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?
Because from what I recall reading of him blowing a gasket on FNC...I hope that's not his only defense.
On the other hand, Gibson pointed out that the administration is used to Wahabbis, because they are the brand of Islam in Saudi, which we have had dealings with for many years.
Gaffney talked about how the extremists have, in his opinion, managed to get invitations.
I will say that Mr. Gaffney sounded reasonable. However, I would like to know why this is being aired instead of a private call to the White House. Does Gaffney not have any entre to the White House? Why not? Can he not pick up the phone and call someone like Cheney or Wolfowitz?
Something about this just doesn't make sense. I would like o know who assembled the dinner list.
At any rate, I am paying attention and will see what develops.
And you might tell certain members of your fan club that mocking women is not exactly the way to win converts.
Oh really, then why do you try to squelch the opinion of others?
Just because someone has the RIGHT to post something doesn't always mean it is the wisest course to take.
But then, I guess I am just one of those soap opera loving, stay at home moms who is a member of a clique....unlike all you non-emotional rational men who never lose your tempers or go off on tangents. Ha!
Ah, self-awareness!
If you would take the time to read my reply to Sabertooth, you would see that I am paying attention to this issue.
I guess you have decided to side with bvw, Sir Gawain, and the rest.
Sort of like....oh...I don't know...a clique.
I really don't know what you are talking about.
You've just, for the second time in a matter of minutes, given credence & proof statements, that you, are susceptible to fits of emotion rather than logic based thought processes.
You know, I don't think that's called for.
I've posted more information and links on this subject over the past few days than everyone else on this forum combined, and no one has been more nonplussed than me at the aversion so many have displayed from dealing with the evidence.
Since Miss Marple and I are having a conversation about some of what I've been posting, and to which I've flagged her, I'm not sure I see how the conversation is advanced by unnecessary negativity.
Thanks.
See you later.
ya know, you ARE free to ignore posts that you don't like... no one held a gun to your head and forced you to read it...
Oops. This doesn't concern me...
I'll try, but there are those in this forum whose existence is validated by getting these threads deleted or bumped to the backroom. There have been flames thrown from many corners, unfortunately.
Regards
So much for seeking the truth.
Excellent observation. It was once much better....
Yes, and unfortunately, you apparently are unaware who is getting your great information relegated to the dustbin of the backroom!
Ayup... them were the days alrighty... I 'member when I wanted ta post and sich, t'was much harder than it is nowadays... these young whippersnappers don't know what hardship was, by cracky... why, if ya wanted ta post one o them thar ar-tee-culls, ya had to post uphill, through the snow, barefoot, and it cost ya a nickel - which we earned by carrying firewood up the stairs then back down again for nor particular reason...
Ayup. I miss them old days. I a reckon we cain't go back tho'...
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.