Posted on 02/25/2003 5:24:29 AM PST by SJackson
What considerations, political or otherwise, prompted members of Mr. Bush's staff to believe that Al-Arian was the kind of person they wanted on their team? Who bears responsibility for making those calculations? And are they continuing to do so with respect to other individuals and organizations that could, at the very least, embarrass Mr. Bush and, at worst, seriously undermine his efforts in the war on terror?
What are we to make of the fact that a Muslim extremist (or "Islamist") named Dr. Sami Al-Arian was arrested and indicted last week on 50 counts, among them conspiracy to finance terrorist attacks that killed more than 100 people -- including two Americans? One thing is sure: It is not, as Al-Arian claimed when federal agents led him away in handcuffs, "all about politics."
After all, this alleged leader of Palestinian Islamic Jihad -- an organization Attorney General John Ashcroft has described as "one of the most violent terrorist organizations in the world" -- was allowed into the Bush White House on at least one occasion. According to Saturday's Washington Post, in one of these meetings, he was among the front-row attendees at a briefing conducted by the man who is, arguably, Mr. Bush's chief aide: Karl Rove. Generally, political foes do not receive such treatment.
The Post article was accompanied by a photograph taken of Al-Arian with Candidate George W. Bush and his wife, Laura, during a campaign stop at the Tampa Strawberry Festival in March 2000. Perhaps this photo op was a way of thanking Al-Arian and his wife for the efforts they claim to have made on Mr. Bush's behalf "in Florida mosques and elsewhere because they thought him the candidate most likely to fight discrimination against Arab-Americans."
Al-Arian had particular reason to prefer Candidate Bush since the latter had pledged as part of his campaign's "outreach" to the Muslim community to end the use of secret evidence against suspected terrorists. This goal was a particular priority for Al-Arian since his brother-in- law, Mazen al-Najjar, was incarcerated for three-and-a-half years on the basis of such evidence, prior to his deportation.
Candidate Bush with the Al-Arian clan
In the photo with Mr. Bush, Al-Arian was accompanied by his son, Abdullah, who Mr. Bush reportedly dubbed "Big Dude." Big Dude Al-Arian was himself admitted into the White House six days after his father's June 2001 visit. Ironically, as the Wall Street Journal noted on Friday, "the Secret Service deemed Mr. Al-Arian's son -- at the time an intern in a Democratic congressional office [that of then-Rep. David Bonior of Michigan] -- a security risk and ejected him from a meeting on President Bush's faith-based initiatives program."
The episode precipitated howls of outrage from representatives of other Islamist groups who had been allowed to participate in this and other, high-level Administration meetings. It produced apologies from the President's spokesman and the Secret Service. According to the Post, on August 2, 2001, Mr. Bush even wrote Mrs. Al-Arian expressing "'regret' about how her son was treated. 'I have been assured that everything possible is being done to ensure that nothing like this happens again.'"
The question, in short, is not whether "politics" are responsible for Sami Al-Arian's prosecution for aiding and abetting terror? The question is: What considerations, political or otherwise, prompted members of Mr. Bush's staff to believe that Al-Arian was the kind of person they wanted on their team? Who bears responsibility for making those calculations? And are they continuing to do so with respect to other individuals and organizations that could, at the very least, embarrass Mr. Bush and, at worst, seriously undermine his efforts in the war on terror?
Obvious candidates include two individuals who have, at various times, had responsibilities in the White House for Muslim outreach: Suhail Khan, formerly with the Public Liaison Office, and Ali Tulbah, currently Associate Director for Cabinet Affairs. As it happens, their judgment about which people should be admitted to the President's company might have been influenced by the fact that their fathers were, respectively, active in Islamist-associated organizations in California and Texas.
Alternatively, Grover Norquist, the founding co-chairman of the Islamic Institute -- an organization that has played an important role in its own right in facilitating the Bush team's outreach to groups whose leaders and activities have repeatedly excused terror and/or opposed the administration's aggressive pursuit of the war against it -- asserted in an interview circulated last week by NewsMax.com, that Messrs. Khan and Tulbah "were merely underlings carrying out decisions made by more senior White House officials....The people making decisions are Presbyterians and Catholics, not Muslims.'" The issue is not their faith; it's their judgment.
Whoever is responsible, their behavior has seriously disserved President Bush, and risks becoming more than a mere political liability if it is allowed to persist
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
1. This seems like this guy was part of a contingency of people in the Islamic community that attended a White House Briefing. No real story here.
2. He got a picture with the President. Well, actually, he got a picture with a candidate for President. Just about anyone can get a picture with a candidate with a contribution to the campaign.
3. We need to have some perspective:
And that is the real evil behind this. This isn't happenstance; this is by design. These Islamists know that the American left-wing media will pick up on this story and run with it...as they have.
And are they continuing to do so with respect to other individuals and organizations that could, at the very least, embarrass Mr. Bush and, at worst, seriously undermine his efforts in the war on terror?If Al-Arian is any indication, what they are continuing to do is investigate them and if there is sufficient evidence to indict, do so.
Sounds like a sound strategy to me. Use their influence against them. If Al Capone had made campaign contributions to get Elliot Ness his job, that does not impugn Elliot Ness. It meant Al invested poorly.
1. This doesn't necessarily make Dubya look bad, but it makes his staff look careless. The problem is the vetting.
2. Al-Arian's terrorist connections have been suspected for years, both within his community and among law enforcement. O'Reilly didn't "discover" this--he received a lot of tips. So why on earth didn't the White House nix this guy's access?
3. Nevertheless, the visits (some say only one, some say just "a few") most likely did not influence policy. However, it looks really bad, just as those pictures of the Clintons with drug kingpins made them look bad. Which brings me to the final point--
4. Everyone should choose their company carefully. People in high places (I mean, he's the President fer cryin' out loud) should use even more care--and those charged with gate-keeping should make it difficult for these embarassing moments to occur. Whoever made this meeting possible should be fired.
No one could have known at the time how deadly this man Sami was, we're only just learning the truth about those that use our Nation and our Constitution to sabotage our freedom and our country. Many are just these tenured warriors of socialism and Marxism rooted in the nations universities where they are free to weaken the foundations of America with their frankly vile and hateful messages to our young people.
As a matter of fact, a lot of people did know, including (if some stories I've been reading are correct) the Secret Service, who advised against letting Al-Arian have access. Now the question is, who overruled them? They should be scrubbing White House bathrooms for the rest of the term.
If only that were true, sadly, it may not be the worst at all.
Except the FBI and the CIA of course. This man had been on the list for 8 years, so someone knew.
The problem with Bush and with all political candidates for that matter is during the campaign, they need to display that they love everybody (including Nazis/child molesters/gang leaders…)! They also need any financial contribution that they can get. In this case, this Palestinian professor with ties to the Saudis must have had a lot of money to give to the Bush candidacy, for which, Bush does not mind prostituting his dignity and beliefs?
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.