The plot thickens: Al-Arian in the White House

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.

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

Since when, is the mere act of speaking up in one's own defense not allowed in the US?

Luis, that's not what happened. Khaled Saffuri used his access with this Administration and attempted to intervene in an ongoing terror investigation of the Safa Trust, a donor to his Islamic Institute. He wasn't speaking up in his own defense.
Bush obviously had no knowledge of the meeting, but that doesn't make Saffuri's attempt to influence the investigation less problematic.

OK, so he was there to speak in behalf of others being investigated.

Note the word "investigated". An investigation usually includes the gathering of information from all sorts of different sources in order to arrive at a conclusion.

If you exclude sources arguing in behalf of the people or group being investigated, or providing facts contrary to the accusations and/or incidents in question, it stops being an investigation, and becomes a witch hunt.

Yes....most 'sly'.

I'm moving onto other threads until actual PROOF can be shown re: this issue. The 'sly' innuendos and suppositions can only be rehashed so many times. As another poster stated yesterday, the horse is dead. All some are now trying to do is show what big muscles they have by swinging their perceived sledgehammer over and over and over and over and over and over...ad nauseum.

It was my impression that Jim didn't want any more replays of the replay of the replays posted.

"Pulled on 02/24/2003 12:23 PM PST by Jim Robinson, reason: Enough of this crap..."

Moving on...

Exactly! This is why the charge that "these protesters are giving aid, comfort, and cover" is so poignant. These idiots can say that we are being McArthy-ites or whatever, but this is a perfect example of why they should shut their skull caves!

I would be more upset about this, except for the fact that it all took place pre-9/11. Most of us, at that time, thought that Muslims were like us. They had their extremists, but all religions do, and the vast majority of them just wanted peace. I think we have all learned better since then, and that includes the FBI, GW Bush and the WH staff.

Miz, you and posters 17 & 23 all surmise the same thing and that is who indeed overruled the FBI and CIA. I don't think you have to look any further than Bill Clinton's White House. The same preposterous, ludicrous imposter of a president who told us Education was fixed; Health was fixed; Aids was almost cured and smoking, that dastardly habit was licked and Bill Gates was Reno’ed for good measure. He simply did not want to rock his luxury cruse with something so upsetting as Sami and his terrorists who were gaining at a gallop in American and around the world. Coddling Arafat and other terrorist within the United Nations was much more to their liking, Hillary, Madeline, Janet, Al and Bill loved the rosy little world they painstakingly photo-oped and painted for America all the while pulling this nation down morally, spiritually and economically by spending like drunken sailors, to a Third World position.

Sami could indeed work unfettered at his leisure to undermine America as there was no one to stop him and a White House that did not care.

The plot thickens ? What plot is the guy talking about ? The plot to send Sami to the slammer for 50 years ? I think the article is a little overboard with the insinuation of some kind of White House plot.

The real question is why do we give Arafat US tax dollars to be a terrorist supporter ?

President George W. Bush once again endorses terrorists. He also invited another Arab terrorist to the White House. That terrorist is Abu Mazen (a.k.a. Mahmoud Abbas). Abu Mazen was Arafat's bookkeeper and primary financier. Also, Bush even said that he was not concerned about Osama bin Laden. On March 13, 2002, Bush said: "I truly am not that concerned about him [Osama]."

President George W. Bush once again endorses terrorists. He also invited another Arab terrorist to the White House.

This terrorist has been there before.

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.