[Nick Danger]

Why is Norquist lying?

Let's try to keep this focused above whether Grover Norquist can keep the names of 100 Arabs straight on a radio show.

Inquiries have to start focusing somewhere. This one appears to be focusing early on Norquist. Is that somehow unfair?

It looks to me like what we have here is the fox's attorney conducting a national security investigation into what happened in the chicken coop. He would like us to focus our attention on Mr. Scarecrow here, and you would apparently like to help him by asking whether focusing on Mr. Scarecrow is unfair.

I think I will ignore your question and continue to wonder whether I should trust the fox to direct the investigation of this matter, especially now that I know that this same fox was guarding another chicken coop where we had more of these incidents... and Mr. Scarecrow was nowhere around.

[Sabertooth]

Let's try to keep this focused above whether Grover Norquist can keep the names of 100 Arabs straight on a radio show.

Let's try and be honest about what actually happened on that radio show. I've listened to it three times, how about you?

Sami Al Arian isn't an obscure Arab name among 100 that was discussed on that show, he's one of the highest-profile terror infiltrators this country has seen.

There was a very specific exchange in which Norquist claimed that not only had Al Arian not visited the White House under President Bush, but also that Norquist had made a specific point of calling the White House about that visit, and that someone there had told him Al Arian's visit never happened.

Norquist is lying in this, as he has in other instances. Al Arian's visit has been reported in numerous sources, and has been acknowledged by the White House.

[Trollstomper]

think I will ignore your question and continue to wonder whether I should trust the fox to direct the investigation of this matter, especially now that I know that this same fox was guarding another chicken coop where we had more of these incidents... and Mr. Scarecrow was nowhere around.

Can ANYONE explain what this means? Anyway, why don't you do your own investigation. Start with any 20 facts presented. I notice that everytime one of us takes down your accusations, assumptions, mischaracterizations or whatever, you ignore that and move on to another, later repositing the one we've destroyed as if new and now true.

Thus far you have given no/no evidence of having read the material, let alone done any research of your own. You are like the kid who doesn't know the answer and tries to slide by with a Pass by a lot of misdirection about some pastiche or other. How strange.