Replies

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?

No, that might be the question is Norquist wasn't lying and race-baiting... but he is.
See again the Norquist statement at #419:
"I never invoke the president or Karl Rove on this position - in anything."
From the Wall Street Journal, June 11th, 2003...
(I'm not a WSJ subscriber, btw, so I don't have access to their archive. I've linked to a reposting at FR, and a .pdf of Gaffney's.)
In 2002, Mr. Arian visited the Islamic Institute in Washington. Institute officials say his purpose was simply to drop off literature. Mr. Norquist adds that he himself has never worked with Mr. Arian and has met him only briefly at various events before Mr. Arian was indicted. Calling attention to Mr. Arian is unfair, he says. "Since I started working with Muslims, a handful of bigots have been trying to smear the president, Rove and me for working with them," he adds.
Reaching Out: In Difficult Times, Muslims Count On Unlikely Advocate --- Mr. Norquist, Famed Tax Foe, Offers Washington Access, Draws Conservative Flak --- Meeting an Alleged Terrorist
The Wall Street Journal - Tom Hamburger and Glenn R. Simpson | June 11, 2003 (FR link)
Gaffney link (cached HTML of .pdf, scroll down to page 2)

So, Norquist, in addition to his characteristic race-baiting, has been invoking both the President and Karl rove in this, both before and after he said he wasn't doing exactly that.
Norquist is repeatedly lying and race-baiting. If the truth were sufficient, why would he need to do that?

Well, there is a case to be made for an attempt to smear Norquist.

I still have trouble understanding why Gaffney did not go to the FBI or Secret Service over those staffers if he was so concerned. Why he had to instead bring that matter up publicly and in manner that was sure to provoke an angry response. It is a curious manner in addressing such grave concerns about a fifth column, is it not?

Is this REALLY national security, or is it the removal of one or more obstacles to an agenda that Norquist and Rove oppose? Why the curious conduct by Gaffney and some of his allies if he is so convinced national security is at stake? Are there hidden agendas here? If so, what are they?

I want those questions answered. Norquist might or might not have clean hands. But this is lookinglike a power play more than a legitimate concern about national security. To be very blunt, the "national security professionals" are acting very unprofessional.