TAC‘s Eunomia blogger Daniel Larison returns today in fine form, with a response to Ross Douthat’s take on the Cordoba Initiative. This line sums up what Newt Gingrich and the more brazen mosque-baiters really want: “It isn’t enough if Muslims peacefully practice their religion, reject violence and embrace their new countries, but they must also become pro-government loyalists. Perhaps if Rauf really wanted to show how moderate he was, he would provide token support for the next U.S. attack on a Muslim country. “
Larison on the “Ground Zero Mosque”
3 Responses to Larison on the “Ground Zero Mosque”
-
Technically, this is an ad hominem, not a proper refutation, but the fact that George Will has written five straight columns about Israel suggests that he is somewhat imbalanced on the issue. Can you imagine how a first-rate columnist like him would be mocked if he suddenly developed a comparable level of interest in, say, Portugal?
Israel-mania is a disorder, not an error, and it’s a disorder that might respond better to treatment by mockery than by point-by-point refutation.
-
TomT says:
Watch for libs to try to equate “trust but verify” with “guilty until proven innocent”.
In rural Oklahoma, if you want to volunteer to work with youth at the local community center, you undergo a background check. This is standard, and common sense.
In this state, if you want to be a plumber, and go into people’s homes, you undergo a background check before you get your license, or employment with a reputible company.
Which picture of RAUF is more accurate? The peacemaker who is supported by public money, or the stealth-jihadist pictured by his political enemies? Does it matter?
Rather, ask, “What will be done to monitor any group that wishes to establish a presence near the symbols of an attack on our country?” “What will be done to monitor the NEW GROUP that will take over the mosque, after RAUF is gone?”
Then let the same standards apply to RAUF and KHAN, et al, as applies to everyone else.
George Will came out as a passionate advocate of Likudnik policies in two columns last week.
Was this news or no surprise to your experts?
And do any of you feel like arguing with him,
or providing a reference to where an effective refutation can be found?