Shorter Instapundit Update:

Republican activist is actually a terrorst supporter. How can I blame Democrats?

Oooooh Hipocrite. You're sooo incisive, I'll bet all the Republicans just winced with pain at THAT little sally. The Oscar Wilde of our time!

One Republican activist is a terrorist supporter as opposed to how many Democratic Congresscritters? Mosley-Braun, anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
I seem to remember Mr Katzman say something like "...that has to apply on both sides of the aisle."
But that doesn't matter, right? Nasty old details...

Instapundit's next post:

"Well, for all we know, Howard Dean could be an even bigger supporter of terrorists. But unlike FOIA-loving former Governor Bush, he won't let us know."

And that will be the entirety of Glenn's thoughts on the matter.

Hey, look at that, we're going to the moon!

Not sure I can remain a Republican after this. Why is nothing happening? Why aren't heads rolling? And WHY isn't this in the main stream news?!?!

Hey, Jim quoted Ferris Bueller! That's not only FUNNY - but also ORIGINAL! Know anything from Caddyshack, Jim?

The reason you don't hear the "liberal" (left) screaming about this is that, by and large, they support it. And I think you'd be hard pressed to find any Muslim group in the US whose members didn't believe lots of nutty conspiracy theories about 9-11 and other things, including the notion that Hezbollah are "freedom fighters." So if you're going to court Muslim support you're going to pretty much have to look the other way on that sort of thing. As for giving them legitimacy, I suspect this is a case where they have plenty of legitimacy within that community anyway... and about all we can do is keep a door open for dialogue.

Shorter Wingers:

A major Republican activist has links to Terrorsts. Freaky irrelevent Leftists are bad.

Sure do, philj. I can also quote Simpsons and Star Trek on short order, too. Your point? (Always assuming you have one, of course)

Liberals support Islamic terror. Right.

Dude, you can say what you like about the left, but you're just cracked if you really think lefties are all running around hollering "Praise Allah! May we all go up in flames together with the infidel crusader if it pleases him!" Seriously. Put that freakin' Coulter crap down for a second and listen to yourself.

The reason you're not hearing about this in the mainstream media is that the mainstream media ain't, as commonly reported, all that liberal. At the corporate level -- the one that counts -- and often at the newsroom level, it tilts center-right and favors easily-digestible stories that come into it on silver plates and don't upset advertisers or the White House, which punishes uncooperative news organizations by denying them access. This story could be very upsetting to the White House, and could force lazy reporters to change their precious consensus on this Administration. So it probably won't run outside the fringe lefty and righty sites that have picked it up so far.

Funny how this post just had to include a reference to the wrongdoing of Democrats, to provide balance. Why isn't the possibility that Norquist is all wrong and that Zell Miller's increasingly bizarre attacks on his (former?) fellow Democrats are also wrong entertained. Or in other words, the obvious validity of the attack on Norquist in no way corroborates Miller's attack on the rest of the Democrats.

Well, I can tell you that the reaction of the posters here is typical of what made me change my registration from Republican - after more than 35 years.

"Hey, well, the Dems have terrorist supporters."

I am an American, long before I am any member of any party. I care very much that the country be well-run, and it completely disgusts me that the ascendancy of one party or another seems to matter much more than what the people in that party are doing.

Many of you seem to care only about the party, like it's some football team you're supporting. Check your brain at the door, and root for the home team -- and if they cheat a little here and there, well, hey, they're our guys and surely the others are worse because they're their guys.

And you call yourselves patriots.

Well Ducktape, thanks for that. You've just managed to square the circle. The last time US national politics was able to fuction without parties ("factions"), gentlemen still wore powdered wigs to dinner. It's all very well to make a blanket condemnation and proclaim "a pox on both your houses!" Very easy to do, that.
Thing is, you have to work with the tools at hand.
I agree with much of what you say. Loyalty to the nation comes first. People have different views on the best way to go about things, however. If the right thing to do were obvious, then there wouldn't be any need for political parties (or a Congress, come to that).
You're disappointed at the posters here (including myself, no doubt). Me, I'm heartened. There's been a lot of discussion, and I find much of what I've read interesting. I may not agree with it all, but an exchange of views is necessary. If the price for that is an occasional exchange of partisan snarkiness, then so be it.

Errrr...that would be "function", as the correct spelling in the third line. Sorry...

I see a large majority of Republicans advocating a more aggressive stance on Terrorism.

I see a large majority of Democrats advocating we forget about it and worry about petty feel good social programs and 'feelings'.

We're in a war, people. The only argument worth having is how best to win it.

That's why the majority of democrats aren't patriots, they'd rather win an election and lose the war than vice-versa.

Hailing from Missouri, let me ask you, Eric, to "show me" one Democrat of any significant import who believes that "we forget about it and worry about ... 'feelings'"

Of course, you can't.

What you can "show me" are a number of Democrats saying that we need to focus on actual terrorists instead of going on nation-building adventures that distract us from that purpose. Who would be tougher on Saudi Arabia? Our Bought and Paid For President, or Howard Dean?

My honest assessment would be that a lot of individuals from both sides of the ideological line have been bought by the Saudis long before 9/11. Norquist appears to be one of the key Republicans in the Saudi pocket, and anybody who doesn't think that he has his equivalents on the other side of the aisle (or that Norquist is just an isolated phenomenon with the Republican Party, take a look at the reference to Bush 41 and the Carlyle Group in the latest issue of US News and World Report) is fooling themselves. As US News documented, the Wahhabi lobby in Washington is wide-ranging and unfortunately growing.

The question that members of both parties should be asking themselves is why the party establishments are so unwilling to extricate themselves from Norquist and his fellow travelers, because the last time I checked my country isn't for sale. Both sides need to save the ideological venom that is so often reserved for one another and direct it back towards these individuals who so richly deserve it.

Grover should be pilloried and shunned. No apologies, just kicked out he door, with much public fanfare and humiliation.

I fail to see how this exonerates Democrats or proves Dean would be tougher on the Saudis.

The article In FrontPage makes it clear that the Clinton White House also had the same problems of questionable access.

The problem is the Wahhabis and the spineless bastards that profit from them have figured out how to gain access. We should slam the door on them and expose the cockroaches and their Islamist masters.

The question to show the perfidy of both parties is to ask if Republicans make this issue public, will Democrats use it to get Arab-American votes?

It seems the recruitment of Grover Norquist shows the Wahhabis were prepared for either party.

Dude, you can say what you like about the left, but you're just cracked if you really think lefties are all running around hollering "Praise Allah! May we all go up in flames together with the infidel crusader if it pleases him!" Seriously. Put that freakin' Coulter crap down for a second and listen to yourself.

Yes! and, Ducktape: word.

I am thinking now that Zell is designated Bush-lover for the Dems (a thankless task, in-party), who can then safely (not running for reelection, public break with party core) criticize the administration's prosecution of its several wars.

TheYeti:

You are quite correct when you say that the Wahhabi (which is all but synonymous with Saudi for the purposes of financing that makes courting these groups so attractive for the politicos) have been quite prepared for a victory by either party.

Like I said, read the most recent US News article, as it documents how the Saudis have managed to get any number of individuals from both sides of the political fence to shill for them - Democrat and Republican. I very much doubt that party activists or loyalists on either side of the political fence are or should be very happy with these developments - as much as we may disagree on the issues, I don't think anyone likes the idea that a major US political party is basically for sale.

The problem is that none of the political leadership of either party wants to turn any of this into an issue in Washington because they're quite aware that this could just as easily be reflected back at them - as we're seeing here. This kind of infighting, suspicions, and divisiveness only serves to keep us disunified and looking at the other side for signs of perfidy rather than doing some much-needed house-cleaning within our own parties.

I read the Frontpage article and some of the other linked stuff, and was left with the question of why Norquist is doing this? I've seen this guy interviewed numerous times and have found his ideas loathsome but his intellectual zeal and commitment to his "causes" are unmistakeable. Do we really think Saudi money explains such bizarre behavior from a guy who spent decades building an independent power base in DC? What AREN'T we reading? Is he a rabid anti-Semite? Is there an unholy marriage between wacky mid-western conservatives and jihadis? Is Norquist himself a convert to radical Islam?

Can we stop sniping at each other for a few minutes and look at the big picture?

Fact: Both parties have terror supporters

Fact: Both parties have politicians who advocate confronting terror

Fact: Norquist is a supporter of terror sympathizers.

So how come this all became about who was the most patriotic? People, please, lets focus on the issue at hand: a Republican terror supporter who is fairly powerful, and isn't some maligned kook like Kucinich. Lets take it on a case for case basis, ok?

Maybe the issue here isn't really who is a "terror supporter" (and as disgraceful a political clown act as I think Grover Norquist is, I can't believe THAT of him); but one of how ideological obsessionism has so blinded SOME activists in the system (right or left, same-difference) to the realities of the world, and how pushing a utopian agenda as the solution for all and every problem of the universe can screw up, most of the time.
Good to see, though, that someone has "outed" old Grover as the extremist crank that he is: hard to see where the body politic will be much the worse for his excision from it.

Maybe the issue here isn't really who is a "terror supporter" (and as disgraceful a political clown act as I think Grover Norquist is, I can't believe THAT of him); but one of how ideological obsessionism has so blinded SOME activists in the system (right or left, same-difference) to the realities of the world, and how pushing a utopian agenda as the solution for all and every problem of the universe can screw up, most of the time.
Good to see, though, that someone has "outed" old Grover as the extremist crank that he is: hard to see where the body politic will be much the worse for his excision from it.

let's row through this for a bit of perspective, shall we?

Grover Norquist, who has been a prime mover in conservative circles for some time--at the ideas and lobbying level, rather than the media, electoral or grass-roots levels, had the blade put in by a conservative colleague on a conservative site. I am not seeking to downplay the excellent work by Franklin Foer of TNR, but rather to note that Norquist's flame has been snuffed out, probably for good, by a fellow traveler, if I can borrow a phrase with some baggage.

In short, there is not short-term political gain here for the right. One of their own has been selling them down the river. For cash. Crushing this guy was the right thing to do, consequences be dammed.

The White House, desperate not to seem intolerant or judgemental, allowed Norquist to shepard these creeps through. It goes to show how mau-mau'ed leading Republicans are on ethnic or racial issues...to say nothing of a fear of alienating potential votes.

A very low moment indeed for Karl Rove and GWB.

before any one sticks the boot in though, recall above. At least these debates are being pursued--and consequences rendered--on the Right. Can you even imagine these ideas being bandied about on the left (The New Republic does not count).....could you imagine Edward Said, Cornel West or Noam Chomsky, to say nothing of Micheal Moore, being so roundly condemned for the totality of their terror appeasing comments in the Progressive or The Nation? Hint: it took The Nation 50 years to acknowledge Julius Rosenberg might have been up to no good.

It seems the only thing anyone take away form this is that an alliance with the political advocacy components of American Islam, at least as currently consituted, is impossible for all the fleas these "leaders" have.

In the end, it is appalling that leaders of a major global religous community cannot pass even the faintest of smell tests.

religion of peace, my ass.

I'm no Grover-apologist, but there are glaring inaccuracies in this piece. For starters, what in the hell is this about:
Ironically, pro-Islamist groups had been scheduled to meet with President Bush on the morning of September 11 to hear what he planned to do to deliver on his secret evidence campaign pledge.27 But that day, the executive mansion complex was shut down, for fear that a fourth hijacked aircraft was headed its way. I watched bemused as Grover Norquist and the White House official responsible for Muslim outreach, Suhail Khan, escorted the displaced Islamists into the conference room we share. (Al-Arian had arranged to participate in the presidential meeting via phone. According to his website, his teaching schedule at the University of South Florida would not allow him to be there in person.)

In fact, Bush was in Florida and the rest of his morning was to be spent there, had there been no attack.

From a Sept 7 breifing:
In the afternoon on Monday, the President will continue his focus on reading and education when he travels to Jacksonville, Florida, and then on to Sarasota, Florida.

He'll return to the White House on Tuesday afternoon, where he will host, in the evening, the Congressional Barbecue on the South Lawn. Also on Tuesday, Mrs. Bush will make remarks on early child cognitive development to Senator Kennedy's committee.

My guess is Gaffney's article is crap.

--scott

again, I messed up the italic placement, the quote ends with "...Senator Kennedy's committee."

The provision of the Constitution giving the war making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood.

Robin, the problem here is that Norquist has NOT had the shiv put in. He has faced NO consequences. And sorry, that's just wrong. Yeah, I'm glad Gaffney and the neocons are calling him on this, and no, it doesn't happen on the Left. But Norquist hasn't suffered a whit, and he has in fact been energetic in penalizing Gaffney for raising the questions. That really disturbs me.

RE: Zell Miller's quote... Andrew, you missed the point. I used Miller's quote precisely because it needs to be extended across the aisle to the Republicans when circumstances warrant. If Miller was right about Rockefeller and the Dems on the intelligence Committee, then Norquist is a slam-dunk for this same characterization.

Silence does not become the Republicans here.

Andrew,
Point taken on Bush's "tolerance for slipshod and mistaken planning." Wrong on everything else. We are here discussing G. Norquist's treasonous toadying to Wahhabist jihadis (for cash or other reasons, we know not, yet). He has been able to pull this off precisely because no one in the White House knows jack about Islam, hence can easily be conned by extremists who are, lets face it, running the show in the ME. Our ignorance works in their favor.

We cannot begin to uproot their networks (which run throughout and beyond the ME proper) without force. If you don't understand that, you understand nothing. If our European allies choose the road to perfidy through the forest of appeasement (hey, where have we seen that before?) then damn them. The French don't even have the excuse of the Bushies, since they know damn well what the Islamists wish to do to the West, and are fully prepared to hold Saddam's hat for him (for a price) while we fight him. Some allies.

What distresses me is that even good analyses of the jihadi networks and their recent history (like US News and WR has this week) don't look under the last rock and ask WHY? Why are so many Saudis willing to fund al Qaeda? Hint: it's not JUST to keep the Cristal flowing in their gold-plated jacuzzis.

Ponder, for a moment, the story of Jed Clampitt. Poor mountaineer, strikes it rich, and being American moves to Beverly Hills and lives happily after after. Arabs were like Jed, but with a chip on their shoulder (especially the Saudis) because Allah had smiled on them for centuries, then took their toys away and left them crying in the dust. Suddenly, in the mid-20th century, God decides to smile on them once again--that oil is not just about money, it's about God! Now, they think, it's time to get the rest of their stuff back too, but we've taken it all (well, us and the Israelis). So God has granted them permission--nay, is insisting!--they take it back. That's what all this is about. Don't kid yourself. If we don't crush this monster and put it back into its box, all that oil money is going into jihadi pockets.

The Islamic world is sitting on the fence right now, big time, waiting to see who will win this catfight. If it looks as if Arab oil can finance a global revival, the 'ummah will embrace the cause in the streets, not just in their heart of hearts. If we can crush it in Iraq and elsewhere, they'll go back to going along with the status quo.

I'm waiting to see which of the genius candidates on either side of the political divide starts to figure this out first. I could be waiting a long time

Well, I still don't know how an internal Democratic strategy memo (that was probably obtained illegaly) on how to get the Bush administration to release 9/11 information is treason...

But while we're slinging mud around, why don't we talk about how James Baker, our Iraq debt negotiator, is representing the goddamn Saudis in the 9/11 lawsuit? Doesn't that piss you off?

Or how Henry Kissinger wouldn't serve on the 9/11 commission because he didn't want to mess up his business dealings with these repressive, corrupt, lazy, terror-funding assholes?

Or why the bin Laden family was allowed out of the country on September 11th?

Or why Bush senior was still making money off being on the board of the Carlyle Group for two years?

Joe, since its a Republican who is calling the White House on Norquist, I don't see how there is "silence" on the part of Republicans. Quit paying attention to Andrew's bizarre spin.

And can someone wipe the spittle off the inside of my moniter after praktike is finished?

Praktike: ...the bin Laden family was allowed out of the country on September 11th

Good Lord! This is huge! Go directly to the press with the information you have about the bin Ladens being allowed to leave on the 11th! Don't keep the facts to yourself!

sorry, maybe I should have toned down the vitriol.

But even the commies at NRO think the Bin Laden family escape is odd.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york091102.asp

You might look at snopes.com about the well-verified flights of the bin Laden relatives immediately after 9/11. I believe that some of the allegations Snopes lists as "false" are actually still undetermined or misinterpreted, but the basic facts are that Yes, Saudis in the US including relatives of bin Laden got extra special treatment from the Administration, including flights when US airspace was closed. Jim's apology to praktike should be forthcoming.

My bizarre spin is that I feel Zell Miller's charges are unwarranted, so much so that I don't like seeing them rehearsed even in context where they are intended to provoke the Republicans to similar measures against their own.

"But even the commies at NRO think the Bin Laden family escape is odd."

The semantically correct slur when casting aspersions on my fellow conservatives is "fascists", not 'commies.' Sometimes the stronger "Nazis" is invoked, but this risks triggering Godwin's Law. Other derogations to consider include "stormtroopers", "brownshirts", or even the most dreaded term of all, "Republicans." 8P

tagryn: sarcasm, not a slur.

But to be fair and balanced, I'll say that Jim McDermott's "Saddam's a nice guy" pre-war visit to Baghdad was embarrassing and wrong.

Andrew: Jim's apology to praktike should be forthcoming.

I don't get it. Praktike said the bin Ladens were allowed to leave on Sept 11. This isn't true.

praktike: Fair enough - this medium makes it difficult to discern sarcasm when its meant as such, sorry for not picking up on that.

The idea of anyone mistaking the folks at NR for communists just struck me as very strange...but then, given some of the stuff out there on the Web, I guess nothing should surprise anyone any more...

Frankly, it doesn't surprise me that Republicans here are supporting Norquist and his terrorist links. They've been doing it for years with the Saudi and Pakistani governments.

Eric, many of the loudest voices calling attention to the problem with Saudi Arabia & Pakistan have been, and remain, Republicans. The neocons have been leading this charge for a while. Nice of some Democrats to finally notice.

Pakistan is a "few alternatives" problem, and so likely to persist. It has under Democrat and Republican administrations thus far. Saudi Arabia buying influence is a bipartisan problem, and so it is also likely to persist.

What's needed here are clear voices on BOTH sides of the aisle, who are determined to expose and criticize business as usual - and offer well thought-out alternatives.

We'd love to have you aboard this train...

I think the critical point in all this is that the Rs are excising their Demons.

Pat Buchannan once a big wheel in Repub. circles at one time is now well on the outside. His thinly disguised Jew hatred did him in.

Norquist is now in disfavor among the Rs and may soon be on the outside.

The Rs are clearing the nuts from the party.

It would be nice to hear of the Ds doing the same.

Start with the racist Sharpton who incited a crowd to murder. Jews.

I'll believe the Ds protests about Norquist are more than partisan howling when they start cleaning their own house.

BTW did any one notice that ids Gaffney a R supporter who is leading the charge?

The Rs went after Trent Lott over a convolutedly racist verbal gaff.

The Ds have nothing to say about Sharpton's incitement to murder and overt racism.

Ya have to wonder about their sincerity.

What we see here is that the Right is self critical. It is always looking for elements that are not progressive and identifying and reducing them.

On the left this self criticsm if it exists is a marginal force. It is not main stream.

The right is willing to lose supporters to keep itself reasonably progressive. The left tolerates and encourages it's reactionaries.

Which is why so many on the left are willing to tolerate or even encourage racists like Sharpton. The Left is squandering it's moral force.

As a former leftist this makes me too sad for words. More like so sad I have to give it words.

It would be really nice to see multi-culturalism embrace Jews and the hated white man. Multi-culturalism should not just be for the brown man.

Actually, I believe it was liberal bloggers who started the online furor that led to a press drumbeat that made Republicans realize they needed to put Frist in charge.

The WH was not happy with Lott as a Senate leader anyway, and this incident gave him an excuse; they saw an opportunity in Frist and ran with it. Bush handled the situation fairly deftly, but it wasn't about "cleaning house."

And what's more, Lott is still in the Senate, and an integral part of the leadership. Santorum stepped aside in order to give Lott a plum committee chairmanship.

If that were truly the motivation, the RNC would have cut Haley Barbour loose for hanging out with the Kouncil of Koncerned Kitizens. But they didn't.