| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 01/07/2005 7:26:51 AM PST by Lead Moderator, reason:
Locked |
Posted on 07/31/2004 5:31:06 AM PDT by SJackson
The Washington Post reports that Abdurahman Alamoudi, once embraced as a "mainstream" and "moderate" Muslim activist who courted both the Clinton and Bush administrations, will plead guilty today to accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars from Libya in violation of U.S. law and attempting to hide it from the government:
Abdurahman Alamoudi has agreed to admit guilt to three counts, including one related to the mysterious movement of $340,000 he allegedly received in a London hotel room from a charity funded by the Libyan government, sources familiar with the case said yesterday. The other two counts cover tax violations and lies on his immigration forms...
Court documents to be made public today will trace in rich detail an explosive allegation that Alamoudi made in plea negotiations with prosecutors -- that Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi plotted to assassinate Crown Prince Abdullah, de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia...
His arrest last September shook the U.S. Muslim community and reverberated through Washington's political elite. As leader of the American Muslim Council, Alamoudi met on occasion with senior Clinton and Bush administration officials. He also helped found the Pentagon's Muslim chaplain program and is particularly well known in the Muslim community of Northern Virginia, where he helped run a number of charities and political groups.
Local Muslim leaders have protested the government's prosecution of Alamoudi, portraying him as a moderate with no ties to radical groups. But prosecutors have sketched a different picture in the indictment, alleging that Alamoudi hid his ties to a top leader of the Islamic Resistance Movement, or Hamas, which has been designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. government.
His sympathy for Hamas was no secret. In 2000, independent terrorism investigator Rita Katz, Director of the SITE Institute, while working undercover, taped Alamoudi voicing his open support for the terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah in Lafayette Park, across the street from the White House. Alamoudi stated before an excited, cheering crowd:
“I have been labeled by the media in New York to be a supporter of Hamas...Anybody support Hamas here? Hear that, Bill Clinton? We are all supporters of Hamas. I wish they added that I am also a supporter of Hezballah...Does anybody support Hezballah here? I want you to send a message. It's an occupation, stupid...Hamas is fighting an occupation. It's a legal fight.”
Despite this defiant public declaration of support for terrorists, Alamoudi was welcomed in GOP elite circles at the behest of power player Grover Norquist. Insight magazine reported:
Norquist was Alamoudi's most influential Washington facilitator, authorities believe, noting that Norquist reminds friend and foe alike that he is close to the president's powerful political strategist, Karl Rove.
Norquist, who previously has denied any suggestion that his work facilitated any wrongdoing, not only introduced Alamoudi to Washington GOP power circles but also Sammy Al Arian, whom prosecutors arrested earlier this year for alleged terrorist activities. Federal law-enforcement sources say they are focusing on some of Norquist's associates and financial ties to terrorist groups.
Alamoudi ran, directed, founded or funded at least 15 Muslim political-action and charitable groups that have taken over the public voice of Islamic Americans [see sidebar, p. 34]. Through a mix of civil-rights complaints, Old Left-style political coalitions and sheer persistence, Alamoudi helped inch the image of U.S.-based Islamists toward the political mainstream and induced politicians to embrace his organizations. He sought to secure the support first of the Clinton administration in seeking to repeal certain antiterrorist laws, but when Bill Clinton failed to deliver, Alamoudi defected to Bush, then governor of Texas. Alamoudi and other Muslim leaders met with Bush in Austin in July 2002, offering to support his bid for the White House in exchange for Bush's commitment to repeal certain antiterrorist laws.
That meeting, sources say, began a somewhat strained relationship between the self-appointed Muslim leaders and the Bush team. Some senior Bush advisers voiced caution to Rove, who is said to have disregarded such concerns, seeing instead an opportunity to bring another ethnic and religious group into the GOP big tent. A photo of the Austin event shows Bush with Alamoudi standing over his left shoulder, flanked by the former head of the Pakistani Communist Party, several open supporters of the Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist groups and other individuals Insight is trying to identify.
Canceled checks obtained by Insight show Alamoudi provided seed money to start a GOP-oriented Muslim group called the Islamic Institute, which Norquist originally chaired and now is led by former Alamoudi aide and former AMC staffer Khaled Saffuri. A White House memo obtained by Insight prepared for coordinating Muslim and Arab-American "public-liaison" events with the White House shows that the Islamic Institute was instrumental in establishing the connection. The memo, from early 2001, provides lists of invitees and the name, date of birth and Social Security number of each. Norquist, as the first chairman of the Islamic Institute, tops the list.
Alamoudi and others, including Norquist, tried to keep critics at bay by branding them as "racists" and "bigots."
(More here from Frank Gaffney, "A Troubling Influence." See also Mona Charen, Kenneth Timmerman, Insight, The American Spectator, Cal Thomas, Malkin, and Debbie Schlussel.)
Norquist owes a public apology to fellow Republicans whom he has smeared as bigots for raising fundamental questions about Alamoudi and the Islamist-supporting apparatus in America. More importantly, Norquist owes answers about why he partnered with a known terrorist sympathizer, whether or not he now defends Alamoudi, when he plans to stop hiding behind the race card, and what exactly he plans to do to disavow Islamist influences.
It's not Grover's IQ that's being questioned.
No, but it allows for a nice juxtaposition to discredit that of those who attack him.
Amen. Unfortunately, it seems to me this is a case of "When smart people do stupid things." It's a pity on so many levels, as - rightly or wrongly - Grover has forever compromised all of his views on anything and everything by tying himself to these jihadists.
Yeah, and what gets me is he won't let go. He possesses a brilliant political mind, except I guess, when it comes to his own counsel. There are many that read these forums that are simply too ignorant to appreciate Grover's role in the conservative movement. They are often the same ones that jump on Karl Rove's ass like they actually know him and forget that if they're going to attribute so much power to one man, never forget that he got Bush elected in the first place.
Thanks!
Great Data!
Yet Zogby and other Cair members would try to claim that Al Amoudi is a great American.
Yeah, I do believe you've nailed it right on the head. I came to that conclusion when I read "A Troubling Influence" on Frontpage Magazine's site a few months ago.
What gets me (and gets me ill) is the way the guy maintains his mainstream respectability.
Every time I see him on Fox News, getting his hindquarters kissed in deferential gratitude (for his even gracing them with his presence), I feel like gagging.
And when I stop to consider the influence he applies to government, it's all I can do to stop myself from gagging.
Are you speaking in the third person?
Regardless, if the charges are TRUE, then who gives a rat's ass whether or not he, or they, or anyone else doesn't appreciate them?
No, but it allows for a nice juxtaposition to discredit that of those who attack him.
I don't think David Horowitz or Frank J Gaffney Jr. have too much to worry about in the IQ department.
Whatever Norquist's motives were before 9/11 he seems to have failed to re-evaluate his views on American Muslims since that time. Maybe I'm wrong and he's not an anti-Semite, but, as with many other folks it is difficult to understand their continuing support of Islamists. Norquist is surely no communist, no radical leftist, maybe he is not against the Jews, maybe he's just a naive fool who doesn't get it.
Here is a link to an old NRO piece that addresses some of these issues. It was the best I could find via google.
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york031903.asp
I used to be a big Norquist fan, and maybe I'm wrong about him. But 9/11 revealed that there are people in this country, just strolling around seemingly minding their own business, but their business turns out to be killing Americans. Before 9/11 I myself was a pro-immigration conservative and devoid of any serious prejudice against any group of people. Now I want to close the borders and am mired in distrust of Muslims, I see serious problems in their religion and culture and I remain undecided and questioning (as the leftists like to say) about them. It is pretty plain to me that to take an attitude that it was "just a few bad apples" that gave us 9/11 is to completely miss the point. Will Muslim Americans give Bush their vote is a far less important question than the one that asks: Which Muslim Americans are active participants in and supporters of global jihad?
Really?
Rove got Bush elected?
I guess it's true after all what my mother told me -- I do learn something new every day.
Here, all this time since the last election, I labored under the mistaken notion that I had some part in getting Bush elected. Me, and a few million others like me.
I guess I'll save my efforts next time around. Maybe I'll stay home and watch my "Cabaret" DVD again, instead of hauling my limping ass down to the polling place. (Yeah, I do have a "handicap parking tag", but even so, it's a bitch to drive way out in the country and schlep into that old building.)
I mean, since Karl is still on the payroll, I assume he's still up to the task. If he did it once, he can do it again. Heck, he wouldn't still have the job if he wasn't any good, right?
I want to thank you for getting this huge load off my mind. Voting isn't any fun (as is evidenced by the pathetic turn outs on election days). It's good to know that Karl Rove has taken care of that little problem. I never would have know it, had not you taken the time to spread the good news.
And now if you'll excuse me, I've got to do my fair share, and spread the news. I know lots of people who'd be more than glad to stay home on election day, once they realize that their votes aren't needed.
(To be frank, I kinda had the feeling all along that we weren't really wanted in the "Grand" Ol' Party as of late, but now that I know that it's official -- our votes simply aren't needed -- there's no reason to maintain the charade, and pretend that we enjoy hanging out with a snooty bunch that acts like it's doing us a favor to even tolerate our presence!)
You don't comprehend the meaning of context, political-speak, and grammatic license, do you?
To the thinking of many, Rove got GWB elected in the same way the late Lee Atwater got Bush-41 elected and, and the same way James Carville got Clinton elected, etc., etc.
All this means, DJ, is that these individuals are credited with having come up with the means and arguments to get people to vote for their candidate - thus getting said candidate elected. It's political shorthand, not a slight against the folks who actually voted for the candidate.
You don't understand the meaning of Ronald Reagan's statement that you quoted, do you?
I asked you a question, DJ. Is that speaking ill of a fellow Republican?
To the larger point, though, do you understand that slights are not intended when it is stated that "(Name here) got (Candidate) elected?"
Yes, it certainly is when you turn around a piece of obvious sarcasm, and rather than address the issue raised in the appropriately, tastefully sarcastic remark, use it as a springboard to issue a "question" implying that the poster is a literal-minded slug.
But, let's drop it, shall we? It seems that my opinion of Rove and Norquist is quite low, and is not about to reverse, and your opinion of them is not the same of mine, nor is it about to change, so I see no reason to take this "you and me" thing any further, n'est ce pas?
Lapin says liberal magazines such as the New Republic are out to get Norquist because he is such an effective conservative coalition-builder. "Grover is somebody to whom the Republican Party owes a lot because of his coalition-building abilities, and this includes Jews and Christians and Muslims and people who are religiously unaffiliated." source
Grover Norquist is not Anti-Semitic.
Maybe you were always closed minded and anti-muslim, or anti-immigrant. Lots of folks like this here on this site and thread like that. 9-1-1 just allowed them to show more of their prejudices. Here is a good article on Norquist, written by the left. He's simply a guy with an agenda to role back government, and will take his allies any way they arrive - and I think that's where most people have a problem.
*sigh*
No, you don't quite have it. (You missed it by a country mile, but who's keeping score?)
Here's the scramus: My point went flying by your head. You hadn't the faintest clue of what I way saying. You replied with a bitter, snippy, bellicose retort, as did your compatriot, and my followup -- as was my reply to him -- is an attempt to let you off easy.
Have a nice day.
Both good men, but Gaffney is a stooge for the military/industrial complex and is one of those completely obsessed with war in the middle east. Horowitz simply does not like muslims or anyone that cavorts with them. He's never satisfactorily justified why.
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.