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

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

What considerations, political or otherwise, prompted members of Mr. Bush's staff to believe that Al-Arian was the kind of person they wanted on their team? Who bears responsibility for making those calculations? And are they continuing to do so with respect to other individuals and organizations that could, at the very least, embarrass Mr. Bush and, at worst, seriously undermine his efforts in the war on terror?

What are we to make of the fact that a Muslim extremist (or "Islamist") named Dr. Sami Al-Arian was arrested and indicted last week on 50 counts, among them conspiracy to finance terrorist attacks that killed more than 100 people -- including two Americans? One thing is sure: It is not, as Al-Arian claimed when federal agents led him away in handcuffs, "all about politics."

After all, this alleged leader of Palestinian Islamic Jihad -- an organization Attorney General John Ashcroft has described as "one of the most violent terrorist organizations in the world" -- was allowed into the Bush White House on at least one occasion. According to Saturday's Washington Post, in one of these meetings, he was among the front-row attendees at a briefing conducted by the man who is, arguably, Mr. Bush's chief aide: Karl Rove. Generally, political foes do not receive such treatment.

The Post article was accompanied by a photograph taken of Al-Arian with Candidate George W. Bush and his wife, Laura, during a campaign stop at the Tampa Strawberry Festival in March 2000. Perhaps this photo op was a way of thanking Al-Arian and his wife for the efforts they claim to have made on Mr. Bush's behalf "in Florida mosques and elsewhere because they thought him the candidate most likely to fight discrimination against Arab-Americans."

Al-Arian had particular reason to prefer Candidate Bush since the latter had pledged as part of his campaign's "outreach" to the Muslim community to end the use of secret evidence against suspected terrorists. This goal was a particular priority for Al-Arian since his brother-in- law, Mazen al-Najjar, was incarcerated for three-and-a-half years on the basis of such evidence, prior to his deportation.

Candidate Bush with the Al-Arian clan

In the photo with Mr. Bush, Al-Arian was accompanied by his son, Abdullah, who Mr. Bush reportedly dubbed "Big Dude." Big Dude Al-Arian was himself admitted into the White House six days after his father's June 2001 visit. Ironically, as the Wall Street Journal noted on Friday, "the Secret Service deemed Mr. Al-Arian's son -- at the time an intern in a Democratic congressional office [that of then-Rep. David Bonior of Michigan] -- a security risk and ejected him from a meeting on President Bush's faith-based initiatives program."

The episode precipitated howls of outrage from representatives of other Islamist groups who had been allowed to participate in this and other, high-level Administration meetings. It produced apologies from the President's spokesman and the Secret Service. According to the Post, on August 2, 2001, Mr. Bush even wrote Mrs. Al-Arian expressing "'regret' about how her son was treated. 'I have been assured that everything possible is being done to ensure that nothing like this happens again.'"

The question, in short, is not whether "politics" are responsible for Sami Al-Arian's prosecution for aiding and abetting terror? The question is: What considerations, political or otherwise, prompted members of Mr. Bush's staff to believe that Al-Arian was the kind of person they wanted on their team? Who bears responsibility for making those calculations? And are they continuing to do so with respect to other individuals and organizations that could, at the very least, embarrass Mr. Bush and, at worst, seriously undermine his efforts in the war on terror?

Obvious candidates include two individuals who have, at various times, had responsibilities in the White House for Muslim outreach: Suhail Khan, formerly with the Public Liaison Office, and Ali Tulbah, currently Associate Director for Cabinet Affairs. As it happens, their judgment about which people should be admitted to the President's company might have been influenced by the fact that their fathers were, respectively, active in Islamist-associated organizations in California and Texas.

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.

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

Continued......

(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: alitulbah; enemywithin; grovernorquist; islamicinstitute; khaledsaffuri; norquist; suhailkhan
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-49 next last

1 posted on 02/25/2003 5:24:29 AM PST by SJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SJackson
At the very worst, it was a severe security lapse. One would at least hope that al-Arian was thoroughly searched before going into the WH.

At the least, it was an effort by Bush to demonstrate that his indictment of Muslim terrorists was not an indictment of all Muslims. Little did he know.

Al-Arian was involved in a few very innocent sounding Islam groups that on their face sounded as if they were humanitarian causes.
2 posted on 02/25/2003 5:35:22 AM PST by randita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
Well, a few thoughts...

1. This seems like this guy was part of a contingency of people in the Islamic community that attended a White House Briefing. No real story here.

2. He got a picture with the President. Well, actually, he got a picture with a candidate for President. Just about anyone can get a picture with a candidate with a contribution to the campaign.

3. We need to have some perspective:


3 posted on 02/25/2003 5:37:06 AM PST by mattdono
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: randita
Al-Arian was involved in a few very innocent sounding Islam groups that on their face sounded as if they were humanitarian causes.

And that is the real evil behind this. This isn't happenstance; this is by design. These Islamists know that the American left-wing media will pick up on this story and run with it...as they have.

4 posted on 02/25/2003 5:39:02 AM PST by mattdono
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
And are they continuing to do so with respect to other individuals and organizations that could, at the very least, embarrass Mr. Bush and, at worst, seriously undermine his efforts in the war on terror?
If Al-Arian is any indication, what they are continuing to do is investigate them and if there is sufficient evidence to indict, do so.

Sounds like a sound strategy to me. Use their influence against them. If Al Capone had made campaign contributions to get Elliot Ness his job, that does not impugn Elliot Ness. It meant Al invested poorly.

5 posted on 02/25/2003 5:41:33 AM PST by William McKinley (You're so vain, you probably think this tagline's about you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: SJackson
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.

7 posted on 02/25/2003 5:43:33 AM PST by MizSterious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
"Whoever is responsible..."

No one could have known at the time how deadly this man Sami was, we're only just learning the truth about those that use our Nation and our Constitution to sabotage our freedom and our country. Many are just these tenured warriors of socialism and Marxism rooted in the nations universities where they are free to weaken the foundations of America with their frankly vile and hateful messages to our young people.

8 posted on 02/25/2003 5:44:54 AM PST by yoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Reply #6 was removed at the request of the poster.
9 posted on 02/25/2003 5:44:55 AM PST by Admin Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
"The people making decisions are Presbyterians and Catholics, not Muslims." The issue is not their faith; it's their judgment...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."

Boy, is that an understatement. The Krinton administration routinely allowed all manner of scum access to his oval orifice and conservatives all across the land saw it for what it was - 'prostitute for hire.'

Seems that Mr. Bush's people ought to be looking a little closer at his 'friends' for no other reason than demonstrating a little integrity in leadership. That is, if he's really serious about wanting all of us to be on the lookout for dangerous terrorists all the time.

Note to the Bush White House: TRY PROFILING.


10 posted on 02/25/2003 5:47:06 AM PST by WorkingClassFilth (Defund NPR, PBS and the LSC.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
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.
11 posted on 02/25/2003 5:47:39 AM PST by Ron in Acreage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
I think Bush was a little naive in dealing with the Muslims at first, and even after 9/11, because everybody was urging him to be nice to Muslims. I doubt that it would happen again, though, and I hope Grover Norquist's influence has gone down the drain as a result of this.
12 posted on 02/25/2003 5:47:43 AM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
Big difference between Clinton and Bush.

Clinton would have covered up the relationship or warned the guy of the investigation.

When Bush got evidence, he had the guy arrested.
13 posted on 02/25/2003 5:48:24 AM PST by Bryan24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe
"No one could have known at the time how deadly this man Sami was..."

As a matter of fact, a lot of people did know, including (if some stories I've been reading are correct) the Secret Service, who advised against letting Al-Arian have access. Now the question is, who overruled them? They should be scrubbing White House bathrooms for the rest of the term.

14 posted on 02/25/2003 5:49:18 AM PST by MizSterious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
A Muslim sneaks around under the guise of a regular, minding-his-own-business average guy, but is secretly working on diabolical plot. That's not news.
15 posted on 02/25/2003 5:50:47 AM PST by P.O.E.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: randita
At the very worst, it was a severe security lapse.

If only that were true, sadly, it may not be the worst at all.

16 posted on 02/25/2003 5:51:18 AM PST by itsahoot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: yoe
No one could have known at the time how deadly this man Sami was

Except the FBI and the CIA of course. This man had been on the list for 8 years, so someone knew.

17 posted on 02/25/2003 5:53:35 AM PST by itsahoot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious
"As a matter of fact, a lot of people did know, including...the Secret Service, who advised against letting Al-Arian have access. Now the question is, who overruled them? They should be scrubbing White House bathrooms for the rest of the term."

Wrong-O. Whoever is responsible should be immediately discharged, but only if an investigation shows no further criminal intent; in which case, prosecute.

If you live in a glass house, you'd better be squeaky clean - especially after the daily filth of the Krinton Barn. Stern policy is essential when you consider the enormous number of people in Washington that deserve to have their dirty laundry aired.

In the case of Alec Baldwin...we somebody without sin to cast the first stone.
18 posted on 02/25/2003 6:00:54 AM PST by WorkingClassFilth (Defund NPR, PBS and the LSC.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
The sour fruits of political correctness...
19 posted on 02/25/2003 6:04:35 AM PST by joyful1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: randita
Al-Arian was involved in a few very innocent sounding Islam groups that on their face sounded as if they were humanitarian causes. Nonsense! The ignorance of Bush and his so called advisors as illustrated in this picture is very shoking. There are plenty of Moslem people that live in this country, pay taxes, and never associate themselves with militant Wahhabist Fanatical Islam. All you need to know is are their women wearing head cover? Are the guys wearing beards?

The problem with Bush and with all political candidates for that matter is during the campaign, they need to display that they love everybody (including Nazis/child molesters/gang leaders…)! They also need any financial contribution that they can get. In this case, this Palestinian professor with ties to the Saudis must have had a lot of money to give to the Bush candidacy, for which, Bush does not mind prostituting his dignity and beliefs?

20 posted on 02/25/2003 6:04:53 AM PST by philosofy123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-49 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.

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