ask cui bono (who benefits) if Norquist is taken down, and to try to ascertain possible motives.

There are those who have questioned the Patriot Act in the same terms Norquist has - see Armey and Barr. There are those who do not think Islam is what we are fighting - see President Bush. The difference between those two and Norquist is the fact that Norquist has a LOT of influence through his Wednesday meetings, which are now being replicated in various states.

This is a variation of the Clintonian "it's time to move on."

The system hasn't begun to work.

A bunch of arrests and military operations disprove that assertion. Where is the demonstrable harm to the war against the terrorist groups?

It was PRESENT with the Chinagate situation, but there is no evidence that such a cover-up is in the works here.

There has been an effort, prior to and during wartime, by Islamic Fifth Columnists to use Grover Norquist to influence the Bush Administration. This needs to be fully investigated, damge needs to be assessed, and the Fifth Columnists need to be rooted out. Then and only then will the system have worked.

But did that effort compromise the War on Terror? The answer appears to be a big fat negative.

There is far too much at risk in the War on Terror to sweep this under a rug, just because it's a Republican named Grover Norquist who's culpable.

Do you have any proof that none of that is being done? Do you have any proof that there have been impediments to the system working? Unless you can produce the proof of either of those, then Bob J is correct in his take on the situation.

Norquist made mistakes. But there is nothing to indicate he is guilty of anything more than making mistakes. And I dare you to find ANY conservative that hasn't come back to bite them on the rear. The only difference here is that some people are trying to make this Chinagate II and use it to whittle away the influence of a person who there may have been long-standing disagreements with.

Are you actually ignorant of the difference between Islam and Islamism?

We are not at war with all terrorists. We have not declared war on communist groups like th IRA, FARC, or Shining Path. The US funds the PLO!
We are fighting Islamist terrorists.
Bush dare not speak the name because it would offend both the Saudis, the Wahabbi influenced Muslim block, and those infected by the cultural relativism of the left.

I'm not talking Moslems. I'm talking about the folks who seem to have difficulty comprehending Article VI, Clause 3 and Amendment One of the Constitution.

That would be Muslims, everywhere they have power.

Actually, I was thinking more of the folks who might disagree with his views on immigration or other issues or who take exception to the fact that he dared to reach out to certain segments of the population on a message of individual liberty. Segments like Moslems.

Segments which are tolerant of individual liberty only while they can't take it away.

I'm also talking about those who claim that Moslems have conflicting loyalties, the same slurs that were used in the past against Catholics and Jews with no basis in fact whatsoever.

Catholics and Jews aren't slaughtering religious minorites around the world. Muslims are. They're doing so because their Koran tells them to do so. It's not a slur, it's the truth.

Yet Norquist is the only targeted as a "Fifth Columnist", and there seems to be a constant effort by Gaffney to portray him as such. It is only fair to ask cui bono (who benefits) if Norquist is taken down, and to try to ascertain possible motives.

Ask away, since you don't want to address the degree to which Norquist has compromised himself. What's your motive for ignoring the truth?

There are those who have questioned the Patriot Act in the same terms Norquist has - see Armey and Barr. There are those who do not think Islam is what we are fighting - see President Bush. The difference between those two and Norquist is the fact that Norquist has a LOT of influence through his Wednesday meetings, which are now being replicated in various states.

The difference, actually, is that only Norquist has developed longstanding associations with terror symps and conspirators like Sami Al Arian. Norquist lobbied on behalf of Al Arian's brother in law, Mazen Al-Najjar, who was facing charges related to terror orgs, and Sami Al Arian's National Coalition to Protect Political Freedoms (NCPPF) gave Norquist an award in 2001 for his efforts to hinder the government's ability to use secret evidence in the case against Najjar. Norquist showed up and accepted it.

A bunch of arrests and military operations disprove that assertion. Where is the demonstrable harm to the war against the terrorist groups?

How can you or I know what's been disproven, without an investigation into efforts by Islamic Fifth Columnists to penetrate our government?
Heck, we didn't learn the extent of communist penetration until after we'd won the Cold War.

It was PRESENT with the Chinagate situation, but there is no evidence that such a cover-up is in the works here.

Anyone who doesn't want to investigate is leaning toward covering up.
We're at war. Islamists are trying to penetrate our highest levels of government to influence policy at the least, and probably more. There is always espionage. We've seen that at Gitmo. Why not investigate? What is there to hide?

But did that effort compromise the War on Terror? The answer appears to be a big fat negative.

Argument from ignorance. Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.
We're in the early stages of the WoT. It's going well; could it be going better? Are there problems we can avoid if we determine the extent of Islamist penetration into our government?
You don't know, and don't appear to want to know.

Do you have any proof that none of that is being done? Do you have any proof that there have been impediments to the system working? Unless you can produce the proof of either of those, then Bob J is correct in his take on the situation.

The access of Islamists and terror symps is ongoing. I'd say that's evidence.
C'mon, look at how silly your argument is:
"We don't know that steps aren't being taken, therefore maybe they are, therefore we shouldn't worry about whether or not steps are being taken."

"Yet Norquist is the only targeted as a "Fifth Columnist", and there seems to be a constant effort by Gaffney to portray him as such. It is only fair to ask cui bono (who benefits) if Norquist is taken down, and to try to ascertain possible motives."

Try to stick to facts not motives, less diving in needed. Gaffney and other national-security minded writers who have come out on this issue (no major conservative writers have defended Norquist)think the President and the country will benefit if the Islamists are replaced in favor by non-Islamist Muslims. Gaffney et al are not out to "take down" Grover- that is a red herring. Rather, as Gaffney carefully recounts doing, to raise some obvious questions about this aspect of Norquist's operation and either convince him to desist or convince the Admin et al to stop dealing with Norquist on that issue.

RE effects: 1)The exlusive "franchise" afforded to the Islamists versus normative, moderate or syncretic (pic your nomenclature) Muslims misprepresents American Islam (that's whay these groups are all foreign controlled and funded, as is Grover's own Islamic Institute, by the way) 2) it intimidates and thus accelerates the takeover of the latter moderate community 3) It thus provides a Base (hence "Fifth Column" as you'll recall it derviation from the Spanish Civil War) for recruitment, training and fundraising/ remittance. The Govt. has successfully brought a number of cases since 9/11 wherein mosques, charities, foundations and hawalas have raised, in single edifices, as much as $20 million that has then roundtripped to terrorists groups abroad, including Al Qaeda. 4) The Base allows greater opportunity for infiltration of the US systems (Govt, private) -- there are many cases related to this as well,ranging from the military and intelligence entities, to the prison system to airports administration & support services and others that are classified or not yet public. 5) If you are a 3rd year case agent looking at money laundering schemes at an Islamic center and, courtesy of Norquist, you then see the head of that Center or its controlling body standing next to the President or the FBI Director, it has a chilling effect on your decision to ask up the nine layers of bosses for a wiretap or warrant or whatever. (A related example: Four people who figure in Gaffney's article, and who are Islamists, some of whom are very closely tied to terror cases already, have testified in federal court as character witnesses for Norquist bud Sami Al Arian, (alleged, jailed worldwide head of the Shura council of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad) -- all of them invoked -- as their bona fides as to why the judge should listen to their appeal for Sami to be let out on bond -- the fact that they had been advising the White House, lecturing to the White Hosue Fellows Program, serving as contract imams for the Defense Department, etc. So: Saudi-funded wahhabi agents use Norquist'afforded access to get themselves positions and titles they then use to try to sping one of their own from a life sentence for terror. ) How's that for effects. I have a few dozen others, but I don't have the time. You can follow the idea and research it yourself. But this does not have to do with "getting Grover" -- it has to do with stopping this kind of access in a time of war.

The COngressional 9/11 investigation and most others of its ilk (hearings, etc.) have been very clear about the timidity of US law enforcement and how the Church and Pike committees, COINTELPRO and other experiences, coupled with the extreme PC culture in the agencies has created an atomsphere where nobody wants to look at what needs to be looked at, be forward leaning, etc. --al this particualry in regard to Islamists entities, etc.

The cover story on Sauds and Global Terror in the current USNEWS and the NY Times article on redesigning US domestic intelligence and analysis (James Risen, ...Intelligence Overhaul, Dec 9, 2003) both go into this in detail, both regarding past failures to get ahead of 9/11, and post9/11 failures to remediate. You can figure the rest out from here, if you really want to know the answers to the questions you posed relative to the existence or effects of a fifth column and why, by extension, any enabler should be dissuaded or otherwise removed.