Replies

even though he had nothing to do with many of them getting in there

You have no evidence to support that and Gaffney's article and all my postings, along with that of many others, have provided plenty of evidence Either you will perpetually refuse to see it or you are simply too obtuse.

I never said "our deparment" or my deparment or any such thing.

I did numerous times explain to you how the process works, what the law is (I took the trouble to send you yesterdays' Post articel about how that has changed and how long it took to change it, etc, all of which I had previously explained to you and you ignored). That's how it works whether anyone likes it or not.

That was all by way of explaining why therefore your whole line about 'why do you want us to beleive our billions couldnt' stop these meetings, how could Grover have gotten by if these people are terrible, how-o-how is it his fault, why aren't the Mr. National Securitys taking care of all this, blah blah.- is so widely off base.

"I'm sure it just infuriates the hell out of you..."

No , it's just like flea season, a pesky bother one puts up with the see the flowers and to appreciate how clean your dog's own house is.

You have no evidence to support that

Who said this?

"I think the role that [Norquist] has played personally in this effort on behalf of Wahhabi-sympathetic and - supported institutions is an important one, but it's a bit role... It's a sideshow."

This same fellow goes on to say that the main show is the Bush administration's policy on which Muslim groups will be granted access to the White House.

The last time I looked, "the Bush Administration" included a fairly large contingent of national security professionals. What were they doing during all this? Why is it unreasonable for me to hold these people responsible for what happened here?