Posted on 09/26/2004 10:40:57 AM PDT by mjp
But aren't the Republicans spending like drunken sailors?
bump for later
Some people have interpreted this sequence of events as indicating that Norquist is in bed with creepy Arabs. The other possibility seems to elude them.
*If* this is all true, then why is it necessary to bring dangerous islamists into the White House -- and, I assume, into the Oval Office and in contact with the President of the United States? Isn't that a bit dangerous? I mean, they are risking a great deal in order to set up a sting, no?
This afternoon, I was in a local department store and saw a woman pushing a stroller, with a toddler wearing a "I Now Know More Than the President" t-shirt. I sneered at her and was *soooo* tempted to tell her "That may be true, but I think the kid surpasses you by a mile!"
I hope everyone reads our post and understands the propar application of the term "begging the question."
"The Democratic Party is Toast"
Ohhhhhh my gosh, (sarcasm) Is this topic wishing a certain party death? I'd respond further but I would get banned because some extremists on the left and right might assume I mean death to people...gasp
Oh please. What a clever little way to try to shut up those who disagree with you: make the most insidious accusations against them, regardless of the facts.
And the most important fact is that those of us who have concerns about Norquist have them not because of the "skin color" of some of his associates (and it may come as a surprise to you that not all Muslims are dark-skinned), but because of the virulent and dangerous ideology they publicly espouse.
We don't have a problem with normal, moderate, mainstream Muslims, but with those who wish to spread a particularly nasty form of it (Wahabbism), and do so forcefully, if they feel compelled.
Oh, and I see that Norquist's little "Muslim Outreach Program" has really worked out well -- something like 75% of Muslims polled plan to vote for Kerry.
The White House is rumored to have excellent security.
True, but it's not perfect. Lots of things can go wrong (on 9/11, I saw many things that I never in my life thought would happen), and I'm not convinced that bringing dangerous islamofascist terrorists/terrorist supporters into the White House and in close proximity to the President is really necessary in order to later arrest them.
Most people who have connections and want to talk up their special interests don't always get to meet with the President. Perhaps they could just meet with Rove or Card at a local Denny's? Wouldn't that be safer?
If you know in advance which ones are the dangerous Islamofascists, you should let the FBI in on your secret. The problem we had after 9/11 was that nobody knew. That's because all during the Clinton years, the FBI had been prohibited from conducting surveillance on these guys due to politically-correct "racial profiling" concerns. One of the first things we had to figure out was who these guys were, how many there were, and how they were being funded.
Even *if* all this secret spy stuff is true, why is it necessary to bring them into the White House? Even the best security in the world can't prevent every possible disaster.
As the (by now) old saying goes: The terrorists only have to be lucky once -- we have to be lucky 100% of the time.
And bringing known or strongly suspected islamofascist terrorists into the White House, especially when we *know* that they want to destroy the White House and kill President Bush, just seems like an unnecessary risk.
Thank you.
I like blueberry jam best, followed by rapsberry.
You don't think they weighed those concerns? The SS is pretty paranoid about people blowing up the President.
Excellent analysis.
One additional thing - - with Republicans remaining in control of the Justice Department, there is no longer any "looking the other way" when it comes to Democrat vote fraud. I predict that the second Dubya Administration will put a focus on cleaning up the election process (and about time, I would add). This is very bad news for the scumbag Democrats.
It would be hard-to-refuse bait.
The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the "sting" theory is the best explanation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.