Posted on 02/25/2003 5:24:29 AM PST by SJackson
What considerations, political or otherwise, prompted members of Mr. Bush's staff to believe that Al-Arian was the kind of person they wanted on their team? Who bears responsibility for making those calculations? And are they continuing to do so with respect to other individuals and organizations that could, at the very least, embarrass Mr. Bush and, at worst, seriously undermine his efforts in the war on terror?
What are we to make of the fact that a Muslim extremist (or "Islamist") named Dr. Sami Al-Arian was arrested and indicted last week on 50 counts, among them conspiracy to finance terrorist attacks that killed more than 100 people -- including two Americans? One thing is sure: It is not, as Al-Arian claimed when federal agents led him away in handcuffs, "all about politics."
After all, this alleged leader of Palestinian Islamic Jihad -- an organization Attorney General John Ashcroft has described as "one of the most violent terrorist organizations in the world" -- was allowed into the Bush White House on at least one occasion. According to Saturday's Washington Post, in one of these meetings, he was among the front-row attendees at a briefing conducted by the man who is, arguably, Mr. Bush's chief aide: Karl Rove. Generally, political foes do not receive such treatment.
The Post article was accompanied by a photograph taken of Al-Arian with Candidate George W. Bush and his wife, Laura, during a campaign stop at the Tampa Strawberry Festival in March 2000. Perhaps this photo op was a way of thanking Al-Arian and his wife for the efforts they claim to have made on Mr. Bush's behalf "in Florida mosques and elsewhere because they thought him the candidate most likely to fight discrimination against Arab-Americans."
Al-Arian had particular reason to prefer Candidate Bush since the latter had pledged as part of his campaign's "outreach" to the Muslim community to end the use of secret evidence against suspected terrorists. This goal was a particular priority for Al-Arian since his brother-in- law, Mazen al-Najjar, was incarcerated for three-and-a-half years on the basis of such evidence, prior to his deportation.
Candidate Bush with the Al-Arian clan
In the photo with Mr. Bush, Al-Arian was accompanied by his son, Abdullah, who Mr. Bush reportedly dubbed "Big Dude." Big Dude Al-Arian was himself admitted into the White House six days after his father's June 2001 visit. Ironically, as the Wall Street Journal noted on Friday, "the Secret Service deemed Mr. Al-Arian's son -- at the time an intern in a Democratic congressional office [that of then-Rep. David Bonior of Michigan] -- a security risk and ejected him from a meeting on President Bush's faith-based initiatives program."
The episode precipitated howls of outrage from representatives of other Islamist groups who had been allowed to participate in this and other, high-level Administration meetings. It produced apologies from the President's spokesman and the Secret Service. According to the Post, on August 2, 2001, Mr. Bush even wrote Mrs. Al-Arian expressing "'regret' about how her son was treated. 'I have been assured that everything possible is being done to ensure that nothing like this happens again.'"
The question, in short, is not whether "politics" are responsible for Sami Al-Arian's prosecution for aiding and abetting terror? The question is: What considerations, political or otherwise, prompted members of Mr. Bush's staff to believe that Al-Arian was the kind of person they wanted on their team? Who bears responsibility for making those calculations? And are they continuing to do so with respect to other individuals and organizations that could, at the very least, embarrass Mr. Bush and, at worst, seriously undermine his efforts in the war on terror?
Obvious candidates include two individuals who have, at various times, had responsibilities in the White House for Muslim outreach: Suhail Khan, formerly with the Public Liaison Office, and Ali Tulbah, currently Associate Director for Cabinet Affairs. As it happens, their judgment about which people should be admitted to the President's company might have been influenced by the fact that their fathers were, respectively, active in Islamist-associated organizations in California and Texas.
Alternatively, Grover Norquist, the founding co-chairman of the Islamic Institute -- an organization that has played an important role in its own right in facilitating the Bush team's outreach to groups whose leaders and activities have repeatedly excused terror and/or opposed the administration's aggressive pursuit of the war against it -- asserted in an interview circulated last week by NewsMax.com, that Messrs. Khan and Tulbah "were merely underlings carrying out decisions made by more senior White House officials....The people making decisions are Presbyterians and Catholics, not Muslims.'" The issue is not their faith; it's their judgment.
Whoever is responsible, their behavior has seriously disserved President Bush, and risks becoming more than a mere political liability if it is allowed to persist
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
Thank God he was indicted...finally. Let's just hope that another Clinton isn't in a position to pardon him!
was allowed into the Bush White House on at least one occasion. According to Saturday's Washington Post, in one of these meetings,
Notice the sly "at least once" and "in one of those meetings".
The FBI did. He was on a terrorist watch list since the mid 90's.
Egged on by the hysterical types here.
I have not read one story regarding Sami Al-Arian yet that reports that his wife, Nahla, testified before Congress TWICE in 2000. This family was accorded a measure of political legitimacy that more than likely colored the vetting process. A coloring that was corrected, as the removal of the son from the meeting indicates.
As to Gaffney's question "what are we to make" of the arrest of the elder Al-Arian, the answer is obvious. This administration enforces the law.
To clarify: were accorded this legitimacy well before President Bush was ever inaugurated. Today Sami Al-Arian is behind bars.
"As to Gaffney's question "what are we to make" of the arrest of the elder Al-Arian, the answer is obvious. This administration enforces the law."
BUMP!
It is unconscienable and despicable that the President, who relies on him for sound judgement, should have been placed in a situation of compromise on any issue of security. It makes him look like a patsy, which he is not.
If Rove is SO driven to orchestrate and manipulate perceptions (ala Dick Morris) and is so lacking in discretion, I hope his roll gets knocked down a peg or two. I wonder if Karen Hughes was a part of this decision .. somehow, I think not.
It WAS known that this man had questionable connections .. that's why the Secret Service insisted that the son be removed from the White House .. finally.
Karl Rove .. wake up!! I hope Dubyah keeps you in a very tight box, and uses your skills in areas that don't compromise his integrity or safety.
No favors being granted.
1. This doesn't necessarily make Dubya look bad, but it makes his staff look careless. The problem is the vetting.
2. Al-Arian's terrorist connections have been suspected for years, both within his community and among law enforcement. O'Reilly didn't "discover" this--he received a lot of tips. So why on earth didn't the White House nix this guy's access?
3. Nevertheless, the visits (some say only one, some say just "a few") most likely did not influence policy. However, it looks really bad, just as those pictures of the Clintons with drug kingpins made them look bad. Which brings me to the final point--
4. Everyone should choose their company carefully. People in high places (I mean, he's the President fer cryin' out loud) should use even more care--and those charged with gate-keeping should make it difficult for these embarassing moments to occur. Whoever made this meeting possible should be fired.
Every point you make is inarguable, with the exception of #3. Radical Muslim sympathizers with and supporters of terror, and not a few, still have access to the White House to this day, and their efforts to influence policy, including the investigation of suspected terror organizations from whom they've received funding, is ongoing.
And that's a good thing, as far as it goes. Clearly, the Bush Administration has restored a great deal of integrity to the Justice Department, after Janet Reno's eight-year malfeasance.
However, what are we to make of the efforts of Khaled Saffuri, co-founder with Grover Norquist of the Islamic Institute, to intervene on the behalf of the Safa Trust in a meeting with Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill last year, after warrants were served on Safa investigating their financial links with terror orgs (link)? Isn't this troubling, given that Norquist has acknowledged that the Islamic Institute has received donations from the Safa Trust (link)?
I'm not saying that the investigation has been influenced, but why was Saffuri even given the opportunity to weigh in, given the clear conflict of interest?
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.