Replies

I'm less anxious to hang Norquist for not knowing what Sami al-Arian was doing in his secret life.

The people "doing it" are Grover and Saffuri, et al, in this case. We have made that abundantly clear. He DID know who the funders were and so did Saffuri.

As someone who has worked in these vineyards for a long time, and has taken people into two Presidents, I can tell you that it is highly imcumbent on anyone who does so to vet the hell out of the people they bring. When you reach the age and access that Grover has, you are expected to know how to do that and to do so. In this town and level you damned well better know who you are traveling with and who you are hiring and what is attached, as well as imlpied, by your funding.

If you want to speak about "hanging" someone for failures, it is Grover in this case, sorry to say. "Nothin' personal, jes' bi'ness." As we have also made abundantly clear, Al Arian's views and life involvements were very much a matter of public record from the St Petersburg Times to Front Line and myriad articles, books, speeches, etc. not to mention a ten year fight between him and variously the Govt., Emerson, Pipes, et al. Ditto the nature of the NCPPF, which he headed. The fact that you didn't know it means nothing, the fact that Grover did know (or the idea that he failed to find it out) means a lot. Mind you this has gone on since 1998 and several people gave Grover all the information he needed and that you are now learning, including Gaffney, Jack Wheeler, and others whose judgment is quite well respected in such matters, and Grover responded , not by reading or asking for a briefing, but by immediately castigating these fine people in the most despicible manner.

So do yourself and all of us a favor and drop the faux shock about the "claim that some K-Street type is supposed to know these things" or the "every one does it" and "This stuff is gonna happen," exculpations re your L or K street references. The defense is wearing thin, so I seee why you might want to hedge a bit.

I'm glad you are happy I am doing my job. I am glad you want the billions we spend to reach into the White House and tell people who they can meet with or can't whether we have charged them or not --unfortunately the law doesn't allow it. And when the USSS tried, Rove had a fit. (We spent the same money knowing who the "bad" Chinese were, but that didn't stop the Clinton's from letting them in hundreds of times.) I hope you are then also a supporter of Patriot Act and the use of national security evidence that Grover opposes.

I also hope you know want to "scream" at Grover when you hear that he has two weeks ago tried to get the same bunch of "bad" actors into Cabinet level meetings, despite the fact that, as you say, "today at least, it's not possible to claim you don't know who the creeps are. So yeah, a failure to drop these guys like a hot rock now is Not Good." No kidding!

I note that you still have not refuted any facts, introduced any relevant new ones nor otherwise addressed substance.

I note that you still have not refuted any facts, introduced any relevant new ones nor otherwise addressed substance.

That's right. Nowhere have I claimed to have any facts. Nowhere have I claimed to be defending Grover Norquist. You think I'm trying to debate with you whether he's guilty or not. No. I'm just trying to make sure that I'm not being driven like a head of cattle into some pen. These are serious charges that are being made here.

I'm well aware of how unpopular it is on this forum not to convict people on the basis of accusations. Go into one of our many Kobe Bryant threads and suggest that we might want to have a trial before we hang that guy, and you'll get a ration you won't believe. This place is the home of "Guilty until proven innocent." And sometimes even that won't help. But I'm just one of those obstructionist types who wants to ask a few questions before we get out the rope. Don't take it personally.

Could this a personal feud? Some people say it is. How the hell do I know? You tell me it isn't. But I see personal animosity in your notes. I agree that doesn't mean you're wrong, but it does mean I need to add windage for that.

Is the Compendium of Facts hyperbolic and reminiscent of one of those "The Illuminati Rules the World" tracts? Maybe you don't want to hear this, but yes, it is. There's way too much stretching to reach for mud to throw. There is too much creepy organ music being played around what might be totally innocuous events. I read both of those things as signs that (a) somebody is trying to BS me, and (b) this is a hatchet job. If there are actual damning facts in there, I can't tell, because I don't know any facts. But I do recognize rhetorical trickery, and there is a fair amount. That's an alarm to me.

I'm not a big fan of credentialism. I don't know Frank Gaffney. I don't know you. You bring us this big pile of ugly stuff, and I know I'm supposed to just grab my torch and my pitchfork and go march on Grover Norquist.

And I may well do that. But not on your say-so. Not when it's clear that you don't like the guy, and that your claims are at least somewhat inflated -- and I can't tell by how much. Another generation and we'll have mob rule in this country, and then this will be a lot easier to do. But I will not go quietly into that good night. If the current activities are as you describe, then I will sign on. The current stuff is all you need anyway; the rest of it almost detracts from the case by giving the appearance of piling on.