Replies

I'll ask again in an effort to build that starting point...If you had high level access to the WH and the POTUS would you personally take it upon yourself to ensure that whoever you brought in for a visit was on the up and up beforehand, no matter if it was supposed to be "someone else's job" or not?

Well, to answer your earlier questions, I'm not Norquist. Or Rove. Or GWB for that matter. Along with that, I'm also not the Secret Service, the FBI, the CIA, or any of the other folks we put in charge of tracking terrorists and terrorist sympathizers. Neither, to my knowledge, is Grover Norquist. And concomitant with my failure to be those people or institutions, I don't have the resources that they have. And if they knew something about these guys that I didn't, and used it to play "gotcha" rather than letting me or their masters - remember them? the people they're supposed to report to? - I'd probably be a bit pissed off too.

Well, gee Wally, do you think it's because Norquist arranged the meeting and they trusted him to vet those he brought in? Did they even know exactly which individuals were being brought in or was it just a "some guys I know" type of thing.

I dunno. Why in the hell didn't they ASK? Or am I supposed to believe that Grover Norquist can stroll up to the front gate with Osama bin Laden in tow, and everyone there will just wave them into the Oval Office, no questions asked - because hey, it's Grover, right?

She wrote that President Clinton ``wasn't sure we'd want photos of him with these people circulating around''....the White House determined that Wang Jun had not been vetted by the NSC

Et cetera. You'll have to excuse me if I hold this White House to a slightly higher standard than the last one.

Such minor things though. No sense getting too complicated as to specific responsibilities, is there.

Let's see. Shall I go through and count the number of threads that blamed all the Clintoon Chinagate problems on Chung and Charlie Trie and the rest of those characters? Or maybe, just maybe, I'll find a whole bunch of threads assigning responsibility to the man at the top, Der Schlicker himself. Is that where this is going? Is Grover just a convenient knife with which to stab Bush? 'Cause it's starting to look that way to me - is that where you want to go with this? Is that what this is all about?

And if they knew something about these guys that I didn't, and used it to play "gotcha" rather than letting me or their masters -"

FYI, No one is playing "gotcha" --if anything the game is "Stop Ya."

The point as almost everyone else seems to get, is that Norqyist is the one who knew who these people were. If he didn't why was he taking their money, sharing an office with their deputies and speaking at untold numbers of events with them and getting their awards for 5 years? Is it because he's the dumbest person on L street?

Just FYI: There is no Thought Policy Division of the Secret Service. It is not anyone's job to ideologically vet those taking meetings in the WH complex except those arranging their own meetings.

If you are the WH in-house staffer or outside advisor on Veterans coalitions, and you decide you want to bring Jane Fonda in, it is no one's job in the security, intell or scheduling office to tell you "No", question your decision or anything else.

No outstanding warrants, no threats to the President, and she's in.

The responsible and guilty person is the one who brings her in. period. That's how it works whether you think its laughable or not. This is only further compounded when it turns out that this same person took money from "Ted" or "Jane," and a little from some known fronts for Soros and Hanoi, and to top it off used "Jane's" former congressional agitator to do all the leg work. Got it? Ok, now, slowly, substitute "Grover" for "the person", and "Alamoudi" for "Jane", and "Saudi" for "Hanoi," and...

Using this simple diagram, we can see that IT IS NOT SOMEONE ELSE's JOB -- IT IS GROVER's . Call it the burden of access, fame and power -- a terribly heavy thing, but some of us have to do it, and it's only once every few years that someone comes this close this often to screwing it so big.

Why in the hell didn't they ASK?
Good question! And an even better question...Why aren't they asking now?
Or am I supposed to believe that Grover Norquist can stroll up to the front gate with Osama bin Laden in tow, and everyone there will just wave them into the Oval Office, no questions asked - because hey, it's Grover, right?
Well, you can believe what you choose to believe. Why you're asking me what you're supposed to believe is beyond me. Nevertehless, Grover is considered part and parcel of the whole package, whether it is liked or not.
You'll have to excuse me if I hold this White House to a slightly higher standard than the last one.
Doesn't seem like you're doing that to me. You, and others, appear to be trying to minimize affiliations that have gone on since before the last election for political expediency.
Shall I go through and count the number of threads that blamed all the Clintoon Chinagate problems on Chung and Charlie Trie and the rest of those characters?
Nah, I'm familiar with all of that too and it would merely be a diversion. I'd rather we stick to the stuff this thread is talking about. I was merely using those things as illustrations.
Or maybe, just maybe, I'll find a whole bunch of threads assigning responsibility to the man at the top, Der Schlicker himself.
Now that I would like to see! Maybe though, you couldn't.
Is that where this is going?
Is that where what is going? You have a most infuriating manner of asking incomplete questions.
Is Grover just a convenient knife with which to stab Bush?
To me, as I see it, Grover is stabbing himself with the proverbial knife and I'm the one hoping it doesn't end up in someone else. You seem to care not where the blade ends up.
'Cause it's starting to look that way to me - is that where you want to go with this?
Why are you also doing this? All you're doing here is the same BobJ did with his "this is not the mountain you want to die on." threat. You're the ones who need to be called "Francis" if anyone does!
Is that what this is all about?
Another of those incomplete questions. How do you ever expect anyone to carry on a conversation with you? Or is it that you have no wish to carry on a conversation with anyone so you ask incomplete questions deliberately?

The two of you have given me an epiphany though with your 513-517 replies. The MO is so obvious now.
I'll see the both of you on the next WOsD threads in ya'lls various pseudonymous characters.