| *Detailing the Islamist ties of Grover Norquist = accusing President Bush of treason? No sir, and stop being disingenuous about it.
Heal thyself. That's exactly the false simile you're cobbling together... "Are you paying attention? This guy is accusing the President of the United States of treason. He's being really weasely about it, but that's what he's doing."
-- Nick Danger
...and you're about to prove it, with a false analogy... Our mystery correspondent is detailing precisely the same sort of "Islamist ties" with George W. Bush that he been detailing with Mr. Norquist.
Did you notice your use of the word "ties?" It's plural. More on that in a bit, among other things. The only difference is that, when I call him on it, he lies about it. And then he sends you over to lie about it some more.
How quaintly conspiratorial. No one sends me anywhere. If you'd done your homework (and there's really no excuse for your omission, given that we're approaching post #700), and clicked on FR keywords like NORQUIST, GROVERNORQUIST, ENEMYWITHIN, KAHLEDSAFFURI, SIDDIQI, SUHAILKHAN, ALITULBAH, GAFFNEY, ISLAMICINSTITUTE, AMC, MPAC, NCPPF, and not a few others, you'd know that I've been all over these threads, with hundreds of posts, articles, excerpts, and links. I was doing this long before Trollstomper ever even registered on this site, and long before you showed much of an interest in the material. By the way, you've accused me of lying. Have you been able to refute a thing that's been posted? I suggest you put up or shut up, Nick. Show where I've "lied." Let's stop lying about what this guy is doing, OK? Here is a quote from his note, not mine:
...in another one of those darned coincidences, Othman just happens to be on the Board on at least one of Yaqub Mirza's investment funds (other Mirza funds you might have heard of include MENA Invesments, MarJac--both raided -- and a little thing called the Ptech Investment Fund, which funded, along with designated global terrorist Yasin Qadi, the software company Ptech raided and closed last year in Boston for a variety of terrorism charges. see endnote.) Now might it bother someone that this Othman guy joins the Board of a fund run by a terrorist finance wiz, who also funded Norquist buddy Al Arian and Grover's Institute (Institute took at least $46,000 before 9/11 from this source).
Who is this guy? He's an old Bush family friend. Not a Norquist family friend, a Bush family friend. A man who was on the board, not of Grover Norquist's oil company, because Grover Norquist never had an oil company. It was George W. Bush's oil company. Let me repeat that so even you can't screw this up: We are here detailing the terrorist connections of one George W. Bush, not to be confused with Mr. Grover Norquist, who never had an oil company, and whose name is not "Bush," as in "old Bush family friend.
That's it? You said: "Our mystery correspondent is detailing precisely the same sort of "Islamist ties" with George W. Bush that he been detailing with Mr. Norquist." You plucked a single paragraph about President Bush's contact with Othman some years ago, and how Othman later went on to have pro-terror affiliations. Then you compared that to the yards of column inches that have been posted about Norquist's activities with several indicted terrorists (Al Arian and Alamoudi, for starters), terror symps, and terror orgs, and you concluded that means that President Bush and Grover Norquist have "precisely the same sort of 'Islamist ties.'" To you, one is "precisely the same" as the other? As you jump off the ledge of logic, I hope your bungie cord stretches as far. There is no equating what's known about Norquist with your attempt to stage a little "gotcha" against a new poster who makes you uncomfortable. Additionally, what we have in Norquist are not only Islamist ties that are flagrant, and in many cases ongoing, and in the context of September 11th, but also a clear lack of contrition, dissembling, and race-baiting. We have none of that in President Bush, nor is anyone suggesting that we will. Finally, who has accused Norquist of treason? No one. Yet you have the cheek to say: "This guy is accusing the President of the United States of treason. He's being really weasely about it, but that's what he's doing." Sheesh. You've been drawing from the same bag-o-nothing the entire thread. You don't address facts, or substance; you attack the messenger, and you're doing it in just the same way the Norquist has, equating criticism of him with criticism of President Bush. Let's the crap here, OK? This guy is a fruitcake of some kind who doesn't know what hell he's talking about himself.
If you want to cut the crap, then cut it. If you think other people are posting crap, then demonstrate it. You're months behind the curve on this, but go ahead, work the search engine a bit, see what you can do. The obvious conclusion from the totality of your posts on this thread, Nick, is that you, in point of fact, don't know what you're talking about with regard to this subject. Or he claims that sentences that refer to someone named "Bush" are about Norquist, or Rove, or Santa Claus. Well, who are you going to believe, him or your own lying eyes? If he has a case against Bush, let's hear it. He won't talk about that, because everybody would know he's a nut. Hello? He is a nut. He's a veritable fountain of little tiny details and absolutely no context to put them in except his own personal hatred of Grover Norquist. He's like the Rainman of terrorism. He can tell you how many matches were left on the table after some meeting three years ago, but he can't tell you that he just linked Bush with terrorists five seconds after doing it. Either that or he doesn't have the guts to come right out and say it. And I don't blame him, because if he did, people would laugh him off the stage.
This is just an ad hominem rant. You're out of your depth here, and swimming with a tinfoil scuba tank. You're usually a sharp poster. This thread has not been your finest hour. You need to do the homework, get up to speed on this story, and try again. You entered this thread because of the Free Republic Network's connections to Grover Norquist. You reflexively wanted to defend him, which is not unadmirable on it's own. He's done right by you, and you feel grateful. Soon, however, you were singing from the Rahm Emmanuel Tactical Hymnal. You want to play attack the messenger? Fair enough. Here's the lense through which every one of your posts on this thread ought to be viewed: "In short, Grover Norquist has been of enormous help to us in connecting us with other people and organizations that share our goals."
-- Nick Danger
Or, if you like, you can get in the real game, and post something of substance.
|
