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.