Hiding in Plain Sight (Al Arian at the White House)

Newsweek ^ | March 3rd, 2003 | Michael Isikoff

[Mo1]

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.

I agree

[justshe]

"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."

---

Amen......and a hallelujah!

[Amelia]

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.

Dittos!

[Mo1]

(FREE HOWLIN!!)

Great Tag line!!

[Freedom2specul8]

Bump to truth..

[ohioWfan]

Check out posts 141, 142, and 143, Sabertooth.

As one who loves a good verbal 'brawl' as much as anyone........there is a difference between intelligent sparring, and deliberate distortion and mindless crudity (aimed primarily, IMO, at women).

and, btw.......isn't this story getting really old??? How many times can we 'question' the propriety of entertaining a man who is now in the slammer?? You're a smart guy, Sabertooth.....don't you see the absurdity of beating this dead horse.......I mean why don't you bring up Enron, or the BUSH KNEW scandal?......they're just a little older, and equally preposterous.

[TLBSHOW]

What you imply isn't true. Grover is making money from these orgs and directing bad policy.

Here is the first part of that story from Tobin.


This week, Americans were forced to wonder what an "orange alert" for possible terror attacks on American and specifically Jewish targets might mean to their lives.

But while this announcement, and the dangers it could represent, was given a full airing, others were worrying more about whether our not terribly impressive measures of self-defense on these shores might upset some people. In our country, you have a choice about what kind of fear to obsess about.


You can, if you like, take the warnings of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge and Attorney General John Ashcroft seriously.


If so, you can, like my wife and I, debate the merits of purchasing copious amounts of water to have on hand so we can have something to drink in case of nuclear or biological attacks. You could also discuss, as we did, whether or not it is silly to be worried about driving to New York this week to pick up my mother for a visit because the date coincides with a Muslim holiday we are told some might celebrate by trying to blow up or poison Americans.


But if that sort of paranoia/reasonable precaution (take your pick) doesn't appeal to you, you can go another route. You can imagine that the same government officials who are desperately trying to warn and reassure us at the same time are also a greater threat to our liberties than our nation's enemies. Unfortunately, this sort of intellectual craziness seems to be as common as the run on bottled water at the supermarket.

NO BACKLASH AGAINST ISLAM

These fears notwithstanding, in the 17 months since the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration has bent over backwards to make sure that Arab-Americans and Muslims will not suffer a backlash comparable to that suffered by the Japanese-Americans during World War II.


While taking a resolute posture towards the terrorists, those aligned with them and those "allies" who seek to protect them, Bush seems to go positively weak at the knees at the very thought that America's war on terror is aimed at Islam or its adherents in general.


Of course, he's right about that. But the lengths to which the administration has gone to make this point have become almost comical. Indeed, Bush has recited the mantra, "Islam is a religion of peace," so often that the expression has become something of a standing joke on popular Web sites, such as the Wall Street Journal's "Best of the Web" on their opinionjournal.com site.


He isn't alone in this respect. In the general rush to educate Americans about our enemies in the war on terror without succumbing to stereotyping an entire faith, a new level of political correctness has been achieved.


Take, for instance, the handout titled "Q&A on Islam and Arab Americans" that was included in a recent edition of USA Today.


In it, we are informed that "jihad does not mean 'holy war.' " Unfortunately, that's the same line of baloney Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat uses when he is caught inciting terrorism.


We are also informed by USA Today that Islam tolerates the practice of other faiths, respects both Christianity and Judaism, and definitely opposes terrorism. The majority of Muslims in this country probably agree. But the problem lies not in what the USA Today primer on Islam and the White House say about Islam, but on what they don't mention.


They tend to omit the fact that the Muslim world is currently divided into two groups. One, called Islamists, supports terror and does not have warm, cuddly feelings about America, Jews and other faiths. The other group fits the USA Today/George W. Bush idea of Muslims.


The bad news is that far from being marginal, the Al Qaeda-supporting Islamists are on the rise around the world. And while most American Muslims appear to fall in the category of non-Islamists, their self-appointed spokesmen are clearly in the Islamist camp even if they make pro forma condemnations of Al Qaeda.


Scholars like the Philadelphia-based Middle East Forum's Daniel Pipes have been telling us this for years. But just as no one in power listened much to men like Pipes before Sept. 11, few seem to understand this distinction either. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/tobin1.asp


Thanks for your opinion and welcome to freerepublic, you just missed being the 100,000 person here at FReerepublic.

[Amelia]

there is a difference between intelligent sparring, and deliberate distortion and mindless crudity (aimed primarily, IMO, at women).

There certainly is. And while I've never seen Sabertooth engage in such behavior, the same can't be said for some of the people I've seen frequenting "his" threads.

and, btw.......isn't this story getting really old??? How many times can we 'question' the propriety of entertaining a man who is now in the slammer??

The part I wonder about is whether or not Bush actually knew the guy was a suspected terrorist. And the part that worries me most of all is the idea that either the Secret Service didn't get the message that some of the WH guests might be criminals, or they were over-ruled by some junior staffers.

[Mo1]

As one who loves a good verbal 'brawl' as much as anyone........there is a difference between intelligent sparring, and deliberate distortion and mindless crudity (aimed primarily, IMO, at women).

DITTO .. personally it's giving me a HUGE headace

[justshe]

Just some late breaking news!

GAFFNEY was just on Fox News Channel being interviewed by Geraldo.

But.....BUT.....BUT.......not ONE word about Norquist.

I'm thinking since I saw Gaffney interviewed by Kasich, and now by Geraldo....TWO DIFFERENT INTERVIEWS IN THE LAST 48 HOURS........and not ONE word about Norquist, this has become a NON-STORY. You would think he would have brought it up if he was concerned, wouldn't you?

What do you think?

[TLBSHOW]

I said thanks for your opinion. IMO its not correct.

[cyncooper]

I'm thinking since I saw Gaffney interviewed by Kasich, and now by Geraldo....TWO DIFFERENT INTERVIEWS IN THE LAST 48 HOURS........and not ONE word about Norquist, this has become a NON-STORY.

What do you think?

Thank you for the eye-witness account of this late breaking development. I do believe you are correct!

[TLBSHOW]

I will have to check his web site and see what story is up there right now.

[Bob J]

You're beating a dead horse 'tooth.

[bvw]

Impressive backhand of that weak side lob, sir.

[Amelia]

I'm thinking since I saw Gaffney interviewed by Kasich, and now by Geraldo....TWO DIFFERENT INTERVIEWS IN THE LAST 48 HOURS........and not ONE word about Norquist, this has become a NON-STORY. You would think he would have brought it up if he was concerned, wouldn't you?

I saw the Geraldo interview, and Gaffney seemed concerned about the war in Iraq, but you're right, he didn't mention Norquist at all.

[TLBSHOW]

Just some late breaking news!

GAFFNEY was just on Fox News Channel being interviewed by Geraldo.

Headline Story | Sunday, February 23, 2003

Washington Post: Terrorist suspect was part of White House outreach to Muslims

Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Sami Al-Arian, arrested this week by the FBI as an alleged mastermind and funder of suicide bombings, was part of the White House's controversial outreach plan to Muslims and Arab-Americans, the Washington Post reports. In a separate story, the Wall Street Journal reports that the alleged terrorists were running influence operations to penetrate the US political system and influence policy.

The news confirms what the Center for Security Policy has warned the Bush administration - first privately and later publicly - for nearly two years: That the architects of the White House's well-meaning Muslim outreach program paid little or no regard to national security issues, and ignored information about alleged extremists, including supporters of terrorism, who had hijacked the administration's initiative.

According to the Post, Al-Arian was invited to the White House as part of an American Muslim Council (AMC) delegation on June 22, 2001: "The meeting was controversial within the White House even before it took place. The group that included Al-Arian was scheduled to be briefed by Vice President Cheney, but Cheney canceled. That morning, the Jerusalem Post had run a front-page article headlined, 'Cheney to host pro-terrorist Muslim group.'"

Al-Arian's arrest under a 50-count federal grand jury indictment is sure to prompt the Secret Service and others to revisit the issue, and to investigate just who has manipulated the White House to allow extremists and terrorists into the presidential compound where they have been treated as legitimate representatives of moderate, non-violent causes.

On Friday, February 21, the Wall Street Journal reported that Al-Arian's arrest "likely will inflame a debate embroiling the Republican Party over efforts to court Muslim Americans." The battle, according to the Journal, is led by conservative activist Grover Norquist, "a close ally of the Bush White House who spent years wooing Muslims through a group he founded called the Islamic Institute," against Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney and American Conservative Union President David Keene.

Norquist's Islamic Institute, the Wall Street Journal continued, has received money from "a network of Islamic organizations in Virginia under investigation by federal authorities for suspected ties to terrorism." Meanwhile, Norquist has been a vocal attacker of key provisions of the Bush administration's anti-terrorism legislation proposals, and has led an effort to discredit and undermine Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Insight magazine is reporting that Al-Arian and Norquist have worked together, and that Norquist has gone on record saying he is "proud" to have accepted an award in July 2001 from Al-Arian's National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom (NCPPF), which is described as a legal and political support group for international terrorist organizations.

According to the federal grand jury indictment, Al-Arian and his confederates tried to penetrate the mainstream political system to influence U.S. government counterterrorism policy. The Wall Street Journal states, "the indictment alludes to efforts by the defendants to gain political clout, alleging that they sought 'to obtain support from influential individuals in the United States under the guise of promoting and protecting Arab rights."

Again, the question must be answered: Who invited and cleared Al-Arian and other suspected terrorist supporters into the White House?

So you know the story is Franks own with a link to the WP

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44894-2003Feb21.html

[bvw]

Is funding the families of suicide bombers a form of "a crime abetting terrorism", in your view?

[Torie]

No, not in a legal sense. In a moral sense, it is execrable.