Posted on 02/23/2003 8:53:24 AM PST by Sabertooth
For George W. Bush, it was just another campaign stop. But for Sami Al-Arian, a University of South Florida engineering professor, it was a golden opportunity. When Bush appeared at Tampas Strawberry Festival in March 2000, Al-Arian sidled up to the candidate and had his picture taken.
< -snip- > Al-Arians politics took on a decidedly darker cast last week when federal agents arrested him at his home in south Florida and charged him with being a top leader of one of the worlds most violent terrorist organizations: Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). < -snip- > Al-Arian certainly didnt act like a sponsor of suicide bombings. Far from keeping to the shadows, he repeatedly lobbied Congress on civil-liberties issues, made thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to influential members of Congress and renounced violence during appearances on TV talk shows. In June 2001 Al-Arian was invited to a White House briefing for 150 Muslim American activists, at which political director Karl Rove talked about the Bush administrations "outreach" efforts. A law-enforcement official told NEWSWEEK the Secret Service had flagged Al-Arian as a potential terrorist prior to the event. But White House aides, apparently reluctant to create an incident, let him through anyway. Such access had its advantages. "He always told me the charges were garbage," said Khaled Saffuri, chairman of the Islamic Institute. "When you hear hes going to the White House, you figure what hes saying must be true." In fact, federal prosecutors charged last week, Al-Arian carried out his secret terrorist agenda "under the guise of promoting and protecting Arab rights"making his public profile a critical part of his MO. "It was the perfect cover," said Steven Emerson, a terrorism analyst who has followed Al-Arian for years.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.com ...
I have 8 or 9 ping lists, which vary by subject. If I see a relevant thread, I go to one of the lists.
Neither of the suspended Freepers is on any of them. Prior to her suspension, I scolded the suspendee you don't care for, via Freepmail, for engaging in the flame war and helping to get the thread deleted, which I had posted and into which I had put a bit of effort. My "game," if you care to look at my posts, is to try and bring facts to light and discuss them. I confess that I do have a point of view, but I think you'll also notice that I frequently ask other posters to provide information, sources, and links, as I am not beyond persuasion.
Also, I am known to have people who aren't necessarily likeminded on some of my lists, because we get along and we have enjoyable and interesting discussions, even in disagreement.
It's happened, on occasion, that some posters on my lists have gone after others of a more gentle disposition, and it's not unheard of for me to intervene, whether by Freepmail or on the thread itself, in those instances.
Ask around.
Please read my posts more carefully before you respond.
I said: "I've watched many on 'your' threads ping others..."
I did not say YOU pinged those people to your thread.
To my observation, this was a victimless crime.
I said: "I've watched many on 'your' threads ping others..."
I did not say YOU pinged those people to your thread.
Fair enough, my apologies for the misunderstanding.
Hopefully, though, we're also clear that this isn't behavior I condone or encourage. You did say that my game had been identified, and that the one I'd hoped would be suspended was, no?
I dunno Sabertooth. For my part......though I am not calling myself a 'victim'.........I'm not too fond of having my words twisted and contorted to the point that what I actually said comes out exactly the opposite by the flamer. And I am also not fond of having vulgarities thrown at me because the poster doesn't agree with my position.
I will agree that you as an individual, are capable of having disagreements without nastiness, but I do tend to avoid the threads you post to because of the unfortunate people who hang around those threads.
And it gets tiring to see the same few people implying repeatedly that the President is lacking in honor, intelligence, or integrity. He is not, and I'm not sure that these poor souls don't repeat the accusations just to get the attention they apparently crave.
That information comes from the WP:
"Sami Al-Arian, a former computer engineering professor at the University of South Florida, had been under investigation by the FBI for at least six years at the time of the June 2001 briefing for a Muslim organization. Numerous news accounts also had said federal agents suspected Al-Arian of links to terrorism."
Al-Arian told The Washington Post in an interview last year that being cleared into the White House gave him confidence that he was no longer suspected of being a terrorist supporter or sympathizer.
Al-Arian was one of 160 members of the American Muslim Council who were briefed on Bush's faith-based agenda and other issues by Rove and others in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, which is adjacent to the White House, on June 22, 2001.
As I told cyncooper on post #85, is the media which is making this implication.
Here is the link: Alleged Terrorist Met With Bush Adviser
If the link doesn't take you directly to the article, try this one and click on "Alleged Terrorist Met With Bush Adviser- Washington Post." (Hope it works) LINK
Sometimes I find myself in unlikely alliances, such as with your suspended friend and myself on the Trent Lott threads. If that happens, so be it.
I told you at the time that I thought the poster to whom you're referring had been unfairly mischaracterized in a post to me as having called President Bush a traitor. I don't care if he's unpopular, that was wrong, and I was in the best position to know, and to step forward on his behalf, so I did. I would again.
That said, knowing his propensity to play with lightning rods, I actually have asked him to keep a lower profile on a number of these threads, in the hopes that some could focus more on the actual story that I've been following and on which I've been posting. The results have been a bit mixed.
There are too many on all sides who thrive on the personality conflicts. I won't pretend that I don't like a good brawl from time to time, but not on a day and night basis.
I have to disagree a bit..this really is NOTHING about personality conflicts. A personality conflict is a minor thing that doesn't erupt into a flame war amongst numerous people.
Actually, you have a point there. Thanks for your post.
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.