Skip to comments.
The plot thickens: Al-Arian in the White House
Jewish World Review ^
| Feb. 25, 2003
| Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
Posted on 02/25/2003 5:24:29 AM PST by SJackson
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-49 next last
To: randita
I wrote to Mr. Gaffney:
Thank God he was indicted...finally. Let's just hope that another Clinton isn't in a position to pardon him!
21
posted on
02/25/2003 6:12:59 AM PST
by
mass55th
To: justshe
Here we go again. And I am fast losing any respect I had for Gaffney when he pulls rhetorical stunts like this:
was allowed into the Bush White House on at least one occasion. According to Saturday's Washington Post, in one of these meetings,
Notice the sly "at least once" and "in one of those meetings".
22
posted on
02/25/2003 6:26:22 AM PST
by
cyncooper
(God Be With President Bush)
To: yoe
No one could have known at the time how deadly this man Sami was, The FBI did. He was on a terrorist watch list since the mid 90's.
To: mattdono
These Islamists know that the American left-wing media will pick up on this story and run with it...as they have.Egged on by the hysterical types here.
24
posted on
02/25/2003 6:27:16 AM PST
by
cyncooper
(God Be With President Bush)
To: Ron in Acreage
It states clearly that Al-Arians son worked for Democrat david Bonior. Al-Arian never met the President while at the White House. He was let in yes, bet never met GW while there.Clinton regularly met with a KNOWN terrorist named Yasser Arafat.I have not read one story regarding Sami Al-Arian yet that reports that his wife, Nahla, testified before Congress TWICE in 2000. This family was accorded a measure of political legitimacy that more than likely colored the vetting process. A coloring that was corrected, as the removal of the son from the meeting indicates.
As to Gaffney's question "what are we to make" of the arrest of the elder Al-Arian, the answer is obvious. This administration enforces the law.
25
posted on
02/25/2003 6:30:33 AM PST
by
cyncooper
(God Be With President Bush)
To: DAnconia55
He was watched because he spoke out in favor of terrorists and their causes, speaking out in favor of idiotic causes is not a crime in the United States...yet.
Otherwise, half of Congress would be in jail.
Actually, half of Congress SHOULD be in jail, but that's not the point.
26
posted on
02/25/2003 6:33:09 AM PST
by
Luis Gonzalez
(The Ever So Humble Banana Republican)
To: cyncooper
This family was accorded a measure of political legitimacy that more than likely colored the vetting process.To clarify: were accorded this legitimacy well before President Bush was ever inaugurated. Today Sami Al-Arian is behind bars.
27
posted on
02/25/2003 6:33:52 AM PST
by
cyncooper
(God Be With President Bush)
To: cyncooper
"As to Gaffney's question "what are we to make" of the arrest of the elder Al-Arian, the answer is obvious. This administration enforces the law."
BUMP!
28
posted on
02/25/2003 6:34:13 AM PST
by
Luis Gonzalez
(The Ever So Humble Banana Republican)
To: MizSterious
That would be the wonder-boy, Karl Rove. Although he is a clever and successful political operative, he has performed an abject disservice to his and our President in guiding his agenda on the basis of pure "politics."
It is unconscienable and despicable that the President, who relies on him for sound judgement, should have been placed in a situation of compromise on any issue of security. It makes him look like a patsy, which he is not.
If Rove is SO driven to orchestrate and manipulate perceptions (ala Dick Morris) and is so lacking in discretion, I hope his roll gets knocked down a peg or two. I wonder if Karen Hughes was a part of this decision .. somehow, I think not.
It WAS known that this man had questionable connections .. that's why the Secret Service insisted that the son be removed from the White House .. finally.
Karl Rove .. wake up!! I hope Dubyah keeps you in a very tight box, and uses your skills in areas that don't compromise his integrity or safety.
29
posted on
02/25/2003 6:38:15 AM PST
by
STARWISE
(Prayers for W and his family and our brave troops, fighting this moment for our safety + freedom)
To: Luis Gonzalez
Fox news just had one of their frequent ALERTS. This time it is about Sami Al-Arian being granted a continuance in court today, but was deemed a flight risk and will remain behind bars.
No favors being granted.
30
posted on
02/25/2003 6:39:01 AM PST
by
cyncooper
(God Be With President Bush)
To: cyncooper
I had John Loftus on my Radio FR show last year, and he was going nuts about Al Arian, Loftus has been suing this guy relentlessly for over a year now.
31
posted on
02/25/2003 6:41:37 AM PST
by
Luis Gonzalez
(The Ever So Humble Banana Republican)
To: Fred Mertz; Sabertooth
PING
32
posted on
02/25/2003 6:46:29 AM PST
by
TLBSHOW
(God Speed as Angels trending upward dare to fly Tribute to the Risk Takers)
To: bvw; aristeides; Seeking the truth
PING
33
posted on
02/25/2003 6:49:49 AM PST
by
TLBSHOW
(God Speed as Angels trending upward dare to fly Tribute to the Risk Takers)
To: STARWISE
34
posted on
02/25/2003 6:54:24 AM PST
by
TLBSHOW
(God Speed as Angels trending upward dare to fly Tribute to the Risk Takers)
To: randita
The government's long-running investigation, like the university's actions, has been troubling at times. Mr. Al-Arian's brother-in-law, Mazen Al-Najjar, was held on secret evidence for nearly four years while the government pursued his deportation. But the indictment suggests that many people were too reflexive in their disbelief that an urbane, politically active professor -- one who had been to the White House and who regularly talked to journalists -- could be a genuine terrorist, and in their automatic assumption that he must be a victim of university railroading and FBI abuses.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55830-2003Feb23.html
35
posted on
02/25/2003 6:58:06 AM PST
by
TLBSHOW
(God Speed as Angels trending upward dare to fly Tribute to the Risk Takers)
To: MizSterious
Some points to consider, before calling for the heads of the messengers: 1. This doesn't necessarily make Dubya look bad, but it makes his staff look careless. The problem is the vetting.
2. Al-Arian's terrorist connections have been suspected for years, both within his community and among law enforcement. O'Reilly didn't "discover" this--he received a lot of tips. So why on earth didn't the White House nix this guy's access?
3. Nevertheless, the visits (some say only one, some say just "a few") most likely did not influence policy. However, it looks really bad, just as those pictures of the Clintons with drug kingpins made them look bad. Which brings me to the final point--
4. Everyone should choose their company carefully. People in high places (I mean, he's the President fer cryin' out loud) should use even more care--and those charged with gate-keeping should make it difficult for these embarassing moments to occur. Whoever made this meeting possible should be fired.
Every point you make is inarguable, with the exception of #3. Radical Muslim sympathizers with and supporters of terror, and not a few, still have access to the White House to this day, and their efforts to influence policy, including the investigation of suspected terror organizations from whom they've received funding, is ongoing.
![](http://members.shaw.ca/brightstar1/Sabertooth.jpg)
Comment #37 Removed by Moderator
To: cyncooper; Luis Gonzalez
As to Gaffney's question "what are we to make" of the arrest of the elder Al-Arian, the answer is obvious. This administration enforces the law.
And that's a good thing, as far as it goes. Clearly, the Bush Administration has restored a great deal of integrity to the Justice Department, after Janet Reno's eight-year malfeasance.
However, what are we to make of the efforts of Khaled Saffuri, co-founder with Grover Norquist of the Islamic Institute, to intervene on the behalf of the Safa Trust in a meeting with Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill last year, after warrants were served on Safa investigating their financial links with terror orgs (link)? Isn't this troubling, given that Norquist has acknowledged that the Islamic Institute has received donations from the Safa Trust (link)?
I'm not saying that the investigation has been influenced, but why was Saffuri even given the opportunity to weigh in, given the clear conflict of interest?
![](http://members.shaw.ca/brightstar1/Sabertooth.jpg)
To: Sabertooth; MizSterious; TLBSHOW
In the war on terror, post-9/11, administration conspicuous toleration of radical Moslems has been policy, not just symbolism.
To: Sabertooth
Why is it that you continually assign guilt to what is actually just an accusation?
Since when, is the mere act of speaking up in one's own defense not allowed in the US?
In the US, people are found guilty of crimes in a Court of Law, via due proccess. Why is it that you continually regard innuendo as fact?
40
posted on
02/25/2003 7:29:46 AM PST
by
Luis Gonzalez
(The Ever So Humble Banana Republican)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-49 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson