Hiding in Plain Sight (Al Arian at the White House)

Newsweek ^ | March 3rd, 2003 | Michael Isikoff

[Sabertooth]

For George W. Bush, it was just another campaign stop. But for Sami Al-Arian, a University of South Florida engineering professor, it was a golden opportunity. When Bush appeared at Tampa’s Strawberry Festival in March 2000, Al-Arian sidled up to the candidate and had his picture taken.

< -snip- >

Al-Arian’s politics took on a decidedly darker cast last week when federal agents arrested him at his home in south Florida and charged him with being a top leader of one of the world’s most violent terrorist organizations: Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ).

< -snip- >

Al-Arian certainly didn’t act like a sponsor of suicide bombings. Far from keeping to the shadows, he repeatedly lobbied Congress on civil-liberties issues, made thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to influential members of Congress and renounced violence during appearances on TV talk shows. In June 2001 Al-Arian was invited to a White House briefing for 150 Muslim American activists, at which political director Karl Rove talked about the Bush administration’s "outreach" efforts. A law-enforcement official told NEWSWEEK the Secret Service had flagged Al-Arian as a potential terrorist prior to the event. But White House aides, apparently reluctant to create an incident, let him through anyway. Such access had its advantages. "He always told me the charges were garbage," said Khaled Saffuri, chairman of the Islamic Institute. "When you hear he’s going to the White House, you figure what he’s saying must be true." In fact, federal prosecutors charged last week, Al-Arian carried out his secret terrorist agenda "under the guise of promoting and protecting Arab rights"—making his public profile a critical part of his MO. "It was the perfect cover," said Steven Emerson, a terrorism analyst who has followed Al-Arian for years.

[cyncooper]

Let's see if GW disassociates himself from these people

Al-Arian and others have been arrested.

[Happy2BMe]

"Would you concede that is not taking him to his bosom?"

It's a start.

Talk to any FBI agent on the modus-operandi of an (successful) Islamic Jihad warrior and you'll always get - "Quiet, friendly, personable, deadly."

[TLBSHOW]

So Sami was arrested which was fantastic. Which we all agree with....Now what about GN? Is he done with at the White House have you heard or is there a link? Thanks in advance. Not to mention Amc and cair what is their standing at the moment?

...........

The latest and perhaps most appalling instance of this attitude is the dust-up currently playing itself out in Washington between two prominent conservatives over who should have access to the White House.


It seems that Grover Norquist, a man little-known around the country, but a key Washington insider within conservative circles, has been helping get representatives of two radical Muslim and Arab-American groups access to the White House and Congress.


Norquist, who is known as the guru of tax cuts, is, strangely enough, also closely allied with the pro-Hamas American Muslim Council (AMC), as well as the viciously anti-Israel and anti-war-on-Iraq Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).


Conservative think-tank wonk Frank J. Gaffney Jr., who served as Undersecretary of Defense in the Reagan administration, charged last week that Norquist is attempting to make these groups, that have rationalized terror and opposed every attempt by the Bush administration to fight it, appear kosher. While Bush, Ashcroft and Ridge were rallying us to persevere in the war on terror, Gaffney says Norquist's friends were able to walk into the White House via the front door.

FOES OF ISLAMISTS TARRED AS "RACISTS"

For raising the issue, Gaffney has been labeled a "racist" and a "bigot." That's the same treatment afforded Swiss historian Bat Ye'or, whose books detail the long history of Islamic intolerance for Jews and Christians. Bat Ye'or's 2002 book "Islam and Dhimmitude" (paperback) followed up brilliantly on her previous histories, such as the classic The Dhimmi: Jews & Christians Under Islam, which detailed the story of what exactly the Islamic "toleration" for Jews and Christians actually meant.


Rather than being invited to the White House, Bat Ye'or was practically chased off the nearby campus of Georgetown University last year, where her truthful lecture on the history of Islamic intolerance was labeled "hate speech."


The irony is that groups like AMC and CAIR ought to be treated by freedom-loving Americans of every faith as anti-democratic pariahs. But instead, they have mounted a campaign to label men like Gaffney and Pipes as anti-Muslim rather than anti-terror.


The threat from the Islamists isn't paranoia. It is all too real. That's why the pablum some in the media and the White House hand us, downplaying the threat from much of the Islamic world, is so dangerous. Were it merely intended to ward off a backlash against American Muslims, it might be defensible. But no such backlash exists, nor is there any credible proof of one.


The bottom line is that the apologists for terror at AMC and CAIR should not be allowed to keep their White House seal of approval. Nor should their bile aimed at delegitimizing the truth-tellers be allowed to prevail. If it does, it will undermine both our liberties and the war on terror.


And that's something we should all be frightened about.


http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/tobin1.asp

[Sabertooth]

May I ask, what is the point of posting all these similar stories? Are you intimating that President Bush supports terorists? Or Karl Rove? I am curiious as to why you keep posting the same type articles repeatedly. If you are trying to get Grover Norquist, I suggest you make a more explicit tie to him, because right now your posts look more like an attack on the President.

My surmise at this time is that Rove knew little and Bush knew less. Nor does that make them culpable, in my mind. The task of filtering terrorist sympathizers, supporters, and co-cinspirators out of the White House belongs to subordinates and advisors.

Based on this article, the Secret Service was on the ball with Al Arian, but they were overruled by someone. Whom?

Grover Norquist. Suhail Khan. Ali Tilbah. Those are the names that should be scrutinized.

The point of posting the similar stories is to make the connections for which you're asking.
#39 on this thread has a lot of info. Also, over on this thread here, there is a great deal of information. Many threads, with many links. Try a keyword search for NORQUIST

From these we learn that Sami Al Arian wasn't the only questionable character with ties to radical Islamist terrorism to visit the White House under President Bush. I don't imagine that the Secret Service was asleep at the switch for all of those occaasions, do you? So, it's quite likely that the process by which Sami Al Arian gained access to the White House was repeated. I find that troubling, don't you? Again, who was responsible? What were their motives?

Are they just dangerously naive, or something worse?

[Sabertooth]

Al-Arian and others have been arrested.

The American Muslim Council was at the White House last month, in a meeting arranged by White House aide Ali Tulbah.

Do you have information to the effect that Khaled Saffuri of the Islamic Institute no longer has access to White House officials?

[Victoria Delsoul]

Al-Arian and others have been arrested.

Notwithstanding the fact they have been arrested, which I am aware of, I think GW should say something just as he did when he reproached Lott. The implication that the WH knew about the ongoing investigation of Al-Arian and that he was still invited to its meeting warrants distancing himself from them. We are talking about terrorist-financier-sympathizers and advocates of the destruction of Israel and of US influence in the region

[Torie]

Turning the guy away at the WH doorstep does seem to be a bit much to ask. He was part of a group. And it was pre 9-11. Tom Campbell was a classmate of mine. No way is a terrorist symp. He is a law professor worried about civil liberties. Obviously he did not know about the guy's sub rosa activities, which is a different issue in any event.

[Torie]

This story is presented in a most confusing way. What exactly is the bill of particulars against the Islamic Institute?

[cyncooper]

Do you have information to the effect that Khaled Saffuri of the Islamic Institute no longer has access to White House officials?

Do you have any information that President Bush is sympathetic to Islamic terrorists?

THAT is the implication (and some have stated it explicitly) of why you keep harping on this non-event.

[cyncooper]

We are talking about terrorist-financier-sympathizers and advocates of the destruction of Israel and of US influence in the region

I am aware of that. More importantly, President Bush is clearly aware of it, as are the FBI, CIA, and the DOJ.

[FreeReign]

We do know that Al-Arian’s was invited by the WH last year

WE DO???? Please document this allegation. (My calendar says it is 2003 and Al-Arian was at the WH in June 2001)

So it was a year and a half ago instead of last year. Tell me the consequence on what we've discussed in this thread, of such a mistake. (My calender says you pick nits)

[FreeReign]

The implication that the WH knew about the ongoing investigation of Al-Arian and that he was still invited to its meeting warrants distancing himself from them.

I agree, the President should make a comment about what happened although I don't take the implication that the WH knew, to be very serious.

[TLBSHOW]

There is more coming about GN this week and I am sure Frank Gaffney will keep us up to date if you can't link one single truth except that Sami was arrested of course after Frank started this warning at Cpac.

[Sabertooth]

Turning the guy away at the WH doorstep does seem to be a bit much to ask. He was part of a group. And it was pre 9-11.

From the article.

A law-enforcement official told NEWSWEEK the Secret Service had flagged Al-Arian as a potential terrorist prior to the event.

Tom Campbell was a classmate of mine. No way is a terrorist symp. He is a law professor worried about civil liberties. Obviously he did not know about the guy's sub rosa activities, which is a different issue in any event.

I'm somewhat familiar with Campbell, as he was the Rep from my Mom's district. I'm not suggesting that he was a symp, but that Al Arian found him "useful." I think that's a problem.

The important thing to keep in mind about Campbell is that Suhail Khan was on his Congressional staff, now sits on the board of Norquist's Islamic Institute, was hired as a Muslim outreach aide at the White House on Norquist's recommendation, and is quite possibly the guy who invited Al Arian and/or weighed in against the Secret Service's objections to him.

Suhail Khan is the son of Mahboob Khan, at whose mosque Ayman Al Zawahiri riased money for Al Qaeda in 1995. And Suhail Khan is one of the two White House aides identified by Gaffney, over whom Norquist went ballistic, bringing much of this mess back to light.

[Victoria Delsoul]

More importantly, President Bush is clearly aware of it,

Then, I hope he says something. No one should have the impression that he or his administration is in any way shape or form involved with these people, as these articles want us to think. Even though GW's name isn't mentioned the implication is there.

[cyncooper]

Sami was arrested of course after Frank started this warning at Cpac.

That is a very silly statement. The indictment was handed down just last week by a grand jury. The arrests took place the very next day.

You understand what that means, don't you? It means evidence has been presented to a grand jury *for months* seeking such an indictment.

It had not one thing to do with Frank Gaffney or Grover Norquist.

[Victoria Delsoul]

although I don't take the implication that the WH knew, to be very serious.

Well, he was being investigated quite a few years prior to his WH meeting invitation.

[Sabertooth]

Do you have any information that President Bush is sympathetic to Islamic terrorists?

THAT is the implication (and some have stated it explicitly) of why you keep harping on this non-event.

No, that is the red herring inference taken by some of those who would rather this whole business disappear, as I have scrupulously pointed out that I don't believe that Bush is culpable for every blunder of his subordinates. Most recently at #64, just above your #69, to which I'm responding now.

If you still think otherwise, please find an actual post where I've taken a position against President Bush on this.

[cyncooper]

Even though GW's name isn't mentioned the implication is there.

I know. I've been battling the implication for days now since some here on FR seem to buy that message, though they turn around and deny that is what their game is.

I see no reason for some statement by the president when there is no "there there", but I know some want every allegation that is dredged up addressed and denied, even when the allegation is absurd on its face. As it is in this instance.

Perhaps more will be demanded of the WH and they'll say something further. Not necessary from my pov.

[cyncooper]

Well, he was being investigated quite a few years prior to his WH meeting invitation.

And his wife was invited to testify before Congress twice in 2000. The son was an aide to David Bonior.

I agree the WH visit should not have happened, but I can see how some aide would think how much political contact and respect had been granted in the past and foolishly decided the family should be granted access. As is plain to see, that was nipped in the bud pronto. The very next visit by the son a few days or weeks later ended with him being escorted OUT of the meeting.