Replies

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.

No, I'm observing that it goes both ways: as to goose, so to gander.

But it doesn't. There is no reason to questions Nick's motives, but there are reasons to go after Gaffney's. Namely, why is Grover the focus of this? Why isn't the WH being lobbied? The WH is enabling everything Norquist is able to do. If you want to continue to beat the hell out of Norquist you are welcome to do so, but I see no practical point to it. Because Norquist isn't the real issue. The real issue is that the WH is letting him continue.

If they don't care who Norquist is bringing in, or they don't have sufficient intel to know, then Grover is nothing compared to the problem that we have on our hands. Namely, that there is a War on Terror going on but the WH has a lack of good intel information. Then I have to ask on how many fronts does the WH have a lack of intel?

So if this is all for national security's sake, why isn't the focus on the highest levels of government rather than Grover? Again, this could all be stopped by the WH.

As for treason, I am far from it. I don't believe for one second the WH has no idea who is coming or going. I am assuming that they know there is no real smoke where you say there is fire. Because to assume to opposite, that they are clueless and don't care about terrorists, is insane.