[Nick Danger]

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?

[philman_36]

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.

[Trollstomper]

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

Only about a hundred times. And you?

[Trollstomper]

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.

[hchutch]

Again, excellent points.

So a guy's father is a jerk - does that provide any reason to question the loyalty of the guy's kids?

Gaffney's crusade against Norquist has managed to top the BS level that the Clinton-Reno Justice Department took to against Microsoft.

That says a lot.

[Sabertooth]

*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.

The "offsetting ad hominems" point is, you have a personal stake in Norquist's fortunes. Therefore, even if it's personal between Gaffney and Norquist, you can't objectively wave away the particulars on the basis of that alone.

*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!

For the benefit of our fellow Freepers, let's take a look at the conclusion of that section of the article, which you truncated...

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. Indeed, the lure of such political dividends induced Governor Bush to hold a meeting in his mansion in Austin on May 1, 2000, not only with Alamoudi and Saffuri, but with other, immoderate Muslims, as well. As the National Journal reported:

It was the summer of 2000, and for George W. Bush, the meeting held the promise of an unusual but important endorsement for his presidential bid. Conservative activist Grover Norquist had persuaded the Republican nominee to sit down with leaders of the Muslim American Political Coordinating Committee, a confederation of four Muslim community groups.²³

In addition to Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council, the group included the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). CAIR’s executive director, Nihad Awad is another self-professed Hamas-supporter and, as will be discussed further below, its radical agenda and ties have recently been the focus of sharp, bipartisan criticism in Sen. Kyl’s Judiciary subcommittee.

Saffuri had also arranged for the Bush campaign to enlist Sami al-Arian, a well-known Florida-based activist – despite the fact that the professor made little secret of his radical Islamist sympathies – to help engender Muslim support in his state.²⁴ A photograph of Mr. Bush taken with al-Arian in March 2000 subsequently received considerable attention after the professor was arrested last February on 40 terrorism-related counts. Of particular concern are those alleging his functional direction over the past 19 years of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, one of the most murderous terrorist organizations in the Middle East.²⁵

Not quite "booga booga" anymore, is it?

By asking that you address the particulars, I did not intend to convey "omit the context."

Grover Norquist and Khaled Saffuri associated with known "bad guys" (to use Norquist's term for them), American Muslims with open terror-sympathies, and brought them into contact with the Bush campaign and White House, both before and after September 11th.

Saffuri himself has many questionable positions and affiliations in his resume.

You've contended elsewhere that this is part of some pattern of surveillance by the Bush camp:

"You watch the known bads to build a model of what unknown bads look like. In order to do that, you have to let your known ones run around and be bad a little bit."

Are we to conclude that the Bush campaign was letting "known bads" get close to him, even before he was elected President, as part of some master strategery to root out Islamist terror sympathizers?

Do all campaigns do this?