Terrorist arrest shows holes in White House's Muslim outreach program; warnings ignored

centerforsecuritypolicy ^ | 2/24/2003 | centerforsecuritypolicy

[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?

[PhiKapMom]

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[PhiKapMom]

Your #192 -- outstanding!

[Sabertooth]

The irony is that you still don't get it. I am on your side in this debate.

Miss Marple is not.

I'm interested in dialogues with people with whom I disagree.

Miss Marple succeeded in cleaving two Freepers who agree with each other.

She rides off into the sunset after initiating the whole thing and you still defend her.

She didn't cleave anything, as far as I'm concerned. I don't play thread nanny, but I'll stick up for posters with whom I'm having a dialogue, from TLBSHOW to Miss Marple, if I don't feel the flame is justified, and I don't concern myself much about who doesn't like it.

What's the point of getting into it with someone, if only to give them cause to leave the thread?

I don't always agree with her, and I find the activities of some of her friends to be objectionable, and she knows it. Yet she and I from time to time have managed to have civil conversations.

If you're on my side, why would you want to distract her from the evidence I had provided that her assumption that the White House visits by terrorist sympathizers had ended after 9/11, was incorrect?

[Chad Fairbanks]

Thank you ;0)

[cyncooper]

Bringing terrorist islamists who are on FBI terrorist watch lists to the White House IS wrong.

Pardon me for being late to the discussion. Others can attest I have been following this story.

The fact is, despite denials to the contrary, yes, it is being implied that President Bush is a friend to terrorists.

Your snide comment about Bushbots falls, as one can point out that the tack some take to criticize the President is a false charge. If you wish to disagree with the President over something that exists only in spin-city, by all means, have at it.

The fact is NOBODY has said it was a good thing Al-Arian received entrance to the WH. The fact is, the son was booted a few days later. The fact is, the son had been an aide to David Bonior, and dear old mom, wife to Sami, had been invited to testify before Congress, not once, but twice. I believe these circumstances led a WH staffer to approve the visits initially due to the obvious political ties and the disinclination to raise a stink. THAT was nipped in the bud with the booting of the son. And yes, I know an apology was given for removing him. So what? They smoothed ruffled feathers. Father and son did not darken the WH door again.

The fact is this Al-Arian arrest was the spark that led a certain cadre to insinuate motives to President Bush that are not true and they are taking the Gaffney/Norquist feud and throwing gas on the fire. The just haven't noticed it isn't catching.

[cyncooper]

Then tell your friends to stop blowing up US Buildings.

I continued reading the thread and come across this reply you made to a poster here.

I regret addressing any comments to you, as you are beneath contempt.

[TLBSHOW]

I hear that Frank and Debbie have stories coming out this week.

[TLBSHOW]

BUMP TO TRUTH

[TLBSHOW]

If you're on my side, why would you want to distract her from the evidence I had provided that her assumption that the White House visits by terrorist sympathizers had ended after 9/11, was incorrect?


from what you have posted is it ever going to end?

[TLBSHOW]

Michael Savage is slamming about this issue tonight.

[cyncooper]

Guys don't clique up the same way, no where near the same way.

You would pull that line on the Westerfield threads, too. Anybody who doesn't agree with you, and also happens to have others agree with them, is a "clique", a "group". But conveniently you don't count yourself as a clique or group when you are amongst those in agreement with you.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying anybody's in a clique. It is YOU who say that.

Obviously a reading of the threads shows I, for one--I can't speak for others--have voiced my own opinion, that I managed to reach all by myself.

[cyncooper]

If that's the explanation, isn't it odd that they seem to expect men to behave like women?

Since your premise is in error, you can discard your conclusion.

[cyncooper]

Oh really, then why do you try to squelch the opinion of others?

Oh, I for one am merely pointing out the flaws in the train of thought that leads some to make stupid statements.

You may call it squelching, I call it correction.

If those in error can't defend their position and resort to redundant postings, personal attack, and other behavior that is not allowed that is their problem and their fault.

[cyncooper]

Your rendition of events is not how it appeared to a reader of the thread.

[Fred Mertz]

You're in the backroom now, cyn. You shouldn't have the gall to talk about redundant posts.

[cyncooper]

You're drooling.

[cyncooper]

You shouldn't have the gall to talk about redundant posts.

Pardon?

[Mo1]

I've got nothing to add .. just catching up on my soap opera and marking my spot

[Chad Fairbanks]

THIS SPACE RESERVED FOR Mo1

[DAnconia55]

The fact is, despite denials to the contrary, yes, it is being implied that President Bush is a friend to terrorists.

Then quote the people on this thread that have said so.