Replies

*Detailing the Islamist ties of Grover Norquist = accusing President Bush of treason?

No sir, and stop being disingenuous about it.

Heal thyself. That's exactly the false simile you're cobbling together...
"Are you paying attention? This guy is accusing the President of the United States of treason. He's being really weasely about it, but that's what he's doing."
-- Nick Danger

...and you're about to prove it, with a false analogy...

Our mystery correspondent is detailing precisely the same sort of "Islamist ties" with George W. Bush that he been detailing with Mr. Norquist.

Did you notice your use of the word "ties?" It's plural. More on that in a bit, among other things.

The only difference is that, when I call him on it, he lies about it. And then he sends you over to lie about it some more.

How quaintly conspiratorial.
No one sends me anywhere. If you'd done your homework (and there's really no excuse for your omission, given that we're approaching post #700), and clicked on FR keywords like NORQUIST, GROVERNORQUIST, ENEMYWITHIN, KAHLEDSAFFURI, SIDDIQI, SUHAILKHAN, ALITULBAH, GAFFNEY, ISLAMICINSTITUTE, AMC, MPAC, NCPPF, and not a few others, you'd know that I've been all over these threads, with hundreds of posts, articles, excerpts, and links. I was doing this long before Trollstomper ever even registered on this site, and long before you showed much of an interest in the material.
By the way, you've accused me of lying. Have you been able to refute a thing that's been posted?
I suggest you put up or shut up, Nick. Show where I've "lied."

Let's stop lying about what this guy is doing, OK? Here is a quote from his note, not mine:

...in another one of those darned coincidences, Othman just happens to be on the Board on at least one of Yaqub Mirza's investment funds (other Mirza funds you might have heard of include MENA Invesments, MarJac--both raided -- and a little thing called the Ptech Investment Fund, which funded, along with designated global terrorist Yasin Qadi, the software company Ptech raided and closed last year in Boston for a variety of terrorism charges. see endnote.) Now might it bother someone that this Othman guy joins the Board of a fund run by a terrorist finance wiz, who also funded Norquist buddy Al Arian and Grover's Institute (Institute took at least $46,000 before 9/11 from this source).

Who is this guy? He's an old Bush family friend. Not a Norquist family friend, a Bush family friend. A man who was on the board, not of Grover Norquist's oil company, because Grover Norquist never had an oil company. It was George W. Bush's oil company. Let me repeat that so even you can't screw this up: We are here detailing the terrorist connections of one George W. Bush, not to be confused with Mr. Grover Norquist, who never had an oil company, and whose name is not "Bush," as in "old Bush family friend.

That's it?
You said: "Our mystery correspondent is detailing precisely the same sort of "Islamist ties" with George W. Bush that he been detailing with Mr. Norquist."
You plucked a single paragraph about President Bush's contact with Othman some years ago, and how Othman later went on to have pro-terror affiliations. Then you compared that to the yards of column inches that have been posted about Norquist's activities with several indicted terrorists (Al Arian and Alamoudi, for starters), terror symps, and terror orgs, and you concluded that means that President Bush and Grover Norquist have "precisely the same sort of 'Islamist ties.'"
To you, one is "precisely the same" as the other?
As you jump off the ledge of logic, I hope your bungie cord stretches as far. There is no equating what's known about Norquist with your attempt to stage a little "gotcha" against a new poster who makes you uncomfortable.
Additionally, what we have in Norquist are not only Islamist ties that are flagrant, and in many cases ongoing, and in the context of September 11th, but also a clear lack of contrition, dissembling, and race-baiting.
We have none of that in President Bush, nor is anyone suggesting that we will.
Finally, who has accused Norquist of treason? No one.
Yet you have the cheek to say:
"This guy is accusing the President of the United States of treason. He's being really weasely about it, but that's what he's doing."
Sheesh.
You've been drawing from the same bag-o-nothing the entire thread. You don't address facts, or substance; you attack the messenger, and you're doing it in just the same way the Norquist has, equating criticism of him with criticism of President Bush.

Let's the crap here, OK? This guy is a fruitcake of some kind who doesn't know what hell he's talking about himself.

If you want to cut the crap, then cut it.
If you think other people are posting crap, then demonstrate it.
You're months behind the curve on this, but go ahead, work the search engine a bit, see what you can do. The obvious conclusion from the totality of your posts on this thread, Nick, is that you, in point of fact, don't know what you're talking about with regard to this subject.

Or he claims that sentences that refer to someone named "Bush" are about Norquist, or Rove, or Santa Claus. Well, who are you going to believe, him or your own lying eyes? If he has a case against Bush, let's hear it. He won't talk about that, because everybody would know he's a nut. Hello? He is a nut. He's a veritable fountain of little tiny details and absolutely no context to put them in except his own personal hatred of Grover Norquist. He's like the Rainman of terrorism. He can tell you how many matches were left on the table after some meeting three years ago, but he can't tell you that he just linked Bush with terrorists five seconds after doing it. Either that or he doesn't have the guts to come right out and say it. And I don't blame him, because if he did, people would laugh him off the stage.

This is just an ad hominem rant. You're out of your depth here, and swimming with a tinfoil scuba tank.
You're usually a sharp poster. This thread has not been your finest hour. You need to do the homework, get up to speed on this story, and try again.
You entered this thread because of the Free Republic Network's connections to Grover Norquist. You reflexively wanted to defend him, which is not unadmirable on it's own. He's done right by you, and you feel grateful.
Soon, however, you were singing from the Rahm Emmanuel Tactical Hymnal.
You want to play attack the messenger?
Fair enough. Here's the lense through which every one of your posts on this thread ought to be viewed:
"In short, Grover Norquist has been of enormous help to us in connecting us with other people and organizations that share our goals."
-- Nick Danger

Or, if you like, you can get in the real game, and post something of substance.

Fair enough. Here's the lense through which every one of your posts on this thread ought to be viewed:

"In short, Grover Norquist has been of enormous help to us in connecting us with other people and organizations that share our goals." -- Nick Danger

I have to wonder if this snip above is indicative of all your other posts on this issue. It has been made clear that the FRN is invited and does attend the Wed. meetings, ALONG WITH 120+ OTHER PEOPLE IN WASHINGTON DC.

Here are Nick's exact statements on this issue:

Allow me to answer that. Grover Norquist is one of several people who informally advises FRN on a number of issues. By 'informally' I mean that none of these people has any authority over anything we do; they just give us ideas or advice when we ask for it.

As you may know, Norquist's office is host every Wednesday to a meeting that is attended by representives from practically every conservative organization on the planet. The White House, Senator Frist's office, and Speaker Hastert's office also send representatives, and they tell us about the legislative agenda or other policy topics. Conservative candidates from around the country come there to introduce themselves. Virtually any group that has something going on can get a minute or two on the agenda, and I have done so numerous times to promote things the FRN was doing, such as the "Rally for America" events we did back in March. This is also how I was able to arrange for Angelwood to attend a speech given by President Bush. It is how we met Jeff Gannon of Talon News, who now hosts a program on Radio FR. In short, Grover Norquist has been of enormous help to us in connecting us with other people and organizations that share our goals.#283

And

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. #367

and

Be careful here. I am not "defending Norquist" from things he actually did, if in fact they were wrong. I am not on some mission here to claim that he is pure in all of this. I don't claim to know. What I do know is that this document which has been presented to us as containing "documented facts" contains a whole bunch of documented facts that don't tell us anything, but are being presented as if they are some sort of damning indictment. HERE

Please stop implying that Nick's objections and arguments are on account of some "debt to Grover" because I might start to think this is your modus operandi, to take one statement out of context (which you just did) and attempt to make it appear nefarious. It isn't. No one is in a position to defend Grover, except Grover. You may not like that Nick is questioning this issue, but don't make this into some obligation to defend Grover. I can bet you that Grover Norquist doesn't know who "Nick Danger" is.

You entered this thread because of the Free Republic Network's connections to Grover Norquist.

That is correct. I actually know this guy. Not well, but I know him. So this is not just a Keyboard Cowboy exercise for me. I care about this. I want to know the truth here.

I've heard all this stuff. Frank Gaffney stands outside the meeting room on Wednesdays and hands out his materials. I've read them. People take that stuff and walk right into the meeting with Grover Norquist. David Keene; David Frum; Chuck Muth; people from the White House; the Senate; the House; the Pentagon; the Cato Institute; the Heritage Foundation; the NRA; people running for office from all over the country. They walk right past Frank Gaffney and into Grover's meeting. That is what I see.

You said I'm in over my depth. I said it first. I admit it: I'm a Washington newbie. I just moved here a year ago. I don't do this for a living. I don't have "connections." I'm just some Freeper who's there on a volunteer basis once a week (and not every week) to hear what's going on, and to occasionally let people know what we're doing.

I have no idea what to think about a pissing contest between Frank Gaffney and Grover Norquist. I look around and it doesn't look to me like "old Washington hands" are paying much attention to Frank. If Grover Norquist is about to be arrested as a traitor to the United States, there are going to be a whole bunch of people who were sitting at his table the week before (I don't rate a seat at the table, BTW) who will be pretty embarrassed about that. So if I, a mere newbie, were to take my cues from people who have been around here a lot longer than I have, I would not pay a whole lot of attention to Frank Gaffney on this issue. People tell me he really is a big-time expert on defense stuff, and I have no reason to doubt that. But no one is acting as though he's an expert on this.

I thought it would probably have to stay there, because... how the hell am I ever gonna find out what the truth is here? And then, lo and behold, our Mystery Correspondent shows up right here on Free Republic. This is terrific. This is more time than David Frum has had with the guy.

So I listen to all this stuff. And I poke the guy. And I try to piss him off, to see what he does and where the smoke comes out. Because for me, this is a big puzzle. This man claims to have this big file of facts that means "X", where "X" is something that should have cleaned out that conference room a long time ago. But it hasn't.

I figure most people in that room are in the same state I'm in: they don't know what to believe about this. And they aren't in any position to call up the White House and poke around to find out. "So tell me Karl, were you and Grover running a honey pot, or are you guys traitors?" But some people in that room are capable of making those kinds of phone calls. And I observe them sitting at the table with Grover Norquist.

After watching how the smoke comes out when this guy starts to rant, I think I understand better now why the old Washington hands are not running for the exits.

Let me close by saying that it may turn out that Frank Gaffney is a hero for exposing all this. I can't rule that out. But I have to go with what I see, which is that after an initial period of considerable alarm about these charges, some very well-connected people with impeccable reputations have returned to Norquist's table. That is what I see. And when granted an opporunity to poke it at myself, I found it necessary to keep adding more and more windage as time went on, to account for personal animosity as the thing driving this effort. So in the end, I choose not to join you at the necktie party.

And on that note, I think I will get out of your way here so you can convince all these other fine people that Grover Norquist is a terrsymp dupe or worse, and that I am his shill. Do your worst.