Replies

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.

But it doesn't.

But it does. Anyone who wants to play the "question the motives game" can't declare themselves exempt.

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.

Because inquiries always start somewhere, and this one is starting with Grover, because the evidence of his recklessness is so encyclopedic. Therefore, the focus is on him right now. At some point it might go elsewhere, it might not.
If you've got information about others on whom you'd like to focus, by all means post it. All of this complaining about the focus being on Norquist by folks who've brought nothing else to the table strikes me as misdirection, whether intentional or unintentional.

why is Grover the focus of this? Why isn't the WH being lobbied?

Excellent questions. Grover anti-taxers and the rest of Bush's political base must be dismantled to maximize neocon leverage on the upcoming election.

First they trashed the paleos, now it's the libertarian and anti-tax people's turn to burn at the stake. Some shots have already been fired directly at W. from the loose cannon crowd. Look for the assault to intensify. You may find this thread excellent background for understanding why/how anyone would do such a thing: Bush’s Coming Betrayal of the Evangelicals