Why was Sami Al-Arian in the Bush White House?
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.
At Odds With Bush's Strategy
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. In a recently released document entitled, The National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, the Administration declares:
Together with the international community, we will wage a war of ideas to make clear that all acts of terrorism are illegitimate....We must use the full influence of the United States to delegitimize terrorism and make clear that all acts of terrorism will be viewed in the same light as slavery, piracy, or genocide: behavior that no respectable government can condone or support and all must oppose. In short, with our friends and allies, we aim to establish a new international norm regarding terrorism requiring non-support, non-tolerance, and active opposition to terrorists. The United States will work with such moderate and modern governments to reverse the spread of extremist ideology and those who seek to impose totalitarian ideologies on our Muslim allies and friends. (Emphasis added.)
The Bottom Line
Sami Al-Arian -- and those who share his extremist views, defend his conduct and have tried to legitimate him politically -- are not on President Bush's side in the war on terror. They should, therefore, be seen as unfit to be by his side in implementing his strategy for winning that war.
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?section=papers&code=03-D_07"Sami Al-Arian -- and those who share his extremist views, defend his conduct and have tried to legitimate him politically -- are not on President Bush's side in the war on terror."
Yes, to put it mildly. My understanding was that Norquist wanted to go after the Arab vote in order to counter Jewish support for the Dem Party/Liberalism. I have no way of knowing if there was any more sinister reasons. But, nice an idea as that may have been, it should have been thrown out along with that morning's newspapers on Sept. 11, 2001.
I waited and waited to see widespread rejection of what happened that day, by American-based Muslims. I waited and waited to see patriotic support for our country from Muslims in this nation. Aside from a few individuals, and some at photo-ops, many of whom it know must be noted were just plants from CAIR, etc. I didn't see it.
I'm not saying it didn't happen, but if it did, I didn't see it. We CANNOT let what has happened in Europe happen here, with Muslims living in their own little backward and violent world, abusing their women and plotting our destruction.