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.
|
