Replies

I'm sure that's true. This is not one of those times. This is one of the times when people of ill will are conducting a media hit in public.

Like this...?

Grover G. Norquist
810 Constitution Avenue, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20002
February 5, 2003
Mr. Frank Gaffney
President
Center for Security Policy
1920 L Street NW
Washington, DC 20036
Dear Frank:
I have learned that you took the opportunity during your Thursday remarks at the 30th annual Conservative Political Action Conference to impugn the loyalty of Ali Tulbah, an associate director of cabinet affairs in the Bush White House.
There is no place in the conservative movement for racial prejudice, religious bigotry or ethnic hatred. This is the second time that a Muslim working for President George W. Bush has been subjected to an attack by you because of his faith. You made similarly dishonest allegations against Suhail Khan while he worked inside the White House.
The conservative movement cannot be associated with racism or bigotry. We have come too far in the last 30 years in our efforts to broaden our coalition to allow anyone to smear an entire group of people, sending a signal that there is no place for them at our table.
Therefore, until you have made a public apology to Ali Tulbah, Suhail Khan, and the president - and these apologies have been accepted - I am afraid that your attendance at the Wednesday center-right coalition meeting at the offices of the Americans for Tax Reform can no longer be allowed.
It is important that we, as conservatives, stand up against bigotry, racism, and religious hatred whenever it raises its ugly head. You have dishonored yourself and the founding principles of the movement and the nation.
Sincerely,
(signed)
Grover G. Norquist
cc:    Ali Tulbah
         Suhail Khan
         Wednesday Meeting attendees
Norquist letter to Gaffney (pdf)
February 5th, 2003

Gaffney raised national security concerns, first privately, then publicly, and Norquist played the race card as a first defense.
Why?

Well, Gaffney DID inpugn the loyalty to this country of Ali Tulbah and Suhail Khan, and he did so in public. And to be very blunt, I think Gaffney's evidence against the two is suspect at best.

It is well known some people don't like Norquist. The question is, what do they stand to gain by taking Norquist down now, and how far are they willing to go?

I really don't care abotu the so-called "evidence" against Norquist. I personally think he's done a lot of good for the movement and that a combination of jealous rivals and ideological opponents are seizing on a philosophical disagreement and using it as an excuse to destroy someone they don't like.

In fact, if Gaffney had evidence they were disloyal, he should have gone to the FBI or Secret Service. He should have used what conenctions he had to start an investigation. He instead chose to attack two White House staffers publicly. And now, the trend of posts seem to be inching towards Karl Rove as well.

I'm not ready to disbelieve Nick Danger's theories about this. If anything, his theroies are ringing true. I do not know all the details, but what I am seeing about the people who have Grover Norquist in their sights is that taking him down is the major concern and any national security concerns that are corrected are incidental benefits. Now, I note that claims are made thew white house knew, but nobody would touch it because of Karl Rove.

And Rove is also disliked by certain conservatives as well. At best, Frank Gaffney's copncerns are legitimate, but are being used to take out two of President Bush's top political allies in order to weaken him politically. Why? Who could benefit from a weakened President Bush?

Answer: The Democrats. And if Howard Dean is elected, the damage to the war on terror would be far more substantial and quantifiable than the damage Grover Norquist has been accused of causing.