Replies

To tell people that Grover Norquist knows a guy who works at the White House whose father was a terrorist does not pass my test for linking Grover Norquist with terrorists.

No, actually the point is that Grover placed him there -- his payback demand for "delivering the Muslim vote" -- after Khan served a stint on the campaign and on the Board of the Islamic Institute. Nobody, nobdoy, vets for who your father is in the security community. As I've said before, when the USSS caught Samil Al Arian's son because of his name, and escorted him from the building, Grover, Saffuri and the lobby went crazy and got Rove to demand, via the President, an apology. The President then also called Mrs. Al Arian, as above mentioned. So that sent an eveen clearer reminder to the USSS: if the guy's father is Hitler, don't say anything. Again, how things work in the real world is a bit different than you see to think, or indeed, than any of us might like. Again, though, the question is not what is the fail safe, the question is why are all these people associated with Grover, virtually every one of them, as donors, associates, or II staff, one or two clicks away from terror or a terror nexis.

Stop searching for motives; the facts stand on their own, irrespective of Gaffney's narrative style. What is your's by the way, and do you as a result of your style and expertise appear on CNN, FOX, MSNBC, CSB, etc., daily and in hundreds of newspapers, etc. Stop doing your cheap shot literary-pscyhology analysis from the gallery. Does "flag words" actually mean "trigger words" as in words like evidence "trigger" some paranoid psychosis in you? It seems like it. But clever fellow that you are you "don't fall for crap like that" Neither do I. ON elast time on your "take down" screeds: I have plainly said, Grover has done these things, is still doing them, and needs to be stopped, for clear national security reasons. I am a national security professional and it is my duty. Simple as that. People actually do their jobs for honest and "pure" reasons. If you are some cynical crank angry at things he can't understand or control or play in, keep it to yourself.

..I am a national security professional..

No you're not. People like that don't post their activities on internet forums. What you're doing here is the last thing any of them would do.

Whatever is with this Nyquist person, who I gather has been around DC for decades, it's no secret to the people in charge of WH security.

And the idea that their interdiction of security threats could or would be be compromised by Karl Rove is juvenile. That a first-rate political operative like Rove would endanger his principal (Bush) for the sake of potential gain or harm among 1% of the electorate is a suggestion that could be advanced only by someone with a profound ignorance of the basic elements of this situation.

I don't know who or what you really are; there is a certain adolescent quality to your manner of expression. Of course your screen name is quite suggestive. In any event, I don't believe a word you're saying, including 'a', 'an' and 'the'.

Grover has done these things, is still doing them, and needs to be stopped, for clear national security reasons. I am a national security professional and it is my duty. Simple as that.

And that is why Frank Gaffney is in FrontPage magazine, and on Hewett, and why you are here on Free Republic. Because this is where national security professionals always go to do their duty. We always have big media take-downs of these national security threats; that's how it's done, right?

People actually do their jobs for honest and "pure" reasons.

I'm sure that's true. This is not one of those times. This is one of the times when people of ill will are conducting a media hit in public. That they would do so under color of protecting the national security is a misuse of their positions, and of the trust that the public places in them. I hope it is not also a misuse of the powers that the public has granted them, for that would be terrifying.