[Sabertooth]

I have to wonder if this snip above is indicative of all your other posts on this issue.

Why wonder? Why not read the thread in it's entirety?

My post is indicative of an objection, on my part, after much patience, to the low crap that Nick Danger has been trying to pull on this thread, not the least his baseless charge of calling me a liar.

Please stop implying that Nick's objections and arguments are on account of some "debt to Grover" because I might start to think this is your modus operandi, to take one statement out of context (which you just did) and attempt to make it appear nefarious. It isn't. No one is in a position to defend Grover, except Grover. You may not like that Nick is questioning this issue, but don't make this into some obligation to defend Grover. I can bet you that Grover Norquist doesn't know who "Nick Danger" is.

Please understand that if Nick Danger wants to play ad hominem fallacies based on dark speculations as to the motives of others, then turnabout is fair play.

Nick's not questioning the issue; he's questioning motives of messengers. He must feel that's all he's got.

I'm well aware of the need for Norquist to say something convincing in his own defense. By some striking coincidence, he also hasn't addressed the issues; he's attacked the messengers and questioned their motives.

Of Nick and the others on this thread who've chosen to go that route, repeatedly, I've repeatedly requested that they address the substance of the case.

Their inability or unwillingness to do so has been amply apparent.

You want context?

Here's what I said:

You want to play attack the messenger?

Fair enough. Here's the lense through which every one of your posts on this thread ought to be viewed:

"In short, Grover Norquist has been of enormous help to us in connecting us with other people and organizations that share our goals."
-- Nick Danger

Or, if you like, you can get in the real game, and post something of substance. #692

You want context? Then don't ignore mine.

I was giving Nick an option to to feel the near edge of his chosen ad hominem sword, or to rejoin the debate on substance.

The fact of the matter is that, thus far, Nick Danger and the other Norquist defenders on this thread have had their heads handed to them. They're short on facts and long at grasping at straws.

If they want to be taken seriously, then they need to be serious.

Their invitation to start is as open now as when this thread began.

[swarthyguy]

Well, if Grover Norquist had the good sense and the smarts to court those muslims not of the wacky wahhabi persuasion, he would be performing a valuable service.

As it is, his shilling for this group of nutcases borders on the treasonous.

It is ignorance of the nuances of various muslims sects that is the main issue; his refusal to acknowledge his "mistakes", if that's what they really are and his shameless dismissal of those who disagree with him as racists.

Sweet, isn't it?

[diotima]

You write: The fact of the matter is that, thus far, Nick Danger and the other Norquist defenders on this thread have had their heads handed to them. They're short on facts and long at grasping at straws.

I offered: Nick Danger: Be careful here. I am not "defending Norquist" from things he actually did, if in fact they were wrong. I am not on some mission here to claim that he is pure in all of this. I don't claim to know. What I do know is that this document which has been presented to us as containing "documented facts" contains a whole bunch of documented facts that don't tell us anything, but are being presented as if they are some sort of damning indictment. HERE

When Gaffney wants to come out and write this piece, questions will be asked about his motives, his evidence and his facts. On the other hand, you are are trying to create suspicion about Nick's objections (when none exists and the extent of any FRN "relationship" with Norquist has been fully stated and demonstrated to be casual and innocuous at best) and insinuate that his questions and his argument is motivated by some allegiance that doesn't exist.

So while there are no nefarious motives to Nick's objections, there are questions surrounding Gaffney's focus on Grover rather then say...the WH. If there is such a security issue here, I'd think the people to talk to and persuade would be the WH. It would be rather simple to just have Grover's access cut off, if the WH thought there was some kind of threat.

If you ask me, the fact that there seems to be some horrible intelligence breakdown at the highest levels of government is the REAL BIG DEAL HERE.

And don't even try and ascribe my questions above to being a "defense of Grover." They aren't, I have no idea what Grover's defense or response is. I'm not here to defend his choice to associate with purported terrorists. But I am here to question why the WH lets this go on. Any influence he has is because the WH grants it to him. Grover could be marginalized in a New York minute. That isn't happening and I have to ask why.