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.
That would be Muslims, everywhere they have power. 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.
Segments which are tolerant of individual liberty only while they can't take it away. 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.
Catholics and Jews aren't slaughtering religious minorites around the world. Muslims are. They're doing so because their Koran tells them to do so. It's not a slur, it's the truth. 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.
Ask away, since you don't want to address the degree to which Norquist has compromised himself. What's your motive for ignoring the truth? 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.
The difference, actually, is that only Norquist has developed longstanding associations with terror symps and conspirators like Sami Al Arian. Norquist lobbied on behalf of Al Arian's brother in law, Mazen Al-Najjar, who was facing charges related to terror orgs, and Sami Al Arian's National Coalition to Protect Political Freedoms (NCPPF) gave Norquist an award in 2001 for his efforts to hinder the government's ability to use secret evidence in the case against Najjar. Norquist showed up and accepted it. A bunch of arrests and military operations disprove that assertion. Where is the demonstrable harm to the war against the terrorist groups?
How can you or I know what's been disproven, without an investigation into efforts by Islamic Fifth Columnists to penetrate our government? Heck, we didn't learn the extent of communist penetration until after we'd won the Cold War. It was PRESENT with the Chinagate situation, but there is no evidence that such a cover-up is in the works here.
Anyone who doesn't want to investigate is leaning toward covering up. We're at war. Islamists are trying to penetrate our highest levels of government to influence policy at the least, and probably more. There is always espionage. We've seen that at Gitmo. Why not investigate? What is there to hide? But did that effort compromise the War on Terror? The answer appears to be a big fat negative.
Argument from ignorance. Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. We're in the early stages of the WoT. It's going well; could it be going better? Are there problems we can avoid if we determine the extent of Islamist penetration into our government? You don't know, and don't appear to want to know. 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.
The access of Islamists and terror symps is ongoing. I'd say that's evidence. C'mon, look at how silly your argument is: "We don't know that steps aren't being taken, therefore maybe they are, therefore we shouldn't worry about whether or not steps are being taken."
|
