"If I'm wasting your time, why do you keep repsonding...."
You actually made the case quite strongly for my own point of view. I thought it would be fun to show the intelligent posters on this board the ignorance of posters such as yourself. You've risen to the challenge.
You have offered zippo proof. You denigrate and smear Pipes, Gaffney, Emerson based on your own personal feelings and no evidence, whatsover. You accuse those against Norquist of the same, yet they have provided evidence and YOU have not.
"and there are holes in everyone of the so-called facts you just presented."
Untrue. Of course, if there had been, you would have easily been able to document any falsehoods. Of course, you haven't, you can't because I understand that fact is truth, and you, sadly, do not grasp that concept.
You asked for proof, I gave it, you ignored it and made statements such as "So What?"
"... Dan Pipes, Frank Gaffney and Steve Emerson are NOT journalists - investigative or otherwise - they are propagandists.... polemisists... advocates...."
Ah, so anyone who disagrees with you gets called names...
You are guilty of slandering and smearing these men based upon your hysterical feelings. I have offered evidence backing my claims...you have not.
You have clearly stated in your previous posts that you don't care to comprehend the truth...it gets in the way of your story.
"not journalists. If all this is SO true, where is the Newsweek cover story? The New York Times investigative piece? The expose in Mother Jones? The NBC News white paper? The CNN Special Report? Surely the liberal media would have a field day with this if it were all true...."
Why don't you ask them? You seem to have a lot in common with the above group...they too have little regard for the facts, evidence and truth. You must be a fan of Jayson Blair, formerly of the NY Times. He made a career out of ignoring the truth.
" or are they in the Bush White House pocket too?"
Don't put words in my mouth. What is wrong with you?
Who said ANYTHING about anyone being in the Bush White House? Grover Norquist has continued close ties with terror sympathizers. You're the one who doesn't have a problem with him allowing these radicals access to the President....don't put words in my mouth.
I told you not to waste my time...
I will be more clear. Your behavior is abnormal. You are illogical, and incapable of an intelligent, factual based discussion.
You are wasting my time, you have nothing coherent to say and you are immature and childish in that you need to have the last word.
You've made my point.
Don't contact me again.
You continue to err or infer on several points, among them, that I engaged in name calling when I referred to Pipes, Emerson, Gaffney as propagandists, polemicists, advocates. These are, in the political realm, honorable pursuits -- they are just not journalism. You can put lipstick on a pig but it doesn't make him a beauty queen.
As to the lack of anyone filing a law suit as evidence of guilt, let me say that is simply preposterous. Why should anyone spend their time and their money on a lawsuit to answer frivolous charges made be a source who is hardly credible that are more an annoying than they are damaging. The potential gain in such circumstances do not outweigh the costs -- because the alleging party would no doubt continue to make the same or similar allegations even after losing in a court of law.
As to the lack of main stream media coverage, I have asked people I know at several of the publications I cited -- people who are no friend to Bush, to conservatives etc. -- where the stories on this are and the answer is uniformly the same: there's no story to be told.
All of the allegations that have been offered up are circumstantial and usually consist -- at some level -- of guilt by association. No one has been able to establish to my satisfaction or theirs that -- whatever they may be -- Norquist's relationships with any of these people -- if they do in fact exist -- resulted in any policy actions being taken or not taken, any meetings held, any decisions reached, nothing.
The fact that A knew B who knew C who was in the same suite of offices as Norquist and that D had a relative who once served on the board of an organization somewhere has, in and of itself, no inherently deeper meaning.
I could say more but I think I have said enough for the moment. You will, no doubt, have a response because you insist on having the last word.
Khan was elected to the ACU board.