Michelle Malkin also covered this annoying connection between the Islamists and the Republican establishment in a article published a few months ago on VDARE. The whole Bush/Oil/Saudi/Islamist network is something that should be explored. I’m honestly surprised that the leftist media hasn’t picked this issue up given their intense hatred of Bush.

Carl’s point raises the question of the extent to which Big Oil and Big Media are connected, whether by advertising interests, mutual ownership of assets, common board memberships. Big Oil has had tremdendous power in this country, and West in general, for decades. I can’t help but wonder whether we would have this Mohammedan immigration problem were it not for our dependence on oil.

The Gaffney article is highly disturbing. I find it striking that the Bush administration can have not one, but a series of mettings and dinners with the heads of various Islamist front groups while making certain that Rep. Tancredo is locked out.

Also striking is how quickly Norquist, an alleged conservative, resorts to the typical racism accusations used by the leftists such as Sharpton and Jackson when anyone starts to ask uncomfortable questions. Another question that comes to mind is how on earth does Rove think that pandering to a group whose members comprise at most 2 percent of the voters is going to help his boss? The answer might have much more to do with money and oil than with votes per se, of course.

Nowhere to be found is the idea that THESE PEOPLE DON’T BELONG HERE. The author’s unstated assumption that we can somehow keep our borders open and tolerate the importation of Wahabists who make no bones about their plans for the existing population here is a perfect example of the liberal disease we’ve discussed at VFR so many times. I wonder how many of the names listed in Gaffney’s article are those of actual citizens as opposed to those of immigrants - both legal and illegal.

There is no excuse for any of this. Bush has got to go. Gaffney’s piece also did a good job of demonstrating the connection between these folks and the leftists who are the dominant force among the Democrats. The nation desperately needs a new party that will represent the interests of Americans - as opposed to those of foreign powers, transnational corporations, and the like.

A couple recent books that tackle this subject (the nexus of Big Oil & US foreign policy) include Robert Baer’s “Sleeping with the Devil” and Paul Sperry’s (of WorldNetDaily)”Crude Politics”. The latter is particularly interesting insofar as it sheds light on the failure to capture Bin Laden. On a different note, it is hard to see why anyone would find Norquist’s “fifth column” activity remarkable. It is merely a byproduct of the “proposition nation” mythology now taken for granted by the GOP establishment. It wouldn’t surprise me if Norquist spend breakfast pandering to La Raza, lunch with CAIR & Arafat, and dinner with some outsourcing & H1-B lobbyists facilitating the transfer of tech jobs to India &/or more visas for Asian programmers. To Norquist, the historical American Nation never existed, except in the minds of nativists and bigots. Rather it is all a grand marketplace, and we just need to keep passing more supply side tax cuts like Kemp-Roth. Lawrence surely know’s about Norquist’s smear piece in the Washington Times (1999ish) attacking FAIR (fairus.org) as a group of environmental wackos; the message being that immigration reform has nothing in common with genuine conservatism. The greatest irony about Norquist and his growth mantra is that it focusses solely on tax cuts. He poopoos concern about the ballooning deficit thereby fostering the corrosive ‘something for nothing’ mentality which is driving the political demand for entitlements. Let future generations pay for this generation’s indulgence! If Norquist had more than a peanut for a brain he would devote 80% of his energy fighting the growth of spending and entitlements, and 20% on tax cuts. Instead he does the reverse because it is expedient.

I think Norquist’s focus is all wrong, but Gaffney is a vindictive liar about him. Gaffney is angry about personal problems over their leasing and business arangements. That much came out in their interview on the Hugh Hewitt show. In his piece Gaffney says that radical Muslims were supposed to meet with the president in Washington on September 11, but the President was in Florida, as everyone knows. That is at least one obvious lie. His whole accusations are a string of he knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy that was involved in xxx. I am close to people in the defense department that have a lot of stories to tell about Gaffney.

If Norquist has a problem it is a focus on politics instead of policy. He may be too close to the GOP, but the muslim thing is a shibboleth.

I don’t know Bush’s itinerary on 9/11/2001, but the fact that he was at an elementary school during the first class period of the morning, getting in a compassionate conservative education photo-op. does not preclude him having an afternoon meeting scheduled in D.C. Presidents jet around pretty quickly and cram several things into a day. I hear they don’t even have to fly coach and depend on airline schedules.

Bush was in Florida at 9 a.m. on 9/11, and Gaffney says that Bush was scheduled to meet with Moslem leaders in Washington on 9/11. Dale concludes from this that Gaffney is engaging in an “obvious lie,” though, as Mr. Coleman points out, Presidents fly around quite a bit and often go for some visit in another state and return to Washington on the same day. Dale’s charge against Gaffney is so obviously illogical that it makes everything else he is saying doubtful as well.

Even if Dale’s assertion that Gaffney has a huge personal axe to grind with Norquist is true, it doesn’t absolve Norquist. Most if not all of the Islamist individuals and associations named in Gaffney’s article - along with their connections with Norquist and the White House - have been documented previously by Michelle Malkin and others.

Norquist is yet another example of the fatal disease affecting the Republican party.

Dale is entertaining.He makes the accusation that Gaffney’s facts amount to no more than”..a string of he knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy that was involved in x..” Next sentence he says” I am close to people in the defense department that have a lot of stories…” The same exact thing he asserts is not a factually reliable way to support a positions.If one invokes an authoritave source to add weght to an arguement that source must be named,so the source can be checkedout,anything less is dishonest.