Posted on 03/12/2003 8:32:08 AM PST by hchutch
Why the double standard? Why is it "either, or?"
Did Buchanan get an award from Sami Al Arian for his efforts in thwarting anti-terrorism legislation? Has Buchanan been arranging entry for ANSWER-affiliated Wahabbi terror symps into the White House?
If there's no excuse for Buchanan (and there isn't), then what's Norquist's excuse?
The issue here is Pat Buchanan's screed. Norquist was NOT dragged into this until YOU decided to stir the pot for no reason. I'm not interested in YOUR attempt to cause division on this forum.
Don't ping me or bother me about this Norquist matter again.Sorry, I thought the overarching issue was anti-semitism and those who are Undermining the War on Terror. You brought up the ANSWER orgs, didn't you? Buchanan's a fat and deserving target, but not the only one, by any means, nor the most dangerous.
It's remarkable, really, the lengths to which some have gone to ignore the issue, don't you think?
And this stuff about my "attempt to cause division on this forum" is really just an ad hominem designed to cover your unwillingness to grapple with the facts. What's divisive about trying to get the truth out? I've assumed that's why we're all here, but I've been mistaken before.
The Don't Ping Me Club is growing. Spamming seems to be the method of choice for those we're trying to avoid.
Norquist has NOT engaged in what is arguably anti-Semitism. Buchanan has. Norquist has not been publicly attacking Bush over his foreign policy or the war, or advocating the same policy ANSWER has. Buchanan has.
It seems clear to me that Norquist has NOT done anything, particularly since the war started, that has had any demonstrable adverse effect on the effort. Some people, though, have chosen to pursue a vendetta against him.
Actually, the first specific mention of Norquist was by you at #61. What had earlier caught my eye was that you had, quite correctly, identified the groups affiliated with ANSWER as being anti-war and anti-American (I'm paraphrasing). You also, correctly, criticized Buchanan and others who were lined up alongside those groups.
Since you raised the issue of the ANSWER groups, isn't it a legitmate line of inquiry to explore their activities further? Some of them are in the streets, yet some have also managed to infiltrate the political process at the highest levels. Isn't this a legitimate area of concern?
I haven't claimed that Norquist is an anti-Semite, I don't honestly know his motivations. I do know that some of those whose White House access was facilitated by Norquist and his colleagues are certainly no less anti-Semitic than Buchanan, and some are worse.
With the GOP looking to make significant inroads into the Jewish vote, is this what we really want?
As to Norquist's "demonstrable adverse effect" on the war effort since it began, I hope you're right, but to my mind enough questions have been raised so as to require a healthy dose of daylight. Norquist and others proved themselves to be useful to Al Arian and other sympathizers in barring anti-terrorist evidence collection, and in getting Al Arian's brother-in-law and co-conspirator, Mazen Al-Najjar, released from prison by the Clinton Administration. Dr. Yahya Basha of the AMC (check out some of their positions here) visited Al-Najjar in prison and praised his release, yet he was a guest of the White House as recently as last November. Others from the AMC were there only in January.
The outline of Al Arian's activities has been public knowledge for quite some time, yet with the aid of people from both parties, Norquist being one, he was able to delay his indictment for years. This created a window of opportunity for Al Arian to further pursue his efforts in material support of homicide bombers in Israel. How many are dead because of that delay? Don't those responsible for the delay deserve some scrutiny?
Khaled Saffuri, co-founeer with Norquist of the Islamic Institute, attempted to intervene last year in the Treasury Department's investigation (by way of a meeting with then-Secretary Paul O'Niell) of one of his patrons, the Wahabbist Safa Trust, which is suspected of terrorist money-laundering on the Isle of Man.
I would certainly hope that people like this aren't influencing policy, but isn't a concern that they are even getting the opportunity?
If it turns out the Safa Trust is yet another terrorist fundraiser that's contributed to the Islamic Institute (like the Holy Land Foundation, a designated terro org), would that be enough to warrant barring them from White House access?
If the Safa Trust is cleared, can we be sure that Saffuri's intervention was not a factor?
In either case, isn't this a problem?
On the matter of "spamming:"
What is one to do, when bringing specific information to the table, but to post the information, along with the links?
I'll agree that sometimes people are indiscriminate in this regard, and perhaps I've been guilty of that myself. Generally, what I've tried to do, is to be focused in posting such material by way of excerpts, highlighting, and concurrent commentary.
Is that something you find to be a problem, as a matter of practice?
I would certainly hope that people like this aren't influencing policy, but isn't a concern that they are even getting the opportunity?
It is NOT a concern to me. The last time I checked, the First Amendment still permitted people to "petition the government for a redress of grievances" - even if the grievances are merely perceptions. Someone who assists a person in doing so does not warrant an attack, particularly when I have seen NO evidence that their actions have caused a demonstrable harm to the war effort.
There are only allegations against Grover Norquist using guilt by association. Buchanan's public statements and his 5,000 word screed, on the other hand, clearly have put his agenda four-square with ANSWER's - and there is far more proof that Buchanan and his ilk are acting against the conservative agenda than there is against Norquist.
This post will be the FINAL comments I make on this matter. Don't ping me on Norquist AGAIN. Is that clear?
There have been days, when I could see the same article(s) (spam) posted on multiple threads spanning many days. I am not saying you did that. But often, you reply to such giving it your tacit approval.
I also object to spam or links to spam being posted that are OFF-TOPIC on a thread. RUDE, imo.
I further define spam as articles being posted that have an original author, and then the article is 'reported' in a position paper, and then the article is 'reported' in a press release.....ALL SOURCED FROM THE SAME SITE. 3 threads of the exact same material with minor changes in verbiage....from the same poster...sourced from the same site. This is,imo, a waste of bandwidth in an attempt to garner support for a particular issue.
Buchanan is a kook--and a hateful one at that. He's a Mercedes-driving elitest who fed class-envy among union supporters. He's a childless man dictating other people's reproduction rights and responsibilities and how they should raise their children. He demonstrates all the micro-managing, hypocritical traits that make liberals so intolerant, contradictory, and unpleasant. And he's not even funny, or pleasant, or particularly good looking.
Bye-bye Buchanan byline.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
