Replies

I quite agree with your comments about Norquist and Gaffney. Do you have any idea why Norquist has so many defenders here on FR? I haven't figured out yet why they would want to defend him.

Well, to be honest, I think several people in this thread "defended" Norquist to give him the benefit of the doubt, absent due process, which is fair as far as his role in aiding and abetting terror-funders such as Al-Arian. I believe this evidence is plentiful, if the A.G. is willing to dig into it politically.

A larger issue is Norquist's clear role in furthering the agenda of the radical Wahabbists in Washington. In effect, Grover Norquist is a paid lobbyist for the very people who sent 16 of 19 men to murder 3,000 Americans on Sept. 11th. Whether or not he deserves prison time I will leave up to a jury. As to his place in the Republican party and the White House...he should have none. If the GOP lacked ample reasons to shun Grover Norquist before, there is no excuse now.

Don't you find it odd that many of the Insight sources Gaffney and others are prone to cite appear in articles written by someone who works, at least part time, for Gaffney himself???

As to the CPAC comment, no one is suggesting that Ali Tulbah was not responsible for the AMC's inclusion in the White House meeting -- what Gaffney said, read the reamrks again for yourself -- was that the AMC got in because of Ali Tulbah and Ali Tulbah's father is Hasan Tulbah of a Houston mosque (or something like that) -- the CLEAR implication was that Ali Tulbah is a national security risk to the United States because -- and only because -- his father is affiliated with a Mosque in Houston.

That sounds like bigotry and racism to me.