Replies

I have been quietly following this lengthy discussion and I really have to ask: Why would Grover turn from being a tireless supporter of conservative principles to being someone subverting US security interests?

I really, really have a hard time believing that Grover is actively working to help Islamic extremists take down this country. Was he always working to do this, or is a recent enterprise? When exactly did he go bad?

You may be in the Security community, but people who know Grover and have worked with Grover have got to find this accusation of an organized attempt to compromise the US, as an incredible one. (Yes, yes I know you have worked and known Grover for over 20 years, I am refering to people who do not have the benefit of the US Intel aparatus.)

You don't need to get all snippy with me. I am honestly presenting my point of view. I have no idea about the validity of the accusations made against him, but I do find it hard to swallow that he is actively working to damage the US.

Thanks, and frankly, I too "...find it hard to swallow that he is actively working to damage the US."

However,I know for a fact that the facts and the fact-driven implications laid out by Gaffney , are as Horowitz points out, too sadly too true for too long now to be further ignored.

As to motives, I have some ideas, there are a couple of theories I find credible but can't really address here. It is anyway distinctly beside the point. It is demonstrably doing harm, it already has placed the President and members of his cabinet in photos on the front page of the Washington Post (9/17/01) with known supporters of terrorism and financial contributors to charities designated by that same President as terror organizations and thus barred and frozen. Grover did that, Grover lied about it; Grover is still doing such things and still lying about it.

When you need to stop, say a shooter, you do everything to interdict him. You then worry about what his motivations were. That is someone else's problem and will not be dispositive. I do appreciate the obvious difficulty people have in coming to grips with it; especially those who have the star view from afar. Believe me, Gaffney, Horowitz, Timmerman and all of us have other things to do, but we believe this is critical, mostly for its exposure for the President who has in his public statements clearly said that we make no distinction between those who support or house or finance a terrorist and the terrorist. Grover and Saffuri have set us up for a killer split-screen ad from Dean et al showing the President saying that on the left side and the President meeting with Nihad Awad, Khaled Saffuri, Siddiqi, Bray, et al, and praising Alamoudi for his good works, on the right side. "Which Bush do You Believe the one who condemns terrorist or the one who coddles them", etc. An unnecesary exposure on the both the issue of the President's crediblity and his security policy - the latter brought upon us by someone trying, beyond his ken, to play fast and loose in the national security sandbox.

I'm sorry but that is how it is and it will increasingly be so proven over coming months; one way or the other. The idea is to have a controlled detonation (the movement, the government) versus the Post or Newsweek.

As to timing , he started this process in 1998.

"...but people who know Grover and have worked with Grover ...." Yes, starting with Horowitz, Frank and myself, and Timmerman, and Waller, and Berlau and Keene, and Charen, and Lowry, York, etc., etc. What we found even more incredible, is the spleen and speed with which he turned on us all for merely suggesting he read some documents about these same people, including the ones since arrested. Everyone of a certain senority in the movement here has witnessed his irrational, red-faced, steamed-glasses yelling at people and generally boorish behavior and have concluded that there is most likely a deeper problem for him than just his famous difficulty in admitting mistakes.

By the way, since College Republican Days, Grover has kept file on his enemies, part of the tactics of Lenin he prouldy emulates. So for those of us who have known him that long, what is INCREDIBLE is that he suddenly wants us to believe that he knew nothing about Saffuri and the others with whom he has been associated in this tale. Again, if you are here, involved in all of this and privy to much more than has made it past the lawyers at Frontpage and into print, trust me, you would feel a lot more betrayed, incredulous, disappointed and needful of speedy redress. For us this is not just our 'movement', or the guy who we see in our homestate or at CPAC, this is someone who has been our colleague for decades and has chosen to decieve and dissemble and to "deny everything and make counter accusations" -- a phrase Grover would readily recognize. But one which was only supposed to apply to what used to be our common enemies. Thanks for your remarks.