Replies

There is one major difference:

Clinton protected the folks HE was in pictures with and obstructed investigations that were, IMO, critical to national security. These arrests seem to indicate that Bush apparently has NOT done such a thing.

That's a fair point, as far as Al Arian goes.
However, since he's been on an FBI watch list for years, there's no excuse for Norquist providing him withg access to Bush during the 2000 campaign. And it's Norquist's appallingly bad judgement (at best) that is at issue, not only with Al Arian, but with all of the terrorist sympathizers whith whom he's chosen to associate.
While we shouldn't necessarily fault President Bush for occasionally getting and acting on bad advice, those who gave the advice should be called to account, no?

Look, a lot of this is an issue because Frank Gaffney made some comments about a White House aide that were VERY close to slanderous. Comments that at least TWO Freepers heard firsthand. Both of those Freeprs felt that Norquist's characterization of them was accurate.

Neither Gaffney nor Norquist have clean hands on this one, and as far as I'm concerned, Grover Norquist needs to reconsider some of the people he has associated himself with. At the same time, Gaffney needs to put up with proof about the allegations that he made with regards to the aide in question, or he needs to apologize.

Had he merely expressed concern about some of the Moslem leaders that were in the White House, Norquist would not have a leg to stand on. But Gaffney made serious accusations he did NOT back up with proof at CPAC, and Norquist called him on it.

Norquist's "bad advice" aside, he appears to be right about Gaffney's comments. Hold Norquist accountable, but if Gaffney does NOT produce proof of his allegations against that aide, then he'd better be held accountable, too. And quite frankly, I consider slander to be far worse than "giving bad advice."