Replies

Anyway , no one is suggesting the shoudl be run out "on a rail." Nor is Gaffney suggesting that he is a traitor.

People on this board have done just that either directly or by innuendo. That is what I have been objecting to. Also, I have not criticized Gaffney. We have had him on RadioFR and I find him to be sincere and a fine researcher.

Norquist has some 'splaining to do and I hope he does so quickly and thoroughly. Until he does that, I suggest we ignore the "hang him from the nearest tree" crowd. He deserves the benefit of the doubt until the entire story can be addressed from both sides.

That's the point: Grover refuses to seriously engage, understand the facts as listed and deal with them rather than recasting them and then shooting htem down. FOr instance, Gaffney never accused Khan or Tulbah of "treason" he said that they were the ones who the wrong Muslim groups had thanked for bringing them into the White House.

IN so stating, Gaffney pointed out that both of their fathers had demonstrable Wahhabi connections. Several major papers wrote about Khan the elder hosting Al Qaeda' s number 2 (among other things Khan senior did, including start a host of spin-off groups some of which are vicously anti-Semetic and anti-American, Americans for Global Peace and Justice), and any serious effort to research the people who run the Greater Houston Islamic Center (a collection of a few dozen mosques, schools, etc) where Tulbah Sr. controlled the money, whould reveal that a number of the members of the fiqh and khtub councils also run pro-AlQaeda websites and praise bin Laden.

Once, in office, these two young men seemed only to be inviting the individuals and groups Gaffney cites and most all now agree were the wrong groups. In turn those groups are ideologically and otherwise very much related to, and in the same vein as, those the fathers where part of running and funding. Gaffney simply suggested that may be why the sons then seem to only bring them into the White House. That's who they grew up around and can most easily and credibly reach out to, etc. Just like Red Diaper Babies and Port Huron Statement signers.

IF all of you would actually get down on the ground and research the groups and people, instead of lofting alleged principles and concepts, you would get a clearer picture. Gaffney has done a serious, well-footnoted effort at this and it provides an excellent point of departure for people who are serious to begin their own research. Grover clearly has not aND WILL NOT. A person like Gaffney who is a serious national security professional would never bring someone to the Secretary of Defense and suggest they be, for instance, placed on an arms control advisory group, without fulllyexmining their record, public statements, interviewing people who worked with them over the years, etc. Grover,and anyone given his role and WH relationship, shoould do the same. When they don't one, ends up with a pile of "unfortunate" associations that you have to strain all credulity to excuse time and time again.