Replies

I also recall them being pretty much determined not to do things the way Clinton did. It was mostly the ethics rules. I would certainly imagine if security flags had shown up, they would have been heeded.

Yet you claim they were ignored by Rove at the behest of Norquist. This is awfully convenient, particularly given your dislike for both men.

It is hard for me to imagine that anyone could hold the camapignmeetings against anyone. Their efforts have certainly not appeared to produce any change in policy. The complaint about Dan Pipes was not heeded.

So, whose soends like it is more based in reality? I have to go with Nick Danger's at this point. The other claims still strain creduility.

I also recall them being pretty much determined not to do things the way Clinton did. It was mostly the ethics rules. I would certainly imagine if security flags had shown up, they would have been heeded.

Well, obviously not. As told above 3 or 4 times now, and in the Gaffney article and probably 100 newspapers, the Secret Service tried to have Al Arian's son removed from a White House outreach meeting b/c the system came up saying "Al Arian is a problem" -- and they had their heads handed to them for just trying to do their job and responding to the NCIC check flash report re the waiver list for that meeting.

re "...the campaign meetings" not resulting in anything:
au contraire, they resulted in the candidate's pledge to review and implicitly to remove the use of so-called "secret evidence" -- which as detailed elsewhere, has been a if not the key tool to breaking terror cases, notably and first, Sami Al Arian's -- precisely the person on whose behalf Norquist did this, and with and for whose organization (the also aforementioned NCPPF), Grover has campaigned aganst this and a month agao, the Patriot Act, along with Alec Baldwin. Had 9/11 not occured there is no reason to doubtt that the President would have followed through on his pledge and eliminated this tool.

They also set the predicate for, and the initial list of invitees for, the campaign's and then the White House's Muslim Outreach efforts, then staffed by Islamic Institute director and placee, Suhail Khan. The first meeting in Texas resulted in Bush being photographed next to Nihad Awad, Alamuodi et al, per above postings. These then get to go on TV and around the world and country saying they advise Bush and the Goverment, etc -- even as they are being tracked by US and foreign law enforcement and intelligence and finally arrested. Making it much more like an 'association of the guilty' than "guilt by association."

re Pipes, Because the WH did not clarify for a long time their intent to stand by Pipes, the left in Congress, and CAIR, were som emboldened and effective that the nomination did not pass out of committee and Pipes had to be recess-appointed, partly from outside pressure and from a couple of heroic GOP conservative Senators, and in part b/c even this WH knew they couldn't be seen to hand a veto on all things perceived to be Muslim or Arab to the likes of CAIR. But the important thing to keep in mind here is that Norquist and Saffuri tried to scuttle the President's man --and did so by crass distortions of his record (see above examples) -- and not "privately" as some here thing should be the case when reversed onto Grover!

Didn't take you long to gloss over the point that David Frum, the authority to which you'd appealled at #447, is not of like mind with you in glossing over the wrecklessness with which radical Islamists have been brought into contact with the Bush White House.
This is not about what you imagine, it's about what actually happened. Security flags were raised, and were not heeded.

Yet you claim they were ignored by Rove at the behest of Norquist. This is awfully convenient, particularly given your dislike for both men.

Given that you like both men, your defense of them is likewise convenient.
Guess we'll have to fall back on those pesky facts. Got any?

It is hard for me to imagine that anyone could hold the camapignmeetings against anyone. Their efforts have certainly not appeared to produce any change in policy. The complaint about Dan Pipes was not heeded.

This response was predicted when I posted Saffuri's race-baiting letter to President Bush against Pipes.
Saffuri is a protege of an indicted bagman for terror-related activities, Abdurahman Alamoudi. He's a long-time associate of Sami Al Arian, another indicted Islamist infiltrator. Beyond that, Saffuri's up to his neck in terror contacts and ANSWER orgs.
It's unacceptable that he has any White House access whatsoever.
You don't get to shrug this stuff off by saying, "hey, he tried to use his high level access, gotten via Norquist, against the best interests of the United States in the War on Terror, but it's ok, nothing happened, this time."
Hey, it's ok, I had Subway.

So, whose soends like it is more based in reality? I have to go with Nick Danger's at this point. The other claims still strain creduility.

Interesting tactic: appeal to a nonauthority.
Nick has leaned heavily on his seniority, and little else, to justify a thorough shoulder-shrugging at barrels of facts and evidence here.
Both of your BS meters need recalibration, as they are more sensitive to the big arrow of facts pointing to an uncomfortable conclusion than they are to the idea that in the 10 months that the Gaffney-Norquist dispute has been public knowledge, Norquist has offered a only gossamer defense of lies and race-baiting.
There are things to know, articles to read, and pieces of evidence that need rebuttal to hold your panglossian positions on the matter with a straight face.
Why not get about it?