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.
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?
|
