Replies

Norquist was fighting the good fight for conservatism when you were still in diapers. His credentials aside, I am waiting for any of his detractors to demonstrate the evidentiary national security damages from his attempt to open a dialogue and working relationship between American Muslims and conservatives.

The unsavory connections of the moles were discovered and the relationships severed. Seems like the system worked to me, maybe not as soon as it should have, but then again we got a hole in the Pentagon and two collapsed buildings in NY because America did not wake up soon enough to the danger posed by the Islamists.

Could it be that some are crying wolf over an incident that resulted in no national security damage in an attempt to destroy an influential conservative voice who disagrees with them about a non terror related issue like, say, immigration?

You're predisposition toward grandstanding with bombastic rhetoric while tossing cheap shots at any conservative who doesn't strictly adhere to your positions (which is pretty easy to do from the bleachers on this Forum) is a reason why your influence on FR has never extended any further than the overly sensationalized threads in which you love to perform.

Norquist was fighting the good fight for conservatism when you were still in diapers.

Not original, and not correct. Norquist is in his 40s.

His credentials aside

Appeal to authority fallacy, and Norquist's credentials are suspect anyway. He's good on guns and taxes, lousy on terror and Illegal Aliens.

I am waiting for any of his detractors to demonstrate the evidentiary national security damages from his attempt to open a dialogue and working relationship between American Muslims and conservatives.

"He tried to gain influence for the pro-terror symps, but where's the proof he meant or did any harm?"

The unsavory connections of the moles were discovered and the relationships severed.

Not even close to true. Nortquist lets fly with ad hominems any time anyone questions his friendliness with Islamists affilliated with ANSWER, and other America haters. Khaled Saffuri and Suhail Khan have not been disavowed. Nor have the Islamic Institute, Muzzamil Siddiqi, CAIR, Shakh Mamza, or a host of other pro-terror entities.
Do your homework, Bob, Click on the GROVERNORQUIST and ENEMYWITHIN keywords. Norquist is bad news.

Seems like the system worked to me, maybe not as soon as it should have, but then again we got a hole in the Pentagon and two collapsed buildings in NY because America did not wake up soon enough to the danger posed by the Islamists.

If the system was working, Norquist wouldn't still be hanging out with and shepherding terror symps into access two years after 9/11.

Could it be that some are crying wolf over an incident that resulted in no national security damage in an attempt to destroy an influential conservative voice who disagrees with them about a non terror related issue like, say, immigration?

Yeah, I tricked Gaffney and Horowitz into publishing this article too.
You're the one who made the appeal to Norquist's conservative credentials, as though they are beyond question or criticism (if one ignores the voluminous evidence that he's friendly with terror symps). Norquist's cavalier attitude about borders and sovereignty belies your appeal to authority.

You're predisposition toward grandstanding with bombastic rhetoric while tossing cheap shots at any conservative who doesn't strictly adhere to your positions (which is pretty easy to do from the bleachers on this Forum) is a reason why your influence on FR has never extended any further than the overly sensationalized threads in which you love to perform.

I imagine, then, that facts will follow, on your part?
Or is your bag of ad hominems not yet exhausted?

"...a non terror related issue like, say, immigration?"

Boy, have you got that one wrong. The OTM's (other than Mexican) illegal immigrants from Middle Eastern countries is increasing alarmingly. Not to mention a number of the 9/11 perps had overstayed their visas.