Replies

Then why did they let him in?
Who is "they"?
Umm, you know - the White House and its staff?
So you meant to ask, but didn't...Then why did the White House and its staff let him in?
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.
The folks who are supposed to know about terrorists and terrorist sympathizers?
Is the White House and its staff the ones who are supposed to know about terrorists and terrorist sympathizers? That's funny...
One, they knew who he was, and let him in anyway for reasons currently unknown. Two, they didn't know who he was, in which case, the people whose job it is to know things like that in order to prevent people like that from getting in, have failed.
Aren't "they" and "the people whose job it is to know things like that in order to prevent people like that from getting in" the same? It doesn't seem like it from your replies. It's like you're saying there are two different groups involved there.
How's that for a start?
Not too good.

Just a general FYI, general...
INVESTIGATION OF ILLEGAL OR IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN CONNECTION WITH 1996 FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS
Snip...National Security Council staff members were wary of Chung. On April 7, 1995, NSC staff member Melanie Darby sent an e-mail message to colleagues regarding the March 11 presidential radio address. She asked whether they felt the visitors should be given copies of the photographs taken that day. She wrote that President Clinton ``wasn't sure we'd want photos of him with these people circulating around'' and that the DNC had arranged for the six businessmen to visit without ``knowing anything about them except that they were D.N.C. contributors.''
It seems that somebody trusted somebody else who trusted somebody else who couldn't be trusted.
As I said earlier...It's deja vu all over again!