George Bush's Dubai Ports World deal vs. Al Gore's Al Jazeera deal

Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE) is a mere 236 miles east of Doha, Qatar, where the headquarters of Al Jazeera is located. After the sale of Al Gore's Current TV to the Arabic news network, Al Jazeera America is expected to broadcast from New York.

Via World Atlas:

In 2006, the Dubai Ports World (DPW) controversy involved a deal - supported by then-President George W. Bush - that would allow the sale of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (P&O), a British Company, to DPW. Such a deal would have put the operation of six U.S. ports under the control of DPW. One of those ports was in New York. Ironically, while Bush supported the deal, then-Senator Barack Obama opposed it and said the following:

"Over four years after the worst terrorist attack in our history, not only are we failing to inspect 95% of the cargo that arrives at U.S. ports, but now we’re allowing our port security to be outsourced to foreign governments. Clearly, more time should have been spent investigating this deal and consulting with homeland security experts and local officials. I support my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who are seeking a full review of this deal." - Barack Obama in 2006

As news of the deal grew, so did opposition. Then Senate-Majority leader Bill Frist, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, U.S. Senator from New York Chuck Schumer (D-NY), New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, and New York Governor George Pataki all expressed opposition to the deal. In fact, at one point, the prospect of legislation to halt the deal was gaining serious momentum and Bush seemed to play the Islamophobia card while talking to a gaggle of reporters on Air Force One. Via New York Times:

"I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, 'We'll treat you fairly'." 

Another prominent politician to express opposition to the deal was none other than the opportunistic Senator from New York, Hillary Clinton. The MSNBC link that included the following excerpt is now a dead one but the text is available elsewhere. Check this out:

Mrs Clinton's tough stance that the deal represented an "unacceptable risk" to national security has caused UAE officials some consternation. 

Regarded as the leading Democratic candidate for the 2008 presidential elections, she has used the deal – which polls show is disliked by most Americans – and the anti-Arab sentiment it sparked to attack the Bush administration on national security, an issue that has been seen as a weak point for Democrats.

Essentially, Democrats rightfully opposed the deal for the wrong reasons. Those reasons involved going after Bush. That is, unless we are to believe that the likes of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are Islamophobes (yeah, laughable, isn't it?).

In fact, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA), Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), and other prominent liberal Democrats opposed the deal, along with Republicans like Rep. Peter King (R-NY), chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.

When it comes to the Dubai Ports deal and the sale of Current TV to Al Jazeera, there is one primary difference when it comes to American political leaders; Bush received bi-partisan opposition and Gore is receiving only conservative opposition.

Taken further, none other than Senator Chuck Schumer is regarded as being the prominent politician most responsible for bringing the Dubai Ports deal to light. Had he not done so, it's quite possible that the deal would have gone through; it didn't.

Check out this excerpt from an NPR report:

On the Banking Committee and representing a major seaport, and he was media savvy to boot. It was Democrat Chuck Schumer of New York. Schumer's office heard from Muldoon, from Eller & Company lawyer Michael Kreitzer, and from an Associated Press business reporter who had been talking with Muldoon and Kreitzer. In a period of four days, the AP reporter's story ran nationwide, Schumer called for a review by the Department of Homeland Security, and he held a press conference with 9/11 families. He called on President Bush to step in. DP World hired teams of lobbyists.

In essence, Schumer started the snowball that ultimately led to the defeat of the Dubai Ports deal.

This begs what should be a very obvious question. Who on the Republican side of the aisle will raise cain over Al Gore's sale of Current TV to Al Jazeera like Schumer rightfully did with Bush's desire to see P&O sold to Dubai Ports World?

Republicans are at a disadvantage in a couple of respects. For starters, the Republicans who opposed Bush in 2006 did so based on principle. They broke with their party because it was the right thing to do. Democrats JUST. DON'T. DO. THAT. If Al Gore wants to sell Current TV to Al Jazeera, Democrats support him because, well, he's a Democrat.

Conversely, when George Bush wanted to allow DPW to control U.S. Ports, prominent Republicans opposed him and sided with Democrats. Conservative Republicans are far more inclined to do that when it's the RIGHT. THING. TO. DO.

That said, who has the responsibility to be the anti-Schumer relative to Current TV's sale to Al Jazeera?

Unfortunately for conservative Republicans, the man who has the gavel is also the man who is dis-inclined to take the role.

In short, instead of crying after being re-elected Speaker, Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) should be screaming about the Al Jazeera sale like Schumer screamed about the DPW deal...

...or he should resign.

The entire 1957 Dwight Eisenhower speech at Dedication of Washington, D.C. mosque

This is a bit of a continuation from a previous post about the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C. that included then Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower dedicating the mosque on June 28, 1957. A re-dedication ceremony in 2007 included a speech by Republican President George W. Bush.

With a h/t to Creeping Sharia, the transcript of Eisenhower's entire speech is below, though the original link no longer works.

This link, via Wayback Machine does work:

Remarks at Ceremonies Opening the Islamic Center
June 28, 1957

Mr. Ambassador, Dr. Bisar, Governors of the Islamic Center, and distinguished guests:

It is a privilege to take part in this ceremony of dedication.

Meeting with you now, in front of one of the newest and most beautiful buildings in Washington, it is fitting that we re-dedicate ourselves to the peaceful progress of all men under one God.

And I should like to assure you, my Islamic friends, that under the American Constitution, under American tradition, and in American hearts, this Center, this place of worship, is just as welcome as could be a similar edifice of any other religion. Indeed, America would fight with her whole strength for your right to have here your own church and worship according to your own conscience.

This concept is indeed a part of America, and without that concept we would be something else than what we are.

The countries which have sponsored and built this Islamic Center have for centuries contributed to the building of civilization. With their traditions of learning and rich culture, the countries of Islam have added much to the advancement of mankind. Inspired by a sense of brotherhood, common to our inner most beliefs, we can here together reaffirm our determination to secure the foundation of a just and lasting peace.

Our country has long enjoyed a strong bond of friendship with the Islamic nations and, like all healthy relationships, this relationship must be mutually beneficial.

Civilization owes to the Islamic world some of its most important tools and achievements. From fundamental discoveries in medicine to the highest planes of astronomy, the Muslim genius has added much to the culture of all peoples. That genius has been a wellspring of science, commerce and the arts, and has provided for all of us many lessons in courage and in hospitality.

This fruitful relationship between peoples, going far back into history, becomes more important each year. Today, thousands of Americans, both private individuals and governmental officials, live and work-and grow in understanding-among the peoples of Islam.

At the same time, in our country, many from the Muslim lands-students, businessmen and representatives of states-are enjoying the benefits of experience among the people of this country. From these many personal contacts, here and abroad, I firmly believe that there will be a broader understanding and a deeper respect for the worth of all men; and a stronger resolution to work together for the good of mankind.

As I stand beneath these graceful arches, surrounded on every side by friends from far and near, I am convinced that our common goals are both right and promising. Faithful to the demands of justice and of brotherhood, each working according to the lights of his own conscience, our world must advance along the paths of peace.

Guided by this hope, I consider it a great personal and official honor to open the Islamic Center, and I offer my congratulations to its sponsors and my best wishes to all who enter into its use.

Thank you very much.

When it comes to where we are as a nation today, Democrats are bad but Republicans are not blameless... by any means.

Is World War II still being fought?

Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack

In 2007, President George W. Bush spoke at the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C. and was introduced by the mosque's director; the latter had a history that included time spent as a representative of an organization that has enabled Al-Qaeda. This was also the same mosque at which Bush spoke six days after 9/11/01 with Nihad Awad - Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) - at his side.

Before delving into the history of the Islamic Center of Washington of Washington, DC, consider the Ground Zero mosque for a moment. It was named 'Cordoba House' and the name was changed as opposition to the mosque grew and people began to learn more about the symbolic significance of the initial word choice, which was a city in Spain.

Via Raymond Ibrahim at MEF:

...the Christian city was conquered by Muslims around 711, its inhabitants slaughtered or enslaved. The original mosque of Cordoba—the namesake of the Ground Zero mosque—was built atop, and partly from the materials of, a Christian church. Modern day Muslims are well aware of all this. Such is the true—and ominous—legacy of Cordoba. 

More pointedly, throughout Islam's history, whenever a region was conquered, one of the first signs of consolidation was/is the erection of a mosque atop the sacred sites of the vanquished: the pagan Ka'ba temple in Arabia was converted into Islam's holiest site, the mosque of Mecca; the al-Aqsa mosque, Islam's third holiest site, was built atop Solomon's temple in Jerusalem; the Umayyad mosque was built atop the Church of St. John the Baptist; and the Hagia Sophia was converted into a mosque upon the conquest of Constantinople.

With that as a premise, shouldn't Americans take a second look at the motivation behind the Islamic Center of Washington, DC? If Islamic fundamentalists were to follow the formula of their forefathers and wanted to construct a symbol of future conquest, wouldn't they seek to do so at the heart of the Capital of the country that won the war?

Check out this excerpt from the history page of the mosque's website:

The Foundation’s membership quickly grew to include representatives from every Islamic nation in the world and American citizens. They all supported the Foundation’s appeal for funds. They managed to raise enough money that enabled them to purchase the land that the Center sits on now on Washington’s “Embassy Row”. They purchased the land on April 30, 1946, and laid the cornerstone on January 11, 1949.

Take note of those two dates in bold. Generally, when people think of the defeated axis of enemies in World War II, Japan, Italy, and Nazi Germany come to mind but the Nazis had an ally that was never defeated. In fact, that ally never stopped fighting; that ally was the Muslim Brotherhood. Again, if one accepts the notion that symbolism in Islam is very important, consider the date the land was purchased. Adolf Hitler's death occurred one year earlier, on April 30, 1945. Via History Learning Site:

None of the bunker’s survivors heard the shot that killed Hitler. At 15.15 on April 30th, Bormann, Goebbels, Heinz Linge, Hitler’s valet, Otto Gunshce and Artur Axmann, Head of the Hitler Youth, entered Hitler’s sitting room. Gunsche and Linge wrapped the body of Hitler in a blanket and carried it to the Reich Chancellery garden.

Coincidence? Possibly. How about January 11, 1949 - the date the cornerstone was laid. That date could be significant.

Tuesday 11 Raby` al-awal 1368 A.H. Laying the cornerstone on Jan 11, 1949 in the Islamic calendar is a day prior to the 12th day of Rabi-al-Awwal, which marks the birthday of the Prophet Muhammad, but keep in mind that Saudi Arabia is 10 hours ahead of the United States. While it was the 11th in the United States, it was very possibly the 12th in Saudi Arabia.

On June 28, 1957, President Dwight Eisenhower was on-hand to dedicate the mosque. Click here or on the image below for the video of a news report of the event at the time.



During his speech, Eisenhower said the following:

The countries which have sponsored and built this Islamic Center have for centuries contributed to the building of civilization. With their traditions of learning and rich culture, the countries of Islam have added much to the advancement of mankind. Inspired by a sense of brotherhood, common to our innermost beliefs, we can here together reaffirm our determination to secure the foundations of a just and lasting peace.

"Brotherhood" is indeed an interesting word choice. Eisenhower ended his speech thusly:

Our country has long enjoyed a strong bond of friendship with the Islamic nations. .  .  . Under the American Constitution, .  .  . this Center, this place of worship, is as welcome as could be any similar edifice of any religion. Indeed, America would fight with her whole strength for your right to have your own church and worship according to your own conscience. Without this, we would be something else than what we are.

Doesn't the "conscience" of the Muslim "Brotherhood" involve destroying America from within? Yes, it does. President George W. Bush returned to the Washington, DC mosque for the RE-dedication ceremony in 2007, fifty years after Eisenhower did it originally. The man who introduced Bush in the clip below is the mosque's director, Abdullah M. Khouj, who began his tenure there in 1984. According to the Weekly Standard's Stephen Schwartz, Saudi officials took over the mosque in 1983 and Khouj was subsequently appointed. Khouj has been a representative for the Muslim World League (MWL):

Khouj represented the Muslim World League (MWL), founded in Saudi Arabia in 1962 as an international agency for the propagation of Wahhabism. In 2006, relief branches of the MWL in Southeast Asia would be designated by the U.S. Treasury as financing fronts for al Qaeda. In addition, Khouj was admitted to the United States as a diplomat, allegedly serving as an attaché at the Saudi Embassy, but actually dedicated to advancing the most radical interpretation of Islam in history.

The MWL is significant for many reasons but one such reason is its involvement as the umbrella organization for the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA). This is the same IMMA where Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin, worked as an assistant editor for at least twelve years until leaving in 2009, to work for Clinton at the State Department. The man responsible for launching the IMMA was none other than Abdullah Omar Naseef, who was the Secretary General of the MWL when Khouj became the Director of the Washington mosque. The Saudi Manifesto, reveals the MWL / IMMA connection:

"It [Muslim Minority Affairs] will work under the umbrella of the Muslim World League (MWL) and the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO) and World Association of Muslim Youth (WAMY) and others."

Remember, Naseef also founded the Rabita Trust, an entity that was headed by Al-Qaeda founder Wael Hamza Julaidan and identified by the U.S. Treasury Department in October of 2001 as a terrorist organization. If Naseef was commissioned by the Saudi Royal family to found the IMMA, it would seem to indicate a willingness on the part of the Brotherhood and the Saudis to work together in some respects, the furthering of Islam in foreign lands, for example.

That's what the IMMA is all about.

It's important to remember that Khouj - the man who introduced Bush at the Washington, D.C. mosque re-dedication ceremony - was a representative of the MWL at the time of his being named director, according to Schwartz. The Rabita Trust was founded in 1988 by Naseef, four years after Khouj became the Director of the mosque.

Before watching the video of Bush's 2007 speech inside the mosque, consider that less than six years earlier, the Rabita Trust had been shut down by the Bush administration as a "Global Terrorist Entity". As a representative of the MWL, Khouj ultimately worked for an organization whose Secretary General from 1983-1993 was none other than Al-Qaeda financier, Abdullah Omar Naseef.

Note at the 1:15 mark in the video below that Bush references Eisenhower's speech from 1957 and quotes the former president. Said Bush:

"He (Eisenhower) asked that together we commit ourselves 'to peaceful progress of all men under one God.'"

This had not been the first time that Bush had conflated Islam and Christianity. William Murray, of the Religious Freedom Coalition chronicled his experiences in the days after 9/11 and wrote the following about what he witnessed on 9/14/01 at the National Cathedral, where then head of the Muslim Brotherhood's Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) - Muzammil Siddiqi - was in attendance:

Our Christian President had bowed his head to prayers offered to other gods, prayers that may have been for those who would destroy our nation and enslave our children to an alien religion. At that moment the hand of protection of the true God was removed from our nation.

Here is Bush at the 2007 re-dedication ceremony inside the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C.



According to Schwartz, the mosque was built at the urging of various Muslim groups, to include the Turks. In 1998, before becoming Prime Minister of Turkey - Recep Tayyip Erdoğan - quoted from the following poem during a speech:

"The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers..."

Go figure. Today, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamist government of Turkey seem to be working together.

And World War II may have a new front.

For a Genius, Condoleezza Rice not making much sense

She served for four years as George W. Bush's National Security Advisor, another four as his Secretary of State; she had been Provost at Stanford, and is an extremely accomplished pianist. By all accounts, Condoleezza Rice is widely accepted as a genius.

So why on earth is she advocating for what would inevitably lead to Muslim Brotherhood control of Syria? After reading her recent op-ed in the Washington Post, there really is no gray area about where she stands, though as a seasoned diplomat, she does her level best to massage her message. Her position is that Assad must fall and Syria must not be allowed to fall into the hands of Iranian control.

Via WaPo:

The fragile state structure of the Middle East has been held together for decades by monarchs and dictators. But as the desire for freedom has spread from Tunis to Cairo to Damascus, authoritarians have lost their grip. The danger now is that the artificial states could fly apart.

What Rice avoids saying is breathtaking. Whatever desire there is for freedom in the Middle East is being snuffed out by new, religious tyrants who are filling the vacuum left by those "monarchs" and "dictators". Simply put, in every country where the 'Arab Spring' has been successful at removing dictators, things have gotten much worse. Egypt's new Muslim Brotherhood leader is consolidating power and that country is increasingly on the brink of civil war; Libya may have elected a secular government but make no mistake; al-Qaeda is calling the shots. Yemen, Tunisia, et. al. are all seeing similar outcomes.

Therefore, why would Rice think Syria would be any different?

Perhaps the answer lies in the very next paragraph:

In Iraq, after overthrowing Saddam Hussein, the United States hoped that a fledging multi-ethnic, multi-confessional democracy could do what authoritarians could not: give all of these groups a stake in a common future. To an extent it has, with elections repeatedly producing inclusive governments. But the institutions are young and fragile, and they are groaning under the weight of the region’s broader sectarian explosion. The conflict in Syria is pushing Iraq and others to the breaking point. At the same time, U.S. disengagement has tempted Iraqi politicians to move toward sectarian allies for survival. If Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki cannot count on the Americans, he will take no risks with Tehran.

Note how Rice comes precariously close to admitting that going into Iraq was a mistake but qualifies it by implying that more time is needed. The notion that the Syrian conflict is pushing Iraq to the "breaking point" is a bit of an exercise in denial. Make no mistake; Iran has all but annexed Iraq and for Rice to assert anything to the contrary presupposes that the Bush strategy still has a chance. It was doomed to failure when the foundation for the new Iraqi constitution was Sharia law; it was a soft surrender.

As Rice points out, Iraq is 65% Shiite; so is al-Maliki Shiite. Counting on Americans would have involved a Constitution that did not have Sharia law. Assuming that al-Maliki was ever interested in true freedom in Iraq, such interest was snuffed out at that point because it meant the Americans could not be counted on.

Rice runs into another problem. Note I did say she only came "precariously close" to admitting failure. Opining that the United States should not support the ouster of Assad would be an admission of failure in Iraq and inconsistent with the broader strategy of her boss, because it would mean that the perceived liberation of people who are ruled by a dictator can lead to greater enslavement, which it has in Iraq, Gaza, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, et. al. Rice almost has to support Assad's overthrow at this point. Advocating the opposite would torpedo the Bush doctrine of democratization in the Middle East.

Comparing Iran to Karl Marx seems to be an attempt - in part - to liken the former to the United States' cold war nemesis. Take note of her reference to a "theocratic flag" and where it flies:

Today’s Karl Marx is Iran. It envisions the spread of its influence among Shiites, uniting them under the theocratic flag of Tehran — destroying the integrity of Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Lebanon. Iran uses terrorist groups, Hezbollah and the Shiite militias in southern Iraq to do its bidding. Syria is the linchpin, the bridge into the Arab Middle East. Tehran no longer hides the fact that its security forces are working in Syria to prop up Assad. In this context, Tehran’s sprint toward a nuclear weapon is a problem not just for Israel but the region as a whole.

Few would argue that there are easy answers in the Middle East but Rice seems to be falling into the same trap that so many westerners do. While being rightfully concerned about Iran, there is this inexplicable underestimation of Turkey, which continues to be wrongly viewed as an ally of the West. In reality, Turkey has been making more gains than Iran, in many ways. With every Muslim Brotherhood victory, Turkey is secretly emboldened and its lustful eye for a reestablished Ottoman empire waters a little more with increased anticipatory desire.

While Rice rightfully bemoans the Shia's "theocratic flag of Tehran", she ignores the "theocratic flag" that is being planted all over the Middle East as Turkey quietly sees those flags as representing a resurrected empire in the near future.

Rice continues...

In recent days, France, Britain and Turkey have stepped into the diplomatic vacuum to recognize a newly formed opposition that is broadly representative of all Syrians. The United States should follow their lead and then vet and arm the unified group with defensive weapons on the condition that it pursues an inclusive post-Assad framework. The United States and its allies should also consider establishing a no-fly zone to protect the innocent. America’s weight and influence are needed. Leaving this to regional powers, whose interests are not identical to ours, will only exacerbate the deepening sectarianism.

Certainly there are risks. After more than a year of brutal conflict, the most extreme elements of the opposition — including al-Qaeda — have been empowered. Civil wars tend to strengthen the worst forces. The overthrow of Assad could indeed bring these dangerous groups to power.

But the breakdown of the Middle East state system is a graver risk. Iran will win, our allies will lose, and for decades the region’s misery and violence will make today’s chaos look tame.

It is simply breathtaking to consider that someone of Rice's intellect does not understand the Islamist nature and goals of Turkey's leadership. She then talks about aligning with them and arming the Syrian rebels but under the condition that there is a post-Assad framework and that the rebels who are armed can be trusted (because that's worked out so well to this point).

Then, she demonstrates an unbelievable amount of naiveté relative to history, both old and recent, when she says that the breakdown of the Middle East state system is a graver risk than the Muslim Brotherhood groups ultimately taking control of Syria. If she was truly interested in preserving the "state system", Assad is the better option.

Does she not know that it is Turkey which desires the dissolution of every nation that has fallen to the Brotherhood?  That would also include Syria if Assad falls.

Rice's former boss - George W. Bush - communicated a similar embrace of the 'Arab Spring' in an op-ed he wrote for the Wall Street Journal last May.

For Rice or Bush to admit the truth would require them to admit failure, which they're obviously not willing to do.

Unfortunately, not doing so smacks of both pride an foolishness.

Video: Remembering those who jumped on 9/11

As you watch this, ask yourselves one question:

Has everyone responsible for 9/11 been brought to justice?



The answer to that question is no.

h/t BNI

9/11 Bombshell Report: 3000 Americans for Three Saudi Princes

Link to 21-Page 9/11 Bombshell Report below...

Conspiracy theories about 9/11 are in abundance. Some even believe that it was an "inside job". We reject this notion completely. However, it is becoming increasingly obvious that the Bush administration made a conscious and very ill-advised decision not to go after the real perpetrators of the attacks - Saudi Government officials, Princes, and wealthy financiers. The accounts of the deaths of three Saudi Princes in particular don't just border on absurd; they cross the line into absurdity. Foul play is the only logical conclusion.

On the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Americans should come to grips with the fact that those responsible for attacking us have not been brought to justice. Yes, Osama bin Laden is dead and the nineteen hijackers who rammed our own airliners into our own buildings in order to slaughter 3000 Americans are long gone but who provided al-Qaeda with the financing necessary to carry out these attacks and why were so many individuals and entities who were responsible, not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report at all?

Three Saudi Princes were outed by Abu Zubaydah thanks to Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT); three hundred Saudis were permitted to fly out of the United States in the days after 9/11, many of whom were not questioned, including one of the three Princes; this means that U.S. authorities allowed at least one culpable Saudi Prince out of the country. Were there more?

The cold hard truth is that our government knew full well who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks and chose NOT to make them pay.

Unless, of course, you believe three Saudi Princes were solely responsible for the deaths of 3000 Americans.

9/11: 3000 Americans for Three Saudi Princes - New detalis about the Troubling Omissions of Saudi Arabia's wealthy from 9/11 Commission Report

Cross-posted at Shoebat

The man who should have been listened to in the days after 9/11

While doing some research for this post, I came across a document that appeared to have been written less than one month after 9/11; it was written in the form of a journal but did not have an author's name (I have since learned it and reveal it at the end of this post ). It consisted of a first hand account of someone who lived near to and worked in Washington, D.C.; it was someone who worked near the Capitol Building; it was someone who knew Congressmen and Senators personally; and it was someone who was a strong Christian.

As I read what this person obviously knew in the hours after 9/11, it became blatantly obvious to me that the individuals at the highest levels of the George W. Bush administration knew it too. If the author of this account had been listened to then, the rise of Islam across the Middle East, Europe, and here in America since, may have been significantly reduced, if not outright prevented. These observations are so spot-on from someone who had much less information than Bush's inner circle did that I'm convinced this is not an issue of Monday morning quarterbacking; the Bush strategy after 9/11 was fatally flawed and his administration chose the path of least resistance. In short, the administration lied to us and to itself.

Read the entire account here if you'd like. I've excerpted portions that particularly struck me for their prescience at the time. This is some of the author's account of what he experienced on September 12, 2001:

By mid afternoon on Wednesday I was convinced that not only was the United States a victim of Islamic Jihad, but that the attack had been perpetrated by an organization controlled by a Saudi citizen and that most of those involved were Saudi, and that furthermore the attack was financed for the most part by Saudi businessmen and members of the Saudi royal family.

At the end of the day I made the following statement to my wife:

"These attacks were planned, financed and carried out by Saudi nationals and as a result the real culprits will never come to justice. We will bomb some third world nation like Afghanistan and our government will say our "moderate" Islamic friends with all the oil were not involved. Worse, we will put a handful of people in jail like we did the last time the World Trade Center was bombed. The Islamic fanatics will think a trade off of four or five in jail getting three meals a day, versus thousands of Americans dead, is a great deal.

So far, he accurately identified what the Bush administration would do with respect to Afghanistan. We also know that based on the fact that al-Qaeda financier - Abdullah Omar Naseef - was not held to account for his role in funding al-Qeada, there were some "moderate" Islamic friends who escaped American wrath over 9/11. Naseef was once the Secretary General of the Muslim World League (MWL), which is funded by the Saudi Royal family. He also founded the Rabita Trust, an entity that was identified by the U.S. Treasury Department as financing al-Qaeda; it was listed as a terrorist organization and its assets frozen one month after 9/11.

Here is an excerpt from the author's account about his experiences on September 13, 2001:

As I talked to congressmen and Senators my worst fears were realized. I carried documents with me showing clearly that most funding for Osama Bin Laden’s terror network came from moderate states like Saudi Arabia. While the Saudi government itself claims that it has no ties to these terror organizations, each year the government gives $10 billion to fundamentalist Islamic organizations, many of them located in the United States.

When I confronted one well known Senator about the millions of dollars going to Bin Laden’s terror network from Saudi businessmen, he said to me, "Yes, but they are coerced into giving it to him."

I responded to this by saying, "Maybe those millionaire Saudi businessmen should be more fearful of us than they are of Bin Laden."

Later that day almost the identical conversation took place between myself and a member of the House leadership and then again with someone within the Bush Administration. It was made clear to me that none of the wealthy Saudi Arabians who finance Islamic terror would meet the wrath of the United States for fear of angering the "friendly" state of Saudi Arabia. This was made clear to me by members of the House and Senate, both Democrat and Republican as well as by some in the Administration. I was appalled.

The author was quite correct about those "moderate" Islamic friends facing no consequences. Perhaps the most chilling excerpt from the author was found in his account of what he witnessed on September 14, 2001:

My stomach churned as I watched Muzammil Siddiqi, the Imam for the Islamic Society of North America, stand on stage with President George W. Bush in the National Cathedral. Imam Siddiqi is a radical extremist who has participated in anti-American demonstrations in front of the White House as recently as October of 2000. He has in the past called for a Jihad or holy war against this nation. While the Christian and Jewish leaders at the event prayed for our nation and for the dead and dying from the attack, Imam Siddiqi did not do so. At no time did he condemn the acts of the terrorists nor did he pray for America or for the families of those who lost their lives in the Jihad attack against the United States...

As the service closed I felt the chill of the presence of the awesome power of God. I was clearly reminded of the very first of the Ten Commandments, THOU SHALT HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME (Exodus 20:3). The National Cathedral had been defiled... Our Christian President had bowed his head to prayers offered to other gods, prayers that may have been for those who would destroy our nation and enslave our children to an alien religion. At that moment the hand of protection of the true God was removed from our nation. 

Since the Jihad attack on the United States on September 11th the President has surrounded himself with and sought advice from radical Islamic leaders who have openly called for the violent overthrow of the government of the United States. In addition, the President has invited six of the seven Islamic nations known to sponsor terror into his "coalition against terror". 

By late Friday it became apparent to me that our nation was in fact not going to fight a war on terrorism, but rather follow the same old track of "punishing those who actually committed the crime." This was not a "crime;" it was an act of war.

Siddiqi eventually stepped down as president of the Muslim Brotherhood group but he has not really left the ISNA; he now serves as the Religious Director for the Islamic Society of Orange County (ISOC), which recently welcomed Congresswomen Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Loretta Sanchez (D-CA).

Here's a portion of the author's entry about the week of September 17, 2001:

A sharp line began to form in Washington between those of us willing to tell the truth about what had happened on September 11th and those who wish to continue to live in the fantasy world of pluralism. The ACLU began a campaign to stop "oppression" of Muslims in the United States. They began the campaign by signing up organizations to protect the "civil rights" of Muslims.

Meanwhile the "moderate" Islamic organizations had a word of their own for Muslims in America: DO NOT HELP THE FBI. Internet sites warned Muslims that: "The FBI has a history of harassing and harming minority and immigrant communities. Some people are spending a long time in jail because they or their friends talked to the FBI."

As for the author's assertion that George W. Bush wrongly stood with radical Islamic leaders... Once again, here is video of Bush on September 17, 2001 inside the Islamic Center of Washington mosque. The Executive Director of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) - Nihad Awad - stood behind Bush as the president espoused the religion of our attackers:



He spoke at the same mosque more than one year later on December 5, 2002:



Those who argue that the Bush strategy was based on a tried and true adage that says, keep your friends close and your enemies closer, run into a big problem.

It's a strategy an excuse that has failed us miserably since 9/11.

Islam is on the rise all across the globe. The Muslim Brotherhood front groups Bush attempted to appease have smiles from ear to rear. In fact, Bush himself, in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal earlier this year, actually seemed to urge people to embrace the Brotherhood's rise in the Middle East:

These are extraordinary times in the history of freedom. In the Arab Spring, we have seen the broadest challenge to authoritarian rule since the collapse of Soviet communism. The idea that Arab peoples are somehow content with oppression has been discredited forever.

Yet we have also seen instability, uncertainty and the revenge of brutal rulers. The collapse of an old order can unleash resentments and power struggles that a new order is not yet prepared to handle.

Some in both parties in Washington look at the risks inherent in democratic change—particularly in the Middle East and North Africa—and find the dangers too great. America, they argue, should be content with supporting the flawed leaders they know in the name of stability.

But in the long run, this foreign policy approach is not realistic. It is not within the power of America to indefinitely preserve the old order, which is inherently unstable. Oppressive governments distrust the diffusion of choice and power, choking off the best source of national prosperity and success.

Today, Naseef, at least one of the men who should have been the object of as much American ire as bin Laden was, watches safely from afar as a woman who served with him on the Board of an organization he founded - the Islamic Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA) - now serves alongside Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as Clinton's closest advisor.

In the days and weeks after 9/11, George W. Bush's approval rating shot to 90%. When he left office, he was at 34%. 9/11 was his moment of truth and his approval rating steadily fell after the invasion of Afghanistan; they jumped after the initial success in Iraq, and they steadily declined thereafter. Bush had the American people behind him after 9/11 and he ultimately squandered much of our support by not leveling with us and by not identifying everyone who was responsible for hitting us.

In hindsight, the anger at Bush, Cheney, Rove, et. al. was not all that unwarranted, though the vitriol and expressed reasons for that anger often were. The decision to go into Iraq was a devastatingly wrong one. That should be obvious now. Iraq was a threat to Saudi Arabia more than it was to us. Saddam Hussein threatened the Saudis in a way not all that dissimilar from how he threatened Kuwait in the early 90's. In essence, the United States aligned with a nation that was actually culpable for 9/11, against their enemy.

It's time for us on the right to acknowledge that many of those who screamed the loudest about invading Iraq being the wrong thing to do, were correct. George W. Bush should do the same.

WHAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED AFTER 9/11
Based on the insights of the author of that prescient 9/11 account - William Murray of the Religious Freedom Coalition - the argument that Murray knew the truth while Bush and his advisors did not is poppycock. That's why this is not about Monday morning quarterbacking; it's about what should have been done.

POSSIBLE SCENARIO: In the days after 9/11, George W. Bush repudiates all groups associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. The president goes to Congress and seeks to have the Brotherhood labeled as a terrorist entity / enemy. CAIR, ISNA, MSA and any other front groups for the Brotherhood in the U.S. are put on notice and identified as what they are - entities that seek the destruction of the United States from within. The accounts of all such groups are frozen and leaders are either arrested or sent out of the country.

Any and all individuals with verifiable ties / loyalties to the aforementioned groups and who either hold jobs or any political influence inside the U.S. Government are prohibited from serving in those capacities.

Bush gathers all of his advisors and top Cabinet officials together to determine how best to become energy independent as quickly as possible. He orders is Energy Secretary to loosen as many regulations as humanly possible; this will encourage increased drilling and refining. With a 90% approval rating, the political capital at the president's disposal is virtually unlimited. The goal is energy independence within two years. Aggressive? Yes. Impossible? Americans have a history of exceeding goals in times of crisis and war. In this case, not letting a crisis go to waste would have been a good thing.

Bush decides to invade Afghanistan upon getting Congressional approval, which leads Saudi Arabia to believe it's successfully staving off American ire. Going into Afghanistan is the first in a hypothetical chain of events:

1. Target Osama bin Laden and destroy the Taliban, which was responsible for both running the terrorist training camps and harboring bin Laden.
2. Stay focused in Afghanistan while buying time to allow for energy independence in America. The world is made to believe that we are attacking those who we perceive attacked us. Singling out Saudi Arabia as being complicit in 9/11 at this point likely would result in a loss of oil and a debilitating energy crisis in the U.S.
3. Once the U.S. is confident it can survive the Saudi Arabian oil spigot being turned off, top tier al-Qaeda financiers - sources of Osama bin Laden's funding - are identified publicly by the President and targeted as enemies of the United States. Abdullah Omar Naseef, for example, is tightly connected to the Saudi Royal family but he has also been identified as a financier of al-Qaeda. Groups that Naseef has either led, founded or both, are proven to have been financed by the Royal family, which seeks to protect Naseef.
4. The decision is made by the Bush administration that while it will not target the Saudi family specifically, it will not respect the family's wishes with regard to which al-Qaeda financiers are off-limits. Bush then informs the Royal family that if the oil spigots are shut off, that policy is subject to change and the Royal family risks the same fate as those 'untouchable' al-Qaeda financiers.

Those who scoff and call such ideas ridiculous lose the argument when we see how reality has unfolded since September 11, 2001.

In either case, it's safe to say that Murray was right and the Bush administration was wrong.

Report: Maxine Waters expresses support for Sharia Law, Muslim Brotherhood

She is  a registered member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) caucus and now, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) is apparently on record as expressing support for sharia law. She did so while attending a town hall meeting at the Islamic Society of Orange County (ISOC), which is led by a man who used to be president of a Muslim Brotherhood front group in the United States.

Via One News Now:

A town hall meeting at the Islamic Society of Orange County earlier this year declared there is no conflict between sharia law, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Several lawmakers and officials in The Golden State -- including Democratic U.S. Congresswomen Maxine Waters and Loretta Sanchez; Los Angeles Police Department Deputy Chief Michael Downing; and Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca -- urged support for sharia law. In several recently released videos from the event, officials said that sharia is not a threat to the United States.

In case you're wondering if there's any connection between the ISOC and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the short answer is, yes. The Religious Director of ISOC is a man named Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, who was the president of ISNA at the time of 9/11.

Here is his bio from the ISOC website:

Dr. Siddiqi worked with many Islamic organizations in Switzerland, England and the United States. He was Chairman of the Religious Affairs Committee of the Muslim Students Association in US and Canada. Siddiqi also served as Director of the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C. He served two terms (1997-2001) as President of the Islamic Society of North America with Headquarters in Indiana. Since 1981, he is serving as the Director of the Islamic Society of Orange County in Garden Grove, California. He also served as the Chairman of the Shura Council of Southern California, an organization representing the Islamic centers, masajid and organizations in Southern California. He is the Chairman of the Fiqh (Islamic Law) Council of North America. He is a founding member of the Council of Mosques in US and Canada.

As the president of the ISNA, Siddiqi led a group that has pledged the destruction of the United States from within - through people like Waters and Sanchez. Here is the relevant excerpt from a document known as "An Explanatory Memorandum" that was introduced into evidence at the Holy Land Foundation trial:

The Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions.

Logically, "their hands" refers to people like Waters and Sanchez and the "hands of the believers" refers to people like Siddiqi, who led one of 29 like-minded groups (ISNA) identified in that Explanatory Memorandum, which was penned in 1991. Five leaders of HLF were convicted on all counts in 2008, related to funding Hamas.

Yet, Waters and Sanchez are standing shoulder to shoulder with a man who led the ISNA; they continue to get reelected; ISNA continues to gain access to power; and very few seem all that interested  in calling these congresswomen out.

Democrats are not the only ones to have had these head-scratching encounters. Here is George W. Bush with Siddiqi just 15 days after 9/11:

Ok, some might say, it's unfair to point this out based on the gift of hindsight, that Bush didn't know. Simply not possible. Ask yourselves how much access to intelligence the Bush administration had after 9/11. It was an all-hands-on-deck time. Are we to believe his administration did not know about Siddiqi's background?

Not buying it.

Another reason given by some for Bush's coziness with then ISNA president is the "keep your friends close and your enemies closer" credo. Even if we give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt on that, it begs one very simple question:

How's that working out?

The Republican Establishment's 'Mike McQueary' Moments

When Penn State assistant coach Mike McQueary saw what appeared to be the penetration of a young boy by Jerry Sandusky in a shower in 2001, he saw evil. He punted when he told head coach Joe Paterno instead of going to police; Paterno knew evil had penetrated his program. He punted too, when he went to Athletic Director Tim Curley and senior vice president Gary Schultz instead of to police. Curley and Schultz punted when Sandusky was let off the hook, a decision endorsed by president Graham Spanier, who essentially sealed the deal.

Each man had his own 'Mike McQueary' moment (MMM).

It was a moment of truth during which, individuals came face to face with evil and after which, they chose complicity with that evil over defeating it. With each passing day, those individuals implicated themselves further with their silence. They had chosen Sandusky's side in one respect; they all had a vested interest in preventing the evil truth from coming out because they were all implicated in suppressing it.

The jig was up in 2011 and Sandusky's defenders paid a price for not coming clean. It was made steeper by how much time had passed without them doing so. It was made much worse by them being found out instead of coming forward.

The heart of the U.S. Government was penetrated by evil too, beginning in at least 1992, when Abdurahman Alamoudi – a Muslim – began buying influence with both political parties. After Clinton was elected, Alamoudi landed a job with the State Department in 1997 as an Islamic affairs advisor. Based on his professed support for Hamas just a few years earlier, it was a 'Mike McQueary' moment for the political establishment.

Another MMM came in October of 2000, when Alamoudi stood on a stage outside the White House and referred to Bill Clinton by name while espousing – through a P.A. system – his support for both Hamas and Hezbollah:



It was as if the Clinton administration's inaction was a foreshadowing of McQueary's behavior. Right outside its window, the occupiers of the White House could see a man who had penetrated America's power centers via the State Department. It's important to keep in mind that establishment Republicans like Senator John McCain and Speaker John Boehner held seats in the Senate and the House, respectively at the time. Was it an MMM for them too?

In what is believed to be the same year that Alamoudi was cheering Hamas and Hezbollah outside the White House, he was also meeting with George W. Bush and Karl Rove, despite the concerns of intelligence officials, that Alamoudi had ties to Osama bin Laden and the “blind Sheikh,” Omar Abdul-Rahman. This would mean that Bush agreed to meet with a man connected to individuals found to be responsible for both World Trade Center attacks, one of which had already taken place.

At that meeting, Karl Rove was handed a book entitled, The Cultural Atlas of Islam. It was authored by a man identified as a co-founder of two Muslim Brotherhood groups – The International Institute of Islamic Thought and the Association of Muslim Social Scientists of North America (AMSS). Was the book vetted? If so, it didn't stop meetings between Bush, Rove, and individuals tied to the Brotherhood, from taking place. 'Mike McQueary' moment?

In June of 2001, another individual who would eventually be convicted of charges related to funding terrorism – Sami al-Arian – met with Karl Rove at the White House as part of a 160-member delegation from the American Muslim Council, a group founded by... you guessed it, Abdurahman Alamoudi, who was also present. This was after Alamoudi pledged support for Hamas and Hezbollah outside the White House one year earlier. 'Mike McQueary' moment?

The Washington Post reported about the multiple warning signs available to the Bush administration prior to AMC's visit. Vice President Dick Cheney was scheduled to speak to the AMC but backed out after a Jerusalem Post article identified AMC as a supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah; this demonstrates that the administration was not nearly as ignorant about who it had chosen to associate with. 'Mike McQueary' moment?

If none of those things served as 'Mike McQueary' moments, the violent penetration of America on September 11, 2001 did. One can imagine that the look on McQueary's face when he saw Sandusky with a young boy in that locker room shower wasn't much different than this:



Had the proper course been taken at Penn State, McQueary would have gone straight to police and Sandusky would have been summarily jettisoned from the University in handcuffs in 2001. There was a problem, however. An investigation conducted by Former FBI Director, Louis Freeh determined that Curley and Schultz became aware of Sandusky's penchant for young boys as early as 1998, when the mother of an 11-year old boy reported that an assault on her son had taken place in the shower. No charges were filed. In 2011, as the scandal was reaching critical mass, Schultz denied knowledge of the 1998 incident in an email he wrote in 2011.

Did knowledge of the 1998 incident contribute to the covering up of the 2001 incident? Dealing with Sandusky properly in 2001 would have involved very uncomfortable questions about the 1998 incident. As we now know, failure to deal with the 2001 incident properly involved a great deal more than uncomortable questions; Schultz lied about his knowledge of the 1998 incident. Does he wish he would have done in 1998 what he was unable to do in 2011, when such a decision was whisked from his control?

Six days after 9/11, George W. Bush stood with CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad inside a mosque and spoke of Islam in very peaceful terms. On September 26, 2001 Bush welcomed individuals with distinct Muslim Brotherhood ties into the White House. Among them was AMC president Yahya Basha, Salam Al-Marayati of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), and Muzammil Siddiqi, then president of the Brotherhood's Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).

When Rove was confronted after the meeting about the decision to welcome such individuals into the White House, he allegedly said, “I wish I had known before the event took place.”

That statement is as believable as Schultz's contention that he didn't know about the 1998 incident when he denied knowledge of it in 2011.

On October 12, 2001 George W. Bush did something Paterno, Schultz, Curley, and Penn State president Graham Spanier did a few months earlier; he identified a responsible party. One such party was the Rabita Trust, an entity that, even according to the United Nations, was involved in the “financing, planning, facilitating” activities of “Al-Qaida”. Like Sandusky, the man who founded Rabita – Abdullah Omar Nasseef – has essentially escaped accountability. As the one time Secretary General for the Muslim World League, Nasseef led a group that is heavily financed by the Saudi government.

In February of 2002, Anwar al-Awlaki was allowed to penetrate the Department of Defense as an honored guest at a plush luncheon. CAIR Executive Director was one of the invitees. Later that year, al-Awlaki was detained at JFK airport after landing. Despite there being a warrant for his arrest, al-Awlaki was released. He eventually traveled to Yemen, where he inspired Fort Hood Jihadist, Nidal Malik Hassan, who would go on to murder 14 at the Texas Army post.

Interestingly, none other than Abdurahman Alamoudi helped to lay the groundwork for the increased presence of Muslim chaplains in the U.S. Military when he founded the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council (AMAFVAC) in 1991.

Jerry Sandusky founded The Second Mile and was able to penetrate young boys for years. One of the reasons he was able to do so was because those charged with stopping him chose instead, to implicate themselves by covering up his crimes. The Muslim Brotherhood continues to penetrate the U.S. Government for similar reasons.

The consequences for those who chose to cover up for Sandusky will be far less than those who have chosen to cover up the truth about the penetration of America by her enemies. The bad news is that there will be far more victims.

In any case, those in the Republican establishment who choose to close their eyes, ears, and mouths can be expected to utter words similar to those uttered by Joe Paterno when he finally realized it would have been much better had he come clean in 2001 than face a day of reckoning years later:

“It is one of the great sorrows of my life. With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more.”

It would seem, however, that the Republican Party establishment has had quite a few more 'Mike McQueary' moments than Penn State did.

It's Time for Karl Rove to come clean

After publishing this post yesterday, which included a photo circa 2000 that shows Abdurahman Alamoudi meeting with George W. Bush and Karl Rove, I decided to look into the book that Rove was quite likely given by the delegation seen in the photo. It's entitled, The Cultural Atlas of Islam and was written by a man named Ismail Al Faruqi in 1986.

Now, obviously, Karl Rove cannot be held accountable for accepting a book from a group he met with; it happens all the time. In fact, in 2009, Barack Obama accepted a far left-wing book from Hugo Chavez. That made news because Chavez wanted to make a public spectacle of himself.

However, there were red flags raised by the Secret Service and Intelligence officials relative to both Alamoudi and Sami Al-Arian. Yet, Bush and/or Rove met with them on more than one occasion after this book was put into Rove's hands. If there were suspicions about Alamoudi prior to these meetings, wouldn't it have been prudent to investigate the author of material this group felt was important enough to put into Rove's hands?

According to Newsweek, via History Commons:

...Alamoudi and the AMC had been previously criticized for their ties to Hamas and other militant groups and figures (see March 13, 1996). Bush and/or Rove will meet with Alamoudi on other occasions (see (see July 2000, June 22, 2001, September 14-26, 2001). US intelligence learned of ties between Alamoudi and bin Laden in 1994 (see Shortly After March 1994);

Yes, Alamoudi visited the White House after 9/11. As it turns out, Al Faruqi is identified as the founder of one of the Muslim Brotherhood front groups listed as unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial (HLF). That group is the Association of Muslim Social Scientists of North America (AMSS). Here is what Discover the Networks says about AMSS:

Established in 1972 by Temple University professor Ismail Raji al-Faruqi and University of Pennsylvania graduate student Abdulhamid AbuSulayman, the Association of Muslim Social Scientists of North America (AMSS) is a constituent organization of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and a sister organization of the International Institute of Islamic Thought.

AMSS describes itself as “an independent membership-based organization that encompasses the United States and Canada.” It has no corporate, legal or financial relationship with any organization bearing the name of AMSS in any other country. Its mission is “to provide a forum through which Islamic positions on various academic disciplines can be promoted, with an emphasis on the social sciences and humanities”; to further “the continuity of the Islamic intellectual heritage”; and “to serve the interests of the larger Muslim community by bringing together Muslim and non-Muslim scholars in an academic setting to examine and define Islamic perspectives on issues of global concern that contribute to the prosperity of Muslims around the globe and the betterment of humanity.”

AMSS collaborates with the International Institute of Islamic Thought to publish the American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences (AJISS), which is distributed in more than 50 countries around the world. Launched in 1984, AJISS is an interdisciplinary publication of scholarly research on all facets of Islam and the Muslim world: politics, history, economic philosophy, metaphysics, psychology, religious law, and Islamic thought.

So, the author of the book given to Rove in 2000 was closely affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, a group that has pledged to work toward the destruction of the United States. The International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), another unindicted co-conspirator in HLF also lists al-Faruqi as its founder.

Are we to believe that the Bush administration did not know of the nefarious intentions of these individuals and groups?

Take a look at an article written by Franklin Foer on November 12, 2001 that was published by The New Republic:

On the afternoon of September 26, George W. Bush gathered 15 prominent Muslim- and Arab-Americans at the White House. With cameras rolling, the president proclaimed that "the teachings of Islam are teachings of peace and good." It was a critically important moment, a statement to the world that America's Muslim leaders unambiguously reject the terror committed in Islam's name. 

To the president's left sat Dr. Yahya Basha, president of the American Muslim Council, an organization whose leaders have repeatedly called Hamas "freedom fighters." Also in attendance was Salam Al-Marayati, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, who on the afternoon of September 11 told a Los Angeles public radio audience that "we should put the State of Israel on the suspect list." And sitting right next to President Bush was Muzammil Siddiqi, president of the Islamic Society of North America, who last fall told a Washington crowd chanting pro-Hezbollah slogans, "America has to learn if you remain on the side of injustice, the wrath of God will come." Days later, after a conservative activist confronted Karl Rove with dossiers about some of Bush's new friends, Rove replied, according to the activist, "I wish I had known before the event took place."

Again, it's time for the highest members of the Bush administration - including Karl Rove - to come clean about who they met with, what they knew about them, and why they continued meeting with them after they knew it.

The stakes are too high and the jig is very close to being up.

Cheney says it was a 'mistake' for McCain to pick Palin in 2008

Just some comments before I get to the video of Dick Cheney telling Americans that McCain's decision to name Sarah Palin as his running mate in 2008 was a 'mistake.'

On today's program, I looked at the string of head-scratching incidents relative to the Bush administration's refusal to deal with the Islamic threat to the United States by the likes of Al-Qaeda Godfather Abdullah Omar Naseef. If you've ever wondered about the root causes of the animosity for the Tea Party that exists within the Republican establishment, the intelligence available to the Bush administration both before and after 9/11 about the perpetrators of 9/11 is something the establishment doesn't want Tea Partiers like Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann getting too close to.

Naseef had distinct ties to the Saudi Arabian government; he was named in a civil lawsuit in 2004 by the families of 9/11's victims. However, he wasn't identified by the Bush administration as a target of American ire after 9/11, which he definitely should have been. Here is what Andrew McCarthy had to say about Naseef's history of escaping U.S. accountability relative to his ties to al-Qaeda:

…in 2004, he was named as a defendant in the civil case brought by victims of the 9/11 atrocities. (In 2010, a federal court dropped him from the suit — not because he was found uninvolved, but because a judge reasoned the American court lacked personal jurisdiction over him.)

The questions I posed were simple: Why was Naseef merely relegated to being a defendant in a civil case? Why wasn't he targeted by the Bush Administration? Why wasn't he prosecuted by Bush's Justice Department like, say, Abdurahman Alamoudi, who had been a State Department employee during the Clinton administration? In October of 2003, Alamoudi was arrested and ultimately convicted of financing terrorism.

If Alamoudi's background was given even a cursory look, it would have become obvious that Naseef was a bigger fish the administration should have been very interested in; it wasn't. Naseef skated and the threats posed by him and his underlings to America are graver than they've ever been. There was the reality of Bush granting access to Alamoudi despite big red flags. Here's a photo of Alamoudi standing with George W. Bush, circa 2000.

From History Commons, via Newsweek:

Presidential candidate George W. Bush and his political adviser Karl Rove meet with Muslim activist Abdurahman Alamoudi. The meeting is said to have been brokered by Republican lobbyist Grover Norquist. Little is known about the meeting, which will not be reported until 2007. At the time, Alamoudi is head of the American Muslim Council (AMC), which is seen as a mainstream activist and lobbying group. But Alamoudi and the AMC had been previously criticized for their ties to Hamas and other militant groups and figures (see March 13, 1996). Bush and/or Rove will meet with Alamoudi on other occasions (see (see July 2000, June 22, 2001, September 14-26, 2001). US intelligence learned of ties between Alamoudi and bin Laden in 1994 (see Shortly After March 1994); he will be sentenced to a long prison term in 2004 (see October 15, 2004).

Then, of course, there was Bush's decision to stand with CAIR six days after 9/11, at a mosque:

In 2002, a terrorist entity known as the SAAR Network was targeted by U.S. authorities. Both Naseef and Alamoudi were connected to SAAR (Alamoudi was an executive assistant). Yet, despite all of the evidence required to convict Alamoudi, we're to believe that the Justice Department just overlooked Naseef?!

Hardly.

Alamoudi wasn't the only terrorist who was given access to Bush. Sami al-Arian was another, via History Commons:

Sami al-Arian attends a meeting in the White House complex with President Bush’s adviser Karl Rove. Al-Arian is one of 160 members of the American Muslim Council who are briefed on political matters by Rove and others. Al-Arian had been under investigation for at least six years by this time, and numerous media accounts reported that US investigators suggested al-Arian had ties to US-designated terrorist groups. Yet al-Arian passes the Secret Service’s stringent security check, enabling him to attend the meeting.

NEWSWEEK, 7/16/2001; WASHINGTON POST, 2/22/2003] “A law-enforcement official… [said] the Secret Service had flagged al-Arian as a potential terrorist prior to the event,” Newsweek later reports. “But White House aides, apparently reluctant to create an incident, let him through anyway.” [NEWSWEEK, 3/3/2003] In 2005, al-Arian will be found innocent of serious terrorism charges, but sentenced to almost three years in a US prison on lesser charges (see December 6, 2005). Abduraham Alamoudi is also at the meeting. US intelligence have suspected Alamoudi of ties to bin Laden and Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman since 1994 (see Shortly After March 1994). Rove and Bush met with Alamoudi in 1999 and 2000 as well (see 1999 and July 2000). Alamoudi will later be sentenced to 23 years in a US prison for illegal dealings with Libya (see October 15, 2004). [WASHINGTON POST, 2/22/2003]

Here's a photo of Alamoudi (far left), George W. Bush (center), and Karl Rove (far right):

So what does all this have to do with Dick Cheney telling ABC News that selecting Sarah Palin as the VP running mate in 2008 was a mistake? It's anecdotal as much as anything. The Republican establishment in general and the Bush administration in particular messed up in a major way by not going after the government of Saudi Arabia after 9/11. Any serious attempt to find out the truth would have led to Abdullah Omar Naseef - an al-Qaeda leader who was connected to the Saudi government.

We're left to conclude that the establishment will fight tooth and nail to prevent the truth about what it did (and failed to do) both before and after 9/11. Until these people come clean and 'fess up, America will be placed in ever increasing danger.

When the establishment relinquishes power within the GOP, the Tea Party movement will not only seize it but will finally have access to all of the intelligence about how the establishment so roundly miscalculated; that establishment will do all it can to prevent that from happening.

Take a look at what Cheney said today, when viewed within that context:


Of course, if you remember being taken aback by what Barbara Bush said about Sarah Palin back in 2010, maybe we're getting closer to understanding why. Perhaps it has something to do with the threat to the establishment of the group Palin represents. That threat very well could be the truth about our flawed post-9/11 strategy being revealed:



**UPDATE** In light of this angle, I thought it relevant that Liz Cheney would tweet in disagreement with her father about Palin:

Video: NBC's Plastic Man, Brian Williams and Misplaced Outrage

There's quite a bit of feigned outrage over Arizona Governor Jan Brewer pointing her finger at Barack Obama as he met with her on the tarmac in the Governor's state. One of those outraged is none other than a certain NBC news anchor who would much rather bow to Obama.

Williams, whose "objective" news casts are belied by blatant bias, has a bit of a problem and should probably move on at this point. In 2006, he not only pointed his finger directly at then President George W. Bush's chest but held it there for quite some time.

Via NewsBusters:



Objectivity? Ha!

Remember this?

Video: Ron Paul Catering to Truther Vote

It is a very short jump from what Paul espouses here to believing that the Bush administration brought down the World Trade Center on 9/11. It's talk like this that leads one to believe that Paul is a truther himself but knows admitting it would be political suicide. Many of his followers believe that.

To cut the Pauliens a very small modicum of slack, there are things like the way the Oklahoma City bombing was handled and the cover-up of Able Danger, a program that allegedly identified Mohamed Atta one year before 9/11, that should cause Americans pause but those things were far more political in nature and involved webs of deceit that would implicate powerful people. They did not hide an American plot to bring down our own buildings.

Watch Paul serve his lemmings a big slice of red meat, a bottle of A-1, and a bib.

Via CBS:



h/t Weasel Zippers

Rick Perry's Relationships and National Security

As a Texas talk show host and writer, I've had the opportunity to watch Rick Perry govern. He's not the conservative Tea Party candidate his rhetoric is leading people to believe. It is important for people to understand that the red meat Perry is throwing, while enticing, is not even close to being representative of his actions. Perry needs to be vetted and his rhetoric should not intoxicate the Tea Party to the point of not doing so. By just accepting Perry's words without looking at his actions, the Tea Party risks doing exactly what the Obamautomatons did in 2008.

Are Rick Perry's Relationships a National Security Threat?
Ben Barrack

In 2000, Rick Perry's gubernatorial predecessor, George W. Bush, was endorsed for president by the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), the American Muslim Council (AMC), and the American Muslim Alliance (AMA). Since then, CAIR's mask has come completely off – despite mainstream denials – and the AMC is now defunct after its founder was convicted of financing terrorism. The leaders of all four groups have expressed support for Hezbollah and Hamas.

With the influence of Americans for Tax Reform president, Grover Norquist, George Bush shockingly continued these relationships after 9/11 when he met with leaders of CAIR, MPAC, and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) multiple times; all are Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated groups. In some ways, Bush's cozy relationships with these leaders after 9/11 may have done more long term damage to the United States than Osama bin Laden did himself; the Brotherhood continues to acquire political power despite espousing the goals of al-Qaeda (if not its means).

Voters who are leaning toward Rick Perry for president may be setting themselves up for a similar fall based on similarly disturbing relationships. For starters, like Bush, Perry seems to have a rather comfortable relationship with Norquist, who has a history of campaigning for the Texas governor and even joined him on a trip to the Bahamas at his own expense. The notion that Norquist has Perry's ear, let alone his loyalty, is more than a minor problem.

There is also a disturbing narrative that's been developing relative to Perry's relationship with the Aga Khan, the recognized leader of the Shia Ismaili sect of Islam. That narrative says that the Aga Khan represents one of the more benign sects of Islam; this notion should be rejected. There is actually strong evidence that the Ismailis and the Muslim Brotherhood are more willing to work together than such a premise would permit.

Consider the case of Dr. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, professor of Islamic Studies at George Washington University. He is also prominent member of the Institute of Ismaili Studies in the UK. His biography at the Rumi Forum points out that Nasr was the first Aga Khan professor of Islamic studies at the American University of Beirut. In a speech given by Nasr at MIT, he admitted to starting a Muslim Students Association (MSA) chapter at MIT decades earlier. The MSA is a Muslim Brotherhood group. Said Nasr:

“I feel very much at home not only at this university, but being the first muslim student ever to establish a muslim students' association at Harvard in 1954, to see that these organizations are now growing, and are becoming culturally significant.”

Further evidence that the Aga Khan's sect of Islam is willing to work with the Muslim Brotherhood can be found in Illinois; Governor Pat Quinn recently announced the creation of the Muslim American Advisory Council there. Security General of the ISNA, Safaa Zarzour, and Executive Director of CAIR, Ahmed Rehab, are both members. Joining them on the Council is Murad Moosa Bhaidani, president, His Higness Prince Aga Khan Shia Imami Ismaili Council for the Midwestern US. In essence, a regional Aga Khan is serving on a council alongside Muslim Brotherhood leaders.

Consider the case of former Democratic gubernatorial candidate Farouk Shami, a Palestinian whose father worked with troops led by former Muslim Brotherhood leader and Hitler ally, Haj Amin al-Hussaini, according to Red County. When he was defeated in the primary by Bill White, Shami endorsed Perry. Why would a Democrat with a platform to the left of his party's nominee, endorse the Republican incumbent? This endorsement was curious indeed but not if the Aga Khan's Ismaili sect is comfortable working with the Brotherhood.

According to Daniel Greenfield, the Halal food law that Perry signed was lobbied for by a man named Mohamed Elibiary, who is not only serving as a US Homeland Security advisor but also has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. As a Palestinian whose father worked with forces loyal to a Muslim Brotherhood leader, perhaps Shami's endorsement was meant to nudge Perry even further toward supporting the Islamic agenda, in much the same way that CAIR, MPAC, the AMA, and the AMC did with Bush.

As if that weren't enough, it's been learned that the Aga Khan Foundation and the University of Texas successfully enlisted the help of Perry in 2004 to create the Muslim Histories and Cultures (MHC) curriculum, which Jihad Watch's Robert Spencer says has not only been scrubbed from the internet but also from the Google cache, an extremely rare occurrence.

Perhaps even more dangerous is the movement of Turkish imam Fethullah Gulen. His Gulenist schools are prominent all over Texas. According to Donna Garner, Perry feigned ignorance when asked about the schools' dangerous intentions. If Perry wants to be president, ignorance on this matter should disqualify him instantly, especially with the rate of growth such schools are seeing in his state. Fethullah Gulen is perhaps the most dangerous Islamist in America today.

The Muslim Brotherhood has stated that it wants to destroy the United States from within. George W. Bush inexplicably showed solidarity with Brotherhood leaders after 9/11. Based on their endorsement of him in 2000, he was beholden to them to at least some degree. To what extent do his gubernatorial successor's questionable alliances make Perry beholden to those who would do us further harm?

Again, to reiterate, Perry's rhetoric is nowhere close to his actions. In my next post, I will hopefully lay that out sufficiently for readers.