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?
