Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Clinton Emissary Said to be Bin Laden Bag Man
NewsMax.com ^ | 10/01/03 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

Posted on 10/01/2003 8:43:44 AM PDT by kattracks

A man accused of funneling cash from Osama bin Laden to a radical Muslim cleric who helped plan the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center was on the payroll of the Clinton administration throughout the 1990s.

Abdurahman Alamoudi, who was arrested Sunday after being accused of trying to smuggle $340,000 in cash from Lybia to terrorist groups in Syria, worked at the Clinton State Department as a global emissary for religious tolerance.

When confronted with news of the curious arrangement just a week before Mrs. Clinton was elected to the Senate, a State Department spokesman told the New York Daily News that Alamoudi "has been traveling primarily to Muslim countries to address the topic of Islamic life in the U.S., including the rights of Muslims in America as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the status of the American Islamic community."

Today, however, the New York Post reports that the former Clinton diplomat "was suspected of funneling cash from Osama bin Laden to Blind Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman in the failed attempt to blow up New York City landmarks."

The Blind Sheik's speechwritier, who has turned government informant, told investigators that bin Laden "routinely funneled $5,000 payments to Rahman through Alamoudi and his organization, the American Muslim Council," the paper said.

The suspected bin Laden bag man was hired by the Clinton State Department a year after President Clinton turned down an offer from the government of Sudan for the al Qaeda chief's arrest and extradition to America.

Alamoudi remained on the State Department payroll right up through the 2000 election, a period during which President Clinton reportedly declined at least two additional offers to have bin Laden taken into custody. [To hear President Clinton and his wife explain why they declined the 1996 offer, Click Here.]

In May 2000, Alamoudi contributed $1,000 to Mrs. Clinton's Senate campaign. She also accepted $50,000 from a related group, the American Muslim Alliance, at a June 2000 fundraiser in Boston. The AMA has since merged with the AMC.

Mrs. Clinton apparently knew that Alamoudi's donation could be politically problematic - her staff reported the contribution on Federal Election Commission records as coming from "the American Museum Council." She later called the misleading entry a "typographical error."

Just days before the 2000 election, the accused bin Laden bag man spoke at a Muslim rights demonstration outside the White House, where he proclaimed, "We are all supporters of Hamas. I wish they added that I am also a supporter of Hezbollah. . . . Does anybody support Hezbollah here?"

Alamoudi also donated $1,000 to President Bush's campaign. Both Clinton and Bush immediately returned his donations.

Sen. Clinton, however, kept the $50,000 donation from the American Muslim Alliance until after her campaign was over, and instead had the Democratic National Committee issue a refund.

"It wasn't until Nov. 14, a week after the election, that the Democratic Party's soft-money committee was reimbursed for the refunds with cash from Clinton's campaign fund," the Daily News reported.

By funneling the refunds through a party committee, which was flush with cash, Clinton was technically able to make use of the Muslim group's donations as her own "hard money" through Election Day, the News explained.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:

Al-Qaeda
Sen. Hillary Clinton



TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 199; 1993wtcbombig; 200310; abdulrahmanalamoudi; alamoudi; clinton; erdogan; goodriddance; hillaryclinton; jamalkhashoggi; kashoggi; khashoggi; kurdistan; muslimbrotherhood; receptayyiperdogan; saudiarabia; turkey; wtc; wtc1993; x42
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-82 next last

1 posted on 10/01/2003 8:43:46 AM PDT by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kattracks
And yet, still.... none dare call it TREASON.
2 posted on 10/01/2003 8:46:01 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
What did Bill know, and when did he know it?

How about an independent council?

Where's Nancy Pelosi now?

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS A CRIMINAL ENTERPRIZE!

3 posted on 10/01/2003 8:46:35 AM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I will defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
worked at the Clinton State Department as a global emissary for religious tolerance.

Only the Clintons would put an Islamic Fundamentalist Extremist in charge of Religious Tolerance.

4 posted on 10/01/2003 8:46:54 AM PDT by Chad Fairbanks (<Tag>Something unspeakably clever</Tag>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
More traitorous acts by the clintoons.

5 posted on 10/01/2003 8:47:00 AM PDT by Bikers4Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
The timing of this has nothng at all to do with the CIA scandal.
6 posted on 10/01/2003 8:47:11 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
ugly bump

clinton didn't know, did he? /bs off

7 posted on 10/01/2003 8:49:06 AM PDT by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
A story like this will pass through the collective conscience of the entire liberal news media without a ripple, while they continue to bang the non-story regarding Wilson as though it were truly tidal.

Sickening. Typical and sickening. Rat b*stards.

8 posted on 10/01/2003 8:49:09 AM PDT by Husker8877
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Ashcroft crusades to keep us safe from bong merchants while feigning blindness to the Clintons' crimes.
9 posted on 10/01/2003 8:50:49 AM PDT by Lexington Green (FREE TOMMY CHONG)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
"And yet, still.... none dare call it TREASON."

We, [you and I], do!

10 posted on 10/01/2003 8:52:13 AM PDT by G.Mason (Lessons of life need not be fatal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Bill & Hill should be tried for TREASON, convicted, and EXECUTED.

I wonder if B & H could be sued to complicit negligence.
11 posted on 10/01/2003 8:53:11 AM PDT by appalachian_dweller (If we accept responsibility for our own actions, we are indeed worthy of our freedom. – Bill Whittle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mountaineer; Miss Marple; Dog
Oh hum. Wanna bet this will never make it into the mainstream press?
12 posted on 10/01/2003 8:57:15 AM PDT by Iowa Granny (Conservative women LIKE men!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: G.Mason
Unless one of us is Ashcroft in disguise, there ain't much we can do other than b!tch about it.

Someone needs to step up and do their job.

13 posted on 10/01/2003 8:57:37 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Mrs. Clinton apparently knew that Alamoudi's donation could be politically problematic - her staff reported the contribution on Federal Election Commission records as coming from "the American Museum Council."

I remember this contribution was reported here at FR during Hillary's senate campaign. It may have been the NY Post or some such outlet that reported it. This contribution and the Suha Arafat kiss were often referred to here, but the media, naturally, buried these anti-Jewish connections under the rug and she went on to be elected.

His arrest as a bin Ladin agent, of course, is a new twist to the case. But the chances that the major media will report it are, to say the least, somewhere around zero.

14 posted on 10/01/2003 8:57:55 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Husker8877
How do you keep a story you don’t want seen out of sight? You put a "bigger" story in front of it. Even if the story is contrived it still serves its purpose.

I’m not saying that's what is going on here, but it is something to consider.

These people know how to play the PR game; they have been doing it for years. This situation matches the pattern.



15 posted on 10/01/2003 8:58:25 AM PDT by myself6 (Unionize IT?! "I will stop the motor of the world" - John Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
You've probably seen this, but just in case...
16 posted on 10/01/2003 9:03:08 AM PDT by jla (http://hillarytalks.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: myself6; Miss Marple; piasa; BOBTHENAILER; nopardons; Liz; mewzilla; Phsstpok
You are right on target.

The lunatic lefties have had the non story of Wilson's wife being compromised on their back burners since July.

They quickly released this non story this past weekend as they knew this damaging data would be coming out.

Their mediot buddies have cooperated to bury the real story with the non story/lies. This was one of the oldest KGB tricks when the USSR was still around.
17 posted on 10/01/2003 9:03:38 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (May our brave warriors kill all of the Islamokazis/facists/nazis to prevent future 9/11's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Can anybody here guess who the American Muslim Alliance endorsed for President in 2000? Don't click the link until you've at least given one try at guessing, but noting that there are many reasons why Ashcroft's Justice Department isn't that interested in investigating this stuff may give you a hint.
18 posted on 10/01/2003 9:03:43 AM PDT by drjimmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: js1138
You think the capture of Alamoud was planned just to counter the CIA thing?
19 posted on 10/01/2003 9:03:53 AM PDT by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: js1138
The timing of this has nothng at all to do with the CIA scandal.

I would say it this way:

The timing of the CIA scandal has nothing at all to do with this.

20 posted on 10/01/2003 9:04:18 AM PDT by StriperSniper (The slippery slope is getting steeper.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-82 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson