Replies

In a religion of over one billion, you could find millions who go either way on an issue. This latest link is from Hindus, who have not exactly been tolerant of Moslems in India. I'm inclined to take their claims with more than a few grains of salt.

Yeah? How about the claims of the Israelis?
Your salt is absurd.
Muslims are killing people all over, of many faiths, whether Hindu, Jew, Christian, Buddhist, or animist. No other religion is doing that.
When those folks fight back against Muslims, it's not intolerance, it's self-defense. Not to say that there are never excesses or atrocities committed against Muslims, but you're rather deliberately confusing cause and effect.

I am far more inclined to belive at this point that Mr. Norquist's ties are being used as a weapon against him by people from three camps that I can identify.

What's the basis for your belief?
Why do you ignore and/or disbelieve all of the evidence against him?

The first camp consists of those who are envious of Mr. Norquist's success and influence and seek to bring him down.

Ad hominem. Address the evidence.

The second camp comes from those who seem to think that some religions are more equal than others, to paraphrase George Orwell.

Why would the Muslims try to bring down Norquist?

The third camp are those who view Norquist's brand of conservatism (particularly his "Leave Us Alone" coalition) as a form of heresy. They also do not seem to like the fact that he seems to have put forth an effort to create a political coalition that can win elections, which entails some compromises. In short, their sense of ideological purity is affected.

Yeah, I confess, at the point where the coalition seeks to include Jew-haters and terror sympathizers, I find that kinda heretical.

As Bob J has said elsewhere - the system ultimately worked, even if it was not as fast as some would desire.

This is a variation of the Clintonian "it's time to move on."
The system hasn't begun to work.
There has been an effort, prior to and during wartime, by Islamic Fifth Columnists to use Grover Norquist to influence the Bush Administration. This needs to be fully investigated, damge needs to be assessed, and the Fifth Columnists need to be rooted out. Then and only then will the system have worked.
There is far too much at risk in the War on Terror to sweep this under a rug, just because it's a Republican named Grover Norquist who's culpable.

Why would the Muslims try to bring down Norquist?

I'm not talking Moslems. I'm talking about the folks who seem to have difficulty comprehending Article VI, Clause 3 and Amendment One of the Constitution. Look at some of the posts on this very thread.

I'm also talking about those who claim that Moslems have conflicting loyalties, the same slurs that were used in the past against Catholics and Jews with no basis in fact whatsoever.

Yeah, I confess, at the point where the coalition seeks to include Jew-haters and terror sympathizers, I find that kinda heretical.

Actually, I was thinking more of the folks who might disagree with his views on immigration or other issues or who take exception to the fact that he dared to reach out to certain segments of the population on a message of individual liberty. Segments like Moslems.

It is also undeniable that there is considerable friction and disagreement between cultural conservatives and the more libertarian wing of the conservative movement. I admittedly trend towards the latter on most cultural issues. For the most part, Norquist seems to do the same, and he also is a bit more libertarian on civil liberties issues. So are Bob Barr and Dick Armey.

Yet Norquist is the only targeted as a "Fifth Columnist", and there seems to be a constant effort by Gaffney to portray him as such. It is only fair to ask cui bono (who benefits) if Norquist is taken down, and to try to ascertain possible motives.

There are those who have questioned the Patriot Act in the same terms Norquist has - see Armey and Barr. There are those who do not think Islam is what we are fighting - see President Bush. The difference between those two and Norquist is the fact that Norquist has a LOT of influence through his Wednesday meetings, which are now being replicated in various states.

This is a variation of the Clintonian "it's time to move on."

The system hasn't begun to work.

A bunch of arrests and military operations disprove that assertion. Where is the demonstrable harm to the war against the terrorist groups?

It was PRESENT with the Chinagate situation, but there is no evidence that such a cover-up is in the works here.

There has been an effort, prior to and during wartime, by Islamic Fifth Columnists to use Grover Norquist to influence the Bush Administration. This needs to be fully investigated, damge needs to be assessed, and the Fifth Columnists need to be rooted out. Then and only then will the system have worked.

But did that effort compromise the War on Terror? The answer appears to be a big fat negative.

There is far too much at risk in the War on Terror to sweep this under a rug, just because it's a Republican named Grover Norquist who's culpable.

Do you have any proof that none of that is being done? Do you have any proof that there have been impediments to the system working? Unless you can produce the proof of either of those, then Bob J is correct in his take on the situation.

Norquist made mistakes. But there is nothing to indicate he is guilty of anything more than making mistakes. And I dare you to find ANY conservative that hasn't come back to bite them on the rear. The only difference here is that some people are trying to make this Chinagate II and use it to whittle away the influence of a person who there may have been long-standing disagreements with.