Grover Norquist, terrorism, and the stopped-clock rule

Frank Gaffney says it. David Horowitz agrees. Michelle Malkin chimes in.

Right. So you already know it’s a lie.

But what if there’s some truth hidden there?

No, of course Grover Norquist wasn’t trying to convert the country to Islam or infiltrate terrorists into the government. All he’s interested in is getting rich by helping make rich people richer and more powerful. But Grover Norquist did identify wealthy American Muslims as likely collaborators in his scheme to make the country a plutocracy, partly on the grounds that the misogyny expressed by some forms of Islamic fundamentalism would be compatible with the misogyny expressed by some forms of Christian and Jewish fundamentalism. (That’s called “family values.”)

And just as George W. Bush was willing to ignore the complicity of the Saudi monarchy – including his good friend Prince Bandar bin Sultan, aka “Bandar Bush” – in the 9/11 attacks, Norquist hasn’t been overly fastidious about his Islamic allies. It’s a fact that Norquist collaborated extensively with Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi, long after al-Amoudi had expressed his support for Hamas and Hezbollah. It’s a fact that al-Amoudi is now doing 23 years in federal prison as the bagman in a plot by Qaddafi to assassinate the Saudi Crown Prince. Yes, the fact that the Boston bombers attended a mosque of which al-Amoudi was the founding president is rather incidental to the current story, but it’s still a fact.

And it’s also a fact – as Malkin says – that any Democrat with comparable ties to terrorism would have long since been hounded out of public life by Malkin’s friends on the Red team. The correct interpretation – that her friends hate liberals more than they hate terrorists – won’t occur to Malkin. But I don’t see any good reason for the rest of us not to remind the world that the majority of elected Republicans in the country have pledged their allegiance to someone with some pretty damned unsavory connections.

Comments

  1. John Herbison says

    Did anyone else look at the photo on the linked article and think of a blow-up doll?

  2. Mike says

    Now, that is just a tad partisan, Mark…
    :)

    But the latest flavors of Republicanism are all pretty nasty. Unsurprising that one group of theocratic fanatics should find common cause with another. And the Republicans clearly have no idea about irony, let alone seem to owe an allegiance to any American but their wealthy masters.

  3. Warren Terra says

    You are overlooking the part where the anti-Muslim bigots in Norquist’s own party were always going to go after him, because Norquist unforgivably chose to marry a Palestinian Muslim (this also served as a mere excuse, as they’d always greet an opportunity to eliminate a competitor at the teats of the ongoing grift they all pursue). As long as Norquist was going to be punished for hating Muslims insufficiently (and for, we assume, falling in love), and as long as Norquist was seeking (and competing for) resources to benefit his party (and his place within it), seeking those resources from sympathetic Arabs and Muslims made sense. Norquist was already on the sh!t list of the bigots within his party for his impolitic nuptials, and the bigots were hardly going to seek (or to successfully obtain) resources amid those communities, so he might as well.

    I am surprised to hear that he was incautious about avoiding possible secondhand or thirdhand links to Hamas and Hezbollah in the process.

  4. DGM says

    I’ve never considered Grover to be a Republican. I suppose he is registered as such but I view him as an outsider who has been running his little blackmail business for the benefit of his wealthy benefactors. Republicans are just his natural targets. Hence his association with the party.

  5. Kenneth Almquist says

    “George W. Bush was willing to ignore the complicity of the Saudi monarchy – including his good friend Prince Bandar bin Sultan, aka “Bandar Bush” – in the 9/11 attacks.”

    Do you have a source for this allegation? I already checked the Wikipedia page on Bandar bin Sultan.

  6. NY-Paul says

    And, regardless of Norquist’s questionable history and/or shaky connections, he stands out as the linchpin for our country’s inability to function.

  7. D. Silver says

    All he’s interested in is getting rich by helping make rich people richer and more powerful.

    Just out of curiousity: through what sorcery do you divine Grover Norquist’s motives? Is it that special x-ray device you use to expertly see into men’s hearts or is it the specially outfitted RFID chip that you use to steal and decode their brainwaves?

    Is it possible that he just wants an America that looks a little less East Germany and a little more like Hong Kong?

    Let’s get serious. It’s pretty clear that Norquist is trying to convert the USA is trying to subjugate the USA under Sharia. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m late for mosque.

    • CharlesWT says

      “Just out of curiousity: through what sorcery do you divine Grover Norquist’s motives? Is it that special x-ray device you use to expertly see into men’s hearts or is it the specially outfitted RFID chip that you use to steal and decode their brainwaves?”

      The Shadow knows!

    • Mike says

      D.,
      I know the man by his works. If there’s some higher principles he gives allegiance to, I’ve yet to discern it.

      BTW, I’m old enough to have peeked over that Wall personally. Wasn’t impressed, but it clearly wasn’t the case that it made the US look like it needed saving by the likes of Norquist. Let him run for office if he wants influence. On the other hand, I hardly need lay all blame at the man’s feet.

      There’s plenty of blame to go around in Washington DC these days and I’m not talking about the milquetoast Republican “revolutionaries” who’ve signed the pledge to defund government. It’s regrettable that Norquist’s dog-and-pony show seems to have a lot of influence in the White House these days. My grandmother is spinning in her grave at what looks like an impending betrayal by the Democrats of Social Security.

Trackbacks