Posted on 02/24/2003 8:06:59 AM PST by TLBSHOW
Terrorist arrest shows holes in White House's Muslim outreach program; warnings ignored
People are asking: Who is responsible for getting terrorist figures into the White House? Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Sami Al-Arian, arrested this week by the FBI as an alleged mastermind and funder of suicide bombings, was part of the White House's controversial outreach plan to Muslims and Arab-Americans, the Washington Post reports.
According to Newsweek, White House political officials disregarded warnings from the Secret Service that Al-Arian was a potential terrorist, and let him in anyway.
Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal reports that the alleged terrorists were running influence operations to penetrate the US political system and influence policy.
The news confirms what the Center for Security Policy has warned the Bush administration - first privately and later publicly - for nearly two years: That the architects of the White House's well-meaning Muslim outreach program paid little or no regard to national security issues, and ignored information about alleged extremists, including supporters of terrorism, who had hijacked the administration's initiative.
According to the Post, Al-Arian was invited to the White House as part of an American Muslim Council (AMC) delegation on June 22, 2001: "The meeting was controversial within the White House even before it took place. The group that included Al-Arian was scheduled to be briefed by Vice President Cheney, but Cheney canceled. That morning, the Jerusalem Post had run a front-page article headlined, 'Cheney to host pro-terrorist Muslim group.'"
Al-Arian's arrest under a 50-count federal grand jury indictment is sure to prompt the Secret Service and others to revisit the issue, and to investigate just who has manipulated the White House to allow extremists and terrorists into the presidential compound where they have been treated as legitimate representatives of moderate, non-violent causes.
On Friday, February 21, the Wall Street Journal reported that Al-Arian's arrest "likely will inflame a debate embroiling the Republican Party over efforts to court Muslim Americans." The battle, according to the Journal, is led by conservative activist Grover Norquist, "a close ally of the Bush White House who spent years wooing Muslims through a group he founded called the Islamic Institute," against national security-minded critics who include Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney and American Conservative Union President David Keene.
Norquist's Islamic Institute, the Wall Street Journal continued, has received money from "a network of Islamic organizations in Virginia under investigation by federal authorities for suspected ties to terrorism." Meanwhile, Norquist has been a vocal attacker of key provisions of the Bush administration's anti-terrorism legislation proposals, and has led an effort from the right to discredit and undermine Attorney General John Ashcroft.
Insight magazine is reporting that Al-Arian and Norquist have worked together, and that Norquist has gone on record saying he is "proud" to have accepted an award in July 2001 from Al-Arian's National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom (NCPPF), which is described as a legal and political support group for international terrorist organizations.
Keene alluded to the problem in his column for The Hill, a Capitol Hill newspaper. "Make no mistake about it," wrote Keene, "these people are our enemies. To deny this would be foolish and to empower them in any way is a mistake of the first order because doing so legitimizes their claim to speak for all Muslims." Keene added that twice in the last six months, "fellow travelers" and "zealots" have tried to prevent critics of Islamist terrorism from addressing conservative audiences: "In both instances they sought veto power over who should or should not be allowed to discuss the extremist Muslim connection to world terrorism and in both instances they were rebuffed. Having failed to keep the objects of their enmity from speaking, they then proceeded to denounce publicly in the press and on the Internet the sponsors of the events at which they spoke as, you guessed it, 'bigots and racists.'"
Islamic Institute Chairman Khaled Saffuri claims to be shocked at the arrest of Al-Arian, telling Newsweek, "If these charges are true, then he’s betrayed me—and a whole lot of others in the Muslim community." Nevertheless, Norquist has continued to rail against critics of Islamist terrorist fronts, calling them "bigots and racists."
Is another shoe about to drop? According to the federal grand jury indictment, Al-Arian and his confederates tried to penetrate the mainstream political system to influence U.S. government counterterrorism policy. The Wall Street Journal states, "the indictment alludes to efforts by the defendants to gain political clout, alleging that they sought 'to obtain support from influential individuals in the United States under the guise of promoting and protecting Arab rights."
Again, the question must be answered: Who invited and cleared Al-Arian and other suspected terrorist supporters into the White House?
I would be very grateful is anyone could teach you how to fricking READ, but I ain't going to hold my breath waiting for that happy day.
The ENTIRE FRICKIN' PARAGRAPH is one long innuendo of treason...
It's one of a great many sources that have been posted to you over the past several days, all of which you've made excuses to ignore (such as at #90), none of which you've countered with any substance, sources, or links.
Instead, you've taken up flaming. Congratulations on getting this thread moved to the backroom, which appears to be the best strategy yet conceived by Norquist deniers. Nice victory for civil discourse.
Your position seemed to be that as long as the active Islamist wasn't the one in the WH, it would be ok if it was merely someone in his circle.
If Grover Norquist has questionable associations, he should be cut off from White House access.
If Frank Gaffney has evidence, he should get an appointment with someone in the White House and present it. He shouldn't be whining about it in print.
If people are concerned about this, they should contact their Senators and Congressmen (if they trust them).
Repeatedly re-running this type of article, and repeatedly printing the picture, gives fodder to ANSWER and the DNC. It doesn't help the war on terror, and it causes division on the forum as well.
If someone political overrode the Secret Service, that person should be gone, or at least lose any input into access to the President.
If the Secret Service was derelict, then they should be revamped.
All the rest of this is smearing of the administration disguised as being "helpful" and "concerned." Straight out of the Daschle playbook.
I'll settle for a declaration of war against any Muslim nation who supports, harbors or finances Islamists.
When does the bombing start?
Everytime they get it moved. Just like the WOD threads.
What's the point? Just rename the place BushRepublic.com.
Now, in some instances we will accomplish our goals without bombing. It is always best to accomplish your goals with the least loss of life. That is why we have been using diplomacy.
But we will accomplish our goals, which is a Middle East free from terror and more in our sphere than the Islamacists.
If Grover Norquist has questionable associations, he should be cut off from White House access.Many of the questionable Muslim organizations alloed into the White House are affiliated with ANSWER. Letting them into the White House is what has caused division in the forum, and is an impediment to the War on Terror.
The convergence of the radical Left and radical Islam continues. Former icons of social tolerance and sexual liberation are making common cause with the most intolerant and sexist social forces on earth. Left-wing American defenders of Slobodan Milosevic, on trial for his ethnic cleansing campaign to exterminate Muslims from the former Yugoslavia, now welcome U.S. Muslim groups as building blocks in their coalitions. Trendy supporters of revolutionary cop-killers like Leonard Peltier and Mumia Abu-Jamal link their heroes’ murderous causes (while proclaiming Peltier and Mumia’s innocence) to those of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the various Islamic Jihad terrorist groups.
On February 15 and 16, they joined forces in the streets of hundreds of cities and towns around the world – literally from Boston to Baghdad – in coordinated protests unseen in size and scope since the Soviet Union ran the nuclear freeze movement two decades ago. Remnants of the old Communist Party USA like Leslie Cagan coordinated protests on one end through her United for Peace and Justice entity; the fanatically pro-North Korean Workers World Party (WWP), via its International Action Center (IAC) and International ANSWER front groups, organized on the other, pausing to wish a happy birthday to Kim Jong-il, who turned 61 over the weekend. Kim’s party paper, Rodong Sinmun, exhorted followers to “burn with hatred and hostility in their hearts” toward the United States.
Some of the nation’s most prominent Muslim groups, or more correctly, a collection of small but vocal groups that claim to speak for American Muslims, joined the protests.
The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), at the state level, endorsed the U.S.-out-of-Iraq demonstrations coast to coast. In Chicago, CAIR endorsed the protests, calling itself “one of the initial endorsers and organizers” for the event. CAIR formally joined the ANSWER coalition in Los Angeles.
Nationally, the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) joined the ANSWER coalition, urging the “community” to take to the streets against President Bush’s efforts to disarm Saddam Hussein and liberate the Iraqi people. In a weird February 11 statement, it asked “Americans” to “defend White House employees” – a reference to a low-ranking White House staffer whom critics say has a pattern of clearing pro-terrorist Muslim American activists into meetings with President Bush and other senior officials.
The American Muslim Council (AMC) didn’t make a public show over the February 15 weekend, but it did join the ANSWER coalition’s January 18 protests that marked the 12th anniversary of the Persian Gulf War, or what AMC referred to as the “war against the people of Iraq.” While the AMC joined others, particularly semi-official voices in the Saudi press, calling on Saddam Hussein to resign, it also embraced ANSWER. On January 15 it circulated an ANSWER flyer on its listserv, exhorting followers via e-mail to march on the White House. AMC national board treasurer Ali Khan led a caravan of Indiana and Chicago activists to the demonstration in Washington.
AMC, like other U.S. Muslim groups that have long coveted legitimacy in official Washington, likes to play things both ways. Click to its website, www.amconline.org, and a ghostly image of Malcolm X flashes for a fraction of a second before a very mainstream-looking, red, white and blue homepage appears. That’s just a symptom of how the AMC operates. Since September 11, 2001, AMC has demanded – and received – the highest-level acceptance in the U.S. government. FBI Director Robert Mueller even spoke at the AMC’s national convention last June 28, with an FBI spokesman calling the AMC “the most mainstream Muslim group in the country.”
The FBI media unit, when pressed, could produce nothing to substantiate the claim, but a visibly uncomfortable Mueller addressed the conference anyway. That appearance, with the FBI publicity unit’s imprimatur, gave the AMC more credibility than ever – even though that very month the organization was haranguing the Bureau for its investigation of domestic Muslim groups.
The AMC calls itself an “active member” of the National Committee to Protect Political Freedom (NCPPF), a William Kunstlerite group founded in the 1960s to provide legal support to terrorists and those who raise money and provide material support for them. Its causes have ranged from members of the Weather Underground to the Maoist Shining Path of Peru, to Abdul Rahman, the Egyptian “Blind Sheik” responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing in New York. NCPPF’s executive director is Kit Gage works full-time as head of the old Stalinist National Lawyers Guild (NLG). Its president is Sami Al-Arian, the University of South Florida professor who reportedly was a founding leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
AMC founder Abdurahman Alamoudi is by his own admission an enthusiastic supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah – the latter being responsible for the 1980s killing of 241 U.S. Marines in the Beirut barracks bombing, and for the car bombing of the American Embassy in Lebanon. Alamoudi recruited young and attractive Muslim political activists and helped them set up spinoff groups to influence mainstream political parties. He provided seed money for one of those groups, the Islamic Institute, which is chaired by his former protégé, Khaled Saffuri.
The AMC likes to say now that the controversial Alamoudi is no longer with the organization and that it condemns all forms of terrorism. But Alamoudi isn’t alone. AMC’s former executive board president, Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin, was twice on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list. Under his old name in the 1960s as H. Rap. Brown, he threatened to assassinate Lady Bird Johnson when she was First Lady of the U.S. He’s now a lifer in a Georgia prison for the 2000 murder of Fulton County Sheriff’s Deputy Ricky Kinchen.
AMC’s new leadership is no less extreme. In the week before the FBI director’s speech to the organization, various television talk show hosts including Alan Keyes, then of MSNBC, and Bill O’Reilly of Fox News, tried to get the AMC executive director, Eric Ervan Vickers, to denounce Hamas, Hezbollah, and al Qaeda by name. While denouncing acts of terrorism, Vickers avoided denouncing the terrorist groups themselves.
On June 19, 2002, Linda Vester of Fox News asked Vickers, “Do you condemn al Qaeda by name and condemn Hamas by name?” According to the transcript, Vickers would not. Fox News anchor Brit Hume commented, “All right, so, there you go. And she pressed him further, but that’s as far as she ever got with that.”
Journalist Fred Barnes, on a panel with Hume, illustrated the hypocrisy: “These groups are outraged about what the victims are doing here in the United States. Their big effort is to oppose reasonable steps to protect the United States from further attacks. That's where they aim their fire, not at these terrorists who are doing this in the name of their very own religion.”
The night before Mueller addressed the AMC, guest host Mike Barnicle on CNBC's Hardball asked Vickers to condemn Hamas and Hezbollah. Vickers would not. Barnicle followed, "How about al-Qaeda?" According to the transcript, Vickers' only response was, "They are involved in a resistance movement."
Morton Kondracke commented on Fox, “If that guy truly reflects American Muslims -- and he is the executive director of this large organization -- then God help us. We've got -- that guy sounds like the fifth column, frankly.”
It certainly sounds that way. Across the board, the AMC and other leading Muslim advocacy groups are “against us” in the war on terrorism. Responding to President George W. Bush’s State of the Union Speech on January 29, 2003, Vickers stated, “in invoking God to be with American soldiers in our apparently imminent war with Iraq, what the president did not say is that he is calling on God to kill innocent Iraqi children.”
The next day he called on the “U.N. to conduct an inquiry into the “political repression of Muslim and Arab and Asian Americans by the United States government,” and led a protest against a new FBI policy to count mosques. In a note to imams across the country, Vickers wrote, “AMC calls upon you to demonstrate mass criticism and activism against the new FBI policy, which directs FBI field offices nationwide to conduct an inventory of mosques and Muslims as part of their charge to develop demographic profiles of their regions to combat possible terrorism.”
Meanwhile, the AMC and others, by virtue of their shrillness and persistence, continue to enjoy protected status from the federal government. One of the reasons, senior officials say, is that no truly mainstream national Muslim political group exists for the administration to engage. Until such an organization is created and supported, the vocal and well-funded jihadists will maintain their chokehold on the voice of American Muslims, in concert with the most extreme leadership of the “anti-war” Left – and with Uncle Sam’s Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. This, just when President Bush needs American Muslims to support him openly in the war against terrorism.
J. Michael Waller is vice president of the Center for Security Policy in Washington.
LINK
If someone political overrode the Secret Service, that person should be gone, or at least lose any input into access to the President.
If the Secret Service was derelict, then they should be revamped.
Yes, yes, and yes.
Wonderful. And I was aware of all the before I clicked on this thread. Golly.
And I wouldn't be on this thread so, if it wasn't for the very strange very defensive, and not to mention illogical behavior of some of the posters. (And whichever Admins happen to be BushBots - moving a thread from news whenever certain forces make enough noise.)
. It is always best to accomplish your goals with the least loss of life. That is why we have been using diplomacy.
Says who? Islamists lie. Our 'allies' lie. Diplomacy might work for a time. Or it might not. (We could start a discussion on the success of US Diplomacy under Demon and GOP admins if you want... But I'm sure you realize that nations tell us one thing, and then proceed to do what they want to do. )
But killing all your enemies works perfectly.
I am most interested in the recent change in the head of the Secret Service. That indicates to me that the position had become political, and that the administration had no confidence in that guy. It is not in Bush's playbook to attack someone in public, so we may never know what was said behind closed doors. I am also wondering if O'Neill's leaving (Treasury controls Secret Service) was also a mark of non-confidence.
I understand concern about Norquist (I am not thrilled with him myself) but the manner in which these threads are posted gives ammunition to the enemy. Trying to lay the blame on someone else for the dissension on this forum is disingenuous, in my opinion.
I have many things which I have disagreed with the administration and have WRITTEN THEM about my concerns, as have others. In most cases, I have seen my concerns addressed.
I suggest you write a serious letter to the President, sent by snail mail. It is my experience that those letters are read and acted upon....I have a signed letter from Karl Rove which attests to that.
Wasn't that more a characteristic of those who went after Trent Lott?
The Senate has nothing to do with, and no control over the Secret Service. Bush can hire, fire, take advise from, promote or transfer any of them without even sneezing at the Senate.
Which you implicitly acknowledge here :
I am most interested in the recent change in the head of the Secret Service. That indicates to me that the position had become political, and that the administration had no confidence in that guy.
Which is it?
I understand concern about Norquist (I am not thrilled with him myself) but the manner in which these threads are posted gives ammunition to the enemy.
At least you openly state it. Your motivation is not truth, nor security of the president, nor making sure that Islamists are not close or advising him.
Your motivation is that ensuring nothing happens that the demonkrats can take political advantage of.
Which is the exact opposite of what this forum was supposed to be about.
As I said, I would like this issue addressed internally by the White House. I do not want a bunch of scare-mongering threads posted in order to help the democrats in their efforts to derail the war and regain power.
If you think this is contrary to the forum, take it up with Jim Robinson. I am expressing my opinion as an American.
What flavor is that koolaid ya'll are drinking?
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.