Replies

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.

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

No, I'm observing that it goes both ways: as to goose, so to gander.
People can deny they're defending Norquist all they want, but when their overwhelming focus is to ignore all of the information about him and speculate instead about the thought processes of others bringing them the information, then we're free to draw contrary conclusions.

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.

Precisely.

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.

By the standards of some, your above statement is tantamount to an accusation of treason against some in the White House. I'm not making that leap, but others have. That has a history of happening on Norquist threads, with the intent of driving recipients of the strawman from the forum.
I have a history of suggesting that it shouldn't happen.

"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."

A kid is seeling drugs in shcool. Do we focus and rely on the Principal,the parents the kid -- we do all, whatever it takes, unitl interdiction is accomplished and there are no more drugs in school, at least via that conduit. So too here, whatever it takes, whatever angle and order of battle, until interdiction occurs and there are no more Islamists coming into the WH, Admin and our movement.

You are right, as I have said before re Sauds, US Policy, etc., that there are larger problems, but in the nature of "don't let the perfect solution be the enemy of the good solution" we cannot be paralysed by that.