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

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]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

23 posted on 02/25/2003 6:26:49 AM PST by DAnconia55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE
Eight down, many more to go
February 25, 2003
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20030225.shtml

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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.




36 posted on 02/25/2003 7:02:41 AM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

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?




38 posted on 02/25/2003 7:20:06 AM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth; MizSterious; TLBSHOW
In the war on terror, post-9/11, administration conspicuous toleration of radical Moslems has been policy, not just symbolism.
39 posted on 02/25/2003 7:20:28 AM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Since when, is the mere act of speaking up in one's own defense not allowed in the US?

Luis, that's not what happened. Khaled Saffuri used his access with this Administration and attempted to intervene in an ongoing terror investigation of the Safa Trust, a donor to his Islamic Institute. He wasn't speaking up in his own defense.

Bush obviously had no knowledge of the meeting, but that doesn't make Saffuri's attempt to influence the investigation less problematic.




41 posted on 02/25/2003 7:49:22 AM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
OK, so he was there to speak in behalf of others being investigated.

Note the word "investigated". An investigation usually includes the gathering of information from all sorts of different sources in order to arrive at a conclusion.

If you exclude sources arguing in behalf of the people or group being investigated, or providing facts contrary to the accusations and/or incidents in question, it stops being an investigation, and becomes a witch hunt.
42 posted on 02/25/2003 8:15:20 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Ever So Humble Banana Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
Yes....most 'sly'.

I'm moving onto other threads until actual PROOF can be shown re: this issue. The 'sly' innuendos and suppositions can only be rehashed so many times. As another poster stated yesterday, the horse is dead. All some are now trying to do is show what big muscles they have by swinging their perceived sledgehammer over and over and over and over and over and over...ad nauseum.

It was my impression that Jim didn't want any more replays of the replay of the replays posted.

"Pulled on 02/24/2003 12:23 PM PST by Jim Robinson, reason: Enough of this crap..."

Moving on...

43 posted on 02/25/2003 8:36:00 AM PST by justshe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
Exactly! This is why the charge that "these protesters are giving aid, comfort, and cover" is so poignant. These idiots can say that we are being McArthy-ites or whatever, but this is a perfect example of why they should shut their skull caves!
44 posted on 02/25/2003 10:56:43 AM PST by mattdono
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: randita
I would be more upset about this, except for the fact that it all took place pre-9/11. Most of us, at that time, thought that Muslims were like us. They had their extremists, but all religions do, and the vast majority of them just wanted peace. I think we have all learned better since then, and that includes the FBI, GW Bush and the WH staff.
45 posted on 02/25/2003 11:01:20 AM PST by Republic of Texas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious
Miz, you and posters 17 & 23 all surmise the same thing and that is who indeed overruled the FBI and CIA. I don't think you have to look any further than Bill Clinton's White House. The same preposterous, ludicrous imposter of a president who told us Education was fixed; Health was fixed; Aids was almost cured and smoking, that dastardly habit was licked and Bill Gates was Reno’ed for good measure. He simply did not want to rock his luxury cruse with something so upsetting as Sami and his terrorists who were gaining at a gallop in American and around the world. Coddling Arafat and other terrorist within the United Nations was much more to their liking, Hillary, Madeline, Janet, Al and Bill loved the rosy little world they painstakingly photo-oped and painted for America all the while pulling this nation down morally, spiritually and economically by spending like drunken sailors, to a Third World position.

Sami could indeed work unfettered at his leisure to undermine America as there was no one to stop him and a White House that did not care.

46 posted on 02/25/2003 12:07:25 PM PST by yoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
The plot thickens ? What plot is the guy talking about ? The plot to send Sami to the slammer for 50 years ? I think the article is a little overboard with the insinuation of some kind of White House plot.

The real question is why do we give Arafat US tax dollars to be a terrorist supporter ?
47 posted on 02/25/2003 12:43:56 PM PST by John Lenin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

President George W. Bush once again endorses terrorists. He also invited another Arab terrorist to the White House. That terrorist is Abu Mazen (a.k.a. Mahmoud Abbas). Abu Mazen was Arafat's bookkeeper and primary financier. Also, Bush even said that he was not concerned about Osama bin Laden. On March 13, 2002, Bush said: "I truly am not that concerned about him [Osama]."


48 posted on 02/08/2005 8:52:12 AM PST by Generalissimo (Generalissimo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Generalissimo
President George W. Bush once again endorses terrorists. He also invited another Arab terrorist to the White House.

This terrorist has been there before.


49 posted on 02/08/2005 9:00:49 AM PST by SJackson ( Bush is as free as a bird, He is only accountable to history and God, Ra'anan Gissin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

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