A Troubling Influence - An Islamic Fifth Column penetrates the White House

If I stay around long enough I may eventually figure out how to navigate about.
I assume you're talking about a voluntary stay around and not an administrative not around.
The second is always a consideration, even for those of us of the "late coming Class of 2000".
I feel fortunate to be here still. I mind my P's and Q's a lot.

Hi, I don;t really care a whole lot. I just wanted to get some views from the ground on the grover and see what/if any arguments his partisans and groupies would advance. Nothing to worry about as it turns out, and site-wide its not a love-in. Amazing that people, apparently in some proportion to how removed they are from DC, think he's irreplacable. He's a godfather, he fixes access for people who can't quite get it themselves; when he passes from the scene, someone else will do it. He has figured out how to personally profit from it, and its been an ugly thing to see. Quite funny actually for such a "leave us alone coalition" self-styled libertarian to become so suddenly swept up in state power -- "Karl and I", "apologize to me and the President," "The White House says..." etc. L'etat ces't Moi from Grover. How rich. And that is the beginning of his ending.

long read but very informative and interesting

Wow... I'm trying to catch up with this thread, don't know if I ever will, but am finding it an incredibly interesting read.

I enjoy watching (or reading, as the case may be) a good debate, especially when the parties have done their homework. Welcome to FR.

He has figured out how to personally profit from it, and its been an ugly thing to see... L'etat ces't Moi from Grover. How rich. And that is the beginning of his ending.

Yet this is not about Norquist. It's not a hatchet job on Grover Norquist, it's a serious policy dispute coming to us live, from mysterious National Security greybeards who are seriously concerned, and so are using the pages of FrontPage magazine to gently nudge the White House in the right direction, as they always have.

And this is necessary, because Frank Gaffney and his dedicated coterie of mysterious and knowledgeable National Security Types are the only people smart enough to protect our poor befuddled President from those bumblers that he surrounds himself with in the White House... who keep letting in The Wrong People because they -- unlike Frank and his friends -- do not understand who the Bad Guys are in the war on terror.

And so the experts have come here, to Free Republic, to throw hatchets at Grover Norquist; not to conduct a hatchet job, but to inform and to educate. Not to pose as professionals with decades of experience who can't seem to get the White House to pay any attention to them, but to get other people to pay attention to them. So that they might stimulate debate, and discussion, and the throwing of hatchets at Frank's old officemate.

It's hard to know what to think. You were doing so well with that act until you got a little cocky. And then out came the bile. And so we see the flash of hate, and with it the realization that this really is just a hatchet job. A cleverly disguised one to be sure, but a hatchet job, dressed in robes that the perpetrator knows best how to wear. For if it is not, we must believe that men with decades of experience in this field, with all the contacts that must bring in the National Security apparatus, think that going into the pages of FrontPage magazine is how you get things done in Washington.

I don't think so. If you were half of what you are trying to get people to believe you are, you could have cut off Norquist's access to the White House without him even knowing what hit him. Instead here you are on Free Republic, gloating over the 'beginning of his ending'. A serious policy debate? It's no such thing, is it. It's a vile little personal feud dressed up in a fancy suit because that happens to be Frank Gaffney's suit... the biggest axe he knows how to throw.

What else can we conclude from the actual behavior we see here? As you have said yourself, Grover Norquist is no national security type. Those who are should therefore have no trouble mowing him down among those who today are concerned with such matters. Yet this has not happened. Instead we see Mr. Gaffney hurling spears across town from the pages of magazines, and on the air, and now on the Internet. And always directed personally at Mr. Norquist, not at the policy dispute you claim this concerns. Why must he do this? Why does the National Security apparatus not pay attention to his clarion call? Do they not know the difference between Wahhabi and Shia? Do they not share Mr. Gaffney's concern for the security of the country? Or is just that they think that Mr. Gaffney is out throwing spears at some guy he used to share an office with, and it's none of their concern?

And if it isn't their concern, why should it be ours?

later

It's hard to know what to think. You were doing so well with that act until you got a little cocky. And then out came the bile. And so we see the flash of hate, and with it the realization that this really is just a hatchet job.

Given that you've sat at Norquist's table, the officials have ruled "offsetting ad hominems."

And this is necessary, because Frank Gaffney and his dedicated coterie of mysterious and knowledgeable National Security Types are the only people smart enough to protect our poor befuddled President from those bumblers that he surrounds himself with in the White House... who keep letting in The Wrong People because they -- unlike Frank and his friends -- do not understand who the Bad Guys are in the war on terror.

Cool backhanded appeal to authority.
Any of Gaffney's footnoted specifics you'd like to address, yet?

And if it isn't their concern, why should it be ours?

Because the train is leaving the station.
Norquist has had since early February to address concerns about his Islamist associations. The war in Iraq has come and gone since then, but Norquist is still in spin mode.
If, as you appear to assert, this is all about nothing, then why hasn't Norquist dealt with it?
Why are David Horowitz and Hewitt Hewitt (Norquist's Harvard classmate) not vouching for him?
Finally... have you ever seen Khaled Saffuri at Norquist's table?

And this is necessary, because Frank Gaffney and his dedicated coterie of mysterious and knowledgeable National Security Types are the only people smart enough to protect our poor befuddled President from those bumblers that he surrounds himself with in the White House... who keep letting in The Wrong People because they -- unlike Frank and his friends -- do not understand who the Bad Guys are in the war on terror.
That is damned funny Nick!
It's deja vu all over again!
Do White House Guests Say Something About the President?
IRA and Islamic Terrorists
Despite the Administration's high-profile "war" on international terrorism, the Clinton White House has proved hospitable to representatives of notorious terrorist groups. Gerry Adams, the public spokesman for Sein Fein, the political branch of the murderous Irish Republican Army, has been a frequent guest at the White House.
Representatives of radical Islamic groups have also been rewarded with personal access to the President, Vice President, and First Lady. Terrorism analyst Steven Emerson reported in the November 3rd issue of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review that Mr. Clinton invited to the White House "one of the top international terrorists in the world, a terrorist chieftain who has orchestrated mass murder against scores of innocent civilians, including American children" -- namely, Abduraham Alamoudi of the American Muslim Council, who was photographed between President Clinton and Vice President Gore.
Gore was also photographed warmly shaking hands with Nihad Awad, founding head of the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR), whom Emerson identified as a radical "who has championed the terrorist mastermind behind the World Trade Center bombing, a plot that was designed to kill 50,000 American people." Another photograph included in Emerson's article showed Mrs. Clinton receiving a Koran from Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR, which Emerson described as "an American branch of a radical Islamic front group."

Thus my interest in the thread and the return of all those familiar names. There is sooooo much more.
The Cartoon was ridiculed and reviled here for such exploits! My, how soon some forget...

Thus my interest in the thread and the return of all those familiar names. There is sooooo much more.

The Cartoon was ridiculed and reviled here for such exploits! My, how soon some forget...

This might interest you...
At the same time, the Clinton administration has established close ties with groups like the American Muslim Council, which has supported Hamas and other radical groups. Hillary Clinton has worked particularly closely with the head of the AMC, Abdulrahman Al-Amoudi, who has openly collected funds for the legal defense of Mr Marzuk, the Hamas chieftain arrested at JFK Airport, and for Mr. Abdul-Rahman, who organized the World Trade Center bombing. Raising money for a criminal defense fund is perfectly legal, of course. But would Mrs. Clinton meet with the head of the defense committee for Oklahoma City bombing suspect Timothy McVeigh? Earlier this year Mrs. Clinton met at the White House with Ibrahim Hooper, communications director for the Council on American Islamic Relations. CAIR, based in Washington, was founded in 1994 by Nihad Awad, the former public relations director of the Texas-based Islamic Association of Palestine, which Oliver Revell, the FBI's former head of counterterrorism and now a security consultant, calls a Hamas front. Both CAIR and IAP have disseminated Hamas communiqu‚s and championed the policies of other radical Islamic groups. A recent CAIR report listed as a "hate crimes against Muslims" the conviction of Mr. Abdul-Rahman and the arrest of Mr. Marzuk. CAIR's Board of Advisors includes a number of radicals known for their virulent anti-Semitism and support of the World Trade Center defendants.
Stop Aid and Comfort for Patrons of Terror (Clinton - Terror Flashback)
Wall Street Journal | August 5th, 1996 | Stephen Emerson

And let's not forget "Her Thighness"...
First Lady Hosts Third Annual Eid Celebration
"Eid mubarak," Arabic for happy feast, said First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton as she hosted her third annual White House celebration of the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan at the White House January 21.
Snip...Thanking the organizers of the event, Mrs. Clinton said: "I know how important it is to highlight the contributions of Muslim Americans to our great efforts in this country, and to prepare ourselves for a future that is truly the best we can offer to our children and grandchildren."
"Today we celebrate Eid ... by honoring the remarkable contributions of Islam that have enabled millions and millions of Muslims around the world to endure and thrive through the ages and enrich us all," the First Lady said to over 150 guests, who included heads of major American Muslim organizations, community leaders, dignitaries, and other Muslims from around the country.
Nope, same old, same old at the WH...

Man, do you know how much of this is "old news" to me. I was onto much of this stuff before many others even bothered to look at it.

Man, do you know how much of this is "old news" to me. I was onto much of this stuff before many others even bothered to look at it.

Well, I'm sure a great deal of arm-waving will ensue about how you or I don't know what we're talking about, because we can't know what we're talking about.
"Specifics? We don' need no stinking specifics."

Well, I'm sure a great deal of arm-waving will ensue about how you or I don't know what we're talking about, because we can't know what we're talking about.
Like I really give a damn! Been down that old dusty road before too and my posterior has a special place marked for lip placement. [I'm gonna start minding my P's and Q's now before I really get irate (it isn't at you) and get in trouble]
You probably know that I mainly keep my opinions to myself nowadays, except for a few choice issues, simply because of stuff like that.

the officials have ruled "offsetting ad hominems."

Bullsh*t. This guy came in here acting cool as a cucumber. It was all a policy dipute; serious stuff. Facts. Logic. Coherence. And then he got a little bit smug, and all of a sudden it's "and that b*stard is finally coming down, bwaa ha ha." No, sir, this is not a policy dispute. With those two, it's personal.

Any of Gaffney's footnoted specifics you'd like to address, yet?

Yes. Gaffney's "footnoted specifics" are the most blatant use of BS artistry I've seen in years, and I think you ought to be ashamed of yourself for trying to sell crap like this to your fellow Freepers.

Khaled Saffuri, executive director of the Islamic Institute, joined Rove in his car. Saffuri explained to him that the vote of the Arab-American community, which includes both Muslims and Christians, still was up for grabs. The community is prosperous and could be the source of considerable campaign contributions. If Bush would mention in public just a few of the issues that concern Arab-Americans, Saffuri told Rove, he would win their hearts, their minds and their support.22

Goodness gracious! How damning! How cunning these Moslems are!

While the thrust of this report sounds right, the evidence suggests Saffuri’s car ride with Rove was by no means the first time such a proposition had been discussed with the Bush campaign.

I'm floored. Gaffney has evidence that Saffuri spoke numerous times(!) with Karl Rove(!) about a proposition. Which was that Bush push a few hot buttons popular with Arab-Americans while he was out campaigning. Seriously: we needed footnotes for this? We need to use words like "evidence" and "proposition" to talk about a guy giving political advice on how to win votes by saying a few of the right things? He makes this sound like some kind of criminal activity. We're in on the secrets, now! We have evidence! They were in a car together! Imagine discussing votes with Karl Rove! Who'd have thunk it? Boy, we have the goods on that Norquist character now!

Suhail Khan was one of at least three Muslim outreach gatekeepers at the White House with whom Norquist has been associated over the years. I became aware of the intensity of the attachment when Norquist verbally assaulted me one day in the hallway outside our offices with the accusation that I had been calling Khan a terrorist. I assured him that I had done no such thing. Evidently, somebody else, though, had stumbled onto the fact that Khan’s late father, Mahboob Khan, was a prominent figure in the Islamist enterprise in America. It turns out that, among other things, he was the founder of a large Wahhabi center, mosque and school in Orange County, California.29

The New York Times revealed on October 23, 2001, that, in that capacity, Khan Sr. had hosted Ayman al-Zawahiri, reportedly Osama bin Laden’s right-hand-man in the al-Qaeda organization – not once, but twice in the 1990s.30 The first time, Zawahiri came under his own name, the second time he used an alias. In the course of his trips, the terrorist chief reportedly not only raised funds for al-Qaeda’s operations at Khan’s mosque but also purchased satellite communications equipment while in the United States.31

See that? al-Quaeda! Aliases! Terrorist chiefs! Grover Norquist! Booga Booga! If you did not notice that Gaffney had slipped into talking about some White House aide's late father, you are not our new Jeopardy champion. What kind of sleazy trick was that? Footnoted specifics? I've seen better misdirection plays in those tracts that explain how the Jooz rule ze vorld. When I see tricks like that, I know I'm looking at a hatchet job. The "60 Minutes" treatment of the ride in the car to talk about the "proposition" was a clue, but when they drag out the late fathers and booga-booga you with them, it's time to just throw the whole thing in the sh*tcan.

Why are David Horowitz and Hewitt Hewitt (Norquist's Harvard classmate) not vouching for him?

That's not the right question. They don't know any more than we know. The right question is, "Why is Norquist allowed anywhere near the White House?" They do know something we don't. They know what their own anti-terrorism strategy is. And they don't seem to be concerned about this. If they did seem to be concerned about it, I would put more credence in this. I don't claim to know one way or the other. All I know is that the people who are in fact running the National Security apparatus are happily watching this happen, and I don't believe for one minute that that is because they aren't looking. To hear Gaffney tell it, terrorists are just blithely waltzing into the White House because they're all too stupid over at 1600 Pennsylvania to know what's going on, and they need him -- Frank Gaffney -- to warn them about Grover and his creepy friends. I'm sorry, I didn't just fall off a turnip truck, so I don't believe that.

ever seen Khaled Saffuri at Norquist's table?

I wouldn't know Khaled Saffuri if I tripped over him. Is that the guy who met not once[1], but twice[2], with Karl Rove[3]? In the Secret Car[4]? To talk about, you know, the proposition[5]? Do you suppose the White House doesn't know who he is? Do you think you should run over and tell them, just in case?

Do you suppose the White House doesn't know who he is?
So you're saying that the White House does in fact know exactly who and what Saffuri is including his support of terrorists/terrorist organizations and then they knowingly let him visit the POTUS and WH. Is that right? That seems to be the gist of what you're getting at.

To the man in the trenchcoat:

1) The Policy dispute has been ongoing and continues, albeit unaddressed by yourself, or Grover -- the "hatchet job" only is met in your mind.

2) Watch the series of hearings in Judiciary, Government Affairs and elsewhere, and the upcoming N.Va. terrorism trials and arrests. Already this has resulted, among other thigns, in CAIR, ISNA and others being frozen out of the WH Iftar dinner. Gee, wonder how all this is happening.

3) You saw the US News cover story on Saudi funding of global terror, and the recent WSJ and WP leads on Saudi embassy funding and it being rolled up and slowly squeezed by the FBI. Watch that space, and you won't have to read it here. Just remember you read it here first, assuming that flls you with pride of place. Just be patient.

(sidebar: To answer your question: Indeed not to many months ago, Bureau and other government types did not/not know the difference between the branches of Islam in any serious way, and had not learned a lot about recruitment tehcniques, etc. That is changing rapidly, in part because of them being educated by people like Gaffney and in part by Congressional pressure).

Increasingly, everyone, except Grover and his clients and bitter-enders,do "understand who the Bad Guys are in the war on terror."

4) Cut away the sneering tone, invective and red herrings of your screed and what you have left is pretty much what Sami Al Arian spouted for months, years, and even on his way to jail "It's all politics." Oh, Ok.... just keep walking and watch the head as we put you in the car.

5) Last time I checked, Gaffney still was a tenant of Grover's along with the Islamic Institute.

6) Grover and the whole "Wahabbi Lobby" ARE held in disregard by the national security community, in and out of government, to the extent that its members are even aware of him. If you knew that community you would not ask that question.

Why does he still have WH access, In part because he delivers on other issues for Rove (and all Rove knows or cares about is politics, not national security ---Lynn Nofziger he ain't). And in part because Intelligence, National Security, Law Enforcement types don't do Rove; don't do elections, don't do WH 'outreach,' etc. That is not where and how they act; they don't "mow" people down either. They do patiently surveil and arrest people though.

Speaking of which, let's just wager here and now, that a lot more people who are associated with Norquist -- and who have handed checks to his group, and with whose organizations Grover has shared a platform on numerous occasions from 1998 to last month --- are being investigated, arrested or are already in jail than ever will be the case with Gaffney, or anyone associated with his national security operation.

In fact the last time I checked, Gaffney's decade-long Chairman was the Undersecretary of Defense, and 25 or so of Gaffney's long-time associates are holding down the top jobs in the Pentagon, not to mention those sprinkled in other agencys doing national security and intelligence.
(nb,Yoy so trenchantly ask: "Why does the National Security apparatus not pay attention to his clarion call?" It's always dangerous to believe your own propaganda and to assume that what you don't know or see isn't there. I wouldn't thumb it in the face of such nice intell and law enforcement folks if I were a Grover type.).

Back to Gaffney and your evident concern about his national security community stature: A month or so ago, Acting SecDef Wolfowitz, the Joint Chiefs Vice Chair Pace, CPA head Bremer and the SecDef addressed his annual dinner, as per usual, along with the Undersecretary of Homeland Security(who weeks later cancelled a day long DHS hug-athon with Norquist' Safuri, CAIR's Awad, and others Grover had introduced to this President and his team). Also attending Gaffney's dinner were the DEA director, Chairmen from the Intelligence and Armed Services committees, and a dozen or so IRS, ICE and DOJ senior types -- the latter of whom had just that day gotten a conviction, it was announced at the dinner to appropriate applause, of yet another American Muslim Council member. (I know, you're possibly thinking, '500 more "racsist and bigots, obviously.)

Anyway, I guess that would be a few national security types who seem to be lining up for Gaffney. Wonder what that means. Hmmm.

7) Gaffney was not the one to initiate this dispute on a "personal" basis as you imply. Norquist began calling "a racist and bigot" Gaffney and anyone who questioned, in any manner, what he was doing and whom he was doing it with re Muslim outreach, and who tried to approach him about it.

It was clear two years ago that Alamoudi, AlArian and others Grover brought into the campaign and was defending were going to be arrested. Gaffney said so. He was attacked, leftist-lenninist style, as "a racist and bigot" -- not by Al Sharpton or Jesse Jacskon, but by that R & B man Norquist, whose only form of rebuttal is the ad hominem and the diversionary and the prevaricating.

[A typical Norquist reply goes something like this: "We've taken no money from Saudi Arabia. Oh, Okay, a bunch of $5000 and $10,000 checks from Saudi Banks and fronts (but only if you have pictures!), but not from the Saudi Goverment. Oh, ok, so the Saudi government is proven to fund the fronts, well how was I supposed to know. Oh, ok, well we gave that back..." This guy could coach Clinton on the meaning of was. ]

Another 'for instance' -- on the Hewitt show , Norquist fumbled and bumbled, unable to directly answer whether he knew Sami Al Arian, the worldwide secretary of Palestinian Islamic Jihad. In the event, Norquist has to be reminded by Hewitt, in front of a patient Gaffney, that this was pretty much a simple 'Yes' or 'No' question. (nb, Hey Grove, the govt. has 27,000 hours of tapes of Sami's phones and faxes; better practice how you answer some of these questions....).

Then, get this, Grover lied straight-out about whether Sami Al Arian had been in the White House under this administration. He smarmily said he hasd just called the White House, and they had told him; and, 'Frank Gaffney could just do the same thing.' Well, thanks, but no need because the Washington Post, WSJ and NEWSWEEK did just that immediately Sami's arrest. And the White House lied to them for 24 hours (something journalists really love of course) -- and finally they had to cop to it, excuse the pun, admitting that Al Arian had been there. Sami sat in the front row in fact. And Sami talked to Rove about Secret Evidence. Gee. Alamoudi said the same thing; even Grover's jailbird donor got it right!

Every major media covering the story ran this fact. Front page in the Post and lead on the NEWSWEEK website. But oh, no, "Gaffney got it wrong," "they all got it wrong," -- all except Grover and his mysterious White House laision. "The White House told me." -- Give me a break!!

If Norquist will lie about that, almost a year later, so bold faced, risibly and shamelessly ---why should anyone believe anything he says? Pray tell.

(Think, too, for a moment, of the deep denial and the deep and condescending hubris that is required to tell such a lie on nationaly syndicated radio, to two knowledgable interlocutors who actually HAVE done their homework, and you get more that just a clue about Norquist's character. And about why in the end he is a danger to this White House).

And ask yourself: Why is such a tortured and twisted trail of explanations, post hoc rationales and mumbling red-faced stares on Norquist's behalf required at every turn of this sordid tale? Ignominy.

Suggestion for Grover et cie: Plea ignorance. Say Grover was duped, "Hustled by the East" as Kipling said, and that he's just having the usual Grover hard heck of time in admitting to being at all Wrong, and in trying then to envision breaking free, and dragging tail away, to say, the Mariannas, for a decent interval. Fine. But the problem will remain that no one so easily and consistently duped should be advising this White House, in a time of war no less, on anything vaguely implicating our nation's security.

Moreover, no one with his ready tendency to accuse other conservatives so glibly of being "racists and bigots" while hiding behind the skirts of power should be tolerated at all. Talk about last refuges of scoundrels! Under fire and testing he has shown his mettle and he is found wanting.

Apologies would be the minimum first step. This country loves second acts, of almost any sort; he's lucky to be an American. So Grover, "Be a man my son." For once, Be a man.

"Ever seen Khaled Saffuri at Norquist's table?"

Only about a hundred times. And you?

Excellent. Oh,But Grover was duped, and how could he have known -- Oh How could anyone have known. An honest mistake. Surely. And still not dispositive. We must reserve judgement, suspend disbelief.

Just a string of mistakes. Ok nearly 6 years of mistakes. Ooops, there I go, sounding like one of those "racists and bigots." The Horror. And to think that all below has now made it into Terrorism hearings, and affafavits and warrants, and... Who knew?

Wall Street Journal "At the same time, the Clinton administration has established close ties with groups like the American Muslim Council, which has supported Hamas and other radical groups. Hillary Clinton has worked particularly closely with the head of the AMC, Abdulrahman Al-Amoudi, who has openly collected funds for the legal defense of Mr Marzuk, the Hamas chieftain arrested at JFK Airport, and for Mr. Abdul-Rahman, who organized the World Trade Center bombing. Raising money for a criminal defense fund is perfectly legal, of course. But would Mrs. Clinton meet with the head of the defense committee for Oklahoma City bombing suspect Timothy McVeigh? Earlier this year Mrs. Clinton met at the White House with Ibrahim Hooper, communications director for the Council on American Islamic Relations. CAIR, based in Washington, was founded in 1994 by Nihad Awad, the former public relations director of the Texas-based Islamic Association of Palestine, which Oliver Revell, the FBI's former head of counterterrorism and now a security consultant, calls a Hamas front. Both CAIR and IAP have disseminated Hamas communiqu‚s and championed the policies of other radical Islamic groups. A recent CAIR report listed as a "hate crimes against Muslims" the conviction of Mr. Abdul-Rahman and the arrest of Mr. Marzuk. CAIR's Board of Advisors includes a number of radicals known for their virulent anti-Semitism and support of the World Trade Center defendants.

I liked this article too, especially the Congressman Was Warned of Lobbyist's Suicide-Bomber Link section at the bottom.
Just too good...

You write,"Yes. Gaffney's "footnoted specifics" are the most blatant use of BS artistry I've seen in years, and I think you ought to be ashamed of yourself for trying to sell crap like this to your fellow Freepers"

Well, maybe you should try your own hand at narrative composition, rather than mere invective. Don't be daunted by the inablity to do fact rebuttal.

Just curous, you say of David and Hugh, "They don't know any more than we know.", -- why do you say this, why do you assume you have as much access/info as they do, or they less than you do, or just what exactly?

Relatedly, you say, immediately after you say you don't "claim to know one way or the other" -- that "All I know is that the people who are in fact running the National Security apparatus are happily watching this happen." Well, "in fact," what DO you know? As I know a good number of them, I'd be curious to get this straight.

Finally, you ask if "terrorists are just blithely waltzing into the White House because they're all too stupid over at 1600 Pennsylvania to know what's going on" - Well, actually, pace my last posting, (and Sabertooth's WSJ reprise of the Clinton era), Yes! Starting with Al Arian and Alamoudi. That's the bloody point!!!!!!

You are now our Jeopardy Winner. Hoo Wah. ( Bonus round: how many before its really "walzing"?) I'm certain you know the answer. Give it a try. You can make use a spacial phone call for this one.

So, Two terrorists, both buds of Grover. Gaffney better catch up.

Ah fiddle, eh, No bid woop. Coincidences happen; it's the White House.