| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 02/19/2003 10:13:53 PM PST by Jim Robinson, reason:
Flamewar |
Posted on 02/17/2003 9:27:11 PM PST by TLBSHOW
Who's with President Bush?
President Bush has characterized the choice to be made in this war on terror: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists." The stark clarity of this binary decision has served the United States well in marshaling a large number of nations in the fight against al Qaeda and a smaller, but still ample, number for the next phase of this war: the liberation of Iraq.
Regrettably, in the months since September 11, 2001, people who have made no secret of their sympathy for terrorists, provided them financial support, excused their murderous attacks and/or sought to impede the prosecution of the war against them have repeatedly been put in the company of the President. In other words, individuals and organizations who appear to be "with the terrorists" have time and again been allowed to be with the President in the White House and elsewhere.
For example: o On September 20, 2001 -- just nine days after the deadly attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon -- Shaykh Hamza Yusuf was the Muslim representative in a small ecumenical gathering held in the Oval Office.
At the same time, FBI agents were trying to interview him at his house in California since he had declared two days before the attack: "This country is facing a terrible fate....This country stands condemned. It stands condemned like Europe stood condemned because of what it did -- and lest people forget that Europe suffered two world wars after conquering the Muslim lands." His wife told the incredulous agents Yusuf wasn't home, he was with the President. o Six days later, President Bush met in the Roosevelt Room with a Muslim imam by the name of Muzammil H. Siddiqi. Siddiqi is a long-time board member of several organizations in the United States funded by, and closely tied to, Saudi Arabia's radical state religion known as Wahhabism. Two of these groups, including one where Siddiqi still sits on the board, were raided in March 2002 by Federal authorities in pursuit of terrorist financing.
This presidential meeting was all the more puzzling since the imam had shown his true colors by claiming, at a rally the previous October: "America has to learn...If you remain on the side of injustice, the wrath of God will come.
Please, all Americans. Do you remember that? Allah is watching everyone. God is watching everyone. If you continue doing injustice, and tolerate injustice, the wrath of God will come." o On September 17, 2001, President Bush paid a visit to the mosque in Washington. There he was photographed flanked by Nihad Awad, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
CAIR has long been an admirer and public defender of terrorist organizations whose attacks against even innocent women and children it sees as legitimate acts of "liberation." Awad has personally declared, "I am a supporter of the Hamas movement." o Also in the picture with President Bush at the mosque was Khaled Saffuri, currently chairman of an organization called the Islamic Institute, which he co-founded with conservative activist Grover Norquist.
Saffuri previously served as the development director of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, a supporter of the Palestine Liberation Organization when it made no bones about using terrorism for political purposes. He went on to become deputy director of the radical American Muslim Council (AMC), under then-director Abduraman Alamoudi -- a publicly declared supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah, whose statements of solidarity with these groups prompted the Bush 2000 campaign to return his contributions. Under Saffuri's leadership, the Islamic Institute has attacked the Bush Administration's investigations of radical Muslim groups and closures of organizations suspected of funding terrorists.
The Institute has been funded by groups raided in the above-mentioned terrorist financing investigations. It lobbied intensively against portions of the USA Patriot Act. And Saffuri has personally denounced the President's listing of the Holy Land Foundation as a charity that supported terrorist organizations. He has acknowledged sponsoring the children of suicide bombers through the Foundation, even after its closure by the government.
In addition to the President, a number of his senior subordinates -- including Cabinet officers -- have met, in some cases more than once, with members of the aforementioned and other organizations with troubling attitudes towards jihadist terrorists. A particularly bizarre instance was FBI Director Robert Mueller’s keynote address last year to the American Muslim Council.
The AMC has a long record of activities hostile to the Bush Administration’s prosecution of the war on terror. It has even urged Muslims not to cooperate with the FBI! Nonetheless, according to a press release dated last Thursday, Mr. Mueller has invited the AMC’s chairman, Dr. Yahya Mossa Basha, to attend an upcoming meeting with him and “leaders of major Muslim and Arab-American organizations.”
It is very much in the President's interest -- and the Nation's -- that moderate, law-abiding, peace-loving and patriotic American Muslims be embraced and empowered by the Bush Administration and all those who support it in waging a war on terror, not on Islam.
To do so, however, the Administration must not allow those who are “with” its enemies in that struggle to continue being with the President and his team.
And I live in the real words where words mean what they say, not what somebody with an agenda wants them to.
Main Entry: anti-
Variant(s): or ant- or anth-
Function: prefix
Etymology: anti- from Middle English, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French, from Latin, against, from Greek, from anti; ant- from Middle English, from Latin, against, from Greek, from anti; anth- from Latin, against, from Greek, from anti -- more at ANTE-
1 a : of the same kind but situated opposite, exerting energy in the opposite direction, or pursuing an opposite policy <anticlinal> b : one that is opposite in kind to <anticlimax>
2 a : opposing or hostile to in opinion, sympathy, or practice <anti-Semite> b : opposing in effect or activity <antacid>
3 : serving to prevent, cure, or alleviate <antianxiety>
4 : combating or defending against <antiaircraft> <antimissile>
TLB, would you please BE A MAN, and answer my question?? Or do you lack the courage to state your opinions clearly as to whether or not you believe the President is evil, or a traitor?
Are you an 'innocent messenger' or is this what you, yourself believe?
Please answer.
Alex, what is "they use it as a badge of superiority"?
BTW, homosexuals do not belong in positions in like Bush has put them.
If you think they do, you are not very conservative.
Do you believe he is either evil, or a traitor? Yes, or no.
The funniest part is that they're unlikely to get the Suslov reference or why it's so ironic :o)
We're all ears!
To: TLBSHOW
TLB, I want a straight answer from you.
Are you accusing President Bush of being corrupt? A traitor? Evil??
Be honest. What are you doing here?
Please have the courtesy of answering this question directly.
62 posted on 02/19/2003 4:25 PM EST by ohioWfan (PRAY for our President, our troops and our nation.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Where exactly is your proof again on this issue?? This issue here where you INFER and INSINUATE that the President is in bed with terrorists???
I must have been absent that day.
Good grief. You ignore any proof given of your errors when you have stated bald-faced lies.
Then there are the posters to whom I give no validity at all.
When the posts are not consistent in core beliefs, that's a red flag - one can't tell if the poster actually believes something, will believe anything, or is trolling.
When the posts tend to be incoherent due to poor grammar, spelling, and syntax, making the poster appear uneducated and/or ignorant, that's a red flag. When the poster appears to be seeking attention rather than the truth, that's a red flag.
When a poster exhibits 2 or more red flags, as far as I'm concerned the posts are useful merely for their entertainment value, if that. I've seen 3 flags on this thread.
Yes, even a stopped clock is correct twice a day - but who wants to depend on a stopped clock?
Whether you like it or not, there are other religions out there; and while you're damning them to hell, they may be just doing the same to you. You're part of the problem.
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.