Replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The problem I and others are having with your posts is the heavy handed let's get Norquist attitude. For the sake of argument, let's accept the premise you have put forth. What do we have?

1. The Sauds and other middle east countries have been funding what appeared to be moderate front groups (surpise) to push their agenda in the US.

2. Scores of politicians, from Governors, State legislators, Congressman, Senators and even the White House (Clinton and Bush) have been duped and held meetings with these groups and their representatives.

3. For at least a decade, the intelligence corps has been unable to adequately get their message across that these people have a hidden agenda that may not be in the best interests of the country (if so, why have they been able to get meetings with so many prominent politicians and their staffs?).

The question is, with so many prominent targets (individuals and governement agencies) of what appears to be at the least very poor judgement, why the single minded obsession with Norquist? You yourself have stated that he is basically a domestic issue wonk and that he doesn't possess the research and intelligence capabilities of the US government. Yet you place more responsibility and blame at his feet than you do the people and organizations actually responsible for insuring security.

It all appears to much like a personal pissing contest.

Let's put all the marbles on the table. Let's quit all the nambly pambly innuendo, gossip and guilt through association stuff. You have basically alleged that Norquist knew who these people and what their agendas are, that he has been in collusion with them to push a radical Islamist agenda here in the US, that he has knowingly accepted money from terrorists and terrorists organizations, that he has assisted them in attempting to water down provisions of the Patriot Act (A position also taken by other prominent conservatives and libertarians including stalwarts such as David Keene of the ACU and Paul Weyrich of Free Congress, although they don't seem to show up on your criticism radar as Norquist has), and that he has knowingly provided access to the US Government, politicians and even the President, so that they, and Norquist by extension, can pursue and agenda that calls for the destruction of the United States and replacing it with the United Muslim States.

Make your allegations against Norquist crystal clear and then maybe we can get onto a productive discussion instead of all this he said, she said crap.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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