Mona Charen in her article called CUAD "his" group and attributed to Mahmoud Khalil.everything CUAD did or said. After I read Mona's article, I did hours of research to determine what made his supposed views so abhorrent. Like you suggest, there is ZERO evidence, not even hearsay, of anything he said or did which could conceivably be considered bad. No link or endorsement to Hamas. Not even a leadership position in CUAD. (That particular lie originated from a pro-Israel group without any stated basis, and has been explicitly denied by Khalil.) Everything I could find that Khalil did or said was laudable rather than abhorrent.
If the lies or innuendo about Khalil were true, I likely also would be disgusted, even while supporting his right to say those things. As is, I am really disappointed in the Bulwark contributors who have accepted those untruths as gospel. Those untruths detract from the ugly and dangerous actions by the Trump administration, and thus hurts the Bulwark's mission.
Mona Charen in her article called CUAD "his" group and attributed to Mahmoud Khalil.everything CUAD did or said. After I read Mona's article, I did hours of research to determine what made his supposed views so abhorrent. Like you suggest, there is ZERO evidence, not even hearsay, of anything he said or did which could conceivably be considered bad. No link or endorsement to Hamas. Not even a leadership position in CUAD. (That particular lie originated from a pro-Israel group without any stated basis, and has been explicitly denied by Khalil.) Everything I could find that Khalil did or said was laudable rather than abhorrent.
If the lies or innuendo about Khalil were true, I likely also would be disgusted, even while supporting his right to say those things. As is, I am really disappointed in the Bulwark contributors who have accepted those untruths as gospel. Those untruths detract from the ugly and dangerous actions by the Trump administration, and thus hurts the Bulwark's mission.